[perrjojo]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

I take a different approach to analyzing this decision.

1. Critics of the decision object to the view that a corporation should be regarded as a "person." However, it is long established law that a corporation has legal standing as a person.

2. As I understand it, the decision relied heavily upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed into law by President Clinton, which applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."

The law is aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

Apparently the writers of Obamacare failed to "explicitly exclude" application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Obamacare, so the rights of the "person" (Hobby Lobby) were preserved in this case.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Hobby Lobby's insurance does provide for sixteen different methods of birth control. What they objected to paying for was four methods that destroy a fertilized egg, which they regarded as abortion, contrary to their religious beliefs.

The issue was not about birth control, but about abortion.

3. People who object to the decision based upon concerns about employers whose religious beliefs might make them object to paying for insurance that provides blood transfusions, etc. miss the point.

The point is that the law as currently written was followed. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to decide.

What might the court decide in a future case about other closely held corporations with different religious beliefs remains to be seen. It could take years for a similar case to work its way up through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

If it is foreseen that the law as currently written and enforced could have extremely negative consequences in the future it is the duty of the Congress to change the laws, not of the Supreme Court to make a decision contrary to current law.

.

At last soeone who really understands and has the ability to verbalized what many of use have failed to articulate. Thank you Carl.