DeGette, Pro-Choice Caucus Leaders on Hobby Lobby: Personal Health Decisions Should Not Be Subject to a Boss's Religious Beliefs

Press Release

Today, the House Pro-Choice Caucus led a press conference to discuss the Supreme Court's hearing of oral arguments in the cases of Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Conestoga Wood, where for-profit corporations are challenging the Affordable Care Act's requirement that private insurance plans cover birth control along with other preventive health services on the grounds that it violates the business owners' religious beliefs. In January, Pro-Choice Caucus Co-Chairs Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) led an amicus brief from 91 members of Congress arguing that the contraceptive coverage requirement does not violate the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed under the Constitution.

"A woman's personal decision about her health should remain exactly that: her decision, and not her boss's business," Representatives Slaughter and DeGette said. "These lawsuits are based on the faulty premise that a CEO's religious beliefs extend to the corporation they control, and that those religious beliefs can be used to dictate the health decisions of their employees. The impact on millions of American women who obtain contraception and other reproductive health services through private health insurance is at stake, but the underlying constitutional implications -- legalizing discrimination under the guise of religious freedom and giving corporations the same religious rights as individual persons -- should provide the court with more than enough justification for rejecting these misguided lawsuits."

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, women were subjected to a discriminatory practice known as "gender rating' -- which caused women to be routinely be charged more than men for the same health care coverage. The Affordable Care Act has done away with this practice, and has required companies to cover critical women's health services including mammograms, maternity care, and oral contraception at no extra cost.

A ruling in favor of the petitioners would set a frightening precedent. Business owners could use the ruling to refuse to cover blood transfusions, children's vaccines, HIV medications or other critical medical treatments based on their personal religious beliefs, and could open the door owners to legally discriminate against customers who do not share the same religious beliefs.

Source