Area implications of Hobby Lobby case appear negligible

Conventional wisdom cautions against bringing up sex, politics or religion in polite conversation. The debate over women's reproductive rights lives in the turbulent center of that precarious triangle.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. last month brought that divisive issue once again to the forefront of national debate. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Green family, owners of closely held, for-profit corporation Hobby Lobby, were not obligated to comply with portions of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. The mandate would have required them to provide forms of birth control they believed could cause abortions and therefore conflicted with their religious beliefs.

Two of the birth control methods are intrauterine devices that make fertilization more difficult. Mirena releases the hormone progesterone, causing mucus to block off the cervix, which prevents sperm from reaching an egg. ParaGard's copper wire releases copper ions, killing sperm. The other two methods, Plan B and ella, are commonly known as "morning after" pills.

All four of the contested medications make implantation onto the uterine wall difficult, stopping the development of any possibly fertilized egg. The Greens equate this to abortion, saying human life begins at conception, but not everyone considers an unattached zygote to be a person.

Dr. Pat Castle, however, does. He is president and CEO of Vitae Foundation, a pro-life advocacy group based in Jefferson City, Missouri, and touts the decision as a great victory for the pro-life movement and vindication of religious liberties as a whole.

"It certainly affects people in Missouri," he said. "It's definitely a win for the culture of life."

He said the ruling is an important step in combating what he sees as a dangerous and false equivalency between birth control and abortion. He acknowledged that abortion is legal, but praised the Greens for taking a moral stand.

"For 80 years our country lived under slavery. It didn't make it right," he said. "The Hobby Lobby case drew a line in the sand and said that we shouldn't have to pay for abortion."

Cass VanDerMeer was an outspoken pro-choice advocate in the Cape Girardeau area before moving to Du Quoin, Illinois, to become a communications consultant for Possibilities, an organization that deals with domestic abuse perpetrators, among other things. She agrees the decision was important.

"Anytime that rights for choice for women are taken away, it's a big deal," she said. "I would say it's not between a business and me what birth control I use. It's between me and my doctor."

Her views align with those presented by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissenting opinion she filed. In it, the justice cites the decision from Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey:

"The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."

The ruling also created a void of uncertainty about possible legal ramifications that was quickly filled with speculation from both sides of the issue.

By acknowledging a corporation's right to exercise religion, it strengthened the concept of a corporation's "personhood" in ways reminiscent of the Citizens' United case of 2010, in which the court ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights to free speech. The decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. was not based on the First Amendment, and was instead based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but professor of political science at Southeast Missouri State University Dr. Rick Althaus said this evolution in corporate identity is what likely will become the most significant aspect of the case.

"I saw [the Hobby Lobby ruling] as probably a logical extension of the direction the majority of the court seems to be going," he said. "Was I a fan of Citizens' United? No. But this is not inconsistent with the majority in the Citizens' United Case."

But he went on to add that since only businesses that employ more than 50 people must provide health care, it's not likely to have an immediate effect on the local community.

"It could be a big issue to an individual or a couple, but numbers-wise, it's a relatively small impact," he said. "The real issue is that there's a slippery slope here. ... This was only health care coverage, but if these corporations have religious beliefs, those beliefs influence other areas. At what point do the religious views of the [Green] family outweigh the broader views of society?"

To Althaus, it indicates a subtle shift in the power dynamic between the federal government, its laws and private businesses. Because underneath the hollering about reproductive rights or religious freedoms is coiled an even more contentious debate about the role of the federal government in society.

The Washington Post and others report that Hobby Lobby provided Plan B and ella -- two of the disputed medications -- until 2012, nearly two years after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. CEO and founder David Green maintains he did not know the drugs were covered, immediately removed them from health care plans and was driven to sue the federal government to avoid the multimillion dollar fines his company was facing for noncompliance week after week.

"Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs," Green wrote in an open letter when the suit was filed in 2013. "It's not right."

Before the Afordable Care Act, businesses providing birth control weren't staked out in the same terms or with the same expectations. They simmered quietly in the background. Now religious freedom, federal imposition and women's reproductive rights have converged.

Three local gynecologists declined to comment, one citing "clients on both sides of the issue who feel strongly." Nancy Ellis, manager at the Cape Girardeau Hobby Lobby store, also declined an interview.

"I run a retail store for this company who brought a case against the government. Period. That's where my involvement ends," she said.

tgraef@semissourian.com