Law professor discusses Hobby Lobby case at Cape church

A constitutional law professor and lawyer addressed the topic of religious liberty during an event Friday at the Bethany Baptist Church fellowship hall in Cape Girardeau.

Joshua Hawley, a former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri, is a lawyer who worked on the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius case that has been brought before the Supreme Court.

"That case really illustrates the challenge we face as a nation," Hawley said.

The case deals with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, known as the ACA. The part of the law in dispute requires employers to provide all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods for eligible women through their health plans, except for certain "religious employers" whose health plans are exempt, according to healthcare.gov.

The Hobby Lobby challenge to the mandate originates from four drugs or devices the Green family, who own the Hobby Lobby chain of stores, considers abortifacients, or drugs that cause abortions.

"While the Green family has no moral objection to providing 16 out of the 20 FDA-approved drugs and devices that are a part of the federal mandate, providing drugs and devices that have the potential to terminate a life conflicts with their faith," according to a statement on Hobby Lobby's website.

Hobby Lobby claims it is a religious employer because its owners "wanted to run their company according to their Gospel convictions," Hawley said.

Hawley, who serves as an attorney for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty law firm, said Hobby Lobby closes on Sundays, has a faith statement in the company's charter and starts entry-level employees at double the required minimum wage. "Their ambition has never been just to make money," Hawley said.

To be considered exempt from the contraception mandate, an organization must have "sincere religious conviction" that is "consistently demonstrated throught the history of the company," and the objection to the mandate must "substantially burden their religious faith," Hawley said.

"Hobby Lobby is easy [to prove] on all those fronts," he added.

In opposition to Hawley, the government claims the exemptions do not apply to for-profit businesses such as Hobby Lobby. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verilli stated in the case's oral arguments that the government has a compelling interest in regulating religious exemptions to ensure services outlined in the ACA are available.

When "you're considering an accommodation, you have to weigh the effect on third parties," Verilli said in the case's oral arguments.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993 states "governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification."

If Hobby Lobby loses its case and refuses to provide the contraception in question, it faces fines of up to $470 million a year, or $100 per person per day, compared with a $20 million annual fine for providing no health insurance, Hawley said.

Oral arguments in the case were heard March 25. The verdict is expected before the end of June.

Pertinent address: 1712 Randol Avenue, Cape Girardeau, Mo.