“Deeply disturbing.”
This was partly how First Lady/US Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described a US Supreme Court ruling that business owners with religious objections can refuse to pay for insurance policies that cover contraception.
“I obviously disagree,” Mrs. Clinton told the audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Monday, June 30. “I disagree with the reasoning and conclusions.”
Since then, Democratic Senators Patty Murray (D-Washington) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) have teamed up with Seante Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to advance legislation that would – once again – force business owners to pay to cover abortion and abortion-inducing drugs, even if the abortion of children violates the business owner’s religious beliefs.
Clinton and her fellow liberals framed the dialogue about the Supreme Court’s decision in a very predictable way: the decision was based on sexism; as a result, women will become victims without “health care”, and this decision makes no sense because “corporations are not people”.
Republicans (in the sporadic moments when they actually engaged in the discussion) largely responded by quoting Clinton. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill passed almost unanimously by a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, provided the legal basis on which the Hobby Lobby corporation successfully argued that its owners they should be forced to pay for things they are religiously opposed to.
It is certainly worth reminding Mrs. Clinton (and her fellow Democrats) of her husband’s work, and the fact that they are now trying to eliminate religious freedom restored 21 years ago should alarm all Americans and all people of faith.
But Americans who still love their freedom should also try to change the conversation and move beyond Mrs. Clinton’s allegations of sexism and victimization. It’s demanding to imagine Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) or House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) commenting on this issue in any significant way. But those of us who live outside the hallowed halls of Congress can begin now to reject Clinton’s logical fallacies and lies on religious liberty and force the conversation to move in a more truthful direction.
Regarding Clinton’s lies about the Supreme Court’s decision, consider this statement: “This is the first time our court has held that a closely held corporation has the same rights as an individual when it comes to religious freedom…” That was another part of the assessment she gave at the Aspen meeting, and it’s not entirely true.
“Corporate personhood,” the legal theory that corporations can be considered individuals under the law, is nothing up-to-date (Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer certainly knows this). The Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the religious freedom of business owners may affirm corporate personhood in a up-to-date and different way, but the legal theory itself has been a component of several previous Supreme Court decisions, including the 1886 decision in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific regarding federal railroad regulations . In this Supreme Court decision, the court affirmed that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides protection for both corporations and individuals.
Freedom-loving people should also start challenging the mantra repeated by Mrs. Clinton and her liberal cohorts that “corporations are not people.” While it is true that a person and a corporation are not exactly the same thing, it is also true that corporations are people.
To this end, liberty advocates should start asking Clinton-Udall-Murray et al. aluminum. “What is a corporation without people?” and “why don’t you stand up for the rights of the people who own and run businesses?”
This, by the way, points to a huge problem not only among elected officials (in and out of Congress) but also in the media. They constantly talk about “corporations” as if they were gigantic, impersonal, inhuman entities that serve no good purpose. In reality, corporations are run by real people, employ real people, and provide indispensable products and services to real people using investment money belonging to other real people.
Clinton’s suggestion that women will be victims if business owners are not forced to pay for their employees’ abortions is also false. No person is forced to accept a position at Hobby Lobby Corporation or any other business operated by persons with religious beliefs. Therefore, no one is forced to rely on a single religious business owner for all of their health care needs. We still have the freedom to choose whether to accept or decline employment opportunities, and to choose from a variety of health insurance options.
Mrs. Clinton is a well-educated and highly bright person and is undoubtedly aware of the truth on this issue. However, it is likely that many members of Congress do not think about or care about the religious freedom of business owners.
