For years, the subject of abortion has largely been banned from my columns. It's a self-imposed ban born of a desire to avoid sensational, stir-up-the-masses material that serves as red meat for some writers.
The topic is guaranteed to rile up passions on all sides, will generate letters to the editor and generally make a columnist feel big and important for the reaction he was able to unleash. But it has nothing to do with the writer's prose or thoughtful argument. It's tantamount to tossing a lit match into a gasoline storage facility. It's easy to cause that inferno. Nobody's perspective is likely to change.
I got that same feeling with reaction to Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Hobby Lobby, a 500-store business with more than 13,000 people gainfully employed through the entrepreneurial efforts of David and Barbara Green and their three children. The family maintains exclusive control over the company, and runs it based on biblical principals important to their personal faith.
That the case evoked fervent reactions is no surprise. Cases don't reach the Supreme Court unless they're significant conflicts involving difficult issues. In this case, the court did what it is there to do -- discern the legal boundaries when government power and individual rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are in question.
In this case, the issue centered on the Greens' freedom to carry out their religious faith in the operation of their private business. Should government action -- this time in the form of Obamacare -- be allowed to force them to fund an activity that results in the end of a human life, an outcome contrary to their sincere religious beliefs?
Despite what one might assume from most headlines and TV coverage, this wasn't about Hobby Lobby's insurance covering birth control vs. not covering birth control. Obamacare authorized federal regulators to decide which forms of birth control the insurance mandate would cover, and they selected 20 kinds. Of those 20, Hobby Lobby's insurance covers 16. Hobby Lobby objected to the demand to cover four that "may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus," the court wrote.
For a person who believes life begins at conception, those four birth control measures are abortion.
The question to the court wasn't about whether Hobby Lobby employees should be able to use those four methods of contraception. It was whether the government's interests -- guaranteeing access to those forms of birth control -- could be achieved without trampling on the constitutionally protected right of the Greens to exercise their religious faith.
As a nation founded on the principle of religious liberty, isn't that a worthwhile goal? If government can achieve its ends without crushing religious freedom, shouldn't it?
That was the idea behind a key piece of legislation, called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that was central to this case. Congress determined if a law or rule substantially burden's a person's exercise of religion, the government must prove a "compelling public interest" and demonstrate its action is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. It is valuable to remember the act won unanimous approval of the Democrat-controlled U.S. House and only three dissenting votes in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate before it was signed by President Bill Clinton.
Execution of Obamacare has already included a multitude of exemptions, with government finding workarounds. The Supreme Court opted, reasonably, to protect the constitutional interests of both Hobby Lobby and its female employees. The court just told government to find another way to achieve its goal. The employees get their preferred method of birth control and religious freedom is protected. Win-win, right?
Critics reacted in the only way they're programmed to react -- virulently. Again, no surprise. I say this with respect for their intensity, not derision: Hard-core advocates of women's reproductive rights will find nothing reasonable or just in a decision they perceive as a barrier to any and all forms of birth control. They would have no problem forcing Hobby Lobby's owners to even pay for direct abortions through health care coverage for their employees.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court sought to balance the interests of those involved. Hyperbolic outcry about impending discrimination of all sorts based on religion ignores a multitude of other court precedent and legal protections. But a free-for-all attack on women sounds better, and probably produces more fundraising for some organizations.
Thankfully, freedom still matters in the United States, and individuals shouldn't have to give up the free exercise of their religious beliefs to operate a business when the essential goal of protecting the rights of everyone does not require it.
GREG HARTON IS OPINION PAGE EDITOR FOR NWA MEDIA.
Commentary on 07/07/2014