Supreme Court decision was unsound

Corporations were legally established so individuals could limit personal liability. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court said corporate entities are entitled to rights previously bestowed only upon the individuals that founded them.

And in this week's Hobby Lobby decision, the court ruled corporations can also have a 'sincerely held” religious belief. Moreover, that when such belief clashes with public policy - even policy for which the Court finds a compelling interest - the policy is ruled in error.

Justice Samuel Alito argues in the majority opinion that, even if making contraceptive coverage widely available is a legitimate goal of government, it is a goal that must be achieved with minimal intrusion into corporate religious belief. Because government rules already allow a workaround for religious organizations like churches, he adds, they should allow the same for the religious aspirations of corporations.

The current ACA workaround requires insurance companies cover at their own expense the methods of contraception deemed controversial by religious conservatives, or that government pick up the cost.

Given that religious organizations already have sued, saying this option will make them complicit in objectionable activities, it's possible that reasonable attempts at accommodation will fail. If that's the case, we may be faced with reopening the debate over what health insurance coverage should look like in the United States.

In the past, we've supported government efforts to expand access to insurance coverage alongside and within the existing framework of employer-based coverage. But if this week's ruling indeed opens the floodgates to many more faith-based objections to providing a reasonable standard of coverage to the nation's employees, it could be time to reconsider that system.

A public option, with basic, government-backed insurance available to everyone, is certainly a possibility. Ironically, that's exactly the sort of idea opposed by many of the conservatives that backed Hobby Lobby's claim.

' Comments: (319) 398-8262 or editorial@thegazette.com