Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt1)

On December 9th, Lindsay Beyerstein of Point of Inquiry engaged in a conversation with Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The topic of conversation was the Hobby Lobby case that is currently being looked at by the SCOTUS. Lynn explains how Hobby Lobby's court challenge of the birth control proviso in Obamacare could open the door for Jehovah's Witness-owned companies to refuse to cover blood transfusions, or for Christian Scientist-owned companies to refuse to cover any medical care.

For the past few days I have been picking away at the interview.  Writing up a sort of transcript and filling in some gaps that some may not be aware of.  I am about half way through the 30 minute interview, and will be publishing information in multiple posts.
__________

A few items for clarification purposes: This case is also linked to/with: Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius AND Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.

Autocam is Catholic owned, Conestoga is Mennonite owned. Both "lost" in their challenge in regards to Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which prohibits the government from substantially burdening a PERSON'S exercise of religion. (Think Citizens United, corporations are people). The 6th and 3rd Circuit courts ruled that a for-profit company does not qualify as a “person” under RFRA and therefore cannot use it to challenge the HHS mandate. This contrasts with Hobby Lobby in which the 10th Circuit ruled in Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius that for-profit businesses are protected by RFRA.

Prior to listening to this interview, a few conversations amongst friends came up in regards to some of the issues involved.  Robert Baty in a guest column featured on Forbes discusses "how the thinking behind the desire for conscience exceptions to Obamacare provisions compares to that behind the clergy housing allowance." In the article Baty connects some interesting dots and sums up his thoughts as follows:

Another possible analogy also comes to mind that might be worthy of notice; some of most vocal apologists for doing little or nothing with reference to the income tax free ministerial housing allowance might look and sound like some of the most vocal apologists for expanding the health care exemption to any organization, business or individual who utters the magic words “religious conscience”.

As we will see this "conscience exceptions" or "religious conscience" idea  is an issue that Lynn hammers homes in the interview using the term "corporate conscience:"

a business owner's claim that their consciences prevents them from, in this case, providing insurance coverage for their employees knowing that some of them will use the coverage to get birth control pills. 

This conscience claim would primarily be in regards to Autocam as it is a Catholic tenet/doctrinal issue based on Pope Paul VI Humane Vitae of 1968. But since most American Catholics have ignored this "mandate" I'm am unsure as to what influence this would have. Although there are 5 Catholic judges sitting on the SCOTUS. One must also take into consideration the "false" beliefs/claims that birth control pills are abortifactants.

[For disclosure, Robert Baty and I are "friends" on Facebook and discuss various issues.  His articles are included  because they are relevant to the issue at hand.]

A second issue that came to mind in discussions prior to publication of the interview:  Would it be wrong to call Hobby Lobby (ownership as well as corporate entity) a bit hypocritical in their stance considering a majority of their product (I have read as high as 98% of said product) comes from China where pregnancy termination is State sanctioned? Estimates of 300+ million abortions over the course of the past 20 years, but yet they are bitching about contraception!  A point echoed by a recent comment attached to the interview:

The most obvious line of questioning that should emerge in challenging the Hobby Lobby religious exemption should start with their purchase of goods for resale from China, an officially atheist state that can enforce its one child policy with abortion. With well over 90% of its resale goods imported from China - thus allowing the company to make significant enough profit to expand into the large corporation that it is - where is the fidelity to this religious tenet that they claim for an exemption to pay for certain types of contraception?

And finally, one very important point to keep in mind when considering this case (Hobby Lobby), only FOR PROFIT corporations are affected. Lynn makes a very important point concerning this early on the interview.