“Faith-Based” Company Hiding Behind Religion To Further Political Agenda?

Photo Credit: Eric Storch

The question of whether Sebelius v Hobby Lobby, Inc about religious or political opposition is one on the forefront of many minds since Molly Redden of Mother Jones released an explosive expose about Hobby Lobby’s investments. Redden reported:

Some of the medications and IUDs produced and distributed by companies Hobby Lobby invested in include Plan B, the IUD devices Skyla, Mireana, and Paraguard. However, these companies also produce and distribute Cytotec and Prostin E2, Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, drugs commonly used in abortions. Reden further reports:

Here’s the kicker: Going against the medical community, the Greens objected to covering “morning-after pills” as well as IUDS because they believe them to be abortificants- something which can be used to cause an abortion. The basis of their objection to the Affordable Care Act, the Greens claim that these products prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, which they consider—again, contrary to medical opinion—abortion.

Photo Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

However, Redden discovered that Hobby Lobby’s insurance plans did in fact cover morning after pills until cutting them in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act.  While this discovery comes too late to have much bearing on the case, it raises concerning questions about the Greens’ motivations for filing the suit. Redden makes the point that there are “faith-based” investment options for individuals concerned about potentially supporting a company contrary to their religious beliefs. These faith-based options are fully vetted, and would have allowed the Greens to invest only in companies that share their values.

Photo Credit:  Matt Yonke

That the Greens made a conscious choice to invest in companies that violate their religious beliefs casts doubt as to either the legitimacy of the Greens’ convictions or the ethics of their motivation. It seems most likely that the Greens are veiling their political objections to the Affordable Care Act in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  However, the Greens’ investments in companies that violate “sincerely held” religious beliefs strike a heavy blow at any perception of sincere objection to the falsely maligned “abortificants.”

Photo Credit: David Weigel

The social ramifications of Redden’s expose could be significant. Though I disagreed with the Greens’ position when I first learned of the case, I was able to understand their moral objections. Now that it has come out that the Greens’ have funded the very things they claim object to, I can’t help but wonder how this revelation may effect how similar claims based on religious grounds may be publically received in the future. It certainly seems as though the Greens and their legal council are using religion as a legal strategy to further a political agenda. Will this have a “crying wolf” effect on future large-scale religious freedom claims?

For more reading, check out this article by Molly Redden:

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers