Today’s SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision was an obvious assault on logic and
common sense: Not only are corporations considered "immortal persons," they can now have
religious convictions and therefore deny their employees birth control on moral
grounds.
As humorist Andy Borowitz summed up in his parody news story style, "By a 5–4 vote on Monday, the United States Supreme Court settled a dispute that Justice Samuel Alito said was 'at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.'" But the problem goes beyond the legal fiction of corporate personhood. It shows how the rhetoric of freedom is routinely turned on its ear by conservatives who have chronic difficulty recognizing others' rights and it shows why they really hate government.
As humorist Andy Borowitz summed up in his parody news story style, "By a 5–4 vote on Monday, the United States Supreme Court settled a dispute that Justice Samuel Alito said was 'at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.'" But the problem goes beyond the legal fiction of corporate personhood. It shows how the rhetoric of freedom is routinely turned on its ear by conservatives who have chronic difficulty recognizing others' rights and it shows why they really hate government.
Various conservatives have called today's decision a victory
for religious liberty. It is an Orwellian choice of words because it is
actually a victory for religious coercion. Russell Moore, President of the
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted,
“#HobbyLobby wins. This is a great day for religious liberty. Government is not
lord of the conscience.”
No, apparently your employer is.
This is familiar conservative illogic. It is even found in the mouths of
self-identified “libertarians.” Indeed, as conservatives have co-opted
libertarian rhetoric, libertarians have become more conservative. At this
point, libertarian ideology has largely become a hodgepodge of elaborate
rationalizations to excuse coercion. Corporate personhood is only one among
many institutionalized absurdities that they enlist - states rights is yet
another. Both are employed to deny the rights of breathing human beings. The
Libertarian Party's morphed position on abortion illustrates this. As I wrote
in my book:
Ayn Rand was staunchly pro-choice. “Abortion
is a moral right – which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman
involved.” She reasoned, “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a
potential, only to an actual being.”(1)(emphasis original) Her words could not
possibly speak clearer. This
issue was once so central to libertarian thought that, in the early 1980s, they
printed tee-shirts with the image of a pistol, a pot leaf, and a woman symbol
with the slogan “Libertarians are pro-choice on everything.” Well, they are no
longer pro-choice on abortion. Today, the Libertarian Party regularly fields
anti-abortion candidates for president. Indeed, they began back in 1988 with
Ron Paul. Naturally, they reconcile this with their rhetoric of liberty by
saying that your freedom should be left to the states. As one anti-Ron Paul
graphic I saw put it: “Government so small it fits in your uterus.”
The court's Hobby Lobby decision is actually the predictable result of such
thought. Consider this incident I recounted in the book:
When promoting his latest book, Every Day
is an Atheist Holiday! [Penn] Jillette appeared on Glenn Beck’s show, “The
Blaze.” Jillette argued (2) that a
religious pharmacist “absolutely” had the right to deny a woman the abortion
pill because the pharmacist’s individual conscience is sacred. But what about
the woman’s? Beck did not ask that question, but they both probably would have
said that she can go to another pharmacy. But what if there are not any more in
the area? Then it sucks to be her. But individual conscience is actually not
all that sacred to Penn Jillette. He added that the pharmacist’s employer was
free to fire him and that would be fine just so long as the government did not
get involved. The employer has an individual conscience too and apparently that
trumps the pharmacist’s. Money trumps many things. It all seems pretty
reasonable until you stop and think about it. Then you realize that there is a
hierarchy with women at the bottom and bosses at the top. To paraphrase George
Orwell, some consciences are more equal than others.
I was happy to see that I had anticipated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent
in the case. She wondered if the exemption would "extend to employers with
religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses);
antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including
anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims,
Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations." In my rejoinder to Penn Jillette's
argument, I had added:
You do not have to be a genius to
realize that allowing pharmacists to deny birth control is only going to prompt
theocratic prudes to become pharmacists. Why not allow Christian Science
pharmacists to deny all prescriptions the same way they try to deny their
children medical attention? Granted, they would be unlikely to find jobs, so
you could say that the market would prevent that. But the principle still
remains the same: The law should not allow others’ religious convictions to
restrict your bodily autonomy. It is an abuse of your position to use your job
to force your personal mores or desires on others. Likewise, bosses cannot
demand sex from employees to grant raises or promotions. That is illegal – and
should be. The predatory employer’s rationale is "If you do not like it,
you can work someplace else."
In short, libertarianism is not pro-freedom but anti-government. To them,
there is no coercion until government gets involved. Obviously, this philosophy
does not recognize when government is trying to protect our freedoms. But one
of the most fundamental functions of government is protecting us from each
other. That is why we have laws against murder, robbery rape, etc. And this
includes civil law as well as criminal law: If someone breaks a contract with
you, you take them to court instead of taking the law into your own hands. This
is some pretty fundamental stuff:
Take gay marriage, for example. On
Glenn Beck’s show, Penn Jillette asked when government got involved in love and
marriage as if this were some unprecedented new intrusion. Um, try the Code of
Hammurabi. Marriage was a monetary transaction for millenniums before love got
involved. And property remains a large part of marriage today, thus disputes
over divorce, custody, or inheritance. As long as people own homes, have
children, and have disputes, government has a role to referee. The notion that
government should not get involved is absurd. Without a referee, "Might
makes right" would decide every dispute. Libertarians ignore
non-governmental bullying and insist government must never intervene to stop
it. During the show, Jillette emphasized, "We do not want to be a country
of bullies," But his philosophy is a bonanza for bullies and he should be
smart enough to see that.
So, yes, corporate personhood is a big problem at the heart of this case,
but it is not the only one. Misogyny is obviously another problem. But lopped
on top of those is the right's opposition to the proper role of government. And
that opposition has historically been grounded in their love of bullying and
hostility toward liberty and equality. After all, it was not until after we
began recognizing and upholding the civil rights of African Americans in the
1950s, that conservatives began screeching about "federal tyranny." But every other form of tyranny seems to be pretty okay to them.
_____________
(1) Anne C. Heller, Ayn Rand and the World She Made (New
York: Doubleday, 2009), 320-321.
(2) The abortion pill part
starts at 28:47. Throughout the broadcast, Penn Jillette gave Glenn Beck passes
on things he obviously should not have. For example, Jillette “absolutely”
agreed with Beck that our country was founded on “Christian principles.”