Warning: Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Ruling May Not Apply to Your PHC

In dramatic fashion, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) waited until the very last day of the session to release one of the most anticipated rulings, its decision in Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. The 5-4 majority found the central argument involved the religious liberty of closely held for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp in particular.

Warning: a pregnancy help organization (PHO) is not a “closely held for profit corporation.” No, indeed, it is not. However, if it does not have the one thing that will help connect it to this ruling, namely, solid footing that it is intended to be and acts, at least in part, like a religious organization, then the finding today will likely not serve as protection in future government encroachment.

The court noted in its ruling that “[T]he Hahns and Greens have a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.  They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance covering methods of birth control that, as HHS acknowledges may result in the destruction of an embryo.  By requiring the Hahns and Greens and their companies to arrange for such coverage, the HHS mandate demands they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs.”

A pregnancy help organization staffed by Christians motivated by biblical faith is likely not enough evidence of being a “religious organization.” So what can a PHO do to position itself appropriately as a “religious organization”? The best evidence must be found entrenched in its own governing documents.

Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the same organizations that championed the Hobby Lobby case to victory at the Supreme Court level, provides insights into how PHOs can best protect themselves. Just two years ago, Joseph Infranco, Senior Counsel at ADF, wrote “To Be or Not to Be a Religious Non-Profit: The Question for all PRCs.” In his article (which is reprinted in full in this issue of Capitol Matters) , Mr. Infranco references LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Ass'n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.2007) in which the Third Circuit articulated a nine-part test which included #3 “whether the entity's articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose.”

Do your articles of incorporation, bylaws, and policy and procedure clearly identify your religious nature? If not, making the case you should be afforded “religious liberty” is difficult at best.

The question could be asked, “If your organization were on trial for being religious, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” In order to appropriate the benefit of the First Amendment and the religious liberty flowing from it, we should intentionally plant the evidence of our religious nature. We need to wisely assert the Christian values motivating and informing our missional efforts. Mr. Infranco’s full article tells us why and how it is important.

We are grateful for Hobby Lobby and the Alliance Defending Freedom team for bringing this battle before the Supreme Court. Let’s do our part to position ourselves for future ones!