Skip To Content
JEWISH. INDEPENDENT. NONPROFIT.
Back to Opinion

Corporations Aren’t People — Especially When It Comes to Birth Control

Corporations are people, Mitt Romney famously said at the Iowa State Fair in 2011, and it’s easy now to dismiss the phrase as the awkward, revealing statement of a man so out of tune with the public that he lost an election he was supposed to win. But in March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that echo Romney’s sentiment and take it one dangerous step further. Do inanimate, for-profit corporations have religious rights? And can they exploit those rights to deny health care to their employees?

The answer to both questions should be a resounding no.

The cases arise from the mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring that a corporation provide coverage for contraceptive services to its employees. The Obama administration already is allowing certain not-for-profits to wiggle out of this mandate if it violates their religious beliefs that contraception is immoral (a belief held in theory and almost uniformly disregarded in practice.)

Now Hobby Lobby Stores, an arts and crafts chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialities, a cabinet manufacturer, are hiding behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment to argue that the mandate is a violation of their rights, too. But they are not churches or charities. They are businesses imposing their beliefs on their workers — in essence, forcing those workers to pay for those beliefs.

And society will pay, too. As an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine noted, contraception has been proven to meet a compelling public health need. It prevents unintended pregnancies, reduces the need for abortions, affords women and their children a better quality of life, and saves money for the state. An employer can’t disallow blood transfusions on a health care policy if that is against his beliefs. Why should he have such power over women’s ability to afford legal contraception?

No, corporations aren’t people. That concept, and all its inherent baggage, was firmly defeated in the last presidential election. The Supreme Court should do the same in these two cases.

A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse..

Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Join our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines. You must credit the Forward, retain our pixel and preserve our canonical link in Google search.  See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines. Please email us at [email protected], subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.