A Corporation is a Person, but Only When the Left Says So

Along with most liberals, New York State Attorney General A. G. Schneiderman is upset over the United States Supreme Court's decision in Burwell V. Hobby Lobby. In a Op-Ed posted July 17th, 2014, in the Huffington Post, he wrote,

The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision was both factually and legally flawed. It accepted false assertions about the science of how contraception works, and it expanded the absurd legal principle that corporations are people by essentially finding that corporations can hold religious beliefs. (1)

First of all, the science of contraception works in favor of the decision, in that only those four contraceptives that allow insemination and then deny continued life were impacted.

Secondly, were it not for what he calls the absurd legal principle that corporations are people they could not be sued as people, a practice fondly accepted and practiced by the left.

Shelly Morgan, Demand Media, notes

Corporations can sue and be sued under the law, just like people. The legal fiction that corporations are people allows the corporation to assert some basic 14th Amendment rights in court, including the right to due process and the right to equal protection. Whole bodies of law, such as environmental regulations, can be applied to corporations precisely because these business entities are treated like people in courts of law.(2)

Schneiderman's missive is more political homily than anything else. It reads like a manifesto on his feelings on gender related issues.

Like Attorney Generals before him, Schneiderman wields the Op-Ed/ Press Release like a flag, calling attention to himself as he seeks to gain favor with the masses. And, like so many liberals before him, he ignores the benefits of corporate personhood when it benefits him, and embraces it when it suits his pet causes.


(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-t-schneiderman/fighting-back-against-hob_b_5597240.html

(2) http://smallbusiness.chron.com/corporation-considered-artificial-person-under-law-57912.html

Twenty Minus Four Still Leaves Sixteen

Ashley Markel, in Western New York, recently organized a protest against the United States Supreme Court decision in Burwell V. Hobby Lobby.

By a vote of 5-4 the court decided that privately held, for-profit companies are exempt from a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires businesses to cover abortifacients, drugs that cause abortions.

Ms. Markel told WIVB News,

“It’s a step backward. We’re all here to stand up for women’s rights and equality.” (1)

But lets be clear about this ruling.

The Hobby Lobby ruling only invalidates four out of the twenty contraceptives mandated by the ACA. That leaves sixteen other options on the table covered for their employees.

According to WIVB News,

“Markel and others worry that the Supreme Court’s decision may be interpreted more broadly than that by other corporations, who may choose not to cover “regular” forms of birth control, because of it.”

I’d say that if she is correct, the outcome will fall into the category of unintended consequences.

There is a seventeenth choice, though not a popular one for obvious reasons.

Abstinence could be considered a "regular" form of birth control. Its free and effective. The primary reasons given for considering an abortion are of a self interest nature. (2) If the desire to maintain a standard of living, continue a course of education, or continue a career path outweighed the desire to have sexual relations, abstinence would be a good choice. 

(1)

http://wivb.com/2014/07/12/womens-rights-advocates-protest-hobby-lobby-birth-control-decision/  

(2)

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm