“Corporations are people,” was one of Mitt Romney’s biggest gaffes during the 2012 presidential election.  Now, the matter is being debated before the Supreme Court and America is one decision away from being under full corporate control.

The “contraceptive mandate” of the Affordable Care Act, requiring companies to pay for the contraceptive needs of their female employees, has been under heavy fire since the birth of the legislation.  During hearings last week, the conversation was finally at a federal level.

The arguments spanned two connected cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.  Without exploring the minutiae of each case, there is one overarching debate: does the contraceptive mandate infringe enough on the religious rights of corporations to render it unconstitutional?

Conservatives are again trying to make the ridiculous claim that making corporations pay for any contraceptives would be tantamount to religious oppression and unconstitutional.  By this logic, the right of a corporation to act within its own narrow religious views outweighs the individual rights of any female employee.  In other words, business is more important than people.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy put this view into proper context, commenting that the argument is currently viewed only from the perspective of the employer.  A write up of the arguments on SCOTUSblog cited Kennedy asking, “What about the workers, who may not agree with their employers’ religious beliefs … Does religion just trump that?”

Here lies the true issue with the conservative approach.  If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this ideology, they would be setting a precedent that the rights of the corporate elite outweigh the rights of the people they employ.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan recognized the danger immediately.  According to SCOTUSblog’s recap, they showed concern for the slippery slope — if corporations are granted exemption from this mandate on the grounds of religious freedom, complaints will undoubtedly follow about other services such as vaccinations, blood transfusions and others.  The end result would be a significant and unacceptable decline in the rights of employees.

Another problem here is that the word “mandate” is a bit of a misnomer.  Similar to the “individual mandate” part of the ACA, it is actually legal for a corporation to refuse to provide contraception.  They would only be required to pay a small penalty instead.  Justices Sotomayor and Kagan pointed out that this penalty would be an insignificant cost to any corporation.  Justice Kennedy also expressed support for this thinking, saying that the penalty would be “a wash,” financially.

The bottom line is that conservative lawyers, justices and politicians have somehow arrived at the conclusion that the First Amendment trumps all.  They argue that being forced to act outside of your own religious beliefs is less acceptable than denying somebody else’s right to safety or good health.

At the end of the arguments, the question facing the Supreme Court was very clear:  Do the religious rights of corporations outweigh the rights of their employees?

Hopefully the Court sees sense and rules in favor of American citizens. However, should the conservative school of thought triumph, we could see a world where corporations get away with everything and employees get nothing.  Anything can be avoided by claiming it infringes upon religious freedom.

A ruling in favor of these ideas would be a dangerous road to travel and one that would curb the freedom of the American people while giving corporations free reign.  We can only hope the Supreme Court agrees and saves the country from that fate.

Chris Piemonte is a senior political philosophy major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on April 1, 2014 at 1:00 am