Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Case Study

The contraceptive coverage in the new Health Care law makes preventative care more accessible and affordable to millions of Americans. This is particularly important for women who are more likely to avoid the cost of contraceptives because of cost. To help address these barriers in terms of cost and ensure that all women have access to preventative Health Care Act, all new private insurance plan that covers a wide range of preventative services such as breast x-rays, pap smears smoking prevention and contraception without co-payments or requirements for sharing other costs. The current problem is that the Affordable Care Act is imposing on the 500 store chains of Hobby Lobby’s religious rights by forcing the company to provide full coverage of contraceptives of the 13,000 workers as part of its health care plans. David Green and family, whom founded Hobby Lobby, believe that the healthcare act is violating their held religious convictions.

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed suit against the U.S. government to exempt itself from the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Hobby Lobby’s owners are evangelical Christians who believe that the contraceptive mandate violates their religious beliefs; specifically, that life begins at conception when successful fertilization occurs within a prospective mother. Providing contraceptive measures, in Hobby Lobby’s view, would facilitate the abortion of a pregnancy, which most evangelicals equate to murder. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, along with all other closely held for-profit

Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used

On September 19, 2013 the supreme court saw the case of Hobby Lobby V.S Sebelius. If the courts agree with Hobby Lobby then millions of women are out of essential health care they need just because their employers don 't want to cover contraceptives. Even though congress made it clear that these laws made for religious freedom were made for individuals, religious institutions, and religious organizations. If corporations were given religious freedom, it does not necessarily mean that they will be given freedom from contraception requirements that do not burden religious freedom. All the health care plan was made for was to give women the health care they need for their well being.

Though the AFA was intended to provide cost-effective medical coverage, the constitutionality of the legislation is now being called into question. In 2014, the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (and other lawsuits) argued that employers should not be required to provide coverage of contraception if it violates the morals and beliefs of the employers or organization. The courts agreed and ruled that forcing employers to provide this type of coverage was in direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First Amendment’s right to religious freedom. As a result, a third party provides coverage for contraception at no cost to individuals who work for employers

This signified that reproductive healthcare services were not covered through a cost-sharing mechanism. The main petitioner of this case, David A. Zubik is a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and argues that (along with multiple other religious organizations) the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993. This is so as the ACA mandate requires these organizations to provide contraceptive services, services that oppose the beliefs of certain branches of Christianity, specifically Catholicism. A specific of the ACA is that there is indeed an accommodation for these non profit religious organizations; these organizations may notify their insurers or the government (which will in turn notify the insurer) of their objection to the provision and the insurer must then arrange and pay for the contraceptive coverage separately. The accommodation was designed to ensure that employees would receive contraception coverage but the nonprofit employers with religious

Precedent says that religious values “must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sough after exemption would do to women seeking contraception”. She says that since “ for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial and the government has show a sufficiently compelling interest” and continues on to state that the contraception mandate does not violate the Religious freedoms and restoration act (RFRA). Justice Ginsburg believes that this is giving privilege that could potentially be abused because they are now exempt from things every other corporation who are not religiously affiliated has to provide. Couldn’t one company simply make their claims seem legit and sincere and be exempt from the same thing Hobby Lobby was exempt from? What is stopping other corporations even larger than from preventing their employees from attaining appropriate birth control? These actions unfortunately would cause an even larger amount of people to not be able to have contraception because of their employers. If employees have

The Green family, the owner of a large national chain of arts and crafts stores, sparked a national debate. The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case ignited nationwide controversy, the focus of which was the contradiction of whether or not private corporations should be forced to provide contraceptives for their employees. The Green family believe that some contraceptives that were mandated by the Affordable Care Act to be abortion inducers. Abortion goes against their religion. And so, they filed a lawsuit in 2012 fighting against these mandates. They used the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration

“In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a five-Justice majority held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires of federal laws that burden religious exercise (Gedicks 1).” Burwell means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this case of Hobby Lobby versus Burwell, it is accused that the government has violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby refused to provide insurance that covers birth control because it violates their religious beliefs. It is said that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, INC)” unless the government

Opponents of the mandate also refer to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when challenging the ACA’s contraceptive requirements. Based on the Kaiser Family Foundation’s legal analysis of the RFRA, in regards to religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations, employers would qualify from an exemption should the government not have a compelling interest to provide preventative care (including contraceptives) or accommodation meet the compelling interest in the least restrictive way. The general public is very divided on this issue; pew research on the birth control insurance mandate found that from a survey of 1,501 adults: 48% believe religiously affiliated institutions should be exempt from this rule, 44 believe religiously affiliated organizations should be required to cover for contraceptives, and 8% are unsure/don’t know. Of the Catholic group, the percentages were 55%, 39%, and 7%, respectively. There is indeed a wide variety of opinions in this subject: Some saying that all religiously-affiliated organizations should abide to the contraception mandate, others saying certain ones, while others saying none. The main issue is where to set that line of the exemption. There have been efforts by religiously affiliated organizations (most of which are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church) to extent exemptions to religiously affiliated organizations. Some of the more high profile cases regarding this issue include the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) and the Zubik v. Burwell (2016); both resulting in split decisions (5-4 and 4-4, respectively). Several smaller cases were made pertaining to this issue, many of these cases including Sylvia Mary Mathews Burwel, the 22nd United States Secretary of

Option four describes adding a change to the law stating “no right to burden third parties.” The plaintiffs in the Hobby Lobby case denied their employees contraceptive health insurance, and this placed a burden on them. The amendment would state the plaintiffs can satisfy their religious beliefs if they provide another way for the employees to obtain the contraception without cost to the employees (Dorf, 2014).

However, an abortion is not the same as using an oral contraceptive. Oral contraceptives are used to limit the likely hood of pregnancy and cannot terminate a pregnancy. Contraceptives are no different than taking Nyquil for a cold or anti-biotic for an infection because it’s ultimately the person’s rights to use the healthcare in the manner they feel necessary. With that being said, conscientious objection comes into play with respect to the employee rather than Hobby Lobby stated by Substantive Principle Two: “an employee can refuse to perform any task that is extraneous to that job as defined to their moral beliefs and rights”(Whitbeck, 75). With the provided health insurance, it is the employees’ decision based on his or her beliefs and rights to choose how they use the health insurance rather than the employer forcing certain limitations to their health care as the article stated. If the contract between the employee and employer does not state the moral obligation and beliefs of the employer than it’s within reason that the employee has the choice of their own moral beliefs. I argue against the Supreme Court ruling because it is ultimately the choice and obligation of the employee based on his or her moral beliefs and rights rather than the employers beliefs and

In the landmark decision of Burwell, Secretary of Human Health Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the United States Supreme Court allowed closely held for-profit corporations to exercise religious freedoms that could deny its female employees health coverage of contraceptives. The contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will now excuse religious for-profit companies from providing contraceptives which may prevent implantation. Previously, this exemption was only provided to non-profit religious organizations such as churches. The decision was not unanimous with the Supreme Court Justices split at 5-4 and was highly contested. The majority supports that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA violates for-profit companies’

Though the AFA was intended to provide cost-effective medical coverage, the constitutionality of the legislation is now being called into question. In 2014, the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (and other lawsuits) argued that employers should not be required to provide coverage of contraception if it violates the morals and beliefs of the employers or organization. The courts agreed and ruled that forcing employers to provide this type of coverage was in direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First Amendment’s right to religious freedom. As a result, a third party provides coverage for contraception at no cost to individuals who work for employers

In Hobby Lobby the Court reiterated its interpretation that a corporation has rights similar to that of an individual (Citizens United v. FEC), since corporations are composed of individuals, and thus are due the rights granted in the RFRA. The Court in Hobby Lobby found that providing contraception, and access to reproductive healthcare, serves the compelling state interest of public health and welfare. In parallel, this Court found that ensuring that people have coverage by health care providers is a compelling state interest. Hobby Lobby correctly applied the test of strict scrutiny, and required that the mandate be the least restrictive means of advancing this compelling government interest. This is where the mandate failed as applied to Hobby Lobby. The Court found the mandate could not be applied to private corporations in order to require them to provide reproductive healthcare. In contrast, in the case at hand, the rule prohibiting multiple spouses as beneficiaries of a health insurance policy is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling government interest; that being the ability to provide the public with insurance in order to advance public health and welfare. Therefore, RFRA is not a basis upon which Mr. Bridges can claim his rights are violated if the insurance does not cover more than one wife. In conclusion, RFRA is not the basis for requiring health insurance to cover both Germanotta’s and Maraj 's claims.