Burwell V. Hobby: Supreme Court Case Study

Over the counter birth control pills have been a topic of discussion for many women. Some might say it would pose many risks such as not receiving medical checkups and not knowing the side effects of birth control pills. Others may see it as a helpful to women because of the convenience of accessing the pills and not having to take time to schedule appointments. Additionally, due to health care and insurance policies some women might not have an easy access to birth control pills but the cost should not be a factor. Although over the counter birth control would allow an easier access for women, there are reasons why a doctor’s visit and a prescription are required to receive birth control pills.

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

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

Birth control is utilized by a large portion of sexually active women in the United States (Planned Parenthood). Its benefits are innumerable. The uses of birth control spread through a wide variety of domains, from the prevention of diseases, to the treatment of disorders ranging from anemia to endometriosis. It can be used in conjunction with condoms in order to assure effectiveness and, as a whole, allows women to take control of certain aspects of their futures. Birth control is a fundamental aspect of many women’s lives and yet it remains a point of

Women today may have more choices but it has not always been this way. “Women of the past often didn’t get much a choice about their sexuality” (Bringle). However by 1950s, a pill to prevent pregnancy was created. Though this contraception was created, it was hard to get. A birth control advocate, Margaret Sanger, “attacked legislative restrictions on birth control”, informed many women the uses and positive aspects of using contraception, and encouraged doctors to give contraception guidance by opening “the first birth control clinic in New York in 1916” (Bringle). Even after the widespread information of birth control, the accessibility of it today is low. This pill is a necessity for women in today’s world and should be made more accessible. To use contraception, a doctor has to prescribe it and this prescription is rarely covered by

Although the majority of women can receive birth control from their insurance companies, there is still a need for over the counter birth control. Recently, contraception in the United States has become more of a political issue rather than a public health issue. Present-day contraceptives come in a variety of forms, but still have the same function; to prevent unintended pregnancies (Cartwright-Smith 541). Cartwright-Smith also stated that in addition, certain hormonal contraceptives are prescribed to treat medical conditions such as severe menstrual pain, excessive menstrual bleeding, acne, migraines, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids (541). There have been arguments about how over the counter birth control leads to “promiscuity”. Moreover,

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its mandate regarding contraception has been the center of contention since the United States Supreme Court decided to go forward with the case in 2013. The initial mandate in question instructed establishments to include and or make available all forms of contraception. Additionally, the employee’s individual health care plan was to provide the contraception at no cost so as not to impose an additional burden. Then again, particular forms of birth control conflict with the beliefs of many of the for-profit corporations represented in the case. However, some corporations have voiced

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is a court case that held a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30th, 2014.. The Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare, permitted for profit companies are held close by a family or a family trust to refuse only on certain religious grounds to help pay for mandated coverage of certain contraceptive drugs and devices for their employees’ health insurance plan. There are some exemptions available only for religious non-profit institutions. This exemption does not apply to Hobby Lobby for being a for-profit company. When the Green Family as representatives of Hobby Lobby Stores sued Kathryn Sebelius, This court case was originally called Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. , then had to be changed

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

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

Most birth control pills require a prescription. Some women might expect the visit to their doctors to be filled with blood work and a full physical exam. But to their surprise, the doctor typically asks for information regarding the last date of their menstrual cycle and if they are pregnant. Then the doctor signs off a prescription with no additional questions asked. These quick visits demonstrate that the majority of doctors are not taking the time to examine the health of their female patients to determine if they are even healthy candidates for birth control pills. The majority of doctors must ask more questions regarding weight, smoking habits, and potential heart disease risks. Jandi DuPree is one of the thousands of women that trust their doctors for medications. Dupree was 28 years old when she visited her doctor to get her prescription for birth

Birth Control is a global contraceptive that has been in use for more than 50 years. When Birth Control first came about in 1960 it was approved for married couples only, now over 10 million women married or single use this method. Most women complain about the harsh side effects of birth control but they rather put up with them before they risk having an unplanned pregnancy. Side effects such as weight gain and mood changes play a major role in the decision of birth control use. There is a saying that says, “If you knew better you would do better” most women do not even know better so they

In fact, under the Affordable Care Act only non-profits are exempted from covering contraceptives in their health insurance plans (Bassett). While this saves churches and other non-profits that are against birth control, what does it do for the business owners who are personally against birth control coverage? An example would be David Green, who is the founder of Hobby Lobby, a craft store that supports Christian beliefs. According to Green “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution…Business owners shouldn’t have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law” (Howell). Green has voiced his objections to government mandated birth control through the court