Case Study: Burwell V. Hobby

Healthcare professionals are faced with a multitude of ethical and legal conundrums. Since the introduction of birth control in American history, healthcare professionals have been put in situations to either follow their own moral and ethical beliefs, or choose to follow the law and give healthcare services to those who seek it. A large constituent to the disapproval of contraceptives other than natural family planning, is health professional’s religious beliefs. In addition, Adolescent females who need contraceptives are less likely to seek access to health care providers for these contraceptives in fear of personal information due to their age being released. Through the research provided, cases of pharmacist denial of prescribed or over the counter contraceptives to women have been the majority of conflict in this nation and in others.

One of the most hotly debated and legally challenged aspects of the Affordable Care Act has been the contraceptive coverage or the birth control mandate. It mandates the healthcare plan providers to cover the costs of at least one type of the 18 FDA approved preventive contraceptive services/birth control measures to women without copays or shared costs. Although initially employers were required to provide health plans covering contraceptive services to their employees, it was later clarified that certain religious employers including but not limited to religious non-profit organizations, hospitals, educational institutions etc. can opt out of providing birth control/contraceptive services

Recently in California, there is some controversy around the Reproductive FACT act (Chemerinsky, 2015). This act requires healthcare facilities to have displayed or posted the public programs, which can provide immediate free or low cost family planning services, which include contraception, abortion, pre-natal care and more. There are non-profits and other organizations saying this is an infringement of their first amendment rights. It is argued that they have no ground on this stance because they are not being asked to perform or advocate for these services, but their patients need to have access to such information. This also is not singling out religious groups it applies to all healthcare facilities (Chemerinsky, 2015). This is very scandalous

In Plain English” covers this topic very well. In this blog, Amy Howe explains that Hobby Lobby was not fighting to prevent coverage of all contraceptives, just ones that possibly contribute to abortions. These were a small amount of the total contraceptives that are covered under their health care plans. It further goes to explain how this ruling forced the Obama Administration to have certain portions of this law rewritten so as to comply with this ruling. The Obama Administration did, however, have some victory in defining that publicly held companies would still have to comply with the law, as originally written. The exceptions only applied to closely held, or private for profit companies (Court rules in favor of for-profit corporations, but how broadly? In Plain English

With the help of such an act, many health insurance providers must cover birth control costs. In regard to employers paying for birth control, the idea has been already turned down by the Supreme court case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. “Hobby Lobby [is known as a] for-profit arts and crafts store chain that employs more than 13,000 individuals. It sued the government for infringement of its right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The company brought suit in order to limit the contraceptive coverage made available on the insurance plan it provides employees” (Light). Therefore, if an employer found birth control to be a violation of their beliefs, an employer would not be forced to cover it. Many Americans disagreed with this policy prior to the Supreme Court case; however, the Hobby Lobby stores still continued despite the public’s opinion (Light). Even though employer coverage cannot be amended upon, the Affordable Care Act does help many Americans that do suffer through financial

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’

Hobby Lobby Stores is a chain arts and crafts store around the nation. The owners, which is the Green Family, based a lot the their business and primary rules of their Christian faith. They have filed a court case to not provide birth contraception for their employee’s benefits for health. They feel birth contraception is unmoral and goes against their religion, which is what bases their crafts store. The Greens sued Kathleen Sebelius, who is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, on September 12, 2012 for the requirements of providing birth contraception. The court allowed their request of not providing this benefit to Hobby Lobby’s employees.

Prince George’s County filed identical petitions against two stores: Atlantic Department Store, Inc. and George’s Radio and Television, Inc. that violated Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 534H. The stores went to trial and claimed that the Code violates the First Amendment. There they had to admit that they did not meet any of the exemptions that would allow them to operate on a Sunday. They appealed the courts ruling and this time they asserted that § 534H violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they think that religion was the reason for the prohibition. And since their employees that were working on Sundays were not required to work in violation of their religious beliefs, the county had no right to set up this law. The court then again came to a conclusion that the stores were wrong with their accusations of the violation because the prohibition of operating on Sundays had nothing to do with religious reason but were meant for recreation and enjoyment

Many women take birth control not just to prevent unwanted pregnancy, but also to help treat medical problems. Kathryn C., from Princeton, West Virginia, is one of the thousands of women who take birth control for medical reasons. She shares her feelings to Planned Parenthood’s website, “...My birth control is the most expensive prescription I have to take, and it worries me that I might have to choose between a medicine I need for my health and other things I need like food, gas, and rent.” (Kathryn). There is a debate right now in our society about birth control coverage. Some people have beliefs that birth control should not be covered by insurance companies because it would cause religious conflict in the work environment, but others believe that insurance companies should fully cover the price of birth control because it has many health benefits for the consumers. Birth control should be covered by insurance companies.

Contraception services are known to be expensive and many women in the United States depend on their employer to have access to contraception services. The Protection Patient and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) created by the Obama administration aimed at making birth control benefits accessible to as many women in the U.S. With Barack Obama’s presidency at an end and Donald Trump as the newly elected president of the United States, women under the Obamacare program now risk losing access to birth control benefits due to the Trump administration draft rule which now allows basically any employer to file a religious exemption from the mandate. This is the first step at dismantling the Affordable Care Act mandate that has saved

Birth control continues to be a controversial topic in workplaces and politics. Women use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to help regulate menstrual bleeding. It is argued that all forms of contraception should be provided by health insurance, because of the high numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortion. On the other hand, those on the opposing side claim that requiring employers to provide access to birth control violates the First Amendment’s freedom of religion as some believe birth control goes against their

Birth control has become contentious during America’s 2012 electoral season. But what kind of issue is it? Much of the current tug of war centers on the free preventive health services guaranteed by Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The Department of Health and Human Services ruled that birth control and other contraceptive services are part of preventive care and thus must be covered by insurance plans without co-pays. (Houses of worship are exempted from the requirement, and a later adjustment excuses religiously affiliated institutions from paying for contraception coverage, which all employees will get directly from the insurance provider). Despite such accommodations, Republicans have responded to pressures from conservatives who oppose contraception as well as abortion. Waving the flag of “religious liberty,” virtually all Republicans support a huge legislative loophole, the Blunt Amendment, which would allow any employer to invoke a right of “conscience” to refuse to insure contraceptive services for employees. Democrats decry this as part of an ongoing GOP “war” against women’s health care.

However, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby, insisting that certain forms of birth control were the equivalent to abortion, refused to cover it in their health care plans. Which lead to these profit-generating corporations stating that the birth-control mandate violated their religious freedom rights and they sued to block the mandates. In return, they won at

Recently, the Trump administration released regulations allowing employers, colleges, and universities to eliminate birth-control coverage from their health care plans due to moral or religious objections (CNBC). These new regulations are not only inhumane, they are argued to be unconstitutional. The primary users of oral contraception are women, so denying women easy access to birth control is considered gender discrimination, because it singles out women and treats medication they need less-favorably, thus violating the Civil Rights Act (Planned Parenthood Action). Many women need birth control for health reasons, infertility, and menstrual cycle irregularities, which is why it is wrong to take away free and easy access to birth control.