Case Study: Hobby Lobby

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

An extraordinary amount of media’s attention has been devoted towards Hobby Lobby’s slight victory through a decision by the Supreme Court in their most recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). The attention was focused on the court’s decision that essentially negated corporations claiming religious objections to certain contraceptives from participating in the mandate. Depending upon the participation and religious

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.

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

The subject of the ACA’s contraceptive mandate is a highly debated issue. Proponents argue that it serves to benefit women as well as society while opponents argue that it gives the state more power and infringes on religious rights and interests. Indeed, the major concern of this issue deals with the conflict between U.S. governmental program requirements (as stated in the ACA) and religious freedoms of religiously affiliated organizations. The ACA was made into federal law in 2010, having specific requirements that many organizations need to follow (more particularly in coverage by health insurance). However, there is a conflict of interest between the federal government and religious affiliated organizations (employers). It has been

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

At the end of the day, people go to Hobby Lobby to buy arts and crafts, not to partake in a practice of a certain religion. If Hobby Lobby wanted to still express their religious beliefs and follow the Affordable Care Act, then they could have purchased contraceptives themselves and have employees to pay for them. Hobby Lobby could have simply issued them by putting them in the employees’ bathrooms at a certain base price. Most importantly, if Hobby Lobby truly cared about the wellbeing of their employees, then they could have referred them to a place where contraceptives are available at low prices or could have simply given them a discount, since they are required by law to provide them in one way, shape, or form. In my opinion not all contraceptives are stopping life as soon as it is created; for example, condoms are a form of contraceptives that are a preventative, but does not end life at conception. Finally, it is not up to the Greens to play God, because at the end of the end of the day people have free will, and should have free

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

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.

The main issue presented by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. would essentially be First Amendment rights, which is religious freedom. Along with the freedom of religion, there is also women’s access to contraception from their employer. Another issue one could argue for is whether or not corporations are considered people or not.

The HHS made the argument that there is no substantial on the Greens because the decision to use these contraceptives is made by the employees of Hobby Lobby stores, not the owners themselves. Because of this, the owners are not violating their ow religious beliefs. The United States Court has, in the past, defined the specific mandates of a religion in several cases. For example, in Bryant v. Gomez, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that a United States prison system had not violated the right of exercise of religion of an inmate. This inmate, Bryant, desired to practice his religion in a Pentecostal ceremony. However, the court denied him this right on the grounds that Bryant had no proof that he would not meet a religious mandate by not attending this ceremony. However, another case determined the exact opposite. In Mack v. O'Leary the United States Court of Appeals decided that the government essentially has no right to determine the mandates of a religion. The RLUIPA supports this argument fully in its definition of religious exercise as "any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious beliefs" (Shorba). Therefore, if the Green family feels as though the process of following the contraceptive mandate in the ACA violates its religious beliefs, the mandate simply

In this case, the issue was that through Obama health care it is required that all for-profit corporations provide contraceptive services to all employees. And with this law in place it exempts all religious nonprofit corporations but does not exempt for-profit corporations whether they are religious or not. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation and the owners are very conservative and religious and they feel that they should also be exempt from this health care law because they are against taking a life away. They feel that contraceptives get in the way of a life being born. Hobby lobby founder argues that they are being required to do something that they are against.

Furthermore, Hobby Lobby believes that their religion as Christian should not be violated, because the new law passed explain that corporations with 30 or more employees should give them health care coverage. “Department of Health and Human Services regulations implementing the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that employers’ group health plans furnish preventive care and screenings for women without cost sharing requirement” (Justia 1). The Department of Health and Human Services believed that every corporation should be allowed to a better health plan. People imposed of Hobby Lobby refused to see that Hobby lobby had a valid reason why they should not be allowed to a health coverage that allowed them to get an abortion or prevent one, it case was later taken to the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the businesses, holding that RFRA applies to regulations that govern

Applying the new framework to Hobby Lobby reveals how granting the religious exemption to closely held corporations can not only coexist with the government’s interests of making sure female employees have access to the four controversial contraceptives, but it also best ensures this interest. For the sake of argument, let’s first consider what would happen without the exemption. Closely held corporations would have three choices. They could either ignore their religious convictions, provide incomplete healthcare coverage by paying an extra $100 per day per employee fee, or offer no coverage and pay $2000 per year per employee (11). However, these companies will almost never choose to ignore their beliefs, therefore really only giving them the latter two choices. In the event of the second choice, women would be offered no alternative, affordable healthcare option that grants them access to the