Case Study: Hobby Lobby Inc.

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

stand up for what he believes in would be considered a respectable trait to many.

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

Unless and until this Court, after notice to David A. Zubik and the religious non-profit petitioners… modify or vacates this order, it is order that the Affordable Care Act, along with the provision of contraception is permitted. In any given situation… (i) preventive health care services will be provided to all employees; (ii) for those organizations and businesses employing a religious background, the objection to providing contraception must be brought to the insurer of the company or the federal government.

I strongly agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to exempt Hobby Lobby, and businesses like it, from the ACA mandates for covering certain forms of contraception. The contraceptives that are in dispute are argued to contribute to abortions, or termination of the pregnancy, after the fact. Due to these medications, and devices contributing to the termination of a pregnancy, it is vital that they be exempted. The termination of a pregnancy is a very divisive issue in America. Many hold that a life is being extinguished when the pregnancy is terminated. For this reason, it would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause which violates such a closely held religious position about life. It does not, however, outlaw such products. People are free to exercise their rights, and obtain the medications, or devises elsewhere.

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

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

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was set in place for the sake of protecting people’s freedoms. Some claim that the Greens ignored the freedoms of their employees by not providing contraceptives. However, just because Hobby Lobby and Mardels employees cannot have their contraceptives paid for does not mean they cannot access those resources. Contraceptives are freely accessible. The only thing prohibited by this ruling is that the corporations will not pay for their employees to access it.

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

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’

On September 12, 2012, a for-profit corporation, by the name of Hobby Lobby, sued the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, who at the time was Kathleen Sebelius. The Green family, owner of Hobby Lobby store incorporated, sued due to a mandate known as the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Therefore, this act mandated that businesses must provide contraceptives to employees under their insurance benefits. However, contraceptives were against the Green family’s religious faith, so they denied their employees contraceptives in their insurance benefit plans. Later on, the Green family sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, stating that this was an infringement