Hobby Lobby Case Analysis

We live in a democracy. Every four years the people of America have the opportunity of voting for someone who best represents their political views and who they feel is best fit to run our country. Whoever is elected into office, has the power of implementing policies and regulations to help run the country smoother. Under the Obama administration, birth control is covered by all insurance companies with exceptions. However, under Trump 's administration they are making plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that has the potential of not allowing full or partial coverage of birth control. This an issue that has plagued the woman’s community whose intentions of contractive use is not solely based off of the reason, to try and

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.

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.

As of recently, women have been talking about getting long term birth control or stocking up on Plan B. This is because they are worried the Trump will take away the articles in the Affordable Care Act that say that insurance companies must cover birth control, reproductive health and abortion funding. There are currently provisions in the ACA that allow women access to gynecological visits and birth control without having to pay a copay (Rinkunas, 2016). These provisions when originally passed because a number of businesses filed for exemptions so that they would not have to provide access to free contraception to women; specifically those who may have decided to use Plan B (the morning after pill). Some religious based businesses owners believe that preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus is the same as an abortion, and to them life begins at conception (Newton-Small, 2016). Many Catholic members of Obama’s Administration, including Vice President Joe Biden wanted to allow religious entities or groups the right to opt out of the program (Newton-Small, 2016). The women of the cabinet decided that they would

In the case of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott (2014), The American Civil Liberties Union, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and a Texas law firm filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of several women’s health-care providers in Texas for seeking to enforce their rights and those of patients for declaratory judgment and pertaining to the regulation of surgical abortions and abortion-inducing drugs by enjoining two provisions of the 2013 Texas House Bill No. 2. (Planned Parent Hood v. Abbott, 2014). To many, Planned Parenthood challenges the state of Texas abortion law as it places an unconstitutional restriction on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It also

Not only has Planned Parenthood lied about the services that they provide, but a number of their own employees have filed lawsuits claiming that Planned Parenthood has cheated the system for their own profit. In 2011, Abby Johnson, the former director of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, filed a lawsuit claiming that her affiliate had purposefully sent in approximately $6 million in false claims to Medicaid (Sedlak 15). Similarly, in 2008 a former financial executive of Planned Parenthood in California, P. Victor Gonzalez, filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for overcharging state and federal governments by at least $180 million for birth control pills (Sedlak 15). Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas are currently entangled in a lawsuit that “alleges its involvement in ‘repeated false, fraudulent, and ineligible claims for Medicaid reimbursements’ through the Texas

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

Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. They sued the state of Connecticut claiming it violated their constitutional rights. Their argument was that a married couple has a constitutional “right of privacy” They directly argued that- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal

Hobby Lobby was owned by the Green family, who were profound Christians and they believe that life starts with contraception. According to the Green’s birth control violates their religious beliefs. The Green’s would often buy newspaper ads saying that Jesus is our lord and savior. They believe that their ideals should be

Often times in today’s world we take certain luxuries for granted. The right to vote, the right of free speech, etc. But one of those luxuries that people often don’t consider is the right for women to use birth control. The Supreme Court case that argued for the use of contraceptives was Griswold vs Connecticut. The court case was argued March 29th-30th 1965, but was not decided until June 7th 1965. The case was on the debate of whether or not the use of contraceptives should be legalized. Griswold, the Executive and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was on the side arguing for the legalization of the use of contraceptives in a marriage. While the opposing side, the state of Connecticut statute, had forbidden the use of contraceptives since 1879.

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

Today, Planned Parenthood is persistently parading the news, with advocates and opposers continually debating whether or not the organizations morals and services provided benefit society and individuals. The Planned Parenthood activist group justify their stance on protecting reproductive rights for mothers and providing free sexual and reproductive health services by claiming that their organization’s efforts lead to the fundamental ideals of the historical authors John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill; life, liberty, and property. They firmly believe that the individual has the right to life,liberty, and property and that their institution as a whole provides these ideas favored by the notable authors. To begin, Planned

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

To begin, opponents argue that mandated coverage infringes on religious freedom and conscience. In 1809, Thomas Jefferson declared“[no] provision in our Constitution ought to be dear to man than that which protects rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority” (Fortenberry 2). Jefferson’s statement suggests a contraception law leaves the rights of opponents at risk. Furthermore, contrary to supporter’s beliefs, critics contend that abortions would not be reduced from the mandate. To support, executive director Greg Pfundstein, of the New York City pro-life organization Chiaroscuro Foundation, writes in the National Review that although contraceptives were broadly available the 70s "the out-of-wedlock birthrate has tripled and the number of abortions had not decreased,” ("Birth Control Funding:" 5). This implies that opponents are not convinced by proponent's proposal's. Finally, opponents emphasize that complete coverage is detrimental to American ideals. “The federal government crossed a line” says republican congressman Jeff Fortenberry, in an article criticizing the mandate, “the affordable Care Act represents the flash point of an ideological agenda that in no small measure threatens to undermine fundamental liberties that have defined the essence of our national character,” (1) . This statement suggests that many critics do not wish to impact the status quo.

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