Hobby Lobby Case Summary

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.

In today’s society, the separation of church and state is a fundamentally important aspect of our government. Most any citizen would agree that the government should operate based on the law and the constitution, not on the individual 's religious beliefs, yet when the issue is Abortion, that stance is flipped. The debate over abortion rages on despite the supreme court giving women the right to abortion in 1973 with the ruling of Roe v Wade. Looking at both sides objectively, the pro-choice arguments lineup with facts, while the pro-life arguments are either supported by facts yet purposefully misinterpreted, or simply not factual at all. State governments pass laws that regulate abortions and abortion centers all in the attempt to close these centers down and stop women from getting abortions at all, including situations of rape or incest. Just as the government in Brave New World controls the bodies of women by keeping them on contraceptives and controlling their bodily functions through medication, the American government seeks the same control over what women do and don’t do with their body by denying them abortions and birth control.

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 the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Casey fought against the state of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Abortion Control act. The restrictions required the woman to give a written informed consent, seek parental consent if she was a minor, and notify her husband if she married. With the same violation of the fourteenth amendment as the Roe v. Wade case, the courts saw favour to Casey. While the majority of the restrictions were supported by the courts, the requirement of the husband’s notification was not. The result of this case added support of the decision of Roe

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

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

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

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

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

Should someone’s religion be forced upon you? Well in the case Hobby Lobby, a giant craft supply seller v.s Sebelius, a health and human services secretary fight over if religious freedom should excuse them from the affordable care act where any company with over 50 employees must offer health plans that covers contraception.

The ACA was enacted to increase the affordability as well as the quality of health insurance for United States citizens nationwide. Specifically, some of its services include providing preventive services including contraception, abortion, STD screenings and related education and counseling.Since contraceptive regulations have been implemented in our society following the Affordable Care Act, over 100 nonprofit (mainly) religious organizations have challenged the contraceptive coverage requirement. These non profits claim that even the accommodation (for provision of contraceptives to employees) is morally wrong and burdens their religious

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

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

When the name, “Planned Parenthood”, comes into conversation, the first thing to come to one’s mind it simply: abortion. The current controversy is that Planned Parenthood should not be funded by the government because its use of money to the perspective of the public eye. Because the company is so highly associated with abortions, taxpayers bring up the fact that the government should not be funding companies like Planned Parenthood due to their affiliation with the medical fields including abortion. However, Planned Parenthood should continue to receive funding because despite getting government aid, the establishment is so much more.

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