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.
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
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
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.
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.
With repeated threats from Congress to defund Planned Parenthood and multiple states passing restrictive laws, reproductive rights—and abortion in particular—continue to be increasingly under attack in the United States. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that “a woman’s choice whether to have an abortion is protected by her right to privacy” and that any restrictions on that right must be under “strict scrutiny.” This means that by law, women have the right to get abortions without facing unnecessary restrictions. According to Roe v. Wade, the only time the government could enforce restrictions on this right was when there is a “compelling state interest” to do so.
PORTLAND, Oregon- “I was terrified,” plaintiff Dr. Warren Martin Hern stated as he heard he was on the “Deadly Dozen, GUILTY” poster. The first amendment has been strained throughout this case for the reasons of the unknown. The major question in the Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. ACLA case is “what defines a true threat?”
Precedent says that religious values “must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sough after exemption would do to women seeking contraception”. She says that since “ for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial and the government has show a sufficiently compelling interest” and continues on to state that the contraception mandate does not violate the Religious freedoms and restoration act (RFRA). Justice Ginsburg believes that this is giving privilege that could potentially be abused because they are now exempt from things every other corporation who are not religiously affiliated has to provide. Couldn’t one company simply make their claims seem legit and sincere and be exempt from the same thing Hobby Lobby was exempt from? What is stopping other corporations even larger than from preventing their employees from attaining appropriate birth control? These actions unfortunately would cause an even larger amount of people to not be able to have contraception because of their employers. If employees have
In January 2012, President Barack Obama issued an order for a new addition to the affordable healthcare bill. This addition, dealing specifically with contraceptives, requires that all employers, including many religious groups, pay for contraceptive coverage for female employees (Burk 1). According to the Department of Health and Human Services, this includes FDA approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient counseling for all women with reproductive capacity (HRSA 2). While this bill my seem typical on its face, it has many religious and legal groups up in arms. President Obama's position on the First Amendment regarding religion is in direct violation of the Constitution, it is anti-business, and it is abhorrent to many of even the most liberal commentators.
LEGAL QUESTION: Is a for profit company able to deny their employees’ health care coverage of contraception under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993?
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’
A closely held corporation owned by a family who are members of the Assemblies of God church argued that paying for employee’s birth control violated their company conscious. The court decided that the company could be given a tax credit by the government in order so that there is less of a burden on the corporation. This case, Burwell v Hobby Lobby was controversial and the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was interesting as well. She argued that no prior case recognizes a for-profit corporation to be exempt for a generally applicable law. She urged the court to stay out of weighing of religious claims and found no proof of a substantial burden on the corporation. She also argued that corporations are artificial beings existing only in contemplation of law so they have no conscious or
The Supreme Court case Hobby Lobby v. Burwell is an important event for reproductive and sexual health policy because it gives some religious institutions, organizations and businesses the option to opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Small religious groups that oppose the mandate cite “religious freedom” as a constitutional right that should substantiate their exemption. However, this ruling has adverse effects on the reproductive and sexual health rights of women who are employed by these companies.
Health care and what people are legally allowed to do with their bodies have created controversy galore throughout history. A particular point of debate is the topic of birth control and the government. A dangerous couple, it raises the question of who should have control over contraceptive laws and what controls involving them should be put in place? Currently, under the Obama Administration, the Affordable Care Act and “Obamacare” have been created. One of the sections of this new plan creates a mandate which requires private businesses to provide insurance that covers birth control costs. The government should not be able to force businesses, and therefore the American people, to pay for birth control via health insurance because it