Summary Of Obamacare Contraception Case

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.

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.

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?”

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?

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.

“In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a five-Justice majority held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires of federal laws that burden religious exercise (Gedicks 1).” Burwell means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this case of Hobby Lobby versus Burwell, it is accused that the government has violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby refused to provide insurance that covers birth control because it violates their religious beliefs. It is said that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, INC)” unless the government

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

On June 7, 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was the constitutional right of married females to be prescribed birth control. This ruling found fault in the Connecticut state ban on the use of contraceptives. The 1879 Connecticut law was ruled as unconstitutional because it infringed on citizen’s rights to privacy. This case is studied to this day because it concerns the rights and liberties of individuals.

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

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

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