The Hobby Lobby 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.

In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the “anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court’s 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that “The First Amendment… has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion.” He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was unconstitutional because “a law such as Section 53-32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives ‘sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.’” Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.

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.

Many other states have developed laws that protect individuals' religious freedoms, yet Indiana's law has more of a controversial front to its recent legislation. This action is to help court cases to decide whether a business owner was discriminating towards a customer or simply complying with the first amendment. Most have argued that this legislation discriminates towards sexuality; whereas, others believe they would be practicing their religious rights. Government and religion have crossed paths before, but this new bill overpasses a boundary that appeals intolerable. Furthermore, the causes of the new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is causing an uproar due to it's discriminatory presence and the future of this country's well-being

Local Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) are controversial in nature, because while they pretend to use the excuse to protect the free exercise of religion, intrinsically it is an avenue to attack same sex marriages which have been ruled constitutional by most circuit appellate courts in the United States. Currently the Supreme Court is hearing the cases that might ultimately decide the faith of marriage equality. United States v. Windsor opened the door for most federal appellate jurisdictions and some states to rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage was constitutional, on the basis of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Despite this decision, the right to marriage is not an explicit protection addressed by the Constitution, and is often seen as a right delegated to the States under the 10th Amendment. On the other hand the free exercise clause is part of the First Amendment, and protects people from doing things that violate their religious principle, for example a Christian doctor from performing an abortion.

While keeping the Constitution in mind. We are hard pressed to mandate certain restraints on religious institutions regarding domestic abuse. Violence against

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.

The fourteenth amendment has five clauses as follows: Citizenship Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Enforcement Clause. Of the five clauses, two were specifically addressed—Due Process and Equal Protection Clause. The Due Process Clause gives the right to marry, while the Equal Protection Clause states that a person shall not be denied equal protection of the law. These clauses were discussed in the case due to the state banning same-sex couples to marry. Additionally, the first amendment that “protects the rights of religious organizations to adhere to their principles…” was also brought up in the case, on the Respondent’s side (Oyez,

There have been many cases over the years regarding people objecting to things based on their religious beliefs. By doing so, these people are sometimes in violation of federal or state laws that protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination. An example of this is when Bob Smith refused to rent out his banquet hall to Adam and Steve, a gay couple who wanted to get married there. Bob, a California resident, refused to rent out the banquet hall because Adam and Steve’s gay wedding went against his religious beliefs and he found their lifestyle to be immoral and ungodly. This case brings up several legal, moral and philosophical issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

The main issue presented by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. would essentially be First Amendment rights, which is religious freedom. Along with the freedom of religion, there is also women’s access to contraception from their employer. Another issue one could argue for is whether or not corporations are considered people or not.

Whether big or small, corporations should not be treated like people, let alone granted religious freedom. The Supreme Court continued the horrible trend of pro-corporation rights. Whether one stands with Hobby Lobby, Inc. and considers this case a success of religious freedom or an intrusion, I see it as the court favored corporation’s rights over personal rights. Female workers should be given the availability to use contraceptives. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Burwell v. Hobby. The case dealt with the free exercise clause under the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFTA) and whether a for-profit corporation could be exempt from the Affordable Care Act. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion unless “application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that interest”.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. At least, that’s what Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner, Jack Phillips, may believe. However, the answer to the case between Phillips and same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, may say differently.

Since the 18th century, the Supreme Court has set precedents for how laws and the Constitution would be applied in daily life. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, distinguishing what cases qualify to not follow laws for religious reasons becomes strenuous. There are many other religions that oppose components typically included in a health plan; for example, many Jews object to pills covered in gelatin derived from pigs. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, these objections would also be valid (Ginsburg). The chaos that ensues from the nitpicking of every part of a healthcare plan undermines the purpose of the law.

give people the freedom to practice their religious beliefs, but when it endangers the well being of

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