David Zubik Case

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’

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.

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

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

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

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.

I strongly agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to exempt Hobby Lobby, and businesses like it, from the ACA mandates for covering certain forms of contraception. The contraceptives that are in dispute are argued to contribute to abortions, or termination of the pregnancy, after the fact. Due to these medications, and devices contributing to the termination of a pregnancy, it is vital that they be exempted. The termination of a pregnancy is a very divisive issue in America. Many hold that a life is being extinguished when the pregnancy is terminated. For this reason, it would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause which violates such a closely held religious position about life. It does not, however, outlaw such products. People are free to exercise their rights, and obtain the medications, or devises elsewhere.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also referred to as the "Affordable Care Act" or "ACA" or "Obama Care") is the major health care reform bill passed into law on March 23, 2010. The debates surrounding the PPACA have been volatile at times, and continue to be the most intense public examinations of any piece of legislation in our recent history. The affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is ripe for repeal. For the American public, there are ample reasons for dissatisfaction: higher costs; arbitrary and sometimes absurd rule-making; bureaucratization of an already overly bureaucratized sector of the economy; incompatibility with personal freedom and religious liberty; enormous spending and heavy taxation; and widely acknowledged design flaws, evident in the ACA’s hopelessly complex and unworkable subsidy schemes, boondoggle bailouts, and collapsing co-ops. Nonetheless, other ACA legal challenges were still facing the healthcare law. In December 2015, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing against the constitutionality of the employer insurance mandate within the Affordable Care Act. The law contains a number of experiments designed to drive down health costs, such as Accountable Care Organizations. The whole idea is to move the system away from paying for volume and toward paying for value. We still don't know whether that will happen. But it's fair to say that reducing the cost of health care will make it easier to expand coverage. The nation’s gains in health care coverage and delivery system design over the last several years have made measurable differences in the lives of millions of Americans. There are many ways to achieve a high-performing health system. But it’s critical that the nation remain committed to this goal.

Recently the Senate voted 53-46 for a bill to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization with the goal of providing reproductive care to everyone “regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence” (plannedparenthood.org). Requiring a 3/5 majority to pass, the bill was rejected, falling short of the required majority by six votes.

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

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its mandate regarding contraception has been the center of contention since the United States Supreme Court decided to go forward with the case in 2013. The initial mandate in question instructed establishments to include and or make available all forms of contraception. Additionally, the employee’s individual health care plan was to provide the contraception at no cost so as not to impose an additional burden. Then again, particular forms of birth control conflict with the beliefs of many of the for-profit corporations represented in the case. However, some corporations have voiced

Originally, the major dispute over President Obama’s proposal focused on the coverage of contraception and its “pressure” on religious practices. Some statistics brought to light by the Guttamacher Institute state “that 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control.” Yet, after this was justified opposers of Obamacare then tried to segue into the argument from religion to money. Based on this fact, it’s difficult to make the assumption that all Catholics are anti-contraception. While they may have their religious freedom, they like many others also want to make the decision for themselves when it would be appropriate to have children (Guttamacher Institute).

Healthcare professionals are faced with a multitude of ethical and legal conundrums. Since the introduction of birth control in American history, healthcare professionals have been put in situations to either follow their own moral and ethical beliefs, or choose to follow the law and give healthcare services to those who seek it. A large constituent to the disapproval of contraceptives other than natural family planning, is health professional’s religious beliefs. In addition, Adolescent females who need contraceptives are less likely to seek access to health care providers for these contraceptives in fear of personal information due to their age being released. Through the research provided, cases of pharmacist denial of prescribed or over the counter contraceptives to women have been the majority of conflict in this nation and in others.

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

The availability of contraceptives following the recent birth control mandate, there are still some issues concerning about what exactly will be covered. Currently according to Affordable Car Act (ACA), health insurance companies is supposed to provide birth control methods with no co-payment requirements. The new ACA law makes preventive care more accessible and affordable to millions of Americans. It is especially important to women, who are more likely to avoid needed health care, including preventive care, because of cost. In order to have access to preventive health care and to address cost barriers under the new ACA law, the birth control mandate allows women with health care insurance to receive contraceptives without the cost of any co-payments as a part of preventative medical services. “This includes all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures prescribed for women including oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, implantable devices, barrier methods, and emergency contraception, but not abortifacients” (Kraemer, 2014). However, group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services for women. Under these circumstances, women would have to pay for out of pockets for their birth control. The new mandate does not outline how surgical procedures will be handled, whether the woman will have to pay