Samantha Parrott. Caldie. Government P.3. 17 May 2017.

Hobby Lobby Stores is a chain arts and crafts store around the nation. The owners, which is the Green Family, based a lot the their business and primary rules of their Christian faith. They have filed a court case to not provide birth contraception for their employee’s benefits for health. They feel birth contraception is unmoral and goes against their religion, which is what bases their crafts store. The Greens sued Kathleen Sebelius, who is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, on September 12, 2012 for the requirements of providing birth contraception. The court allowed their request of not providing this benefit to Hobby Lobby’s employees.

“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

… HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby and Mardel because they cannot ‘exercise … religion.’ … [What is] also flawed is the claim that [the] RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents…

The dissenting opinion on the matter is that a corporation, even a privately owned one, does not fall under the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

At the end of the day, people go to Hobby Lobby to buy arts and crafts, not to partake in a practice of a certain religion. If Hobby Lobby wanted to still express their religious beliefs and follow the Affordable Care Act, then they could have purchased contraceptives themselves and have employees to pay for them. Hobby Lobby could have simply issued them by putting them in the employees’ bathrooms at a certain base price. Most importantly, if Hobby Lobby truly cared about the wellbeing of their employees, then they could have referred them to a place where contraceptives are available at low prices or could have simply given them a discount, since they are required by law to provide them in one way, shape, or form. In my opinion not all contraceptives are stopping life as soon as it is created; for example, condoms are a form of contraceptives that are a preventative, but does not end life at conception. Finally, it is not up to the Greens to play God, because at the end of the end of the day people have free will, and should have free

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

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

Both the majority and dissenting opinions in Hobby Lobby recognized that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in deciding this religious freedom controversy bound them.

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.

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.

A family who resides in Indiana displays their concern, “As a mother, I am here to protect, provide for, and nurture my children – that’s always my priority.” Recently, when in search for a pediatrician to care for their girls, they were in fear that someone might not provide the service because two moms were raising the girls ("What is RFRA?")." In this case, can a person really deny this service due to their religious belief? Provided that, yes, a "for profit" business can reject such services. “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding (Senate Bill 568).” Given that, a "for-profit can deny service to a homosexual or a person with a different religion.

The arguments brought before the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case represent two opinions on whether the Affordable Care Act had crossed this threshold, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the burden is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest” (Quoted in Horwitz, “The Hobby Lobby Moment”). Author Garrett Epps sums the argument against as:

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”.

Birth control benefits rules for employer-provided coverage. Basically if a woman worked for a religious employer such as Hobby Lobby for example their health plans doesn’t have to cover contraceptive methods and counseling. But if women were to work for an exempt religious employer and use contraceptive services, then they may have to pay for them out of pocket which may cause many problems for the ones who can’t afford it. In my opinion truly and honestly some of the arguments are missing the point. This issue is not about personal choice, and it's also not about Republicans vs. Democrats either, it’s about a government policy that crosses the boundaries of separation of church and state. Religious organization's beliefs oppose birth control,

Disclaimer, I respect everyone religious beliefs, but I’ll use the Hobby Lobby supreme court ruling as an example.