Case Summary: Burwel V. Hobby, Inc.
BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY, INC. 134 S. Ct 2751 (US 2014)
SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES
Facts: Hobby Lobby is a family owned arts and crafts store that runs on Christian principles. The companies statement of purpose is “honoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” The family does not believe in the use of contraception but under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the company is required to offer a minimum coverage health care plan that includes forms of contraception. The plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the requirement to provide contraceptive method to their employees under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment (Free Exercise …show more content…
Lee (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot deprive employees of a statutory right because of religious beliefs. It was later ruled that Lee does not apply because the challenge was not a significant burden. Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a burden on religious exercise must serve a government interest. HHS must constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate for the Hobby Lobby case fails that test. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), companies with 50 or more full time employees are required to offer a health care plan that provides minimum health care coverage, including forms of contraception. It was ruled that there are other ways in which Congress, or even HHS, could equally ensure that women had cost-free access to contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled that individuals should not have to surrender their religious independence in order to open a business. Therefore, religious family-owned corporations such as Hobby Lobby, cannot be forced to pay for employees’ contraception …show more content…
Corporations are now also to be treated like “people” and have the same rights as a single person would have. If the court had chosen an alternative rule, corporations would still be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception. I do not agree with the decision, I feel that although it may interfere with a corporation’s religious beliefs, a woman’s decision about her health and lifestyle is ultimately her decision and her rights should not be taken away because of the owner’s beliefs. Due to this ruling, I believe that companies will now use the excuse of religious beliefs as reasons to not provide full coverage to their employees and will use it as a way to avoid fines and providing the right
SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES
Facts: Hobby Lobby is a family owned arts and crafts store that runs on Christian principles. The companies statement of purpose is “honoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” The family does not believe in the use of contraception but under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the company is required to offer a minimum coverage health care plan that includes forms of contraception. The plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the requirement to provide contraceptive method to their employees under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment (Free Exercise …show more content…
Lee (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot deprive employees of a statutory right because of religious beliefs. It was later ruled that Lee does not apply because the challenge was not a significant burden. Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a burden on religious exercise must serve a government interest. HHS must constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate for the Hobby Lobby case fails that test. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), companies with 50 or more full time employees are required to offer a health care plan that provides minimum health care coverage, including forms of contraception. It was ruled that there are other ways in which Congress, or even HHS, could equally ensure that women had cost-free access to contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled that individuals should not have to surrender their religious independence in order to open a business. Therefore, religious family-owned corporations such as Hobby Lobby, cannot be forced to pay for employees’ contraception …show more content…
Corporations are now also to be treated like “people” and have the same rights as a single person would have. If the court had chosen an alternative rule, corporations would still be required to provide insurance coverage for contraception. I do not agree with the decision, I feel that although it may interfere with a corporation’s religious beliefs, a woman’s decision about her health and lifestyle is ultimately her decision and her rights should not be taken away because of the owner’s beliefs. Due to this ruling, I believe that companies will now use the excuse of religious beliefs as reasons to not provide full coverage to their employees and will use it as a way to avoid fines and providing the right