Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

SCOTUS hears arguments concerning birth control funding

Published onApr 16, 2014
SCOTUS hears arguments concerning birth control funding

One thing is clear in life: we don’t like to be told how to spend our money. I’m sure we’ve all experienced the frustration of our parents telling us to save our allowance money instead of spending it in the ever-appealing claw game to win stuffed animals at a local restaurant. The frustration grew as I got older and matured, and realized that the government was telling me how to spend my money through taxes. But, I imagine that frustration would be magnified by, well, a lot if I were forced to spend my money in a way that goes against my religious views.

That’s precisely what the plaintiffs in two appeals, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, are arguing in the Supreme Court.

According to the Affordable Care Act, for-profit businesses of a certain size are required to provide insurance benefits for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay to its employees. Under the Act, businesses that decline to provide such benefits to its employees can face fines of up to $100 per day per employee. For large businesses, this fine could amass to millions of dollars per year. For example, Hobby Lobby, which has approximately 13,000 employees, could face penalties of $475 million per year.

The plaintiffs in the cases, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, argue that their companies should be able to refuse to provide birth control to its employees, as doing so would violate the owners’ established personal beliefs.

“Our family started Hobby Lobby built on our faith and together as a family,” Barbara Green, Hobby Lobby co-owner, told CNN. “We believe that Americans don’t lose their religious freedom when they open a family business.”

So far, the justices appear divided on the issue. Justice Samuel Alito, who seems to agree with the business owners, stated, “This is a religious question…[Y]ou want us to provide a definitive secular answer.” Still, the outcome of the case (both appeals are being heard together) is uncertain. However, a final ruling is expected by late June.

Before issuing a decision, the justices must determine whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the government to follow the “least burdensome” and narrowly tailored means for a law that interferes with religious beliefs, has been violated. A sub-issue, then, is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to only persons, or can it also apply to companies?

Reproductive Rights Groups believe that such protection should not be extended to companies. “What’s at stake in this case is whether millions of women and their right to preventive care including birth control is trumped by a handful of CEOs who have their own personal opinions about birth control,” said Cecile Richards, President, Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

* Caitlin S. Hale is a second year law student at Wake Forest University School of Law. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in English, with a minor in Communication Studies, and received a certificate of technical and professional writing and communication from East Carolina University. Upon graduation, she intends to practice labor and employment law.

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?