BURWELL VS.

HOBBY LOBBY

The question in Hobby Lobby was whether the birth control

mandate, by compelling for-profit corporations to provide
insurance coverage that includes 20 types of contraception,
violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
RFRA: states that if the federal government passes a law of
general applicability and that law imposes a burden on
someones exercise of religion, then the government must
meet the requirements of strict scrutiny analysis, which is a
test SCOTUS typically applies when a fundamental right is
being infringed.
Hobby Lobby specifically protested four types of
contraception:
the Mirena IUD, the Paragard IUD, Plan-B, and Ella
(the last two are emergency contraceptives).

So basically:
The Court upheld a June 2013 ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals protecting Hobby Lobby and the Green family from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate. That
mandate requires Hobby Lobby and co-founders David and Barbara
Green to provide and facilitate, against their religious convictions,
four potentially life-terminating drugs and devices in the companys
health insurance plan. The Greens argued that the mandate
substantially burdened their religious beliefs in violation of a federal
law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
All based upon the religious belief that abortion is wrong

3 things I found interesting:

1. How persistent Hobby Lobby was in taking a stand for their
religious beliefs.
2. The objections by religious nonprofits are rooted in
teachings against facilitating sin
3. Roman Catholic bishops and other religious plaintiffs argue
that filling out the government form that registers opposition
to contraceptives, then sending the document to the insurer
or third-party administrator, is akin to signing a permission
slip to engage in evil.

Questions I have:
1. Can a corporation be a person within the meaning of
RFRA?
The majority says that the answer is yes, a corporation is a person
who can exercise religious beliefs under RFRA. This is a statutory and
not a constitutional interpretation. HOWEVER, the majority also
dismissed the argument that it would be difficult to determine a
corporations religious belief when different board members have
different religious beliefs. The majority just said we would turn to
state law when such questions arise.
2. Does the birth control mandate place a substantial
burden on Hobby Lobbys religious beliefs?
the majority says that the birth control mandate does place a
substantial burden on Hobby Lobbys religious beliefs. And this
sentence is crucial: The owners of the businesses have religious
objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four
contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.

Is this really going to court over? Why is Hobby Lobby so

determined to win this?
On their official website, they state A VICTORY FOR AMERICANS
WHO SEEK TO LIVE BY FAITH
They were fighting for Americans all over whos religious beliefs
are the sole purpose of everything they do, they did not just do this
for themselves. To them, it was a necessary action they needed to
take.

Do YOU agree with Hobby Lobby?

Do you think it would be fair to
offer religious liberty against
state-mandated contraception?