You are on page 1of 3

Claire Orbin-Rangel Government March 27, 14 Mr.


Current Event: Summary Articles on CBS news site, written by Stephanie Condon on March 25, 2014 and March 24, 2014. Articles about contraception coverage on healthcare, and religious businesss disapprove it. On Tuesday morning, the supreme court meet a familiar rift of the war on religion and womens rights. It all starts with the Affordable Care Act. The law stipulates employers need to provide health care for their employees that covers all forms of contraception at no cost. However, some for profit corporations have insisted they should not have to pay for all of these services, especially those that conflict with their beliefs. Hobby lobby under the rights of the !eligious freedom restoration act and women under case in "##$ in %lanned %arenthood vs. Casey& as 'uoted (The ability of women to participate e'ually in the economic and social life of the )ation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.( *mostly the Affordable Care Act is on their side+

I do find this case very difficult on our political system, a lot of ideas and proposals contradict with the other. -nder our constitution and other laws religious freedom, health care and womens rights all seems to clash in this political drama. On a opinionated side, It is not right to force your religious views on to others, but at the same time using contraceptives seems li.e forcing your views on others as well. /hen they use their religion as part of their corporate structure, they cannot e0pect non religious types to .eep patroni1ing them. 2ut if this case wins there is many conse'uences. Adhering to 3ust one religion is not constitutional, so would that mean 4uslims could claim e0emptions that go towards funding the 546 that provides driver7s licenses for women8 Could 4ormons claim e0emptions towards government establishments that serve alcohol8 /ho .nows maybe later they wont want to provide vaccinations or blood transfusions. A lot of that conflicts with health care, and then maybe companies will try to use this to spend less money on health care for employees

by claiming they want religious freedom.

The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so called (wars( on women or religion. If Hobby 9obby prevails, it would prompt (a fundamental shift in the understanding of the :irst Amendment,; That shift in could open the floodgates for unprecedented protections for corporations that some say amount to a license to discriminate.

This is relevant to our class since it has to do with politics, and the laws under religious freedom, womens rights and health care. Including our own views on political scales li.e religion and healthcare. These issues are under different laws, even though religious freedom is something people should be able to apply. It contradicts with the rights to not discriminate.

HYPERLINK "" HYPERLINK "" C2< A!TIC9= by <tephanie Condon The women of the <upreme Court and the conservative men on the court appeared split Tuesday over whether for profit companies have religious freedom protections that would e0empt them from providing their wor.ers with health care coverage for contraception. The 3ustices listened to arguments from two privately held, for profit companies Hobby 9obby <tores, Inc. and Conestoga /ood <pecialties Corp. The companies have sued the government over the Obamacare mandate re'uiring companies with more than >? employees to provide comprehensive health coverage *including contraception+ or pay a fine. The case H@%=!9I)A (http&BBwww.cbsnews.comBnewsBsupreme court hobby lobby case revisits divisive political issuesB(encompasses some of the most politically divisive themes and issues of the $?"$ election H@%=!9I)A (http&BBwww.cbsnews.comBobamacareB(Obamacare, the left7s (H@%=!9I)A (http&BBwww.cbsnews.comBnewsBnew romney ad says obama is waging a war on religionB(war on religion,( the right7s (H@%=!9I)A (http&BBwww.cbsnews.comBnewsBobama team slams romney on womens issuesB(war on women,( and the notion of corporate personhood. It also has far reaching implications. If Hobby 9obby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt (a fundamental shift in the understanding of the :irst Amendment,( 5avid Cans, the civil rights director

for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told C2< )ews. H@%=!9I)A (http&BBwww.cbsnews.comBnewsBsupreme court hobby lobby case revisits divisive political issuesB(<upreme Court Hobby 9obby case revisits divisive political issues A ruling in favor of Hobby 9obby or Conestoga would give for profit companies unprecedented protections under the :irst Amendment. The Obama administration already e0empts nonprofits with religious affiliations, such as Catholic universities, from the contraception coverage rule. The <upreme Court7s three female members on Tuesday led the charge to defend the Obamacare mandate, C2< )ews7 Dan Crawford reports. =choing arguments put forward by the Obama administration, Dustices =lena Aagan and <onia <otomayor both as.ed how a ruling in favor of Hobby 9obby would affect an employer who may ob3ect to blood transfusions on religious grounds, or vaccines or any other sort of health care that7s part of a comprehensive care pac.age. The court7s conservative 3ustices, meanwhile, seemed sympathetic to arguments that business owners with deeply held religious beliefs should not be forced to pay for health care treatments they ob3ect to, Crawford reports. Hobby 9obby is arguing that it has religious e0pression freedoms under the !eligious :reedom !estoration Act, which dictates that an individual7s religious e0pression shouldn7t be (substantially burdened( by a law unless there is a (compelling government interest.( =ven if Hobby 9obby were protected under that law, Aagan said that it7s dubious that Hobby 9obby faces a (substantial burden,( given that company could simply pay the fine rather than provide their employees with insurance. Their employees could then ac'uire insurance on the new Obamacare mar.etplaces. Dustice Antonin <calia, however, sided with Hobby 9obby7s lawyers. They argued that it would be an onerous burden for the company to pay a fine and then pay the higher wages it would feel compelled to pay its employees to ma.e up for lost benefits. 2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.