Analysis of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.(2014)

The Affordable Care Act is a beneficial act to provide our society with affordable health care which covers all of the basic medical needs of a human being. Congressman Jim Himes put it best when he declared that although a payment for these health plans might be a little heftier than the fifty dollar premiums Americans were used to paying, these plans would better insure the decline of annual emergency room care. The biggest debate however has been made over the requirement of companies including contraceptive coverage at no additional cost to their employees. According to the Green family, owners of the for-profit chain of Hobby Lobby stores, as well as the Hahn family who owns a woodworking corporation, this new requirement impedes not only their First Amendment right but violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The RFRA states “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…” (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991, Sec.3 42 USC 2000bb-1.) At the time this act was passed, the original purpose was to protect a person’s free exercise of religious practices. Now both families have brought their shared beliefs that the for-profit corporations they own and operate should also have those same rights. Because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Greens and Hahns, the ACA’s requirement to include contraceptive coverage now in fact violates the for-profit corporation’s right to religious freedom.

According to the Supreme Court’s decision, requiring closely held corporations to provide health care plans with coverage of contraceptives at no additional cost, violates federal law which protects free exercise of religious freedom. Justice Alito summarized the court’s decision as “Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations,… protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.” (“Aborted, Once More”, The Economist, Jun 30th 2014, 15:42 by C.H., New York) The court ruled in a five to four decision that corporations do in fact deserve the same religious rights it’s owners have. The decision allows Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties (as well as any other closely held corporation that feels the same)  to exclude four specific types of contraception in the health care options made available to their employees. Scientifically speaking, these four types of contraception do not in fact cause a form of abortion, however due to christian beliefs the two companies believe they do in fact cause miscarriage or abortion of the fertilized egg.  Because this is due to a religious belief, companies are free to exclude them from the list of covered forms of contraception on account of their constitutional right to free-exercise, stated in both the First Amendment as well as the RFRA of 1993.

In a fierce dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued she and the three other justices in disagreement believe  “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.” (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) Although the companies owners share these religious beliefs, who is to say that every employee working for said companies shares those beliefs as well? It is understandable in the dissenting justices views that a non-profit religious based company would fall under the free-exercise right, however it is non plausible that a multi-million dollar for-profit company employs workers of the same religious doctrine and only those employees that fit the bill. If this was the case, then the argument of employment discrimination would be the main focus here. Ginsburg also stated “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”(BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) The focus of the Contraceptive Mandate was to ensure a healthier and more affordable option for women’s reproductive health, but the court’s decision has now nixed the affordable option, making it increasingly difficult for a large percent of underprivileged women to afford most of the recommended forms of contraception. Ginsburg, although clearly pro-women’s rights, took it one step further in her dissent, making the claim “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude…The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) If this decision does in fact make it possible for a company to deny certain forms of contraception, a closely held for-profit corporation led by a Scientologist can easily exclude blood work coverage for their employees. There are so many different medical advances that every religious doctrine denies as conforming to their secular beliefs, in Ginsburg’s opinion this could make things very difficult for both the court and on a broader spectrum, the Affordable Care Act in the future.

In 1973, the case of Roe v. Wade established the illegality of abortion services directly violated the constitutional right of personal privacy. In ‘78, Congress made it clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was discrimination on the basis of sex. Later in 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees while excluding birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fast forward to 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act giving countless women the piece of mind that they would no longer have to make the choice between spending their last few dollars of a paycheck on contraception or food for their family. With the Court’s decision on the Contraceptive Mandate in regards to closely held for-profit corporations, our nation has successfully traveled back in time. As a sexually active young woman, I know the high cost of certain types of contraception. Luckily, I am blessed to have the financial means to cover those costs if the company I work for decides it is against their religious beliefs (beliefs I do not share) to offer contraception coverage. For thousands of others, these financial means are not available, and most of the women that fall into this category work for companies just like Hobby Lobby. These women need access to contraceptive coverage more than anyone. Our constitutional right to freedom of religion is not only to protect those who do believe in a higher power, but also those of us who do not. The colonists left England for America because of a dominant Catholic rule, everyone had to conform to the Catholic faith, and laws were enacted upon the Catholic doctrine. When the Constitution was drafted, the framers wanted to make every possible move to prevent this from happening in the great country of The United States of America. When we start making decisions on medical procedures and contraceptive care on the basis of religious beliefs, rather than scientific proof, our government is retracting its original stance on religious reform. With this in mind, I agree with the four dissenting justices wholeheartedly. In my opinion, our legislature must make decisions based on scientific evidence, not a religious belief that was created eons before science was even considered evidence. The Court’s decision, although trying to amend the violations to religious beliefs, has directly violated a woman’s right to choice, and the Green’s and Hahn’s have made it clear that they believe a woman’s boss is symbolically welcome in her bedroom.

Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission(2010)

The Citizens United decision was heavily swayed by a number of the Supreme Court precedents from earlier years.  Limits on electioneering communications were previously upheld in both McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2003, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1989.  More influential of the two cases, Austin upheld that “political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.”  Justice Kennedy noted in his decision involving Citizens United and the FEC that the decision of Austin (and therefore McConnell) was a significant abandonment of ancient First Amendment dogmas, holding that stare decisis doesn’t warrant the continued acceptance of said decision.  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overruled both Austin and McConnell stating that corporate political speech may be regulated by the government through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress corporate political speech completely.  The decision however, did not affect contributions; the Court’s decision stated these funds weren’t spent in coordination with a designated candidates direct campaign, concluding that the funds didn’t incite a feeling or appearance of corruption.  Where Austin and McConnell worked to ban corporate and union dependent expenditures and financing electioneering communications, the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave those same entities the green light to unlimited spending on advertisements and other political tools which call for the election or defeat of an individual candidate.

Citizens United released the film titles Hillary: The Movie in January of 2008.  This 90-minute documentary mentions then Senator Hillary Clinton by name, and depicts interviews with both political commentators and others speaking about Clinton’s possible election to President of the U.S.  Much of what was discussed by these individuals took a critical stance against the possibility of a future President Hillary Clinton.  Hillary was released in theaters as well as through Video-on-Demand, a cable system which allows subscribers to select programming from various menus.  In order to promote the documentary, Citizens United created two ads to be run on broadcast and cable television, and continued the promotion by spending $1.2 million in order to offer the film ‘on demand’ at no charge to the cable providers customers.  Each trailer for the movie included, what the Supreme Court’s majority felt was a slanderous statement directly pertaining to Senator Clinton.  The film was to be made available through the on-demand service within thirty days of the 2008 primary elections, which as mentioned earlier, Senator Clinton would be involved in as a possible Democratic candidate.  Citizens United was worried that the film and ads airing at this time would be covered by Section 441b’s restriction on corporate-funded independent expenditures.  This ban, part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), prohibits corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures which expressly advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified federal elections.  Section 441b was amended by Section 203 to further prohibit any ‘electioneering communication.’ Citizens United argued the following:

• Section 441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary: The Movie; and

• BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements, BCRA Sections 201 and 311, are unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and to the three advertisements for the film.

The District Court denied the corporation’s motion for a preliminary injunction and held Section 441b was facially constitutional, meaning the statute is always constitutional. As applied to Hillary, the statute was upheld and applicable because the film, according to the Court, was ‘susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office…’

Electioneering communication is prohibited by BRCA Section 441b.  By definition, said communication is ‘any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office.’  Specifically, the communication must be made or aired within 30 days of primary elections and 60 days of general elections.

The law is question in the case of Citizens United v. FEC is Section 203 which amended section 441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.  The statute requires any “electioneering communication” to be reported and disclosed if direct costs to produce and air the communication amounts to $10,000 or more. Communications reports must be filed on the day after the ad is publicly distributed and must identify the person making the disbursement as well as any person exercising direction or control during the process of the communications development.

In both Citizens United and McCutcheon, the issue before the court is based on First Amendment grounds.  Citizens United, a conservative non-profit corporate organization, argued Section 441b of the BCRA is unconstitutional due to the criminal and civil penalties they would face due to the distribution of the film Hillary: The Movie.  When the Court was faced with the issue of constitutional rights to freedom of ‘political speech,’ Shaun McCutcheon argued that the two year aggregate campaign contribution limit was unconstitutional under the freedoms allowed in the First Amendment.  The plaintiff, a registered Republican voter, saw the contribution cap as a failure to serve a “cognizable Government interest,” thus rendering the restriction unconstitutional by its applied meaning.

In the Majority’s decision of both cases, the concurring Justices agree that corporations are protected under First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.  Justice Kennedy maintained in his opinion on Citizens United, that speech, being an essential tool to democracy, must not be restricted by any means.  According to the Kennedy, if the court were to uphold the BCRA’s restrictions on corporate political speech the Government would be able to repress speech by silencing anyone it saw fit. The Majority decision in McCutcheon proved the contribution caps as unconstitutional due to failure to meet “rigorous” standards of review laid out by previous precedents. Chief Justice Roberts stated that the First Amendments core purpose is to protect political speech from the government, furthering his argument by mention of flag burning and Nazi parades’ protection under the same amendment.

Decisions in both cases give corporations and unions ability to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools calling for the election or defeat of a specific candidate to Federal office. However, where Citizens held no effect over contribution limits, McCutcheon defeated contribution limits as donated by any Political Action Committees (PAC) and similar vehicles.

Much of the controversy over these decisions is obviously projected towards the unlimited spending corporations can contribute to a candidate’s campaign. Justice Breyer mentioned in his dissent that the decision would allow millions of dollars to contributed to campaigns by individuals and PACs, which many citizens see as a possible increase in the production and airing of countless commercials touting accomplishments of one candidate or disparaging character of the other. It’s laughable that the many extravagant galas and events funded by the donations of PACs and individuals, are more or less impossible for the majority of  citizens to attend. The impossibility does not rest upon security issues or the fact that you’re not on the VIP list, the fact is a ticket to one of the mentioned events is upwards of $1,000.00. If the court can argue that the freedom of political speech is so fundamental that even corporations are allotted the right, the political speech they are speaking about does not apply to the majority of American citizens. In my opinion, the decision made by McCutcheon is an obvious nod to Republican fears of ‘big government.’ Shaun McCutcheon even mentioned in an interview previous to the case, that his goal in the case was to “encourage the adoption of conservative principles…’To me, being a conservative means smaller government and more freedom’.” Although the fundamental right to free speech is necessary in a democratic society, there must be limitations on spending in order to limit corruption.

The Right to Bear Arms: The Lesser of Two Evils

An Analysis of Gun Legislation in American History

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

–The Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights

Over the past fifty years, the historical relevance and meaning of The Second Amendment has been a topic of immense disagreement between our nation’s legislators and citizens.  Scholars suggest the Framers of the Constitution included this amendment in the Bill of Rights in order to restrict Congress from legislating against individuals gun rights.  Understandably, the nation was fearful of a centralized government gaining far too much strength over its people, and because of this fear needed a militia to support any uprising in case the situation of another revolution arose. Many argue that with our nation’s continuing development of our armed forces and well-trained police forces on a more local level, the amendment has lost its necessity in today’s legislature.  According to the Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service, and to use said firearm for traditional lawful purposes, like self-defense in one’s own home or for legal sporting events. Conflicting views on the exact meaning of this amendment and how it could possibly hold weight in almost a completely different society has fueled years of unsolved gun violence and disagreements on legislation to protect our nation. The debate progresses into perhaps the most interesting phase, when economics are thrown into the equation.  In 2011, 6.54 million firearms were produced in the U.S. and sales of firearms contributed $33 billion of our economy’s revenue (Stubborn Facts; Hall; 2013).  Additionally, gun manufacturing and retail sales employed 220,000 Americans that same year.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun lobby groups know this, and rely heavily on these beneficial economic facts as pillars of their argument.  As the country’s employment rate and economic growth fluctuate year to year, the benefit of the firearms industry increasingly dominates Americans views as favorable, while belittling and clouding our minds from the possible negative results of such lax gun legislation and growing violence in our society.

Gun violence is nothing new to our nation, and unfortunately it seems we hear about school and mass shootings on a monthly basis through media outlets and news reports.  Conflicting studies show concealed gun carry laws have been neither beneficial nor detrimental to gun violence in our country, according to The Harvard Injury Control Research Center (2008). Yet, other studies show a decrease in gun related violence and death in state’s with tighter firearm legislation (Twelve Facts About Guns and Mass Shootings in the U.S.; Klein; 2012).  The resulting question our society is left with, is no longer how, but why.

Twenty-four years have passed since the 1990 creation of The Crime Control Act, the foundation for many other bills which closely followed, and the numbers of deaths directly resulting from firearms still seems to be uncontrolled. The Crime Control Act outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts. In an attempt by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce gun control laws under the new Clinton Administration, Seventy-six lives were compromised in what is now known as The Waco Siege.  On February 28, 1993, ATF attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian Ranch at Mount Carmel.  The attempt was compromised and an exchange of gunfire resulted in the deaths of four agents and six Davidian members. A subsequent 51-day siege by the FBI ended on April 19, when the complex was destroyed by fire. Seventy-six people, including twenty-one children and two pregnant women, along with Davidian leader David Koresh, died in the incident.

President Bill Clinton, a strong supporter of The Brady Bill, took the Waco incident as a final push to see that the bill, which had come under much scrutiny from the NRA, was passed into law.  When the Brady Bill went into effect in 1994, it was the first bill to require not only a background check, but a five-day waiting period in order to purchase any handgun.  Jim Brady, Press Secretary to President Reagan, proposed the bill after suffering from a gunshot wound to the head during an assassination attempt on the President; finally, after a six-year battle on the hill, the bill was passed. Following the Brady Bill, The Violent Crime Control Act was put into effect the same year, and was the first federal limitation on military style assault weapons.  In the spring of 1999, the occurrence of the Columbine High School Massacre shook our nation to its core, and prompted Clinton to expand background checks to all gun sales.  The Columbine Shooting claimed fifteen lives, twelve students, one teacher, and the two perpetrators, and ignited a firestorm of changes in school safety policies across the country, yet federal gun legislation laid on the back burner. Time and time again, changes in the nation’s gun policies have failed to prevent countless murders, leaving the American people angry and fearful of the future of gun violence in our country.

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the fate of a District of Columbia gun law, which prohibited the possession of handguns without an official license presented by the state’s Chief of Police.  District of Columbia v. Heller determined that the D.C. law violated an individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.  D.C. Special Police Officer Dick Heller applied for a registration certificate but was denied by the District.  After filing a lawsuit against the District with the Federal District Court of D.C. on Second Amendment grounds, Heller argued that the D.C. bar on the registration of handguns violated his right and the trigger-lock requirement included in the law prohibited any use of any other legally owned firearm.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia interpreted Heller’s complaint and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. Determining the total ban on handguns in the city, as well as the requirement that any firearm in an individuals home must be kept nonfunctional violated Heller’s constitutional right to bear arms, the court turned the case over to the Supreme Court for a final decision.  In a five to four majority decision, the Justices determined that D.C. laws in question were in fact a violation of an individuals Second Amendment Right.  Justice Scalia made very clear that the two sides of this case had very different interpretations of the Amendment’s meaning.  the dissenting Justices, including Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer believed that the Amendment was intended to protect only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.  When deconstructed, the Second Amendment is composed of two parts, the Operative Clause reads“…, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This phrase unambiguously refers to individual rights, not collective rights or rights that may be exercised only through participation in a sort of corporate or militia based body. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”; the Prefatory Clause begins the amendment and is broken down into two sections itself. First the Justices scrutinized the segment which includes the necessity of a Militia, finding that a militia is unlike armies or navies. The idea of a militia is to have a previously organized group of defensemen, and in order for this to be true, citizens must be previously equipped with the weapons and skills necessary to protect our nation. Concluding the Prefatory Clause, the framer’s state that this well-regulated militia is necessary in order to protect the security of a free State. Justice Scalia defines ‘state’ as the people or citizens who constitute the community or nation, as opposed to what the dissenting Justices view as the security of each individual state. The court’s in depth analysis of both the Operative Clause and the Prefatory Clause of The Second Amendment, led the majority to decide in favor of Heller’s argument.  Thus rendering the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia null and void.

Mass shootings in the U.S. have been far from uncommon in the past fifty years, however the shooting which occurred in December of 2012 at a Newton Elementary School was no less shocking than that of Columbine in the late nineties.  The senseless murders of twenty children and six adult staff members, at the hands of a psychologically impaired young man, encouraged the need to amend the nation’s gun control laws in the following spring of 2013.  The Senate voted on a series of amendments to a broad package of gun laws being pushed by President Obama.  Due to growing fears from conservative gun owners, and with the help of the NRA’s deep pockets, Republicans and a handful of Democrats struck down the passing of the policy changes, defeating the bill.  At the time of the April, 2013 gun legislation vote, over sixty school and mass shootings had occurred in this country alone; since the Sandy Hook incident, there have been over seventy.  According to the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), 69% of the gunmen involved in mass shootings in the U.S. were between the ages of ten and nineteen, while the next largest percentile at 15% included individuals between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine.  The easily enticed lawmakers who defeated this legislation proposal made decisions largely based upon economic factors brought to light by big money gun lobbyist groups, while the decision should have been based upon the growing violence among the lives of our country’s youth and young adults.

Special interest of gun lobby groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) play a huge role in the ongoing debate over gun control changes.  The NRA began as a way to train Civil War Union soldiers, but over the years has grown into one of the largest civil rights organizations in the U.S.  In recent years this organization has virtually opposed every proposal to changes in Federal gun legislation.  This includes restrictions on owning assault weapons, the retention of gun purchase databases, background checks on purchasers at gun shows, and changes pertaining to gun registration.  In 2012 the NRA contributed $1,190,442 to the election cycle, and $2,980,000 towards its lobbying campaign against the plausible amendments.  History has proven that gun sales are a huge boost to our nations economy, and this is the backbone of the NRA’s fight against gun control legislation.

As mentioned earlier, The Brady Bill was passed in 1991; since its passing The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has continuously fought the “good fight” against the NRA and other gun lobby groups who oppose stricter gun legislation.  The Brady Campaign works to educate the public about gun safety through campaigns like “ASK” (Asking Saves Kids), a campaign that urges parents to ask the question “Is there an unlocked gun where my child plays?”, in order to prevent gun related accidents in the home.  The group estimates that the 300 million guns owned by law-abiding citizens in the U.S., amount to two-thirds of all gun violence.  The Brady Campaign believes this occurrence is due to lack of understanding of the risks of guns and firearms.  The policy platform of the group aims to address this violence by enacting policies such as universal background checks on all gun sales, keeping guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and those suffering from psychological disorders.  The campaign argues that background checks have prevented 2.1 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers since the Brady Bill was passed, and doesn’t impede upon an individuals Second Amendment Right.  Still, the NRA and many conservative Republicans see background checks as an invasion of privacy, arguing that more in-depth background checks violate a citizen’s right to privacy.  When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was drafted, the NRA went as far as to ensure the inclusion of a clause which prohibits health insurance providers from inquiring about an individual’s gun ownership status.  As one group works to decrease violence, the other fights to stimulate our economy, which unfortunately continues the violence, and creates confusion towards the ongoing debate of how to stop said violence.

In a perfect world every gun owner would be a responsible law-abiding citizen, unfortunately our current world is far from perfection.  In my opinion, the most fear inducing fact is that in the last fifty years, fifteen of the worlds twenty-five worst mass shootings occurred in the United States.  Second place went to Finland with a total of two mass shootings.  Studies conducted by Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, show that the U.S. is an unusually violent country compared to other developed countries. Many think the only way to end the violence is the total prohibition of firearms, but bans like this would not only violate a constitutional right, it may possibly leave our economy in the red.  Universal background checks including mental health screenings in order to purchase any firearm would greatly improve our nation’s fight against gun violence.  On May 23, 2014, just a year after gun legislation changes failed in Washington, twenty-two year old Elliot Rodgers killed six people and injured thirteen others before turning the gun on himself and taking his life.  Rodgers’ motive was revenge for sexual and social rejection.  The amount of mental health issues that plagued Rodgers’ teen years should have prevented him from purchasing a firearm.  More concerning, is three weeks before his killing spree, Rodgers’ parents contacted police after their son’s online activity, on sites like Youtube, began to alarm them.  According to his manifesto, Elliot had a developed plan of action and had already purchased his weapons which would claim six lives.  Santa Barbara deputies determined Rodgers did not meet the criteria to place him on an involuntary psychiatric hold, additionally Rodgers told officials that the entire this was a big misunderstanding between he and his parents.  Rodgers was free to do whatever he wanted.  I believe the only way to prevent senseless murders like the ones carried out by Elliot Rodgers, is to require a comprehensive background check for anyone who intends to make a sale or purchase of any style firearm. If this was already a necessity, Rodgers would have been denied the purchase of the guns he used, and officials may have easily found evidence on social media sites alluding to Rodgers rejection of prescribed medications and psychiatric help.  Many states, including Connecticut, have introduced ammunition and magazine capacity restrictions, but it seems as though we are still tackling the issue in the wrong way.  History has proven that restrictions on gun styles and ammunition do not decrease gun violence in any significant way, but background checks do.  Until our nation’s legislators realize the benefit of universal background checks and in-depth mental health screenings, I believe violence caused by individuals equipped with guns will not end.  Guns themselves do not kill people, people kill people.  In conclusion, evidence suggests the gun itself shouldn’t be outlawed, but sales of firearms to people ill-equipped with the knowledge of gun safety should be outlawed.  Unfortunately it seems we as a nation must choose the lesser of two evils, and enforce legislative restrictions on the right to own and sell firearms.  A total ban on firearms would not only impede on the peoples’ Second Amendment rights, but would a society with no way to protect itself be all that much safer?

An Analysis of BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.

   The Affordable Care Act is a beneficial act to provide our society with affordable health care which covers all of the basic medical needs of a human being. Congressman Jim Himes put it best when he declared that although a payment for these health plans might be a little heftier than the fifty dollar premiums Americans were used to paying, these plans would better insure the decline of annual emergency room care. The biggest debate however has been made over the requirement of companies including contraceptive coverage at no additional cost to their employees. According to the Green family, owners of the for-profit chain of Hobby Lobby stores, as well as the Hahn family who owns a woodworking corporation, this new requirement impedes not only their First Amendment right but violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The RFRA states “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…” (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991, Sec.3 42 USC 2000bb-1.) At the time this act was passed, the original purpose was to protect a person’s free exercise of religious practices. Now both families have brought their shared beliefs that the for-profit corporations they own and operate should also have those same rights. Because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Greens and Hahns, the ACA’s requirement to include contraceptive coverage now in fact violates the for-profit corporation’s right to religious freedom.

  According to the Supreme Court’s decision, requiring closely held corporations to provide health care plans with coverage of contraceptives at no additional cost, violates federal law which protects free exercise of religious freedom. Justice Alito summarized the court’s decision as “Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations,… protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.” (“Aborted, Once More”, The Economist, Jun 30th 2014, 15:42 by C.H., New York) The court ruled in a five to four decision that corporations do in fact deserve the same religious rights it’s owners have. The decision allows Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties (as well as any other closely held corporation that feels the same)  to exclude four specific types of contraception in the health care options made available to their employees. Scientifically speaking, these four types of contraception do not in fact cause a form of abortion, however due to christian beliefs the two companies believe they do in fact cause miscarriage or abortion of the fertilized egg.  Because this is due to a religious belief, companies are free to exclude them from the list of covered forms of contraception on account of their constitutional right to free-exercise, stated in both the First Amendment as well as the RFRA of 1993.

   In a fierce dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued she and the three other justices in disagreement believe  “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.” (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) Although the companies owners share these religious beliefs, who is to say that every employee working for said companies shares those beliefs as well? It is understandable in the dissenting justices views that a non-profit religious based company would fall under the free-exercise right, however it is non plausible that a multi-million dollar for-profit company employs workers of the same religious doctrine and only those employees that fit the bill. If this was the case, then the argument of employment discrimination would be the main focus here. Ginsburg also stated “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”(BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) The focus of the Contraceptive Mandate was to ensure a healthier and more affordable option for women’s reproductive health, but the court’s decision has now nixed the affordable option, making it increasingly difficult for a large percent of underprivileged women to afford most of the recommended forms of contraception. Ginsburg, although clearly pro-women’s rights, took it one step further in her dissent, making the claim “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude…The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. No. 13–354, 723 F. 3d 1114, affirmed; No. 13–356, 724 F. 3d 377, reversed and remanded.) If this decision does in fact make it possible for a company to deny certain forms of contraception, a closely held for-profit corporation led by a Scientologist can easily exclude blood work coverage for their employees. There are so many different medical advances that every religious doctrine denies as conforming to their secular beliefs, in Ginsburg’s opinion this could make things very difficult for both the court and on a broader spectrum, the Affordable Care Act in the future.

  In 1973, the case of Roe v. Wade established the illegality of abortion services directly violated the constitutional right of personal privacy. In ‘78, Congress made it clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was discrimination on the basis of sex. Later in 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees while excluding birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fast forward to 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act giving countless women the piece of mind that they would no longer have to make the choice between spending their last few dollars of a paycheck on contraception or food for their family. With the Court’s decision on the Contraceptive Mandate in regards to closely held for-profit corporations, our nation has successfully traveled back in time. As a sexually active young woman, I know the high cost of certain types of contraception. Luckily, I am blessed to have the financial means to cover those costs if the company I work for decides it is against their religious beliefs (beliefs I do not share) to offer contraception coverage. For thousands of others, these financial means are not available, and most of the women that fall into this category work for companies just like Hobby Lobby. These women need access to contraceptive coverage more than anyone. Our constitutional right to freedom of religion is not only to protect those who do believe in a higher power, but also those of us who do not. The colonists left England for America because of a dominant Catholic rule, everyone had to conform to the Catholic faith, and laws were enacted upon the Catholic doctrine. When the Constitution was drafted, the framers wanted to make every possible move to prevent this from happening in the great country of The United States of America. When we start making decisions on medical procedures and contraceptive care on the basis of religious beliefs, rather than scientific proof, our government is retracting its original stance on religious reform. With this in mind, I agree with the four dissenting justices wholeheartedly. In my opinion, our legislature must make decisions based on scientific evidence, not a religious belief that was created eons before science was even considered evidence. The Court’s decision, although trying to amend the violations to religious beliefs, has directly violated a woman’s right to choice, and the Green’s and Hahn’s have made it clear that they believe a woman’s boss is symbolically welcome in her bedroom.