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.

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.