Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches. …show more content…
Issue: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-revenue business to refute its employees ' health attention of contraception to which the workers would then be allowed based on the religious oppositions of the company 's …show more content…
Opinion: I believe with the ruling. I am on the same page with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. I agree 100% with his writing for the court, which stated that family-owned companies like Hobby Lobby should not be enforced to recompense for insurance coverage for contraception for workers over their religious oppositions. I believe that this ruling is accurate because it means that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is efficient and does what it says that it does. With a lot of things going on in the land and not very many laws being enforced , it was good to see that this one was applied correctly to the case. I agree with Justice Alito when he writes that there are other means that the government could guarantee that women will have admission to the four contraceptives which were a problem in the case in court. In fact, Justice Alito transcribes, the system the government arranged to permit workers of religious nonprofit administrations to get some access to these contraceptives would serve the world of for-profit companies also. Going forward it also sends a message to other corporations that might be going through a similar
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The court ruled eight-to-one, with Justice Antonia Scalia delivering majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia said there was not much to think when he heard about the case. He said Abercrombie clearly did not hire Elauf because of her accomodating her religious practice. The justices believed religion should not be involved when deciding who to hire. The only time it might be condidered is when hiring people who is practicing their religion would make the company to have “undue harship”.
Hobby Lobby, I was on the fence about how I felt. I first completely agreed with the Green’s because it is their right to say no to something that goes totally against their beliefs. As the Greens believe that life begins at conception, these contraceptives are killing a baby in their minds and religion. They don’t think of it as a fertilized egg, they think of it as a little human being that they are paying for their employees to get rid off. For a department to mandate that is totally wrong.
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a landmark victory for religious liberty, ruling that family-owned corporations do not lose their religious freedom and could hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act. The decision caused and uproar and ignited protests around the nation. No matter how unpopular the ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby was or how you feel about contraceptives, the ruling was a victory for believers who seek to live by faith and arguably, no other family in America, fit this mold more than the Green family. David Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder, and CEO, consistently made business decisions and choices based on biblical principles and his
A recent federal lawsuit has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) challenging the constitutionality of three provisions of the Setonia’s Abortion Laws. The three provisions ACLU are challenging are as follows (McCauliff): • Law which prevents state health officials from renewing or issuing licenses to abortion clinics located with 2000 feet of an elementary school (McCauliff). • Law which requires physicians performing abortions to complete 10 hours annually of continuing medical education on abortion procedures (McCauliff). • Law which requires abortion providers to give every patient a copy of her medical records, regardless of whether the patient requests such records (McCauliff).
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning.
56. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989): The Court upheld Missouri restrictions on abortions that “public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother 's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy.” It was a fractured decision that seemed to contradict Roe v. Wade but the court decided to not revisit any parts of Roe v. Wade after this case. The Missouri restrictions did not violate the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Right to Abortion On January 22, 1973, in a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down it’s landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians (Planned Parenthood). There are many moments in history when Roe v. Wade has been so close to being overturned, yet it is still in place. Abortion should stay legal, or not overturned, for the health of women everywhere. First, this important case took place at the time of abortion being illegal in most states, including Texas, where Roe v. Wade began.
This is the key Supreme Court ruling I have selected to analyze. The law being challenged was about the decision by women to have abortion without the interference from politicians. The case was held on January 22, 1973 by the Supreme Court where it handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. The court recognized the constitutional rights to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decision. The government entity that was part of the case was the politicians (Joyce, 2013).
With almost half the nation divided among their views, abortion remains one of the most controversial topics in our society. Since Roe v. Wade, our views in society as well as following court cases have been progressing toward the woman’s right to choose. The precedent set by Roe v. Wade made the Supreme Court acknowledge that it cannot rule specifically when life begins and it also affirms that it is the woman’s right to have an abortion under the 14th Amendment. In the 1st Amendment, the Establishment Clause forbids the government from passing laws “which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another”. Many Christian pro-lifers use their religious beliefs to dispute when life begins.
“On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, a challenge to a Texas statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman’s life was at stake. The case had been filed by “Jane Roe,” an unmarried woman who wanted to safely and legally end her pregnancy. Siding with Roe, the court struck down the Texas law. In its ruling, the court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Roe v. Wade, 1973).
As a woman, I believe that my rights should not be determined by some man in Washington DC. Instead, everyone should be entitled to their own opinion. Abortions and contraceptives are not procedures or medications that women usually advertise and frankly, it is none of government’s business what women choose to do with their own bodies. They are not the property of men or the
In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership.
The perfect example of this issue is the Hobby Lobby case (Source #1). The issue started after the company refused to provide healthcare for their employees that support abortions. The government immediately stepped in even though it was the company 's religious beliefs. This decision should have been left to the church. The Hobby Lobby company has the right as a Christian ran business, to refuse any non-biblical procedures the government is trying to force upon
By removing this support, women who choose or have chosen abortion now feel as though they are the ones in the wrong, not the law. There is no doubt this law was set in place in hopes women would feel guilty and change their minds about abortion. Even if the women still choose to abort after this, they will feel more uncomfortable and ashamed about their