Rock the Vote on Tumblr

Guest Post from Rock the Vote Intern Drew Ackerman

Can a for-profit organization deny its employees insurance coverage for contraceptives due to religious reasons? In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court has decided that the answer to this question is sometimes.  In a 5-4 vote earlier this morning, the Court decided that some private businesses are not required to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. 

This requirement is often called the “Contraceptive Mandate” and was created by the Affordable Care Act. Although the court recognized the importance of providing this coverage, it also considered several other factors, including the deeply held religious beliefs of the company owners and management and the potential fines faced by these companies (hundreds of millions of dollars). 

This decision could impact many young people who are entering the workforce or dreaming of starting their own business. While the effect of this case on young people is still up for debate, one thing’s certain:  young people were involved in the public debate and felt free to promote their respective beliefs and opinions.

This case fueled the ongoing national debate about healthcare and religious freedom. According to a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, 61% of the public supports the contraceptive mandate, whereas 32% oppose it.

In March of 2014, when oral arguments were heard, hundreds of people gathered outside of the Supreme Court to express their opinions. Fusion interviewed Millennials who supported the two different sides of the case, including a member of the Family Research Counsel named Nathan Oppman. Oppman told Fusion, “I really support religious liberty. I’m thankful that we live in a country that’s respected people’s rights to practice their faith outside of the four walls of their church… if people step back and say, ‘This case is really about whether or not you can practice something you believe in when you own a business…,’ I think if people understand that more, it would allow them to get involved.”

In the same vein as Oppman, another Millennial named Rebecca Downs told Fusion, “I’m here in support of Hobby Lobby because I believe the government should not be forcing businesses and business owners to have to sacrifice their religious beliefs.”

Those opposed to Hobby Lobby’s position also shared their thoughts on this landmark SCOTUS decision. According to Advocates for Youth, young women would be disproportionately affected if the Supreme Court were to rule for Hobby Lobby.  AFY research indicates that before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, 55% of young women said they had experienced a time where they could not afford to consistently use birth control.

AFY speculated that a decision for Hobby Lobby might force thousands of women back into this situation. It also noted that low-income teenagers also have a difficult time obtaining emergency contraceptives due to its price, which could make insurance coverage of this particular form of contraception all the more important.  

Now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, both sides of the issue are taking to Twitter to express their feelings about the decision. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (@PPact) is making use of the hashtag “#NotMyBossBusiness” to express their disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision. They recently tweeted:

It’s unbelievable that in 2014, we’re still fighting about whether women should have access to birth control. #notmybossbusiness

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact)

June 30, 2014

On the other side of the aisle, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee tweeted:

The #HobbyLobby decision protects religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. We’re grateful #SCOTUS ruled on the side of liberty.

— Reince Priebus (@Reince)

June 30, 2014

This case was brought to the Supreme Court in light of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, which says that businesses must provide health insurance plans that cover contraceptives. Those in Hobby Lobby’s camp, specifically founder and CEO David Green and his family, believe that the ACA’s contraception mandate impedes on their religious freedom.

Given the Green family’s deeply rooted religious convictions, they oppose providing women with emergency contraceptive pills as well as with intrauterine devices (IUDs), because they think that providing these contraceptive methods gives them a hand in abortion.  

On the other side of the issue stands Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sebelius pushed to uphold the contraceptive mandate, which requires businesses to provide coverage of the 20 birth control methods currently approved by the FDA.   When the ACA was enacted, the law did exempt religious non-profit organizations from the mandate (such as Christian charities). However, Hobby Lobby was forced to abide by the mandate because they are a for-profit corporation.

Walter Dellinger, former Clinton Administration Solicitor General, filed a brief siding with Sebelius, which argued that the thousands of Hobby Lobby employees should not be expected to have the same religious beliefs as the Green family. He said that their employees would have to contribute significantly to their own health care if they needed contraceptives that Hobby Lobby refuses to cover.

Regardless of where you stand on this case and its outcome, we’re sure you agree with one thing: We’re glad that this SCOTUS term is over! While the Supremes are resting, we can focus our attention where it matters: the voting booth in November.

(Photo Credit)