ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Spotlight On: The "Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision" Explained In Plain English

Updated on July 9, 2014

Published July 9, 2014

by Rachael O'Halloran

The source links in this article are for source or documentation purposes and should not be considered overly-promotional by either the reader or by anyone in HubPages Administration.

I would appreciate it if you would SHARE this article using the buttons on the right or with the following link, but please do not copy it. Thank you.

http://rachaelohalloran.hubpages.com/hub/Spotlight-On-The-Hobby-Lobby-Supreme-Court-Decision-Explained-In-Plain-English

Burwell vs Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts supply store
Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts supply store

Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

Along with consulting laypeople in Congress, President Obama, in perfecting the language of his Affordable Care Act, passed the buck to the professionals at the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). He gave them free reign, letting them decide what type of preventative care that employer based health plans should offer to women.

At the time, Kathleen Sebelius was Secretary of HHS so she had some input. That is why she was named on the original lawsuits contesting Obama's new healthcare law. When she resigned on April 10, 2014, Sylvia Mathews Burwell became the new Secretary of HHS and that is why you see her name on all the lawsuits - Burwell v Hobby Lobby.

Part of the Department of Health and Human Services is the HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration. This agency has several functions but in this case, its function was to specify what kinds of preventative care should be covered in certain employer-based health plans.

It was the HRSA who decided that all 20 of the FDA approved contraceptives and devices should be covered on ALL employee health plans. Companies who refused to cover women with all 20 forms of contraception would be subject to a fine of $100 per day - per employee.

They did allow that companies could, as an alternative, replace the employee's health care with higher wages so the employee could seek health care elsewhere at their own expense.

HRSA took it a step further, obviously with President Obama's blessing, to make religious employers exempt which included churches, religious orders and any associations within churches.

Perhaps if HRSA had never added this part, there would have been no case before the Supreme Court with Hobby Lobby.

Looking at it from the other side, if HRSA had never added the coverage part, women wouldn't have had access to multiple birth control choices via employer based health care plans.

A double-edged sword, to be sure.

The Final Wording Of The Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law on March 23, 2010 by President Obama which requires all employers to provide health insurance to their employees which includes essential health benefits and free preventative care and screenings.

In regard to female employees, the Act requires companies to provide them with no-cost access to 20 FDA approved forms of birth control.

An exemption was given to employers with less than 50 employees, as well as for churches, religious hospitals, schools and non-profit organizations.

However, the "for-profit" companies were required to comply with the terms of the Affordable Care Act or else pay fines of $100 per day, per employee until they came into compliance.

The Affordable Care Act seems to encroach on a few other laws, not to mention certain civil rights which is at the crux of this lawsuit.

If you want to learn more about the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, you can read it here. But for the intent of this article, the stated portions are all we need.

This lawsuit is not really complicated and although it took a year to get on the Supreme Court's docket, from presentation of arguments to final ruling only took two months.

Piece of cake, right? lol

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)

This act was signed by President Clinton in November 1993. It prohibits government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule which is required of everyone.

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

Questions Before The Supreme Court

1. Can the law require a family-owned business to provide health insurance for their female employees that includes certain birth control benefits and methods which they believe violates their religious beliefs?

2. Why do certain religious organizations get exemptions from The Affordable Care Act and not family-owned Christian centered businesses?

The point of filing this lawsuit was because Hobby Lobby's owners (the Green family) wanted an Obamacare exemption from having to provide and pay for certain birth control benefits, for example, the morning-after pill which the Green family believes brings about abortion.

This case was not to question their religious beliefs, nor the truth of the information on which it was based.

By requiring a family-owned company to provide and pay for the 20 FDA approved contraception benefits, four of which are against their religious beliefs and are pictured in the sidebar, the Green family asserts that the Affordable Care Act has violated their First Amendment rights and their rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act in one fell swoop.

This is the biggest lawsuit against the US Government questioning the government's intrusion into the lives of businesses run by "real people." (emphasis mine)

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

It's All In The Wording!

The success or failure of any lawsuit can turn on a dime if its wording is questionable, vague or if it could be taken in two (or more) ways.

To "PLAINLY say what you mean" is difficult in a litigation world where the legal language is anything but clear.

In my world, plain language works best which is what I try to use in most of my articles. In sections where I have cited "legalese," there are usually linked sources or sidebar explanations.

It is my hope that you will find this article understandable so that you come away with at least conversational knowledge of the precedent setting case.

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

The "Humanizing" Of Hobby Lobby

Because Hobby Lobby was viewed a "company" and not a "real person," the smartest thing the Green family did before getting to the Supreme Court level was to successfully petition a lower court to qualify and refer to the family-owned Hobby Lobby Company - as a "real person."

After winning that point, the wording in all the legal documents was now more user-friendly.

Hobby Lobby had a face ... the Green family.

It was far easier and believable to present this case from the standpoint of a "family of real people with the same religious beliefs who also operate a business,"

as opposed to

"a 21,000 employee Christian-centered company who have strong religious beliefs."

Oh, how easily prosecutors could have twisted up the wording of this case!

Narrowing it down to precise wording brought about the desired result and in the process managed to cut out the slew of arguments and possible future lawsuits that would have:

  • challenged if every one of the company's 21,000 employees had the same religious beliefs,
  • challenging the basis of their religious beliefs,
  • argued the meaning of when "life" begins in the womb and
  • argued what one believes is the function of certain birth control methods (whether or not it aids abortion, i.e. morning after pill, etc).

That may not seem like much of a big deal when you read it the way I wrote it, but seeing the Supreme Court ruling now, it allowed Hobby Lobby to go forth to present their argument that the Obamacare regulations were forcing the company to obey a law that went against their religious beliefs, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights.

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

Highlights of the Parts of the First Amendment Affecting This Case

The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government:

  • from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
  • from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another.
  • from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

Conestoga Wood Specialties

This is a for-profit Lancaster County, PA based furniture company of about 1200 employees, and is owned by the Hahn family, who are Mennonites.

In their appeal to the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, they claimed that it would be "sinful and immoral for them to pay for insurance that covers contraception for their female employees" under the Affordable Care Act.

The Third Circuit ruled against them and they appealed to the U S Supreme Court.

Mardel, Inc.

Based in Oklahoma, Mardel Inc is a closely-held for profit chain of 32 Christian educational stores in six US states. It is part of the Hobby Lobby group of companies, owned by Mart Green whose is the son of Hobby Lobby owners, David and Barbara Green.

Along with his father David Green, Mart Green and his wife rescued Oral Roberts University in 2007 by donating $70 million to wipe out their debt. Mart and his wife have donated a total of $110 million to the university to perform extensive renovations and technology improvements. Mart Green sits on their Board of Trustees since 2007.

Conestoga Wood Specialties and Mardel, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court citing violation of their First Amendment rights.

When Hobby Lobby filed with the same grounds in their lawsuit, Conestoga and Mardel merged with Hobby Lobby to sue the US government.

Hobby Lobby

This is a "closely held" for-profit Oklahoma City, OK based company, owned and operated by Pentecostal Christian billionaires David and Barbara Green, and their three children.

The words "closely held" must be defined in order to go forward.

A "closely held" corporation is one where more than half of the stock is owned (directly or indirectly) by five or fewer individuals, usually family members and/or close associates. The stock doesn't have to be publicly traded to be considered "closely held."

The three companies in this lawsuit - Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties. and Mardel - all are either controlled by or owned by a single family.

The Family Background And Beliefs Are Key To This Case

Their son, Steve Green is president of Hobby Lobby. Their daughter, Darsee Lett is creative director for the Hobby Lobby stores. Their son, Mart Green is founder and CEO of Mardel Christian and Educational Supply Inc, also in Oklahoma and a partner in this lawsuit.

David Green is the son of an Assembly of God pastor and the Greens' extended family members are devout Assembly of God church members and pastors.

David Green takes half of Hobby Lobby's total pretax earnings and donates to a list of evangelical ministries which includes $10.5 million in 2004 to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and helping his son Mart Green with $70 million to bail out Oral Roberts University in 2007. To date the family has donated at least $500 million to Christian based causes in the US, Africa and Asia.

The Green family has strict Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and they object to ending a life. They believe that two versions of the "morning after" pill and two kinds of IUD's are abortifacients, which end pregnancies by aborting them as opposed to preventing them.

Based on the fact that the law violates their religious beliefs, Hobby Lobby is suing the US government for a permanent exemption from the Affordable Care Act particularly the part which requires them to provide their female employees with access to 4 of the 20 FDA approved forms of birth control (pictured in the sidebar).

This lawsuit also claims the Affordable Care Act infringes on their right to freely practice their religion and they object to being forced to pay a fine if they don't follow the law.

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

Hobby Lobby's 4 Contraception Objections

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118547/facts-about-birth-control-and-hobby-lobby-ob-gyn
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118547/facts-about-birth-control-and-hobby-lobby-ob-gyn

Hobby Lobby's Position - Video from October 2012 - while case was still in Appeals Court

The US Government Policy on Emergency Contraception

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/major-methods-of-emergency-contraception-availability-and-policy-in-the-u-s1.png
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/major-methods-of-emergency-contraception-availability-and-policy-in-the-u-s1.png

The 4 Forms In Question

Copper IUD
Copper IUD
Mirena IUD
Mirena IUD

The Types of Contraception At Issue

All of the US government's lawyers spent considerable time arguing about the functions of the four kinds of contraception on Hobby Lobby's list. There were experts testifying that they were not abortifacients.

But when I read Justice Samuel Alito's 35 page opinion (which you can read here), the religious objection part of this case was not about whether those four kinds of birth control actually functioned as the Green family stated.

Instead, it was about what the Green family "believed" was the function of the four types of birth control, because their religious beliefs are based on what they believe the function of the methods and devices to be.

Here's a short description of each form, which are pictured in the sidebar:

Plan B is one form of the morning-after pill and when taken during a specific 48 hour period in the cycle, it works by stopping the release of the egg from the ovary and prevents the sperm from meeting the egg. If fertilization does happen, Plan B can also prevent the egg from attaching to the womb.

Ella is another form of the morning-after pill which also works by stopping ovulation, except it is said to be better than Plan B. The 30 milligram medication is said to have no ill effect on sperm, the fertilized egg or the uterine lining. However, higher doses do, so the egg cannot implant.

ParaGard is a copper IUD which damages the sperm and egg, blocks the route for the sperm to the egg and helps prevent implantation for pregnancy.

Mirena is an IUD which changes cervical mucus, thins the lining of the uterus and blocks implantation of the egg.

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

The Final Supreme Court Ruling

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5 votes to 4, that "closely held" stock corporations can choose to be exempt from the law based on religious preferences.

Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel won their case.

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

CNN Explains The Ruling

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

6/30/2014 - After The Win: Interview With Hobby Lobby's Attorney

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

6/30/2014 - Reactions To Hobby Lobby Ruling

~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

Your Understanding Of This Case

How well did this article help you to understand the facts of the Hobby Lobby case?

See results

What Do You Think?

Your comments are just as important as everyone else's, so don't be shy.

It doesn't matter if your views are pro or con. All comments are welcomed.

© Rachael O'Halloran, July 9, 2014

© 2014 Rachael O'Halloran

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • RachaelOhalloran profile image
    Author

    Rachael O'Halloran 3 years ago from United States

    #vkwok,

    That is very true. Well said :)

  • vkwok profile image

    Victor W. Kwok 3 years ago from Hawaii

    I believe that all, and I mean ALL are supposed to be entitled religious freedom. Meaning, even though the Greens have the right to pursue their religion, doesn't mean they should enforce it on other people. The employees have their own beliefs, and have every right to follow those beliefs, even if it goes against the Greens' beliefs.

  • RachaelOhalloran profile image
    Author

    Rachael O'Halloran 3 years ago from United States

    #FlourishAnyway

    Enough said :)

  • FlourishAnyway profile image

    FlourishAnyway 3 years ago from USA

    I am a firm and committed non-shopper at Hobby Lobby. You couldn't pay me to shop there. Or work there. Not no way. Not no how. That is all I will say.

  • RachaelOhalloran profile image
    Author

    Rachael O'Halloran 3 years ago from United States

    #breakfastpop,

    So much of what Obama has done isn't legal, yet nothing has been done about it. I don't know whether they don't want to remove him for fear of getting VP Biden in the Oval office or what, but the word impeachment doesn't seem to be bandied about too often like it was with Bill Clinton.

    The Hobby Lobby ruling is a case that will be referred to for years, even if it is overturned. I can't remember too many Supreme Court decisions being overturned in my 67 years, but I'd have to research it to know for sure. I don't know whether overturning the decision will be a good thing or not because more lawsuits about religious freedoms being attacked are sure to be filed.

    For the Green family to cite their religious beliefs as to the reason they don't want to provide 4 out of the 20 methods, it makes me curious how they draw the righteous distinction between birth control (prevents life) and abortion (kills life).

    Granted one is worse than the other via harm value and morality, but if one is hanging out their religious beliefs as a shingle of righteousness, surely preventing life is as against the Bible as killing life. Just saying...

    About employee benefits - I have a daughter who opts out of medical benefits so that her company pays her to not take them. She is covered on her husband's much better plan. I wonder if the Green family has an opt out clause where they pay employees not to take the coverage and if they pay them too. Religious beliefs aside, the flip side of the coin is one they can certainly afford, but will they find a legal loophole to go back to Court so they don't have to pay that too.

    I remember reading about the Chanukah incident on Wikipedia when I was researching the company background. They were quick to make sure they started stocking their stores to avoid more public backlash.

    This case set a precedent for any "closely-held" company (family owned or where more than half of the stock is owned by 5 or less people) to apply for the dispensation so they don't have to comply, thereby getting off the hook for the fine.

    I wonder how many companies are now going to "get religion" so they don't have to comply or pay a fine..................

    Thanks for your comment, your support and your votes :)

  • RachaelOhalloran profile image
    Author

    Rachael O'Halloran 3 years ago from United States

    #bravewarrior

    It is a very personal matter and I guess I should keep my views to myself because having 5 children and losing two others in second trimesters, I have strong opinions about the issues. Thanks for your comments and visits. :)

  • breakfastpop profile image

    breakfastpop 3 years ago

    I am not sure where I stand on this issue. Obama brought lawsuits like this upon himself because he personally changed the ACA so many times. That wasn't legal. As for the decision, Hobby Lobby still provides 16 types of contraception to their employees. If the benefits aren't acceptable, people shouldn't work there. That is exactly what is going to happen when other companies opt not to provide any coverage at all and pay a fine. Having said all of this, Hobby Lobby claims they don't discriminate against other religions, but I recall that a store near me refused to carry any Chanukah decorations. When I heard that, I refused to shop at the store. That is freedom to me. I expect that the Green's feel that for them freedom is the right to express their religious beliefs. Voted up, interesting and awesome, as usual.

  • bravewarrior profile image

    Shauna L Bowling 3 years ago from Central Florida

    Rachael, I think this is a very personal matter and should be left up to the woman. The employer has no business butting into someone's private affairs. Even abortion is a very personal matter and a tough decision for anyone to make. But the choice should be left up to the woman. She's the one who has to live with it - no one else. Until we have walked in those shoes, we has humans have no right to judge, deny, or mandate.

  • RachaelOhalloran profile image
    Author

    Rachael O'Halloran 3 years ago from United States

    #bravewarrior, Hello :)

    Yes, in my comment just above yours, I asked the same question - aren't they discriminating against their employees by imposing their religious beliefs on them because they choose to cherry pick that part of the benefit package?

    Getting a Supreme Court ruling, to my view, gets them off the hook for future lawsuits from employees who have a mind to sue for discrimination of the benefit package which is now mandated by the ACA law. This SC ruling means no one can sue Hobby Lobby (or anyone else now) for leaving out those 4 items.

    I wonder if anyone else picked up on this -- but I thought the lady in their video looked almost brainwashed - - sort of like a Stepford wife (showing my age here!). She was over-rehearsed, in my opinion and it just looked maybe --- not fake, but I guess the word I'm looking for is "staged" or "overly staged."

    Thanks for your comment about religious freedom. I called it discrimination in my comment because I seem to be reading too many legal briefs lately and that's the fashionable word these days. I'm sure "religious freedom" will soon become fashionable usage in upcoming lawsuits because of this case.

    As far as screening employees, unless someone comes across a condemning internal memo, or a prospective employee reveals the Q & A of the interview process - we can't expect to see too many companies exposed in practicing this behavior.

    Millionaire or billionaire, being a philanthropist to bail out religious organizations or not - I had to include it in my article because it was a central part of how they presented their case showing the Greens' historical religious belief system.

    But if I put that aside, and just focus on the actual 4 methods and the "correct way" they were meant to be used - instead of constantly touting them as abortifacients to be their primary purpose - I can't help but wonder about the rape victim or life threatening event a woman (possibly one of their employees) would have to face and not be able to have access to it because their insurance wouldn't cover them for it. Sort of like the lung or heart transplant patient whose insurance won't cover the organ or the surgery - certainly not as grave to equate but similar in comparison. People have been denied many organs because of insurance reasons, which is just not fair to anyone.

    The law says "access for free" which means the employer has to pay a premium to the insurance company to provide it in the benefit package. Because it is part of 20 methods, it can't cost that much to include them and now to exclude them will cost manpower, paperwork and other ridiculous efforts to make sure religious organizations don't get that package deal.

    Although cost was downplayed (possibly because of their wealth) and religious beliefs were the central focus, I don't feel the Court looked at the positives of all 4 of those methods and instead only focused on what the Greens kept repeating as the negatives which they built into their case for religious beliefs.

    I'm all for religious freedom, but I also I don't support routine abortions. I think many skip over the words "for emergency use" and just use the abortifacients routinely because they are careless or lazy about other forms of birth control.

    I'm still on the fence about aborting a baby whose heartbeat I can feel. I think it takes personally going through a miscarriage to make a woman really know the impact of the stand she takes about abortifacient use.

  • bravewarrior profile image

    Shauna L Bowling 3 years ago from Central Florida

    I think this lawsuit discriminates against the employees' religious beliefs. The Greens are claiming religious freedom. What about the freedom of the women who work for them? Do they screen potential employees to ensure they fit in with the religious beliefs of the founders? That's illegal if they do.

    I feel the Greens are being hypocrites. In the short video presented by a Hobby Lobby employee, she states the Greens respect all religious beliefs and the individual's rights to exercise those beliefs. This lawsuit clearly states the opposite.

  • RachaelOhalloran profile image
    Author

    Rachael O'Halloran 3 years ago from United States

    #suzettenaples

    Yes, about 2 hours ago, I did read that there are about 35 Democrat senators talking about introducing a bill to overturn the ruling. I read that Republican House Speaker John Boehner praised the court’s ruling that day, because he felt it was another nail in Obama's coffin for pushing so many of his programs through and abusing his power.

    Whether he did or not shouldn't be the issue in this case. It should be about the four birth control methods, freedom of religion, and health care benefits for all women.

    My goal with this hub was to not only explain what the case was about but also to hopefully start a conversation so readers can say where they stand or give an opinion about the outcome. I was trying to hold my opinion until someone commented so the hub would be presented as impartially as possible.

    Although I am pro-life, I am also very much in favor of equality. If a closely held for profit Christian based company will not provide FULL benefits to all female employees, those women who need them may go elsewhere for employment. Unfortunately it is not always feasible to do that where job security is key.

    It's kind of strange when you think about the reason Hobby Lobby was objecting to the law -- because it went against their religious beliefs to provide the 4 forms of birth control to their female employees.

    But aren't they actually pushing their religious beliefs off on their employees by telling them why they will not be providing those four benefits?

    The one thing I feel about the Court's decision and that I haven't seen anyone else bring up is that it discriminates against the women who will not be able to obtain FULL medical benefits while working for any company who chooses to cherry-pick what benefits they will provide.

    However, I can't push certain birth control methods or devices to the wayside if I know that an employer will be allowed to pick and choose what benefits they want to provide for their female employees, whether they cite religious beliefs or some other loophole they can find in the law.

    Although the 4 methods they cited can be used both positively and negatively, I have to keep in mind that "emergency" use in the event of a rape or life threatening event to the mother will necessitate the need for any one of the four. If that happened to a woman in the Green family, would they bend their own religious belief to pro-actively make sure that life threatening event didn't kill their family member?

    I remember back in the 1960s and 1970s, health benefits were a luxury and not automatically provided by employers. At that time, they decided what they would provide for their employees because it was a "benefit" of the job. Whatever they deemed to give you, you took it and if you could use it, you did and if you couldn't, then it stayed on your benefit package unless you opted out it, to save the employer some money.

    I think this decision will make employers go back to those days where they will pick and choose what they want to give employees. This ruling gave them the "out" they needed to be able to do that.

    Back in the day, the Supreme Court ruling was the final say. Now with so many laws on the books, and where precedents are set all the time, the idiom that "laws were made to be broken" can be altered to read "laws were made to be overturned."

    It will be interesting to follow the new legislation and lawsuits filed to contest this ruling and to see how this whole issue will pan out.

    The case was decided by the Supreme Court in less than two months. The repercussions of it will go on for many years, before there is a final ruling - if there ever is a final ruling. Appeals and legislation can go on for years like Roe v Wade did. Either way, there will be one side who will not be happy.

    Thanks for being the first and only commenter so far. :)

  • suzettenaples profile image

    Suzette Walker 3 years ago from Taos, NM

    The good news is that several senators are writing a bill that will nullify the court's decision and make Hobby Lobby and the other companies comply fully with the ACA. They will not be able to refuse any type of contraceptives to their employees.