Part 1 Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Part 2 Implications if Hobby Lobby Wins Part 3 Implications if Hobby Lobby Loses PART 1 Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby 9 Supreme Court Justices 3 females and 6 males Hobby Lobby Owned by the Green family – belong to Southern Baptist church Roughly 13,000 employees Kathleen Sebelius Health & Human Services Secretary Oral arguments were March 25, 2014; ruling expected late June 2014 Opposed to 4 out of the 20 types of contraceptives IUD made out of copper IUD that includes progestin Plan B (emergency contraceptive) Ella (emergency contraceptive) Opposed to related education and counseling Believe the 4 forms cause abortions Requirement to cover the 4 forms violates religious beliefs There are 2 main sides to this case Hobby Lobby Supporters Believe it is an infringement against 1 st Amendment rights Government Supporters Believe a company should not be able to pick and choose what benefits the insurance policy covers Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) allow a for-profit corporation to deny contraceptive coverage based on the religious views of the owner Are the 1st Amendment rights of non-profit owners more important than the rights of a corporation owner National Institute of Health, Mayo Clinic, and International Federation of OB/GYN all agree: “the morning-after pill does not prevent implantation, the medical beginning of pregnancy” It prevents fertilization the same way the 16 types of contraception Hobby Lobby approves of do RU-486/Mifeprex (abortion pill) is not considered a contraceptive; therefore, is not covered under Affordable Care Act PART 2 Implications if Hobby Lobby Wins Sotomayer regarding United States vs. Lee (1982) Slippery slope effect regarding other healthcare related issues Sets a precedent that companies could impose religious beliefs on employees Decreases the pool of willing employees to work for Hobby Lobby A lawsuit regarding sex discrimination would likely be filed Opens the flood gates for other discrimination cases Public backlash Decrease in competitive advantage Stance is hypocritical based on where their suppliers are located PART 3 Implications if Hobby Lobby Loses Companies might eventually be forced to recognize same-sex marriage in regard to including domestic partners on health insurance coverage Hobby Lobby will choose to pay the fine vs. provide coverage Religious liberty loses meaningfulness Opens up doors to government requiring other religious to go against their beliefs (Quaker example) Maintains initial precedent set for how corporations are viewed in relation to their corporate veil (would uphold Domino’s Pizza vs. McDonald) Protects the religious rights of employees Hobby Lobby could potentially have access to health records since it is self-insured (HIPAA loophole) Potential to set precedent for limiting other 1 st Amendment rights CONCLUSION A company’s right to do something does not mean the company should do something… Provide an insurance policy that covers all forms of contraception OR Replace healthcare coverage with higher wages and a calibrated tax http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-storesinc/ http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-knowabout-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-courtobamacare http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraceptionmandate/ http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featuredarticles/2013/december/08/hobby-lobby-case-is-about-rights,-notcontraceptives.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebelius_v._Hobby_Lobby#Implications