Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc and its impact on freedom
Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc and its impact on freedom of religious or freedom exercise right.
Introduction
Obama care plays an important role in the law of Federal government of the United States. Among it, Affordable Care Act is a famous one because the controversy of it never stopped. It has been attracted time after time since it was enacted in 2010. What ‘more ACA faced its another query on 30th June, and this time is ultimate batter in the Supreme Court.
The justices made the judgment that a company really can use religious objections to object Obama care. Although the judgment of Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores is that the firms get religious exemptions from federal laws because of their religion, it also brings another problem which against people’s right to free exercise. Because in this case, many female employees lost their interest in exercise rights and that’s not the best result.
Main Body
Affordable Care Act requires that company should offer employees the preventive health care insurance include contraceptives for female employees. There is no doubt that it’s a good welfare for many employees in the companies. For female employees, this law helps them get more interest from the firms. In other words, it shows that the government pays attention to the humanity instruction of the whole society. It is well-known that Obama car is an important part the law which influences a lot in the Federal government of the United States. Every law should be passed without controversy. Only this can play its role adequately.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc as a closely held company, they have the right to refuse to offer employees the contraception medical insurance without any fines. The detail about this case is that there are two families and they are Christian and responsible for the business of Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. One family is the Greens, who own Hobby Lobby, a bookshop for Christian and a chain of craft. The other one is the Hahns who have the cabinet company-Wood Specialties. Obama care requires that companies have to offer health coverage to their workers, without a doubt that it includes the coverage of contraception without extra cost to the workers. There is no question that it’s a good act for many workers and be accept by a lot of people especially who are common and not rich enough. The two families claimed that some of those contraceptives can stop the normal implantation of fertilized egg in the uterine wall, it is equivalent to abortion. But Federal law defines pregnancy begins with implantation, but not fertilization. However, the issue was not only about before the religious belief of the two families was valid or not, but also the question that whether a firm with religious objection can be exempt from the law.
Religion Freedom and Free Exercise Right Against ACA
It is well-known that the First Amendment protects the right well to the free exercise of the religion. A law of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in 1993, and this low requires that the federal government shall not disturb a person’s exercise of religion, in essence, only if doing like this can restrict religion in the least way to improve a compelling government interest. In this case, the plaintiffs debated that Obama care’s content violated their religion rights under the law in1993. What’s more, Obama care harmed their interest in religion and made them feel injured in their heart. In other words, they felt that Affordable Care Act didn’t respect their religion in a way. So they refuse to agree with this law. According to Affordable Care Act, if the two families did not provide insurance coverage, their lawyers said, the company might face fines, the number of the fine is tremendous, nearly $475millions a year. There is no doubt that it was a substantial burden for the company.
The law was not the best way of least restrictive to give workers family planning, and the government had already approved exemptions to religious groups, for example, the churches, what’s more, made an exception in the favor of religious non-profits, for example, the Catholic universities. There is no real difference between f non-profits and or-profit, the lawyers claimed. They insisted on saying that their corporations engaged in some religious exercise frequently.
The federal government contradicted that this was absurd. Although the Greens and the Hahns are persons who are religious, there is a strict separation between the religion and the company which they created. The two families do not hire their workers by themselves, in other words, the workers were employed by Hobby Lobby. And a company has their rights and obligations that made their company differ from others of its owners. That means that they must subject to the federal law such as the Obama care in this case.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the government, adjudicated five to four against the federal government. To make more people to understand this, Samuel who is the justice explained that the law to cover contraception of female workers violated the 1993 law. The conservative justices debated that it is a limited effect of their ruling. And their decision, in this case, is concerned only with the contraceptive, not all mandate of company insurance.
The Immediately Effect on Employees
After this case, there is no doubt that Hobby Lobby and some similar companies will no longer be obliged to provide contraceptives to their religious beliefs, it means that these companies can do the things do not match the mandate. They don’t need to offer the contraceptives to the female workers, and this makes the female that works in these companies lost their equal rights and interest. On the other hand, the companies can refuse to abidance by another mandate of Affordable Care Act because of their freedom of religion. Therefore, the employees in these companies will loss more rights and interests although they are not religious.
Generally, contraceptives may not spend too much money for people who have higher incomes, and many rich people don’t care about this because it doesn’t influence them a lot. But for a large number of female employees of the enterprise who have the minimum wage, it is likely that a greater spending, so this welfare play an important role in their life, and if they don’t have this welfare, they will increase the burden of life although it is not much money.
Contraceptives are just a little part of the whole Affordable Care Act, but it can reflect the big problem of the whole law. In other words, if the mandate cannot be used in all firms, it will lose its true value because the people in the religious company will not get the welfare as others who work in the common company. More and more employees will question the legal effect of government.
The Long Term Effect of Burwell v Hobby Lobby Store
Undoubtedly, Hobby Lobby is a bad example for the law enforcement. That is if Hobby Lobby is exempt from Affordable Care Act, then there will be a large number of profitable companies claim that they are also religious group and escape the requirement of Affordable Care Act.
It is well-known that any perfect law develops with the continuous improvement. Therefore, Affordable Care Act has a long way to go. It should be changed more reasonable and completed and avoid anyone exploit loopholes of law. The case of Hobby Lobby has a wide impact. It affects the females’ interests. If the bosses are religious employers, they will lose more. Many women said that the adjudication of Supreme Court against American women and their families, in other words, it supported the bosses to discriminate against female workers. So the government should pay attention to the rights of women and safeguard them in many aspects such as abortion and contraception. What’s more, the decision 5:4 is based on justices’ party which shows the victory of the conservative party. It impacts not only the field of law but also the politics.
Conclusion
The judgment of Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores allowing corporations to claim religious exemptions from federal laws but also against people’s right to free exercise. Hobby Lobby will give up the many aspects of the medical inference. In short, the judgment of this case influences not only the legal effect of the law but also the order and culture of religion. Therefore, the case causes a great disturbance in the whole society. Freedom exercise right and religious rights should be considered thoughtfully. It will make the law to get its maximum value.