Civil and Human Rights

TV (FOX): Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Tuesday on Challenge to ObamaCare Birth Control Rule

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on a key challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

 

The issue at hand is whether family-owned for-profit businesses can be forced to provide cost-free access to certain contraceptive coverage for employees, even if complying with the mandate violates the business owners’ religious beliefs.

 

The Affordable Care Act mandates that women who get employer-sponsored health plans receive the full range of contraceptives approved by the FDA at no extra charge.

 

Some businesses have sued over covering any form of birth control. But the two businesses involved in the Supreme Court case are willing to cover contraceptives except for drugs and devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized.

 

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. do not want to pay for emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as two IUDs.

 

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby, which is owned by the Green family, has more than 15,000 full-time employees at more than 600 craft stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who say their “religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception.”

 

Conesta Wood Specialties Corp. is based in East Earl, Pa., and is owned by a Menonite family. The business employs 950 people.

 

Both companies say they only oppose paying for birth control methods that can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus because they believe life starts at conception.

 

Lori Windham, of the Becket Fund, and Elizabeth Wydra, of the Constitutional Accountability Center, discussed the case on America’s News Headquarters today.

 

“This is unquestionably a religious exercise,” Windham said.

 

“It’s hard to square Hobby Lobby’s vision of the First Amendment with the way that it’s been practiced for the last more than 200 years,” Wydra argued.

 

Watch the video above for more.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2025

CAC RELEASE: At Stanley Oral Argument, Questioning Focuses on Narrow Ground for Resolving Employment Discrimination Case in Favor of a Retiree with a Disability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v....
Civil and Human Rights
December 30, 2024

Top Contributor Essays of 2024

The Regulatory Review
The Regulatory Review is pleased to revisit our top regulatory essays of 2024, each authored by...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment.