Healthcare
Hobby lobby and obamacare:
aborted, once more
A major, and understandable, focus of the Obama administration is affordable and accessible healthcare--its importance is emphasized through the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Assuming all of its objectives are fully executed, the act would bring an end to pre-existing condition exclusions for children and lifetime limits on coverage, ensure that young adults are covered under their parent's healthcare plan, and guarantee a person's right to appeal their specific insurance plan. Additionally, under Obamacare, each state is allowed to decide whether to offer plans that cover abortions; conversely, states also have the power to enact strict bans on that type of coverage--sparking tension on both sides of the "reproductive rights debate." However, since the days of its enactment in 2010, the chosen approach has been the target of much scrutiny, facing doubts, criticisms, and castigation from right-wing conservative. The act, now familiarly dubbed "Obamacare", has recently received a harsh blow to its foundation and objectives from a Supreme Court ruling. The outcome of Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc , allows that a company can justifiably raise religious objections against certain policies instituted under "Obamacare."
The Supreme Court has ruled that "closely held companies," companies that have a small group of controlling shareholders, can refuse to provide its employees coverage for contraceptive methods, like birth control pills, without fear of being fined. The case advanced as two Christian families initiated legal action in regards to their family businesses; the Green family owns Hobby Lobby and Mardel, a chain of crafts shops and a Christian bookstore, respectively--the Hahn family owns Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet company. "Obamacare" requires companies to offer their employees health coverage, including coverage for contraceptive methods, at no additional cost to the worker. The Green and Hahn family believe that some of the contraception approaches, like preventing a "fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall," are basically abortion. Their beliefs contradict federal laws derived from the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment--furthermore, federal laws regarding abortion state that pregnancy is defined from "implantation, not fertilization." The question brought forth by the case, initially if the families' beliefs were well-founded, developed into whether a company can be "exempt from federal law" because of its owners "religious objections."
It is commonplace knowledge that the First Amendment of the Constitution ensures the right to the ""free exercise" of religion"--however, the boundaries and exceptions of the well-known amendment are involved in a seemingly endless debate of perception and interpretation. In 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed, a law that further expanded upon the aforementioned principle. Under the law, the government "shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion;" an exception to the law is if doing so will accelerate an imperative government concernment. The Green and Hahn families claim that the "Obamacare" directive violated their rights, using the 1993 law as justification. If Hobby Lobby refused to provide the healthcare coverage plan that included abortion benefits, it would face federal fines of at least $475 million a year. The plaintiffs' argument was the the directive was not the "least restrictive way" to provide birth control, being that the government has already given exemptions to religious institutions--churches, religious non-profits, Catholic universities, etc.
The government called this argument "ridiculous." While acknowledging that the plaintiffs are clearly "persons who exercise religion," the government sees a "critical separation between the [plaintiffs] and the corporation[s] they have elected to create."The government reinforces the concept of objectivity when reminding viewers of the case that "the Greens do not personally employ their workers; Hobby Lobby does." A company has the right to have beliefs and duties that differ from those of its owners. On the other hand, the Supreme Court disagree with the government's viewpoint on the scope of "Obamacare"--at the end of deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled five to four against the government. Justice Samuel Alito, who believes that the mandate to cover contraception does in fact violates the 1993 law, wrote: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations, protects the religious liberty of the humans who own...them." However, conservative justices defend their decision by ensuring that the ruling would have "limited effect"--that is, it would deal solely with the "contraceptive mandate;" additionally, the ruling is exclusive to closely held companies.
Needless to say, the ruling has a substantial effect on women who work for religious employers...yet wish to have the option of having coverage for contraceptive methods; obviously the Supreme Court decision only sparked more controversy and conflicting opinions in the debate of women's rights. Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, believes that the Supreme Court directly ruled against American women by "giving bosses the right to discriminate...and deny...[female] employees access to birth control coverage." This Supreme Court ruling may have generated a small victory for right-wing conservatives but simultaneously generated a harsh blow to the Obama administration, the pro-choice movement, and female employees who seek healthcare plans that cover abortion and contraception.
Regardless of my religious views, or lack thereof, I do not believe that employers and companies should be given the power to mandate such personal aspects of their employees lives, specifically their female employees. As an advocate for the pro-choice movement, I believe that what a woman chooses to do regarding both her sexual activity and her decision to have or not have children are completely her own--they should not be controlled by an employer who chooses to impose their religious beliefs among their employees in a workplace setting (or any setting for that matter.) Eliminate the religion. Eliminate the politics. Eliminate the economy. In the end, the very personal and private choice of taking contraceptives or having an abortion should be protected in that, the choice to do so should be left entirely to the female employee...and not her boss.
The Supreme Court has ruled that "closely held companies," companies that have a small group of controlling shareholders, can refuse to provide its employees coverage for contraceptive methods, like birth control pills, without fear of being fined. The case advanced as two Christian families initiated legal action in regards to their family businesses; the Green family owns Hobby Lobby and Mardel, a chain of crafts shops and a Christian bookstore, respectively--the Hahn family owns Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet company. "Obamacare" requires companies to offer their employees health coverage, including coverage for contraceptive methods, at no additional cost to the worker. The Green and Hahn family believe that some of the contraception approaches, like preventing a "fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall," are basically abortion. Their beliefs contradict federal laws derived from the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment--furthermore, federal laws regarding abortion state that pregnancy is defined from "implantation, not fertilization." The question brought forth by the case, initially if the families' beliefs were well-founded, developed into whether a company can be "exempt from federal law" because of its owners "religious objections."
It is commonplace knowledge that the First Amendment of the Constitution ensures the right to the ""free exercise" of religion"--however, the boundaries and exceptions of the well-known amendment are involved in a seemingly endless debate of perception and interpretation. In 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed, a law that further expanded upon the aforementioned principle. Under the law, the government "shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion;" an exception to the law is if doing so will accelerate an imperative government concernment. The Green and Hahn families claim that the "Obamacare" directive violated their rights, using the 1993 law as justification. If Hobby Lobby refused to provide the healthcare coverage plan that included abortion benefits, it would face federal fines of at least $475 million a year. The plaintiffs' argument was the the directive was not the "least restrictive way" to provide birth control, being that the government has already given exemptions to religious institutions--churches, religious non-profits, Catholic universities, etc.
The government called this argument "ridiculous." While acknowledging that the plaintiffs are clearly "persons who exercise religion," the government sees a "critical separation between the [plaintiffs] and the corporation[s] they have elected to create."The government reinforces the concept of objectivity when reminding viewers of the case that "the Greens do not personally employ their workers; Hobby Lobby does." A company has the right to have beliefs and duties that differ from those of its owners. On the other hand, the Supreme Court disagree with the government's viewpoint on the scope of "Obamacare"--at the end of deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled five to four against the government. Justice Samuel Alito, who believes that the mandate to cover contraception does in fact violates the 1993 law, wrote: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations, protects the religious liberty of the humans who own...them." However, conservative justices defend their decision by ensuring that the ruling would have "limited effect"--that is, it would deal solely with the "contraceptive mandate;" additionally, the ruling is exclusive to closely held companies.
Needless to say, the ruling has a substantial effect on women who work for religious employers...yet wish to have the option of having coverage for contraceptive methods; obviously the Supreme Court decision only sparked more controversy and conflicting opinions in the debate of women's rights. Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, believes that the Supreme Court directly ruled against American women by "giving bosses the right to discriminate...and deny...[female] employees access to birth control coverage." This Supreme Court ruling may have generated a small victory for right-wing conservatives but simultaneously generated a harsh blow to the Obama administration, the pro-choice movement, and female employees who seek healthcare plans that cover abortion and contraception.
Regardless of my religious views, or lack thereof, I do not believe that employers and companies should be given the power to mandate such personal aspects of their employees lives, specifically their female employees. As an advocate for the pro-choice movement, I believe that what a woman chooses to do regarding both her sexual activity and her decision to have or not have children are completely her own--they should not be controlled by an employer who chooses to impose their religious beliefs among their employees in a workplace setting (or any setting for that matter.) Eliminate the religion. Eliminate the politics. Eliminate the economy. In the end, the very personal and private choice of taking contraceptives or having an abortion should be protected in that, the choice to do so should be left entirely to the female employee...and not her boss.