BY TRISHA OJEA — On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that closely held corporations, like Hobby Lobby, are not required to pay for all birth control procedures mandated by the Affordable Care Act if they claim religious objections. Specifically, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The RFRA prohibits “the ‘Government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability’ unless the Government ‘demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.’”
The Court assumes that the interest guaranteeing cost-free access to contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering this interest. 573 U. S. ____ (2014). Religious nonprofits, such as churches and religious hospitals, are exempt from the HHS mandate, and employees still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives. However, as noted in Ginsburg’s dissent, the “Court barely pauses to inquire whether any burden imposed by the contraceptive coverage requirement is substantial.” Furthermore, “those beliefs, however deeply held, do not suffice to sustain a RFRA claim.”
“President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”(White House Blog). This decision has “upheld religious freedom,” but is effects on women, especially low-income women who cannot afford to buy birth control, are deleterious. The Hobby Lobby decision has the power to disproportionately affect women living in poverty. (Social Justice Solutions). As Justice Ginsburg quantified in her dissent, “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage, that almost one-third of women would change their contraceptive method if costs were not a factor, and that only one-fourth of women who request an IUD actually have one inserted after finding out how expensive it would be.”
The effects of Hobby Lobby are still unknown, but its disparity among women, especially for those living in poverty who cannot afford contraceptives, is undesirable.
—
Trisha Ojea is a 2015 Staff Editor of the Race and Social Justice Law Review.
For updates about our journal, visit our Facebook and our Twitter.
