Bryn McCarthy

Pro-ACA Exemption

On June 30th of 2014, the Supreme Court made a ruling that shook the
discussion about religious and reproductive rights by affirming a
corporations right to exercise religious beliefs. As of 2010, the Affordable
Care Act contained a contraception mandate which forced companies
insurance to cover all 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA, four of which
(Plan B, Ella, and 2 IUDs) cross religious practices because they stop
pregnancy after egg fertilization, therefore violating the religious belief that
life begins at conception (Carroll). The coverage of those four contraceptives
goes against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says
governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without
compelling justification, and if they do, the restriction is for compelling
government interest and is the least restrictive means of reaching that
goal (Bomboy). Corporations should have the right to opt out of
contraceptive mandates because they are covered under RFRA as being
persons, and therefore under RFRA and the free exercise clause of the
First Amendment can operate under sincerely held religious beliefs.
Closely held corporations, defined as companies with more than 50%
of stock held by five or less people, should be treated the same under the
ACA as nonprofit organizations. One argument is that for-profit corporations
shouldnt have religious rights, however, the ability to make money doesnt
void religious beliefs. The language used in RFRA is broad and expands
religious liberties to both nonprofit corporations, defined as persons in

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, and for-profit

corporations, as seen with Burwell v Hobby Lobby. The argument is invalid
because the Supreme Court has seen many other cases where for-profit
businesses acted on religious beliefs, such as in Gallagher v. Crown Kosher
Supermarket and Braunfeld v. Brown, both of which dealt with the religious
freedoms of businesses pertaining to the Blue Law codes (Braunfeld,
Burwell). The Supreme Court has set plenty of precedence regarding
businesses as being able to act on the religious beliefs of the owners.
Corporations are conducted according to the values of the employers, not
the employees. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission that political speech, a freedom under the First
Amendment, may not be banned based on corporate identity, and that
corporations may exhibit speech (Citizens United). From this, it is
assumed that other clauses of the First Amendment, such as the free
exercise clause, may be applied to corporations as well. The majority opinion
of Hobby Lobby claims that if corporations could not exercise religious
rights, their owners would have to choose between the benefits of a
corporation and their own religious beliefs (Burwell).
RFRA states that the government may not impose a burden on
corporations due to religious beliefs, and the $1.3 million per day fine that
Hobby Lobby would have to pay for not covering contraceptives would be
considered a burden to anyone (Burwell). RFRA states that the burden must be
the least restrictive way to reach the government interest, however, HHS

already demonstrated that there are ways to get contraceptives to women in

nonprofit religious organizations without providing a burden to either the
organization or the women. The same rules should apply to for-profit
corporations. In this way, women would have the right to get insurance, and
the religious beliefs of the company would be respected, therefore benefitting
both parties and creating a less restrictive mean.
The main argument of the opposition focuses on a womens right to choose
whether she uses contraception or not. However, this is possibly the biggest
nonissue of the case, because a women wouldnt be forced to choose. The
opposition chooses to focus on hyperbolized images of women left deserted
and at risk of pregnancy, when in reality the current system already covers the
majority of birth control, all of which are just as effective as the 4 restricted
contraceptives (Effectiveness Rate). With a slight change, women could still
get the same exact coverage without paying, just directly from the insurer
without getting the corporation involved. The right to privacy is preserved, and
the health of women is fully protected by both the company and insurance.
Additionally, women are given another right to choose- choose whether
they want to work for the company or not. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood
both clearly state and act upon their religious beliefs. Theres nothing forcing
women to work for the company that has clearly stated its purpose if they do
not want to. The statement of purpose of Hobby Lobby, which is displayed
prominently by the company, says the Greens are committed to honoring the

Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent in

Biblical principalssharing the Lords blessings with [their] employees. The
company also closes every Sunday, openly donates to Christian ministries, and
takes out religious newspaper ads. The fact that Hobby Lobby is Christian
should not be a surprise to its employees. At the point of hire, employees
should expect to see the company run according to its religious values.
Companies are able to establish religious beliefs that do not decrease or
become invalidated due to the amount of money they make, because religious
principles do not change according to profit. Hobby Lobby should be allowed
to continue to act on its same values in the contraception mandate that it has
displayed in every aspect of its running.
The owners of companies should never have to choose between holding a
corporation and holding their own religious beliefs. One does not make the
other less valid. The government should not be able to intrude on the religious
values of a company with the contraception mandate of ACA because the
mandate presents a burden that is not the least restrictive. There are other
ways to provide for the health of women without stomping on the religious
beliefs of a company. Therefore, companies should be able to gain exemptions
from the contraception mandate based on their own closely held religious
beliefs.