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
May 21, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.