Hobby Lobby vs Burwell: the Case of Separation of Church and State
The separation of Church and state has been argued since the beginning of our nation. Monumental historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are some of the most well known to have public opinion on the topic. Even in the present time this topic is often a big divider in public opinion. One of the most recent examples of this is Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and this case is analysed in separation of church and state essay outline.
Before we can truly dive into this case we must first cover a simple phrase: separation of church and state. Many people have heard it said before and potentially even used it but many do not know where it comes from. It can be traced to Thomas Jefferson who wrote, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...' Since the beginning there have been court cases that continuously try to “draw the line” of separation between religion and the law. These range from funding churchs to abortion and even same sex marriage. This specific case covers whether for-profit corporations must cover contraceptive methods that do go against the company's religious beliefs.
As part of the Affordable Care Act , the Department of Health and Human Services adopted a mandate that required employment-based health plans covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act to include twenty different contraceptive methods. This includes intrauterine devices, IUD’s, and Plan B, both which were two of the four main contraceptive methods argued against in the case. The twenty approved methods also included sixteen methods that prevent fertilization of an egg. The other four methods prevent implantation of an egg after fertilization. The Green family, the family that owns Hobby Lobby, operates their business to reflect their religious beliefs. One of those religious beliefs is that human life begins at the moment of conception. Because of this, the Green family believes that providing contraceptives that kill this life is immoral. The family does not object to providing coverage for the other sixteen contraceptive methods that prevent fertilization but they do object to providing coverage for the four methods that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
While at the Supreme Court a similar case came to light: Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. This case was consolidated with Hobby Lobby’s case. The Justices questioned many alternatives such as previous rulings in potentially similar cases and simpler fixes such as higher wages and in turn higher taxes. Ultimately Hobby Lobby’s case was successful and they were no longer required to provide all 20 contraceptives. This is often considered a landmark case because the ruling allowed for-profit corporations to deny employees health coverage for contraceptives based on the religious beliefs of the corporation’s owners.
Overall this case can be considered a “win” for those who are more conservative. This was not the first of it’s kind to be tried at court and it will not be the last either. The debate on separation of church and state will continue as long as there is a church and state to seperate.
