Today, the Court announced it will hear the appeal and the Obama White House is confident the Supreme Court Justices will rule in the government's favor:
"We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women’s health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree. We do not comment on specifics of a case pending before the Court. As a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor. The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women....These steps protect both women’s health and religious beliefs, and seek to ensure that women and families--not their bosses or corporate CEOs--can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets."
Private companies and CEOs are in no way dictating women's decisions by not supplying abortion-inducing drugs. Birth control is easy to get! Plan B is potentially simpler to obtain than cold medicine. As Bedsider.org says: "grab birth control along with a gallon of milk and the latest gossip magazines." No one is dictating what a woman does or buys in her private life.
Mandating private business owners to compromise their personal beliefs for what has been incorrectly labeled an "essential" health care right is dictatorship.
David Green, Hobby Lobby CEO, founded the company on Christian principles. His expressed goals of helping families and promoting life would be fundamentally compromised under the Obamacare law. The fine for not complying to the HHS mandate would cost the company at least $475 million every year.
If the Court recants the 10th Circuit Court's July decision, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. could set the precedent for all future challenges to the HHS mandate. As noted when the federal government filed the appeal in September, two key laws are up for judicial interpretation:
“One of these statutes is the glaringly-obvious First Amendment “free exercise clause” which demands Congress make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
The second is the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act which states the “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” Exceptions apply when the rule has a compelling government interest and is being furthered under the least restrictive means.”
In June, the lower court which ruled in Green's favor wrote in its Opinion:
"As is particularly relevant to this case, one aspect of the Greens’ religious commitment is a belief that human life begins when sperm fertilizes an egg. In addition, the Greens believe it is immoral for them to facilitate any act that causes the death of a human embryo."
The previous ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby was sound and constitutional. Despite the White House's confidence in the outcome of this appeal, the Supreme Court Justices' job is to uphold the law.