Commentary on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Suzanne A. Kim
{"title":"Commentary on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby","authors":"Suzanne A. Kim","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3695127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Burwell, et al., v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., decided in 2014, broke ground in its unprecedented articulation of religious person-hood rights for commercial entities, posing challenges to reproductive justice and the foundations of anti-discrimination law. The case addressed whether the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate should yield to a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim by for-profit corporations objecting on religious belief grounds to providing health insurance coverage for contraception to employees. Concluding that the corporations seeking exemptions were “persons” for free exercise purposes under RFRA, the Court held that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations interpreting the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement violated RFRA by substantially burdening the exercise of religion. \n \nThe Hobby Lobby re-write by Anthony Kreis underscores the far-reaching implications of the original decision by connecting the reproductive health access questions at stake to the day to day conditions in women’s lives and broadly systemic impacts of the Hobby Lobby decision for marginalized communities. In so doing, the rewritten opinion sets the stage for deeper consideration of Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the health and well-being of women, communities of color, lower-income communities, and other marginalized groups.","PeriodicalId":227775,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Judicial Review (Topic)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Judicial Review (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3695127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Burwell, et al., v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., decided in 2014, broke ground in its unprecedented articulation of religious person-hood rights for commercial entities, posing challenges to reproductive justice and the foundations of anti-discrimination law. The case addressed whether the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate should yield to a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim by for-profit corporations objecting on religious belief grounds to providing health insurance coverage for contraception to employees. Concluding that the corporations seeking exemptions were “persons” for free exercise purposes under RFRA, the Court held that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations interpreting the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement violated RFRA by substantially burdening the exercise of religion. The Hobby Lobby re-write by Anthony Kreis underscores the far-reaching implications of the original decision by connecting the reproductive health access questions at stake to the day to day conditions in women’s lives and broadly systemic impacts of the Hobby Lobby decision for marginalized communities. In so doing, the rewritten opinion sets the stage for deeper consideration of Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the health and well-being of women, communities of color, lower-income communities, and other marginalized groups.
对Burwell诉Hobby Lobby案的评论
2014年,Burwell等人诉Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.等人一案的判决,史无前例地明确了商业实体的宗教人格权利,对生殖正义和反歧视法的基础构成了挑战。该案件涉及《平价医疗法案》(ACA)的避孕规定是否应屈服于《宗教自由恢复法案》(RFRA)的要求,营利性公司以宗教信仰为由反对为员工提供避孕健康保险。法院认为,寻求豁免的公司是根据《宗教自由法》享有自由行使权利的"个人",并认为美国卫生与公众服务部(HHS)解释《平价医疗法案》避孕覆盖范围要求的规定,实质上加重了宗教行使的负担,违反了《宗教自由法》。Anthony Kreis重写的Hobby Lobby强调了原始决定的深远影响,将生殖健康获取问题与妇女生活中的日常状况联系起来,并将Hobby Lobby决定对边缘化社区的广泛系统性影响联系起来。通过这样做,重写的意见为更深入地考虑Hobby Lobby对妇女、有色人种社区、低收入社区和其他边缘化群体的健康和福祉的挑战奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信