2. Part 1 Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Part 2 Implications if Hobby Lobby Wins Part 3 Implications if Hobby Lobby Loses

3. PART 1 Facts about Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby

4.  9 Supreme Court Justices 3 females and 6 males  Hobby Lobby Owned by the Green family – belong to Southern Baptist church Roughly 13,000 employees  Kathleen Sebelius Health & Human Services Secretary  Oral arguments were March 25, 2014; ruling expected late June 2014

5.  Opposed to 4 out of the 20 types of contraceptives IUD made out of copper IUD that includes progestin Plan B (emergency contraceptive) Ella (emergency contraceptive)  Opposed to related education and counseling  Believe the 4 forms cause abortions  Requirement to cover the 4 forms violates religious beliefs

6.  There are 2 main sides to this case  Hobby Lobby Supporters Believe it is an infringement against 1 st Amendment rights  Government Supporters Believe a company should not be able to pick and choose what benefits the insurance policy covers

7.  Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) allow a for-profit corporation to deny contraceptive coverage based on the religious views of the owner  Are the 1 st Amendment rights of non-profit owners more important than the rights of a corporation owner

8.  National Institute of Health, Mayo Clinic, and International Federation of OB/GYN all agree: “the morning-after pill does not prevent implantation, the medical beginning of pregnancy”  It prevents fertilization the same way the 16 types of contraception Hobby Lobby approves of do  RU-486/Mifeprex (abortion pill) is not considered a contraceptive; therefore, is not covered under Affordable Care Act

9. PART 2 Implications if Hobby Lobby Wins

10.  Sotomayer regarding United States vs. Lee (1982)  Slippery slope effect regarding other healthcare related issues  Sets a precedent that companies could impose religious beliefs on employees  Decreases the pool of willing employees to work for Hobby Lobby  A lawsuit regarding sex discrimination would likely be filed  Opens the flood gates for other discrimination cases

11.  Public backlash  Decrease in competitive advantage  Stance is hypocritical based on where their suppliers are located

12. PART 3 Implications if Hobby Lobby Loses

13.  Companies might eventually be forced to recognize same-sex marriage in regard to including domestic partners on health insurance coverage  Hobby Lobby will choose to pay the fine vs. provide coverage  Religious liberty loses meaningfulness  Opens up doors to government requiring other religious to go against their beliefs (Quaker example)

14.  Maintains initial precedent set for how corporations are viewed in relation to their corporate veil (would uphold Domino’s Pizza vs. McDonald)  Protects the religious rights of employees  Hobby Lobby could potentially have access to health records since it is self-insured (HIPAA loophole)  Potential to set precedent for limiting other 1 st Amendment rights

15. CONCLUSION

16. A company’s right to do something does not mean the company should do something…

17.  Provide an insurance policy that covers all forms of contraception OR  Replace healthcare coverage with higher wages and a calibrated tax

18.  http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores- inc/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores- inc/  http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know- about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591 http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know- about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court- obamacare http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court- obamacare  http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception- mandate/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception- mandate/  http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured- articles/2013/december/08/hobby-lobby-case-is-about-rights,-not- contraceptives.aspx http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured- articles/2013/december/08/hobby-lobby-case-is-about-rights,-not- contraceptives.aspx  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebelius_v._Hobby_Lobby#Implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebelius_v._Hobby_Lobby#Implications