Much has changed in society in the last two centuries in the United States. Issues of right that were not recognized in 1787 are now at the forefront of United State’s politics. It is inconceivable to consider that the same people who were capable of writing the constitution, did for foresee the need for the judicial bodies to fill the gaps that are not explicitly covered in the constitution. The more specific the stipulation, the greater the risk that the stipulation becomes obsolete. General guidelines generate the need for interpretation, which allows them to be applied in such a way that the greater good can be served. The First Amendment of the constitution protects personal liberties and individual freedoms including the right to religion,
…show more content…
The use of which is believed to be a sin because it is believed in Judeo-Christian faiths, that an individual is formed at the time of conception, thus contraceptives, in certain forms were equivalent to abortions. This is a long standing and well documented belief that could reasonably be protected by the First Amendment, and more specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which established the “substantial burden” criteria. It true that both the First Amendment with regard to the religious freedom provision, and the RFRA have been used to support positions of discrimination. The drafters of the AFA crafted a provision that allowed individuals to continue to receive subsidized contraceptives, regardless the religious affiliation or leanings of aforementioned individuals place of work. The elegance and sheer equitability of the solution is remarkable; it allows for all parties involved to have an outcome that is at least partially satisfactory with out infringing on personal liberties. The court justifiably applied the already included provision of the ACA, to for-profit institutions. The alternatives being either, create a situation where employees do not have access to subsidized contraceptives, or individuals are forced to subsidize contraceptives against their religious …show more content…
Hobby Lobby Stores, INC is being challenged in the upcoming case Zubik v. Burwell. Seven organizations with religious affiliations are arguing that the decision that religiously affiliated organizations whether for-profit or non-profit had the right to opt out of subsidizing contraceptives for their employees through their health insurance plans, by writing to the the Department of Health and Human Services, is a violation of their religious liberties and a substantial burden under the RFRA. They argue that notifying the the government of their refusal to subsidized contraceptives, is an action which constitutes a significant step towards delivering contraceptives, which is against their religious
The use of which is believed to be a sin because it is believed in Judeo-Christian faiths, that an individual is formed at the time of conception, thus contraceptives, in certain forms were equivalent to abortions. This is a long standing and well documented belief that could reasonably be protected by the First Amendment, and more specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which established the “substantial burden” criteria. It true that both the First Amendment with regard to the religious freedom provision, and the RFRA have been used to support positions of discrimination. The drafters of the AFA crafted a provision that allowed individuals to continue to receive subsidized contraceptives, regardless the religious affiliation or leanings of aforementioned individuals place of work. The elegance and sheer equitability of the solution is remarkable; it allows for all parties involved to have an outcome that is at least partially satisfactory with out infringing on personal liberties. The court justifiably applied the already included provision of the ACA, to for-profit institutions. The alternatives being either, create a situation where employees do not have access to subsidized contraceptives, or individuals are forced to subsidize contraceptives against their religious …show more content…
Hobby Lobby Stores, INC is being challenged in the upcoming case Zubik v. Burwell. Seven organizations with religious affiliations are arguing that the decision that religiously affiliated organizations whether for-profit or non-profit had the right to opt out of subsidizing contraceptives for their employees through their health insurance plans, by writing to the the Department of Health and Human Services, is a violation of their religious liberties and a substantial burden under the RFRA. They argue that notifying the the government of their refusal to subsidized contraceptives, is an action which constitutes a significant step towards delivering contraceptives, which is against their religious