The Human Rights Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Inc. & Conestoga Wood Specialties Store v. Burwell

Katrina Anderson, Senior Human Rights Counsel, Center for Reproductive Rights

July 17, 2014

CENTRAL HOLDING:

As applied to closely-held corporations,HHS regulations enforcing the ACA’s contraception mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

DIRECT RESULT:

“Closely held” corporations can deny their employees insurance coverage for certain forms of FDA-approved birth control.

THE DISSENT:

1. Harm to women.2. Imposes boss’ beliefs on

employees.3. Consequences beyond

contraception (“the minefield”).

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW:

- Women’s access to contraception is a fundamental human right

- Access takes priority- Objection is possible where there is

direct involvement in procedure- Individuals can conscientiously

object, not institutions

OPPOSITION LAW BRIEF:

- Counsel of Record: Brigham Young University School of Law

- Amici: Institutions specializing in law and religion and individual experts on international and comparative law

- Argument: international law protects “collective religious rights”

What’s next?