Supreme Court building and words Hobby Lobby case

On Monday, June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court made public its decisions in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties 5-4.

Read David Fowler’s press statement about the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Win.

Official SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Opinion (PDF)

Both the Hobby Lobby case and the Conestoga Wood Specialties cases involve significant issues regarding the religious liberty rights of Christians, and specifically the abortion mandate in Obamacare. Learn more about each case and how you can respond to arguments made by those who want to limit our religious liberty.

Brief Overview of the Hobby Lobby Case

The Green family, the founders of Hobby Lobby and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores, together employ approximately 13,000 workers who are provided a generous health insurance plan.

They face the possibility of closing the doors of their successful businesses because the HHS mandate is forcing them to conduct business contradictory to their beliefs. The HHS mandate requires businesses to provide coverage for 20 types of contraceptives, 4 of which—including Plan B and the “morning after pill”—violate their conscience based on their religious convictions concerning abortion.

Brief Overview of the Conestoga Case

Conestoga Wood Specialties is owned by the Hahns, a Mennonite Christian family in Pennsylvania, and they are facing a similar challenge with respect to religious conscience.

The possibility of fines up to $95,000 per day for providing health insurance without the complete list of contraceptives in the HHS mandate would cripple the cabinet-making business. The Hahns employ almost 1,000 people, yet their business would face the possibility of closing its doors with the enforcement of the mandate.

Like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood filed a lawsuit against the HHS mandate with similar claims under RFRA, the 1st and 5th Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. They allege that their religious beliefs about the sanctity of life will be compromised by being forced to provide possible abortifacients in their company health insurance plan.

Get all the facts and background of the both cases

Responses to Common Arguments for the Abortion Mandate

Here are some sound ways to respond to arguments like the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases that try to take away our religious liberty.

Bosses shouldn’t be able to block access to birth control.

  • This case wasn’t about access to birth control. It was about whether some citizens can be forced to buy abortion-related products for others.
  • The government is the one doing the imposing by mandating that families buy abortion-inducing drugs for other people.

Bosses shouldn’t be involved with women’s healthcare choices.

  • That’s exactly the point. These families business didn’t want to be involved.
  • The government is the only one involving itself in private healthcare choices by forcing 
families to buy their employees early abortion drugs.
  • We agree. The government shouldn’t force a family business to participate in someone 
else’s choice to buy abortion drugs.

Read the rest of the responses to common arguments for the abortion mandate

Related News Article: What happens if Hobby Lobby wins on Monday?