Talk:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Needs to be flagged for neutrality
"The ruling could have widespread impact on the issue of whether companies can be religiously exempt from any federal law that  protects the interests of other individuals."

Whether or not the HHS' contraceptive mandate "protects the interests of other individuals" is a matter of opinion that does not belong in this neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.161.151 (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs to be flagged, however, I'm not sure that I understand your problem with the sentence (other than perhaps being poorly written). It's saying that companies may be exempt from laws that are supposed to protect individuals, in this case, contraceptives, which are supposed to be protected by law (i.e., the same law that Hobby Lobby is trying to be exempt from).  There are too few opinions of those that oppose this decision as well. RobertLM78 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)



To be absolutely correct, it should say, "...can be exempt for religious reasons from funding federal laws and programs that create legal entitlements for other individuals."  Also, ..."the issue of"... is redundant (fire all words which do no work!).

My distinction is important: The ACA does not "protect" contraceptives (those were granted general availability by another Supreme Court case several decades ago); and, the Greens were not trying to ban them or even avoid providing some of them in their own employee health-care plan. The complaint makes absolutely clear that the Greens, Hobby Lobby, and their co-plaintiff, Marsdel, Inc., (a Christian bookstore) opposed providing ONLY those contraceptives which, per the FDA's own determination, may cause "abortion" by blocking implantation of a fertilized human ovum. This is a relatively small list of drugs plus such devices as IUDs.

Finally, "could" should be in italics -- Hobby Lobby's complaint not only distinguishes Hobby Lobby from commonly held corporations, e.g., Union Pacific, but also from most closely held, for-profit enterprises. In some ways, because of the religious orientations of members of the Green family, Hobby Lobby possesses elements more in common with eleemosynary organizations. For example, as the complaint makes clear (see below for where to get a copy), many of Hobby Lobby's profits go to charitable causes, and Hobby Lobby refuses to maximize its profits by doing things like backhauling alcoholic beverages in its empty trucks, selling shot glasses, or keeping its stores open late at night or on Sundays (when, the Greens argue, people should be home with their families). These distinctions clearly are specified in the complaint (which also clearly states that Hobby Lobby's corporate organization is to serve God -- hardly a requirement common in the bylaws of most companies); hence, how much of a "landmark" ruling Hobby Lobby is remains to be seen -- the Court may extend it to closely held companies generally, or it may cut it off at the knees.

We'll need a couple more cases to find that out.

Robert Brian Crim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction to title
Shouldn't the name of this article be Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (with a comma after the word "Stores" and a period after the abbreviation "Inc")? I tried to make the change, but I received a warning that the title was invalid. Can anyone address this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is better because it's consistent with the featured article Sega v. Accolade, which would otherwise be called Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. Also, the full name is already in the infobox, so the article name and first sentence might as well be wp:concise, e.g. Rhode Island instead of State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't think that omission of two characters (the comma and the period) is due to a concern for being concise.  I expect it was a typo or careless error.  The abbreviation "Inc" is always followed by a period.  Similarly, the abbreviation should be preceded by a comma.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree (and I've moved the page back for now). The lack of comma and period was simply wrong, in my opinion. The common name standards seem to suggest that Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is best (compare with the Hobby Lobby article), but perhaps Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores or similar might be better. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the business's full name with "Inc.", as we do with so many other SCOTUS cases where the respondent is a business: Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., for instance (as opposed to Wal-Mart v. Dukes or AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, to name two other similarly-named cases of recent years). Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition of closely held
I added a link to closely held corporation in the article, but I think it needs to explicitly address the definition of the term and its implications. See for example and its statistics that 90% of American businesses fall into that definition, and  which claims there are several possible definitions and it wasn't clear which one the decision referred to. --Waldir talk 21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the WSJ article earlier but now it's behind a paywall. The NPR source didn't give any other specific definition. I think we won't get a definitive answer until more lawsuits inevitably bring the issue back to the Supremes. Any new section in the article about the definition of closely held would probably just contain speculative definitions or commentary about the uncertainty created. KinkyLipids (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The decision document from SCOTUS states that the closely held companies in the decision are "each owned and controlled by members of a single family." Bahooka (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs." That's only a description of the plaintiffs, which is made in contrast to publicly traded companies. The structure of the sentence sets single-family companies as a subset within the broader category of closely-held companies. Lower courts would be free to apply the decision's logic to more than just single-family companies. KinkyLipids (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The IRS states that "A domestic corporation is closely held if a specified individual owns at least 80 percent of the corporation’s stock (by vote or value) on the last day of the corporation’s taxable year." Bahooka (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was able to access the WSJ article through Google, and it says "The Internal Revenue Service defines a closely held company as a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock directly or indirectly owned by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year. It also cannot be a personal-service corporation." Using Google's search tools, your quote doesn't appear past Feb 21, 2012, and it's so strict that it probably wouldn't even apply to the plaintiffs. Anyways, the court didn't specify that it was using either one of the IRS's definitions, and it would be strange for a ruling against a federal agency to be based on how another federal agency defines a term. KinkyLipids (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Two issues not addressed (and maybe it's better that way, but ...)
I personally have two questions about this case that I don't think are currently answered by the article. If an editor who's more of an expert on the subject matter agrees that these questions ought to be covered, I'd be glad to see the information included, and then I'd be a little less ignorant. The first is whether Hobby Lobby made an explicit First Amendment claim or not. The article is clear that the decision was based on a statute rather than the First Amendment; I'm only asking whether such an argument was offered or not. My second question, is: Does the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" grant an unlimited freedom to interpret matters of fact as part of one's religion? I'm asking this here rather than in the article about that law, because my impression from news reports is that this case hinged on a claim that certain forms of birth control, generally accepted as such by the medical profession, actually cause abortions. Do such "non-faithy" beliefs, and practices based on them that affect other people, have the same legal protection as, say, the right of a person to pray peaceably X number of times per day if their religion commands it? Thanks! DSatz (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer to your first question is yes, and I have added that information to the lower court section of the article. As for your second question, that will probably be the subject of future court cases, but the Supreme Court's ruling says in the first paragraph 'As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”'--agr (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know there are at least two sources saying the Greens believe that the 4 contraceptives cause abortion, but I don't think that matters because their argument hinged more on their belief that human life begins at conception (a translation of an ancient Hebrew concept that they equate to the modern definition of fertilization). The four contraceptives can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus, causing it to die in the next menstrual cycle, which the Greens believe is the death of a human being. Now it's a matter of fact that the contraceptives don't cause abortion, but it's a matter of faith that the Greens believe an embryo is a human being. So whether or not it's factually abortion, it's still factually the destruction of an embryo. About the question of whether beliefs that affect other people have legal protection—that's a question that the court just answered by protecting the beliefs of the owners (although Scalia also made a token acknowledgment of the rights of employees). So yes, your beliefs that affect other people are now legally protected, as long as you are an owner and not a worker. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll see how this plays out in the coming years, but the court seems unanimous that providing contraceptive care is a compelling governmental interest, the question for the majority was what is the least restrictive way to achieve that. Kennedy's concurrence is particularly important since he was apparently the swing vote and he seems to be saying that he will be looking for ways to keep the lid on in future cases.--agr (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The court found it "unnecessary to adjudicate" on whether it's compelling. Maybe the other four kept quiet to get Kennedy on board? KinkyLipids (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for these replies and the article updates, and for any others that may still follow. I'm still taking this decision in. It's obviously a huge one, but it's bounded by technicalities that (as a non-lawyer) I don't have a good "feel" for yet, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. DSatz (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The second question is also an unequivocal yes. Both the majority opinion and the dissent agree that "(“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warnedthat courts must not presume to determinethe plausibility of a religious claim" and "This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents(whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct businessin accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable)." - however, the "test" imposed by the law and the court is multi-prong. Only one of those prongs is a sincere religious belief. As both the majority and dissent also said, the calculus for other religious beliefs may come out differently, because the "least restrictive" method in other instances may legitimately involve disruption of the religious belief. @KiunkyLipids - The ruling protects owners, only because owners were being forced to take action against their belief. If employees were being forced to take action by law, they would certainly have equal protection. The case that initiated the RFRA was about two native americans fired from their job after smoking peyote in a religious ceremony. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If Alito was being sincere when he said that a corporation is made up of both shareholders and employees, then why aren't the corporation's beliefs made up of the beliefs of both shareholders and employees? We are coming closer to Louis XIV's vision of the world when he said, "The state? I am the state," only this time it's the owner saying "The company? I am the company." The employees weren't given equal protection here because their representation as part of the corporation wasn't factored into the analysis of what Hobby Lobby's beliefs are. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Humor intended : How Marxist of you :). If an individual starts a company, and wholly owns that company, yes, they are the company. In employee owned companies, or publicly held companies, obviously the "will" of the company is more diluted/spread out.  Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But once the individual incorporates the company, then it's a new legal entity separate from the shareholder. If the owner is the corporation, what's to stop the owner from being fined if the corporation violates a safety regulation, for example? And if closely held is eventually defined by the court as a precise number of shareholders, it would seem unfair to the shareholders who were put on one side of that definition and prefer to be on the other side. To me, this ruling is bad for employees, shareholders, and those religious organizations who do not want corporations in their company. PS, I hate communism like a fascist. :) KinkyLipids (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)



I submit that this is a non-issue. The complaint in the case filed by Hobby Lobby et al. clearly sought to distinguish Hobby Lobby not only from common corporations, e.g., General Motors, but also from MOST small, tightly held companies. The complaint (see below for where to get a copy) makes clear that Hobby Lobby was organized, in its bylaws, to the glory of God (whatever that means), and all employees sign onto that when they take employment with the company.

Furthermore, the "et al." which should be in the title is not trivial. Hobby Lobby's co-plaintiffs, in addition to the Greens, included Marsdel, Inc., a Christian bookstore. I think it rather difficult to contest the values held (or expressed) by a Christian bookstore.

The fundamental flaw in the thinking here is that, somehow, the employees are being "picked on" by the Greens (instead of the Greens being picked on by the Government). Obviously, there may be one or two (among more than 13,000) who feel that way; but, they are not parties to the suit and (if they can establish standing) have the right to file their own suit. But, this won't happen because what the Greens asked for, in their complaint, was basically to be treated the same as similarly situated, not-for-profit organizations which the law specifically exempts -- no employee is excluded from coverage by the Greens' objections (the Greens just don't want to have to pay for it -- IF the coverage includes abortion-inducing drugs or devices).

Robert Brian Crim


 * * *  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation of entirely new programs
User:ArnoldReinhold, the concurring opinion is not binding. It's only Kennedy's opinion. It's not the court's opinion, nor does it restrict the court's opinion. The majority opinion says that "[t]he most straightforward way of of doing this [(using the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling interest)] would be for the Government to assume the cost..." This is the main reasoning for why the mandate is not the least restrictive means. The court then responds to the government's argument:

"HHS contends that RFRA does not permit us to take this option into account because “RFRA cannot be used to require creation of entirely new programs.”...But we see nothing in RFRA that supports this argument, and drawing the line between the “creation of an entirely new program” and the modification of an existing program (which RFRA surely allows) would be fraught with problems."

In other words, the court supports the argument that creation of entirely new programs can be required. The court then points to the existing accommodation for nonprofits, but only as an extra reason, specific to this case, that the mandate is not the least restrictive means. KinkyLipids (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, but the court goes on to say "In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs." and that is the basis for their ruling.


 * Kennedy explains this on p. 4 of his concurrence: "In discussing this alternative, the Court does not address whether the proper response to a legitimate claim for freedom in the health care arena is for the Government to create an additional program. Ante, at 41–43. The Court properly does not resolve whether one freedom should be protected by creating incentives for additional government constraints. In these cases, it is the Court’s understanding that an accommodation may be made to the employers without imposition of a whole new program or burden on the Government. As the Court makes clear, this is not a case where it can be established that it is difficult to accommodate the government’s interest, and in fact the mechanism for doing so is already in place. Ante, at 43–44." First of all Kennedy is, by far, a better source for how the court did or did not rule than me or you. Secondly, he is the swing vote in this case, so as a practical matter how he choses to vote in the future will determine the real impact of this decision.--agr (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Need not rely" means that it's not the only reasoning. They're not sweeping it aside. And yes, Kennedy is by far and away a better source for explaining how the court ruled than I am. So is Ginsburg. It would be nice to believe that they're in agreement on how narrow or sweeping the ruling is. They're not. And if Kennedy's concurrence is a correct explanation for how the court ruled, then why isn't it in the majority opinion in the first place? Because the other four in the majority don't agree with it. Kennedy is alone. In other words, Ginsburg's explanation of how the court ruled, joined by three other justices, is even more authoritative than Kennedy's explanation. You do make a good point that his concurrence tells us how he will rule on any future case where there is no existing alternative means. He can then side with Ginsburg's gang to narrow Hobby Lobby. Until then, the most we can say about the Hobby Lobby ruling is that it has not yet been narrowed, and even that might be saying too much. KinkyLipids (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The language I removed from the lede said "allowing closely held for-profit corporations that religiously object to a law to be exempt from it if the government can assume the cost through the creation of an entirely new program, which would be the least restrictive means of furthering the law's interest." None of the opinions, nor the syllabus say that. In particular Ginsberg does not say that. Here is what she says: (Dissent p.28) “Then let the government pay (rather than the employees who do not share their employer’s faith), the Court suggests.” (Suggests, not requires or holds.) Then on the next page “Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection? Because the Court cannot easily answer that question, it proposes something else: Extension to commercial enterprises of the accommodation already afforded to nonprofit religion-based organizations." (my emphasis).


 * It's true that the majority did not rule out the possibility of requiring the government to pay, but the case was not decided on that argument, as Kennedy makes abundantly clear. And it's one thing for a member of the majority to express their differing views in a concurring opinion, quite another for that justice to explicitly state what the majority did or didn't hold, e.g. "Court does not address..." and "The Court properly does not resolve..." if the other members of the majority disagree.


 * Finally I would note that the syllabus says (p.4) "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs." That would make no sense if the text I replace were the court's ruling, since the government clearly could set up a program to pay for vaccinations and blood transfusions. As you astutely pointed out earlier, the test is "viable least restrictive means of furthering the law's interest." Some cost to the government cannot be ruled out but the boundaries of "viable" remain to be decided in future cases. Our lede should not go beyond what the court ruled on.--agr (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for contributing to this article that I created. I'm surprised that no one had created it yet and that there haven't been more editors. A plane went missing four months ago and it still gets more interest than this got on decision day. Hardly anyone has visited this article. Maybe this subject just isn't very important to everyone else.
 * Your position is strong and well-argued, but since I'm stubborn, I still disagree, and I'm too impatient to fully and carefully read anything other than the binding majority opinion, which is already long enough. The dissent, the concurrence, and the syllabus, in that order, are not important to me (and if it weren't for you those sections would still be mostly blank). From what I bothered to read in the dissent, it sounds like Ginsburg did a lot of hand-wringing about whether the court allowed for a wide application of the ruling. This case reminds me a lot of Windsor. In that ruling, there was also a majority saying that it's limiting its ruling to the particulars of the case (yet suggesting otherwise). There was also a scathing dissent criticizing the majority for suggesting too much and warning of a wide application of the court's reasoning. There was also a lone justice trying (and failing) to assure everyone that the ruling is responsibly restrained. Based on that, I think there will also be lower court judges quoting the dissent as justification for applying the court's reasoning broadly.
 * It's important that the Reporter added "necessarily" into that sentence in the syllabus. Those mandates don't necessarily fall because of this ruling, but that doesn't mean they can't. At first I thought that viable was Alito's way of restricting the ruling away from cases where a new government program isn't politically practical. But my hopefulness made me read too much into that one word. I checked the reference he provided in that sentence, and it looks like he's just using viable as a synonym for least restrictive. Now it seems to me that Alito suggests any creation of a new government program, no matter how politically unlikely, is theoretically "viable", least restrictive, and enough reason to strike down a law.
 * While I disagree with your change, (and disagree with my previous hopefulness), I don't want to push away the few editors here by forcing my edits. But I do think the word viable in the lead is meaningless, misleading without context, and should be removed. KinkyLipids (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The lede is incorrect currently. The mandate was not the least restrictive method- but not because the government can assume the cost (although that would also be true) - the majority opinion is quite clear - its not the least restrictive method, because there is already the certification process used by non-profits which causes the insurer to cover the contraceptives directly, rather than the employer. (page 49) "In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections."
 * ArnoldReinhold made the same argument, Gaijin42. I responded above. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, the core holding is that it wasn't the least restrictive means - what the alternative means available are in this case (or would be in a different case) is legally and precedentially unimportant. (Although it certainly may matter to the employees/govt in this particular suit). For future cases the govt programs may or may not be in play, and likewise for HHS alternatives - but the core logic will be - and thats where the encyclopedia should focus in the lede. Later in the body, we should probably list both alternatives as mentioned by the opinion tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since two minds are better than one, I'll consent. What do you think about removing the word viable from the lead? I gave my reasoning on that above. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think viable should be removed per your reasoning, as well as my understanding of the situation - neither the law nor the ruling require anything about how easy or likely it is for the government to actually implement the less restrictive alternative, just that they could. (Although in this case, as the alternative is already available for non-profits, it seems very likely the alternative will be implemented for these companies as well) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on removing viable. I also think the lede should stick to just what the court held, as Gaijin42 says. In particular we now say "However, the court noted that an established alternative complies with the RFRA for the purpose of the plaintiffs' claim but not necessarily for all religious claims." I don't believe the court said that. It said that the alternative HHS offered to non-profits is clearly less restrictive and that therefore HHS had failed to demonstrate it was using the least restrictive means. There was no need to decide whether that alternative meets RFRA muster. The Wheaton College (and Little Sisters of the Poor) temporary injunctions suggest some doubt at least as to the requirement to file Form 700 with ones insurance company. --agr (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your edit. It's more general which is better for the lead, but I think either version is true. The court said:
 * ""We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims. At a minimum, however, it does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well.""


 * It's true the court said there's no need to decide whether the alternative meets RFRA muster "for purposes of all religious claims". But it said pretty clearly that it doesn't "impinge on the plaintiffs' religious belief", i.e. it doesn't substantially burden their religious exercise and complies with RFRA for the purpose of this case. KinkyLipids (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Matter of transfusions et al
The article makes one mention of the matter of life-saving medical treatments like transfusions regarding this ruling and it is only in the negative sense of companies supposedly now being able to deny such treatments. However, the ruling specifically addressed this matter at the very bottom of page 5 and into the top of page 6, stating that it was concerned only with the contraception mandate. I know the far-left sources cited are completely ignoring this fact, but it needs to be clearly stated in the article. 71.51.129.193 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article simply describes what those fifteen states argued. Anyways, while the decision is "concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate" (p 46), the reasoning can be cited by judges in any future cases. Even the famous phrase from Bush v. Gore, "our consideration is limited to the present circumstances," did not prevent that case from being cited in other cases. Sorry for the late reply. KinkyLipids (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Implications" section potentially not neutral
Right from the get-go, the section smacks of bias. It starts off claiming: "The case's potential consequences could extend far beyond contraception." This seems like an attempt to predict the future, which is verboten on Wikipedia the last time I checked. Neutrality would dictate that the claim is the view of some with specific examples of it. 71.51.129.193 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Implications section was written before the decision was announced. I've trimmed out some of the material that no longer applies and added a comment per the transfusion statement. I still think the "The case's potential consequences.." sentence is appropriate. It is sourced and commentators on both sides of the political spectrum seem to think this case has broader implications.--13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Article III standing
I was hoping to learn how these plaintiffs had Article III standing. Did they demonstrate an injury in fact, e.g. paying for the insurance, which was used by a particular employee to purchase one of the 4 contraceptives, which indeed caused a fertilized egg not to implant and/or grow? Wouldn't this be a violation of privacy rights? What other way is there to establish standing? I looked up the Hobby Lobby v Sebelius case from the Western District of Oklahoma, and while it briefly mentioned standing under RFRA (same as Article III) I didn't see how the decision was arrived at. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFRA says http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1 "c) Judicial relief: A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution." So it doesn't seem the RFRA adds any new basis for standing. But wouldn't the threat of massive fines for failing to provide coverage suffice?--agr (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you were just looking for the answer personally, or suggesting we improve the article, either way, here is what I have gleaned (some of this may be suitable for the article) : Standing is addressed in significant detail in the opinion. On the matter of the corporation having standing as a "person" having free-exercise rights, the court relied on precedents set in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith and Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc.


 * Regarding the second bit, no financial injury is required, nor proof that someone actually used the contraceptives - the court said that paying for the coverage of those contraceptives "substantially burdens the exercise of religion", and yes the fines mentioned by Arnold were brought up to butress the infringement argument - but the fines were not a crucial part of the logic.


 * HHS and the dissent of course argued to the contrary in their briefs/opinion somewhat along the line of your question ("the connection between what the objecting parties must do (provide health-insurance coverage for four methods of contraception that may operate after the fertilization of an egg) and the end that they find to be morally wrong (destruction of an embryo) is simply too attenuated.[...] HHS and the dissent note that providing the coverage would not itself result in the destruction of an embryo; that would occur only if an employee chose to take advantage of the coverage and to use one of the four methods at issue" -


 * basically the courts answer was that if the belief (that providing coverage itself was objectionable) is sincere, it does not matter if the belief is reasonable. They went back to the Smith precedent here, "(“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim”") and more directly Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div for a similar second level effect objection.  also "the Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial. Instead, our “narrow function . . . in this context is to determine” whether the line drawn reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute that it does."


 * From there they go to the other prongs of the test, if it is a compelling government interest (a qualified yes), and if it is the least restrictive way of furthering that interest (no)Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The 20 methods of contraception
A key aspect of this case is the requirement that employees have made available to them an insurance plan that covers the 20 methods of contraception, even though the employer or organization need not pay to cover all 20 (and later cases demonstrate that they need not pay to cover any). However, I am unable to locate the list of these 20 methods. I am able to locate a list from the FDA which might have been the list used by IOM and referenced in this case. However, what causes me doubt is that the list I found includes "Sterilization Surgery for Men", and yet the ACA website says that vasectomy is specifically excluded from coverage. So are there typically 20 covered methods? Or just 19? Or does it mean that the only covered male surgery is castration? Do I have the correct list? I've tried tracking it down on other related pages, but it's either not there, or I don't know where to look. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)



The Greens answered (or anticipated) this in their complaint (see below for where to get a copy). Essentially, the complaint says that Sibelius abused her discretion under the ACA to foist a requirement for certain contraceptive coverages -- coverages which (per the FDA) may induce an abortion -- onto objecting, for-profit businesses.

What happened (or at least what the Greens alleged in a verified complaint) was that HHS adopted an interim rule, which was subject under the APA to a commentary period. In the wake of significant adverse commentary, Sebelius turned the matter over to IOM, which then excluded the objectors from participation in the process. Only pro-abortion proponents (according to the Greens) were heard by IOM, which then recommended to HHS that all methods approved by the FDA be included. This was done (per another interim rule -- requiring more comment). According to the complaint, some 100,000 adverse comments were received by HHS during this second comment period, and five days after comments were closed, Sebelius appeared before NARAL and told its members, "We are in a war!"

But, it's quite possible that HHS did not adopt, in its final rule, coverage for vasectomies, even though that's on the FDA's list.

Robert Brian Crim


 * * *  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro needs rewrite
After reading the introduction, I have very little idea what this case is about - I think it needs to be expanded, clarified or rewritten. Before I am flamed for being an idiot, I understand most introductions on wikipedia across most fields - and although I'm not a lawyer, I'm well read and well qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.86.130 (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What parts did you understand, and what parts need clarification or expansion? KinkyLipids (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what's this article about? Who's Burwell, what's Hobby Lobby? 46.139.93.230 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Too many pix?
I tend to agree with 188.31.7.5's removal of pix not tied directly to the case. The image of the doctor advising a women, maybe. The photo of Obama meeting congressional leaders, I think not as it implies they are arguing about this issue, when there is no reason to believe that. The shot of the Supreme Court building adds nothing, in my opinion. So I'd get ride of two of the three pix 188.31.7.5 deleted. --agr (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just removed most of the images as they make the article look like a "brochure". The Supreme court related images in particular do not belong, they can be used in their respective articles and don't need to clutter this one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the image of Obama and Congress is unwarranted, but removing all of them is not a good idea either. I would keep the ones of those who wrote the majority and minority opinions (Alito and Ginsberg, I do believe), as well as the one of the doctor -- these have encyclopedic value. The rest, though, I will stipulate do not.  Go  Phightins  !  20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wp:image says that images should look like what they're meant to illustrate, even if it's not an image of the actual article subject. Since the image of government leaders in disagreement is meant to illustrate the subject of government leaders in disagreement, then it's appropriate.


 * If a picture of where the ruling was decided is inappropriate here, then pictures of where the Supreme Court sits are also inappropriate for the Supreme Court article. It's true that the "class photo" of the court is also used in the Supreme Court's article, but it will no longer be useable there once the court's membership changes. It's also true that the picture of Alito doesn't add any information to the article other than what Alito's face looks like, but if a picture of the person who wrote the ruling is not important enough for an article about the ruling, then let's just declare iconoclasm as Wikipedia policy.


 * Wikipedia appears on full-color screens and has no reason to conform to the appearance of a print encyclopedia. A webpage with no pictures repels visitors, looks like it's cluttered with text, hasn't been updated since the nineties, and is generally ugly. Images invite people to keep reading, tell people where they are in the article, and keep old-fashioned readers from getting nauseous from reading so much on a computer. KinkyLipids (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm all for images for the reasons you give, but some judgement is appropriate here. Visitors are also repelled by images that add little understanding or, worse, insult their intelligence. We do not need to illustrate the concept of government leaders disagreeing. And the particular image implies that this is an argument between the current president and Congress, but it is much more complex than that. And if we are going to include a building, wouldn't a Hobby Lobby store be more useful? We have many at Commons category:Hobby Lobby. And while we are at it, an image or diagram of an IUD. We have lots of them too. Alito and Ginsburg for sure. Perhaps Kennedy (I found one commentator at scotusblog who referred to his concurrence as "controlling.") And maybe Scalia, with his quote from Smith in the caption.--agr (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Image says a concept like aggression can be illustrated with an image of a cat bearing its claws. Based on your reasoning, WP:Image is wrong, its suggestions insult readers' intelligence, and there's no need to illustrate the concept of aggression.
 * Any image of government leaders in disagreement implies an argument between opposing political parties, not branches of government. Instead of removing the image, the caption can be changed: Government leaders disagreed on the ruling along partisan lines.
 * I was considering adding all the images you suggested. I'll leave it up to others to decide what to put in the contraception subsection. I was thinking instead of adding an image to illustrate the plaintiffs' belief of life at conception, since there's misunderstanding around the word abortion. Other than that, a pic of an IUD would be appropriate, since it doesn't seem familiar to half the population. If we add a Kennedy pic, we should also add an Analysis section that includes the scotusblog comment you found. It might be appropriate to add only a small pic of Scalia to avoid misleading people into thinking he wrote the Hobby Lobby opinion. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An image of a cat bearing its claws might be appropriate for our article on aggression, but not for an article a court case stemming from a particular aggressive act. There is no need to illustrate political disagreement here, that is the insult to intelligence. We seem to agree on most pictures, so how about letting that one go? Also, I wouldn't vary the size of individual mug shots. They all could be a little smaller. The caption can make Scalia's roles clear. BTW here is the link to the "controlling concurrence" comment. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-why-i-dont-think-the-courts-wheaton-college-decision-rests-on-any-misunderstanding-of-the-law/--agr (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's summer, which means frequent power outages, including the one that erased the long and scathing point-by-point reply I wrote earlier, so I'll make this one short and sweet. The image did more than illustrate political disagreement as the placeholder caption suggested. It helps readers, especially future readers, identify who was in power at the time of this ruling. I did not think someone would remove all the images based on that low-quality caption. It would have been more in the spirit of WP:Image to improve the captions and choice of images instead of blanking the images. I think readers are secure enough about their intellect not to be easily insulted, especially future readers who would have a harder time visualizing the government leaders in the text.
 * Instead of a quote, which would already be in the section text, Scalia's caption can say that he wrote "a" majority opinion in a previous case.
 * I was also typing up a new section titled Analysis that included the SCOTUSblog comment. The power outage decided I should take a break and add it tomorrow if you don't beat me to it. KinkyLipids (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues
Too many to address in one sitting, but here are two.

Next to last sentance in the lead: "The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits,  until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, leaving no alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations who do not wish to provide birth control. " The bolded phrase ostensibly references a BusinessInsider post, which says no such thing. It says that "for now, the school's employee's and students (and their dependents) who use the school's sponsored insurance plans to pay for contraceptives won't be able to do so." So saying it leaves "no alternative for any female employee" is false, misleading, and frankly smacks of biased sensationalism. Further, in the "Wheaton College order" section of the Wikipedia article, it is explicitly noted that "The court said 'Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.'" Not sure exactly what the court was thinking here, but presumably they recognized an alternative mechanism.

The "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" section extensively cites liberal commentators but gives short shrift to conservative opinions, for example from Goldberg and Ponnuru. In fact, a cursory examination of the complete reference list indicates a majority of liberal biased sources (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.) and cherry picking of liberal commentaries from more usually conservative sources (Fox, Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News). RedBeard48 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How would you rewrite the bolded phrase? As to your second paragraph, the ideology of media sources is subjective (listing the three big networks as liberal is especially subjective, and some of the quotes in support of the ruling are cited from ABC and Washington Post). However, you are free to contribute to any subsection yourself to help balance the subsection, or you can add new subsections that deal with positive implications to help balance the section as a whole. Also, I guess some of the citations are incomplete because I don't see which ones are Goldberg and Ponnuru. Point out which ones they are, and I can fill them out for you. KinkyLipids (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just responding regarding the "Imposition" section. RedBeard48, I think you're confusing the source (e.g. the LA Times with the person expressing the opinion (e.g. Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director). It isn't in question what Melling actually said, so the fact that we source her quote to the LA Times versus Fox or any other media outlet isn't a problem. (It's generally best to use the most reliable sources possible, and the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. are all considered extremely reliable regardless of any bias.) The more important question is whether the diversity of notable opinions is adequately represented in the section. I don't know, as I haven't done the research, but if you feel there are important viewpoints that are left out then by all means add them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)



I must agree with RedBeard: My efforts to change the balance somewhat promptly were deleted by whoever next read the passage....

Robert Brian Crim....



— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the content because it violated No original research. There needs to be a reference stating that information. Bahooka (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)



Except that the article already is full of stuff that does not constitute "research" (original or otherwise).

Consider the following extract:

"The dean of the UC Irvine School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky said, 'The liabilities of the corporation are not attributed to the owners, so why should the owners be able to attribute their beliefs to the company?'"

Now, I would not deny that the dean of a law school well can be an attributable source for an article about a Supreme Court opinion, so we start on solid ground here. But, the dean's statement constitutes no LEGAL opinion or analysis, nor does it even indicate that the dean ever read the Hobby Lobby complaint (see below for where to get a copy).

All corporations are creatures of the State, so the legal rules to be imposed upon them are the rules created by the authority which created (or regulated) the corporation in the first place (the legislature). Asking rhetorically why the legislature didn't do things differently constitutes no expertise -- this is simply the opinion of one man who happens, concurrently, to be the dean of a law school and (apparently) personally prefers a different rule.

Such an opinion is no better than mine (and no more worthy of mention)....

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

But, let me, instead, address specifically RedBeard's boldprint objection because such demonstrates precisely what I've said previously.

The Business Insider citation -- Business Insider's personal interpretation of the opinion in Wheaton -- simply does not belong in the article. That is because the BEST EVIDENCE is not what Business Insider thinks but what the Court actually said.

All may read the Court's order (and Justice Sotomayor's sharp dissent) here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf -- which of course is the proper citation for any article in an encyclopedia, NOT a reference to editorial cherry-picking by a non-legal publication like Business Insider.

What then DID the Court actually say?

It granted TEMPORARY relief to Wheaton PENDING REVIEW. Which is not depriving anybody of anything. Furthermore, what the order specifically says is, "[T]he applicant has already notified the government -- without using EBSA Form 700 -- that it meets the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. NOTHING IN THIS ORDER PRECLUDES THE GOVERNMENT FROM RELYING ON THIS NOTICE, TO THE EXTENT IT CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY, TO FACILITATE THE PROVISION FOR FULL CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE UNDER THE ACT." [Emph.added.]

This order comes from 6 members of the Court, including one who joined the dissent in Hobby Lobby. It separates the girls from the boys (Sotomayor was joined by Ginzburg and Kagan) -- what was said under the table to the LAWYERS who read it.

What then was Justice Sotomayor's objection? It was solely that Wheaton had not made the requisite showing for INTERLOCUTORY relief UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT, given the uncertainty of rights CLAIMED UNDER RFRA.

Her opinion says NOTHING about ANY OTHER potential kind of reviewable claim.

I think everyone here should take the good Justice at her word! Especially when one reads the kinds of complaints actually being filed. [You can get a copy of the Hobby Lobby complaint here: www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hobby-Lobby-Complaint-stamped.pdf .]  And, if anyone will just read the complaint (remember "read the bill"?), they quickly will realize that these complaints have (in addition to the RFRA claims) freedom-of-religion and FREE SPEECH counts, as well as objections under the APA.

THAT'S what Justice Sotomayor QUIETLY accented with her dissent. Wheaton's rights are NOT CLEAR under RFRA -- they CANNOT be because, as Sotomayor points out, the Circuits are in conflict over what RFRA means --; but, the FIRST AMENDMENT claim is VERY MUCH alive -- and THAT'S what the Court wants to hear (and why it granted such relief).

The Government has NO POWER to order anyone to utter any form of religious "speech." Why? Because the First Amendment allows for "no law."

THAT'S clear!

For, as Justice Sotomayor points out, the relief 6 members of the Court granted is relief available ONLY in the rarest of circumstances -- readers conceivably could witness the resurrection of Christ before they see this kind of relief granted again by the Supreme Court of the United States (it's that rare).

This, of course, is why the Business Insider citation is improper: Yes, it's a "source" (in the sense it's in print); but, like so much of what is reported in the popular press about the federal courts, the representation makes no sense to one with even the most basic training in the law. This absolutely extraordinary order TEMPORARILY protects Wheaton from having to fill out a form bearing objectionable speech on the back, then having to send the form not to the government but to the insurance company. The relief applies ONLY to Wheaton -- which already has given the Government, by other means, all the notice the Government legally can command

(The Government remains free to tell the insurance company anything it wants).

How does THAT block ANYONE from obtaining contraceptives that may produce abortions?

So, RedBeard is right that the Business Insider citation, and its writer's interpretation of it, should be stricken from the article. Not only is Business Insider wrong in its own conclusions, the Wiki writer's interpretation of said conclusions is outright false.

This explains why one uses the original sources to learn what actually was said. Supreme Court opinions we would hope are written by masters. It is not scholarship to prefer instead the secondary interpretations or criticisms of some school-boy artist, just because he or she can get it into a popular magazine.

Robert Brian Crim



— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.74.242 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Portions of the above removed by me this 19th day of August 2014 (in light of the Doctor's judicious criticism). The remainder was edited to fit the original objection from RedBeard.

RBC *  *  *

Neutrality of Implications
The Implications section does not include any positive implications of the ruling. There are many positive implications (which is why we have this ruling) just as there are many positive implications in all court rulings. It only focuses on the negatives of religious protection for for-profit corporations, not the positives. Therefore, it is propaganda. It violates Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. Specifically: Due weight is not given to positive implications and a negative tone pervades the section. Sure, two views are given in "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others", but it is included as an afterthought, and not at all in the other two sections. Even the title "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" has a negative tone. Neutral Point of View 68.234.135.52 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Be bold and fix the problem! That said, I am removing the top level POV tag, as well as the POV-section tag under the "Further reading" section, as your complaints seem to be confined to the "Implications" section. If I'm mistaken, please describe those complaints here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Conservative" majority
The description of the majority as conservative has been deleted twice now. Why don't we establish consensus here so we don't have to keep explaining ourselves in edit summaries. It's been argued that the word conservative is subjective, that Kennedy is centrist, and that Wikipedia's U.S. v. Windsor article doesn't mention a ruling by a liberal majority. On the other hand, it's argued that conservative is reliably sourced, well-established, uncontroversial, and neutral.

There are two arguments here, so there's clearly a controversy. One says the justices have politically ideological leanings, and the other says they do not. When it comes to neutrality or POV, describing someone as conservative is not the same thing as taking sides between conservatism and liberalism. The Wikipedia article Politics of the United States is not POV and does not break neutrality when it describes which parties are conservative or liberal.

While the justices don't explicitly call themselves conservative or liberal, their voting patterns can be objectively measured as being somewhere on a spectrum and consistent from year to year. Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms. The Windsor article doesn't talk about a liberal majority because, using the objective measures, the Windsor ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.

Wikipedia should not shy away from giving an accurate report of the political reality. While I would agree with an argument that the justices generally aren't partisan in favor of any political party, president, or senator, the idea that justices don't have an ideology at all is not a very useful fiction. They wouldn't be justices if they weren't intellectually passionate, right? The article should describe the conservative majority and (relatively) liberal minority as exactly what they are. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, Wikipedia avoids editorial comments in its own voice, even if they are sourced. If we want to discuss ideological blocks on the current court based on analysis of voting patterns, that belongs elsewhere, not this article. Also the issues here are more nuanced. Employment Division v. Smith had a conservative majority and cut against liberal values (respect for native American religion) and the RFRA, which effectively reversed Smith and on which our case is based, had near unanimous support in Congress. And the majority steered clear of a First Amendment mandate, which many conservative groups would have preferred. So calling it a "conservative majority" is too simplistic. I'd leave "conservative" out and let the reader form their own opinions without our guidance.--agr (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For those first two claims, what about the arguments for those? Why is the word conservative an editorial comment when it comes from sources that aren't editorial opinion pieces? Why is the mention of conservative appropriate elsewhere but forbidden in this article? The Court's decisions do tend to be nuanced and complex, and yes, we readers should not be guided towards a particular opinion of any decision. The word conservative doesn't take away from that because it refers to the majority justices in general, not to the decision itself. Generally describing the majority as conservative is not the same thing as calling its interpretation of RFRA conservative, not to mention calling RFRA itself conservative, or by extension, calling the Smith decision liberal. This series of conclusions is not what's being argued by the mention of conservative.


 * Roe v. Wade is astonishing partly because there was a 6-3 conservative majority in the court, but four conservative justices joined the three liberal justices to deliver a complex and nuanced decision. Would we be guiding readers to the opinion that Roe v. Wade was a conservative decision by pointing out that the majority of justices behind the decision were generally conservative? Are we suggesting that readers will forget the nuance and complexity of this article's very first sentence once they reach the word conservative?


 * As a compromise solution to achieve consensus, what about saying specifically that the majority is generally conservative or referring to both sides as ideological by saying the 5-4 vote is "along idealogical lines"?


 * As a side, respect for minority religions, such as those of tribal nations, should be seen as a common value, not a liberal one. But enough of that. KinkyLipids (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't characterize the majority as conservative in Roe or in other Supreme Court decisions I looked at. In general Wikipedia avoids such characterizations unless the person or group self identifies. I don't see a reason to make an exception here. As for your aside, I agree with the "should" part.--agr (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm of the (apparently tiny) minority who believe that Wikipedia articles should actually reflect the content of independent, reliable sources rather than the opinions of individual pseudonymous Wikipedia editors. In this case, numerous reliable sources describe a conservative majority of the Court in Burwell. While it's fascinating to hear various editors' personal beliefs about Court politics and ideology, nothing that anyone has said in this thread has any bearing on what the actual content of the article should look like. That's determined by what we find in reliable sources&mdash;which clearly denote the majority here as "conservative". If we're having trouble accurately conveying what we find in reliable sources, perhaps because it conflicts with our personal political or judicial views, then we shouldn't be editing this article. MastCell Talk 06:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Easy there. We should be suggesting solutions for consensus, not suggesting everyone to get lost. Every editor gets to offer their reasoning despite wether we think there are absolute rules that automatically trump their reasoning. Even the policies about deferring to reliable sources or avoiding attributed characterizations had to have started out as editors' personal views on what policy should be. What about the alternative from the CNN source, which says that the 5-4 decision is "along idealogical lines". It reflects the source, and it also doesn't characterize the majority as conservative. KinkyLipids (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus needs to be grounded in Wikipedia policy and informed by the content of reliable sources. Without buy-in to that basic principle, this discussion is pointless. Although I appreciate your efforts (and your removal of the tagging). MastCell Talk 01:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, editors keep editing without discussing at this talk page. The next edit should ask them to come here to prevent an edit war.


 * POV keeps getting cited. The NPOV policy requires the inclusion of sourced minority views in the article. If there are any source articles reporting that the Burwell majority is not conservative, they can be included. But until those sources are presented, the only minority views are the personal views of the editors. Right now, POV is being cited to prevent the inclusion of sourced material. This sounds like misuse of the policy. And even if sources are found for minority views, the policy requires all views to be included, so the word conservative would still have to be there.


 * It's also been argued that we should refrain from characterizations of people that aren't self-applied. Does that policy apply to articles that aren't biographies? KinkyLipids (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Our WP:BLP policy is not restricted to biographical articles. More to the point, there are plenty of sources that describe Justice Kennedy as a moderate or swing vote, and many that question Roberts' conservative credentials. If we must have an adjective for majority, I would prefer "all male", as that is incontestable and more relevant to the issues in this case.--agr (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy talks about self-identified characterizations, but it looks like it's only in reference to religion or sexuality.


 * For those sources about Burwell that describe Kennedy as moderate or that question Roberts' conservatism, they can be added. Particularly in the section about Kennedy's concurrence, some description of his ideologically central position among his colleagues would fit.


 * About describing the majority as "all male", that could be useful, especially since the image of the justices was removed. It should probably be written as the "majority, which is all male," to avoid confusion with the majority of six male justices. There's also "all Catholic", but that characterization would probably be more understandably controversial than conservative, though like "all male" it would also be self-identified, factual, and strongly relevant to the issue of religious views on reproduction. But however factual and well-established either one is, they should only be added if they're in a source about Burwell, otherwise it's original research. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A Google search on "hobby lobby all male majority" yields numerous sources, e.g. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-21/how-civil-rights-law-could-overturn-hobby-lobby. --agr (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

“Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms.”

I think it’s far better in reading the Martin-Quinn graph link above to see Kennedy more recently somewhat conservative, but a centrist in historical terms. Calling Kennedy a “conservative” – one who affirmed Roe in his decision in Casey and who has with three decisions (Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor) done more for gay rights than arguably any other American in history – is deeply questionable.

“the Windsor ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.”

I think Ginsburg and Breyer would find it amusing if you called them centrist, especially in light of Ginsburg's dissent in Hobby Lobby (joined by Breyer and Kagan except for one minor issue). The graph shows them liberal in historical terms, although recently leaning more centrist.

Although Kennedy joins his conservative colleagues in Hobby Lobby, in a concurrence he says about Ginsburg's liberal dissent: "the Court's opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent." That's about as close as you can get without agreeing. The justices tend to be nuanced, and simplistic characterizations of Kennedy's opinions as "conservative" miss the mark.

The graph should be used judiciously. One has to be careful with a graph that shows Black, a former member of the KKK, as historically one of the most liberal justices ever. Of course he wrote a number of liberal decisions as reflected by his belief in the total incorporation doctrine (Adamson v. CA), but his conservative opinions as in Korematsu (written relatively early in the midst of his most "liberal" time on the court) also had lasting repercussions.

Many doctors and scientists disagree
[moved from user talk page]: Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. I had removed that content for two reasons: I'd like to get your thoughts on the matter! Thanks, wia (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The paragraph is about the plaintiffs' opinion of contraception, the purpose of which is to present their beliefs. Adding a fact about doctors' beliefs in this particular paragraph strikes me as incongruous.
 * 2) "Many" is a weasel word.


 * The cited New York Times and Washington Post front-page articles on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision both contain this important, relevant content and it would be misleading and a WP:NPOV to omit it.
 * The New York Times and Washington Post front-page articles on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision both appropriately use the word "many". The New York Times articles provide inline links to other articles that specifically identify some of the many organizations that disagree:
 * the cited Liptak New York Times front-page article on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision said: "many scientists disagree", and linked to:
 * the cited Carroll New York Times article on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision which said "the scientific consensus is against this idea", and linked to: a prior New York Times front-page article two years earlier which cited several organizations, physicians and scientists.
 * the cited Barnes Washington Post front-page article on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision said: "many, if not most, doctors and scientists disagree"
 * Details about the mechanism(s) of action of the specific contraceptives mentioned can be found via wikilinks to their individual Wikipedia pages.
 * "Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs The Green and Hahn families believe that life begins at conception which they equate to fertilization, and object to their closely held for-profit corporations providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA-approved contraceptives that the Green and Hahn families believe may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (many doctors and scientists disagree), which the Green and Hahn families believe constitutes an abortion.17, 18, 19, 20 • Emergency contraceptive pills (sometimes inaccurately called 'morning after' pills)   ◦ Plan B (levonorgestrel) and its generic equivalents    ◦ ella (ulipristal acetate)  • Intrauterine devices (IUDs)    ◦ ParaGard (copper IUD)    ◦ Mirena and Skyla (levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs) 17. Liptak, Adam (June 30, 2014). ' Supreme Court rejects contraceptives mandate for some corporations. Justices rule in favor of Hobby Lobby '. The New York Times: The companies objected to covering intrauterine devices and so-called morning-after pills, saying they were akin to abortion. Many scientists disagree . 18. Carroll, Aaron E. (June 30, 2014). How Hobby Lobby ruling could limit access to birth control .' The New York Times: The owners of Hobby Lobby told the Court that they were willing to cover some forms of contraception but believed that the so-called morning-after pills and two kinds of IUDs can cause what they believe to be a type of abortion, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall or causing an already implanted egg to fail to thrive. As colleagues have noted, the scientific consensus is against this idea 19. Barnes, Robert (June 30, 2014). ' Supreme Court sides with employers over birth control mandate .' The Washington Post: In this case, the companies' owners say that four of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA work after an egg has been fertilized and thus are abortifacients. While many , if not most, doctors and scientists disagree , Alito said the point is that the owners believe offering such services — such as the morning-after pill and IUDs — violates their religious faiths. 20. Richey, Warren (June 30, 2014). ' Supreme Court rules against contraceptive mandate in Hobby Lobby case .' The Christian Science Monitor"
 * Additional sources noting some of the "many" specific organizations that disagree could be added to this article, but may be overkill:
 * American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and ten other medical organizations and four individual scientists:
 * Physicians for Reproductive Health, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society for Emergency Contraception, Association of Reproductive Health Physicians, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, American Medical Women's Association, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, Society of Family Planning, International Association of Forensic Nurses, American College of Nurse-Midwives, James Trussell, Susan F. Wood, Don Downing, Kathleen Besinque. (October 21, 2013). " Brief of Amici Curiae. Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby ." Washington, D.C. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: In fact, Respondents' claim that Plan B and ella prevent implantation is not supported by current scientific data or by evidence in the record below. To the contrary, scientific research shows that Plan B and ella both function by inhibiting or postponing ovulation; they do not prevent fertilization or implantation.
 * The 2012 Belluck New York Times front-page article linked to by the already cited Carroll New York Times article on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision and a follow-up 2013 Belluck New York Times article:
 * Belluck, Pam (June 5, 2012). Abortion qualms on morning-after pill may be unfounded ". The New York Times
 * Belluck, Pam (November 26, 2013). " New birth control label counters lawsuit claim ." The New York Times
 * which in turn cite a statement by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics:
 * FIGO (March 2011). " Mechanism of Action. How do levonorgestrel-only emergency contraceptive pills (LNG ECPs) prevent pregnancy? ." London: International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics: • Review of the evidence suggests that LNG ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling. • LNG ECPs do not interrupt a pregnancy (by any definition of the beginning of pregnancy). However, LNG ECPs can prevent abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.
 * the World Health Organization:
 * WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research (2010). " Fact sheet on the safety of levonorgestrel-alone emergency contraceptive pills (LNG ECPs) ." Geneva: World Health Organization: Can LNG ECPs cause an abortion? LNG ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. The evidence available to date shows that LNG ECP use does not prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining. The primary mechanism of action is to stop or disrupt ovulation; LNG ECP use may also prevent the sperm and egg from meeting.
 * and labels approved by the European Medicines Agency:
 * HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (November 2014). " Norlevo 1.5 mg tablet Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) ". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association 1. What NorLevo 1.5 mg tablet is and what it is used for NorLevo works by stopping your ovaries from releasing an egg. It cannot stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb.
 * HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (January 8, 2015). " Norlevo 1.5 mg tablet Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) ". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association: 5.1 Pharmacodynamic properties The primary mechanism of action is blockade and/or delay of ovulation via suppression of the luteinizing hormone (LH) peak. Levonorgestrel interferes with the ovulatory process only if it is administered before the onset of the LH surge. Levonorgestrel has no emergency contraceptive effect when administered later in the cycle.
 * HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (January 2015). " ellaOne 30 mg Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) ". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association: 1. What ellaOne is and what it is used for / How ellaOne works ellaOne contains the substance ulipristal acetate  which acts by modifying the activity of the natural hormone progesterone which is necessary for ovulation to occur. As a result, ellaOne works by postponing ovulation.
 * HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (January 7, 2015). " ellaOne 30 mg Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) ". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association 5.1 Pharmacodynamic properties Ulipristal acetate is an orally-active synthetic selective progesterone receptor modulator which acts via high-affinity binding to the human progesterone receptor. When used for emergency contraception the mechanism of action is inhibition or delay of ovulation via suppression of the LH surge.
 * EMA (November 21, 2014). " EMA recommends availability of ellaOne emergency contraceptive without prescription. Change in status to facilitate access for women in the European Union ". London: European Medicines Agency
 * HRA Pharma (January 8, 2015). " Historic decision from the European Commission grants 120 million women direct access to ellaOne emergency contraceptive across the European Union ". Paris: HRA Pharma
 * BC07 (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is a very well thought-out answer! I'll defer to the NYTimes and to you on this. Do you think it would be better to write it out as its own sentence? Something about having the content as an aside seems a bit off to me. Any thoughts? wia (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to note, but giving it its own sentence may be overemphasis for this article. Setting it off with em dashes instead of paired parenthesis would be okay, but I think leaving it as is, as a parenthetical clarification, is fine. BC07 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702150143/http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html to http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Implantation
, let's discuss before any further reversions. I'm suspect we're more on the same page than you think. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"Religious exemption (U.S.)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Religious exemption (U.S.) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 03:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)