On Tuesday March 25, the debate over the constitutionality of Hobby Lobby’s birth control restrictions based on religion reached the Supreme Court. Prominent conservative lawyer Paul Clement, who defended the Defense of Marriage Act, is representing Hobby Lobby and experienced lawyer Donald Verilli, Solicitor General, is representing the government. The case is one that brings together many of the issues facing our government and society today: the role of government, abortion, religion and state, and the rights of corporations.

Hobby Lobby, a crafts store owned by the conservative Christian Green family, is suing the government because due to Affordable Care Act the company is required to cover all forms of contraceptives in its insurance. It is opposed to providing certain birth controls such as Plan B and IUDs because it believes those contraceptives are abortion methods if they interfere with life after conception. It asserts that since it is a private corporation it should have control over what insurance it uses for their employees. Hobby Lobby released a statement to the press stating, “Hobby Lobby does not provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in its healthcare plan. Hobby Lobby will continue to vigorously defend its religious liberty and oppose the mandate and any penalties.”

The Supreme Court has not tackled the issue of contraception and abortion but rather the roles religion, corporations and government play in the distribution of birth control. In the debate, Hobby Lobby’s lawyers have cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 that was intended to protect a person’s free exercise of religion. However, that law has been complicated by the Citizens United case in 2010 that essentially ruled that corporations have the same rights as people. Thus, Hobby Lobby is arguing that they have the same protected expression of religion that a person has.

Nina Totenberg, an NPR correspondent, reports in a segment on March 25 the government “maintains that the court has never found a for-profit company to be a religious organization for purposes of federal law”. The government added that in business, owners are separate from their companies. The government also argues that Hobby Lobby would be violating its employees’ freedom to choose their own health insurance. Hobby Lobby does not want to pay the insurance company for the birth control its employees may want because it would be, quoting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a “substantial religious burden”. The government argues that it would burden employees who may not agree with Hobby Lobby.

The law does allow non-profits to exempt themselves from certain provisions based on religious grounds, but not for-profit corporations. The White House Press Secretary Jay Carney posted this statement on The White House website: “These steps protect both women’s health and religious beliefs, and seek to ensure that women and families–not their bosses or corporate CEOs–can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets.”

In the oral arguments on Tuesday, March 25, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Paul Clement, “Is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives or does it include items like blood transfusion, vaccines? Is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well?” She raised a question regarding the future: if Hobby Lobby won the case, would other corporations start revoking various medical provisions that are considered “essential” to proper health care? Contraceptives aren’t the only medical practice that clash with a person’s beliefs: as Justice Sotomayor mentioned, there are other procedures that people object to, such as vaccines and surgery.

The focus of the case turned more toward examining the laws and how past cases affect this one. Mr. Clement, defense attorney for Hobby Lobby, maintained that because of its religious beliefs Hobby Lobby should be exempt from paying for the insurance. Because Hobby Lobby refused to pay, he claimed, it was facing an unjust financial burden.

The case will most likely not be decided until summer, and it will certainly be an influential decision regarding future arguments about similar issues.