By Miya Syvyk
Literary Editor

On Tuesday March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court debated a controversial provision of the health care reform law presented by President Barack Obama in 2010 and narrowly upheld the law by a 5-to-4 vote in 2012.

A portion of the law consists of a mandate requiring some employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives; this so-called contraception mandate has caused “more than 100 lawsuits across the country, including 78 that are still pending,” wrote Richard Wolf from USA Today.

The cases were brought by two particularly pro-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties; the family-owned and religiously oriented businesses provide health insurance to their employees, but object to covering certain methods of birth control which are believed to cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

Although Food and Drug Administration labels include this warning, the Obama administration and its supporters deny these accusations. They prevent fertilization by inhibiting ovulation or by preventing sperm from reaching the egg. These fertility controllers would decrease in unwanted pregnancies and enable women to orient their decisions around their health rather than which contraception they can afford.

The disputers “emphasize their desire to operate in harmony with biblical principles while competing in a secular marketplace,” stated Bill Mears from CNN.

Demonstrators for both sides, including major advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood, protested in front of the courthouse on Capitol Hill.

The companies relied heavily on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which recognizes religious exceptions under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to generally applicable laws. Financially, if Hobby Lobby were to refuse to offer the coverage, it would face federal fines of $1.3 million a day; if it were to discontinue insurance coverage overall, the fines would result in $26 million a year.

The court’s liberal bloc questioned whether pro-profit corporations should be able to claim religious views, but the companies insisted that they should be able to enjoy the same rights as people to exercise religious beliefs.

“They shouldn’t be able to withhold contraceptives from their employees just because of their personal religious views. This would be unfairly taking away an unfair portion of their insurance coverage,” said junior, Sarah Spanudis.

The court will issue its decision in late June.