The Contraception Mandate: A Complex Debate Between Religious Freedoms and a Woman’s Right to Health

It can be said that American citizens are given a "right to be exempted". Our ancestors worked hard to build a government that allows citizens to protect these rights when they are challenged. Recently, the rights of two different groups are challenged around the contraception committee which is part of Patient Protection and Price Treatment Act (ACA) signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Its obligation requires employers to provide legal medical insurance to employees with "lowest" medical insurance, including some insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Americans are afraid of efforts to violate religious freedom and conscience in states that are contemplating measures to enforce ACA-based contraceptive methods and to provide health care providers services regardless of ethical opposition . Health professionals seek to strictly observe ethical standards for workers and maintain the highest ethical standards and ethical standards. Without clear legal protection, health care workers need to choose whether to violate personal ethics or moral beliefs or to unemployment. Healthcare workers face discrimination without legislative guarantees and enforcement regulations

Many people say that religious freedom is deeply loved, hotly debated and one of the basic principles of American political life. In close connection with the separation of the church and the state and the first revision, religious freedom is used to defend or attack various practices, beliefs and groups from Catholic school to polygamy. The contraceptive work issued by the Ministry of Health and Human Services and the company's hobby The application of religious freedom to the lobby seems to inspire Finbarr Curtis to raise questions for books. His problems and the resulting research finally dismantled the concept of religious freedom itself.

Naturally, given the bias of greater discussion on religious considerations, most arguments about hobby halls and contraceptive devices are equally biased. On the other hand, some think that contraceptive work is "stepping on" or "attacking" freedom of religion. On the other hand, those who warned that victory in the hobby lobby would threaten our local government and the civil rights law of the country, perhaps perhaps the rule of law. After the decision, there was also a difference in direct response to most decisions. Polarization of this problem and the court's decision were reflected and encouraged by the strong opposition of Ginsberg's judge.