By now, we’ve all heard about the Supreme Courts Hobby Lobby and the Affordable Care Act decisions.
And that’s a good thing.
But before the Supreme is about to take on the most significant of all the issues of our time, it’s worth taking a moment to take a deep breath and appreciate just how far the Court has come.
The Hobby Lobby decision, which was handed down on February 22, 2017, is a big deal for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, it marks the beginning of the end of the Hobby Lobby-style corporate religious freedom, or CRF, in the United States.
The ruling opens the door for a wave of lawsuits challenging CRFs across the country, as well as for the Supreme to strike down CRFs in some states, including California, which has become the first state to repeal CRFs outright.
The decision is also a big win for corporations like Hobby Lobby, which had already been fighting to block the new law from taking effect because of the way it was structured.
For the past two years, Hobby Lobby has fought in court to get the Court to rule against the new regulations, arguing that the rules would allow corporations to opt out of covering contraceptives.
(That argument has proven to be successful, as many corporations have agreed to participate in the new insurance marketplaces, where they can offer contraception coverage to their workers.)
Now, though, the Court is likely to take the case to the Supreme, which would likely hear oral arguments in the case in June.
That means the justices will likely hear arguments on the case from either a pro- or anti-Hobby Lobby side.
Both sides have argued that the Supreme has overstepped its authority in Hobby Lobby by deciding that the law’s contraceptive coverage mandate violates the First Amendment.
(In the past, the Supreme court has declined to take sides in cases that it considered in cases involving religious liberty.)
The decision is the most important decision the Supreme justices have made on the issue of religious liberty in more than two decades.
And it’s been one of the most consequential ones.
It’s not just the decision that will affect whether or not corporations like Walmart, McDonalds, and other big corporations are able to avoid covering contraceptives, it also will have an impact on whether or how religiously-affiliated corporations are allowed to refuse to cover the contraceptives that their employees need.
And, of course, it will have a major impact on how the CRF will be implemented nationwide, as the Court will likely issue new rules to ensure that Hobby Lobby is not allowed to continue to deny coverage to women and women-owned businesses.
Here’s what the Hobby’s CRF looks like, and what it looks like right now, based on the latest Supreme Court ruling:The Hobby’s new contraception mandate will require Hobby Lobby to cover contraceptives for employees and their dependents.
This means that if Hobby Lobby refuses to cover certain types of contraceptives, its employees will not be able to keep their employees from getting the birth control they need.
This is not an insignificant problem.
A 2011 study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute found that, on average, women who work in small businesses make $8 per hour less than women who do not work in businesses that provide contraceptive coverage.
This translates to a $6,000 savings for the average woman, who will likely need to choose between a $1,000 tax bill or paying her husband $7,000 more.
If Hobby Lobby’s employees have to pay for contraception, they will be paying for it for the rest of their lives.
This is not just a matter of women’s health.
It’s also a matter about women’s dignity.
Women will no longer have the freedom to make choices about whether or when they get pregnant.
This includes women who don’t want to be pregnant at all.
As one woman in Colorado wrote to the New York Times in February, “I don’t even know what it means to be a woman in this country.
If you’re going to get pregnant, it has to be the result of rape, incest, or a forced marriage.
If it’s rape, it should be for me.”
The ruling also will impact women who are pregnant or have already had a baby.
If a woman who is pregnant or already has a child decides to have a child out of wedlock, the state of Colorado will have to cover birth control for the entire pregnancy, and if she’s not able to afford the cost, she could be kicked out of the state.
The Supreme Court decision also is likely a big boost for the CRFs of other corporations.
In April 2017, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against the makers of a drug called Depo-Provera.
The drug, which costs around $1 million per month, was introduced in 2012 to combat the spread of the H1N1 influenza virus.
A small but significant number of doctors prescribed the drug to women who had not been pregnant, but were still taking it