IF Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood have religious rights, AND IF the contraceptive coverage rule substantially burdens these rights, Next question for the Court: Does the rule forward compelling interests?

 Safeguarding public health  Furthering gender equality

 Birth control is critical preventive care  Greatly reduces unintended pregnancy and its consequences ◦ Depression ◦ Delayed prenatal care ◦ Greater incidence of domestic violence ◦ Health conditions exacerbated by pregnancy ◦ Independent health benefits ◦ Pre-term birth and low birth weight ◦ Poorer mental and physical health for children

 Eliminating cost-sharing critical to avoiding unintended pregnancy ◦ Increases access to most effective methods ◦ Ensures most appropriate contraception available ◦ Removes barriers to effective use ◦ Data demonstrate the impact

Contraceptive coverage requirement—  Remedies gender discrimination in health care plans  Addresses the economic harm to women imposed by the cost of contraception  Promotes greater social and economic opportunities for women

 These compelling interests demonstrate the harm threatened by denial of coverage. ◦ Increased financial burden for women affected ◦ Increased risk of unintended pregnancy with negative health, social, and economic consequences  Past religious exercise cases sharply distinguish between exercising religion and imposing it on others.  Religious exercise has not previously been held to provide a license to harm third parties or deny the rights of third parties.