1. The Human Rights Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. & Conestoga Wood Specialties Store v. Burwell Katrina Anderson, Senior Human Rights Counsel, Center for Reproductive Rights July 17, 2014

2. CENTRAL HOLDING: As applied to closely-held corporations, HHS regulations enforcing the ACA’s contraception mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

3. DIRECT RESULT: “Closely held” corporations can deny their employees insurance coverage for certain forms of FDA-approved birth control.

4. THE DISSENT: 1.Harm to women. 2.Imposes boss’ beliefs on employees. 3.Consequences beyond contraception (“the minefield”).

5. HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: -Women’s access to contraception is a fundamental human right -Access takes priority -Objection is possible where there is direct involvement in procedure -Individuals can conscientiously object, not institutions

6. OPPOSITION LAW BRIEF: -Counsel of Record: Brigham Young University School of Law -Amici: Institutions specializing in law and religion and individual experts on international and comparative law -Argument: international law protects “collective religious rights”

7. What’s next?