1. Question 1: Can this ruling be applied to cases other than contraception? What makes contraception different than other things?
  2. Question 2: How do you think this ruling will affect the debate over other women's rights issues, such as abortion or equal pay?

  3. Question 3: Specifically, what could this decision mean for young people still on their parent's insurance, whose parents work for these organizations?

  4. Question 4: If HHS (The Department of Health and Human Services) used a "fix" similar to what they did for non-profits, couldn't that be easily overturned by the next administration?
  5. Question 5: Does the Supreme Court decision also allow companies to not cover doctors visits for birth control prescriptions or insertion?
  6. Update: While the plaintiffs don't object to the well-woman visits themselves, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood do object in their briefs to covering counseling for contraceptive methods to which they object, as the Guttmacher Institute's amicus brief points out. It's unclear how that would work in practice.  

  7. Question 6: Do you see this decision as a powerful argument for single-payer health care?
  8. Question 7: Did Hobby Lobby answer the question about covering these birth control methods, then not, in order to file this lawsuit? 
Read next page