As the end of term approaches for the Supreme Court, the public eye is heavily focused upon ruling on two cases concerning the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ‘ObamaCare’). The ACA seeks to guarantee no-cost prescription contraception to women under most health insurance plans, while some for-profit companies are fighting this provision under the banner of religious freedom.

The Supreme Court ruling on two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius will be heard by the end of this month. The ruling will set precedent for all for-profit companies to either abide by or abandon the contraceptive coverage mandate of the ACA.

For public knowledge, details on the legal background of the cases are as follows.

As of the passing of the ACA, the contraceptive coverage mandate is deemed federal law. The contraceptive coverage mandate, under said law, includes all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives as part of the insurance coverage under preventative services for women.

Failure by employer health insurance plans to cover contraceptives is deemed a violation of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The new ACA contraceptive coverage mandate extends that responsibility to insurance even in the individual and small group markets category, whilst also specifying an array of contraceptive options for no cost.

The crux of it, is the fact that more than half the states follow their own “contraceptive equity” laws, a large number of which include religious exemptions similar to those under federal regulation. Such federal regulation exempts strictly religious employers, such as Churches, who primarily hire individuals of the same faith, and whose primary purpose is religious in nature.

For-profit organizations, however, are not exempt from these religious exceptions. Many for-profit religious employers believe that certain types of contraception, including morning-after pills such as Plan B, and some intrauterine devices (IUDs) are abortifacient.

According to their religious beliefs, pregnancy starts when the sperm fuses with the ovum, but according to widely-accepted science, pregnancy starts upon implantation of the fertilized ovum into the uterine lining. As Plan B and two types of IUDs prevent implantation, they are considered early abortion techniques, and hence go against religious beliefs. The plaintiffs in the cases are such for-profit religious employers, and are suing for their rights to be exempt from the contraceptive coverage mandate.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the for-profit companies can exercise their religious objections, acting as individuals under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed in 1993. The federal government and advocates for the ACA agree that religious freedom can only be exercised by individuals, not corporations.

While the issue seems to superficially centre around contraception coverage for employees of religiously-affiliated institutions, the deeper issue that arises tends to be of precedent; precedent of the place for all other religious beliefs in federal law. It becomes a classic Church versus State argument. If the ruling is in favour of the for-profit companies, it could set a dangerous precedent for other similar companies to be exempt from providing certain health coverage in their insurance plan, and other services.

“Scientology-believing employers could insist upon non-coverage of its nemesis, psychiatry. And Jehovah’s’ Witness corporations could demand exclusion of surgical coverage, under the theory that so many of such procedures require the use of whole blood products, forbidden by their faith,” says Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, the ruling could set precedent for other non-health related exemptions fuelled by religious freedom. “Corporations could also claim that they don’t need to abide by equal pay laws because of male dominance in their scriptural social order,” said Lynn, “or, for those who offer public accommodations, “you can hear them say we don’t believe marriage equality is biblical, so you, (gay and lesbian) travelers, cannot stay in our hotel or eat in our restaurant,” he added.