You have worked hard to build your closely-held family company into a successful business. You provide generous compensation and health benefits to your employees. In fact, your employee health plans cover 16 types of birth control. The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act ("ACA") requires, however, that you pay for abortifacients like the "morning after pill." This offends your strongly-held religious objection to abortion and you believe the government cannot legally enforce this mandate, one of the most controversial provisions of the ACA.

And so we see the conflict facing the U.S. Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.

At issue is the constitutionality of the mandate, as applied to for-profit, wholly secular corporations whose owners object to providing contraceptive coverage on religious grounds. On one side, can the government strip individuals of their religious liberties simply for being a business owner? And on the other, should the personal beliefs of a woman's boss dictate her health care choices?

Courts throughout the country are split on the issue of whether closely held corporations, either in their own right or through their owners, may exercise religion, as contemplated by the First Amendment's free exercise clause. At least one Court has said that a corporation likely is a "person" entitled to assert free exercise rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. (RFRA says the government may not place a "substantial burden" on a person's exercise of religion absent a compelling government interest and a showing that the action is the least restrictive means available for promoting that interest.) Here in our backyard, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held the opposite, deciding that a business owned by a Mennonite family is likely not protected by RFRA because "for profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise."

It is not surprising that advocates on both sides of the issue have donned their usual "jerseys." The Obama administration declined to comment on the specifics of the case, but said the mandate is designed to ensure that a woman's health-care decisions are made between her and her doctor. "The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women," the statement said. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement that "Faith-based employers, including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals, should not be forced to provide services that contradict their faith."

The ACA provides a "Religious Employer Exemption" which would likely apply to the organizations referenced by Boehner. That said, and in light of the Court's willingness to uphold the ACA against all challenges thus far, like it or not, we expect the Court to do the same here.

This article by Lori Halber and Rick Grimaldi was also featured on Philadelphia.RegionsBusiness.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.