Chapter 5 examines how the issue of contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was debated in the Supreme Court. Relying on a detailed content analysis of the amici curiae briefs, oral arguments, decisions and dissents presented during Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. and Zubik v. Burwell, this chapter shows that while “religious freedom” frames were almost entirely absent in the initial debates over the ACA, they became the dominant approach to understanding the contraception issue during litigation. Moreover, the evidence presented here demonstrates that the gender of the participants in these cases shaped their framing choices in ways that transcended their support or opposition for the ACA’s contraceptive mandate. In other words, the dominant frame of the debate over contraception coverage evolved considerably over time, and gender considerations were paramount in dictating how different actors chose to frame their discussions of the birth control mandate.
Reframing Federalism — The Affordable Care Act (and Broccoli) in the Supreme Court