Why did the Green family believe that providing coverage for four contraceptive methods conflicted with their Christian beliefs?

In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Green family—owners of Hobby Lobby, Inc.—objected to a federal regulation under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that required employers to provide insurance coverage for 20 FDA-approved contraceptive methods.1

The Greens specifically opposed coverage for four of these methods: two types of "morning-after" pills and two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs). Although scientific consensus differs, the family believed these four methods functioned as abortifacients, or abortion inducers. Consequently, they argued that including these specific contraceptives in their employees' health insurance plans would be equivalent to facilitating abortion, which they maintained was inconsistent with the tenets of their Christian faith. They contended that being forced to provide this coverage under threat of significant financial penalties constituted a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise, violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.1