[Vision2020] Contraception and Religious Liberty

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=2128f258/fca23f25&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787511c_nyt5&ad=Sessions_120x60_Aug20_NoText_Secure&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthesessions>

------------------------------
October 3, 2012
Contraception and Religious Liberty

Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, prominent Republicans and other
social conservatives have spent the past year making inflammatory
allegations that an Obama administration rule requiring employer health
plans to cover birth control without a co-pay tramples on religious
freedom. An important federal court
decision<http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/4:2012cv00476/119215/50/0.pdf>issued
Friday rejected that attack as without foundation.

Judge Carol Jackson of Federal District Court, a George H.W. Bush
appointee, dismissed the lawsuit filed against the administration brought
by a mining company and its owner, who said that providing contraceptive
coverage in the company health plan violated his personal religious views.

Judge Jackson, based in St. Louis, correctly pointed out that the rule
exempts churches, mosques and other houses of worship. The mining company —
a secular, for-profit employer — clearly does not qualify for that
exemption or for the accommodation the administration is fashioning to
relieve colleges, hospitals and other organizations with religious
affiliations from having to provide contraceptive coverage directly, by
putting the burden on insurance companies. Her legal analysis, however,
applies broadly, providing a useful framework for assessing claims by
varied religious objectors.

The plaintiffs argued that the contraception mandate violates the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that prohibits the federal government
from taking actions that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of
religion” unless that action advances a compelling government interest and
is the “least restrictive means” of achieving it.

Judge Jackson said she did not have to address whether the act’s strict
test should be applied in this case to a company because the contraception
coverage requirement does not rise to the level of a “substantial” burden
needed to trigger the law.

Any imposition on religion is trivial and remote, she explained. The health
care coverage would offend the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an
employee “makes an independent decision to use the plan” to obtain
contraceptives; and that independent decision is no different from an
employee using part of a salary to pay for contraceptives, which clearly
would not harm the employer’s right to free exercise of religion.

The 1993 statute “is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon
others” and “does not protect against the slight burden on religious
exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the
conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious
beliefs that differ from one’s own,” Judge Jackson wrote.

She also forcefully dismissed the claim that the contraceptive coverage
requirement violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against the
establishment of religion. Her ruling accurately said the regulation is a
“neutral” attempt to expand women’s access to health care and combat gender
bias, and applies equally to all denominations. Under legal precedents, the
First Amendment does not exempt individuals or entities from complying with
neutral laws of general applicability based on a religious objection,
however sincere.

Judge Jackson’s powerful ruling is a victory for women and religious
freedom. The many other courts hearing similar lawsuits by companies,
individuals and groups with religious affiliations should follow her
approach.




-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121004/1ec6d0ae/attachment.html>