In implementing the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration offered religious schools and charities that object to some birth control methods a reasonable and respectful accommodation: They need not provide or pay for contraceptive coverage for their female employees, but
In implementing the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration offered religious schools and charities that object to some birth control methods a reasonable and respectful accommodation: They need not provide or pay for contraceptive coverage for their female employees, but they must inform the government of their objections so coverage can be offered directly by an insurance company. But that compromise isn’t good enough for the leaders of some of the organizations, who think merely signing a paper expressing their objections makes them complicit in sin because it “triggers” actions by others.
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the organizations’ reluctance to cooperate even to that minimal extent is protected by the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from imposing a “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion unless doing so serves a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. It’s vital the court reject the organizations’ extravagant interpretation of that law.
The ACA requires most employer health insurance plans to include coverage for preventive health care, a mandate the Obama administration interpreted to require female employees be provided, without extra cost, all contraceptive methods recommended by the federal Preventive Services Task Force. The administration exempted houses of worship and religious orders from the mandate. But for religiously affiliated institutions … it crafted a compromise: Once an employer certified an objection to providing contraceptives, the cost would be assumed by its insurer or insurance administrator. …
Essentially, the institutions are arguing their conviction that signing a paper compromises their faith is itself a theological proposition no earthly court can question. If the court were to agree, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would be transformed into a blank check for obstructionism. … It’s important to remember in enacting the law two decades ago, Congress provided for more protection for religious liberty than was guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. What Congress can pass, it also can repeal.
— Los Angeles Times
