More to the point, Catholics are expected not to USE contraception, but that’s different from providing it to others. The nuns aren’t being forced to use the pill.
Only if you ignore half of the test.
The law is the law, and it was clearly intended to prevent exactly what the administration is trying to do. It’s language applies directly to things like the contraception mandate.
Yes, ANY law that infringes on someone’s religion has to survive strict scrutiny. Which is as it should be.
First, the way the courts have historically ruled on religious issues, the plaintiff first has to establish that it is truly a violation of their conscience rights and not just trying to get out of having to do something. In the case of catholics and birth control, it doesn’t get any easier to prove this is a legitimate religious belief. SCOTUS is mostly Catholic. They know what they were taught, they won’t need it explained to them.
Second, even sincere religious belief doesn’t exempt one from any law. It just means that the law has to survive strict scrutiny. A tough standard, but one which can be met if the law is actually vitally necessary.
What the strict scrutiny does is make sure that Congress can’t just infringe on religious beliefs because they feel like doing so to pursue this or that relatively minor policy.
No, it clearly was intended to protect the practice of religion by believers. Government may not force Christians to use contraception, but there is no Constitutional guarantee of freedom to impose their religious beliefs on others. A Christian’s freedom to worship ends where my freedom to disbelieve begins.
Ah, so they can make you pay for it, just not use it. Good thing the administratino isn’t pursuing that line of argument. That’s even worse than the one they are actually using(which is that corporations don’t have religious freedom).
Churches already pay for it, willingly. Insurance is compensation.
Some do, voluntarily. They do not have to, because the administration exempted churches, thus acknowledging that it was an infringement on religion.
The adminsitration has never disputed that the mandate infringes on religious practice. They just don’t believe the plaintiffs have any rights in this regard, representing organizations that aren’t churches.
You are missing my point. Churches that object to paying for insurance that covers contraception willingly pay wages that are used to buy contraception. Insurance is compensation; trying to make an obtuse distinction between the two oversteps the guarantee of religious freedom under RFRA.
Even if I concede your logic, it still doesn’t work. Religious freedom infringement is kinda like sexual harassment. It’s mostly in the eye of the person being harassed. If a religous person feels they are violating their religion by providing contraception as part of employee contraception, then their religious freedom is being infringed. The government doesn’t get to define what religion is and isn’t. They just have to determine if religious beliefs are sincerely held. And in this case, they clearly are.
So those who hold a sincere belief that paying income taxes is against their religion are excused from paying taxes?
No, because the income tax can survive strict scrutiny. Obviously, collecting taxes is a compelling government interest.
The government has already exempted some individuals from the individual mandate due to religious reasons, like the Amish. They don’t have to get insurance at all.
Like I said, the administration already concedes the religious infringement, they are simply trying to say that these organizations, whether profit or non-profit, have no standing.
It is odd to me that people have trouble with the distinction between being compelled to provide compensation in a form that violates religious conscience and providing compensation in a form that doesn’t (but might be used in a manner that might violate religious conscience if the person using it felt the same way as the person providing it).
Perhaps it’s the fairly unique nature of this debate. It’s easy to think of hypotheticals (all employees must be paid in ham or lotto tickets), but they’re not very realistic. But, at the same time, other than the minimum wage, I have trouble thinking of another mandatory form of compensation.
“Strict scrutiny” is the limit. This is a reasonably well-defined term of art in existing caselaw.
Really? You think that the administration’s current scheme meets the strict scrutiny test?
You care to place a bet on the outcome? You’ve won bets from me before…
Which half would that be?
Suppose I claimed that following traffic signals was against my religion. Suppose I even founded a religious group that held this belief. My beliefs are sincere, if not strange (like most religion). Could I claim exemption from observing traffic lights despite traffic laws being neutral?
Would you have the government decide what is a legitimate religious view, and reject those that it deems not religious? The government can define religion and reject religious views it says aren’t really religious? Should only old, established religions or beliefs be protected?
How does providing insurance coverage to another person that she may or may not choose to use a certain way, without the provider’s knowledge, violate religious conscience?
Would it violate a nun’s conscience to hand a pack of condoms to someone? Or drive a woman to meet a man for a date when she suspected they would use birth control?
Health care and health insurance isn’t?
Hypothetically speaking, a court would say traffic control is a compelling government interest, and traffic lights are closely tied to that interest (though traffic laws are state matters and the RFRA wouldn’t apply.) I don’t think it’s a terrible counterexample, though, because it’s actually kind of hard to argue that the state interest in the purely administrative matter or ordering traffic is compelling.
The second half. The test has two questions (it has always had two questions, even when it was a constitutional test). First, does it substantially burden a religious belief and then Second, is the regulation the least burdensome way to advance a compelling government interest.
Your traffic law example fails in part two. (So does the inevitable example about taxes or murder laws). In the test that’s used (and the one I endorse) at no point does the government define religion or decide which is a legitimate religious view. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
I’m neither a nun nor even a Roman Catholic (in fact, like all good American protestants, I despite Popery in all its forms). So how would I know what the limits of the nuns’ religious scruples are? And how is it my place to draw the line for them? (Although, I’m willing to bet that handing out condoms is also objectionable).
Are you completely unaware of the considerable body of existing caselaw devoted to handling these types of inquiries?