# Is the Contraception mandate a violation of religious freedom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570 "2012-02-02T20:12:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/101 "2012-02-03T22:11:25Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Since I haven’t the time to dissect it yet, but it might be of interest, I offer: > > [Catholic Charities v. Superior Court](http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/) and [Catholic Charities v. Serio](http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2006/2006-07517.html). > > I hope those links work, but I haven’t had a chance to go through the cases at all. I just wanted to offer them FYI. I see your cases and raise you [EMPLOYMENT DIV., ORE. DEPT. OF HUMAN RES. v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=872) > [@](#): > > As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594 -595 (1940): “Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities (footnote omitted).” We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws,” we said, “are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Id., at 166-167. > > Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 , n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, supra, at 595 (collecting cases). In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), we held that a mother could be prosecuted under the child labor laws [494 U.S. 872, 880] for using her children to dispense literature in the streets, her religious motivation notwithstanding. We found no constitutional infirmity in “excluding [these children] from doing there what no other children may do.” Id., at 171. In Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) (plurality opinion), we upheld Sunday-closing laws against the claim that they burdened the religious practices of persons whose religions compelled them to refrain from work on other days. In Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461 (1971), we sustained the military Selective Service System against the claim that it violated free exercise by conscripting persons who opposed a particular war on religious grounds. > > Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual’s religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S., at 258 -261. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his employees, sought exemption from collection and payment of Social Security taxes on the ground that the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs. We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. There would be no way, we observed, to distinguish the Amish believer’s objection to Social Security taxes from the religious objections that others might have to the collection or use of other taxes. “If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.” Id., at 260. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989) (rejecting free exercise challenge to payment of income taxes alleged to make religious activities more difficult). [494 U.S. 872, 881] Sorry for the long excerpt. The opinion was written by Justice Scalia and it might be very interesting if he reverses himself now that the law in question would interfere with practices of the Catholic Church instead of Native Americans using peyote. Like I said, I’m rooting for this law to be overturned because then we can get more aspects of healthcare out of the hands of employers, but caselaw suggests the church has an uphill fight. It should be a very interesting case, but we won’t know for several years how it shakes out probably. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/102 "2012-02-04T01:08:33Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > No compelling societal interest in reducing teen pregnancy or STD transmission? What society do you live in? Considering that the only forms of contraception that stop STDs are also the _cheapest_, that argument makes no fucking sense. If you can’t afford a tenner for a pack of condoms, you’re not in a position to benefit from this mandate anyway, because your broke ass is obviously unemployed. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/103 "2012-02-04T02:14:00Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Considering that the only forms of contraception that stop STDs are also the _cheapest_, that argument makes no fucking sense. If my daughter went to our family doctor under my health plan for birth control, he better not be bound to not discuss condom use with her just because my employer is the church. ---
**Author:** ![KneeSid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dec6dc/32.png) [@KneeSid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneeSid)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/104 "2012-02-04T02:16:11Z")
Our “rights” are not now and have never been an absolute. We have a right to free speech but not a right to “yell fire in a crowded theatre.” Yes, religious freedoms have to be balanced with the right of individuals as well. Not all rights are enumerated in the US Constitution, but just because they are not explicity stated doesn’t mean they are lesser rights. If I have a religion that hates black people, that doesn’t mean I have the right to exclude all black people. Companies and insurers are always trying to get around paying. I recall back in the 80s when AIDS was rampant, insurers were folding policies from groups of florists, actors and other fields with a lot of gay men in them. People pay in fairly then get a raw deal, so the government has to step in and force them to do what is right and they should’ve been doing, without being sneaky. If Catholic or other groups don’t want to pay for contraceptives, then don’t offer heath insurance. See what quality people they get ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/105 "2012-02-04T02:17:28Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > No compelling societal interest in reducing teen pregnancy or STD transmission? What society do you live in? I live in the US, where the pill does not reduce STDs, and any teenager who wants contraception can get it. See my earlier post about Planned Parenthood. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/106 "2012-02-04T02:21:48Z")
> [@KneeSid](#): > > If I have a religion that hates black people, that doesn’t mean I have the right to exclude all black people. Actually, you do. You may not be able to claim tax exempt status (and I’m not certain about that), but you can set up a White People’s Religion if you want, and the government cannot stop you. How do you think the RCC is able to function without allowing women in the priesthood? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/107 "2012-02-04T02:57:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I live in the US, where the pill does not reduce STDs, and any teenager who wants contraception can get it. I see. So if the church pays me money and I raise my child to be informed about birth control measures and take her to Planned Parenthood, that’s fine, but if I take her to _her doctor_ to discuss birth control, the constitution is in tatters? I’m not finding this argument particularly compelling. ---
**Author:** ![TripleFail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@TripleFail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TripleFail)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/108 "2012-02-04T03:13:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Actually, you do. You may not be able to claim tax exempt status (and I’m not certain about that), but you can set up a White People’s Religion if you want, and the government cannot stop you. > > How do you think the RCC is able to function without allowing women in the priesthood? Not if this White People’s Religion becomes employer and starting hiring people. They can exclude other races but they get slapped with anti-discrimination law. Church can do what they want in their house of worship, but freedom of religion means government treats all religion the same not that they get a free pass doing what they want. It’s about separation of church and state and being neutral to all religion so no one religious group can hijack it and start killing off all other religion. here is the first amendment if you forgot: "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -[Bill of Rights | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmenti) Why you keep on insisting on government have to make special provision for one religion in this case Christians is really weird. As far as I am aware making the church obey the same laws as every other employers is well within first amendment, the church is still allowed to preach the evils of contraceptions all they want. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/109 "2012-02-04T04:00:12Z")
> [@TripleFail](#): > > Not if this White People’s Religion becomes employer and starting hiring people. That wasn’t the claim being made. I have to wonder what problem is this ruling supposed to address? How many women working for religious organizations are unable to obtain birth control relatively easily through their own efforts or through agencies readily available to them? Is this good social policy if all it accomplishes is having the Religious organizations opt out of providing their employees with insurance? If it turns large numbers of Catholics against supporting the HCRB that spawned this ruling? Seriously, this smacks of the kind of far left political position that Obama is routinely accused of supporting, and that I’ve spent a good amount of time defending Obama against on this MB. In this can’t, I can’t defend him. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/110 "2012-02-04T04:32:02Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Considering that the only forms of contraception that stop STDs are also the _cheapest_, that argument makes no fucking sense. If you can’t afford a tenner for a pack of condoms, you’re not in a position to benefit from this mandate anyway, because your broke ass is obviously unemployed. There are a LOT of people who are working, but not making much money at all. If they want to have sex responsibly, I think that they should be allowed to. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/111 "2012-02-04T04:39:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Seriously, this smacks of the kind of far left political position that Obama is routinely accused of supporting, and that I’ve spent a good amount of time defending Obama against on this MB. In this can’t, I can’t defend him. Birth control is _far left_? Really? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/112 "2012-02-04T05:30:56Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Birth control is _far left_? Really? I’m continually amazed at the efforts being put forth in this thread to pretend it isn’t about religion and the 1st Amendment. Your post is perfect example. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/113 "2012-02-04T05:36:56Z")
I’m amazed you think what happens between a doctor and a patient is the church’s business would have anything to do with the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![TripleFail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@TripleFail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TripleFail)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/114 "2012-02-04T06:12:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That wasn’t the claim being made. > > I have to wonder what problem is this ruling supposed to address? How many women working for religious organizations are unable to obtain birth control relatively easily through their own efforts or through agencies readily available to them? > > Is this good social policy if all it accomplishes is having the Religious organizations opt out of providing their employees with insurance? If it turns large numbers of Catholics against supporting the HCRB that spawned this ruling? > > Seriously, this smacks of the kind of far left political position that Obama is routinely accused of supporting, and that I’ve spent a good amount of time defending Obama against on this MB. In this can’t, I can’t defend him. You still failing to see the point I am trying to make. I stressed many times and many others have as well religion do not get a special pass. Lets say the exemption stays, then some Jehovah’s Witnesses affiliated organization don’t allow any insurance policy involving procedures that requires blood transfusion based on religious grounds. By your arguments Jehovah’s Witnesses should get their way but that defeats whole point of Obama trying to improve the minimum standard of health care if people can pick and choose which rules to follow, this defeats the whole purpose of trying to revamp and regulate the heath care system. Freedom of religion means to me people are free to believe what they want. They are free to spread their faith and other are free to follow or not. However this does not mean religion are allowed to spread their doctrine through the government, thats call a theocracy not a democracy. If religion do decide to opt out health insurance completely thus holding their employees hostage some of whom are not religious, that’s blood on their hand no one else. When it come to making laws regarding religion most of times it either beneficial to all religion or deny all religion. Examples are tax exemption for all religions and religious classes in public schools. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/115 "2012-02-04T13:19:54Z")
> [@TripleFail](#): > > You still failing to see the point I am trying to make. I stressed many times and many others have as well religion do not get a special pass. Yes, it does get a special pass. The only question is what is the scope of that special pass. Note that Obama administration has not eliminated the special pass-- they have narrowed its scope. And note that I have already stated several times that the opt out clause makes any court challenge unlikely to be successful. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/116 "2012-02-04T13:24:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Entered into a discussion on another site {can I like to the article?} about the Obama admin’s decision to not grant religious exemptions to employers concerning insurance coverage fpr contraceptives. Some have been saying it’s violating thier religious freedom by forcing religious employers to pay for procedures they find sinful. [http://www.mediaite.com/tv/contraceptive-mandate-is-not-about-religious-liberty-its-about-female-liberty/](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/contraceptive-mandate-is-not-about-religious-liberty-its-about-female-liberty/) > > Now, aside from, and not being distracted by whether this is a government over reach , or whether the specific beliefs are stupid or not, I’d like to approach just the idea that the church is using inconsistent reasoning to fuel thier outrage, and they are in no way being asked to fund specific procedures. The easy solution is simply a shift in thier thinking to something more consistent. > here’s my thinking. Right or wrong the church thinks contraceptives is a sin and doesn’t want to buy them for thier employees because doing so is agasint thier religious principles. > They hire professionals not of thier faith knowing that the wages they are paid will likley be used for contraceptives by some. reasoning? Once they give the money to the employee, it’s not longer thier money and thier complicity in violating thier religious principle is assuaged. > They offer insurance as part of the employment package, but in this case they intervene to ask the insurance company to not cover what they might normally cover. When the insurance company is told they have to cover those things the churches organization requests an exemption and is denied at which point they claim thier religious freedoms are being denied because they are being forced to pay for something they consider a sin. > > In my thinking, the same reasoning about wages applies to insurance coverage as well. You pay for an insurance package for your employee period. The money is no longer yours and whatever services they decide to use is up to them, and between them and the insurance company. IOW, once they pay for an insurance package thier complicity in violating thier religious principle is assuaged in the same way because the employee chooses which services they will take advantage of. > It might be like a Jewish employer getting thier employees gift cards from grocery stores but telling the store to exclude ham from the cards when they normally don’t. Nobody is forcing the employer to go to the store and buy ham. They’re just saying don’t try and stop the store from offering them, or the shopper from choosing them. > > IMO their concept that thier religious freedsom is being violated is a false premise because in wages or benefits the church is not being asked to directly pay for services they object to. > > What say you? If they get money from the state, then the state has the right(as I understand it) to make sure all people have access to thngs that are not illegal. One need just look to Haiti that is 80% RC and see the results of lack of birth control that works. The RCC forbids any thing that they consider’ not natural’, but taking one’s tempeture etc, as required, is not natural, nor is a lot of other things they consider natural that they approve of, such as surgery, keeping a comatose person on Oxygen etc. natural. It looks like they talk the talk about poverty, but then their laws create more poverty. ---
**Author:** ![TripleFail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@TripleFail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TripleFail)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/117 "2012-02-04T15:51:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, it does get a special pass. The only question is what is the scope of that special pass. Note that Obama administration has not eliminated the special pass-- they have narrowed its scope. > > And note that I have already stated several times that the opt out clause makes any court challenge unlikely to be successful. Show me where in the the First Amendment it says religion get gets a special pass? Let me break it down for you. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” this axing of exemptions does not apply obviously. “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” The only thing that might apply here is “free exercise”. " or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Once again does not apply. So tell me what is your definition of “free exercise”, and show how it applies in this case, you and me obviously have different understanding of this term “free exercise” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/118 "2012-02-04T18:59:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s a good question, and has yet to be resolved. Snopes thinks the Amish will be exempt, but isn’t sure about groups like Christian Science members. [Link.](http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp) > Better yet, get employers out of the business of controlling HC for employees. We don’t require employers to provide food stamps to employees. We have this thing called money that people can use to buy whatever they want, included things mandated by the government. Hey I’m all for that. I support a good single payer that everyone pays into. I certainly think that regulating can go to far but as long as we have profit driven HC and insurance we need some regulations. I’m open to the idea that this is going to far on regulating, but IMO, it’s not a violation of religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/119 "2012-02-04T19:07:21Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > I see your cases and raise you [EMPLOYMENT DIV., ORE. DEPT. OF HUMAN RES. v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=872)Sorry for the long excerpt. The opinion was written by Justice Scalia and it might be very interesting if he reverses himself now that the law in question would interfere with practices of the Catholic Church instead of Native Americans using peyote. > > Like I said, I’m rooting for this law to be overturned because then we can get more aspects of healthcare out of the hands of employers, but caselaw suggests the church has an uphill fight. It should be a very interesting case, but we won’t know for several years how it shakes out probably. > > Enjoy, > Steven Thanks for the link and the post. Very applicable. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570/120 "2012-02-04T19:20:37Z")
> [@TripleFail](#): > > Show me where in the the First Amendment it says religion get gets a special pass? > Let me break it down for you. > “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” this axing of exemptions does not apply obviously. > > “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” > The only thing that might apply here is “free exercise”. > > " or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." > Once again does not apply. > > So tell me what is your definition of “free exercise”, and show how it applies in this case, you and me obviously have different understanding of this term “free exercise” Another thing About John’s position , if I understand it, is that “the government needs a complelling reason” and doesn’t have one in this case. It’s as if any religious belief is already a compelling reason. As we see in the post above and the excerpt from a decision, the parameters of compelling are subjective. It’s a simple principle, people are free to believe and practice as they choose , within the guidelines of existing law. Free exercise doesn’t mean anything you percieve it to be. Free exercise certainly means you don’'t have to personally go buy contraceptives for employees, but you obviously can’t control thier choices about what do do with their pay. That’s my take on this religious freedom thing being over blown and essentially non existent in this case. Should religions be able to examine every perscription drug and decide which ones they won’t allow thier employees to have? Can they select which medical procedures the insurance comapny will cover? I still have questions about vascetomies and other sterilization procedures. They simply are not being asked to directly pay for contreceptives and thier religious conscience has a perfect avenue to be assuaged and still comply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-contraception-mandate-a-violation-of-religious-freedom/611570.md?page=7)