Replies

That is the only possible constitutional ruling,

I agree with that. The really insightful part of this judge's ruling that struck me was this:

Duffey also held that the federal government's interests in promoting public health and providing women with equal access to health care was not compelling in this case "because the contraceptive mandate does not apply to the insurance plans of millions of women in this country."
"Grandfathered health plans, small businesses and religious employers are all exempt from the contraceptive mandate," he wrote. "The government's claim that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the accommodation against [Catholic Education of North Georgia] and Catholic Charities because it seeks to promote the uniform availability of contraceptive products and services is severely undermined by the exemptions to the contraceptive mandate that leave millions of women without coverage for contraceptive care."

The law, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, says that the government has an extra burden in the case of religion to prove they have a serious, compelling reason to over-ride anyone's religious freedom.

This judge is basically saying that the government is handing out exemptions right and left on this "serious, compelling reason" and that it thereby demonstrates that their reason doesn't really rise to the level of serious and compelling and necessary to over-ride a religious freedom.

This is an honest, insightful judge.

I hadn't thought of that, but it is right on the money. You can't run around saying, "This is serious, life-threatening, critical and we have to overturn the 1st amendment over this" and then turn around and say, "Except for my friends over here who are getting exemptions 'cause none of this is really that critical."

This is a direct violation of the RFRA and thence to the 1st Amendment.

“Compelling reason” has been the Leftists' vehicle of choice to deny us our God given rights. It has nothing to do with the constitution.

It is the statist substitute for the “necessary and proper” requirement to implement enumerated powers.

It is unlikely that Judge Duffey’s ruling will stand.

Basically what an attorney friend of mine said. RFRA requires the government to show, not only that burdening someone's free exercise of religion serves a compelling state interest, but that there is no other practical way of serving that state interest.

Here there obviously is such another way: the government could simply provide free contraceptives and related junk. There is no a priori reason why the employer has to be involved.