[Lurking Libertarian]

This alludes to a long line of Free Exercise Clause case law. To summarize briefly, everyone recognizes that "it's against my religion" can't be a universal excuse for violating the law; otherwise, Rastafarians could legally smoke marijuana, Quakers could refuse to pay taxes because their tax money funds the Army, and Moloch-worshipers could perform human sacrifices.

There have been two schools of thought in modern SCOTUS decisions as to where to draw the line: one doctrine, which originated with Justice Brennan during the Warren Court era, said that the Government can force someone to violate their religious beliefs only if it has a "compelling governmental interest" in doing so (e.g., preventing murder or funding the Army) and the law used the "least restrictive means" of serving that interest.

Later, a narrow majority of the Court (ironically, led by Justice Scalia) overruled the Brennan test and said the Government could force someone to violate their religion as long as the law was "generally applicable" and didn't single out any particular religion for discrimination. (Under that view, the Contraception Mandate would be constitutional.)

Congress was unhappy with Scalia's view, and reinstated the Brennan test by statute in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed unanimously by both houses of Congress-- no one liked Scalia's test).

Thus, the issue in this case was not whether the Contraception Mandate was Constitutional, but whether it violated the RFRA. The majority said that there may be a compelling interest in guaranteeing women birth control, but Congress can achieve that goal by a less restricitve means (e.g., having the Government pay for it directly.)

[BuckeyeTexan]

Thanks for that history!

[BuckeyeTexan]

See post 108.

[PapaNew]

The root problem IMO is the unexplained overruling of the long-held precedent of Slaughterhouse in Brown v. Board of Education, aiding the massive expansion and threat of federal government power - exactly what Justice Miller feared would happen as stated in his Slaughterhouse opinion.

[caww]

....”the issue in this case was not whether the Contraception Mandate was Constitutional, but whether it violated the RFRA. The majority said that there may be a compelling interest in guaranteeing women birth control, but Congress can achieve that goal by a less restricitve means (e.g., having the Government pay for it directly.)”....

Single payer will take care of it all....watch...we know it’s coming.