|
RFRA at Heart of Contraception Coverage Lawsuits |
|
|
Written by Don Byrd
|
|
Thursday, 24 May 2012 |
|
The Washington Post's Sarah Kliff explains why recently filed lawsuits challenging the Obama Administration's contraception coverage mandate may hinge on interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Obama administration, for its part, has asked courts to dismiss
these suits for lack of standing, since the requirement to cover birth
control hasn’t started yet. But after it does start, in August 2013 for
many of the religious objectors, courts will have to get into the more
substantive issues at hand. They would have to answer questions such as:
Does requiring insurers to cover contraceptives at religiously
affiliated institutions constitute a “significant burden”? Is providing
birth control a compelling government interest, and if it is, can it be
accomplished in a way that is less restrictive to religion?
Meanwhile, Lawrence Morris, General Counsel of Catholic University - one of the institutions suing the federal government over the mandate - argues that "it takes little imagination" to come up with a less restrictive way of implementing the coverage policy.
|
