Defining the rights of the religious in America

February 7, 2014 

Two decades ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved and President Bill Clinton enthusiastically signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But now that the 1993 law is being used to challenge the Obama administration’s requirement that employer health plans include contraceptive services, some supporters of the law are having second thoughts, and several organizations want the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional. That would be a mistake.

The law was a response to a 1990 Supreme Court decision involving two Oregon men who had been denied unemployment benefits after they were fired for using the hallucinogenic drug peyote during a Native American religious rite.

Congress, in turn, passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government may “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” only if necessary to further a “compelling government interest” and only if the law in question is the “least restrictive means” of achieving that interest.

Next month the Supreme Court will hear arguments from owners of businesses that the law allows them to disregard the contraceptive mandate because of their religious objections. We hope the court will reject their claim.

Providing insurance coverage for a woman who uses it to obtain contraceptives no more implicates an employer than does the payment of her salary, which can also be spent on birth control.

We don’t think the law should be declared unconstitutional, as several organizations have argued. They claim that it is a “takeover of (the Supreme) Court’s power to interpret the Constitution” and amounts to an “establishment” of religion in violation of the First Amendment.

This goes too far. Congress is free to protect rights more comprehensively than the First Amendment does, whether it is religious freedom or the right of reporters to protect their confidential sources (the aim of a proposed federal shield law). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a balanced effort to protect religious liberty. Properly interpreted, it doesn’t require the court to weaken the contraceptive mandate.

Los Angeles Times

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service