Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 02/15/2012 2:34:56 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:

Dupe: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846982/posts



Skip to comments.

Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 02/15/2012 | David Rivkin and Edward Whelan

Posted on 02/15/2012 2:08:44 PM PST by IndePundit

Last Friday, the White House announced that it would revise the controversial ObamaCare birth-control mandate to address religious-liberty concerns. Its proposed modifications are a farce.

The Department of Health and Human Services would still require employers with religious objections to select an insurance company to provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions to its employees. The employers would pay for the drugs through higher premiums. For those employers that self-insure, like the Archdiocese of Washington, the farce is even more blatant.

The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.

The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Health/Medicine; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: birthcontrol; constitution; davidrivkin; freedomofreligion; obamacare; zerocare
This is more than a religious issue. Our constitution protects our freedoms. The moment we start eroding those freedoms is the moment we go down the path to losing them all.
1 posted on 02/15/2012 2:08:50 PM PST by IndePundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IndePundit

Why these Marxists would pick a fight with the Catholic Church in an election year was beyond me...and then I realized...they hate us, this will allow them to mobilize their fascist/marxist forces again an enemy.

They need an enemy...beyond the Republican nominee.


2 posted on 02/15/2012 2:32:39 PM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson