I just want to point out something that may not be clear in media reports. Some are suggesting that Catholic and Baptist organizations could simply drop coverage to avoid providing contraceptives. They could, but they would have to pay a massive fine. It’s partly this fine that amounts to coercion. In effect, the government is telling you that you are criminally liable for not paying the fine. The fine is unjust, and should not be paid. This gives the added benefit of standing in a Supreme Court fight that would almost certainly be won.
In light of the peyote case (Employment Division v Smith) as well as the Court’s decisions limiting RFRA (especially Gonzales), I would not at all be confident that the Court would decide for objecting religious organizations.
If President Barack Obama stands firms on a federal rule requiring all insurers to provide contraception, he will be bringing to the country a mandate similar to one in place in New York, Connecticut and 26 other states.
These states demand insurers pay for contraception. Twenty of them provide conscience exemptions to different categories of religious organizations, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, which focuses on sexuality and reproductive rights.
In New York and Connecticut, the only exempt institutions are churches, where the majority of people they employ and serve are presumed to share anti-contraception values.
That leaves most religious hospitals, schools, universities, charities and social services mandated to provide workers with contraception, because they employ and serve a broader group of people. Obama and his supporters say the exemption for churches constitutes a reasonable compromise, but many religious groups say it’s not enough.
Discussion
NewThe Fine
NewI don't see it
Newsimilar to laws in 28 states. who's gone to jail so far?