A federal district judge in St. Louis upheld the 'contraception mandate' that is part of the Affordable Care Act. I believe that this is the first court decision to actually look at the substantive legislative and constitutional issues.
The judge rejected arguments that the law violated a) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, b) the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, and c) the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The opinion (which I have not fully digested) appears to rest on two basic points. First, the connection between any money a religiously-affiliated organization might contribute to a health care plan and the provision of contraception through the health care plan is so indirect that it does not constitute a true burden on the religiously-affiliated organization. This conclusion is important for rejecting the claim that the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Second, the contraception mandate is what is classified as a 'generally applicable law' that is not aimed at burdening the free exercise of religion but only incidentally affects one's free exercise, if at all. This is the principle articulated in the Supreme Court decision Employment Division v. Smith (1990).
From what I've read so far, the decision does not strike me as a doctrinal reach-- in other words, it is a pretty straightforward application of federal law and constitutional doctrine. That does not mean that the outcome will be popular, of course!
On a slightly different note: Why is it so difficult to find a copy of the judicial decision itself? It baffles me why so few news organizations provide an actual link to Judge Jackson's opinion.
A pdf copy of the decision is available below, from the ACLU web site (an organization which is, I imagine, quite happy to tout the results of the lawsuit at this point).
Judicial opinion in O'Brien v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
St. Louis Dispatch summary: Judge dismisses St. Louis suit challenging health care law's contraception mandate
The New York Times editorial: Contraception and Religious Liberty
The judge rejected arguments that the law violated a) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, b) the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, and c) the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The opinion (which I have not fully digested) appears to rest on two basic points. First, the connection between any money a religiously-affiliated organization might contribute to a health care plan and the provision of contraception through the health care plan is so indirect that it does not constitute a true burden on the religiously-affiliated organization. This conclusion is important for rejecting the claim that the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Second, the contraception mandate is what is classified as a 'generally applicable law' that is not aimed at burdening the free exercise of religion but only incidentally affects one's free exercise, if at all. This is the principle articulated in the Supreme Court decision Employment Division v. Smith (1990).
From what I've read so far, the decision does not strike me as a doctrinal reach-- in other words, it is a pretty straightforward application of federal law and constitutional doctrine. That does not mean that the outcome will be popular, of course!
On a slightly different note: Why is it so difficult to find a copy of the judicial decision itself? It baffles me why so few news organizations provide an actual link to Judge Jackson's opinion.
A pdf copy of the decision is available below, from the ACLU web site (an organization which is, I imagine, quite happy to tout the results of the lawsuit at this point).
Judicial opinion in O'Brien v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
St. Louis Dispatch summary: Judge dismisses St. Louis suit challenging health care law's contraception mandate
The New York Times editorial: Contraception and Religious Liberty
Comments