Because the birth control cases all focus on a 1993 federal law, the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the Constitution, the Justices will face questions about whether the mandate to provide free access to 20 forms of birth control drugs or devices, sterilization, screenings, and counseling imposes a «substantial burden» on religious freedom of nonprofit employers with religious objections to some or all contraceptives, whether the mandate in fact serves a «compelling interest» of the government, and whether an attempt to provide an exemption from the mandate satisfies the requirement that such an accommodation is «the least restrictive means» of achieving the government's policy
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the Constitution, the Justices will face questions about whether the mandate to provide free access to 20 forms of birth control drugs or devices, sterilization, screenings, and counseling imposes a «substantial burden» on religious freedom of nonprofit employers with religious objections to some or all contraceptives, whether the mandate in fact serves a «compelling interest» of the government, and whether an attempt to provide an exemption from the mandate satisfies the requirement that such an accommodation is «the least restrictive means» of achieving the government's policy in
Freedom Restoration Act, not the Constitution, the Justices will face
questions about whether the mandate to provide free access to 20 forms of birth control drugs or devices, sterilization, screenings, and counseling imposes a «substantial burden» on
religious freedom of nonprofit employers with religious objections to some or all contraceptives, whether the mandate in fact serves a «compelling interest» of the government, and whether an attempt to provide an exemption from the mandate satisfies the requirement that such an accommodation is «the least restrictive means» of achieving the government's policy
religious freedom of nonprofit employers with religious objections to some or all contraceptives, whether the mandate in fact serves a «compelling interest» of the government, and whether an attempt to provide an exemption from the mandate satisfies the requirement that such an accommodation is «the least restrictive means» of achieving the government's policy in
freedom of nonprofit employers with
religious objections to some or all contraceptives, whether the mandate in fact serves a «compelling interest» of the government, and whether an attempt to provide an exemption from the mandate satisfies the requirement that such an accommodation is «the least restrictive means» of achieving the government's policy
religious objections to some or all contraceptives, whether the mandate in fact serves a «compelling interest» of the government, and whether an attempt to provide an exemption from the mandate satisfies the requirement that such an accommodation is «the least restrictive means» of achieving the government's policy interest.
... Since man enjoys the capacity for a free personal choice in truth... the right to
religious freedom should be viewed as innate to the fundamental dignity of every human person... all people are «impelled by nature and also bound by our moral obligation to seek the truth, especially
religious truth» (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 2)... let me express my sincere hope that your expertise in the fields of law, political science, sociology and economics will converge in these days to bring
about fresh insights on this important
question andthus bear much fruit now and into the future.