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
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 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.