ObamaCare v. Religious Liberty


Wall Street Journal

Go to this article

Want to understand the Catholic faith?

ABSTRACTObamaCare v. Religious Liberty - WSJ.com WSJ <h4>WSJ on Facebook</h4><div style="border: none; padding: 2px 3px;" class="fb-like" data-href="http://www.facebook.com/wsj" data-send="false" data-layout="button_count" data-width="250" data-show-faces="false" data-action="recommend"></div> <h4>WSJ on Twitter</h4><a href="https://twitter.com/wsj" class="twitter-follow-button" data-show-count="true">Follow @wsj</a> WSJ LIVE WSJ Live on Facebook WSJ Live on Twitter MARKETWATCH MarketWatch on Facebook MarketWatch on Twitter BARRON'S Barron's on Facebook Barron's on Twitter Portfolio Portfolio on Facebook Portfolio on Twitter DJX Product X on Facebook Product X on Twitter RT F R&C PE&VC WSJ B THE SHOPS WSJ Shops on Facebook WSJ Shops on Twitter MORE WSJ Secure BigCharts Financial News Professor Journal Student Journal Virtual Stock Exchange WSJ Classifieds WSJ Classrooms WSJ Radio WSJ Wine Search mystery The Wall Street Journal Menu Home World U.S. Business Tech Markets Market Data Your Money Opinion Life & Culture New York Real Estate Management Opinion Home Peggy Noonan's Blog Leisure & Arts Book Reviews Letters to the Editors Political Diary Opinion Subscribe Log In Top Stories in Opinion​ 1 of 12 Putin's Challenge to the West 2 of 12 How America Loses a Job Every 43 Seconds Subscriber Content Read Preview 3 of 12 ObamaCare v. Religious Liberty 4 of 12 Venezuela's Putin Subscriber Content Read Preview 5 of 12 Obama's IMF Gambit Subscriber Content Read Preview 6 of 12 California Flies the Constitutional Coop Subscriber Content Read Preview 7 of 12 Notable & Quotable Subscriber Content Read Preview 8 of 12 Disquiet on the Eastern Front Subscriber Content Read Preview 9 of 12 Someday, All Planes Will Be Drones Subscriber Content Read Preview 10 of 12 Pride, Prejudice and Putin's Predation Subscriber Content Read Preview 11 of 12 Best of the Web Today: May We Have Anot... 12 of 12 Kamala Harris's Ethical Malpractice Subscriber Content Read Preview Review & Outlook ObamaCare v. Religious Liberty A majority of Justices seem skeptical of the contraception mandate. Email Print Save ↓ More Save to ↓ More Save ↓ More Saved ↓ More Please log in or register for free to use Save This. Log In Register What is Save This? Save to + New Collection Go to Save & Share » Name your new Collection and click save. Save Cancel Go to Save & Share » Go to Save & Share » Comments Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn smaller Larger March 25, 2014 7:05 p.m. ET The Affordable Care Act returned to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as the Justices heard a major challenge to the law's birth-control mandate. Five and maybe even six Justices across ideological lines seemed discomfited by the Administration's cramped conception of religious liberty. In 2012 the Health and Human Services Department published a regulation interpreting an ObamaCare provision to require all for-profit employer health plans to cover 20 contraception methods, including four that some religious believers consider abortifacients and sterilization. The combined cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius are challenging the mandate under a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Opinion Video Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on how commentators misinterpret the conservative Justices' stance on religious freedom. Photo credit: Getty Images. RFRA was passed by a unanimous House, 97 to three in the Senate, and signed by Bill Clinton after the Supreme Court restricted religious liberty in a 1990 case. The statute merely holds that when government interferes with the free exercise of religion, it must narrowly tailor its regulations to serve a compelling interest and impose the "least burdensome" option. The left-right coalition behind this legal doctrine has since collapsed and liberals are now working diligently to undermine the law. The Obama Administration was pushing its "war on women" election theme in 2012 and went out of its way to harm people of faith who are out of political favor. HHS did exempt churches from the mandate, and religious nonprofits can apply for a quasi-exemption, which is being litigated separately. But the Administration's remarkable argument is that if a business is incorporated and for-profit, it forfeits normal constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby is a chain of craft stores that is a closely held, family-run corporation that tries to operate in accord with biblical principles. Trying to distinguish between for-profit and nonprofit corporate forms for this regulatory purpose is constitutionally unprecedented. Corporations are often treated as "persons" for legal purposes, such as protecting free speech, and prosecutors can indict entire corporations .......