Inept NYT Op-Ed Defending HHS Mandate

National Review Online | Published on

By Edward Whelan

Print Friendly


(The two posts below were published on NRO’s Bench Memos blog on February 27, 2012.)

Inept NYT Op-Ed Defending HHS Mandate-Part 1

Sunday’s New York Times featured an utterly incompetent op-ed by Dorothy Samuels—a member of the NYT editorial board—contending that the “legal case against the [HHS contraception mandate] is remarkably weak.” But what is “remarkably weak” is Samuels’s grasp of the relevant principles of religious freedom that she undertakes to present:

1. Samuels contends that the HHS mandate does not trigger the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the mandate “does not interfere with a religious practice or ceremony.” The mandate, she asserts, “is no impediment to the exercise of religion,” for it “does not interfere with church governance, prevent anyone from voicing opposition, or force anyone to use contraceptives in violation of religious beliefs.”

Samuels’s contention is a jumble of confusion. She’s trying to advance a very narrow concept of the “exercise of religion” protected by RFRA, but she can’t even sort out what she thinks is the limiting principle. First, she seems to limit the “exercise of religion” to “religious practice or ceremony,” but then she expands the concept to encompass “church governance” and to not being “force[d] … to use contraceptives in violation of religious belief.”

As I have explained, a person engages in an “exercise of religion” under RFRA when, for religious reasons, he performs, or abstains from performing, certain actions. In the text of RFRA itself, Congress cited the landmark Free Exercise cases of Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), which set forth the standard of scrutiny that RFRA restores as a matter of federal statutory law. In Sherbert, an individual’s religious beliefs forbade her from working on Saturdays. In Yoder, the parents of teenaged children had religious beliefs that prohibited them from sending their children to high school. So neither case involved “religious practice or ceremony” or “church governance.” Nor has any RFRA case imposed such a narrow reading of “exercise of religion.”

Samuels seems not to grasp that her apparent recognition that RFRA applies when a person is “force[d] … to use contraceptives in violation of religious belief” reflects the broader principle that RFRA applies any time a person is forced to take any action in violation of that person’s religious belief.* (To be clear: In saying that RFRA “applies,” I am maintaining only that RFRA’s standard needs to be satisfied-the point Samuels denies-not that the person’s RFRA challenge will necessarily succeed.) So Samuels is flatly wrong to maintain that a person is not engaged in an “exercise of religion” for purposes of RFRA when that person, for religious reasons, refuses to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.

2. Samuels’s argument that the HHS mandate can pass RFRA’s strict scrutiny is laughable. Samuels asserts that the HHS mandate “clearly advances the government’s compelling interest in promoting women’s health and autonomy, and broad participation is the least restrictive way to carry out a complicated national health reform.”

Let’s start with the latter first. The question under the “least restrictive means” prong of RFRA is whether the HHS mandate increases access to contraceptives via the means that is least restrictive of the religious liberty of the objecting employer. The obvious answer to that question, as I have explained, is no: There are plenty of means by which the government could provide contraceptives directly, and the Obama administration’s decision instead to dragoon the objecting employer is among the means most restrictive of the employer’s religious liberty.

Rather than confront this argument, Samuels makes the unintelligible assertion that “broad participation is the least restrictive way to carry out a complicated national health reform.” Her statement gives no hint that she even understands that the focus of the “least restrictive means” test is on the religious liberty of the objecting person.

Because the HHS mandate can’t possibly pass the “least restrictive means” test, it flunks RFRA. But as I explain here, the HHS mandate also can’t pass the “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” prong of RFRA. Samuels’s conclusory assertion provides no response to the points I have made. (See here for a one-stop collection of my posts on the HHS mandate and RFRA.)

3. Samuels also makes a superficial argument that the HHS mandate doesn’t violate the Free Exercise Clause, as interpreted in Employment Division v. Smith. (In fairness to Samuels, I will note that many of the assertions that the HHS mandate does violate the Free Exercise Clause are equally superficial and fail to take account of Smith.)

What Samuels fails to recognize is that the exclusion of a broad swath of employers from the mandate for secular reasons—e.g., the employers who have so-called “grandfathered plans” and small employers (see points developed here, in the context of RFRA’s “compelling interest” standard)—means that the mandate isn’t neutral and generally applicable. (As the Sixth Circuit recently explained, a law is not neutral and generally applicable if it “permit[s] secular exemptions but not religious ones.” See also the Third Circuit opinion by then-Judge Alito that I discuss here.) The mandate is therefore subject to the same test under the Free Exercise Clause that it faces under RFRA, and it flunks that test for the same reasons.

* On review (5-6 p.m.), I’ve tweaked this sentence to make it more clear.

Inept NYT Op-Ed Defending HHS Mandate-Part 2

Dorothy Samuels’s legally inept op-ed defending the HHS mandate is replete with other distortions. To cite a few:

1. Samuels c
ontends that Catholic bishops are making a “specious claim to impose their religious views on millions of Americans who do not share them” and “[i]n essence … are arguing that they are above the law and their beliefs should be elevated over pressing societal interests.”

That’s nonsense. What Catholic bishops are making is a claim that they and other objecting religious employers shouldn’t be dragooned to violate their own religious convictions. There is no good reason why the government can’t pursue its interest in marginally increasing contraceptive access without conscripting objecting religious employers. Far from “arguing that they are above the law,” those making this claim are defending their actual legal rights under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause and the broader tradition of religious liberty that Samuels seems so eager to trample.

2. Like many defenders of the HHS mandate, Samuels asserts that the “original rule … exempted churches, mosques, and other houses of worship.” That’s simply not true. The so-called “original rule,” which is the rule that HHS formalized as a final rule on the very day that the White House announced its intention to tweak the rule at some point down the road, provides that a religious employer will be eligible for the exemption only if it

(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code.

What reason is there to believe that a house of worship that, say, provides shelter to the homeless and English language classes to immigrants or that hires lots of staffers irrespective of their religious beliefs would be deemed to satisfy this test? There simply is no blanket exemption even for “churches, mosques, and other houses of worship.”

3. Samuels also claims that the Obama administration “has revised its original rule … and now also relieves colleges, hospitals, charities, and other religiously affiliated groups from having to provide contraceptive coverage directly.” She claims that this supposed revision makes the mandate less vulnerable to legal attack. She’s wrong in multiple respects:

a. No actual revision has yet been made. Just vague promises evidently designed to defuse the controversy until after the election.

b. Samuels contends that the proposed revision would “put the burden on insurance companies to offer contraceptives free of charge.” But how that would happen, without the insurance companies charging a premium that requires the objecting employers to pay for the contraceptives, remains a mystery. Nor is it evident what legal authority the Obama administration would have to impose such an obligation.

c. The many entities that self-insure, like EWTN (one of the plaintiffs challenging the HHS mandate), wouldn’t benefit from this proposed revision.

d. There is no reason to think that the proposed tweak materially affects the religious objection that the employers have to facilitating the provision of contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization services to their employees. Exactly as with the original mandate, once an employer selects an insurance company to provide coverage to its employees, that insurance company will provide coverage of objectionable services to those employees. The employer who objects on religious grounds to providing coverage of those services is still being compelled to do exactly that.

e. Even if the tweak were meaningful, it would extend only to some as-yet-undefined category of nonprofit religious organizations. It does nothing to respect the religious freedom of other employers.

4. Samuels contends that the legislative relief that opponents of the HHS mandate are seeking “is an outrageous assault on the First Amendment.” But it’s the Obama administration’s attack on the legitimate rights of objectors under the Free Exercise Clause (as well as RFRA)—and Samuels’s support of that attack—that is the “outrageous assault.”

Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and is a regular contributor to NRO’s Bench Memos blog.

Trackbacks

  1. Trackback says:

    wow thats great…

    How do you create your own blogger header for your blogspot?….

  2. read this says:

    Maybe……

    How can I make firefox to prompt me for what to do with a file instead of automatically downloading?…

  3. Trackback says:

    Funny…

    How to make old computer a client of new vista computer?…

  4. Google says:

    Google…

    The information mentioned inside the write-up are a number of the most effective obtainable….

  5. eyelash extensions studio city…

    [...]although web sites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are essentially really worth a go as a result of, so possess a look[...]…

  6. kamisorishears.com…

    [...]please go to the web pages we comply with, including this 1, as it represents our picks from the web[...]…

  7. paintless dent removal training…

    [...]we prefer to honor many other net web pages on the net, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages really worth checking out[...]…

  8. paintless dent repair training…

    [...]that will be the end of this write-up. Here you’ll come across some websites that we consider you will enjoy, just click the hyperlinks over[...]…

  9. my free cams says:

    my free cams…

    [...]the time to study or stop by the content or web-sites we have linked to below the[...]…

  10. DVD copy says:

    DVD copy…

    [...]Here are several of the web sites we recommend for our visitors[...]…

  11. public porn says:

    public porn…

    [...]although internet websites we backlink to below are considerably not connected to ours, we really feel they are basically really worth a go by means of, so have a look[...]…

  12. paintless dent repair training…

    [...]we like to honor numerous other internet websites on the internet, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]…

  13. paintless dent repair training…

    [...]The info mentioned in the report are a number of the top readily available [...]…

  14. comilla says:

    comilla…

    [...]please stop by the internet sites we adhere to, such as this 1, as it represents our picks in the web[...]…

  15. news says:

    news…

    [...]Here is an excellent Weblog You may Locate Intriguing that we Encourage You[...]…

  16. paintless dent removal training…

    [...]check beneath, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, on the other hand, they may be most trustworthy sources that we use[...]…

  17. Trackback says:

    Like it…

    What are the best free blogs that allow user-sponsored advertising and sales?…

  18. outlets says:

    outlets…

    [...]Every once inside a when we opt for blogs that we study. Listed beneath are the most up-to-date web-sites that we opt for [...]…

  19. Trackback says:

    Good info…

    how do i start a blog to share my ideals?….

  20. become a minister…

    [...]usually posts some very intriguing stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]…

  21. http://www.redwoodgardenbridges.net...

    [...]that will be the finish of this article. Here you will find some sites that we believe you will value, just click the links over[...]…

  22. Trackback says:

    I like your blog…

    I have a blog with blogger. I have registered my blog using a gmail account. Now, I want to use a new gmail account and I wanted to import my whole blog along with the posts and comments to this new gmail id… Please tell me, is this possible and how …

  23. cadouri online…

    [...]Sites of interest we’ve a link to[...]…

  24. axbOaeeCEM says:

    Healing’s Dragon…

    to locate issues to boost my internet site!I suppose its ok to make utilization of a number of of your principles!!…

  25. Trackback says:

    Thank you…

    Okay here are the details. I want to add a new button to firefox, the purpose of that button is that when i type something in the address bar in firefox and click that button in navigation toolbar, that must serve the purpose of “I am feeling lucky bu…

  26. email list broker…

    [...]The information talked about within the post are a few of the best out there [...]…

  27. deals says:

    deals…

    [...]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a couple of unrelated information, nonetheless actually really worth taking a look, whoa did a single discover about Mid East has got a lot more problerms also [...]…

  28. Trackback says:

    wow thats great…

    how can i start a blog without having my own website?…

  29. paintless dent removal training…

    [...]usually posts some extremely fascinating stuff like this. If you are new to this site[...]…

  30. pdr-training.net…

    [...]Sites of interest we’ve a link to[...]…

  31. paintless dent repair training…

    [...]please check out the websites we comply with, which includes this a single, because it represents our picks from the web[...]…

  32. cheapest pay as you go iphone 5…

    [...]very couple of web sites that come about to become comprehensive beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly very well worth checking out[...]…

  33. Trackback says:

    Thank you…

    I know there are lots of firefox addons that help manage saving pictures, but what I am specifically looking for is, one which can allow me to simply paste the picture link and it will download the picture from that link.. Reason being, the pictures I …

  34. Good info…

    Using Firefox: How do you clear out old stored security informaion like account numbers and such?…

  35. Gifts for Men…

    [...]we came across a cool website that you simply may enjoy. Take a appear when you want[...]…

  36. Trackback says:

    Maybe……

    We want to start a celebrity blog, like Perez Hilton. But how do we create a blog, with two people writing? Also how do we get celebrity gossip? We would like to know all the steps to get this blog popular in the world and how to start it…..

  37. שירה בציבור…

    [...]we came across a cool web site which you could delight in. Take a look should you want[...]…

  38. Trackback says:

    Funny…

    I’m only 15, but i’m trying to raise money to go on a expensive trip next year. I am planning on getting a summer job, but it usually only pays minimum wage. I just want other people’s opinions on whether its safe and a good idea to become a blogger…

  39. paintless dent removal training…

    [...]although web sites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we really feel they may be basically really worth a go by way of, so have a look[...]…

  40. Trackback says:

    Thank you…

    What is the best application for posting blogs or articles to my website?…

  41. book of ra cheats…

    [...]check below, are some entirely unrelated web-sites to ours, on the other hand, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]…

  42. Tagesdeals – Kosmetik Tagesdeals…

    [...]the time to study or go to the content or websites we have linked to beneath the[...]…

  43. Subliminal Messages…

    [...]that would be the end of this report. Here you will obtain some internet sites that we assume you will appreciate, just click the links over[...]…

  44. Earn Money Online…

    [...]one of our guests lately encouraged the following website[...]…

  45. paintless dent repair training…

    [...]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nonetheless truly really worth taking a appear, whoa did a single understand about Mid East has got far more problerms as well [...]…

  46. community says:

    community…

    [...]just beneath, are many absolutely not associated internet sites to ours, even so, they may be surely really worth going over[...]…

  47. Good info…

    How can I search blog posts from during the olympics?…

  48. page ranking says:

    page ranking…

    [...]Here is a superb Blog You may Discover Fascinating that we Encourage You[...]…

  49. Trackback says:

    Maybe……

    How do I get my WordPress articles to pop up in peoples google searches?…