Reframing RFRA: Why Considering Third-Party Harm is Essential to Determine Whether Religious Exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate Impose a Substantial Burden on Religion

Authors

Jessica Marsella, Chapman University

Abstract

Despite the well-documented benefits of widespread access to contraceptives, there are a number of religious exemptions and religious accommodations to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate, which make accessing contraceptives more difficult or may prevent such access altogether. The validity of such exceptions and accommodations have reached the Supreme Court numerous times. A common theme in all of these challenges, however, is the lack of consideration that granting the exemptions or accommodation has on others. This Note primarily focuses on the religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate and will explore how the Supreme Court’s treatment of such exemptions and accommodations are flawed due tthe Supreme Court’s failure to consider how third parties are adversely affected, as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This failure has wide ranging effects: it indirectly inhibits social growth and encourages inherent sexism.

Recommended Citation

Jessica Marsella, Reframing RFRA: Why Considering Third-Party Harm is Essential to Determine Whether Religious Exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate Impose a Substantial Burden on Religion, 25 Chap. L. Rev. 459 (2022).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman-law-review/vol25/iss2/4