In 2012, the federal government spawned an enormously divisive issue when it promulgated a regulation that requires certain employers to provide contraception coverage to their employees without cost-sharing. The mandate's supporters see it as an important step in expanding access to vital healthcare for women, whereas its detractors see it as an attempt by the government to force them into violating their deeply held religious beliefs. In a clash between values, the mandate favors access to contraception over the concerns of religious groups....Section II provides background information on the mandate and the convoluted process by which the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury ("the government" or "the Departments") promulgated it....Section III analyzes RFRA-based legal challenges to the mandate that plaintiffs have brought thus far....Section IV argues that the mandate violates RFRA by placing a substantial burden on the free exercise rights of both nonprofit organizations and for-profit corporations with religious objections to it, while failing to meet the compelling interest test.
Jonathan T. Tan, Non-Profit Organizations, For-profit Corporations, and the HHS Mandate: Why the Mandate Does Not Satisfy RFRA's Requirements, 47 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1301 (2013).