No Compelling Interest: The 'Birth Control' Mandate and Religious Freedom

Helen M. Alvare

George Mason University School of Law

May 31, 2013

Villanova Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 379-436, 2013
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 13-35

Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation (the "Mandate") requiring employers of a certain size -- including religious institutions and businesses led by religious individuals -- to provide their employees health insurance covering birth control, sterilization, and emergency contraception, with no co-pay. The rationale underlying the Mandate was contained in an Institute of Medicine report (the "Report") commissioned by the Department. The Report claimed that birth control and emergency contraception were "preventive medical care" for women and girls, claiming that they would lead to less unintended pregnancy and the associated health consequences thereof. This article takes a very close look at the sources cited by the Report for its preventive health care claims. It concludes that the Report is poorly sourced, poorly reasoned, biased and incomplete. The Report fails to show, inter alia: that more accessible contraception and emergency contraception have lowered rates of unintended pregnancy or abortion over time; and that "free" contraception and emergency contraception will provoke greater usage. It also fails to attend to the substantial risk of harming women's individual and social health, by further delinking sex and procreation. Because the Mandate burdens the free exercise of religion, it must demonstrate a "compelling state interest" in order to survive a constitutional challenge. Given the weakness of the factual case for the Mandate, it cannot meet the "compelling state interest" test.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 59

Keywords: Barack Obama, bishops, Congress, embryo, equality, federal, group plans, HHS, House of Representatives, insurers, issuers, John F. Scarpa Conference, Kathleen Sebelius, NARAL, Obamacare, patient protection, Planned Parenthood, reproduction, restoration, rights, Roman Catholic Church, Senate, US

JEL Classification: G22, I18, K23

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: June 1, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Alvare, Helen M., No Compelling Interest: The 'Birth Control' Mandate and Religious Freedom (May 31, 2013). Villanova Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 379-436, 2013; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 13-35. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2272821

Contact Information

Helen M. Alvare (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,255
Downloads: 744
Download Rank: 23,027

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds