Does the RFRA Protect Religious Colleges from Mandated Contraceptive Coverage?

           Geneva College, a small liberal arts college, in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania was founded as a Christian university with the motto “for Christ and for Country”. Geneva College’s mission statement reads as “a Christ-centered academic community that provides a comprehensive education to equip students for faithful and fruitful service to God and neighbor”. The college aims to help students integrate the teachings of Christ into all aspects of human life. In 2011, the President Obama’s Affordable Care Act introduced a new mandate requiring employers to provide coverage for over 20 abortion inducing and contraceptive drugs and devices as well as sterilization. This mandate required employers to do so “regardless of their religious or moral convictions” and punished opposition by heavy penalties through the IRS. Given that Geneva College was founded on Christian principles, the institution believes that life begins at conception and therefore felt this mandate went against their innate beliefs. Therefore, in February of 2012, Geneva College, assisted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services claiming that this mandate violates their rights provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In June of 2013, Geneva College saw success when the district court suspended enforcing the abortion mandate for students, and later in December for employers as well. 

            Although Geneva College was satisfied by the decision, in 2014, the issue came up against with the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. HobbyLobby argued that the accommodation for non-profit religious organizations should be extended to for profit organizations as well under the RFRA and free exercise clause. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that for the purposes of the RFRA corporations could be considered as “persons” and therefore requirement them to provide contraceptives (which they consider to equal abortion) is a substantial burden on their religious beliefs. To put nonprofits and corporations alike under a burden where they must go against their principles or face substantial fines is too extreme. A key distinction here is that the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question, not all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. This distinction allowed the court to combat the slippery slope precedence this case could set. Following the Hobby Lobby Decision, Geneva College asked the Supreme Court to hear its case in order to make sure this accommodation was permanent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts with the instruction to “to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners' religious exercise". The case settled in October of 2018 when the lower court “ordered the federal government to permanently cease enforcement of the Affordable Care Act's abortion-pill mandate, which the court declared violated Geneva College’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act”. Geneva College thanked the court for upholding their religious liberty and allowing them to go forth “to protect the lives of unborn children, acting within our responsibility as image bearers of God and as citizens” and for affirming their freedom and permanent protection from the mandate. 

            The key issue in this case is does the RFRA allow Geneva College to deny its employees and students health coverage of contraception based on the religious objections of the institution and does this objection qualify them for exemption from governmental fines? The Geneva case relates to the case Bob Jones University vs. United States. In the Bob Jones case, the university was unsuccessful in retaining IRS tax exempt status due to its racial discrimination. The Supreme Court upheld that the RFRA did not protect Bob Jones tax exempt status because not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The court held that implementing discrimination goes against government self-interest because it provided no public benefit and violated a “fundamental national public policy”. I believe that the Bob Jones case and the Geneva College case are contrasting. Although it is safe to say that most Americans would view racial discrimination as a universal ill, the Bob Jones University believes that interracial marriage goes against its religious convictions just the same as the Geneva College believes contraceptives goes against its religious beliefs. In terms of the RFRA, I believe both cases place a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of the universities, however, the compelling state interest is where it differs for me. I believe the Supreme Court views combatting racism as a compelling state interest as it goes against America's ideals, whereas, contraceptives do not necessarily do so. However, for me, this is a slippery slope, as state interests are not strictly defined, and in this case, allowing Geneva College an accommodation, and not Bob Jones, the court is privileging the wider pro-life community, over the religious beliefs of Christian fundamentalists. Therefore, I do not agree with the decision in the Geneva case because it goes against the precedence made in the Bob Jones case, in my opinion, in order to prioritize the rights of pro-life Christians over fundamentalists which is unjust.