Since its birth in 2011, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA”) Contraception Mandate (the “Mandate”) has been a frequent subject of discussion, debate, and litigation. From the outset, the government has defended the Mandate generally in the name of public health and gender equality. While both public health and gender equality are well within the government’s regulatory domain, these broadly framed interests are inadequate to survive the compelling interest test under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and its companion, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). As RFRA’s text provides, when a person’s sincere religious exercise is substantially burdened, the government must demonstrate that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. As the Supreme Court unanimously held in O Centro , RFRA’s “to the person” language requires that strict scrutiny is applied to the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to a particular religious claimant, rather than the broadly formulated interests justifying the general applicability of a law. As will be explained, there is no compelling governmental interest under RFRA to enforce the Mandate against religious non-profits or closely-held businesses that sincerely hold religious objections, especially for coverage of contraceptives that operate to prevent implantation after fertilization. In Hobby Lobby , the Court assumed arguendo that the government had a compelling interest in the Mandate in order to base its decision on narrow tailoring. In doing so, the Court never conducted a RFRA compelling interest analysis. The purpose of this Note is to argue that the government lacks a compelling interest in enforcing the Mandate against religious non-profits or closely-held businesses after such an organization proves that the Mandate substantially burdens a sincere religious belief. Part I lays the scope and foundation of this Note, providing information on RFRA’s compelling interest test, the organizations and their beliefs, the Mandate, and the coverage mandated. Part II applies RFRA’s compelling interest test to religious non-profits and closely-held businesses. It notes the numerous exemptions already in place, the lack of evidence supporting the government’s claim that the Mandate furthers women’s health, and the small impact the Mandate has on a national scale for employers whose sincerely held religious beliefs are not substantially burdened by its imposition. Part III gives the current status of the Zubik cases, which in part involve the subject of this Note.

中文翻译：

---

令人信服的兴趣 Cacodoxy：为什么避孕要求未能通过 RFRA 的令人信服的分析

自 2011 年诞生以来，《患者保护和平价医疗法案》（“ACA”）的避孕授权（“授权”）一直是讨论、辩论和诉讼的频繁主题。从一开始，政府就普遍以公共卫生和性别平等的名义为这项授权辩护。虽然公共卫生和性别平等都在政府的监管范围内，但这些广泛的利益不足以通过《宗教自由恢复法》（“RFRA”）及其配套《宗教土地使用和机构化人员法》下的引人注目的利益测试（“鲁路帕”）。正如 RFRA 的文本所规定的那样，当一个人真诚的宗教活动受到很大负担时，政府必须证明对这个人施加负担是为了促进令人信服的政府利益。正如最高法院在 O Centro 一案中一致认定的那样，RFRA 的“以人为本”的语言要求对向特定宗教主张者授予特定豁免所声称的损害进行严格审查，而不是对证明法律普遍适用性合理的广泛制定的利益进行审查. 正如将要解释的那样，RFRA 没有强制要求政府对真诚持有宗教反对意见的宗教非营利组织或私人控股企业执行该授权，特别是对防止受精后植入的避孕药具的覆盖。在 Hobby Lobby 一案中，法院认为政府在授权中具有令人信服的利益，以便根据狭义剪裁做出决定。在这样做时，法院从未进行过 RFRA 令人信服的利益分析。本说明的目的是争辩说，在此类组织证明授权对真诚的宗教信仰造成重大负担后，政府缺乏对宗教非营利组织或封闭式企业执行授权的令人信服的兴趣。第 I 部分奠定了本说明的范围和基础，提供了有关 RFRA 令人信服的兴趣测试、组织及其信念、授权和强制覆盖范围的信息。第二部分将 RFRA 的引人注目的利益测试应用于宗教非营利组织和封闭式企业。它注意到许多豁免已经到位，缺乏证据支持政府声称该授权促进妇女健康的说法，以及该授权在全国范围内对真诚持有宗教信仰并没有受到其强加负担的雇主的影响很小。第三部分给出了 Zubik 案件的现状，部分涉及本说明的主题。