re: #573 RogueOne

From what I’ve read the HHS decision was based on the CA exemption. Was the CA decision based on that exemption (self insure)? I’m curious because it doesn’t seem that the HHS decision allows for self insured groups to bypass the contraception rule.

Here’s a link to the decision of the California Supreme Court, which case the US Supreme Court refused to hear on appeal. (link is to povertylaw. If you are uncomfortable with that, the googlesearch is “Catholic Charities v Superior Court of Sacramento”)

The case was not about self-insured exemptions. It was, instead, about whether Catholic Charities qualified for the exemption. That said, I think this paragraph may answer your question (at least in part).

Smith explained that the government’ s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct or to carry out public policy “’ cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’ s spiritual development.’ [Citation.] To make an individual’ s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’ s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’ s interest is ’ compelling’ —permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ’ to become a law unto himself,’ [citation]—contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.” (Smith, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 885 [108 L.Ed.2d at p. 890], fn. omitted.) Applying the compelling government interest test in this fashion would produce “a private right to ignore generally applicable laws—[which would be] a constitutional anomaly.” (Id. at p. 886 [108 L.Ed.2d at p. 890].)