A federal judge has dismissed a challenge to the health reform law that argued, among other things, that the requirement to buy insurance violates their religious freedom rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court rejected that claim, finding that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate how the insurance mandate (which includes an option for entering a "shared responsibility" alternative) presents a "substantial burden" to their religious exercise.
…as Defendants point out, Plaintiffs routinely contribute to other forms of insurance, such as Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment taxes, which present the same conflict with their belief that God will provide for their medical and financial needs.
Even if [the health reform law] does substantially burden the exercise of Plaintiffs’ Christian faith, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief under RFRA because the individual mandate provision serves a compelling public interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. (-p. 62)
AP has more.
[UPDATE: AP reports that Pat Robertson's religious liberty organization, ACLJ, has filed an intention to appeal Judge Gladys Kesler's ruling in this case.]
