.
However, the presiding judge, US District Judge John Kane, said, "These interests are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion," which is a constitutional right. He continued to berate the government for forcing anyone, even company owners, to violate their religious beliefs (Thornton). .
Judge Kane's ruling coupled with the Obama administration's exemptions strongly weakened and undermined its originally intended position. Other lawsuits will surely use the precedent set by Kane's ruling to benefit. Judge Kane's ruling was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that states that any "substantial burden" placed on religious beliefs having a "compelling government interest" and be the "least restrictive means" of advancing that interest. In the Hercules case, Judge Kane found that the Obama administration's healthcare reform places "substantial burden" on the company (Thornton). .
Before the reform went into effect, the Obama administration declined a request from the Roman Catholic Church, who asked for an exemption for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges, and charities. Although the administration declined this request, they did grant an extension until August 1, 2012 for these companies to comply. Additionally, they offered that if employers object the plan on religious grounds, their insurance companies could cover the total cost. In essence, this would leave "no role for religious employers who oppose contraception." Religious employers in North Carolina, New York, and California already follow these exemptions. However, other states, including Colorado, Georgia, and Wisconsin do not currently offer these exemptions (MacDonald). .
Months prior, federal judges dismissed a lawsuit filed by Nebraska and six other states fighting for a block against the contraception coverage. In that case, US District Court Judge Warren K.
