In the column “Religion does not guarantee exemption from law” last week, Matthew Bailey noted that “in order for…groups that have challenged the mandate to succeed, they must prove these businesses have a religious liberty that is being substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate and then that the law is not a compelling governmental interest that is the least restrictive way to further the governmental interest.”

As Mr. Bailey also noted, Hobby Lobby must demonstrate it has a religious belief that could be violated under the First Amendment. The company is owned by a Christian family who has the right to operate its business in accordance with its values, which it does. Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays, donates 10 percent of its profits to charity, and provides its employees with spiritual counseling. It won’t be difficult for the owner of Hobby Lobby to prove that he is, in fact, religious.

Mr. Bailey’s claim that all the Little Sisters of the Poor must do in order to be exempt is fill out a form expressing their religious objection to contraceptive coverage ignored an important fact. The very same form used to register a group’s religious objections to contraceptive and abortifacient drugs also authorizes the insurer to cover them. This form is hardly an “accommodation”; the nuns have refused to sign it because it could still mean they would be required to employ a third party to dispense what they consider a grave moral evil. There’s no guarantee that this form would prevent them from having to fund drugs that go against the fundamental teachings of their faith, and the nuns don’t want to risk their consciences. Doing so would, as Mr. Bailey put it, “substantially burden” their religious liberty.

Although this debate is, at its core, about religious freedom and isn’t centered on the question of whether contraception is good, it’s worth noting that contraception has plenty of adverse health effects. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists hormonal and oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens. It’s difficult to imagine what compelling interest the government has in forcing Catholics who follow their religion’s timeless teachings to fund other people’s promiscuity by pumping them full of cancer-causing drugs.

Not everyone believes what the Catholic Church teaches about human sexuality, and they have every right not to; however, footing a bill of $9 a month for birth control or hitting up one of 8,000 federally funded community health centers for free condoms isn’t much to ask of a responsible individual who chooses to be sexually active.

No one is forced to work for a religious employer. Anyone looking for someone to foot the bill for his or her birth control probably shouldn’t work for a group of Catholic nuns or an organization that makes its values clearly known in its everyday operations.

Mr. Bailey’s assertion that “Religious liberty is extremely important in this country, but having a religious belief doesn’t mean you are exempt from all generally applicable laws,” ignored a multitude of legal precedents, including, but not limited to, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, and Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton. In all these cases, the right to religious liberty trumped civil laws that clearly violated a group’s deeply held religious beliefs.

Non profit and for-profit institutions across the country have taken the contraception mandate to court and have won injunctions 52 out of 59 times, with many more cases still to be decided. The courts seem to understand that religious liberty is more important than “free” birth control. It’s a shame Mr. Bailey doesn’t.

Joe Puchner is a freshman engineering student.