A woman is suing the state saying they violated her free religion right to use contraception when the state passed a law banning all contraception. She was fined for selling birth control pills. She claims in her religion she is able to use birth control pills however the state she lives in banned the selling/distribution & use of contraceptives. She claims the state violated her fundamental right.

The state's reason for banning contraceptives is to lower the STI rate, promote a culture of life, save public money, and protect the health of men and women alike.

What's an argument that supports the state using the precedent cases employment division v. smith, and Reynolds v. US to help support their claim that banning contraceptives isn't violating Stacy's religious rights/fundamental right.

Address how this case should be taken into a rational basis consideration rather than strict scrutiny?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

An argument supporting the states use of precedent cases such as Employment Division v Smith and Reynolds v US to justify the ban on contraceptives is ... View the full answer