The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 has been a significant source of debate among legal scholars and policymakers in its application to healthcare policy. In particular, the infamous ruling Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) raised the question of whether RFRA should continue to exist if it would result in religious argumentation restricting access to contraception and other forms of healthcare. This paper is an analysis of the implementation of RFRA in healthcare policy. It uses qualitative coding to analyze the argumentation of RFRA to determine how the statute is interpreted and mechanized. The findings from this research explain two issues which I call the “perception problem” and the “facilitation issue”. Observing how the issue with RFRA is rooted in its inherently contradictory argumentation, the policy implications point us to an amendment of RFRA.