|
Read the legislative history behind RFRA from beginning to end -- the
administration of illegal drugs to children by religious groups is not
there. It is a wholesale reconstruction of history to
believe that Congress considered the issue in any way, shape, or
form. The vast majority, i.e., over 95%, of the legislative history
involves castigating the Supreme Court for Smith. The practical
consequences of RFRA were never approached, because Congress's purpose was to
reverse a Supreme Court decision, without any meaningful consideration of what
that would accomplish at a policy level. Now, there are post hoc
justifications for RFRA proffered all around, but they do not displace what
Congress actually considered and actually knew at the time it was enacted.
As to policy choices, it is my view that RFRA is unsound
constitutionally and policy-wise, but the latter does not undermine the
former.
And, yes, the placement of a drug on Schedule I does, indeed, end the
discussion when the drug is being administered to minors. The fact
the drugs were delivered in a religious context does not change the
extraordinary interest of the children.
Marci
In a message dated 2/23/2006 2:36:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
