Whatever else may be right or wrong with Gilbert or the statute, Griswold was a constitutional claim based on the flat prohibiting by legislation of a form of birth control for women, whereas the EEOC finding in Belmont Abbey is a matter of what the college will fund as part of its private health insurance. Presumably women are still free to obtain contraception on their own nickel. Have we ascertained that the Belmont Abbey insurance policy, and the college's internal policy, permitted men to obtain condoms and/or more medically-oriented forms of birth control (e.g. vasectomies, spermicides)? If so, then there's a live sex-discrimination issue. If not, then the EEOC decision may be subject to question.
Vance On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure how paul arrives at his characterization of my response to an > inquiry of another in which I sketch a possible way a court could go wrong. > > Nonetheless, it seems to me that even though Gilbert was overturned by > legislation, the legislation did not in fact reach the illogic of the > court's reasoning, but rather the outcome of that reasoning. > While I think that a court that would reason as I hypothesized one might > would be wrong in doing so in light of the dialogue between the Court and > Congress(see boumediene), I fear I have seen such toturing of laws often > enough to not consider such error to beyond the realm of possibility. > > I guess I don't quite see how a statute based claim with EP overtones would > impact a constitutional liberty-based privacy claim, though at times we do > cross those sorts of boundaries. > > > Stev > > Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone > > > On Aug 15, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Paul Finkelman <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >> _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com
_______________________________________________ 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.
