Alan-- These are public policy questions in my view, not constitutional or RFRA-related.
As a policy matter, I would object to all 3. The first is an unreasonable life-and-death limitation to put on anyone's health insurance coverage. (Even Jehovah's Witnesses, who have in some cases, accepted the transfusion when faced with certain death.) I do not think employers, whether religiously affiliated or not, (other than religious institutions) should be able to use their religious beliefs to craft health benefits, which should be shaped by medical science instead. The second is pushing the cost of the employer's religious faith onto taxpayers, who don't necessarily share the faith. The third is yet another iteration of permitting the employer to shape the world according to his or her particular religious viewpoint. As a policy matter, I think we are playing with fire when we encourage religious believers to use government programs to impose their faith on others. Note that I did not say imposing their faith on "non-believers"--the issue here is one set of religious believers (employers) using their power in the marketplace to impose costs on other religious believers (employees). That is the path to Balkanization, civil war, and religiously- motivated violence. This issue is all about respecting the distance and difference between believers with different faiths, while encouraging peaceful coexistence. For-profit employers may not discriminate on the basis of religion, and that has led to a workplace where Christians, Muslims, and Jews can work together peacefully. It also has led to a system where employees are chosen based on their skills, as opposed to their faith. That is good for the marketplace and productivity, and for a peaceful society of diverse religious believers. But, as I say, these are policy judgments, not constitutional doctrinal analysis. Marci 1. It exempted the religious employer from a regulation requiring employers to pay for health insurance that covered blood transfusions. 2. It provided insurance coverage for employees working for exempt religious employers at the government’s expense so that no employee lost any insurance coverage as a result of the exemption. 3. It determined whether and to what extent the religious employer saved money as a result of the exemption from the health insurance coverage mandate and directed the employer to contribute that amount to a separate fund used by the government to further public purposes that are consistent with the employer’s faith – say providing food to hungry children. Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 hamilto...@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Alan Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Sun, Sep 30, 2012 9:30 pm Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA Mandate Marci, Would you object if the government created an exemption package that did three things. It exempted the religious employer from a regulation requiring employers to pay for health insurance that covered blood transfusions. It provided insurance coverage for employees working for exempt religious employers at the government’s expense so that no employee lost any insurance coverage as a result of the exemption. It determined whether and to what extent the religious employer saved money as a result of the exemption from the health insurance coverage mandate and directed the employer to contribute that amount to a separate fund used by the government to further public purposes that are consistent with the employer’s faith – say providing food to hungry children. Alan From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:03 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA Mandate Mark-- Should it matter whether we are talking about blood transfusions or abortion? If Catholic institutions can win in the ACA cases on abortion, then Jehovahs Witnesses should be able to not pay for coverage for blood transfusions for their employees. There is no persuasive distinction between the two that I've heard yet, but no one has made the foray beyond abortion/contraception on the list yet other than my earlier suggestion. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 hamilto...@aol.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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
