Doug-- What is wrong, with all due respect, is treating the religious
believer's characterization of the act as the legal characterization of it.
The religious believer's belief that it is a "killing" does not make it one for
purposes of legal analysis. That was my very simple point.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:43 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
One does not have to believe that early abortions kill human beings to
recognize the profound significance of performing, assisting, or procuring an
abortion to those who believe it is a killing of a human being.
If we all took the same view of every issue, we would not need a regime of
religious liberty. Religious liberty is a response to disagreement on issues
that some people on both sides find non-compromisable. It is never an adequate
response to a religious liberty claim to say that the claimant is just wrong in
how he views the disputed issue.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:16 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
A characterization of abortion as "a killing," is a religious assessment, not a
medical or constitutional category.
A fetus is not a "person" for constitutional purposes. Even abortion foe
Justice Scalia has publicly acknowledged that.
Therefore, analyzing the cases as though abortion fits into "killing" cases is
weaker than Doug has conceded.
Moreover, in the conscientious objection cases, the religious objection on the
part of Quakers is in favor of peaceful
resolution of conflict, which is different from an objection to killing per se,
and many COs are not objecting to war in general but rather
a particular war.
There is no justification for treating those who oppose the medical procedure
of abortion on religious
grounds any differently than any other religious objector to another medical
procedure. For all the reasons that Native Americans
cannot avoid the social security number requirement in the welfare context, the
Amish cannot avoid Social Security taxes (absent an
exemption), and Native Americans cannot force the federal government to use its
property according to their beliefs, religiously affiliated employers
cannot avoid a neutral, generally applicable requirement that medical insurance
include the option, that is triggered solely the patient's
decision in consultation with her doctor, of reproductive medical care.
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.
