Re: Chris Lund's question about Lee -- The Amish take care of their own who are disabled or no longer able to work. They didn't want to pay twice -- once for FICA contributions, and again in their own community. And the FICA contributions were earmarked for just that use.
Employers objecting to the ACA mandate are not concerned about paying twice. They want to be immune from even the appearance of support for these services, even in a context where they can openly condemn the services. The religious entity employers (who can refuse to hire those who use such services) don't even have to pay once. They just want to be entirely out of the causation loop between ACA policies and the provision of pregnancy prevention services. Many taxpayers would like to be out of the causation loop between paying taxes and financing causes they find deeply immoral -- the death penalty, some or all wars, etc. Of course, we can handle this on the compelling interest side (need for uniformity), but the question of attenuation and distance between the status (employer, taxpayer) and the conduct remains. The question does not disappear because the claimant says so. On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Christopher Lund <l...@wayne.edu> wrote: > Can I ask a quick question for people like Marci, Marty, and others who > doubt the existence of a “substantial burden”?**** > > ** ** > > What about *United States v. Lee*? The Amish object to paying Social > Security taxes. The government makes them. The decision to use the taxes > for Social Security is the government’s, not the Amish. The Amish say, > “Well, we object to giving you money to pay for that.” The Court says > there’s a burden. Isn’t this case just *Lee *again? What am I missing? > (If I’ve missed earlier posts discussing this, I’m sorry.)**** > > ** ** > > Best, Chris**** > > ** ** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________ 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.
