Marci, you are arbitarily singling out different steps in a parallel sequence
of events.
Thomas was asked to help assemble tank turrets. Others would put the turrets
into tanks. Still others, maybe, would use the tanks to kill people. Or maybe
not.
The bishops' view is that they are being asked to contract for and pay for
policies that cover contraception and very early abortifacients. That is what
they object to, whether or not anything happens thereafter. Other people will
use those policies to pay for medical care. Maybe some of them will pay for
contraception or emergency contraception. Or maybe not, although here the odds
seem higher than with the tanks. But it doesn't matter. The objection is to
contracting for and paying for the coverage.
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
>First, let me applaud Marty's memory. I am certain I could not tell you what
>was discussed on this list in 1999! I'm not sure I was even reading it then.
>
>
>In any event, this is not the Thomas case. In Thomas, the objection was based
>on the believer avoiding taking action that he would find in conflict with his
>faith.
>He could not, consistent with his faith, participate in the manufacture of
>materials used in arms. In this case, the alleged violation is in the
>financial support of a system
>in which others engage in acts that conflict with his religion. That is a
>step farther. That is what makes me most uncomfortable about this (along with
>the fact it singles out women's health).
>
>
>I understand that the argument is that the payment into the fund itself is a
>burden, but that cannot be a winning argument after Lee, or after Zelman or
>the 4-person plurality in Mitchell v. Helms, either. Under the Religion
>Clauses, money is fungible, and the entity/person sending money into a stream
>no longer has power/say/responsibility for how the money is used by
>independent actors who pluck it from that stream. So we are back to the
>question whether there is a free exercise right for a for-profit company to
>deter employees from engaging in acts that conflict with the employer's
>religion.
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
_______________________________________________
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.
