If we were debating banning contraception, Marci's argument would work and make perfect sense. We are, instead, debating government-mandated funding of contraception.
Michael On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > As far as I understand the situation, no one legally objects to the health > (unrelated to reproduction) use of the pill. > > As to those whose religion requires contraception, religious adherents > cannot force the government to buy for them wine for sacraments, or even > bandaids for cuts, even if they are mandated by religion. We do not have > laws forbidding reproduction by certain couples if there is a risk of > disability-- thus, while we approach the issue from different angles, > Marci's compelling interest arguments do not strike me as plausible given > present jurisprudence. Unjust from a point of view, sure, but hardly a > compelling interest by the government-- certainly a personal compelling > interest, but so is three meals a day. > > We don't have a constitutional right to food (though government programs > thankfully assist with this). To state someone's personal compelling > interest in purchasing a product translates to the state's compelling > interest in providing a product is not supported by case law. Personal > interests provide governmental rational basis, of course, but not a > governmental compelling interest. > > Just my 2ยข, > > Michael > > > -- > Michael Worley > BYU Law School, Class of 2014 > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com>wrote: > >> I assume they were serious and hope they were. >> >> If you are a woman with unstoppable bleeding as part of your periods, or >> excruciating cramps, >> this is medication and treatment that is indeed compelling. If you >> cannot go to work for 5 days every month because of the severity of your >> periods, there is a compelling interest for the employer, employee, and the >> govt to make such treatments available. If your religious beliefs preclude >> you from having a family you cannot support, or if you carry a gene that >> could lead to devastating illness and disability in your child, and your >> religious beliefs counsel against pregnancy, there is also a compelling >> interest In all 3. >> >> Apologies to those who are squeamish about what we are really talking >> about, but the abstract quality of the legal discourse largely carried on >> by men needs a reality check. >> >> Marci >> >> Marci A. Hamilton >> Verkuil Chair in Public Law >> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School >> Yeshiva University >> @Marci_Hamilton >> >> >> >> On Aug 15, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "Tracey, Timothy" <ttra...@avemarialaw.edu> >> wrote: >> >> I hope that neither you nor Eduardo are serious in your responses. The >> government's interest in ensuring basic medical care and lifesaving >> measures is significantly different than whatever interest the government >> has in forcing religious organizations to supply coverage of contraception, >> sterilizations, and abortion. The government obviously has a compelling >> interest in the former but certainly not in the latter. >> >> Timothy J. Tracey >> Associate Professor of Law >> Ave Maria School of Law >> >> On August 15, 2013 at 11:42:29 AM, Len (campquest...@comcast.net) wrote: >> >> Next up, a lawsuit seeking on religious liberty grounds the ability to >> obtain a health insurance policy from his employer that does not cover >> vaccinations or other medications, or surgery, but only covers healing >> prayer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"Eduardo Penalver" <penal...@uchicago.edu> >> *To: *"Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" < >> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> *Sent: *Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:06:49 AM >> *Subject: *Re: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate >> >> Next up, a lawsuit demanding to be paid in currency that can't be used >> to buy contraception. >> >> Eduardo >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Friedman, Howard M." <howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> >> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < >> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:52:52 +0000 >> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> Subject: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate >> >> In an interesting new lawsuit, a Missouri legislator (suing as an >> employee of the state) seeks on religious liberty grounds the ability to >> obtain a health insurance policy from his employer that does not cover >> contraception, sterilization or abortifacients. He particularly objects to >> coverage of these in his policy for his 3 daughters, age 12, 18 and 19. >> More on Religion Clause blog-- >> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-contraceptive-coverage-challenge.html >> >> Howard Friedman >> _______________________________________________ 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. >> >> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:* This e-mail transmission is the property of >> Ave Maria School of Law and may contain confidential or privileged >> information. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you >> receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in >> any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, >> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is >> prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message immediately by >> informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, >> please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting >> this error is appreciated. If you or your employer does not consent to >> internet e-mail messages of this kind, please notify us immediately. All >> reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in >> this e-mail. Our company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or >> damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. The views, >> opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this electronic >> mail are not given or endorsed by AMSL unless otherwise indicated by an >> authorized representative independent of this message.**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > > -- Michael Worley BYU Law School, Class of 2014
_______________________________________________ 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.
