This may or may not be relevant to the constitutional question, but I think it's likely that the religious employers in these cases would not object to providing coverage for those medications if prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes (because contraception would be a secondary effect).
Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Marci Hamilton wrote: Marty- one addition --women will also have to pay for oral contraceptives to stop excessive bleeding, cramps, and hormone- triggered acne. I think this discussion needs to factor in the medical uses beyond contraception for millions of women over the course of their lives. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University @Marci_Hamilton Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
_______________________________________________ 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.
