I meant that shorthand only to repeat what I wrote in my post: The *Little Sisters* case reveals a lacuna in the government's "secondary accommodation" regulation that the government itself presumably did not anticipate--namely, that the regulation does not guarantee contraception coverage for female employees where (i) their employer is a nonprofit religious organization that objects to such coverage; (ii) the employer self-insures; (iii) the health plan is a "church plan"; and (iv) the third-party administrator of the church plan itself objects to providing such coverage. The government represented to the district court in *Little Sisters *that it "continues to consider potential options to fully and appropriately extend the consumer protections provided by the regulations to self-insured church plans." If and when the government amends its regulations to deal with such a situation, perhaps the *Little Sisters*case will look more like the *Notre Dame* case. But in the meantime, the Little Sisters' employees would not receive contraception coverage if the Little Sisters were to make the self-certification of their objection.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > Marty-- could you please elaborate on your response? I am not following > this exchange > > Thanks-- > Marci > > Marci A. Hamilton > Verkuil Chair in Public Law > Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School > Yeshiva University > @Marci_Hamilton > > > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > They will -- the government realizes that its plan is undermined and is > reassessing > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > > Why don't all these religious nonprofits choose Christian Brothers > Services as their health insurer? That way, certification or not, the > employees will not receive the services to which the employer objects? > Something is missing from this narrative. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The government's brief in *Little Sisters*: > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/government-bref-in-little-sisters.html > > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Marty Lederman > <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Another post, this one about the nonprofit cases that have now wound >> their way to the Court . . . >> >> >> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/not-quite-hobby-lobby-nonprofit-cases.html >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Since no one else has mentioned it, I will: >>> >>> Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so >>> much there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with >>> some arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service, >>> whatever one thinks of the merits. He and I turned the posts into a >>> single, 53-page (single-spaced!) Word document for your convenience: >>> >>> www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docx >>> >>> I've just started my own series of posts on the case on Balkinization -- >>> links to the first three below. The second is about the thorny >>> contraception/"abortifacient" issue (nominally) in play in the two cases >>> the Court granted. In the third post, I endeavor to explain that the case >>> is fundamentally different from what all the courts and plaintiffs (and >>> press) have assumed, because there is in fact no "employer mandate" to >>> provide contraception coverage. >>> >>> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-i-framing-issues.html >>> >>> >>> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html >>> >>> >>> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html >>> >>> Thanks to those of you who have already offered very useful provocations >>> and arguments on-list; I'd welcome further reactions, of course. >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
