Great analogy, Michael! Seriously?
I can't recall any case in which so many people have refused to take "yes" for an answer. [To beat a dead horse . . . here's the actual situation: The law provides that all women in the U.S. are entitled to reimbursement without cost for preventive care, including (but not limited to) contraception. And the way this public benefit is provided is through the woman's insurance policy, whether provided by an employer or not. An employer that chooses to offer an insurance plan accordingly must include the preventive services coverage in that plan. The government says to religious nonprofit employers, however: If you don't want to offer such coverage in your plan, ok, just let us know, and we'll require someone else to do it. (The analogy I offer in my posts is the Catholic judge who recuses from a death penalty case, thereby obligating the nonreligious judge down the hall to cover the case.) So, far, that's the Notre Dame case (see the last section of my post here - http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/little-sisters-state-of-play.html) . . . which I would suggest has virtually nothing in common with the stolen car hypo. OK, but in *this* case, we don't even have *that* -- here, once LS expresses its religious objection, *no one else is required to provide the coverage* and, whadda ya know?: the LS employees do not receive the benefit to which virtually all other women are entitled. Grand theft auto, I tell ya.] On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > If I say; I oppose robbery but here are the keys to the car, and I give > the keys to someone who is obligated by law (or may in the future be > obligated) to rob my neighbor, no matter how loudly I proclaim I oppose > robbery, I'm still helping in the robbery. > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Marty Lederman > <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> It is an "implied message of support" *for what*? What rational human >> being would construe: "We have a religious objection to providing >> contraceptive coverage" to mean "we support coverage of contraceptive >> coverage"? Seriously, we are so far down the rabbit hole here . . . >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net>wrote: >> >>> Sending the form to the third-party insurer is the burden, because it is >>> an implied message of support "Insurer, you need to provide contraception >>> because we don't" >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com>wrote: >>> >>>> What exactly is the burden on the Little Sisters again? >>>> >>>> >>>> Marci A. Hamilton >>>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law >>>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School >>>> Yeshiva University >>>> @Marci_Hamilton >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 6:27 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" < >>>> mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> I found the form. Here is a statement that is included on the back of >>>> the government form that the Little Sisters would have had to sign, absent >>>> the Court’s order: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification >>>> to the plan’s health insurance >>>> >>>> issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for >>>> self-insured health plans) in order >>>> >>>> for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive >>>> coverage requirement. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In the case of a group health plan that provides benefits on a >>>> self-insured basis, the provision of >>>> >>>> this certification to a third party administrator for the plan that >>>> will process claims for >>>> >>>> contraceptive coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) or >>>> 29 CFR 2590.715- >>>> >>>> 2713(a)(1)(iv) constitutes notice to the third party administrator that >>>> the eligible organization: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (1) Will not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with >>>> respect to claims for >>>> >>>> contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive >>>> services; and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (2) The obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in >>>> 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 >>>> >>>> CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems to me that signing a form that says that the third party >>>> administrator has the obligations set out in the CFR is the equivalent of >>>> directing the third party administrator to comply with those regulations. >>>> They would be notifying the administrator that it has the obligations set >>>> out in the CFR. I suppose, in addition, that the Little Sisters dispute >>>> whether the government can require their third party administrator to >>>> comply with those regulations; the form would require the Little Sisters to >>>> make a statement that they do not believe to be true. The last sentence of >>>> the form suggests that the obligations of the plan administrator under the >>>> CFR are included as part of the health care plan. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In effect, the Little Sisters, if they signed the form, would be (1) >>>> notifying the administrator that it must comply with the regs, (2) stating >>>> that the administrator has the obligations set out in the CFR, (3) >>>> directing the third party administrator to provide the objectionable >>>> services, and (4) amending the plan documents to include a requirement that >>>> the third party administrator do so. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems, then, that the Court has given the Little Sisters substantial >>>> relief by not requiring them to sign the government form. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark S. Scarberry >>>> >>>> Professor of Law >>>> >>>> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Scarberry, Mark >>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 2:45 PM >>>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>>> *Subject:* RE: Supreme Court Issues Compromise Injunction Pending >>>> Appeal In Contraceptive Mandate Case >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Does anyone have a copy of the government-prescribed form that the >>>> Court said the Little Sisters didn’t have to use? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark S. Scarberry >>>> >>>> Professor of Law >>>> >>>> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ >>>> mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] >>>> *On Behalf Of *Marc DeGirolami >>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 2:36 PM >>>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>>> *Subject:* Re: Supreme Court Issues Compromise Injunction Pending >>>> Appeal In Contraceptive Mandate Case >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. It looks like the Court told them to send the government a copy >>>> of their complaint. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From: *Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> >>>> *Reply-To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < >>>> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >>>> *Date: *Friday, January 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM >>>> *To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < >>>> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >>>> *Cc: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < >>>> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >>>> *Subject: *Re: Supreme Court Issues Compromise Injunction Pending >>>> Appeal In Contraceptive Mandate Case >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It looks like the Court told them to do what they said they didn't want >>>> to do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marci >>>> >>>> Marci A. Hamilton >>>> >>>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law >>>> >>>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School >>>> >>>> Yeshiva University >>>> >>>> @Marci_Hamilton >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 24, 2014, at 5:28 PM, "Friedman, Howard M." < >>>> howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> The Supreme Court today extended the injunction pending appeal in >>>> Little Sisters of the Poor case, but with unusual conditions-- see >>>> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2014/01/supreme-court-enjoins-enforcement-of.html >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
