Who's talking about a deprivation of liberty, and why should that matter? If you didn't receive social security benefits because your employer had a religious reason for refusing to pay into the system, would you not be injured, since social security is now something to which *everyone *is entitled? Likewise, under the ACA, virtually *all *Americans are now entitled to obtain affordable insurance, without regard to preexisting conditions, etc. And that new universal benefit is the right to obtain an insurance plan that *must* include certain services that you can receive without cost (e.g., no co-pay), such as immunizations, colorectal cancer screening, pediatric preventive care, and contraceptive services (as well as many others).
You obtain these benefits regardless of the source of your insurance plan -- whether it be through Medicare, or Medicaid, or through a plan on an exchange . . . or via an employer-provided plan. No employer is required to provide a plan, but if you do provide one, it must include cost-free reimbursement for such services, *just as virtually every other plan must*. Notre Dame, then, is endeavoring to deny its employees and students what *all other employees and students *are entitled to, namely, an affordable plan that includes reimbursement for the whole array of required services. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:12 PM, <davidebernst...@aol.com> wrote: > Allow me to point out, given the tenor of some recent comments, that > regardless of the outcome of this case, Notre Dame can't and won't stop > anyone from buying and using contraceptives--they just wouldn't be covered > by their health insurance. And given that no one is forced to work for or > be a student at Notre Dame, all this would really means is that when one is > deciding whether to be a student at or work for Notre Dame, one would do so > with the knowledge that contraceptive coverage isn't available. If you're > contraceptives are going to cots, say, $400 a year, you just add that in to > the cost of your tuition or deduct that from your expected salary. I'm not > seeing any great deprivation of liberty under those circumstances. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > 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.
