I’ll address Mark’s points below. On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:21 AM, Scarberry, Mark <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote:
> I wonder if others (especially other "males") have the same negative reaction > I do to the terminology Greg (Lipper, not Sisk) uses here. Men are described > as "males." Women are described as "women." This seems to be common usage in > some circles. I actually have no idea why one term or another would be considered to be more or less good/bad, but I’m happy to use the terms “men” and “females” if that is more acceptable to you… > With regard to the earlier point that some people who don't want to be forced > to provide contraceptives/abortifacients/sterilizations also would oppose > having the government provide them, which somehow undercuts their religious > liberty claim: No, it undercuts the claim that there an “easy” alternative that would have avoided the need for the current regulations. And it suggests that these cases are about preventing women from using contraception – however the obtain it – and not about complicity in that decision. > I suppose most conscientious pacifists would oppose their government waging > war. They don't want to engage in it personally, and we honor that, without > complaining that they also use the political process to oppose war. If they > lose in the political arena, we make them pay taxes even though the taxes > will be used for the military, and for the most part they are willing to pay > the taxes. But we don't make them fight. Putting aside my surprise that (many decades after the 1950s) we are comparing contraception to war, this analogy doesn’t quite work. The proper analogy would be (a) someone objecting to fighting in the war, and saying that instead, the government can send a drone, and then (b) opposing legislation that would enable the government to pay for drones. One would rightly conclude from this behavior that the objector didn’t want there to be a war (whether or not they were involved in it), just as one would conclude here that the plaintiffs in these cases don’t want women to use contraception (whether or not they are involved in it). We don’t make the objectors fight because we can still fight the war without them and we don’t have to materially change the battle plan. But if we couldn’t – if the war effort would suffer without the objectors, and if their absence would threaten the lives of other troops – I have no doubt that we would make them fight. (In all events, we easily dismiss an objector’s argument – akin to the argument advanced by Notre Dame and other nonprofits – that he was substantially burdened by the mere act of objecting because his objection paves the way for someone to be drafted in his place). > If, after the political processes play themselves out, Congress requires us > all to be taxed to provide contraceptives/etc., then the objectors here will > pay whatever taxes they must pay (and we wouldn't give them an exemption). By this logic, the cases that rejected free exercise challenges to the minimum wage and equal pay laws were wrongly decided, because the government could have raised taxes and made up the pay differences itself. We would also need a government mental-health insurance program, a government blood transfusion program, and a government gelatin-covered pill program, because other employers will be owned by people with religious objections to offering coverage for these forms of medical care, too. > Of course, at some point a government that funded large numbers of elective > abortions might be seen by some people as having forfeited its legitimacy. > But that's a question for another day. I thought that we were talking about contraception, not abortion. Are you saying that they are the same thing? That a government seeking to ensure access to contraception has forfeited its legitimacy? All I can say is – I appreciate your candor. Greg Gregory M. Lipper Senior Litigation Counsel Americans United for Separation of Church & State (202) 466-3234 x210 > > Mark > > Mark S. Scarberry > Pepperdine University School of Law > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 17, 2014, at 6:23 PM, "Greg Lipper" <lip...@au.org> wrote: >> >> One closing note about the exchange of the last few hours: >> >> Many people, including and especially many males, are unlikely to be aware >> of all of the relevant factors affecting the cost and availability of >> contraception. As a result, it is unfortunate that (other than in the Notre >> Dame case), the women directly affected by these lawsuits aren’t before the >> courts. >> >> >> Gregory M. Lipper >> Senior Litigation Counsel >> Americans United for Separation of Church & State >> (202) 466-3234 x210 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.
