We've been through this a million times before, so I won't belabor it, but no one is being *required* to "provide" any drugs to anyone.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Scarberry, Mark < mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > I'm not sure what Greg means, but if the government can override such > positions held by politically powerful groups, then what chance will > minority religions have? > > > > It's also important to see that the Protestants who object do so not > because HHS is requiring them to provide contraception, but because they > sincerely think the drugs they must provide will sometimes cause abortions. > That is a red line for those Protestants and, I think, for many Catholics - > a real red line, not like the ones sometimes drawn in international > affairs. > > > > If the government can force religious people to provide for the obtaining > of abortions, then all bets are off. Whether or not you think the > contraceptives cause abortion, the arguments that would permit the HHS > "contraceptive" mandate are equally applicable to abortion. > > > > I think it was Sandy who warned at AALS of "peasants with pitchforks." > Let's not go there. > > > > Mark > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Professor of Law > > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Greg Lipper > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:05 AM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA > > > > Yes, indeed. And whatever "substantial burden" means, it most certainly > does not mean - and could not be applied by courts, with a straight face, > to mean - burdens with respect to "long held and clearly stated teaching of > two of the largest religious groups in the country." > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 11, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > To be fair to Doug and others of us who fought for RFRA and RLPA and > RLUIPA way back when, we thought they were worth fighting for because of > all manner of cases that *did not involve the commercial sector* -- > including, for example, Doug's prisoner case that the Court just granted. > Doug is right that no one, back then, thought commercial sector cases could > prevail -- because they have virtually never received so much as a vote in > the Supreme Court. > > But that was then; this is now. If Hobby Lobby prevails, and if these > state laws are enacted against the backdrop of such a Supreme Court > decision and a manifest legislative and popular intent to promote > exemptions in the commercial sphere, well . . . that's a different > landscape entirely, isn't it? > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Hillel Y. Levin <hillelle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand. If such RFRAs are so ineffectual then why are > some people pushing so hard for them? If they aren't worth fighting > against, why are they worth fighting for? > > > > > On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> wrote: > > There is of course nothing in the actual experience of state RFRAs to > support any of the speculative fears in the letter. Litigation has been > scarce; decisions favoring religious claimants have been scarcer. RFRAs > have been significantly under enforced compared to the aspirations of their > drafters. > > > > The recent string of wins under federal RFRA in the contraception cases > arise in a context where government attempted to override long held and > clearly stated teaching of two of the largest religious groups in the > country (Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants). Even if those wins > hold up in the Supreme Court, which is far from assured, there is little > reason to think they would be replicated in other contexts. > > > > Douglas Laycock > > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] > *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:21 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* letter opposing Mississippi RFRA > > > > A group of ten legal academics, including myself and a number of others > who post on this list, have prepared a letter urging the legislative defeat > of a proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Mississippi. The letter > has recently been delivered and made publicly available. It can be found > here: http://www.thirdway.org/publications/795 > > > > -- > > Ira C. Lupu > F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus > George Washington University Law School > 2000 H St., NW > Washington, DC 20052 > (202)994-7053 > > Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious > People" (forthcoming, summer 2014, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.) > My SSRN papers are here: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg > > > > -- > Hillel Y. Levin > Associate Professor > > University of Georgia > School of Law > 120 Herty Dr. > Athens, GA 30602 > (678) 641-7452 > hle...@uga.edu > hillelle...@gmail.com > SSRN Author Page: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=466645 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
