I've published a couple of posts on the argument. The first <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-zubik-oral-argument-part-i-of.html> explains why the case (not surprisingly) is likely to turn on the "least restrictive means" inquiry, and on why the "hijacking the plan" metaphor is inapt.
The second <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-zubik-oral-argument-part-ii-is.html> discusses why the alternative option floated at argument -- subsidizing the availability of "stand-alone" contraception "plans" on an exchange for the women who work for objecting organizations -- is not a less restrictive means for RFRA purposes. It also addresses a couple of the arguments that Michael McConnell posted yesterday on Eugene's blog. I'd very much welcome any reactions/thoughts, thanks.
_______________________________________________ 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.
