RE: Zubik and Pope Francis on Contraception

[Tessa Dysart]

Under Thomas v. Review Board I would think it wouldn't matter if the Priests 
for Life disagreed.

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M.
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:00 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Zubik and Pope Francis on Contraception

News reports say that Pope Francis at a new conference in Mexico said that 
contraceptives may be used in the case of mothers who may be trying not to get 
pregnant because of the Zika virus.  He is quoted as saying that "avoiding 
pregnancy is not an absolute evil."  Should this affect the Court's view of the 
complicity-substantial burden argument in Zubik and the other cases being 
reviewed along with it.  for example, the Priests For Life cert petition 
asserted:

"The Gospel of Life is an expression of the Catholic Church's position and 
central teaching regarding the value and inviolability of human life. 
Contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients are contrary to this teaching, 
and their use can never be approved, endorsed, facilitated, promoted, or 
supported in any way."

Or are the Pope's views on this irrelevant to the substantial burden argument 
if Priests for Life disagree with those views?

Howard Friedman



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4530/11640 - Release Date: 02/16/16
___
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.

RE: Can someone be legally obligated to have sex with people she's unwilling to have sex with?

[Tessa Dysart]

The federal government would disagree, and label it sex-trafficking under 18 
USC 1591, which was enacted in part under the Commerce Clause and the 13th 
Amendment.

-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Graber, Mark
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Can someone be legally obligated to have sex with people she's 
unwilling to have sex with?

Yes.  To quote EV it is just a business.

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Can someone be legally obligated to have sex with people she's 
unwilling to have sex with?

Mark:  So do I understand correctly that you think it's OK for the 
government to say:

As a condition of your being able to earn a living in your 
chosen occupation [here, prostitution], you are legally obligated to have sex 
with people you're unwilling to have sex with.

That surprises me, but I'd love to hear more about it.

Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- 
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Graber, Mark
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:49 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The racist prostitute hypothetical
>
> I confess that I get off at the second paragraph (or the first 
> substantive paragraph).
>
> My spouse is an excellent breadbaker and therapist.  For a while, she 
> just bakes for friends and only comforts friends and does so for 
> friendship.  Turns out all our friends are of the same race, religion, 
> sexual orientation, etc.  I presume these choices are constitutionally 
> protected.  One day, after receiving numerous comments of the sort, 
> "you really ought to go into business," she does.  The first person 
> who orders bread and asks for therapy is of a different race, 
> religion, sexual orientation, etc.  I take it this can be regulated.  
> The first amendment does protect some activities, even when done 
> commercially, but at the very least those activities cannot be 
> described as Eugene does below as "just business."  If it is "just 
> business" (and that is not what a clergy person thinks they are doing when 
> they marry someone), then it ought to be subject to anti- discrimination law.
> 
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:01 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
> (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
> Subject: The racist prostitute hypothetical
>
>I've been thinking about a little thought experiment, 
> and I thought I'd run it past this list to see whether people see it as 
> helpful.
>
>Imagine a state in which prostitution is legalized.  A 
> prostitute offers her services to the general public (perhaps through 
> a web site, which as I understand it is not uncommon).  She is 
> generally not very selective, because it's just business.  But she 
> doesn't like black people.  A black would-be customer feels 
> understandably insulted by this, so he sues her for discrimination in 
> public accommodations.  And the state law does cover all businesses, 
> bricks and mortar or not, that provide goods or services to the 
> general public.  (That, after all, is the sort of law that covers 
> bakers, wedding photographers, and perhaps ministers who charge for 
> their services.)
>
>My inclination is that the prostitute should have an 
> absolute right to discriminate on any basis she wants, whether it's 
> race, religion, marital status, age, or whatever else.  And that is 
> true even though she charges money, and generally provides her 
> services to everyone.  (I say "she" and "he" in this example, but of 
> course the same would apply regardless of the sex or sexual 
> orientation of the parties.)  The choice of whom to have sex with is a 
> personal choice, even when done commercially, and no-one should have 
> to have sex with someone they don't want to have sex with - on pain of 
> either facing a fine or having to quit one's chosen line of business - no 
> matter how many for-pay partners they might have.  Are people on this list 
> with me so far?
>
>Now the next step:  I think that, while sexual conduct 
> should involve a right to choose for particular reasons having to do 
> with bodily autonomy, some other conduct should involve a similar right to 
> choose for other reasons.
> Religious autonomy, intellectual/expressive autonomy, and 
> personal/familial autonomy are examples of that.  Forcing a member 

Re: Practice experience of Justices

[Tessa Dysart]

Wasn't Clarence Thomas involved in state law in Missouri as an Asst. AG?

On Jul 11, 2014 10:43 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"  wrote:
   My understanding is that Anthony Kennedy was a local Sacramento 
lawyer of some distinction – and not at a large firm – from 1963 to 1975.  I 
suspect this was largely a civil practice, so it might not go to criminal law 
experience (which, as some pointed out, only Alito and Sotomayor seem to have), 
but it is relevant to whether someone has had experience with local clients, 
and was involved in state law.

   Eugene


The justices are elite not only in education but in their distance from the 
average American (Ginsberg is the major exception, Sotomayor a bit) in their 
careers and professional backgrounds.  There is no one like Warren or Black who 
dealt with law and the individual level as a local prosecutor or judge.  No one 
like Powell or Blackmun who had local clients and were involved in business.  
No one like White who did something before law school.  None have even served 
on a state court or been involved in state law.

___
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.

RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Tessa Dysart]

I apologize if I came across as rude, I did not intend to.

I don't think that the court or HL is taking away a woman's choice to use these 
methods of contraception.  In fact, the women may well get it cost free through 
another source.  But, it won't make the Green's violate their sincerely held 
religious beliefs by offering it.

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Johnsen, Dawn Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

I do not believe Tessa Dysart's post actually contests any of the factual 
assertions in the NYT article, Guttmacher's studies, or the brief Walter and I 
wrote citing those sources (which we took great care to ensure is accurate) -- 
it impugns the sources generally, without substantiation. I have not (and 
certainly would not) contest the perfectly valid argument that if a form of 
conception might in even a small minority of cases prevent implantation, a 
woman might rationally choose not to use it, if that possibility is 
inconsistent with her religious beliefs (and of course she is free to base her 
decision on any reason). A woman with the same religious beliefs might also 
conclude that the likelihood of that risk is outweighed by the far greater 
effectiveness of the method -- which women choose typically for a combination 
of reasons, including in addition to religious and other beliefs, health 
issues, cost, effectiveness, stage of life, etc. On an aggregate level, the 
number of unintended pregnancies and abortions prevented also is a relevant 
fact to inform personal decision making and public policy. The undisputed fact 
is that leaving the choice to women, informed by their own religious beliefs, 
and removing cost as a factor through insurance reduces the number of 
unintended pregnancies and abortions (under any definition).  I believe that is 
where the decision should be made, unencumbered by the religious beliefs of her 
employer, but even if one disagrees with that, the facts (including in the 
sources I circulated and in our brief) are important to employers and women and 
their families seeking to make informed decisions.




From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Tessa Dysart 
[tdys...@regent.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?
I certainly don't speak for the Greens or the Hahns, but if I held their 
religious convictions, I would have a hard time trusting the NY Times and 
Guttmacher as reliable sources on this issue-just as I am sure that many people 
on this listserve would not trust American's United for Life on the facts on 
how these drugs work.  If the manufacturers of Plan B and Ella don't like what 
their labels say-that is between them and the FDA.  As a not medically trained 
consumer, I think that it is reasonable to rely on the manufacturer's inserts 
for information about the drug (like we do for other prescriptions).

Again, if this is a sincerely held religious belief (that some forms of 
contraception have the possibility of preventing implantation, which would 
equal an abortion, and thus I would be party to the abortion if I paid for 
those drugs) it doesn't matter how crazy you all think it is, or really if you 
think that it is right or wrong.

As for Jean's point about Plan B thickening cervical mucus, yes, it can do 
that, which can potentially impede fertilization, but it can also make the 
lining of the uterine wall too thick, so that a fertilized egg cannot implant.  
Even a woman with poor cervical mucus can get pregnant.  Good cervical mucus 
allows the sperm to survive longer (good for women who may not be tracking 
ovulation).  But, well timed intercourse (even for a woman with poor cervical  
mucus) can lead to pregnancy.

As for the point about the Green's contributions to companies that make morning 
after pills-I  have heard that claim, but I have also heard that those 
investments are through their 401k plans.  Honestly, I don't know if it is true 
or not.  Also, my guess is that most of us aren't up on every company that we 
invest in through our 401k plan.

Finally, on the blood transfusion point-the Court doesn't come anywhere near 
deciding that issue-the dissent makes that clear.


From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Johnsen, Dawn Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

Here is wha

RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Tessa Dysart]

rk. Because they 
block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents' 
definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, 
RU-486<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/mifeprex_ru486_drug/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,
 a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted 
embryos.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the 
Food and Drug Administration's decision during the drug-approval process to 
mention that possibility on the label - despite lack of scientific proof, 
scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan 
B<http://www.planbonestep.com/>, the pill on the market the longest. Leading 
scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not 
prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, 
Ella<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/ww.ella-rx.com>, does.



From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Tessa Dysart
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 1:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

But IUDs do change the uterine lining, 
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control,
 raising the question for some people as to whether they can act to prevent 
implantation, assuming fertilization occurs.

As for Plan B & Ella, the websites for both products contain documents that do 
say that they may work to prevent implantation--Ella (see p. 12:  
https://pharma.afaxys.com/afaxys/assets/pdf/ella_FPI.pdf); Plan B (click on 
"How Plan B Works" http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx).

From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Johnsen, Dawn Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:19 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

Below are some sources that may be of interest regarding what we know about how 
these forms of contraception actually work.  Clearly some uncertainty, due to 
difficulties of testing and great difficulties of proving a negative (that ella 
and IUDs never can work post-fertilization). But the primary mechanisms of 
action (how they usually work) clearly are not what anyone believes is an 
abortion - so the overall effect of making them available is to reduce the 
number of abortions (by anyone's definition, not just the scientific/medical 
definition) if you take into account pregnancies prevented.  That's especially 
the case because IUDs, which again almost always work by preventing 
fertilization (and perhaps always, as long as the IUD was implanted before 
intercourse, though again, hard to prove a negative) are extremely effective 
but very costly and for that reason used less than women would like to use them 
(making insurance particularly helpful, again in reducing the number of 
abortions by any definition). The hormonal IUD is 45 times more effective than 
oral contraceptives and 90 times more effective than male condoms based on 
typical use, as described in the first source (an amicus I coauthored with 
Walter Dellinger and O'Melveny for the Guttmacher Institute).  Also, I've added 
at end a link to my scotusblog post on the case.  Best, Dawn

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/guttmacher_scotus_amicus_brief.pdf

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-354-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-PHYSICIANS-FOR-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-et-alpdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=0

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/19/hobby-lobby-iuds-and-the-fac.html

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/guttmacher_scotus_amicus_brief.pdf



http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/hobby-lobby-symposium-corporations-who-worship-1-women-who-work-0/





From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?


On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody 
mailto:peabody...@gmail.com>> wrote:

(and indeed there's no
scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion)

Problem with this sentence on two levels:  First, contraception is a pretty 
broad term, and includes things like abstinence, barriers, hormone therapy.  
Literally defined, contraception prevents or impedes conception.  Abortion, on 
the other hand is medically de

RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Tessa Dysart]

But IUDs do change the uterine lining, 
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control,
 raising the question for some people as to whether they can act to prevent 
implantation, assuming fertilization occurs.

As for Plan B & Ella, the websites for both products contain documents that do 
say that they may work to prevent implantation--Ella (see p. 12:  
https://pharma.afaxys.com/afaxys/assets/pdf/ella_FPI.pdf); Plan B (click on 
"How Plan B Works" http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx).

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Johnsen, Dawn Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:19 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

Below are some sources that may be of interest regarding what we know about how 
these forms of contraception actually work.  Clearly some uncertainty, due to 
difficulties of testing and great difficulties of proving a negative (that ella 
and IUDs never can work post-fertilization). But the primary mechanisms of 
action (how they usually work) clearly are not what anyone believes is an 
abortion - so the overall effect of making them available is to reduce the 
number of abortions (by anyone's definition, not just the scientific/medical 
definition) if you take into account pregnancies prevented.  That's especially 
the case because IUDs, which again almost always work by preventing 
fertilization (and perhaps always, as long as the IUD was implanted before 
intercourse, though again, hard to prove a negative) are extremely effective 
but very costly and for that reason used less than women would like to use them 
(making insurance particularly helpful, again in reducing the number of 
abortions by any definition). The hormonal IUD is 45 times more effective than 
oral contraceptives and 90 times more effective than male condoms based on 
typical use, as described in the first source (an amicus I coauthored with 
Walter Dellinger and O'Melveny for the Guttmacher Institute).  Also, I've added 
at end a link to my scotusblog post on the case.  Best, Dawn

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/guttmacher_scotus_amicus_brief.pdf

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-354-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-PHYSICIANS-FOR-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-et-alpdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=0

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/19/hobby-lobby-iuds-and-the-fac.html

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/guttmacher_scotus_amicus_brief.pdf



http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/hobby-lobby-symposium-corporations-who-worship-1-women-who-work-0/





From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?


On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody 
mailto:peabody...@gmail.com>> wrote:

(and indeed there's no
scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion)

Problem with this sentence on two levels:  First, contraception is a pretty 
broad term, and includes things like abstinence, barriers, hormone therapy.  
Literally defined, contraception prevents or impedes conception.  Abortion, on 
the other hand is medically defined as the premature exit of the product/s of 
conception.  Abortion can be induced or spontaneous.  BTW, about 1/2 of all 
conceptions are aborted spontaneously, and if one believes it was God's will, 
then that makes one's God the busiest abortion provider in the universe.

As for the claim that there's no scientific consensus as to whether "the 
contraception" (Plan B? The Pill? IUD? Condoms? Pulling out? ) causes abortion, 
that's because it's damn hard to conduct ethical, empirical tests whether or 
not a zygote was prevented from implanting in the uterine wall tissue, or if it 
was ejected during induced menses. Remember, there can be no consensus unless 
there are multiple, peer reviewed experiments under rigorous scientific 
processes.  Not many women are willing to have their menstrual effluvia 
collected for scientific examination.  Not many scientists think it important 
enough to find out, either. Not many sources of funding for any kind of 
scientific research of any kind, much less something so female-centric.

Carry on.  I'm just providing some uterine perspective here.
Jean.
TMI? Yeah.  Deal with it.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/7691 - Release Date: 06/17/14
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
___
To post, 

RE: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?

[Tessa Dysart]

But aren't the forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby objects to specifically 
marketed as contraception that can prevent implantation? I know that Plan B 
is-whether IUDs prevent implantation is  perhaps a little more controversial.   
For people who believe that life begins at fertilization, a form of 
contraception that prevents implantation is a problem.

Tessa

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach?


On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody 
mailto:peabody...@gmail.com>> wrote:


(and indeed there's no
scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion)

Problem with this sentence on two levels:  First, contraception is a pretty 
broad term, and includes things like abstinence, barriers, hormone therapy.  
Literally defined, contraception prevents or impedes conception.  Abortion, on 
the other hand is medically defined as the premature exit of the product/s of 
conception.  Abortion can be induced or spontaneous.  BTW, about 1/2 of all 
conceptions are aborted spontaneously, and if one believes it was God's will, 
then that makes one's God the busiest abortion provider in the universe.

As for the claim that there's no scientific consensus as to whether "the 
contraception" (Plan B? The Pill? IUD? Condoms? Pulling out? ) causes abortion, 
that's because it's damn hard to conduct ethical, empirical tests whether or 
not a zygote was prevented from implanting in the uterine wall tissue, or if it 
was ejected during induced menses. Remember, there can be no consensus unless 
there are multiple, peer reviewed experiments under rigorous scientific 
processes.  Not many women are willing to have their menstrual effluvia 
collected for scientific examination.  Not many scientists think it important 
enough to find out, either. Not many sources of funding for any kind of 
scientific research of any kind, much less something so female-centric.

Carry on.  I'm just providing some uterine perspective here.
Jean.
TMI? Yeah.  Deal with it.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 3955/7691 - Release Date: 06/17/14
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
___
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.