Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Marty Lederman]

A post in which I address the "tradition of protecting conscience about
abortion" argument in Tom's fine brief for Democrats for Life, and
abortion/abortifacients more broadly:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/03/hobby-lobby-part-xii-what-ruling-would.html



On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Berg, Thomas C. wrote:

>  Apropos of two threads: (1) whether this case involves abortion and (2)
> whether a limited ruling for Hobby Lobby is possible:
>
>
>
> The brief of the Democrats for Life of America and Bart Stupak, on which I
> was counsel, is one of the briefs that summarizes evidence on the different
> drugs and devices.  See
> http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-354-13-356_amcu_dfla.authcheckdam.pdf,
> at 18-25.  I think the evidence is quite plausible that Ella and IUDs could
> work to prevent implantation, for the reasons Doug says.  There was debate
> on this in the FDA advisory committee, and at least one member of the
> committee made exactly the same point as below, saying, ""I'll even
> concede that the primary mechanism of action [for Ella] might be delayed
> ovulation, but not in this group that's five days out from unprotected
> intercourse. . . . I can't imagine how we can put all of these numbers
> together to say that delayed ovulation explains this continued efficacy [at
> five days after intercourse]."  See id. at 22 & n.5.  Evidence on Plan B
> may be growing that it's unlikely to stop implantation (although the FDA
> and the government's briefs still say it has that possibility).  But at
> least as to Ella and IUDs, the objection is quite plausible.
>
>
>
> As many know, Congressman Stupak, along with other pro-life Democrats,
> supported the Affordable Care Act and provided key votes; several of those
> people were then turned out of office because of concentrated campaigns
> against them by the main pro-life groups.  Neither Stupak nor the Democrats
> for Life has it in for the ACA in general.  (FWIW, I've also written in
> support of the Affordable Care Act, defending many of its other provisions
> against criticisms from the main pro-life groups.)
>
>
>
> The brief focuses on the issue of abortion and argues that we have a
> distinctively strong tradition of protecting conscience on that
> matter--recognizing (as we do in other circumstances) the particular burden
> from being involved in what the objector regards as the immoral taking of
> life--and that this tradition should inform interpretation of RFRA.  As to
> abortion, more than any other procedure or drug, conscience clauses protect
> objectors in the commercial sphere and protect them from indirect
> facilitation.  The brief argues that under RFRA, this tradition should
> extend to objectors to drugs and devices that may plausibly act to prevent
> implantation.  I'm aware of Marty's argument that in some places, federal
> law may define abortion as occurring only after implantation (it does
> define pregnancy that way).  The brief argues that such a definition should
> not set the outer limits of abortion-related accommodation under RFRA.
>
>
>
> Beyond the question of whether this case itself involves abortion in a
> legally controlling sense ... most of the arguments the government makes here
> (that businesses have no free ex rights, that there's no burden on the
> employer) would eliminate any challenges to a law that said second-term
> abortions must be covered in all insurance policies and that penalized
> employers for excluding it or dropping health insurance.  And as the
> Washington bill I mentioned the other day shows (the bill that passed the
> state House), it's quite possible that such laws will be enacted in the
> coming years with no exemptions for objecting employers.
>
>
>
> Following up on Jim Oleske's question, I agree that in the abortion
> context, it is better to protect conscientious objections generally.  If
> the government refuses to do so, I think it is better to protect religious
> objectors, and define religion as broadly as possible, than to protect no
> one.
>
>
>
> -
>
> Thomas C. Berg
>
> James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy
>
> University of St. Thomas School of Law
>
> MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue
>
> Minneapolis, MN   55403-2015
>
> Phone: (651) 962-4918
>
> Fax: (651) 962-4996
>
> E-mail: tcb...@stthomas.edu
>
> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=261564
>
> Weblog: 
> http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
> mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> *On Behalf Of *Douglas Laycock
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:43 AM
> *To:* 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> *Subject:* RE: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA
>
>
>
> I don't know what the bishops or the Greens would say, but I don't t

RE: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Stuart Buck]

My position is not rigid at all -- I'm just asking for people who make striking 
empirical claims ("dramatic" reductions in abortion) to produce a shred of 
evidence outside of their personal intuition. If no one has any such evidence, 
then it is irresponsible to make such empirical claims in the first place. 

From: lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:30:02 +






I should add that the rigidity of this position is especially remarkable in 
light of the absence of any demonstrable evidence that any IUD has ever itself 
acted on even a single fertilized egg, let alone a significant number…


On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:18 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






I'm looking for actual evidence, not speculation that is uninformed by any data 
on 1) what the actual takeup rate might be compared to the takeup rate right 
now, 2) what the relative improvement would be in the rate of pregnancy 
prevention, and
 3) how many of the allegedly prevented pregnancies might have ended in 
abortion (given the particulars of the people who are incentivized on the 
margin to install IUDs by the new policy). These questions cannot be 
satisfactorily answered without a randomized
 experiment. 







From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:31:32 +



I don't know how you are quantifying "dramatic," but 10 percent of women of 
child bearing age (that is, 10 percent of 62 million women) is a pretty big 
number. If even a small fraction of those women avoid the need for an abortion 
as a result, that is
 tens or hundreds of thousands of abortions prevented. 


On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






But there's no evidence that more than, say, 10% or so of women would use IUDs 
even if they're free. So again, no evidence for "dramatic" impact on abortion. 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:45:46 +



A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means 
"relatively cheap," especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone 
least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth).


On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate.
 There is absolutely no reason to think that it would. 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +



What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)? 



Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course
 reduce the rate of abortion — especially among lower-income women.



If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.



And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.


On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either. 



(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide
 take-up rate of IUDs would be high enough to "dramatically" affect the 
abortion rate). 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +



You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective
 and more expensive than virtually all over forms of contraception.)












On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck  wrote:



"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Greg Lipper]

I should add that the rigidity of this position is especially remarkable in 
light of the absence of any demonstrable evidence that any IUD has ever itself 
acted on even a single fertilized egg, let alone a significant number…

On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:18 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

I'm looking for actual evidence, not speculation that is uninformed by any data 
on 1) what the actual takeup rate might be compared to the takeup rate right 
now, 2) what the relative improvement would be in the rate of pregnancy 
prevention, and 3) how many of the allegedly prevented pregnancies might have 
ended in abortion (given the particulars of the people who are incentivized on 
the margin to install IUDs by the new policy). These questions cannot be 
satisfactorily answered without a randomized experiment.



From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:31:32 +

I don't know how you are quantifying "dramatic," but 10 percent of women of 
child bearing age (that is, 10 percent of 62 million women) is a pretty big 
number. If even a small fraction of those women avoid the need for an abortion 
as a result, that is tens or hundreds of thousands of abortions prevented.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

But there's no evidence that more than, say, 10% or so of women would use IUDs 
even if they're free. So again, no evidence for "dramatic" impact on abortion.


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:45:46 +

A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means 
"relatively cheap," especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone 
least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth).

On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate. There is absolutely no reason to think that it would.

________
From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +

What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)?

Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course reduce the rate of abortion — especially among 
lower-income women.

If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.

And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either.

(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide take-up rate of IUDs would be high 
enough to "dramatically" affect the abortion rate).


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective and more expensive than virtually all over 
forms of contraception.)




On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

"one of the principal benef

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Greg Lipper]

So we should not try to reduce unplanned pregnancies based on logical 
understanding of human psychology, economics, and biology — and based on solid 
empirical data about IUD effectiveness and patient behavior in response to its 
cost — even when a randomized study would be impractical and probably unethical?

That is a remarkably rigid view, and as a practical matter it would prevent the 
government from ever making policy in the face of any religious objections.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:18 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

I'm looking for actual evidence, not speculation that is uninformed by any data 
on 1) what the actual takeup rate might be compared to the takeup rate right 
now, 2) what the relative improvement would be in the rate of pregnancy 
prevention, and 3) how many of the allegedly prevented pregnancies might have 
ended in abortion (given the particulars of the people who are incentivized on 
the margin to install IUDs by the new policy). These questions cannot be 
satisfactorily answered without a randomized experiment.



From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:31:32 +

I don't know how you are quantifying "dramatic," but 10 percent of women of 
child bearing age (that is, 10 percent of 62 million women) is a pretty big 
number. If even a small fraction of those women avoid the need for an abortion 
as a result, that is tens or hundreds of thousands of abortions prevented.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

But there's no evidence that more than, say, 10% or so of women would use IUDs 
even if they're free. So again, no evidence for "dramatic" impact on abortion.


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:45:46 +

A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means 
"relatively cheap," especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone 
least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth).

On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate. There is absolutely no reason to think that it would.

________
From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +

What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)?

Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course reduce the rate of abortion — especially among 
lower-income women.

If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.

And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either.

(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide take-up rate of IUDs would be high 
enough to "dramatically" affect the abortion rate).


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wo

RE: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Stuart Buck]

I'm looking for actual evidence, not speculation that is uninformed by any data 
on 1) what the actual takeup rate might be compared to the takeup rate right 
now, 2) what the relative improvement would be in the rate of pregnancy 
prevention, and 3) how many of the allegedly prevented pregnancies might have 
ended in abortion (given the particulars of the people who are incentivized on 
the margin to install IUDs by the new policy). These questions cannot be 
satisfactorily answered without a randomized experiment. 

From: lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:31:32 +






I don't know how you are quantifying "dramatic," but 10 percent of women of 
child bearing age (that is, 10 percent of 62 million women) is a pretty big 
number. If even a small fraction of those women avoid the need for an abortion 
as a result, that is
 tens or hundreds of thousands of abortions prevented. 


On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






But there's no evidence that more than, say, 10% or so of women would use IUDs 
even if they're free. So again, no evidence for "dramatic" impact on abortion. 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:45:46 +



A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means 
"relatively cheap," especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone 
least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth).


On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate.
 There is absolutely no reason to think that it would. 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +



What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)? 



Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course
 reduce the rate of abortion — especially among lower-income women.



If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.



And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.


On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either. 



(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide
 take-up rate of IUDs would be high enough to "dramatically" affect the 
abortion rate). 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +



You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective
 and more expensive than virtually all over forms of contraception.)












On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck  wrote:



"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of
 what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies).
 "



This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically"
 reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out of 11 randomized trials of 
the provision of emergency contraception (some of these trials occurred in 
developing countries where contraception is far less available compared to the 
U.S.), there was no evidence
 that even pregnancy rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates. 
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlu

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Greg Lipper]

I don't know how you are quantifying "dramatic," but 10 percent of women of 
child bearing age (that is, 10 percent of 62 million women) is a pretty big 
number. If even a small fraction of those women avoid the need for an abortion 
as a result, that is tens or hundreds of thousands of abortions prevented.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:20 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

But there's no evidence that more than, say, 10% or so of women would use IUDs 
even if they're free. So again, no evidence for "dramatic" impact on abortion.


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:45:46 +

A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means 
"relatively cheap," especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone 
least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth).

On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate. There is absolutely no reason to think that it would.


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +

What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)?

Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course reduce the rate of abortion — especially among 
lower-income women.

If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.

And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either.

(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide take-up rate of IUDs would be high 
enough to "dramatically" affect the abortion rate).


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective and more expensive than virtually all over 
forms of contraception.)




On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies). "

This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically" reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out 
of 11 randomized trials of the provision of emergency contraception (some of 
these trials occurred in developing countries where contraception is far less 
available compared to the U.S.), there was no evidence that even pregnancy 
rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates.
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1




From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
To: religionlaw@lis

RE: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Stuart Buck]

But there's no evidence that more than, say, 10% or so of women would use IUDs 
even if they're free. So again, no evidence for "dramatic" impact on abortion. 

From: lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:45:46 +






A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means 
"relatively cheap," especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone 
least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth).


On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate.
 There is absolutely no reason to think that it would. 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +



What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)? 



Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course
 reduce the rate of abortion — especially among lower-income women.



If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.



And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.


On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either. 



(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide
 take-up rate of IUDs would be high enough to "dramatically" affect the 
abortion rate). 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +



You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective
 and more expensive than virtually all over forms of contraception.)












On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck  wrote:



"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of
 what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies).
 "



This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically"
 reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out of 11 randomized trials of 
the provision of emergency contraception (some of these trials occurred in 
developing countries where contraception is far less available compared to the 
U.S.), there was no evidence
 that even pregnancy rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates. 
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1











From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

CC: wdellin...@omm.com












Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:




1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.




2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number
 of persons and religions (including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing 
implantation ends a life, that deliberately doing so is immoral, and that some
 level or type of compli

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Greg Lipper]

A contraceptive method with an upfront cost of up to $1000 is by no means 
"relatively cheap," especially for someone with a low income (that is, someone 
least able to afford an unplanned pregnancy/birth).

On Mar 17, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate. There is absolutely no reason to think that it would.


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +

What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)?

Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course reduce the rate of abortion — especially among 
lower-income women.

If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.

And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either.

(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide take-up rate of IUDs would be high 
enough to "dramatically" affect the abortion rate).


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective and more expensive than virtually all over 
forms of contraception.)




On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies). "

This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically" reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out 
of 11 randomized trials of the provision of emergency contraception (some of 
these trials occurred in developing countries where contraception is far less 
available compared to the U.S.), there was no evidence that even pregnancy 
rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates.
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1



________
From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
CC: wdellin...@omm.com<mailto:wdellin...@omm.com>

Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:

1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number of persons and religions 
(including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing implantation ends a life, 
that deliberately doing so i

RE: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Stuart Buck]

Withholding effective contraception is a straw man; the only question here is 
whether making a widely available and relatively cheap consumer product "free" 
at the point of purchase will magically have a "dramatic" impact on the 
abortion rate. There is absolutely no reason to think that it would. 

From: lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:38:27 +






What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)? 



Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course
 reduce the rate of abortion — especially among lower-income women.



If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.



And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.


On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck"  wrote:






There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either. 



(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide
 take-up rate of IUDs would be high enough to "dramatically" affect the 
abortion rate). 





From: lip...@au.org

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +



You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective
 and more expensive than virtually all over forms of contraception.)












On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck  wrote:



"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of
 what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies).
 "



This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically"
 reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out of 11 randomized trials of 
the provision of emergency contraception (some of these trials occurred in 
developing countries where contraception is far less available compared to the 
U.S.), there was no evidence
 that even pregnancy rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates. 
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1











From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

CC: wdellin...@omm.com












Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:




1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.




2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number
 of persons and religions (including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing 
implantation ends a life, that deliberately doing so is immoral, and that some
 level or type of complicity with such immoral conduct is itself immoral.




3.  None of the 18 FDA-approved methods is designed to prevent implantation, 
and it's unclear that any of them actually does so.  Moreover, those that do 
(if any) may do so only very rarely.




4.  It is true that, according to the FDA, the four methods named in the HL 
complaint -- two IUDs, ella and Plan B -- may prevent implantation in a small 
number
 of cases.  But . . . 




5.  So, too, might several other of the 18 methods, including, most 
significantly, the birth-control pill.  Thus, even on the plaintiffs' own 
theories,

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Greg Lipper]

What kind of study would you want to see: one that withholds effective 
contraception from people for 10–20+ years and then checks to see how many 
people had unwanted pregnancies (and, in turn, how many had abortions)?

Making IUD affordable to more people will indeed cause more people to use IUD 
(Guttmacher and other briefs have good stats on that); and unless you think 
that low-income women have abortions for sport, reducing the rate of unwanted 
pregnancy will of course reduce the rate of abortion — especially among 
lower-income women.

If you are concerned that the "society-wide take-up rate of IUDs" won't be high 
enough, then the last thing you would want to do is deprive more women of 
access to IUD.

And let's not forget the other side of the ledger: there is little to no modern 
evidence that IUD (or emergency contraception) ever acts after fertilization, 
let alone that they regularly do so.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, "Stuart Buck" 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either.

(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide take-up rate of IUDs would be high 
enough to "dramatically" affect the abortion rate).


From: lip...@au.org<mailto:lip...@au.org>
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective and more expensive than virtually all over 
forms of contraception.)




On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies). "

This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically" reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out 
of 11 randomized trials of the provision of emergency contraception (some of 
these trials occurred in developing countries where contraception is far less 
available compared to the U.S.), there was no evidence that even pregnancy 
rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates.
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1




From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
CC: wdellin...@omm.com<mailto:wdellin...@omm.com>

Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:

1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number of persons and religions 
(including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing implantation ends a life, 
that deliberately doing so is immoral, and that some level or type of 
complicity with such immoral conduct is itself immoral.

3.  None of the 18 FDA-approved methods is designed to prevent implantation, 
and it's unclear that any of them actually does so.  Moreover, those that do 
(if any) may do so only very rarely.

4.  It is true that, according to the FDA, the four methods named in the HL 
complaint -- two IUDs, ella and Plan B -- may prevent implantation in a small 
number of cases.  But . . .

5.  So, too, might several other of the 18 methods, including, most 
significantly, the birth-control pill.  Thus, even on the plaintiffs' own 
theories, the HL and CW cases are not limited to four methods -- the exemption 
would be of unknown breadth.

6.  In the vast majority of cases in which their employees would be reimbursed 
for the purchase of contraception if the Co

RE: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Stuart Buck]

There is no good empirical evidence that providing cost-free IUDs will 
"dramatically" reduce abortions either. 
(There's the St. Louis study, but it is unreliable in several ways, most 
prominently including the lack of a control group and the almost-certain 
presence of selection bias, and even if that study were remotely valid, there 
is zero evidence that the society-wide take-up rate of IUDs would be high 
enough to "dramatically" affect the abortion rate). 

From: lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:11:43 +






You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective
 and more expensive than virtually all over forms of contraception.)












On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck  wrote:



"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence
 of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended
 pregnancies). "



This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically"
 reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out of 11 randomized trials of 
the provision of emergency contraception (some of these trials occurred in 
developing countries where contraception is far less available compared to the 
U.S.), there was no evidence
 that even pregnancy rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates. 
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1











From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400

Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

CC: wdellin...@omm.com












Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:




1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.




2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number of
 persons and religions (including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing 
implantation ends a life, that deliberately doing so is immoral, and that some 
level or
 type of complicity with such immoral conduct is itself immoral.




3.  None of the 18 FDA-approved methods is designed to prevent implantation, 
and it's unclear that any of them actually does so.  Moreover, those that do 
(if any) may do so only very rarely.




4.  It is true that, according to the FDA, the four methods named in the HL 
complaint -- two IUDs, ella and Plan B -- may prevent implantation in a small 
number of
 cases.  But . . . 




5.  So, too, might several other of the 18 methods, including, most 
significantly, the birth-control pill.  Thus, even on the plaintiffs' own 
theories, the HL and CW cases are not limited to four methods -- the exemption 
would be of unknown breadth.




6.  In the vast majority of cases in which their employees would be reimbursed 
for the purchase of contraception if the Court denies the HL and CW RFRA claims 
-- perhaps all of
 the cases (we just don't know) -- there would not be any prevention of 
implantation, and thus no ending of life on anyone's view, and thus no 
complicity issue.




7.  Assuming there are a small number of cases that result in implantation, 
that will virtually never be the object of the employees' use of the birth 
control, which
 obviously would be at least relevant to the moral calculus for many, even if 
not all, persons who think that implantation ends a life.  




8.  Thus, even on the Greens' view of implantation and life, and their 
idiosyncratic view of complicity, excluding four or more FDA-approved methods 
from their plans
 will deny women their right to cost-free access in a huge number of cases 
(perhaps all of them) where there would not be any sin, let alone complicity . 
. . and would, at most, prevent the alleged complicity in a tiny handful of 
(unidentifiable) cases.  I
 am not here making any argument about how that fact should bear on the 
substantial burden analysis -- a complicated question that neither I or anyone 
else (to my knowledge)
 has yet written on.  But I do think that comparison, that ratio, fairly 
identifies the problem th

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Richard Dougherty]

This is somewhat tangential to the discussion, and I am not simply trying
to make a political point, so if anyone wishes to respond I will gladly
take responses off-list, but I have a non-rhetorical question.

Tom Berg's reference to Burt Stupak reminds me that there have been a few
references lately to the drafting of the ACA, with the suggestion that if
Republicans had participated in the drafting of the act they could have
improved it.  I wonder if others think that is so, and, if so, in what
way(s)?

Perhaps some of you have not seen the column Stupak authored in USA Today
this past week, in which he raises this question rather pointedly:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/11/obamacare-stupak-hobby-lobby-birth-control-column/6264861/

Stupak's position is largely the position that the Catholic bishops took,
and which many of them are still taking; they would like virtually the
whole bill if only it didn't come with the mandate.  But I don't see how
you can have one and guarantee that you are not going to get the other,
whatever you may have been told by the politicians involved (see, e.g.,
Stupak and Cardinal Dolan).

I wonder, then, what kind of better deal the Republicans could have gotten
if they had somehow cooperated with the Democrats in crafting the ACA.

Richard Dougherty
University of Dallas
___
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: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Greg Lipper]

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges. The Guttmacher brief isn’t 
referring only to emergency contraception; in particular, it’s pointing to the 
benefits of things like IUD, which Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood also refuse to 
cover. (IUD is both more effective and more expensive than virtually all over 
forms of contraception.)




On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stuart Buck 
mailto:stuartb...@msn.com>> wrote:

"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies). "

This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically" reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out 
of 11 randomized trials of the provision of emergency contraception (some of 
these trials occurred in developing countries where contraception is far less 
available compared to the U.S.), there was no evidence that even pregnancy 
rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates.
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1




From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
CC: wdellin...@omm.com<mailto:wdellin...@omm.com>

Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:

1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number of persons and religions 
(including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing implantation ends a life, 
that deliberately doing so is immoral, and that some level or type of 
complicity with such immoral conduct is itself immoral.

3.  None of the 18 FDA-approved methods is designed to prevent implantation, 
and it's unclear that any of them actually does so.  Moreover, those that do 
(if any) may do so only very rarely.

4.  It is true that, according to the FDA, the four methods named in the HL 
complaint -- two IUDs, ella and Plan B -- may prevent implantation in a small 
number of cases.  But . . .

5.  So, too, might several other of the 18 methods, including, most 
significantly, the birth-control pill.  Thus, even on the plaintiffs' own 
theories, the HL and CW cases are not limited to four methods -- the exemption 
would be of unknown breadth.

6.  In the vast majority of cases in which their employees would be reimbursed 
for the purchase of contraception if the Court denies the HL and CW RFRA claims 
-- perhaps all of the cases (we just don't know) -- there would not be any 
prevention of implantation, and thus no ending of life on anyone's view, and 
thus no complicity issue.

7.  Assuming there are a small number of cases that result in implantation, 
that will virtually never be the object of the employees' use of the birth 
control, which obviously would be at least relevant to the moral calculus for 
many, even if not all, persons who think that implantation ends a life.

8.  Thus, even on the Greens' view of implantation and life, and their 
idiosyncratic view of complicity, excluding four or more FDA-approved methods 
from their plans will deny women their right to cost-free access in a huge 
number of cases (perhaps all of them) where there would not be any sin, let 
alone complicity . . . and would, at most, prevent the alleged complicity in a 
tiny handful of (unidentifiable) cases.  I am not here making any argument 
about how that fact should bear on the substantial burden analysis -- a 
complicated question that neither I or anyone else (to my knowledge) has yet 
written on.  But I do think that comparison, that ratio, fairly identifies the 
problem that the cases present.

9.  The Court is, in any event, unlikely to issue a ruling limited to "possible 
implantation-prevention methods."  The scope of such a ruling would be unclear, 
for one thing, since (as mentioned above) we don't even know what subset of the 
FDA methods would be covered.  More importantly, such a ruling would do nothing 
to decide the vast majority of the cases that have been filed, which deal with 
contraception as such, and are not focused on possible implantation-preve

RE: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Stuart Buck]

Another relevant cite on Marty's empirical claim that providing cost-free 
contraception (saving the typical woman as much as $30 a month) will 
"dramatically" decrease abortion rates. 
It's remarkable that people make such striking empirical claims when virtually 
all the rigorous evidence points to a null effect, if anything. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18318870
The impact of programs to increase contraceptive use among adult women: a 
review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies.
"The interventions generally had positive, albeit short-term, effects on 
contraceptive use; none reduced pregnancy rates. "
From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
CC: wdellin...@omm.com

Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:



1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number of persons and religions 
(including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing implantation ends a life, 
that deliberately doing so is immoral, and that some level or type of 
complicity with such immoral conduct is itself immoral.



3.  None of the 18 FDA-approved methods is designed to prevent implantation, 
and it's unclear that any of them actually does so.  Moreover, those that do 
(if any) may do so only very rarely.

4.  It is true that, according to the FDA, the four methods named in the HL 
complaint -- two IUDs, ella and Plan B -- may prevent implantation in a small 
number of cases.  But . . . 



5.  So, too, might several other of the 18 methods, including, most 
significantly, the birth-control pill.  Thus, even on the plaintiffs' own 
theories, the HL and CW cases are not limited to four methods -- the exemption 
would be of unknown breadth.



6.  In the vast majority of cases in which their employees would be reimbursed 
for the purchase of contraception if the Court denies the HL and CW RFRA claims 
-- perhaps all of the cases (we just don't know) -- there would not be any 
prevention of implantation, and thus no ending of life on anyone's view, and 
thus no complicity issue.



7.  Assuming there are a small number of cases that result in implantation, 
that will virtually never be the object of the employees' use of the birth 
control, which obviously would be at least relevant to the moral calculus for 
many, even if not all, persons who think that implantation ends a life.  



8.  Thus, even on the Greens' view of implantation and life, and their 
idiosyncratic view of complicity, excluding four or more FDA-approved methods 
from their plans will deny women their right to cost-free access in a huge 
number of cases (perhaps all of them) where there would not be any sin, let 
alone complicity . . . and would, at most, prevent the alleged complicity in a 
tiny handful of (unidentifiable) cases.  I am not here making any argument 
about how that fact should bear on the substantial burden analysis -- a 
complicated question that neither I or anyone else (to my knowledge) has yet 
written on.  But I do think that comparison, that ratio, fairly identifies the 
problem that the cases present.



9.  The Court is, in any event, unlikely to issue a ruling limited to "possible 
implantation-prevention methods."  The scope of such a ruling would be unclear, 
for one thing, since (as mentioned above) we don't even know what subset of the 
FDA methods would be covered.  More importantly, such a ruling would do nothing 
to decide the vast majority of the cases that have been filed, which deal with 
contraception as such, and are not focused on possible implantation-prevention. 
 I doubt the Justices are inclined to issue such a narrow and ineffective 
ruling.



10.  On the other hand, and as long as we're on the subject of preventing 
abortions, one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher 
brief explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the 
incidence of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of 
unintended pregnancies).  And in a substantially greater number of cases than 
that, the Rule will spare women being confronted with the decision whether or 
not to have abortion -- a choice that can be agonizing for many employees with 
strong religious or other moral views about abortion.  As Walter Dellinger 
wrote in the Guttmacher brief:

RE: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Stuart Buck]

"one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher brief 
explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the incidence 
of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of unintended 
pregnancies). "
This is an empirical claim, yet for which there is no empirical evidence. That 
is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that cost-free 
contraception "dramatically" reduces the rate of abortion. To the contrary, out 
of 11 randomized trials of the provision of emergency contraception (some of 
these trials occurred in developing countries where contraception is far less 
available compared to the U.S.), there was no evidence that even pregnancy 
rates were affected at all, let alone abortion rates. 
http://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1


From: lederman.ma...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
CC: wdellin...@omm.com

Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points about 
the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back in 
December 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html:



1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law, and in 
the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

2.  I emphatically agree, however (as I explained in my December post), that 
that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases since, 
whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number of persons and religions 
(including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing implantation ends a life, 
that deliberately doing so is immoral, and that some level or type of 
complicity with such immoral conduct is itself immoral.



3.  None of the 18 FDA-approved methods is designed to prevent implantation, 
and it's unclear that any of them actually does so.  Moreover, those that do 
(if any) may do so only very rarely.

4.  It is true that, according to the FDA, the four methods named in the HL 
complaint -- two IUDs, ella and Plan B -- may prevent implantation in a small 
number of cases.  But . . . 



5.  So, too, might several other of the 18 methods, including, most 
significantly, the birth-control pill.  Thus, even on the plaintiffs' own 
theories, the HL and CW cases are not limited to four methods -- the exemption 
would be of unknown breadth.



6.  In the vast majority of cases in which their employees would be reimbursed 
for the purchase of contraception if the Court denies the HL and CW RFRA claims 
-- perhaps all of the cases (we just don't know) -- there would not be any 
prevention of implantation, and thus no ending of life on anyone's view, and 
thus no complicity issue.



7.  Assuming there are a small number of cases that result in implantation, 
that will virtually never be the object of the employees' use of the birth 
control, which obviously would be at least relevant to the moral calculus for 
many, even if not all, persons who think that implantation ends a life.  



8.  Thus, even on the Greens' view of implantation and life, and their 
idiosyncratic view of complicity, excluding four or more FDA-approved methods 
from their plans will deny women their right to cost-free access in a huge 
number of cases (perhaps all of them) where there would not be any sin, let 
alone complicity . . . and would, at most, prevent the alleged complicity in a 
tiny handful of (unidentifiable) cases.  I am not here making any argument 
about how that fact should bear on the substantial burden analysis -- a 
complicated question that neither I or anyone else (to my knowledge) has yet 
written on.  But I do think that comparison, that ratio, fairly identifies the 
problem that the cases present.



9.  The Court is, in any event, unlikely to issue a ruling limited to "possible 
implantation-prevention methods."  The scope of such a ruling would be unclear, 
for one thing, since (as mentioned above) we don't even know what subset of the 
FDA methods would be covered.  More importantly, such a ruling would do nothing 
to decide the vast majority of the cases that have been filed, which deal with 
contraception as such, and are not focused on possible implantation-prevention. 
 I doubt the Justices are inclined to issue such a narrow and ineffective 
ruling.



10.  On the other hand, and as long as we're on the subject of preventing 
abortions, one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher 
brief explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the 
incidence of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of 
unintended pregnancies).  And in a substantially greater number of cases than 
that, the Rule will spare women being confronted with the decision wheth

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Steven Jamar]

Marty’s last point seems telling.  If the object were to reduce abortions, then 
one should favor contraception being readily and inexpensively available.  If 
one wants to avoid complicity in abortions, then one should support 
contraception.  But, where the complicity includes something one has religious 
objections to, i.e., contraception at all, then providing contraception is the 
evil with which one is complicit, not abortion.

I cannot predict how the court will decide these issues.  Will it decide them 
as abortion cases in which case the substantive argument runs Marty’s way?  Or 
contraception cases in which case going back to Griswold we have that liberty.  

Or will it say, as it has in other contexts, that the right to do something 
does not include the right to have someone else pay for it (that someone else 
being in those cases the government)?

Or will it say that the liberty interest of the individuals is not relevant at 
all — just the liberty interests of the religious employers?

Or will it take a power-of-Congress tack and say that the given the widespread 
use of accommodations and exclusions favoring religion all over the place the 
omission of one in this instance means that Congress has decided there is no 
substantial burden?

Or will it take a straight RFRA approach and decide whether the complicity 
theory in this attenuated setting simply cannot be treated as a substantial 
burden because it does not stop any affirmative exercise by anyone or because 
believing what you want cannot be regulated, but practicing those beliefs can 
be (going back to Reynolds), even in the light of RFRA?

Or will it find this complicity theory a substantial burden (despite the lack 
of impact on practical exercise) and then try to sort out the compelling 
interest (this should be one — reducing abortions, universal health coverage) 
and the least restrictive alternative?  It seems to me that the least 
restrictive alternative here ends up being just what is being done now — though 
I understand the form of the argument of having the government supply it — but 
the employer is still just as complicit — just a change in who provides it — a 
private insurance company or the government.

Will there be a majority in this case?  Or splintered opinions with splintered 
rationales and just a bag of facts with a result? (apologies to whomever I 
stole that description from — I don’t recall who said it).

Steve
-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and 
Social Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/


"The modern trouble is in a low capacity to believe in precepts which restrict 
and restrain private interests and desires."

Walter Lippmann


On Mar 14, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Marty Lederman  wrote:

> 10.  On the other hand, and as long as we're on the subject of preventing 
> abortions, one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the Guttmacher 
> brief explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically decrease the 
> incidence of what everyone agrees are abortions (the result in 40% of 
> unintended pregnancies).  And in a substantially greater number of cases than 
> that, the Rule will spare women being confronted with the decision whether or 
> not to have abortion -- a choice that can be agonizing for many employees 
> with strong religious or other moral views about abortion.  As Walter 
> Dellinger wrote in the Guttmacher brief:
> In these cases, the shifting of a burden to third parties would involve even 
> more than economics and personal health, as significant as they are. Denying 
> coverage of the most effective methods (or, in some cases, all methods) of 
> contraception leads predictably and directly to unintended pregnancies. 
> Removing the contraceptive coverage guarantee would place some women with 
> religious objections to abortion in what is for them a morally difficult 
> position: they might desire but be unable to afford the most reliable methods 
> of contraception and therefore be at increased risk for confronting an 
> unintended pregnancy and the difficult decisions that ensue. For all women, 
> denying practical access to the method of contraception that is right for 
> their health and life circumstances and the well-being of their families can 
> represent a most serious incursion into their individual moral autonomy and 
> the course of their lives.
> 
> It seems to me, therefore, that for Justices and others who are genuinely 
> concerned about reducing the number of abortions, and about accommodating 
> religious and other moral concerns about abortion more generally, affording 
> RFRA exemptions in these cases is hardly the most attractive option.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get p

Re: Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Marty Lederman]

Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues.  A few points
about the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back
in December (
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html
:

1.  Preventing implantation is not considered an abortion under the law,
and in the mainstream medical and scientific communities.

2.  I emphatically *agree*, however (as I explained in my December post),
that that does not matter for purposes of the RFRA claims in these cases
since, whatever nomenclature one might use, a small number of persons and
religions (including the plaintiffs here) think that preventing
implantation ends a life, that *deliberately* doing so is immoral, and that
some level or type of complicity with such immoral conduct is itself
immoral.

3.  None of the 18 FDA-approved methods is designed to prevent
implantation, and it's unclear that any of them actually does so.
Moreover, those that do (if any) may do so only very rarely.

4.  It is true that, according to the FDA, the four methods named in the HL
complaint -- two IUDs, ella and Plan B -- *may* prevent implantation in a
small number of cases.  But . . .

5.  So, too, might several other of the 18 methods, including, most
significantly, the birth-control pill.  Thus, even on the plaintiffs' own
theories, the HL and CW cases are not limited to four methods -- the
exemption would be of unknown breadth.

6.  In the vast majority of cases in which their employees would be
reimbursed for the purchase of contraception if the Court denies the HL and
CW RFRA claims -- perhaps *all *of the cases (we just don't know) -- there
would not be any prevention of implantation, and thus no ending of life on
anyone's view, and thus no complicity issue.

7.  Assuming there are a small number of cases that result in implantation,
that will virtually never be the *object *of the employees' use of the
birth control, which obviously would be at least relevant to the moral
calculus for many, even if not all, persons who think that implantation
ends a life.

8.  Thus, even on the Greens' view of implantation and life, *and *their
idiosyncratic view of complicity, excluding four or more FDA-approved
methods from their plans will deny women their right to cost-free access in
a huge number of cases (perhaps all of them) where there would not be any
sin, let alone complicity . . . and would, at most, prevent the alleged
complicity in a tiny handful of (unidentifiable) cases.  I am *not *here
making any argument about how that fact should bear on the substantial
burden analysis -- a complicated question that neither I or anyone else (to
my knowledge) has yet written on.  But I do think that comparison, that
ratio, fairly identifies the problem that the cases present.

9.  The Court is, in any event, unlikely to issue a ruling limited to
"possible implantation-prevention methods."  The scope of such a ruling
would be unclear, for one thing, since (as mentioned above) we don't even
know what subset of the FDA methods would be covered.  More importantly,
such a ruling would do nothing to decide the vast majority of the cases
that have been filed, which deal with contraception as such, and are not
focused on possible implantation-prevention.  I doubt the Justices are
inclined to issue such a narrow and ineffective ruling.

10.  *On the other hand*, and as long as we're on the subject of preventing
abortions, one of the principal benefits of the HHS Rule -- as the
Guttmacher brief explains (see pp. 23-25) -- is that it will dramatically
decrease the incidence of what *everyone *agrees are abortions (the result
in 40% of unintended pregnancies).  And in a substantially greater number
of cases than that, the Rule will spare women being confronted with the
decision whether or not to have abortion -- a choice that can be agonizing
for many employees with strong religious or other moral views about
abortion.  As Walter Dellinger wrote in the Guttmacher brief:

In these cases, the shifting of a burden to third parties would involve
even more than economics and personal health, as significant as they are.
Denying coverage of the most effective methods (or, in some cases, all
methods) of contraception leads predictably and directly to unintended
pregnancies. Removing the contraceptive coverage guarantee would place some
women with religious objections to abortion in what is for them a morally
difficult position: they might desire but be unable to afford the most
reliable methods of contraception and therefore be at increased risk for
confronting an unintended pregnancy and the difficult decisions that ensue.
For all women, denying practical access to the method of contraception that
is right for their health and life circumstances and the well-being of
their families can represent a most serious incursion into their individual
moral autonomy and the course of their lives.
It seems to me, therefore, that for Justices and others who 

Hobby Lobby and Abortion

[Berg, Thomas C.]

Apropos of two threads: (1) whether this case involves abortion and (2) whether 
a limited ruling for Hobby Lobby is possible:

The brief of the Democrats for Life of America and Bart Stupak, on which I was 
counsel, is one of the briefs that summarizes evidence on the different drugs 
and devices.  See 
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-354-13-356_amcu_dfla.authcheckdam.pdf,
 at 18-25.  I think the evidence is quite plausible that Ella and IUDs could 
work to prevent implantation, for the reasons Doug says.  There was debate on 
this in the FDA advisory committee, and at least one member of the committee 
made exactly the same point as below, saying, ""I'll even concede that the 
primary mechanism of action [for Ella] might be delayed ovulation, but not in 
this group that's five days out from unprotected intercourse. . . . I can't 
imagine how we can put all of these numbers together to say that delayed 
ovulation explains this continued efficacy [at five days after intercourse]."  
See id. at 22 & n.5.  Evidence on Plan B may be growing that it's unlikely to 
stop implantation (although the FDA and the government's briefs still say it 
has that possibility).  But at least as to Ella and IUDs, the objection is 
quite plausible.

As many know, Congressman Stupak, along with other pro-life Democrats, 
supported the Affordable Care Act and provided key votes; several of those 
people were then turned out of office because of concentrated campaigns against 
them by the main pro-life groups.  Neither Stupak nor the Democrats for Life 
has it in for the ACA in general.  (FWIW, I've also written in support of the 
Affordable Care Act, defending many of its other provisions against criticisms 
from the main pro-life groups.)

The brief focuses on the issue of abortion and argues that we have a 
distinctively strong tradition of protecting conscience on that 
matter-recognizing (as we do in other circumstances) the particular burden from 
being involved in what the objector regards as the immoral taking of life-and 
that this tradition should inform interpretation of RFRA.  As to abortion, more 
than any other procedure or drug, conscience clauses protect objectors in the 
commercial sphere and protect them from indirect facilitation.  The brief 
argues that under RFRA, this tradition should extend to objectors to drugs and 
devices that may plausibly act to prevent implantation.  I'm aware of Marty's 
argument that in some places, federal law may define abortion as occurring only 
after implantation (it does define pregnancy that way).  The brief argues that 
such a definition should not set the outer limits of abortion-related 
accommodation under RFRA.

Beyond the question of whether this case itself involves abortion in a legally 
controlling sense ... most of the arguments the government makes here (that 
businesses have no free ex rights, that there's no burden on the employer) 
would eliminate any challenges to a law that said second-term abortions must be 
covered in all insurance policies and that penalized employers for excluding it 
or dropping health insurance.  And as the Washington bill I mentioned the other 
day shows (the bill that passed the state House), it's quite possible that such 
laws will be enacted in the coming years with no exemptions for objecting 
employers.

Following up on Jim Oleske's question, I agree that in the abortion context, it 
is better to protect conscientious objections generally.  If the government 
refuses to do so, I think it is better to protect religious objectors, and 
define religion as broadly as possible, than to protect no one.

-
Thomas C. Berg
James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy
University of St. Thomas School of Law
MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN   55403-2015
Phone: (651) 962-4918
Fax: (651) 962-4996
E-mail: tcb...@stthomas.edu
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=261564
Weblog: 
http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com


From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:43 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: letter opposing Mississippi RFRA

I don't know what the bishops or the Greens would say, but I don't think they 
would object to that. They would not be specifying what you could buy from the 
pharmacist.

What they object to is buying a policy that covers a list of items, and 
explicitly on the list are items that they believe will kill people. They 
contract to put those items on the list; they pay to have those items on the 
list; they tempt their employees to use those items by making them available 
for free. It'