In an interesting new lawsuit, a Missouri legislator (suing as an employee of
the state) seeks on religious liberty grounds the ability to obtain a health
insurance policy from his employer that does not cover contraception,
sterilization or abortifacients. He particularly objects to coverage
Next up, a lawsuit demanding to be paid in currency that can't be used to buy
contraception.
Eduardo
From: Friedman, Howard M.
howard.fried...@utoledo.edumailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
All he needs to do is decline the policy offered. This is not a case in
controversy. I predict dismissal.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
From: Penalver, Eduardo penal...@uchicago.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thursday,
Next up, a lawsuit seeking on religious liberty grounds the ability to obtain
a health insurance policy from his employer that does not cover vaccinations or
other medications, or surgery, but only covers healing prayer.
- Original Message -
From: Eduardo Penalver
I hope that neither you nor Eduardo are serious in your responses. The
government's interest in ensuring basic medical care and lifesaving measures is
significantly different than whatever interest the government has in forcing
religious organizations to supply coverage of contraception,
I’m not sympathetic to the legislator’s claim, and I’m not sure
that the provision of only a general insurance policy and not the one with the
exceptions substantially burdens the legislator’s belief. Indeed, the
legislator’s ability to send a disclaimer to the insurance
I assume they were serious and hope they were.
If you are a woman with unstoppable bleeding as part of your periods, or
excruciating cramps,
this is medication and treatment that is indeed compelling. If you cannot go
to work for 5 days every month because of the severity of your periods,
As far as I understand the situation, no one legally objects to the health
(unrelated to reproduction) use of the pill.
As to those whose religion requires contraception, religious adherents
cannot force the government to buy for them wine for sacraments, or even
bandaids for cuts, even if they
If we were debating banning contraception, Marci's argument would work and
make perfect sense. We are, instead, debating government-mandated funding
of contraception.
Michael
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net wrote:
As far as I understand the situation, no
Well, we are debating the contents of the plan, equality, and fundamental
fairness. Those opposed to the mandate are arguing for a health system that
excludes coverage for women's reproductive health needs, which are often
compelling.
Were there no comprehensive plan as backdrop, we would
I assume they were serious and hope they were.
Some of both.
May I also suggest a compelling interest to provide coverage for late-term
theraputic abortion, for the purpose of saving the life of the mother? For
example: fetal death at 28 weeks, with no natural expulsion of the
Without judging the merits of the claim (which I can’t explore in detail now
with classes about to start), what we are discussing is the alleged right of an
employee to receive an insurance policy for the employee and the employee’s
family which excludes benefits that the employer (in this case
A good, too-often, too-badly needed reality check, Marci. Thanks.
I still wonder whether there is any controversy here to adjudicate. Why cannot
the plaintiff simply refuse the coverage? Or refuse contraception?
I'm partly reminded by my 7th-Day Adventist end of the family, and my Uncle
I also suggest that in the interest of compassion consideration might be given
to ectopic and anencephalic pregnancies.
Thanks.
- Original Message -
From: Len campquest...@comcast.net
To: Marci Hamilton hamilto...@aol.com
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
I agree there may well be a compelling interest in the
government’s providing for life-saving procedures, even ones that an insured
refused to buy insurance for. But -- assuming that offering an employee a
policy covering such procedures, with no other options, is a substantial
As far as I understand the situation, no one legally objects to the health
(unrelated to reproduction) use of the pill.
If an employer objects to coverage for contraceptives, how is he to tell the
difference without prying into his employee's medical condition? Isn't there a
potential
Does anyone have a problem with a father, on religious freedom grounds, being
able to deny his 18 and 19 year old daughters on his insurance policy coverage
for contraception that the government has mandated generally? Those are the
facts in this case.
From:
Does anyone have a problem with a father, on religious freedom grounds, being
able to deny his 18 and 19 year old daughters
on his insurance policy coverage for contraception that the government has
mandated generally? Those are the facts in this
case.
I think that's part of the point that
We continue to have interesting discussions here and elsewhere about topics
relevant to the AALS Law and Religion Section Call for Papers, but we have
reached the initial deadline and we have a too-small pool of submissions for a
good peer-review selection.
The Program Committee has decided to
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Nichols, Joel A. joel.nich...@stthomas.edu
Date: 08/15/2013 8:37 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: One more try -- an EXTENSION of AALS Law and
I hit the wrong button on my smart phone, which wasn't smart enough to stop
me, and sent a copy of Joel's message back to the list, after he promised he
wouldn't bother list members again. Not sure whether correct etiquette is to
make you all deal with another message apologizing, but sorry.
21 matches
Mail list logo
