Does anyone know who is going to brief first(upside),and who is going to brief
second (downside in the contraception cases? Or is each case going to brief on
the normal schedule? The docket sheet said nothing late yesterday on this
subject.
Marc
-Original Message-
From:
The UK supreme court today rejected acclaim by owners of a bed and breakfast
that they should have religious liberty right not to host a same sex couple.
Here is link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0065_Judgment.pdf
Marc
Not yet determined. Almost certainly on the March argument calendar.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Marc Stern ste...@ajc.org wrote:
Does anyone know who is going to brief first(upside),and who is going to
brief second (downside in the contraception cases? Or is each case going to
brief
Tom:
Thanks so much for engaging with the piece so generously and skillfully. It’s
heartening that the Establishment Clause issues are finally getting an
airing—our only worry is that it may be too late for a proper briefing before
the Supreme Court. But maybe some members of this list can
Nelson, just on the third-party harm point, do you therefore think that
Hosanna-Tabor was wrongly decided? Or do you think that it is something of a
misnomer to treat a ministerial employee as a total third party?
On Nov 27, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Nelson Tebbe nelson.te...@brooklaw.edu wrote:
I know this isn't a full answer; but the issue is not whether or not a
woman can use birth control for cramps, etc. as far as I am aware.
Further, the issue is who pays for the contraception, not whether the
contraception can be used.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:50 AM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
Tom, Nelson, and Micah have very artfully and rigorously framed the
relevant questions re: the role of third party harms and Establishment
Clause concerns in the contraceptive mandate litigation. Paul's question
was addressed to Nelson, but I would like to suggest an answer --
Hosanna-Tabor can
All of Marci's hypotheticals are loaded up, because they involve direct
imposition on women's behavior (wear head scarves, don't use certain
medicines or drugs) rather than just refusing to pay for the relevant
goods. And Marci's claim that Hobby Lobby and others are engaging in
religious
These are fascinating questions. Indeed, it may be that if the law prevents
the exercise of conscience, then - at least with respect to certain claims
concerning complicity with evil - there is no violation of conscience after
all. Would conscience would demand civil disobedience and, if
The government *is *relying upon women's equality -- not only health -- as
one of the compelling interests. This makes sense, since presumably most
(but not all) employees would pay for contraception ut of pocket, rather
than go without.
As for whether an employer's failure to cover
Chip-- it might be a standing issue regarding the religious discrimination but
I still think it has legs because, eg, a Presbyterian is having her job
benefits limited solely according to religion that she doesn't share, in
contravention of both economics and health standards. Shaping a
Marty- one addition --women will also have to pay for oral contraceptives to
stop excessive bleeding, cramps, and hormone- triggered acne. I think this
discussion needs to factor in the medical uses beyond contraception for
millions of women over the course of their lives.
Marci
Marci A.
An initial response to the sex discrimination question: does an employer engage
in sex discrimination by refusing to fund (or provide insurance covering)
sterilization services, as required by the ACA?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my Verizon Wireless
This may or may not be relevant to the constitutional question, but I think
it's likely that the religious employers in these cases would not object to
providing coverage for those medications if prescribed for non-contraceptive
purposes (because contraception would be a secondary effect).
In response to Chip,
As to the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, they object only to certain
medicines/methods that they believe cause abortions of fertilized embryos.
Unless opposition to abortion is a form of statutory sex discrimination, which
the Court rejected in Bray v.
I should say that I'm not opposed to this answer. I do think that the
ministerial employee cases do raise questions about whether someone who
participates in that kind of central and official capacity in the life of a
church can really be said to be a genuine third party facing third-party
There is at least one district court decision upholding the EEOC's view of
the PDA. See Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1271-72
(W.D. Wash. 2001):
Having reviewed the legislative history of Title VII and the PDA, the
language of the statute itself, and the relevant case law,
I certainly hope they will rely on these statutes which are evidence of (1) the
ingrained and ongoing persistence of gender discrimination across society and
in private institutions; (2) the need to be vigilant as these hard-fought
rights can be compromised at any time; and (3) this religious
Tom-- they are not opposed to the Pill?
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Berg, Thomas C. tcb...@stthomas.edu wrote:
In response to Chip,
As to the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby and
They are not.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf
So how does it work? The women need pre approval from their boss?
And I thought the bishops oppose the Pill and these are devout Catholics.
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:46 PM,
The owners of Hobby Lobby are Protestants. The owners of Conestoga Wood are
Mennonites. They are opposed to abortion. They object to drugs or devices that
may work post-fertilization. They are not opposed to contraception that works,
certainly and exclusively, by other mechanisms.
Douglas
The medications which are normally prescribed for birth control purposes,
which we commonly call contraceptives, also have other uses, which uses may
be perfectly harmonious with Catholic teaching. I am not aware of any
prescription drug plan offered through a Catholic organization that does
not
A thoughtful response, Nelson and Micah, to an equally thoughtful post, Tom.
So here are my questions, Nelson (and Micah and Marci etc.)
Let's assume the cost of medical contraceptive coverage is $300 per year (a
totally made up number).
1. If a religious employer (individual or corporation)
I have a lot of trouble with the argument that religious accommodations that
effectively deny third parties government-mandated benefits to which they are
otherwise entitled are not subject to Establishment Clause review. It is true
that the government doesn’t have to protect anyone against
You all are making me more and more fond of Smith and less fond of RFRA than I
ever thought possible!
Smith analysis: ACA is a neutral generally applicable law and the employer
cannot claim a free exercise violation because it requires coverages they don’t
like.
RFRA: few have considered
There is another aspect to this which it seems to me has gone largely
unnoticed. The 2 cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to review are from
individuals and businesses who do not object to contraception, but instead
object to abortion and believe that some contraceptives are
Eugene's argument below goes to the merits of distinguishing between
for-profit corporations and non-profit religious institutions, and as I
said in my initial message, I think there may well be a fine argument for
taking a new approach to the merits issue in Hobby Lobby. Patently
frivolous is not
Though I think the ACA regulations should be seen as
substantially burden the plaintiffs' exercise of religion, I think the strict
scrutiny argument is much harder to analyze, and perhaps the government should
indeed win under strict scrutiny. And I can see the appeal of the
Jim Oleske writes:
My sense is that the language from the Piggie Park Court was reflective of an
accepted notion at the time that for-profit businesses did not have a
presumptive right to religious exemptions, even if non-profit religious
institutions might have such a right
Why would that
30 matches
Mail list logo
