I assume that the use of quotes around constitutional fact is meant to
highlight that the phrase is used as an analogy in this situation, which is
governed by a statute and not the Constitution. But partly for that reason,
I think the danger of a jury's refusal to follow a proper instruction on
Perry: I think this is a very important, and contestable, assumption:
Hobby Lobby is using religious reasoning, not secular reasoning [in
determining what sort of connection constitutes prohibited complicity].
What is the basis for that assumption? In fact, virtually all theological
analysis
Thankfully, this issue is now beside the point, but just to repeat, the
premise is mistaken: There are not literally millions of women whose
policies are exempted. Almost all women in the United States are or soon
will be entitled to cost-free contraceptive coverage in their insurance
plan.
On
And in the standard complicity-with-evil analyses, including religious ones,
the degree of connection that's permissible is affected by the perceived
gravity of the harm, which as Marty notes is a religious determination.
Gravity of the harm, for example, is part of the material cooperation
Steve Jamar wrote:
[1] How about owning stock in companies that
make and sell contraceptives? They had to sign a contract to do that.
[2] The distance between doing the improper thing -- selling, paying
for, using contraceptives -- and buying general health insurance with
coverages
Good morning,
In reviewing the Hobby Lobby decision, and particularly its extent, I
can't help but wonder how far this decision goes. While much of the
focus is on the contraceptives themselves, it seems like Hobby Lobby
may be to particular contraceptives as Employment Div. v. Smith was to
On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com wrote:
How about owning stock in companies that make and sell contraceptives? They
had to sign a contract to do that.
Good question, Steve: Let’s narrow this down a bit—remember, HL only objects
to “morning-after”
On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody peabody...@gmail.com wrote:
(and indeed there's no
scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion)
Problem with this sentence on two levels: First, contraception is a pretty
broad term, and includes things like abstinence,
Thanks Jean - I was trying to avoid getting into a discussion as to
the particulars of the contraception (which is the vehicle for this
particular case) by relying on Justice Alito's statement on page 9,
footnote 7, which dismissed the dispute over what the drugs actually
do (distinguishing
We’re dealing with some pretty icky stuff, here; zygotes, embryos, fetuses,
menstruation, uterine tissues…but if decisions that affect those icky things
are made, we really should be willing to speak about them.
Now what gets me is there’s an exemption for blood transfusions and
I have long thought, as Sandy does, that Naim v. Naim was a disgrace. It is
hardly proof that Brown “did absolutely nothing,” though. Even Gerald
Rosenberg’s flawed analysis of Brown does not go that far. Looking more
closely at Naim, it seems somewhat less outrageous that the Court waited
But aren't the forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby objects to specifically
marketed as contraception that can prevent implantation? I know that Plan B
is-whether IUDs prevent implantation is perhaps a little more controversial.
For people who believe that life begins at fertilization, a
On Jul 2, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Tessa Dysart tdys...@regent.edu wrote:
But IUDs do change the uterine lining,
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control,
raising the question for some people as to whether they can act to prevent
implantation, assuming
13 matches
Mail list logo
