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:
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
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.
4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Ira Lupu icl...@law.gwu.edu
Date: 11/27/2013 8:14 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was Patently Frivolous)
All of Marci's
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).
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was Patently Frivolous)
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
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
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was Patently
Frivolous)
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
Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:32 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was Patently Frivolous)
Tom-- they are not opposed to the Pill?
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:32 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was Patently
Frivolous)
Tom
: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:10 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Discrimination under Title VII and RFRA (was Patently Frivolous)
So how does it work? The women need pre approval from their boss?
And I thought the bishops oppose
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
