: 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
://clacaidigital.info:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/194/Advance_provision_of_EC_for_pregnancy_prevention.pdf?sequence=1
From: lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:50:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby
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
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 +
).
From: lip...@au.orgmailto:lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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
.
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
.
From: lip...@au.orgmailto:lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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
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 +
: lip...@au.orgmailto:lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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
.
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
@lists.ucla.edumailto: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
...@au.orgmailto:lip...@au.org
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
