Derek writes: The briefs convincingly demonstrates that this doesn't
qualify as a compelling government interest because the regulatory regime
established by the government already allows for large numbers of women not
to get free abortifacients /contraceptives from their employers.
Convincing
Just to be clear, my discussion in earlier posts about government funding
contraceptive insurance coverage for the employees of religiously exempt
employers is based on the argument that such an arrangement may constitute a
less restrictive alternative that furthers the government's compelling
Marty, it seems to me that one weakness in your argument is that there's a big
difference between a grandfather clause that would sunset old plans on a date
certain and grandfather clauses that allow old plans to continue on to
perpetuity. Here, Congress chose the latter type, which means
Derek:
The claim you, and the parties, have made is that Congress created myriad
exemptions covering millions of women, demonstrating that this interest
must not be so compelling, after all. But as it turns out, the only real
exemption is just an ordinary phasing-in rule, common to many
