Here is a NY Times letter to the editor from Mark Rienzi about the Little
Sisters of the Poor and the form that the Court thus far has excused them from
having to sign, taking issue with a Linda Greenhouse column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/opinion/abortion-and-contraception-cases-before-
ace and peace to you,
Derek
From: Greg Lipper
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:35 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Reply To: Greg Lipper
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Professor Sisk’s post epitomizes many of the inacc
issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
The question is not about access to health care or to contraception. No one
proposes to ban contraception or withdraw it from the market. Access to
contraception for those who
tizens to crippling
fines for seeking to live their lives in accord with their faith?
Grace and peace to you,
Derek
From: Greg Lipper
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:35 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Reply To: Greg Lipper
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "
The question is not about access to health care or to contraception. No one
proposes to ban contraception or withdraw it from the market. Access to
contraception for those who cannot afford it is already widely available
through both government and private efforts. Government subsidizes
cont
Greg Sisk's post quite stunningly asks for mutual respect for the
contending concerns in the contraceptive mandate cases, and then (just as
Greg Lipper wrote) minimizes the concern for women's health and well-being
that explains the contraceptive mandate. The safest and most effective
contraceptio
Lipper
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Professor Sisk's post epitomizes many of the inaccurate assumptions that led to
the enactment of the wom
Professor Sisk’s post epitomizes many of the inaccurate assumptions that led to
the enactment of the women’s health provisions in the first place. Let me try
to address a few of the most important points:
1. The distinction between “medically-indicated” (non-contraceptive) uses of
contraception
With all respect, I think I disagree strongly with Gregory Sisk's email
below. I am amazed at how accommodating this country is of minority
religious groups. To be sure, sometimes the religious lobby loses to other
lobbies, but it wins often enough that it is evident that minority
religious groups
Derek Gaubatz’s post concludes with a point that is too often lost in the sound
and fury about the imposition of the abortificient/contraception mandate on
employers of faith – which is that the mandate is dubious public policy (even
on its own terms) and this dispute could have been avoided but
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's
is that I presume as a fact
> that the claimant seeking an exemption is sincere because most of the time it
> is true.
>
> Alan
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of Marty Lederman [lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
> Sent:
ruary 16, 2014 1:10 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
I may have more to say on this point later, but for now this'll have to suffice:
First, Doug may be correct that there is no doubt abou
I take it that depends on what we mean by "not uncommon." A family of 15
children in mid-century America was a remarkable phenomenon, I can say from
experience. Not sure in what sense the Catholic Church was part of the
government when Ireland was for so long under the tyrannical British (not
Cat
Somebody had a column in Slate about how American businesses did not file
amicus briefs supporting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. He seemed to think
this somehow cut against them.
What it shows is that most businesses think they have no stake in this
litigation. They don't see any religious cl
I don't know how the argument about family size connects to the legal issues,
but for the record:
Marci's ten to twenty number is based on what demographers call "natural
fertility." That's where a couple makes no effort whatever to limit conception.
The phrase comes from my demographer wife, w
-Original Message-
From: Richard Dougherty
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Two points of clarification that I think may be helpful:
1) One of
sts.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Is Doug correct as a l
-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 6:32 pm
Subject: RE: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Let me add in response to Marci tha
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Does anyone know whether the trustees of Notre Dame perhaps interpreted Pope
Benedict's remarks in his meeting with them in Rome on Jan. 31 as being a
reference
Re Marci's assertion that the slippery slope is "perpendicular" if for profit
corporations are recognized to be protected under RFRA, it seems to me that we
don't have to just rely on the rhetorical speculation of Marci and the Obama
administration in its brief. Instead, we have, as Marty has he
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
There is a huge difference between the Church's teaching on contraception
(which is clear), and its views on the permissibility of participating in an
ins
law-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the comp
: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame, as
opposed to its offic
Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
From: Richard Dougherty
Date:02/16/2014 2:07 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "
Two points of clarification that I think may be helpful:
1) One of the most important consequences of the HHS mandate is that a far
greater number of Catholics now have a better idea of what the Church's
teaching is on contraception and other life issues than they did before,
which makes the impos
t; they may do in their private life.
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
>
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>
> University of Virginia Law School
>
> 580 Massie Road
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
> 434-243-8546
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-bo
ad
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> 434-243-8546
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Notre Da
8546
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *hamilto...@aol.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
>
> *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complic
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the comp
enjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 1:45 pm
Subject: Notre Dame-- where
with
increased reservations).
sandy
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rienzi, Mark L
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Notre Dame
"In a liberal and tolerant society, I would also suggest that, absent some
particularly compelling circumstances, the government should not burden either
law professor by making them take the action they believe would render them
morally culpable for someone else's wrongdoing."
Which again make
n...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 6:31 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>;
kurtla...@gmail.com<mailto:kurtla...@gmail.com>
nt: Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:16 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
Fair questions. Legal academics do not operate in an isolated ivory tower, but
rather in t
s.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Marc DeGirolami [marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: kurtla...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? Sincerity
With respect, I d
niversity
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Marc DeGirolami
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: kurtlash2
Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 10:45 am
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "p
eligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Cc: "religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>"
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>,
"kurtla...@gmail.com<mailto:kurtla...@gmail.com>"
mailto:kurtla...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Notre Dame-- where's t
38 matches
Mail list logo
