Contraceptives

  • Read more: Zubik v. Burwell, Part 6: The Accommodation is the Least-Restrictive Option

    Zubik v. Burwell, Part 6: The Accommodation is the Least-Restrictive Option

    By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 of this series) The plaintiffs in Zubik v. Burwell and its siblings seek to block their students and employees from receiving contraceptive coverage from third-party insurance companies and plan administrators. Even though the plaintiffs need neither provide nor pay…

  • Read more: Zubik v. Burwell, Part 5: These Exceptions are Unexceptional

    Zubik v. Burwell, Part 5: These Exceptions are Unexceptional

    By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 6 of this series) Despite birth control’s considerable benefits, the challengers in Zubik v. Burwell argue that the government lacks a compelling interest in applying the contraceptive accommodation to religious objectors. No matter how important it is to ensure that women have access…

  • Read more: Zubik v. Burwell, Part 4: The Compelling Interest in Contraceptive Coverage

    Zubik v. Burwell, Part 4: The Compelling Interest in Contraceptive Coverage

    By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, and Part 6 of this series.) If the Supreme Court were to conclude that the plantiffs in Zubik v. Burwell plaintiffs have established a substantial burden on religious exercise, the case is not over. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government may enforce…

  • Read more: Zubik v. Burwell, Part 2: The Religious Objectors Who Cried Wolf

    Zubik v. Burwell, Part 2: The Religious Objectors Who Cried Wolf

    By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 of this series) Yesterday, I evaluated the unprecedented arguments, by the plaintiffs in Zubik v. Burwell and its companion cases, that the process for seeking a religious exemption from the contraceptive-coverage regulations itself burdened the objectors’ religious exericse. Today, I move to…

  • Read more: Zubik v. Burwell, Part 1: Why Paperwork Does Not Burden Religious Exercise

    Zubik v. Burwell, Part 1: Why Paperwork Does Not Burden Religious Exercise

    By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 of this series) Birth control is back at the high court. On March 23, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell and its six companion cases. Despite what you may have heard, religious objectors—whether they are nuns…

  • Read more: Zika Messes with Texas

    Zika Messes with Texas

    By Gregory M. Lipper For an ambitious, aggressive disease like Zika, Texas is an ideal home. Earlier this week we learned that Zika—a nasty virus that has spread to over 25 countries—was transmitted by sex to a resident of Dallas. Six more cases of Zika have also been confirmed in Harris County, Texas. The appearance…

  • Read more: Et tu, CDC?

    Et tu, CDC?

    By Michael Anne Kyle The CDC has a new message for women: stop drinking alcohol unless you’re on birth control. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) are birth defects that can occur when women drink during pregnancy, and may include physical, psychosocial, and intellectual disabilities. There’s no disagreement in the health care community that FASD are…

  • Read more: Four Key Issues In Health Law That Are As Relevant As Ever In 2016

    Four Key Issues In Health Law That Are As Relevant As Ever In 2016

    Petrie-Flom’s Executive Director Holly Fernandez Lynch has a new post over at the Health Affairs Blog as the first entry in a series that will stem from our Fourth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review conference, to be held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 29, 2016. In it, Holly takes stock of which major issues in health law policy remain outstanding from years…

  • Read more: “Crisis Pregnancy Center Fighting for Right to Create More Crisis Pregnancies”

    “Crisis Pregnancy Center Fighting for Right to Create More Crisis Pregnancies”

    By Gregory M. Lipper That’s how Tara Murtha describes the lawsuit brought by Real Alternatives and its three (male) employees seeking to enjoin application of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive-coverage regulations. This lawsuit is different than the ones currently before the Supreme Court: Real Alternatives is not a religious organization, and its employees argue that…

  • Read more: Linda Greenhouse Wins Headline of the Year

    Linda Greenhouse Wins Headline of the Year

    By Gregory M. Lipper “Sex After 50 at the Supreme Court” is the title of today’s Turkey Day column by the peerless Linda Greenhouse. She takes a saucy look at upcoming Supreme Court cases on contraception and abortion and the role of religion in motivating restrictions on reproductive rights and health. Here’s a taste: But…