By Gregory M. Lipper The Economist is not buying the challengers’ claim that the provision of contraceptive coverage—by third parties—is an act of “hijacking”: When the government arranges for contraceptive coverage with the insurance company used by the religious charity, it is not commandeering anybody’s property. Nor is it taking metaphorical control of the group’s…
By Gregory M. Lipper Over at Rewire, I’ve analyzed yesterday’s oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell. Among other things, I address the recurring claim that the government was “hijacking” religious objectors’ health plans by arranging for third party insurers and plan administrators to provide contraceptive coverage to affected women: The fear of hijacking might have made…
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…
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…
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…
By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 of this series) Pay attention to the Supreme Court’s upcoming contraceptive-coverage cases and you’ll hear horror stories from religious-right groups about an “abortion-pill mandate” (here’s ADF and ACLJ). These groups know that contraception is popular and that, to most people, campaigns to block…
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…
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…
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…
By Gregory M. Lipper Today the Supreme Court granted review in seven challenges to the accommodation offered to those with religious objections to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage regulations. I won’t rehash my earlier posts about why I (and seven of eight federal appeals courts) think that these challenges, brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration…
