The entire solution for the non-profits was done by regulation. So I assume
that extending it to for-profits could also be done by regulation. Of course
there could be some hidden obstacle that I don’t know about.
The Court found the win-win solution; female employees can get free
contraceptives, and religious conscientious objectors don’t have to pay.
However they resolve the remaining objections from many of the non-profits, I
would be surprised if they disrupt that solution.
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-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Hillel Y. Levin
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Hobby Lobby Question
As we are all digesting the Hobby Lobby decision, let me ask a question. The
court suggests that a less restrictive means would be that the gov't provides
the contraceptives directly (similar to how it handles non-profit objectors).
What kind of government action would it take to institute such a program? A new
statute? A new regulation? An interpretive rule? Something else?
--
Hillel Y. Levin
Associate Professor
University of Georgia
School of Law
120 Herty Dr.
Athens, GA 30602
(678) 641-7452
hle...@uga.edu <mailto:hle...@uga.edu>
hillelle...@gmail.com <mailto:hillelle...@gmail.com>
SSRN Author Page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=466645
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
