It's probably not wise even to engage with Michael Worley on this, in light of how patently inappropriate and misleading the "forcing the nuns to distribute" statement is. And even if the facts were anything like what Michael describes, I don't think that many, if any, readers would understand the government's reg as an effort to force nuns to *distribute * contraceptives.
But just to be clear on the facts: An objecting employer is not required to "sign" anything. It is required merely to provide HHS notice that it wishes to opt out. Moreover, that notice does not "trigger" the provision of coverage to the employees. The coverage is triggered, and cost-free access will be provided to the women in question, by virtue of the HHS reg. Filing the notification of objection merely guarantees that the employer *will have nothing to do with that access*. Where I'm from, that's not quite the same thing as being forced to "distribute contraceptives," but YMMV. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > Marty claims this statement is absurd: > > "the government still won’t give up on its quest to force nuns and other > religious employers to distribute contraceptives." > > I assume Marty thinks the statement is absurd because the only action the > state is asking the nuns, etc. to take is signing a form. However, as long > as signing the form is the trigger for coverage being provided, they are > acting to distribute contraceptives. > > Signing a document can have deep moral implications in other contexts. > Suppose a state cannot execute someone without a signature from the > governor. No matter what the content of the form the governor has to sign > is (it could say "I want to cut taxes by 5%" or even "I think the death > penalty is wrong and should be illegal"), as long as signing it triggers > the execution, people who oppose the death penalty will urge him not to > sign. In fact, they will say he will be killing someone by signing the > form. > > So it is here. Signing the form is the trigger for the contraceptive > coverage. Thus, religious individuals won't sign as long as the form acts > as a trigger. > > The issue is being a "trigger," not the government policy. The government > is free to provide contraception to all; what Becket is concerned about is > making an action by a religious individual a essential element to providing > that contraception. > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I have great admiration for the Becket Fund and its attorneys, >> notwithstanding our substantive differences. But the Fund is not doing >> itself any favors by promulgating absurd statements such as: >> >> “Just last week the Supreme Court ordered HHS not to enforce the exact >> rules they finalized today." >> >> and >> >> "the government still won’t give up on its quest to force nuns and other >> religious employers to distribute contraceptives." >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Scarberry, Mark < >> mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: >> >>> Here are the final regs: >>> >>> >>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-17076.pdf >>> (via >>> https://www.yahoo.com/health/breaking-birth-control-coverage-guaranteed-for-123731031997.html >>> ). >>> >>> The Becket Fund criticizes them here: >>> http://www.becketfund.org/new-hhs-mandate-rules-defiance-supreme-court/ >>> . >>> >>> Cross-posted to conlawprof list. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> Mark S. Scarberry >>> Pepperdine University School of Law >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Michael Worley > J.D., Brigham Young University > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
