The notice requires the employer to identify the insurer or the third-party administrator of the plan (e.g., Aetna), so that the government can then take the steps necessary to have that entity create a new, contraceptive-specific plan. In the cases currently being litigated, the objection of the employers is *not *to this identification requirement -- each and every one of the employers has, as far as I know, already identified the insurer or the TPA in the body of its complaint.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Scarberry, Mark < mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > I hope we will not get too personally dismissive in this discussion. > > I suspect -- though I haven't recently been following this matter closely > -- that a possible basis for objecting has to do with the information that > the religious organizations must supply in connection with their request > for / demand for / notice of exemption. If they must, in this particular > context, as opposed to the general context of the ACA, provide contact > information for plan administrators or others -- specifically so the govt > can force those others to provide these drugs and services -- then their > providing of that information is a causal link that they may consider to be > too direct. (Whew! Sorry for the long sentence.) > > The drugs and services can't be provided under the accommodation unless > the govt knows of the objection. I don't see how an objector can resist an > obligation simply to notify the govt of the objection. But if the other > information is available or could be made available in a way that isn't so > closely related to the provision of the goods and services, then it would > make sense for the govt to get the information another way. From the nuns' > standpoint, this could be like a conscientious objector to war having to > identify someone else who will fight in his place. > > How much information must these groups supply under the accommodations > that courts have ordered? I don't recall whether they must identify, as > part of their claim for objection, a plan administrator or other person who > can be forced to pay for the drugs and services. Does the govt generally > require employers to provide this contact information to confirm that > health insurance (with or without these drugs and services) is in place? If > so, the govt could just match up the records with the objections. > > Marty will know, as will the Becket Fund lawyers. > > Mark > > Mark S. Scarberry > Pepperdine University School of Law > > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > 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.
