The Supreme Court today extended the injunction pending appeal in Little
Sisters of the Poor case, but with unusual conditions-- see
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2014/01/supreme-court-enjoins-enforcement-of.html
___
To post, send message to
It looks like the Court told them to do what they said they didn't want to do.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Jan 24, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Friedman, Howard M.
howard.fried...@utoledo.edu wrote:
The
Does anyone have a copy of the government-prescribed form that the Court said
the Little Sisters didn't have to use?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc
I found the form. Here is a statement that is included on the back of the
government form that the Little Sisters would have had to sign, absent the
Court's order:
The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification to the
plan's health insurance
issuer (for insured health
What exactly is the burden on the Little Sisters again?
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Jan 24, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
I found the form. Here is a
It seems, then, that the Court has given the Little Sisters substantial
relief by not requiring them to sign the government form.
No it hasn't. The government concedes that it lacks the legal authority to
require the third-party administrator of a church plan -- here, Christian
Bros. Services --
For another discussion of the government form, see
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2014/01/what-does-the-form-that-the-government-insists-the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-must-sign-actually-do.html.
Mark
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
Kevin's account *might *be relevant in case like Notre Dame's, where the
insurer and third-party administrator are in fact providing the coverage
after ND opted out. But that account is of no moment in a case such as
Little Sisters, where the women would not receive coverage from Christian
Bros.
Not how this is being reported, but I agree.
On Jan 24, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Marci Hamilton
hamilto...@aol.commailto:hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
It looks like the Court told them to do what they said they didn't want to do.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo
Sending the form to the third-party insurer is the burden, because it is an
implied message of support Insurer, you need to provide contraception
because we don't
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Marci Hamilton hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
What exactly is the burden on the Little Sisters again?
In response to both Marci and Marty:
As I said, by signing the form, the Little Sisters would be (1) notifying the
administrator that it must comply with the regs, (2) stating that the
administrator has the obligations set out in the CFR, (3) directing the third
party administrator to provide
It is an implied message of support *for what*? What rational human
being would construe: We have a religious objection to providing
contraceptive coverage to mean we support coverage of contraceptive
coverage? Seriously, we are so far down the rabbit hole here . . .
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at
No, it would not be doing anything of the sort, because *the government has
acknowledged that the administrator has no such obligation* and that *the
form has no such effect as to church plans.*
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
In response
If I say; I oppose robbery but here are the keys to the car, and I give
the keys to someone who is obligated by law (or may in the future be
obligated) to rob my neighbor, no matter how loudly I proclaim I oppose
robbery, I'm still helping in the robbery.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Marty
Has HHS published that acknowledgment in the referenced sections of the CFR? If
not, then my points stand. In any event, why should the Little Sisters have to
rely on someone else's assertions of rights?
As far as the govt saying that the form doesn't really mean what it says, so
it's OK to
Great analogy, Michael!
Seriously?
I can't recall any case in which so many people have refused to take yes
for an answer.
[To beat a dead horse . . . here's the actual situation:
The law provides that all women in the U.S. are entitled to reimbursement
without cost for preventive care,
If one is obligated by law to do X, then it doesn't count as legal robbery,
period, unless the law itself is unconstitutional. That, after all, is the
debate involving the NSA, how much of what is objectionable is illegal and how
much is perfectly legal (albeit objectionable from one or
17 matches
Mail list logo
