As the quixotic quest for less restrictive alternatives to the contraception mandate accommodation proposed by the Obama Administration continues, am I right to think that, from the perspective of the employee contraceptive users, a concern has to be confidentiality because, to the extent their employer is a religious non-profit opposed to contraception, they risk being fired should it become known they are, through their use of contraceptives, not living up to the tenets of their employer’s religion? I have seen no explicit discussion of the effect of a less seamless coverage (for example through a separate policy or card such as favored by Justice Alito in oral argument) on confidentiality. Is there one? And if there is not one, is that because a) confidentiality can be legally and practically assured to the same extent in any event or b) because, to the extent it is legal to require these employees to abide by Church prohibitions on contraception, factoring into the feasibility of an alternative to the accommodation the degree to which the alternative facilitates deceiving the employer is not something that can openly and properly be discussed? Please forgive my ignorance if the answers to these questions are obvious.
_______________________________________________ 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.
