Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: contraceptives and RFRA
I agree with Chip that some burdens aren’t treated as
substantial, see Lyng and Bowen (both of which I think were correctly decided).
But Lyng and Bowen involved situations where
I agree with Chip that some burdens aren't treated as
substantial, see Lyng and Bowen (both of which I think were correctly decided).
But Lyng and Bowen involved situations where the restriction did not require a
claimant to do something that the claimant believed to be
] On Behalf Of Walsh, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:39 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: contraceptives and RFRA
The application of strict scrutiny, and its outcome, would seem to be different
from Lee. To the chagrin of many who would have liked a system of universal
