News reports say that Pope Francis at a new conference in Mexico said that contraceptives may be used in the case of mothers who may be trying not to get pregnant because of the Zika virus. He is quoted as saying that "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil." Should this affect the Court's view of the complicity-substantial burden argument in Zubik and the other cases being reviewed along with it. for example, the Priests For Life cert petition asserted:
"The Gospel of Life is an expression of the Catholic Church’s position and central teaching regarding the value and inviolability of human life. Contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients are contrary to this teaching, and their use can never be approved, endorsed, facilitated, promoted, or supported in any way." Or are the Pope's views on this irrelevant to the substantial burden argument if Priests for Life disagree with those views? Howard Friedman
_______________________________________________ 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.
