I'm not sure the complicity arguments *are *the same as to all of the
objecting employers -- indeed, they appear to vary widely from case to
case. For that and other reasons, I doubt there will *many* for-profit
employers that challenge the new accommodation. In the nonprofit context,
my sense is
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:26 PM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some
claimants abo
We're discussing the nonprofits, but, as Nelson pointed out, these regs
accommodate some objecting for-profits, including Hobby Lobby itself. I
know we have Becket Fund lawyers on the list, and I do not expect them to
disclose information about their clients' plans. But I have been wondering
sinc
.ucla.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 4:53 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some
claimants abortifacient) Mandate
Well, maybe no sale to you, but I don’t see how that should
persuade others. I’m not
As I have suggested, It isn't a question of identifying the insurer or
administrator in general (such as, for example, in pleadings that allege that
the HHS regs would require the plaintiff to arrange for coverage through the
named insurer or administrator).
Rather what may be objectionable is
Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:26 PM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some
claimants abortifacient) Mandate
And so back to attenuation, proximate cause (remember Palsgraf?), and
complicity with evil and metaphys
I see part of Marty's and my disagreement stems from how broadly we define
"distributing contraceptives." I also see that we disagree on the
baseline-- if you assume the contraception-included plan will be
distributed absent an objection, as Marty does, then of course the form is
not a trigger.
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
The notice is not a trigger for coverage. Until the notice is given, the
law requires the employer's plan to provide the coverage (still, not to
"distribute contraceptives"). When the notice is given, that obligation
shifts to the insurer or, in the case of a plan with a third-party
administrator
And so back to attenuation, proximate cause (remember Palsgraf?), and
complicity with evil and metaphysical triggers like telling someone that you
want to opt out being equated to being forced to physically distribute
contraceptives.
No sale.
Steve
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:07 PM, Michael Worl
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 /
If the entire function of the "opt out notice" is "merely to provide HHS
notice," surely the Gov't has already received ample notice from all
parties that object, since they are in litigation with them.
Instead of being merely being a notice issue, the form is, so far as I can
tell, essential for
Are employees and students at objecting institutions like Wheaton presently
getting contraception even though the institution has not submitted the
form?
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Michael Worley wrote:
> If the entire function of the "opt out notice" is "merely to provide HHS
> notice," s
It's probably not wise even to engage with Michael Worley on this, in light
of how patently inappropriate and misleading the "forcing the nuns to
distribute" statement is. And even if the facts were anything like what
Michael describes, I don't think that many, if any, readers would
understand the
Marty claims this statement is absurd:
"the government still won’t give up on its quest to force nuns and other
religious employers to distribute contraceptives."
I assume Marty thinks the statement is absurd because the only action the
state is asking the nuns, etc. to take is signing a form. Ho
In case it isn’t obvious to list members, these final regulations cover
for-profit entities as well as non-profits. The discussion of for-profits
starts at p.22.
On Jul 10, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Marty Lederman
mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have great admiration for the Becket Fund an
I have great admiration for the Becket Fund and its attorneys,
notwithstanding our substantive differences. But the Fund is not doing
itself any favors by promulgating absurd statements such as:
“Just last week the Supreme Court ordered HHS not to enforce the exact
rules they finalized today."
a
Here are the final regs:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-17076.pdf
(via
https://www.yahoo.com/health/breaking-birth-control-coverage-guaranteed-for-123731031997.html).
The Becket Fund criticizes them here:
http://www.becketfund.org/new-hhs-mandate-rules-defi
18 matches
Mail list logo
