contraception

In light of the Supreme Court hearing oral argument today in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., we are excited to release an early online-only version of RFRA Exemptions from the Contraception Mandate: An Unconstitutional Accommodation of Religion, by Frederick Mark Gedicks and Rebecca G. Van Tassell.  In Hobby Lobby, the Court will be entertaining arguments about whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows a for-profit corporation with religious objections to deny its employees health coverage for contraceptives that they would otherwise be entitled to through the Affordable Care Act.  Here, Gedicks and Van Tassell introduce the Establishment Clause as a limitation on RFRA, as the clause prohibits shifting the cost of religious observance to third parties.  Even though the government has not raised this issue in briefs, this important article highlights the key role that the Establishment Clause should play in resolving Hobby Lobby’s claims.

Read the article here!

 

1 Comment

  1. Robin Lipp says:

    You can read the New York Times’ coverage of the oral arguments here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/us/politics/conraceptive-coverage-challenge-supreme-court.html?hp
    (while we’re waiting for the audio and transcript)

Leave a Comment