Reproductive Rights Prof Blog

Editor: Caitlin E. Borgmann
CUNY School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, December 30, 2013

Marty Lederman on Hobby Lobby Case

Marty Lederman has been writing a lot on the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood challenges to the ACA contraceptive rule.  Here is his latest post.

Balkinization: Hobby Lobby Part III-A—Does federal law substantially pressure employers to offer health insurance coverage in violation of religious obligations, even though there is no “Employer Mandate”?, by Marty Lederman:

The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood argue that federal law compels them to act contrary to their religious obligations, by requiring them to offer (and pay for and administer) employee health insurance plans that include contraception coverage. As I explained in my most recent post, that turns out to be a simple misreading of the law:  Although employee plans must include contraception coverage, the Affordable Care Act does not require that employers offer such plans to their employees, nor even impose substantial pressure upon them to do so. . . .

_______________________________________

Earlier posts are here, here, and here.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/reproductive_rights/2013/12/hobby-lobby.html

Contraception, In the Courts, Religion and Reproductive Rights, Supreme Court, Weblogs | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef019b03d56885970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marty Lederman on Hobby Lobby Case:

Comments

Post a comment