CORPORATE CONSCIENCE AND THE CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE: A DWORKINIAN READING
When this essay appears in print, it will be two years since the death of legalphilosopher and constitutional law scholar Ronald Dworkin. One recurringreminder of the magnitude of that loss is the absence of Dworkin'sregular, insightful essays for the New York Review of Booksanalyzing significa...
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of law and religion |
|---|---|
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
| Beteiligte: | |
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Review |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2015]
|
| In: |
Journal of law and religion
|
| Rezension von: | Religion without god (Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press, 2013) (McClain, Linda C.)
|
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Rezension
B Corporations B exemptions B Religious Liberty B Contraception B Conscience B Affordable Care Act B Ronald Dworkin |
| Online Zugang: |
Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Zusammenfassung: | When this essay appears in print, it will be two years since the death of legalphilosopher and constitutional law scholar Ronald Dworkin. One recurringreminder of the magnitude of that loss is the absence of Dworkin'sregular, insightful essays for the New York Review of Booksanalyzing significant US Supreme Court decisions. Thus, when, last term, aclosely divided (5-4) Court released its much-anticipated decision inBurwell v. Hobby Lobby, upholding a challenge by threefor-profit corporations to the contraceptive coverage provisions (the so-calledcontraceptive mandate) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010(ACA), sadly missing in the flurry of commentary was Dworkin'sassessment of the case. Readers of this journal may perhaps appreciate theallusion when I say that the decision prompted me to wonder, "Whatwould Dworkin do?" That same question arose again when, on July 3,2014, in Wheaton College v. Burwell, over a strong dissent byJustices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan, the Court granted the emergency requestof Wheaton College to be relieved from complying with the ACA'saccommodation procedure for religious nonprofit organizations that object tocontraceptive coverage on religious grounds, even before the lower courts hadruled on the merits of the college's claim. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2163-3088 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Journal of law and religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/jlr.2014.39 |