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...
| Publié dans: | Journal of law and religion |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Review |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2015]
|
| Dans: |
Journal of law and religion
|
| Compte rendu de: | Religion without god (Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press, 2013) (McClain, Linda C.)
|
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Corporations
B exemptions B Compte-rendu de lecture B Religious Liberty B Contraception B Conscience B Affordable Care Act B Ronald Dworkin |
| Accès en ligne: |
Accès probablement gratuit Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of law and religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/jlr.2014.39 |