Contraceptive Coverage at the U.S. Supreme Court: Countering the Rhetoric with Evidence
نویسنده
چکیده
The two cases before the Supreme Court entail more specific objections by specific employers. In both cases, the businesses are for-profit corporations owned privately by members of a single family, and both the owners and the corporations themselves are plaintiffs. In both cases, the plaintiffs object not to coverage of all contraceptive methods and services, but to coverage of and counseling and education about specific methods that they deem abortifacients: both types of emergency contraceptive pills (known best by the brand names Plan B and ella) and both copper and hormonal IUDs.
منابع مشابه
Unconscionable: how the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence lags behind the world when it comes to contraception and conscience
U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence undermines access to contraception by permitting individuals, institutions, and even corporations to claim religious objections to ensuring contraceptive insurance coverage, thus imposing those beliefs on non-adherents and jeopardizing their access to essential reproductive-health services. This jurisprudence is not only harmful but also runs contrary to the law...
متن کاملPolygraphy revisited: U.S. v. Scheffer.
U.S. v. Scheffer is a case that poses two questions. First, must a defendant who wishes to place polygraphic evidence before the court be allowed to do so for fear that refusal will create a Constitutional issue by depriving him of due process? Second, is polygraphic evidence admissible evidence at all, as defined by the Military Rule of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Evidence? The case, orig...
متن کاملU.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Sex Offender Legislation: Evidence of Evidence-Based Policy?
متن کامل
An historical review of the legal and personal background to Jackson v. Indiana.
The landmark case of Jackson v. Indiana is well known to forensic psychiatrists, but little is known of the personal and legal background of this case. Mr. Jackson's state hospital records were reviewed, as were available transcripts and decisions of the Indiana court proceedings, before and after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, and local newspaper coverage, to understand how this case developed.
متن کاملSequestration of lay witnesses and experts.
The rule on sequestration (exclusion) of witnesses is designed to avoid fabrication and collusion and has traditional roots in the Old Testament. Special rules apply regarding expert witnesses and "support persons." The contours of such special rules are explored within the Federal Rules of Evidence, state rules of evidence, state appellate and supreme court decisions, and U.S. Supreme Court de...
متن کامل