Talk:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

899:

presents(whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct businessin accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable)." - however, the "test" imposed by the law and the court is multi-prong. Only one of those prongs is a sincere religious belief. As both the majority and dissent also said, the calculus for other religious beliefs may come out differently, because the "least restrictive" method in other instances may legitimately involve disruption of the religious belief. @KiunkyLipids - The ruling protects owners, only because owners were being forced to take action against their belief. If employees were being forced to take action by law, they would certainly have equal protection. The case that initiated the RFRA was about two native americans fired from their job after smoking peyote in a religious ceremony.

489:, Union Pacific, but also from most closely held, for-profit enterprises. In some ways, because of the religious orientations of members of the Green family, Hobby Lobby possesses elements more in common with eleemosynary organizations. For example, as the complaint makes clear (see below for where to get a copy), many of Hobby Lobby's profits go to charitable causes, and Hobby Lobby refuses to maximize its profits by doing things like backhauling alcoholic beverages in its empty trucks, selling shot glasses, or keeping its stores open late at night or on Sundays (when, the Greens argue, people should be home with their families). These distinctions clearly are specified in the complaint (which also clearly states that Hobby Lobby's corporate organization is to serve God -- hardly a requirement common in the bylaws of most companies); hence, how much of a "landmark" ruling Hobby Lobby is remains to be seen -- the Court may extend it to closely held companies generally, or it may cut it off at the knees. 793:

The first is whether Hobby Lobby made an explicit First Amendment claim or not. The article is clear that the decision was based on a statute rather than the First Amendment; I'm only asking whether such an argument was offered or not. My second question, is: Does the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" grant an unlimited freedom to interpret matters of fact as part of one's religion? I'm asking this here rather than in the article about that law, because my impression from news reports is that this case hinged on a claim that certain forms of birth control, generally accepted as such by the medical profession, actually cause abortions. Do such "non-faithy" beliefs, and practices based on them that affect other people, have the same legal protection as, say, the right of a person to pray peaceably X number of times per day if their religion commands it? Thanks!

1100:"Need not rely" means that it's not the only reasoning. They're not sweeping it aside. And yes, Kennedy is by far and away a better source for explaining how the court ruled than I am. So is Ginsburg. It would be nice to believe that they're in agreement on how narrow or sweeping the ruling is. They're not. And if Kennedy's concurrence is a correct explanation for how the court ruled, then why isn't it in the majority opinion in the first place? Because the other four in the majority don't agree with it. Kennedy is alone. In other words, Ginsburg's explanation of how the court ruled, joined by three other justices, is even more authoritative than Kennedy's explanation. You do make a good point that his concurrence tells us how he will rule on any future case where there is no existing alternative means. He can then side with Ginsburg's gang to narrow 2009:" The bolded phrase ostensibly references a BusinessInsider post, which says no such thing. It says that "for now, the school's employee's and students (and their dependents) who use the school's sponsored insurance plans to pay for contraceptives won't be able to do so." So saying it leaves "no alternative for any female employee" is false, misleading, and frankly smacks of biased sensationalism. Further, in the "Wheaton College order" section of the Knowledge (XXG) article, it is explicitly noted that "The court said 'Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.'" Not sure exactly what the court was thinking here, but presumably they recognized an alternative mechanism. 1202:. In that ruling, there was also a majority saying that it's limiting its ruling to the particulars of the case (yet suggesting otherwise). There was also a scathing dissent criticizing the majority for suggesting too much and warning of a wide application of the court's reasoning. There was also a lone justice trying (and failing) to assure everyone that the ruling is responsibly restrained. Based on that, I think there will also be lower court judges quoting the dissent as justification for applying the court's reasoning broadly. 1494:"c) Judicial relief: A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution." So it doesn't seem the RFRA adds any new basis for standing. But wouldn't the threat of massive fines for failing to provide coverage suffice?-- 729:"The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs." That's only a description of the plaintiffs, which is made in contrast to publicly traded companies. The structure of the sentence sets single-family companies as a subset within the broader category of closely-held companies. Lower courts would be free to apply the decision's logic to more than just single-family companies. 1078:

resolve whether one freedom should be protected by creating incentives for additional government constraints. In these cases, it is the Court’s understanding that an accommodation may be made to the employers without imposition of a whole new program or burden on the Government. As the Court makes clear, this is not a case where it can be established that it is difficult to accommodate the government’s interest, and in fact the mechanism for doing so is already in place. Ante, at 43–44." First of all Kennedy is,

87: 1838:

that this is an argument between the current president and Congress, but it is much more complex than that. And if we are going to include a building, wouldn't a Hobby Lobby store be more useful? We have many at Commons category:Hobby Lobby. And while we are at it, an image or diagram of an IUD. We have lots of them too. Alito and Ginsburg for sure. Perhaps Kennedy (I found one commentator at scotusblog who referred to his concurrence as "controlling.") And maybe Scalia, with his quote from

66: 1135:

interest." None of the opinions, nor the syllabus say that. In particular Ginsberg does not say that. Here is what she says: (Dissent p.28) “Then let the government pay (rather than the employees who do not share their employer’s faith), the Court suggests.” (Suggests, not requires or holds.) Then on the next page “Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer has a religion-based objection?

1167:

beliefs." That would make no sense if the text I replace were the court's ruling, since the government clearly could set up a program to pay for vaccinations and blood transfusions. As you astutely pointed out earlier, the test is "viable least restrictive means of furthering the law's interest." Some cost to the government cannot be ruled out but the boundaries of "viable" remain to be decided in future cases. Our lede should not go beyond what the court ruled on.--

2314:

corporations, not the positives. Therefore, it is propaganda. It violates Knowledge (XXG) policy of neutral point of view. Specifically: Due weight is not given to positive implications and a negative tone pervades the section. Sure, two views are given in "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others", but it is included as an afterthought, and not at all in the other two sections. Even the title "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" has a negative tone.

1324:

claims." I don't believe the court said that. It said that the alternative HHS offered to non-profits is clearly less restrictive and that therefore HHS had failed to demonstrate it was using the least restrictive means. There was no need to decide whether that alternative meets RFRA muster. The Wheaton College (and Little Sisters of the Poor) temporary injunctions suggest some doubt at least as to the requirement to file Form 700 with ones insurance company. --

320: 299: 97: 1911:, but not for an article a court case stemming from a particular aggressive act. There is no need to illustrate political disagreement here, that is the insult to intelligence. We seem to agree on most pictures, so how about letting that one go? Also, I wouldn't vary the size of individual mug shots. They all could be a little smaller. The caption can make Scalia's roles clear. BTW here is the link to the "controlling concurrence" comment. 219: 198: 229: 1046:, the concurring opinion is not binding. It's only Kennedy's opinion. It's not the court's opinion, nor does it restrict the court's opinion. The majority opinion says that "he most straightforward way of of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost..." This is the main reasoning for why the mandate is not the least restrictive means. The court then responds to the government's argument: 35: 2252:

absolutely extraordinary order TEMPORARILY protects Wheaton from having to fill out a form bearing objectionable speech on the back, then having to send the form not to the government but to the insurance company. The relief applies ONLY to Wheaton -- which already has given the Government, by other means, all the notice the Government legally can command

2939:, in a concurrence he says about Ginsburg's liberal dissent: "the Court's opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent." That's about as close as you can get without agreeing. The justices tend to be nuanced, and simplistic characterizations of Kennedy's opinions as "conservative" miss the mark. 3687: 2029:

contribute to any subsection yourself to help balance the subsection, or you can add new subsections that deal with positive implications to help balance the section as a whole. Also, I guess some of the citations are incomplete because I don't see which ones are Goldberg and Ponnuru. Point out which ones they are, and I can fill them out for you.

1363:"We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims. At a minimum, however, it does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well." 1531:

and the end that they find to be morally wrong (destruction of an embryo) is simply too attenuated. HHS and the dissent note that providing the coverage would not itself result in the destruction of an embryo; that would occur only if an employee chose to take advantage of the coverage and to use one of the four methods at issue" -

1797:

once the court's membership changes. It's also true that the picture of Alito doesn't add any information to the article other than what Alito's face looks like, but if a picture of the person who wrote the ruling is not important enough for an article about the ruling, then let's just declare iconoclasm as Knowledge (XXG) policy.

2589:

attributed characterizations had to have started out as editors' personal views on what policy should be. What about the alternative from the CNN source, which says that the 5-4 decision is "along idealogical lines". It reflects the source, and it also doesn't characterize the majority as conservative.

2237:

THAT'S what Justice Sotomayor QUIETLY accented with her dissent. Wheaton's rights are NOT CLEAR under RFRA -- they CANNOT be because, as Sotomayor points out, the Circuits are in conflict over what RFRA means --; but, the FIRST AMENDMENT claim is VERY MUCH alive -- and THAT'S what the Court wants to

2170:

Now, I would not deny that the dean of a law school well can be an attributable source for an article about a Supreme Court opinion, so we start on solid ground here. But, the dean's statement constitutes no LEGAL opinion or analysis, nor does it even indicate that the dean ever read the Hobby Lobby

2045:

I'm just responding regarding the "Imposition" section. RedBeard48, I think you're confusing the source (e.g. the LA Times with the person expressing the opinion (e.g. Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director). It isn't in question what Melling actually said, so the fact that we source her quote to

1613:

methods approved by the FDA be included. This was done (per another interim rule -- requiring more comment). According to the complaint, some 100,000 adverse comments were received by HHS during this second comment period, and five days after comments were closed, Sebelius appeared before NARAL and

1580:

says that vasectomy is specifically excluded from coverage. So are there typically 20 covered methods? Or just 19? Or does it mean that the only covered male surgery is castration? Do I have the correct list? I've tried tracking it down on other related pages, but it's either not there, or I don't

1403:

The article makes one mention of the matter of life-saving medical treatments like transfusions regarding this ruling and it is only in the negative sense of companies supposedly now being able to deny such treatments. However, the ruling specifically addressed this matter at the very bottom of page

808:

The answer to your first question is yes, and I have added that information to the lower court section of the article. As for your second question, that will probably be the subject of future court cases, but the Supreme Court's ruling says in the first paragraph 'As amended by the Religious Land Use

763:

at any time during the last half of the tax year. It also cannot be a personal-service corporation." Using Google's search tools, your quote doesn't appear past Feb 21, 2012, and it's so strict that it probably wouldn't even apply to the plaintiffs. Anyways, the court didn't specify that it was using

3288:

In fact, Respondents' claim that Plan B and ella prevent implantation is not supported by current scientific data or by evidence in the record below. To the contrary, scientific research shows that Plan B and ella both function by inhibiting or postponing ovulation; they do not prevent fertilization

2469:

doesn't take away from that because it refers to the majority justices in general, not to the decision itself. Generally describing the majority as conservative is not the same thing as calling its interpretation of RFRA conservative, not to mention calling RFRA itself conservative, or by extension,

1510:

I don't know if you were just looking for the answer personally, or suggesting we improve the article, either way, here is what I have gleaned (some of this may be suitable for the article) : Standing is addressed in significant detail in the opinion. On the matter of the corporation having standing

1050:

HHS contends that RFRA does not permit us to take this option into account because “RFRA cannot be used to require creation of entirely new programs.”...But we see nothing in RFRA that supports this argument, and drawing the line between the “creation of an entirely new program” and the modification

477:

My distinction is important: The ACA does not "protect" contraceptives (those were granted general availability by another Supreme Court case several decades ago); and, the Greens were not trying to ban them or even avoid providing some of them in their own employee health-care plan. The complaint

3380:

LNG ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. The evidence available to date shows that LNG ECP use does not prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining. The primary mechanism of action is to stop or disrupt ovulation; LNG ECP use may also prevent

1810:

Knowledge (XXG) appears on full-color screens and has no reason to conform to the appearance of a print encyclopedia. A webpage with no pictures repels visitors, looks like it's cluttered with text, hasn't been updated since the nineties, and is generally ugly. Images invite people to keep reading,

1567:

A key aspect of this case is the requirement that employees have made available to them an insurance plan that covers the 20 methods of contraception, even though the employer or organization need not pay to cover all 20 (and later cases demonstrate that they need not pay to cover any). However, I

1524:

Regarding the second bit, no financial injury is required, nor proof that someone actually used the contraceptives - the court said that paying for the coverage of those contraceptives "substantially burdens the exercise of religion", and yes the fines mentioned by Arnold were brought up to butress

1308:

Yes, I think viable should be removed per your reasoning, as well as my understanding of the situation - neither the law nor the ruling require anything about how easy or likely it is for the government to actually implement the less restrictive alternative, just that they could. (Although in this

1197:

Your position is strong and well-argued, but since I'm stubborn, I still disagree, and I'm too impatient to fully and carefully read anything other than the binding majority opinion, which is already long enough. The dissent, the concurrence, and the syllabus, in that order, are not important to me

1193:

First of all, thank you for contributing to this article that I created. I'm surprised that no one had created it yet and that there haven't been more editors. A plane went missing four months ago and it still gets more interest than this got on decision day. Hardly anyone has visited this article.

1004:

The fundamental flaw in the thinking here is that, somehow, the employees are being "picked on" by the Greens (instead of the Greens being picked on by the Government). Obviously, there may be one or two (among more than 13,000) who feel that way; but, they are not parties to the suit and (if they

847:

We'll see how this plays out in the coming years, but the court seems unanimous that providing contraceptive care is a compelling governmental interest, the question for the majority was what is the least restrictive way to achieve that. Kennedy's concurrence is particularly important since he was

823:

I know there are at least two sources saying the Greens believe that the 4 contraceptives cause abortion, but I don't think that matters because their argument hinged more on their belief that human life begins at conception (a translation of an ancient Hebrew concept that they equate to the modern

3211:

The owners of Hobby Lobby told the Court that they were willing to cover some forms of contraception but believed that the so-called morning-after pills and two kinds of IUDs can cause what they believe to be a type of abortion, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall or

2233:

I think everyone here should take the good Justice at her word! Especially when one reads the kinds of complaints actually being filed. And, if anyone will just read the complaint (remember "read the bill"?), they quickly will realize that these complaints have (in addition to the RFRA claims)

1957:

the images based on that low-quality caption. It would have been more in the spirit of WP:Image to improve the captions and choice of images instead of blanking the images. I think readers are secure enough about their intellect not to be easily insulted, especially future readers who would have a

1837:

I'm all for images for the reasons you give, but some judgement is appropriate here. Visitors are also repelled by images that add little understanding or, worse, insult their intelligence. We do not need to illustrate the concept of government leaders disagreeing. And the particular image implies

1536:

basically the courts answer was that if the belief (that providing coverage itself was objectionable) is sincere, it does not matter if the belief is reasonable. They went back to the Smith precedent here, "(“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to

1530:

HHS and the dissent of course argued to the contrary in their briefs/opinion somewhat along the line of your question ("the connection between what the objecting parties must do (provide health-insurance coverage for four methods of contraception that may operate after the fertilization of an egg)

1460:

The Implications section was written before the decision was announced. I've trimmed out some of the material that no longer applies and added a comment per the transfusion statement. I still think the "The case's potential consequences.." sentence is appropriate. It is sourced and commentators on

1444:

Right from the get-go, the section smacks of bias. It starts off claiming: "The case's potential consequences could extend far beyond contraception." This seems like an attempt to predict the future, which is verboten on Knowledge (XXG) the last time I checked. Neutrality would dictate that the

1255:

In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund

1152:

It's true that the majority did not rule out the possibility of requiring the government to pay, but the case was not decided on that argument, as Kennedy makes abundantly clear. And it's one thing for a member of the majority to express their differing views in a concurring opinion, quite another

792:

I personally have two questions about this case that I don't think are currently answered by the article. If an editor who's more of an expert on the subject matter agrees that these questions ought to be covered, I'd be glad to see the information included, and then I'd be a little less ignorant.

2588:

Easy there. We should be suggesting solutions for consensus, not suggesting everyone to get lost. Every editor gets to offer their reasoning despite wether we think there are absolute rules that automatically trump their reasoning. Even the policies about deferring to reliable sources or avoiding

2576:

on what the actual content of the article should look like. That's determined by what we find in reliable sources—which clearly denote the majority here as "conservative". If we're having trouble accurately conveying what we find in reliable sources, perhaps because it conflicts with our personal

2437:

and on which our case is based, had near unanimous support in Congress. And the majority steered clear of a First Amendment mandate, which many conservative groups would have preferred. So calling it a "conservative majority" is too simplistic. I'd leave "conservative" out and let the reader form

2247:

For, as Justice Sotomayor points out, the relief 6 members of the Court granted is relief available ONLY in the rarest of circumstances -- readers conceivably could witness the resurrection of Christ before they see this kind of relief granted again by the Supreme Court of the United States (it's

2012:

The "Imposition of religious beliefs onto others" section extensively cites liberal commentators but gives short shrift to conservative opinions, for example from Goldberg and Ponnuru. In fact, a cursory examination of the complete reference list indicates a majority of liberal biased sources (NY

1796:

If a picture of where the ruling was decided is inappropriate here, then pictures of where the Supreme Court sits are also inappropriate for the Supreme Court article. It's true that the "class photo" of the court is also used in the Supreme Court's article, but it will no longer be useable there

1710:

I tend to agree with 188.31.7.5's removal of pix not tied directly to the case. The image of the doctor advising a women, maybe. The photo of Obama meeting congressional leaders, I think not as it implies they are arguing about this issue, when there is no reason to believe that. The shot of the

1651:

After reading the introduction, I have very little idea what this case is about - I think it needs to be expanded, clarified or rewritten. Before I am flamed for being an idiot, I understand most introductions on wikipedia across most fields - and although I'm not a lawyer, I'm well read and well

1470:

I was hoping to learn how these plaintiffs had Article III standing. Did they demonstrate an injury in fact, e.g. paying for the insurance, which was used by a particular employee to purchase one of the 4 contraceptives, which indeed caused a fertilized egg not to implant and/or grow? Wouldn't

1250:

The lede is incorrect currently. The mandate was not the least restrictive method- but not because the government can assume the cost (although that would also be true) - the majority opinion is quite clear - its not the least restrictive method, because there is already the certification process

957:

is eventually defined by the court as a precise number of shareholders, it would seem unfair to the shareholders who were put on one side of that definition and prefer to be on the other side. To me, this ruling is bad for employees, shareholders, and those religious organizations who do not want

2251:

This, of course, is why the Business Insider citation is improper: Yes, it's a "source" (in the sense it's in print); but, like so much of what is reported in the popular press about the federal courts, the representation makes no sense to one with even the most basic training in the law. This

2028:

How would you rewrite the bolded phrase? As to your second paragraph, the ideology of media sources is subjective (listing the three big networks as liberal is especially subjective, and some of the quotes in support of the ruling are cited from ABC and Washington Post). However, you are free to

1744:

I agree the image of Obama and Congress is unwarranted, but removing all of them is not a good idea either. I would keep the ones of those who wrote the majority and minority opinions (Alito and Ginsberg, I do believe), as well as the one of the doctor -- these have encyclopedic value. The rest,

1608:

What happened (or at least what the Greens alleged in a verified complaint) was that HHS adopted an interim rule, which was subject under the APA to a commentary period. In the wake of significant adverse commentary, Sebelius turned the matter over to IOM, which then excluded the objectors from

1134:

The language I removed from the lede said "allowing closely held for-profit corporations that religiously object to a law to be exempt from it if the government can assume the cost through the creation of an entirely new program, which would be the least restrictive means of furthering the law's

3420:

The primary mechanism of action is blockade and/or delay of ovulation via suppression of the luteinizing hormone (LH) peak. Levonorgestrel interferes with the ovulatory process only if it is administered before the onset of the LH surge. Levonorgestrel has no emergency contraceptive effect when

2746:

policy is not restricted to biographical articles. More to the point, there are plenty of sources that describe Justice Kennedy as a moderate or swing vote, and many that question Roberts' conservative credentials. If we must have an adjective for majority, I would prefer "all male", as that is

2265:

This explains why one uses the original sources to learn what actually was said. Supreme Court opinions we would hope are written by masters. It is not scholarship to prefer instead the secondary interpretations or criticisms of some school-boy artist, just because he or she can get it into a

1275:

In any case, the core holding is that it wasn't the least restrictive means - what the alternative means available are in this case (or would be in a different case) is legally and precedentially unimportant. (Although it certainly may matter to the employees/govt in this particular suit). For

1077:

Kennedy explains this on p. 4 of his concurrence: "In discussing this alternative, the Court does not address whether the proper response to a legitimate claim for freedom in the health care arena is for the Government to create an additional program. Ante, at 41–43. The Court properly does not

832:

that the Greens believe an embryo is a human being. So whether or not it's factually abortion, it's still factually the destruction of an embryo. About the question of whether beliefs that affect other people have legal protection—that's a question that the court just answered by protecting the

3275:

Physicians for Reproductive Health, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society for Emergency Contraception, Association of Reproductive Health Physicians, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, American Medical Women's

2174:

All corporations are creatures of the State, so the legal rules to be imposed upon them are the rules created by the authority which created (or regulated) the corporation in the first place (the legislature). Asking rhetorically why the legislature didn't do things differently constitutes no

1541:

for a similar second level effect objection. also "the Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or

1323:

I agree on removing viable. I also think the lede should stick to just what the court held, as Gaijin42 says. In particular we now say "However, the court noted that an established alternative complies with the RFRA for the purpose of the plaintiffs' claim but not necessarily for all religious

2313:

The Implications section does not include any positive implications of the ruling. There are many positive implications (which is why we have this ruling) just as there are many positive implications in all court rulings. It only focuses on the negatives of religious protection for for-profit

1166:

Finally I would note that the syllabus says (p.4) "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious

1952:

It's summer, which means frequent power outages, including the one that erased the long and scathing point-by-point reply I wrote earlier, so I'll make this one short and sweet. The image did more than illustrate political disagreement as the placeholder caption suggested. It helps readers,

1071:

Right, but the court goes on to say "In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less

898:

The second question is also an unequivocal yes. Both the majority opinion and the dissent agree that "(“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warnedthat courts must not presume to determinethe plausibility of a religious claim" and "This argument dodges the question that RFRA

883:

Many thanks for these replies and the article updates, and for any others that may still follow. I'm still taking this decision in. It's obviously a huge one, but it's bounded by technicalities that (as a non-lawyer) I don't have a good "feel" for yet, and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

2218:

It granted TEMPORARY relief to Wheaton PENDING REVIEW. Which is not depriving anybody of anything. Furthermore, what the order specifically says is, "he applicant has already notified the government -- without using EBSA Form 700 -- that it meets the requirements for exemption from the

914:

If Alito was being sincere when he said that a corporation is made up of both shareholders and employees, then why aren't the corporation's beliefs made up of the beliefs of both shareholders and employees? We are coming closer to Louis XIV's vision of the world when he said, "The state?

3455:

Ulipristal acetate is an orally-active synthetic selective progesterone receptor modulator which acts via high-affinity binding to the human progesterone receptor. When used for emergency contraception the mechanism of action is inhibition or delay of ovulation via suppression of the LH

2942:

The graph should be used judiciously. One has to be careful with a graph that shows Black, a former member of the KKK, as historically one of the most liberal justices ever. Of course he wrote a number of liberal decisions as reflected by his belief in the total incorporation doctrine

2840:

About describing the majority as "all male", that could be useful, especially since the image of the justices was removed. It should probably be written as the "majority, which is all male," to avoid confusion with the majority of six male justices. There's also "all Catholic", but that

2046:

the LA Times versus Fox or any other media outlet isn't a problem. (It's generally best to use the most reliable sources possible, and the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. are all considered extremely reliable regardless of any bias.) The more important question is whether the

1880:

I was considering adding all the images you suggested. I'll leave it up to others to decide what to put in the contraception subsection. I was thinking instead of adding an image to illustrate the plaintiffs' belief of life at conception, since there's misunderstanding around the word

696:

I read the WSJ article earlier but now it's behind a paywall. The NPR source didn't give any other specific definition. I think we won't get a definitive answer until more lawsuits inevitably bring the issue back to the Supremes. Any new section in the article about the definition of

436:

I agree that it needs to be flagged, however, I'm not sure that I understand your problem with the sentence (other than perhaps being poorly written). It's saying that companies may be exempt from laws that are supposed to protect individuals, in this case, contraceptives, which are

2428:

In general, Knowledge (XXG) avoids editorial comments in its own voice, even if they are sourced. If we want to discuss ideological blocks on the current court based on analysis of voting patterns, that belongs elsewhere, not this article. Also the issues here are more nuanced.

2563:

I'm of the (apparently tiny) minority who believe that Knowledge (XXG) articles should actually reflect the content of independent, reliable sources rather than the opinions of individual pseudonymous Knowledge (XXG) editors. In this case, numerous reliable sources describe a

1055:

In other words, the court supports the argument that creation of entirely new programs can be required. The court then points to the existing accommodation for nonprofits, but only as an extra reason, specific to this case, that the mandate is not the least restrictive means.

1276:

future cases the govt programs may or may not be in play, and likewise for HHS alternatives - but the core logic will be - and thats where the encyclopedia should focus in the lede. Later in the body, we should probably list both alternatives as mentioned by the opinion tho.

1600:

The Greens answered (or anticipated) this in their complaint (see below for where to get a copy). Essentially, the complaint says that Sibelius abused her discretion under the ACA to foist a requirement for certain contraceptive coverages -- coverages which (per the FDA)

1005:

can establish standing) have the right to file their own suit. But, this won't happen because what the Greens asked for, in their complaint, was basically to be treated the same as similarly situated, not-for-profit organizations which the law specifically exempts -- no

3276:

Association, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, Society of Family Planning, International Association of Forensic Nurses, American College of Nurse-Midwives, James Trussell, Susan F. Wood, Don Downing, Kathleen Besinque. (October 21, 2013). "

1198:(and if it weren't for you those sections would still be mostly blank). From what I bothered to read in the dissent, it sounds like Ginsburg did a lot of hand-wringing about whether the court allowed for a wide application of the ruling. This case reminds me a lot of 1213:

was Alito's way of restricting the ruling away from cases where a new government program isn't politically practical. But my hopefulness made me read too much into that one word. I checked the reference he provided in that sentence, and it looks like he's just using

2261:

So, RedBeard is right that the Business Insider citation, and its writer's interpretation of it, should be stricken from the article. Not only is Business Insider wrong in its own conclusions, the Wiki writer's interpretation of said conclusions is outright false.

2336:

and fix the problem! That said, I am removing the top level POV tag, as well as the POV-section tag under the "Further reading" section, as your complaints seem to be confined to the "Implications" section. If I'm mistaken, please describe those complaints here.

2495:

was a conservative decision by pointing out that the majority of justices behind the decision were generally conservative? Are we suggesting that readers will forget the nuance and complexity of this article's very first sentence once they reach the word

937:

Humor intended : How Marxist of you :). If an individual starts a company, and wholly owns that company, yes, they are the company. In employee owned companies, or publicly held companies, obviously the "will" of the company is more diluted/spread out.

952:

But once the individual incorporates the company, then it's a new legal entity separate from the shareholder. If the owner is the corporation, what's to stop the owner from being fined if the corporation violates a safety regulation, for example? And if

2219:

contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds. NOTHING IN THIS ORDER PRECLUDES THE GOVERNMENT FROM RELYING ON THIS NOTICE, TO THE EXTENT IT CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY, TO FACILITATE THE PROVISION FOR FULL CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE UNDER THE ACT."

3529:

I think it is important to note, but giving it its own sentence may be overemphasis for this article. Setting it off with em dashes instead of paired parenthesis would be okay, but I think leaving it as is, as a parenthetical clarification, is fine.

2845:, though like "all male" it would also be self-identified, factual, and strongly relevant to the issue of religious views on reproduction. But however factual and well-established either one is, they should only be added if they're in a source about 2204:

The Business Insider citation -- Business Insider's personal interpretation of the opinion in Wheaton -- simply does not belong in the article. That is because the BEST EVIDENCE is not what Business Insider thinks but what the Court actually said.

1876:

Any image of government leaders in disagreement implies an argument between opposing political parties, not branches of government. Instead of removing the image, the caption can be changed: Government leaders disagreed on the ruling along partisan

1001:" which should be in the title is not trivial. Hobby Lobby's co-plaintiffs, in addition to the Greens, included Marsdel, Inc., a Christian bookstore. I think it rather difficult to contest the values held (or expressed) by a Christian bookstore. 3510:

Wow, this is a very well thought-out answer! I'll defer to the NYTimes and to you on this. Do you think it would be better to write it out as its own sentence? Something about having the content as an aside seems a bit off to me. Any thoughts?

2548:

or in other Supreme Court decisions I looked at. In general Knowledge (XXG) avoids such characterizations unless the person or group self identifies. I don't see a reason to make an exception here. As for your aside, I agree with the "should"

2222:

This order comes from 6 members of the Court, including one who joined the dissent in Hobby Lobby. It separates the girls from the boys (Sotomayor was joined by Ginzburg and Kagan) -- what was said under the table to the LAWYERS who read it.

824:

definition of fertilization). The four contraceptives can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus, causing it to die in the next menstrual cycle, which the Greens believe is the death of a human being. Now it's a matter of

1872:

WP:Image says a concept like aggression can be illustrated with an image of a cat bearing its claws. Based on your reasoning, WP:Image is wrong, its suggestions insult readers' intelligence, and there's no need to illustrate the concept of

2490:

is astonishing partly because there was a 6-3 conservative majority in the court, but four conservative justices joined the three liberal justices to deliver a complex and nuanced decision. Would we be guiding readers to the opinion that

1419:

The article simply describes what those fifteen states argued. Anyways, while the decision is "concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate" (p 46), the reasoning can be cited by judges in any future cases. Even the famous phrase from

589:

characters (the comma and the period) is due to a concern for being concise. I expect it was a typo or careless error. The abbreviation "Inc" is always followed by a period. Similarly, the abbreviation should be preceded by a comma.

2603:

Consensus needs to be grounded in Knowledge (XXG) policy and informed by the content of reliable sources. Without buy-in to that basic principle, this discussion is pointless. Although I appreciate your efforts (and your removal of the

2802:

that describe Kennedy as moderate or that question Roberts' conservatism, they can be added. Particularly in the section about Kennedy's concurrence, some description of his ideologically central position among his colleagues would

2003:

Next to last sentance in the lead: "The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits,

1726:

I've just removed most of the images as they make the article look like a "brochure". The Supreme court related images in particular do not belong, they can be used in their respective articles and don't need to clutter this one.

1782:

what they're meant to illustrate, even if it's not an image of the actual article subject. Since the image of government leaders in disagreement is meant to illustrate the subject of government leaders in disagreement, then it's

1082:, a better source for how the court did or did not rule than me or you. Secondly, he is the swing vote in this case, so as a practical matter how he choses to vote in the future will determine the real impact of this decision.-- 2412:

at all is not a very useful fiction. They wouldn't be justices if they weren't intellectually passionate, right? The article should describe the conservative majority and (relatively) liberal minority as exactly what they are.

758:

I was able to access the WSJ article through Google, and it says "The Internal Revenue Service defines a closely held company as a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock directly or indirectly

833:

beliefs of the owners (although Scalia also made a token acknowledgment of the rights of employees). So yes, your beliefs that affect other people are now legally protected, as long as you are an owner and not a worker.

1404:

5 and into the top of page 6, stating that it was concerned only with the contraception mandate. I know the far-left sources cited are completely ignoring this fact, but it needs to be clearly stated in the article.

2377:

There are two arguments here, so there's clearly a controversy. One says the justices have politically ideological leanings, and the other says they do not. When it comes to neutrality or POV, describing someone as

2167:"The dean of the UC Irvine School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky said, 'The liabilities of the corporation are not attributed to the owners, so why should the owners be able to attribute their beliefs to the company?'" 2901:

I think it’s far better in reading the Martin-Quinn graph link above to see Kennedy more recently somewhat conservative, but a centrist in historical terms. Calling Kennedy a “conservative” – one who affirmed

2357:

The description of the majority as conservative has been deleted twice now. Why don't we establish consensus here so we don't have to keep explaining ourselves in edit summaries. It's been argued that the word

2226:

What then was Justice Sotomayor's objection? It was solely that Wheaton had not made the requisite showing for INTERLOCUTORY relief UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT, given the uncertainty of rights CLAIMED UNDER RFRA.

743:

The IRS states that "A domestic corporation is closely held if a specified individual owns at least 80 percent of the corporation’s stock (by vote or value) on the last day of the corporation’s taxable year."

525:(with a comma after the word "Stores" and a period after the abbreviation "Inc")? I tried to make the change, but I received a warning that the title was invalid. Can anyone address this issue? Thanks. 2969:

The paragraph is about the plaintiffs' opinion of contraception, the purpose of which is to present their beliefs. Adding a fact about doctors' beliefs in this particular paragraph strikes me as incongruous.

2006:

until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, leaving no alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations who do not wish to provide birth control.

2464:

appropriate elsewhere but forbidden in this article? The Court's decisions do tend to be nuanced and complex, and yes, we readers should not be guided towards a particular opinion of any decision. The word

1372:

But it said pretty clearly that it doesn't "impinge on the plaintiffs' religious belief", i.e. it doesn't substantially burden their religious exercise and complies with RFRA for the purpose of this case.

1222:. Now it seems to me that Alito suggests any creation of a new government program, no matter how politically unlikely, is theoretically "viable", least restrictive, and enough reason to strike down a law. 380: 478:

makes absolutely clear that the Greens, Hobby Lobby, and their co-plaintiff, Marsdel, Inc., (a Christian bookstore) opposed providing ONLY those contraceptives which, per the FDA's own determination,

1153:

for that justice to explicitly state what the majority did or didn't hold, e.g. "Court does not address..." and "The Court properly does not resolve..." if the other members of the majority disagree.

638: 3226: 2013:

Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.) and cherry picking of liberal commentaries from more usually conservative sources (Fox, Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News).

1542:

insubstantial. Instead, our “narrow function . . . in this context is to determine” whether the line drawn reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute that it does."

923:

the company." The employees weren't given equal protection here because their representation as part of the corporation wasn't factored into the analysis of what Hobby Lobby's beliefs are.

3741: 127: 3699: 2297:

Portions of the above removed by me this 19th day of August 2014 (in light of the Doctor's judicious criticism). The remainder was edited to fit the original objection from RedBeard.

1547:

From there they go to the other prongs of the test, if it is a compelling government interest (a qualified yes), and if it is the least restrictive way of furthering that interest (no)

2050:

is adequately represented in the section. I don't know, as I haven't done the research, but if you feel there are important viewpoints that are left out then by all means add them. --

2667:

the inclusion of sourced material. This sounds like misuse of the policy. And even if sources are found for minority views, the policy requires all views to be included, so the word

2393:

as being somewhere on a spectrum and consistent from year to year. Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms. The

1256:

contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.

3776: 3339: 144: 3771: 1912: 370: 3269: 2390: 3354:• Review of the evidence suggests that LNG ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling. 2212:-- which of course is the proper citation for any article in an encyclopedia, NOT a reference to editorial cherry-picking by a non-legal publication like Business Insider. 1225:

While I disagree with your change, (and disagree with my previous hopefulness), I don't want to push away the few editors here by forcing my edits. But I do think the word

2663:

conservative, they can be included. But until those sources are presented, the only minority views are the personal views of the editors. Right now, POV is being cited to

610:

I'm inclined to agree (and I've moved the page back for now). The lack of comma and period was simply wrong, in my opinion. The common name standards seem to suggest that

3602: 3598: 3584: 3440:

which acts by modifying the activity of the natural hormone progesterone which is necessary for ovulation to occur. As a result, ellaOne works by postponing ovulation.

3237:

In this case, the companies' owners say that four of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA work after an egg has been fertilized and thus are abortifacients. While

1889:

section that includes the scotusblog comment you found. It might be appropriate to add only a small pic of Scalia to avoid misleading people into thinking he wrote the

809:

and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”'--

346: 327: 304: 180: 1009:

is excluded from coverage by the Greens' objections (the Greens just don't want to have to pay for it -- IF the coverage includes abortion-inducing drugs or devices).

2404:

Knowledge (XXG) should not shy away from giving an accurate report of the political reality. While I would agree with an argument that the justices generally aren't

3356:• LNG ECPs do not interrupt a pregnancy (by any definition of the beginning of pregnancy). However, LNG ECPs can prevent abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. 2700:

It's also been argued that we should refrain from characterizations of people that aren't self-applied. Does that policy apply to articles that aren't biographies?

1475:

case from the Western District of Oklahoma, and while it briefly mentioned standing under RFRA (same as Article III) I didn't see how the decision was arrived at.

2175:

expertise -- this is simply the opinion of one man who happens, concurrently, to be the dean of a law school and (apparently) personally prefers a different rule.

990:, General Motors, but also from MOST small, tightly held companies. The complaint (see below for where to get a copy) makes clear that Hobby Lobby was organized, 3736: 441:

to be protected by law (i.e., the same law that Hobby Lobby is trying to be exempt from). There are too few opinions of those that oppose this decision as well.

412:

Whether or not the HHS' contraceptive mandate "protects the interests of other individuals" is a matter of opinion that does not belong in this neutral article.

170: 134: 2655:

POV keeps getting cited. The NPOV policy requires the inclusion of sourced minority views in the article. If there are any source articles reporting that the

3766: 3250: 1885:

Other than that, a pic of an IUD would be appropriate, since it doesn't seem familiar to half the population. If we add a Kennedy pic, we should also add an

764:

either one of the IRS's definitions, and it would be strange for a ruling against a federal agency to be based on how another federal agency defines a term.

3746: 3191: 3463:

EMA recommends availability of ellaOne emergency contraceptive without prescription. Change in status to facilitate access for women in the European Union

139: 332: 715:

The decision document from SCOTUS states that the closely held companies in the decision are "each owned and controlled by members of a single family."

3078:

Details about the mechanism(s) of action of the specific contraceptives mentioned can be found via wikilinks to their individual Knowledge (XXG) pages.

3316: 3214: 3058: 2572:. While it's fascinating to hear various editors' personal beliefs about Court politics and ideology, nothing that anyone has said in this thread has 3245:, Alito said the point is that the owners believe offering such services — such as the morning-after pill and IUDs — violates their religious faiths. 2932:(joined by Breyer and Kagan except for one minor issue). The graph shows them liberal in historical terms, although recently leaning more centrist. 2522:

As a side, respect for minority religions, such as those of tribal nations, should be seen as a common value, not a liberal one. But enough of that.

1309:

case, as the alternative is already available for non-profits, it seems very likely the alternative will be implemented for these companies as well)

3731: 3472:

Historic decision from the European Commission grants 120 million women direct access to ellaOne emergency contraceptive across the European Union

1424:"our consideration is limited to the present circumstances," did not prevent that case from being cited in other cases. Sorry for the late reply. 1072:

restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs." and that is the basis for their ruling.

281: 1961:

Instead of a quote, which would already be in the section text, Scalia's caption can say that he wrote "a" majority opinion in a previous case.

110: 71: 3756: 2241:

The Government has NO POWER to order anyone to utter any form of religious "speech." Why? Because the First Amendment allows for "no law."

1913:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-why-i-dont-think-the-courts-wheaton-college-decision-rests-on-any-misunderstanding-of-the-law/--

271: 3695: 3679: 1609:

participation in the process. Only pro-abortion proponents (according to the Greens) were heard by IOM, which then recommended to HHS that

3200: 2433:

had a conservative majority and cut against liberal values (respect for native American religion) and the RFRA, which effectively reversed

1659: 482:

cause "abortion" by blocking implantation of a fertilized human ovum. This is a relatively small list of drugs plus such devices as IUDs.

419: 3278: 684: 2201:

But, let me, instead, address specifically RedBeard's boldprint objection because such demonstrates precisely what I've said previously.

681: 636:

I think we should use the business's full name with "Inc.", as we do with so many other SCOTUS cases where the respondent is a business:

3554: 2962: 2318: 2283: 2187: 2118: 1759: 1689: 1631: 1582: 1476: 1446: 1405: 1023: 502: 3570: 2626:

Alright, editors keep editing without discussing at this talk page. The next edit should ask them to come here to prevent an edit war.

336: 122: 2315: 1968:

that included the SCOTUSblog comment. The power outage decided I should take a break and add it tomorrow if you don't beat me to it.

1358:

I have no problem with your edit. It's more general which is better for the lead, but I think either version is true. The court said:

485:

Finally, "could" should be in italics -- Hobby Lobby's complaint not only distinguishes Hobby Lobby from commonly held corporations,

3761: 3580:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1811:

tell people where they are in the article, and keep old-fashioned readers from getting nauseous from reading so much on a computer.

1617:

But, it's quite possible that HHS did not adopt, in its final rule, coverage for vasectomies, even though that's on the FDA's list.

1139:

Extension to commercial enterprises of the accommodation already afforded to nonprofit religion-based organizations." (my emphasis).

862:

The court found it "unnecessary to adjudicate" on whether it's compelling. Maybe the other four kept quiet to get Kennedy on board?

2881: 2136: 2101:

I must agree with RedBeard: My efforts to change the balance somewhat promptly were deleted by whoever next read the passage....

3095:, and object to their closely held for-profit corporations providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four 118:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

2761:

The BLP policy talks about self-identified characterizations, but it looks like it's only in reference to religion or sexuality.

2607: 3328: 1573: 908: 893: 802: 405:"The ruling could have widespread impact on the issue of whether companies can be religiously exempt from any federal law that 3186:

The companies objected to covering intrauterine devices and so-called morning-after pills, saying they were akin to abortion.

470:

To be absolutely correct, it should say, "...can be exempt for religious reasons from funding federal laws and programs that

46: 3462: 2928:

I think Ginsburg and Breyer would find it amusing if you called them centrist, especially in light of Ginsburg's dissent in

680:

in the article, but I think it needs to explicitly address the definition of the term and its implications. See for example

650: 3751: 994:, to the glory of God (whatever that means), and all employees sign onto that when they take employment with the company. 848:

apparently the swing vote and he seems to be saying that he will be looking for ways to keep the lid on in future cases.--

3411: 3405:

NorLevo works by stopping your ovaries from releasing an egg. It cannot stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb.

3175: 3030:

articles provide inline links to other articles that specifically identify some of the many organizations that disagree:

3645: 3096: 2430: 3471: 1251:

used by non-profits which causes the insurer to cover the contraceptives directly, rather than the employer. (page 49)

242: 203: 3104: 1953:

especially future readers, identify who was in power at the time of this ruling. I did not think someone would remove

595: 530: 3691: 1711:

Supreme Court building adds nothing, in my opinion. So I'd get ride of two of the three pix 188.31.7.5 deleted. --

3388: 3363: 2898:“Kennedy is measured as being centrist relative to his current colleagues—but conservative in historical terms.” 3601:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2951:(written relatively early in the midst of his most "liberal" time on the court) also had lasting repercussions. 2161:

Except that the article already is full of stuff that does not constitute "research" (original or otherwise).

1461:

both sides of the political spectrum seem to think this case has broader implications.--13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

2889: 2752: 2554: 2443: 1919: 1847: 1716: 1663: 1499: 1329: 1172: 1087: 853: 814: 677: 423: 1205:

It's important that the Reporter added "necessarily" into that sentence in the syllabus. Those mandates don't

686:

which claims there are several possible definitions and it wasn't clear which one the decision referred to. --

52: 2322: 1450: 1409: 3636: 3562: 3516: 3118: 2985: 2460:

an editorial comment when it comes from sources that aren't editorial opinion pieces? Why is the mention of

2287: 2191: 2122: 2075: 1752: 1693: 1635: 1586: 1480: 1027: 506: 246:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 3348:

Mechanism of Action. How do levonorgestrel-only emergency contraceptive pills (LNG ECPs) prevent pregnancy?

2513:

conservative or referring to both sides as ideological by saying the 5-4 vote is "along idealogical lines"?

2279: 2183: 2114: 1655: 1627: 1019: 498: 452: 415: 3668: 2389:

While the justices don't explicitly call themselves conservative or liberal, their voting patterns can be

2342: 2083: 2055: 2018: 591: 526: 446: 3663:, let's discuss before any further reversions. I'm suspect we're more on the same page than you think. -- 3347: 3176:

Supreme Court rejects contraceptives mandate for some corporations. Justices rule in favor of Hobby Lobby

3620:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3608: 3266:

of the "many" specific organizations that disagree could be added to this article, but may be overkill:

2854: 2705: 2594: 2527: 2418: 2034: 1973: 1898: 1816: 1679: 1471:

this be a violation of privacy rights? What other way is there to establish standing? I looked up the

1429: 1378: 1299: 1266: 1234: 1117: 1061: 963: 928: 867: 838: 769: 734: 706: 659: 572: 3561:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2382:

is not the same thing as taking sides between conservatism and liberalism. The Knowledge (XXG) article

1572:

have been the list used by IOM and referenced in this case. However, what causes me doubt is that the

556:

Also, the full name is already in the infobox, so the article name and first sentence might as well be

2850: 2701: 2590: 2523: 2414: 2386:

is not POV and does not break neutrality when it describes which parties are conservative or liberal.

2030: 1969: 1894: 1812: 1675: 1425: 1374: 1295: 1262: 1230: 1113: 1057: 959: 924: 863: 834: 765: 730: 702: 568: 17: 3702:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

3168: 2014: 1736: 442: 102: 2922:) done more for gay rights than arguably any other American in history – is deeply questionable. 2071: 557: 34: 3717: 3672: 3650: 3571:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140702150143/http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

3539: 3520: 3494: 3396: 3144: 2989: 2893: 2885: 2858: 2756: 2748: 2709: 2621: 2598: 2583: 2558: 2550: 2531: 2509:

As a compromise solution to achieve consensus, what about saying specifically that the majority is

2447: 2439: 2422: 2346: 2326: 2291: 2195: 2148: 2126: 2087: 2059: 2038: 2022: 1977: 1923: 1915: 1902: 1851: 1843: 1820: 1765: 1739: 1720: 1712: 1697: 1683: 1667: 1639: 1590: 1556: 1503: 1495: 1484: 1454: 1433: 1413: 1382: 1333: 1325: 1318: 1303: 1285: 1270: 1238: 1176: 1168: 1121: 1091: 1083: 1065: 1043: 1031: 967: 947: 932: 871: 857: 849: 842: 818: 810: 773: 753: 738: 724: 710: 690: 663: 631: 627: 599: 576: 534: 510: 456: 427: 3371: 2973: 2333: 3512: 3138: 2981: 1747: 1577: 1568:

am unable to locate the list of these 20 methods. I am able to locate a list from the FDA which

1552: 1314: 1281: 943: 904: 701:

would probably just contain speculative definitions or commentary about the uncertainty created.

3605:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2882:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-21/how-civil-rights-law-could-overturn-hobby-lobby

1732: 86: 65: 3621: 3664: 2338: 2209: 2144: 2079: 2051: 1368:

It's true the court said there's no need to decide whether the alternative meets RFRA muster "

749: 720: 644: 3008: 2408:

in favor of any political party, president, or senator, the idea that justices don't have an

1290:

Since two minds are better than one, I'll consent. What do you think about removing the word

3712: 3574: 3446: 3427: 3052:

decision which said "the scientific consensus is against this idea", and linked to: a prior

655: 548: 3628: 2743: 319: 298: 3154: 2474:

decision liberal. This series of conclusions is not what's being argued by the mention of

1728: 889: 798: 3372:

Fact sheet on the safety of levonorgestrel-alone emergency contraceptive pills (LNG ECPs)

2397:

article doesn't talk about a liberal majority because, using the objective measures, the

3007:

decision both contain this important, relevant content and it would be misleading and a

3587:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3535: 3490: 3128: 1209:

fall because of this ruling, but that doesn't mean they can't. At first I thought that

623: 3700:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#Religious exemption (U.S.)

3627:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3594: 3725: 3100: 3092: 2617: 2579: 2258:

How does THAT block ANYONE from obtaining contraceptives that may produce abortions?

1548: 1491: 1310: 1277: 939: 900: 115: 2140: 982:

I submit that this is a non-issue. The complaint in the case filed by Hobby Lobby

745: 716: 1511:

as a "person" having free-exercise rights, the court relied on precedents set in

683:

and its statistics that 90% of American businesses fall into that definition, and

218: 197: 2880:

A Google search on "hobby lobby all male majority" yields numerous sources, e.g.

2234:

freedom-of-religion and FREE SPEECH counts, as well as objections under the APA.

1137:

Because the Court cannot easily answer that question, it proposes something else:

1051:

of an existing program (which RFRA surely allows) would be fraught with problems.

3703: 2456:

For those first two claims, what about the arguments for those? Why is the word

687: 615: 228: 3062:

two years earlier which cited several organizations, physicians and scientists.

2255:(The Government remains free to tell the insurance company anything it wants). 1674:

What parts did you understand, and what parts need clarification or expansion?

1525:

the infringement argument - but the fines were not a crucial part of the logic.

1229:

in the lead is meaningless, misleading without context, and should be removed.

474:" Also, ..."the issue of"... is redundant (fire all words which do no work!). 3593:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3088: 2925:“the Windsor ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.” 2208:

All may read the Court's order (and Justice Sotomayor's sharp dissent) here:

1908: 885: 794: 234: 224: 92: 2230:

Her opinion says NOTHING about ANY OTHER potential kind of reviewable claim.

986:

clearly sought to distinguish Hobby Lobby not only from common corporations,

3660: 3531: 3505: 3486: 1907:

An image of a cat bearing its claws might be appropriate for our article on

3272:(ACOG) and ten other medical organizations and four individual scientists: 2178:

Such an opinion is no better than mine (and no more worthy of mention)....

1537:

determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim”") and more directly

114:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 2841:

characterization would probably be more understandably controversial than

3285:." Washington, D.C. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: 3112: 3686: 2577:

political or judicial views, then we shouldn't be editing this article.

958:

corporations in their company. PS, I hate communism like a fascist. :)

3251:

Supreme Court rules against contraceptive mandate in Hobby Lobby case

2374:

is reliably sourced, well-established, uncontroversial, and neutral.

2362:

is subjective, that Kennedy is centrist, and that Knowledge (XXG)'s

1688:

Yeah, what's this article about? Who's Burwell, what's Hobby Lobby?

1261:

ArnoldReinhold made the same argument, Gaijin42. I responded above.

3351:." London: International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics: 3073:

decision said: "many, if not most, doctors and scientists disagree"

828:

that the contraceptives don't cause abortion, but it's a matter of

788:

Two issues not addressed (and maybe it's better that way, but ...)

2401:

ruling is by four centrist justices joined by one conservative.

3690:

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

1605:

induce an abortion -- onto objecting, for-profit businesses.

919:

the state," only this time it's the owner saying "The company?

3434:

1. What ellaOne is and what it is used for / How ellaOne works

3412:

Norlevo 1.5 mg tablet Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC)

1194:

Maybe this subject just isn't very important to everyone else.

247: 28: 3227:

Supreme Court sides with employers over birth control mandate

2747:

incontestable and more relevant to the issues in this case.--

639:

Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.

3369:

WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research (2010). "

654:, to name two other similarly-named cases of recent years). 546:

is better because it's consistent with the featured article

3121:

pills (sometimes inaccurately called "morning after" pills)

3111:, which the Green and Hahn families believe constitutes an 2210:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf

1958:

harder time visualizing the government leaders in the text.

3565:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3299:

front-page article linked to by the already cited Carroll

3201:

How Hobby Lobby ruling could limit access to birth control

2139:. There needs to be a reference stating that information. 1513:

Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith

3041:

decision said: "many scientists disagree", and linked to:

3575:

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

3403:

1. What NorLevo 1.5 mg tablet is and what it is used for

3087:

The Green and Hahn families believe that life begins at

1445:

claim is the view of some with specific examples of it.

331:, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to 3558: 3431:". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association: 3415:". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association: 3397:

Norlevo 1.5 mg tablet Patient Information Leaflet (PIL)

2612: 1539:

Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div

1112:

been narrowed, and even that might be saying too much.

341: 3450:". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association 3447:

ellaOne 30 mg Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC)

3444:

HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (January 7, 2015). "

3409:

HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (January 8, 2015). "

3400:". Dublin: Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association 3340:

International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics

3317:

Abortion qualms on morning-after pill may be unfounded

2935:

Although Kennedy joins his conservative colleagues in

2544:

We don't characterize the majority as conservative in

2000:

Too many to address in one sitting, but here are two.

1576:

includes "Sterilization Surgery for Men", and yet the

3103:

that the Green and Hahn families believe may prevent

3026:

decision both appropriately use the word "many". The

2980:

I'd like to get your thoughts on the matter! Thanks,

3394:

HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (November 2014). "

3212:

causing an already implanted egg to fail to thrive.

1517:

Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc

355:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

3597:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3425:

HRA Pharma UK and Ireland Limited (January 2015). "

3270:

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

1492:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1 1294:from the lead? I gave my reasoning on that above. 2171:complaint (see below for where to get a copy). 566:State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 492:We'll need a couple more cases to find that out. 3742:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance 472:create legal entitlements for other individuals. 3428:ellaOne 30 mg Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) 3084:Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs 1361: 1048: 3583:This message was posted before February 2018. 3329:New birth control label counters lawsuit claim 2965:. I had removed that content for two reasons: 2370:majority. On the other hand, it's argued that 1440:"Implications" section potentially not neutral 3777:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles 3220:the scientific consensus is against this idea 358:Template:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases 8: 1104:. Until then, the most we can say about the 407:protects the interests of other individuals. 339:. If you would like to participate, you can 3772:High-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles 3553:I have just modified one external link on 2438:their own opinions without our guidance.-- 2135:I removed the content because it violated 2065: 1964:I was also typing up a new section titled 293: 192: 60: 2238:hear (and why it granted such relief). 787: 155:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 585:Thanks. I don't think that omission of 3678:"Religious exemption (U.S.)" listed at 3198:18. Carroll, Aaron E. (June 30, 2014). 2947:), but his conservative opinions as in 1614:told its members, "We are in a war!" 554:Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. 295: 194: 62: 32: 3338:which in turn cite a statement by the 3307:decision and a follow-up 2013 Belluck 3109:(many doctors and scientists disagree) 2961:Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on 2366:article doesn't mention a ruling by a 2215:What then DID the Court actually say? 1735:banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... 1370:for purposes of all religious claims". 521:Shouldn't the name of this article be 18:Talk:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc 3737:Low-importance United States articles 3375:." Geneva: World Health Organization: 3248:20. Richey, Warren (June 30, 2014). " 3224:19. Barnes, Robert (June 30, 2014). " 2316:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral Point of View 7: 3466:". London: European Medicines Agency 2955:Many doctors and scientists disagree 2137:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 345:attached to this page, or visit the 328:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases 240:This article is within the scope of 108:This article is within the scope of 3767:C-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles 3555:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 3326:Belluck, Pam (November 26, 2013). " 3173:17. Liptak, Adam (June 30, 2014). " 2963:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 523:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 250:and the subjects encompassed by it. 51:It is of interest to the following 3747:WikiProject United States articles 2910:and who has with three decisions ( 2849:otherwise it's original research. 761:owned by five or fewer individuals 552:, which would otherwise be called 401:Needs to be flagged for neutrality 158:Template:WikiProject United States 25: 3557:. Please take a moment to review 1778:Wp:image says that images should 1745:though, I will stipulate do not. 1039:Creation of entirely new programs 3698:. This discussion will occur at 3685: 3421:administered later in the cycle. 2164:Consider the following extract: 318: 297: 227: 217: 196: 95: 85: 64: 33: 3469:HRA Pharma (January 8, 2015). " 3436:ellaOne contains the substance 3381:the sperm and egg from meeting. 3378:Can LNG ECPs cause an abortion? 3243:doctors and scientists disagree 2078:before adding more comments. -- 1563:The 20 methods of contraception 651:AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion 375:This article has been rated as 276:This article has been rated as 256:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law 175:This article has been rated as 3732:C-Class United States articles 3453:5.1 Pharmacodynamic properties 3418:5.1 Pharmacodynamic properties 642:, for instance (as opposed to 622:or similar might be better. -- 1: 3314:Belluck, Pam (June 5, 2012). 3256:The Christian Science Monitor 3169:levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs 3131:) and its generic equivalents 2757:14:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 2710:05:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC) 2671:would still have to be there. 2622:01:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC) 2599:07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 2584:06:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 2559:02:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 2532:22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC) 2448:14:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC) 2423:03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC) 2384:Politics of the United States 2048:diversity of notable opinions 1434:06:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) 620:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores 3757:High-importance law articles 3673:19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) 2894:11:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2859:04:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 2431:Employment Division v. Smith 2347:22:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 2327:21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 1399:Matter of transfusions et al 3718:03:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC) 3387:and labels approved by the 3022:front-page articles on the 3003:front-page articles on the 2292:00:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 2196:23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2149:20:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2127:20:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2088:04:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 2060:18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2039:16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2023:07:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1640:00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 1032:00:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 511:23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 361:U.S. Supreme Court articles 3793: 3692:Religious exemption (U.S.) 3614:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3550:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3460:EMA (November 21, 2014). " 3262:Additional sources noting 3069:front-page article on the 3037:front-page article on the 2309:Neutrality of Implications 672:Definition of closely held 614:is best (compare with the 282:project's importance scale 181:project's importance scale 3651:21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC) 3389:European Medicines Agency 3364:World Health Organization 2568:majority of the Court in 1978:05:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC) 1924:19:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC) 1903:20:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC) 1852:10:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC) 1821:22:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC) 1766:20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC) 1740:20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC) 1721:19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC) 1698:14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 374: 313: 275: 212: 174: 111:WikiProject United States 80: 59: 3762:WikiProject Law articles 3680:Redirects for discussion 3540:05:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC) 3215:As colleagues have noted 2798:For those sources about 1684:01:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC) 1668:23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1591:04:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1557:14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1504:12:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1485:04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1455:03:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1414:03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1383:00:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 1334:21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 1319:17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 1304:16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 1286:16:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 1271:16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 1239:05:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 1177:02:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 1122:22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC) 1092:22:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC) 1066:21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC) 968:16:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 948:16:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 933:16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 909:14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 894:16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 872:20:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 858:19:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 843:18:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 819:15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 803:10:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 774:23:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 754:23:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 739:23:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 725:22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 711:22:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 691:21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 678:closely held corporation 664:02:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 632:14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 600:05:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 577:04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 535:04:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 457:20:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 428:12:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 352:U.S. Supreme Court cases 325:This article is part of 305:U.S. Supreme Court cases 259:Template:WikiProject Law 116:United States of America 3694:and has thus listed it 3546:External links modified 3521:20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC) 3495:02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 3281:Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby 3279:Brief of Amici Curiae. 3119:Emergency contraceptive 2990:01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 2608:Personal attack removed 2353:"Conservative" majority 2104:Robert Brian Crim.... 2076:User talk:208.83.74.242 3305:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 3259: 3071:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 3050:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 3039:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 3024:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 3005:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 2074:. Robert, please read 1473:Hobby Lobby v Sebelius 1365: 1258: 1053: 618:article), but perhaps 612:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 543:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 161:United States articles 41:This article is rated 3091:which they equate to 3081: 1253: 45:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 3752:C-Class law articles 3595:regular verification 3475:". Paris: HRA Pharma 3345:FIGO (March 2011). " 3145:Intrauterine devices 3107:of a fertilized egg 2391:objectively measured 2269:Robert Brian Crim 1581:know where to look. 1466:Article III standing 103:United States portal 3585:After February 2018 3438:ulipristal acetate 3232:The Washington Post 2906:in his decision in 1647:Intro needs rewrite 1044:User:ArnoldReinhold 517:Correction to title 495:Robert Brian Crim 333:Supreme Court cases 129:Articles Requested! 3639:InternetArchiveBot 3590:InternetArchiveBot 3334:The New York Times 3322:The New York Times 3206:The New York Times 3181:The New York Times 3139:ulipristal acetate 3044:the cited Carroll 2266:popular magazine. 1620:Robert Brian Crim 1108:ruling is that it 1012:Robert Brian Crim 997:Furthermore, the " 676:I added a link to 47:content assessment 3615: 3457: 3441: 3422: 3406: 3382: 3357: 3295:The 2012 Belluck 3290: 3246: 3222: 3196: 3065:the cited Barnes 3033:the cited Liptak 2611: 2332:I tend to agree. 2305: 2304: 2282:comment added by 2186:comment added by 2117:comment added by 1996:Neutrality Issues 1842:in the caption.-- 1658:comment added by 1630:comment added by 1220:least restrictive 1218:as a synonym for 1022:comment added by 645:Wal-Mart v. Dukes 592:Joseph A. Spadaro 527:Joseph A. Spadaro 501:comment added by 418:comment added by 395: 394: 391: 390: 387: 386: 292: 291: 288: 287: 191: 190: 187: 186: 16:(Redirected from 3784: 3710: 3689: 3649: 3640: 3613: 3612: 3591: 3509: 3474: 3465: 3452: 3449: 3433: 3430: 3417: 3414: 3402: 3399: 3377: 3374: 3353: 3350: 3331: 3319: 3289:or implantation. 3287: 3284: 3253: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3229: 3221: 3217: 3210: 3203: 3194: 3189: 3185: 3178: 3110: 3061: 2605: 2294: 2244:THAT'S clear! 2198: 2129: 2066: 1762: 1757: 1750: 1670: 1642: 1034: 549:Sega v. Accolade 513: 459: 430: 381:importance scale 363: 362: 359: 356: 353: 344: 342:edit the article 322: 315: 314: 309: 301: 294: 264: 263: 260: 257: 254: 237: 232: 231: 221: 214: 213: 208: 200: 193: 163: 162: 159: 156: 153: 105: 100: 99: 98: 89: 82: 81: 76: 68: 61: 44: 38: 37: 29: 21: 3792: 3791: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3722: 3721: 3704: 3683: 3658: 3643: 3638: 3606: 3599:have permission 3589: 3563:this simple FaQ 3548: 3503: 3470: 3461: 3445: 3426: 3410: 3395: 3370: 3346: 3327: 3315: 3303:article on the 3277: 3249: 3242: 3241:, if not most, 3238: 3225: 3219: 3213: 3199: 3190: 3188:Many scientists 3187: 3174: 3108: 3067:Washington Post 3057: 3048:article on the 3020:Washington Post 3001:Washington Post 2957: 2364:U.S. v. Windsor 2355: 2311: 2306: 2277: 2181: 2112: 2090: 1998: 1760: 1753: 1748: 1708: 1653: 1649: 1625: 1565: 1468: 1442: 1401: 1041: 1017: 790: 674: 519: 496: 450: 413: 403: 377:High-importance 360: 357: 354: 351: 350: 340: 308:High‑importance 307: 278:High-importance 261: 258: 255: 252: 251: 243:WikiProject Law 233: 226: 207:High‑importance 206: 160: 157: 154: 151: 150: 149: 135:Become a Member 101: 96: 94: 74: 42: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3790: 3788: 3780: 3779: 3774: 3769: 3764: 3759: 3754: 3749: 3744: 3739: 3734: 3724: 3723: 3696:for discussion 3682: 3676: 3665:Dr. Fleischman 3657: 3654: 3633: 3632: 3625: 3578: 3577: 3569:Added archive 3547: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3498: 3497: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3467: 3458: 3454: 3451: 3442: 3435: 3432: 3423: 3419: 3416: 3407: 3404: 3401: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3379: 3376: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3355: 3352: 3324: 3309:New York Times 3301:New York Times 3297:New York Times 3293: 3292: 3291: 3286: 3260: 3247: 3235: 3223: 3209: 3197: 3184: 3172: 3158: 3148: 3142: 3132: 3129:levonorgestrel 3122: 3116: 3101:contraceptives 3086: 3079: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3063: 3054:New York Times 3046:New York Times 3042: 3035:New York Times 3028:New York Times 3016:New York Times 3012: 2997:New York Times 2978: 2977: 2970: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2451: 2450: 2354: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2339:Dr. Fleischman 2310: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2275: 2274: 2159: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2110: 2109: 2099: 2098: 2092: 2091: 2080:Dr. Fleischman 2070:Collapsed per 2069: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2052:Dr. Fleischman 2042: 2041: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1962: 1959: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1878: 1874: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1660:128.250.86.130 1648: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1598: 1597: 1564: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1544: 1543: 1533: 1532: 1527: 1526: 1521: 1520: 1507: 1506: 1490:The RFRA says 1467: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1441: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1366: 1359: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1223: 1203: 1195: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1095: 1094: 1074: 1073: 1040: 1037: 1036: 1035: 980: 979: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 789: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 673: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 634: 605: 604: 603: 602: 580: 579: 518: 515: 468: 467: 463: 462: 461: 460: 455:comment added 420:99.164.161.151 402: 399: 397: 393: 392: 389: 388: 385: 384: 373: 367: 366: 364: 323: 311: 310: 302: 290: 289: 286: 285: 274: 268: 267: 265: 239: 238: 222: 210: 209: 201: 189: 188: 185: 184: 177:Low-importance 173: 167: 166: 164: 148: 147: 142: 137: 132: 125: 123:Template Usage 119: 107: 106: 90: 78: 77: 75:Low‑importance 69: 57: 56: 50: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3789: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3768: 3765: 3763: 3760: 3758: 3755: 3753: 3750: 3748: 3745: 3743: 3740: 3738: 3735: 3733: 3730: 3729: 3727: 3720: 3719: 3716: 3715: 3711: 3709: 3708: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3688: 3681: 3677: 3675: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3655: 3653: 3652: 3647: 3642: 3641: 3630: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3610: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3586: 3581: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3551: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3528: 3527: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3507: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3485: 3473: 3468: 3464: 3459: 3448: 3443: 3439: 3429: 3424: 3413: 3408: 3398: 3393: 3392: 3390: 3386: 3373: 3368: 3367: 3365: 3361: 3349: 3344: 3343: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3330: 3325: 3323: 3318: 3313: 3312: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3283: 3282: 3274: 3273: 3271: 3268: 3267: 3265: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3252: 3233: 3228: 3216: 3207: 3202: 3193: 3182: 3177: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3156: 3152: 3146: 3140: 3136: 3130: 3126: 3120: 3114: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3093:fertilization 3090: 3085: 3080: 3077: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2975: 2971: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2964: 2954: 2952: 2950: 2946: 2945:Adamson v. CA 2940: 2938: 2933: 2931: 2926: 2923: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2899: 2896: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2801: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2745: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2619: 2614: 2609: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2582: 2581: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2547: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2512: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2499: 2494: 2489: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2477: 2473: 2468: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2432: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2385: 2381: 2375: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2319:68.234.135.52 2317: 2308: 2301: 2300:RBC * * * 2298: 2295: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284:208.83.74.242 2281: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2256: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2211: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2188:208.83.74.242 2185: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2156: 2155: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119:208.83.74.242 2116: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2068: 2067: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2010: 2008: 2001: 1995: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1781: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1758: 1756: 1751: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1706:Too many pix? 1705: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1690:46.139.93.230 1687: 1686: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1646: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1632:208.83.74.242 1629: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1618: 1615: 1612: 1606: 1604: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583:24.57.210.141 1579: 1575: 1571: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1534: 1529: 1528: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1477:24.57.210.141 1474: 1465: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1447:71.51.129.193 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1422:Bush v. Gore, 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1406:71.51.129.193 1398: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1367: 1364: 1360: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1257: 1252: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1217: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1052: 1047: 1045: 1038: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024:208.83.74.242 1021: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1010: 1008: 1002: 1000: 995: 993: 992:in its bylaws 989: 985: 977: 976: 969: 965: 961: 956: 951: 950: 949: 945: 941: 936: 935: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 913: 912: 911: 910: 906: 902: 896: 895: 891: 887: 873: 869: 865: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 846: 845: 844: 840: 836: 831: 827: 822: 821: 820: 816: 812: 807: 806: 805: 804: 800: 796: 775: 771: 767: 762: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 742: 741: 740: 736: 732: 728: 727: 726: 722: 718: 714: 713: 712: 708: 704: 700: 695: 694: 693: 692: 689: 685: 682: 679: 671: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652: 647: 646: 641: 640: 635: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 608: 607: 606: 601: 597: 593: 588: 584: 583: 582: 581: 578: 574: 570: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 550: 545: 544: 539: 538: 537: 536: 532: 528: 524: 516: 514: 512: 508: 504: 503:208.83.74.242 500: 493: 490: 488: 483: 481: 475: 473: 465: 464: 458: 454: 448: 444: 440: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 429: 425: 421: 417: 410: 408: 400: 398: 382: 378: 372: 369: 368: 365: 348: 343: 338: 337:Supreme Court 334: 330: 329: 324: 321: 317: 316: 312: 306: 303: 300: 296: 283: 279: 273: 270: 269: 266: 249: 245: 244: 236: 230: 225: 223: 220: 216: 215: 211: 205: 202: 199: 195: 182: 178: 172: 169: 168: 165: 152:United States 146: 143: 141: 138: 136: 133: 131: 130: 126: 124: 121: 120: 117: 113: 112: 104: 93: 91: 88: 84: 83: 79: 73: 72:United States 70: 67: 63: 58: 54: 48: 40: 36: 31: 30: 27: 19: 3713: 3706: 3705: 3684: 3659: 3656:Implantation 3637: 3634: 3609:source check 3588: 3582: 3579: 3552: 3549: 3437: 3333: 3321: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3280: 3263: 3255: 3231: 3205: 3180: 3164: 3160: 3150: 3134: 3124: 3105:implantation 3083: 3082: 3070: 3066: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3038: 3034: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2979: 2972:"Many" is a 2958: 2948: 2944: 2941: 2936: 2934: 2929: 2927: 2924: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2900: 2897: 2879: 2846: 2843:conservative 2842: 2799: 2669:conservative 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659:majority is 2656: 2616: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2566:conservative 2565: 2545: 2510: 2498:conservative 2497: 2492: 2487: 2476:conservative 2475: 2471: 2470:calling the 2467:conservative 2466: 2462:conservative 2461: 2458:conservative 2457: 2434: 2409: 2405: 2403: 2398: 2394: 2388: 2383: 2380:conservative 2379: 2376: 2372:conservative 2371: 2367: 2363: 2360:conservative 2359: 2356: 2312: 2299: 2296: 2278:— Preceding 2276: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2254: 2250: 2248:that rare). 2246: 2243: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2207: 2203: 2200: 2182:— Preceding 2180: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2160: 2113:— Preceding 2111: 2103: 2100: 2047: 2011: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1965: 1954: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1839: 1783:appropriate. 1779: 1754: 1746: 1731:- Just your 1709: 1654:— Preceding 1652:qualified. 1650: 1626:— Preceding 1619: 1616: 1610: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1574:list I found 1569: 1566: 1538: 1516: 1512: 1472: 1469: 1443: 1421: 1402: 1369: 1362: 1291: 1254: 1249: 1226: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1199: 1136: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1079: 1054: 1049: 1042: 1018:— Preceding 1011: 1006: 1003: 998: 996: 991: 987: 983: 981: 955:closely held 954: 920: 916: 897: 882: 829: 825: 791: 760: 699:closely held 698: 675: 649: 643: 637: 619: 611: 586: 565: 562:Rhode Island 561: 553: 547: 542: 541: 522: 520: 497:— Preceding 494: 491: 486: 484: 479: 476: 471: 469: 451:— Preceding 438: 414:— Preceding 411: 406: 404: 396: 376: 347:project page 326: 277: 262:law articles 241: 176: 140:Project Talk 128: 109: 53:WikiProjects 26: 3056:front-page 3011:to omit it. 2974:weasel word 2937:Hobby Lobby 2930:Hobby Lobby 2851:KinkyLipids 2702:KinkyLipids 2591:KinkyLipids 2574:any bearing 2524:KinkyLipids 2493:Roe v. Wade 2488:Roe v. Wade 2415:KinkyLipids 2031:KinkyLipids 1970:KinkyLipids 1895:KinkyLipids 1891:Hobby Lobby 1873:aggression. 1813:KinkyLipids 1676:KinkyLipids 1578:ACA website 1426:KinkyLipids 1375:KinkyLipids 1296:KinkyLipids 1263:KinkyLipids 1231:KinkyLipids 1207:necessarily 1114:KinkyLipids 1110:has not yet 1106:Hobby Lobby 1102:Hobby Lobby 1058:KinkyLipids 960:KinkyLipids 925:KinkyLipids 864:KinkyLipids 835:KinkyLipids 766:KinkyLipids 731:KinkyLipids 703:KinkyLipids 656:Daniel Case 616:Hobby Lobby 569:KinkyLipids 564:instead of 248:legal field 3726:Categories 3646:Report bug 3155:copper IUD 3099:-approved 3089:conception 2995:The cited 2072:WP:SOAPBOX 2015:RedBeard48 1909:aggression 1729:Scalhotrod 558:wp:concise 443:RobertLM78 235:Law portal 3629:this tool 3622:this tool 3311:article: 2949:Korematsu 2511:generally 1893:opinion. 1883:abortion. 1780:look like 1755:Phightins 624:MZMcBride 3635:Cheers.— 3192:disagree 3151:ParaGard 3113:abortion 2916:Lawrence 2847:Burwell, 2618:MastCell 2580:MastCell 2410:ideology 2406:partisan 2280:unsigned 2184:unsigned 2115:unsigned 1966:Analysis 1887:Analysis 1656:unsigned 1628:unsigned 1549:Gaijin42 1311:Gaijin42 1278:Gaijin42 1020:unsigned 1007:employee 940:Gaijin42 901:Gaijin42 540:I think 499:unsigned 439:supposed 416:unsigned 335:and the 3559:my edit 3059:article 3009:WP:NPOV 2920:Windsor 2800:Burwell 2665:prevent 2657:Burwell 2613:tagging 2570:Burwell 2549:part.-- 2399:Windsor 2395:Windsor 2368:liberal 2334:Be bold 2141:Bahooka 1733:average 1200:Windsor 746:Bahooka 717:Bahooka 560:, e.g. 453:undated 379:on the 280:on the 179:on the 43:C-class 3707:BD2412 3456:surge. 3161:Mirena 3147:(IUDs) 3125:Plan B 2918:, and 2744:WP:BLP 1877:lines. 1737:(Talk) 1624:* * 1292:viable 1227:viable 1216:viable 1211:viable 1080:by far 1016:* * 999:et al. 984:et al. 688:Waldir 145:Alerts 49:scale. 3165:Skyla 2912:Romer 2908:Casey 2472:Smith 2435:Smith 1840:Smith 1570:might 886:DSatz 830:faith 795:DSatz 3669:talk 3661:BC07 3536:talk 3532:BC07 3517:talk 3506:BC07 3491:talk 3487:BC07 3362:the 3264:some 3239:many 3163:and 3135:ella 3018:and 3014:The 2999:and 2986:talk 2890:talk 2884:. -- 2855:talk 2803:fit. 2753:talk 2742:Our 2706:talk 2595:talk 2555:talk 2528:talk 2444:talk 2419:talk 2343:talk 2323:talk 2288:talk 2273:* * 2192:talk 2157:* * 2145:talk 2123:talk 2108:* * 2097:* * 2084:talk 2056:talk 2035:talk 2019:talk 1974:talk 1920:talk 1899:talk 1848:talk 1817:talk 1717:talk 1694:talk 1680:talk 1664:talk 1636:talk 1596:* * 1587:talk 1553:talk 1515:and 1500:talk 1481:talk 1451:talk 1430:talk 1410:talk 1379:talk 1330:talk 1315:talk 1300:talk 1282:talk 1267:talk 1235:talk 1173:talk 1118:talk 1088:talk 1062:talk 1028:talk 988:e.g. 978:* * 964:talk 944:talk 929:talk 921:I am 917:I am 905:talk 890:talk 868:talk 854:talk 839:talk 826:fact 815:talk 799:talk 770:talk 750:talk 735:talk 721:talk 707:talk 660:talk 628:talk 596:talk 573:talk 531:talk 507:talk 487:e.g. 466:* * 447:talk 424:talk 371:High 272:High 3603:RfC 3573:to 3513:wia 3332:." 3320:". 3254:." 3230:." 3204:." 3179:". 3097:FDA 2982:wia 2904:Roe 2886:agr 2749:agr 2661:not 2615:). 2551:agr 2546:Roe 2440:agr 1955:all 1916:agr 1844:agr 1713:agr 1611:all 1603:may 1496:agr 1326:agr 1169:agr 1084:agr 850:agr 811:agr 648:or 587:two 480:may 449:) 253:Law 204:Law 171:Low 3728:: 3671:) 3616:. 3611:}} 3607:{{ 3538:) 3519:) 3493:) 3391:: 3366:: 3342:: 3218:, 3159:◦ 3149:◦ 3143:• 3133:◦ 3123:◦ 3117:• 2988:) 2914:, 2892:) 2857:) 2755:) 2708:) 2597:) 2557:) 2530:) 2446:) 2421:) 2345:) 2337:-- 2325:) 2290:) 2194:) 2147:) 2125:) 2086:) 2058:) 2037:) 2021:) 1976:) 1922:) 1901:) 1850:) 1819:) 1749:Go 1727:-- 1719:) 1696:) 1682:) 1666:) 1638:) 1589:) 1555:) 1502:) 1483:) 1453:) 1432:) 1412:) 1381:) 1332:) 1317:) 1302:) 1284:) 1269:) 1237:) 1175:) 1120:) 1090:) 1064:) 1030:) 966:) 946:) 931:) 907:) 892:) 870:) 856:) 841:) 817:) 801:) 772:) 752:) 737:) 723:) 709:) 662:) 630:) 598:) 575:) 533:) 509:) 426:) 409:" 3714:T 3667:( 3648:) 3644:( 3631:. 3624:. 3534:( 3515:( 3508:: 3504:@ 3489:( 3234:: 3208:: 3195:. 3183:: 3171:) 3167:( 3157:) 3153:( 3141:) 3137:( 3127:( 3115:. 2984:( 2976:. 2959:: 2943:( 2888:( 2853:( 2751:( 2704:( 2610:) 2606:( 2593:( 2553:( 2526:( 2500:? 2478:. 2442:( 2417:( 2341:( 2321:( 2286:( 2190:( 2143:( 2121:( 2082:( 2054:( 2033:( 2017:( 1972:( 1918:( 1897:( 1846:( 1815:( 1761:! 1715:( 1692:( 1678:( 1662:( 1634:( 1585:( 1551:( 1519:. 1498:( 1479:( 1449:( 1428:( 1408:( 1377:( 1328:( 1313:( 1298:( 1280:( 1265:( 1233:( 1171:( 1116:( 1086:( 1060:( 1026:( 962:( 942:( 927:( 903:( 888:( 866:( 852:( 837:( 813:( 797:( 768:( 748:( 733:( 719:( 705:( 658:( 626:( 594:( 571:( 529:( 505:( 445:( 422:( 383:. 349:. 284:. 183:. 55:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index