Late last month, Honorable Carole Jackson in the Eastern District of Missouri issued a forceful rebuke of the arguments being made by the various religious organizations that are filing lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services alleging that the birth control benefit infringes upon their religious liberty.
We have been hearing plenty about “religious liberty” lately. Now let’s see who’s using the term “religious liberty” in a novel way, trying to conceal a campaign of religious overreach.
The 2010 parental-notification law has been ruled constitutional, but it still may come up before the state Supreme Court.
Thirty lawsuits have been filed by corporations challenging the HHS regulation requiring that most health plans cover contraceptives. A survey of these cases yields some useful information as to what the “religious freedom” debate is all about.
Last year’s Supreme Court term may have been historic, but in many ways it was just a warm-up.
The federal government squares off with Indiana over Planned Parenthood funding as conservatives feel emboldened thanks to the health care reform ruling.
Given the nature of court appointments, gender alone is probably not the root of the unanimity. It could be partisanship speaking loud and clear.
Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate as our next Supreme Court Justice.
The fourth day of the Kagan hearings included – once again, guns, gays, abortion, and let me throw in judicial activism, because what’s a Supreme Court Justice hearing without cries of “judicial activism” after all?
Despite a long career in legal academia, Kagan has published very little and seems to have studiously avoided taking a stand on almost any controversial issue.
