Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
What Comes Now? Religious Liberty And The End Of Roe, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
What Comes Now? Religious Liberty And The End Of Roe, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
New York, NY – The Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, an academic think tank that conducts research and policy analysis on the complex ways in which religious liberty rights interact with other fundamental rights, has a number of materials that can help to shed light on three key issues around the possible end of Roe v. Wade in light of the draft Supreme Court opinion released yesterday.
Religious Liberty Challenges To Health Care In The Age Of Covid-19 – Supreme Court Arguments In Little Sisters Of The Poor V. Pennsylvania, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Religious Liberty Challenges To Health Care In The Age Of Covid-19 – Supreme Court Arguments In Little Sisters Of The Poor V. Pennsylvania, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments (telephonically) in the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employee health plans include contraception coverage, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. The case raises the important question of whether religious liberty rights can be used to limit access to health care at a time when the nation – and the world – is experiencing one of the worst global pandemics in human history. For this reason, the issues in this case take on special significance.
Professor Katherine Franke Joins An Amicus Brief In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania And New Jersey V. Trump, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Professor Katherine Franke Joins An Amicus Brief In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania And New Jersey V. Trump, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
On Monday, March 25th, Professor Katherine Franke, Faculty Director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, joined an amicus brief in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New Jersey v. Trump,* a challenge to two rules that exempt employers with religious or moral objections from compliance with the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act.
Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
In medical facilities across the country, doctors whose conscience would require them to perform a sterilization on a patient who requests one, offer truthful information about accessing abortion services, or provide comprehensive LGBTQ+ health care are forbidden from doing so by their employer. The conscience of such medical providers is entirely ignored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recently proposed rule that purports to “ensure that persons or entities” providing health care “are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate.” As explained in a comment submitted today by the Columbia …
Proposed New York State Health Regulation Contains Troubling Exemption: The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Responds To A Proposal On Abortion Access, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Proposed New York State Health Regulation Contains Troubling Exemption: The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Responds To A Proposal On Abortion Access, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
A proposed New York State regulation requiring insurance plans to cover “medically necessary” abortions contains a broad religious exemption that would undermine the state’s longstanding commitment to reproductive health. The exemption — which is not required by New York’s Constitution or laws — defines the term “religious employers” to include large nonprofits and even some for-profit companies. In the face of a national movement to enact anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice religious exemptions, the regulation would set a harmful precedent by accommodating religion at the expense of other fundamental liberty and equality rights.