State no longer funding circumcisions,
except religiously mandated ones
nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 2 13:14:45 PDT 2005
This looks like Locke v. Davey in reverse, no? Room for "play in the joints" between what the FEC permits and what the EC forbids? The purpose is to treat religious necessity and medical necessity equally, with both being preferred over non-necessary procedures.
Or, maybe it looks like a religious preference that violates the EC, because the state funds all religious circumsions (etc) but only medically-necessary secular circumsions.
But turn about is fair play, right, now that the skin is on the other...um...thing.
"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
Any thoughts on whether this is constitutional?
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
> ST. PAUL - The state's insurance programs for 670,000
> low-income Minnesotans no longer include coverage of Viagra,
> sex-change operations or circumcisions, unless required by
> one's religion [or medically necessary] . . . .
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw