On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court announced its decision to send back to the lower Courts of Appeals the seven cases consolidated in Zubik v. Burwell, which involved a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that religious non-profit employers must either cover contraceptives as part of their health plans or submit a form to their insurer or the Federal Government stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. Currently, when notice is provided by an employer to the insurer or the federal government, the employees are funneled into a system established to provide contraceptive coverage directly to the employees without further participation by the employers.
Since the Supreme Court declined to address Zubik on the merits, uncertainty regarding the rights of religious non-profit employers to object to currently covered health care benefits will remain. Most importantly, it remains unclear if religious non-profit employers can block access to mandated preventive care, including contraceptive care, but also to other health services they may object to such as vaccinations, HIV screening, mental health care, or gender transition services, by invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Despite the recently released Affordable Care Act “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities” regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, and do not include a religious exemption, further litigation as to how the mandates of the Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act interact may be forthcoming.
This course places Zubik in the context of previous religious expression and health law cases, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The course then discusses the unusual nature of the Supreme Court decision, as well as the case’s likely continued evolution. Lastly, the course focuses on the interplay between religious exemptions and health care law and policy, including discussing the new anti-discrimination regulations. This course is presented by Carmel Shachar, clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation.
The speaker was easy to listen to. I would invite her to do more
Interesting and timely. Accessible to those who are not constitutional law specialists.
Very even-handed and fair presentation
I appreciated her factual analysis of this topic
Carmel, should lead a class on how to make dry topics, interesting.
Very well presented.
The faculty member was very clear and comprehensive in her presentation
This was one of the more informative and well presented CLEs here. I really enjoyed this one. The presenter was very organized and knowledgeable!
Great course, I hope to see another follow up item as the topic progresses!
This was one of the better online CLEs I've taken in a long time. Presenter did a great job organizing a difficult topic. Thanks.
The instructor was very articulate. The material and lecture was very organized and useful for such a complex topic. Thank you!
Thank you for this superb presentation -- clear, thorough, and well-organized.
Excellent presenter. Extremely well-versed on the material
The presenter did a great job presenting a controversial topic in a balanced, informative fashion.
Very informative. Well presented.
Complicated issues were extremely well presented.
Outstanding presentation; one of the best I've attended.
Presenter did an excellent job of explaining and rephrasing difficult concepts. She was also engaging and professional.
One of the best presentations ever
Terrific program and delivery. Thanks!
great content and speaker