Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

Hobby Lobby is a family-owned arts and crafts chain based in Oklahoma. The chain has a decidedly religious flavor–in its mission statement it says it is committed to “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” But now the company is under fire for a seemingly unethical move–smuggling ancient artifacts out of Iraq.

On Wednesday, Hobby Lobby and the Department of Justice reached a resolution that will require Hobby Lobby to pay $3 million and forfeit over 5,000 artifacts that it smuggled out of Iraq. The items include clay bullaes (clay balls with seals on the surface) and cuneiform tablets that were improperly labeled.

Here is a timeline of events that details the criminal activity based on court documents:

• In 2009, Hobby Lobby began collecting historically significant artifacts and documents.
• In July 2010, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green and a consultant met with antiquities dealers to inspect a potential sale of 5,548 distinct artifacts.
• Later that month, Hobby Lobby hired a cultural law expert to review the legal issues relevant to the acquisition.
• In October 2010, the cultural law expert warned Hobby Lobby’s in-house counsel that some of the items that Hobby Lobby was interested in purchasing might have been stolen from Iraq, and could be seized by customs, leading to criminal charges.
• In December 2010, Hobby Lobby purchases the artifacts for $1.6 million.
• Over the next year, the antiquities dealers and Hobby Lobby imported the artifacts under false pretenses. For instance, package labels indicated the goods originated from Israel and Turkey when they actually originated from Iraq.
• In January 2011, five shipments containing artifacts were detained by U.S. customs.

By reaching a settlement, Hobby Lobby accepts full responsibility for its actions in the scandal. In a statement on the matter, Green said:

We should have exercised more oversight and carefully questioned how the acquisitions were handled. Hobby Lobby has cooperated with the government throughout its investigation, and with the announcement of today’s settlement agreement, is pleased the matter has been resolved.

U.S. Customs has not commented on what will happen to the artifacts it seized from Hobby Lobby.

This is not the first time that Hobby Lobby has been on the front page due to a legal issue. In 2014 the store was part of the landmark Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby argued that due to their religious beliefs as a corporation they did not have to provide female employees with free contraception. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, expanding the rights of religious freedom to cover corporations as well.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Hobby Lobby: Specializing in Arts, Crafts, and Ancient Artifact Smuggling appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between church and state is moving from the playground to the Supreme Court. Five years ago, Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for money from the state so that it could repair a playground used by students in the church’s learning center. Because children had been scraping their knees and elbows on the gravel, Trinity wanted to cover the area with a rubber surface.

Because Missouri’s constitution does not allow public funds to support religious organizations, it rejected the church’s application for a grant. The church sued in response, insisting that it should have been eligible to receive the grant because the playground upgrade did not serve any religious purposes. After losing in federal district court and appellate court, Trinity’s case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which plans to hear arguments starting on Wednesday, April 19.

What the case boils down to is whether or not the provision in Missouri’s constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits the government from encroaching on the free exercise of religion.

Now, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has announced his plans to undo the state’s policy that prohibits tax dollars from going toward religious groups. Jeffrey Mittman, the director of Missouri’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, is among Greitens’ critics who said that his move violates the state’s constitution.

Greitens’ new policy will not reverse the state’s refusal to give Trinity the grant. However, because it settles future issues involving religious institutions applying for grants, it could mean that the Supreme Court will no longer see the need to hear the Trinity case.

But one of the church’s attorneys, David Cortman, insisted that the case is still relevant because Greitens’ move does not “resolve the discriminatory actions that were taken” by the state.

Having the recently confirmed Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch weigh in on the matter could benefit the church. While a judge for a U.S. appeals court in Colorado, Gorsuch argued that religious freedom protected the store chain Hobby Lobby from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that it would have to offer its employees free birth control coverage.

And, depending on how narrowly the Supreme Court rules, the outcome of the case could have implications in other parts of the country as well–particularly in the 38 states that currently uphold Blaine Amendments, laws that prevent their governments from giving any financial aid to religiously-affiliated institutions.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How a Church Playground Caused a Dispute Over Religious Freedom appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday evening, the process of filling the vacant Supreme Court seat began, when President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away last February. At 49, Gorsuch is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in 25 years and, if confirmed, would restore the 5-to-4 conservative bent of the court, which has been ideologically split since Scalia’s passing.

Gorsuch, a Denver native who practiced law in Washington D.C. and was in the same class as President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, is widely seen as fitting the right-wing mold of Scalia. He has served for nearly a decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, and earlier in his career, clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here are five cases which provide a window into Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy:

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius

One of the mandates in the Affordable Care Act is that employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers contraceptives. In 2013, the owner of an Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts chain, Hobby Lobby, challenged that mandate at the 10th Circuit appeals court. David Green argued that the ACA’s mandate infringed upon his religious liberty; providing health insurance that covered contraceptives went against his Christian faith.

Gorsuch, and four of his colleagues, agreed, and Green won the challenge. The Supreme Court later affirmed the 10th Circuit’s ruling. “As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong,” Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion.

Yellowbear v. Lampert

Andrew Yellowbear, an inmate at a prison in Wyoming, sued the director of the Wyoming Department of Corrections for denying him access to the prison’s sweat lodge. As part of his Native American heritage and religious beliefs Yellowbear, serving a life sentence for murdering his daughter, wished to use the sweat lodge for prayer and meditation. In 2014, Gorsuch and his colleagues at the 10th Circuit court agreed with the plaintiff, and reversed an earlier district court ruling.

Writing in the majority opinion, Gorsuch said: “While those convicted of crime in our society lawfully forfeit a great many civil liberties, Congress has (repeatedly) instructed that the sincere exercise of religion should not be among them — at least in the absence of a compelling reason. In this record we can find no reason like that.”

A.M. v. Holmes

In May 2011, a seventh grade student in Albuquerque, New Mexico interrupted a gym class by making fake burping sounds. He was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. The student’s mother brought a case against the school’s principle and the police officer to a district court in New Mexico. The judges ruled in favor of the defendants, and last summer, the case wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The justices confirmed the decision of the lower court, and sided with the defendants–the school and police. But Gorsuch disagreed with the majority opinion. “If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what’s a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal’s office? Maybe,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. “Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.”

American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that memorial crosses that ran along a highway in Utah were unconstitutional as an “endorsement of religion” by the government. Gorsuch and three of his fellow justices disagreed with the majority on the case. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011.

In his dissenting opinion, Gorsuch cited a Supreme Court precedent that found roadside memorial crosses “need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.” He also said the court’s finding that a “reasonable observer” might not be able to read the names on the crosses as they drove past, and thus that they could interpret the crosses as a government endorsement of Christianity is a moot point. “Most Utahans, the record shows, don’t even revere the cross,” he added.

Direct Marketing Association Inc. v. Brohl

This case centers around a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which found that if an online retailer does not have a physical presence in a state (like Amazon), it is not required to collect a state sales tax. But an online retailer that does have a physical presence in a state (like Best Buy), is required to collect a sales tax.

Colorado enacted a law in 2010 that forced online retailers, no matter their brick-and-mortar presence in the state, to collect a state sales tax. Direct Marketing Association, a group of businesses, challenged the law in court. Last February, the case ended up in the 10th Circuit appeals court in Denver. The court reversed district court rulings in favor of the DMA, and found that the law does not “discriminate against nor does it unduly burden interstate commerce.” Gorsuch concurred.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: Five Key Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute save, a U.S. District Judge struck down Mississippi House Bill 1523 late Thursday night to prevent it from going into effect on the first of July. After Mississippi residents spent several months in shock over discriminatory policies disguised as religious liberty bills, it’s a little surprising that there hasn’t been more buzz surrounding this act.

The Mississippi Bill, known as the Religious Accommodation Act, allows businesses to deny service to members of the LGBT community because of religious beliefs. Essentially, the bill would have given members of the community who do not support homosexuality the right to discriminate against those people if they believe serving them violates their religious beliefs. It would allow business people in foster care, counseling, school administration, facility rentals, and wedding services to act based on their religious beliefs without repercussions for denying service to customers based on sexuality.

Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the presider in the case against this bill by the Mississippi Center for Justice and Campaign for Southern Equality, ruled in a 60-page decision that this specific religious law was not permissible under the Constitution. While there are some laws that protect religion in the state of Mississippi, Judge Reeves acknowledged that other laws protect the practice of all religions. This specific bill would only be protecting certain beliefs of certain citizens of a religion. He wrote:

If three specific beliefs are ‘protected by this act,’ it follows that every other religious belief a citizen holds is not protected by the act.

Not to mention that, if the bill were to go into effect, it would be discriminatory against members of the community:

A broad-based system by which L.G.B.T. persons and unmarried persons can be subjected to differential treatment based solely on their status.

At the end of the day, protecting one religion over all others is not constitutionally sound.

The pro-LGBT groups that have been supporting the repeal of this bill celebrated this morning as the decision was announced.

.@HRC commends Federal Judge’s decision to block implementation of Mississippi’s harmful HB 1523 #RepealHB1523 pic.twitter.com/c4b9kSVr5N

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: We won! 60-page order from Judge Reeves stops enforcement of #HB1523 in Mississippi.

— Southern Equality (@CSElive) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Implementation of HB1523 in Mississippi #RepealHB1523 https://t.co/nvZnrVvP6m pic.twitter.com/ppHJHqWgjR

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

Robert McDuff, one of the attorneys working against the bill, summed it up quite nicely:

The federal court’s decision recognizes that religious freedom can be preserved along with equal rights for all people regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Being hateful and discriminatory toward others is not a right guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, no matter what their race, sexual orientation, gender, or religion is. Judge Reeves putting the kibosh on the Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act recognizes that fact and moves the state one step forward in the fight for equality.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act Struck Down appeared first on Law Street.

The Army has taken a step toward a more inclusive work environment this past week. Decorated Captain Simratpal Singh was finally granted the right to fully practice his religious faith while serving in the army. Captain Singh practices the Sikh faith, in addition to 500,000 other Americans, according to the Sikh Coalition. As a Sikh, Singh wears his unshorn hair in a turban and has a beard. Up until April 1, 2016, he did not have the long-term religious accommodation to wear a turban and keep his hair unshorn–but that just changed.

Singh’s story begins 10 years ago at West Point. In his first year he had to shave his head and beard in order to continue his education. In the New York Times, Dave Philips interviewed Singh about this experience a decade ago. Singh said,

As terrible as it sounds when I showed up at West Point, I accepted defeat. But I promised myself I would find a way back to my roots while also serving my country. I knew I would figure out a way.

Singh went on to graduate with an honors degree, serve as a Army ranger in Afghanistan, and earn a Bronze Star as well as an Army Achievement Award. The year after Singh graduated from West Point the Army began allowing Sikhs to serve with turbans, beards, and unshorn hair through a special waiver. Once Singh graduated with his Masters in electrical engineering last fall he told his commander he intended to report to his next assignment with his turban, unshorn hair, and beard. He then submitted a written request for religious accommodation. Assistant Secretary of the Army Debra Wada granted him permission to wear the turban, unshorn hair, and beard on December 09, 2015 in a letter, but only on a temporary basis. In the letter Wada wrote,

You may wear a beard, turban, and uncut hair in a neat and tidy manner that presents a professional and well groomed appearance. The bulk of your hair, beard, or turban may not be such that it impairs your ability to wear the Kevlar helmet or other protective equipment or impedes your ability to operate your assigned weapon, military equipment, or machinery…This religious accommodation may be revoked if required by military necessity.

What makes this scenario particularly incredulous is that Sikhs served in the U.S military from WW1 through 1981 without restrictions on their religious articles of faith. Sikhs already enrolled in the services before the 1981 restriction were grandfathered. The Army claims the turban and hair could impede the soldiers from fully securing gas masks on themselves, or other protective gear, yet military divisions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia allow Sikhs to serve without any restrictions.

Court rules in favor of Sikh soldier. Breaking on military religious discrimination case: https://t.co/Z0rcvqko9l pic.twitter.com/abRlt3vOqA

— Sikh Coalition (@sikh_coalition) March 4, 2016

In early March, Singh went to court to protest the additional gas mask test the Army required of him to make a final decision on his religious accommodation request. Singh had already done gas mask testing with his unit, so he argued the additional test targeted him because of his religious articles of faith. He filed a restraining order under “unusual or discriminatory testing,” and U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in his favor.

Singh achieved his religious accommodation last week with the help of the Sikh Coalition, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and law firm of McDemott Will and Emery. It’s a huge win for Singh and there is solace in this victory for the Sikh community. He told New York Times,

Throughout the Army’s history, it’s been slow to move but has always moved in the right direction. I think that happened here. It only makes sense that our military would reflect the diversity of our nation. Kids like me used to be told you can be anything you want to be, but you can’t serve your country in uniform. That is no longer the case.

However, Singh’s victory does not overpower the fact that any other Sikh wishing to wear his turban will have to go through a petition process for religious accommodation. Freedom of religion is, in essence, as old as our armed forces–it’s about time that was recognized.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sikh Army Captain Wins Religious Freedom Victory appeared first on Law Street.

At a news conference on Monday, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) announced his intention to veto a controversial bill that would provide certain protections to opponents of same-sex marriage. House Bill 757 would allow religious leaders, faith-based organizations, and businesses to exercise their freedom of religion and refuse to provide services to the LGBT community, as well as deny employment to LGBT individuals.

The bill was passed by Georgia Legislature earlier this month, but was rejected by the Governor, who stated Monday:

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the ‘hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.

This decision comes after pressures from the business community to veto the bill, including many film and television studios who threatened to boycott the state for filming if the law was passed. Among the companies that threatened to withdraw were Walt Disney Co., Marvel Studios, CBS, AMC, and many others. Additionally, the NFL stated that it would pull Atlanta out of consideration to host Super Bowl LIII in 2019, an event that would surely bring revenue to the state.

Despite this, Deal stated that he did “not respond well to insults and threats,”and cited Constitutional and moral principles for his decision to veto.

If this legislation sounds familiar, it may be because many similar “religious liberty” bills have been popping up recently in states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indiana. It also comes in the wake of the passing of a contentious new law in North Carolina that has been widely criticized for being “anti-LGBT.” The next state to keep an eye on is Mississippi, whose House just passed a bill that supposedly protects religious liberty by prohibiting discrimination against anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Governor Deal’s veto shows a break away from the positions of many of the other conservative governors faced with similar legislation. Whether or not this was a decision based on economic interests or if it was truly about the “character of Georgia,” as the Governor claimed, can be debated;  it was, however, ultimately a win for LGBT rights in the state.

This fight isn’t over yet, however; while the case in Georgia has ben settled, those who believe that their “religious liberties” are in conflict with same-sex marriage will continue to wage their battles in state capitals all over the country.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Georgia Governor Strikes Down Religious Liberty Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Watch the lively exchange below:

Page, who came out last year, particularly focused her questioning on protections for LGBTQ people, bringing up issues like the fact that gay and trans employees are legally able to fired by their employers in many places. However throughout the exchange, Cruz showed a dogged unwillingness to acknowledge that protections for LGBTQ individuals could be improved, instead focusing almost unilaterally on the concept that Christians are being persecuted in the United States for their faith. He stated: “Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith.”

While Cruz probably isn’t used to being confronted by popular young actresses, the answers he gave are consistent with a point of view that he (and some of the other candidates) have been sticking to resolutely–the idea that the conversation about LGBTQ protections should take a backseat to one about religious persecution of Christians. Now that acceptance of LGBTQ Americans has reached an all-time high, and gay marriage has been legalized via Supreme Court decision, arguments about “religious freedom” appear to be the new hot topic that only narrowly disguises the disgust Cruz has for LGBTQ protections.

But it’s a ridiculous argument. No one is arguing that Christians should be “persecuted” for not supporting LGBTQ rights–unless you define persecution as ridiculously narrowly as Cruz does. At the “Rally for Religious Liberty” he hosted after the barbecue where had the run in with Page, he featured various citizens who had supposedly had their religious liberties trampled upon by the government. These included couples who were fined amounts like $1000 or $5000 for not serving gay couples at their businesses. There’s also the case of a fire chief who was forced to step down in Georgia after he self-published a book calling homosexuality a “sexual perversion,” although the mayor pointed out that it was his overall conduct–including the fact that he didn’t have the permission to publish the book–that led to his termination.

But none of those things are strictly persecution. Persecution is defined by the International Criminal Court as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” While fines and firings are unfortunate, they don’t appear to fit the definition of Christian persecution.

As Rick Unger wrote in a Forbes op-ed:

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

Yet religious persecution remains what Cruz is so worried about, to the point that he couldn’t even have a sensical argument with Page without bringing it up. We should strive to ensure that religious liberty is always protected; regardless of whether you think it’s currently under attack right now. But it’s not a mutually exclusive conversation. Other aspects of the debate over LGBTQ rights that Cruz brought up to Page, such as ISIS’s execution of gay people, deserve recognition. But until Cruz recognizes that we can talk about religious freedom and LGBTQ rights without sacrificing either, there’s going to be a lot more awkward barbecues.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Is teaching yoga in school a violation of students’ and parents’ religious rights? An appeals court in San Diego says “No,” deciding to uphold a ruling against a lawsuit brought by a California family who claimed yoga promoted Hinduism and inhibited Christianity, reports the Guardian.

According to the article, Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock and their two children attempted to stop the Encinitas Union School District from teaching yoga as a gym class, because they felt it was a gateway to Hinduism, and thus inhibiting Christianity. A lawyer for the family, Dean Broyles, stated:

No other court in the past 50 years has allowed public school officials to lead children in formal religious rituals like the Hindu liturgy of praying to, bowing to, and worshipping the sun god,

Despite that argument, the court saw things differently. The court decided in a 3-0 opinion that:

While the practice of yoga may be religious in some contexts, yoga classes as taught in the district are, as the trial court determined, ‘devoid of any religious, mystical, or spiritual trappings.’

The district said it was teaching yoga in a secular way as a means to promote strength, flexibility, and balance. Paul V Carelli IV, a lawyer for the district, reiterated that there were “no rituals occurring in the classroom and no one was worshipping the sun or leading Hindu rites.”

Thanks to Indiana Governor Mike Pence and his “anti-gay bill,” there’s been a lot of national controversy in recent weeks regarding the protection of citizens’ rights to religious freedom. While helping to prevent individuals from being forced to violate their religious beliefs is ultimately a good thing, it becomes a problem when people begin to use it as a defense for banning rather innocuous forms of exercise. While Pence and others hammer out the details of their religious bills, lets hope they at least leave yoga out of the equation.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Court: Yoga Classes Allowed in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

A Colorado High School is being sued for denying a student group the ability to gather for prayer. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that describes itself as a non-profit legal organization advocating for the free practice of faith, is suing the school district along with the principal and assistant principal of Pine Creek High School. They allegedly stopped a Christian student group from holding group prayers on the grounds of separation of church and state, Reuters reported. The Alliance says they are violating the students’ First Amendment rights.

The Alliance said in a news release that the informal prayer group would meet to pray, sing, and discuss religion in an unoccupied choir room during a free period, when students are supposedly allowed to meet up with friends and hang out on school grounds. Senior Chase Windebank contacted the Alliance after he unsuccessfully appealed to Principal Kolette Back about the ban, who told him that they could only hold group prayers before or after school, but not during school.

The Alliance then sent a letter in October to Colorado’s Academy School District 20 arguing that Pine Creek is violating the prayer group’s First Amendment rights by restricting their religious freedom. The district responded by saying that no student group is technically allowed to meet during school time. On Friday, the Alliance filed a First Amendment-based suit anyway, saying Windebank’s group should be able to pray freely during the free period.

Public schools themselves are not allowed to hold sanctioned prayers because of the separation of church and state outlined in the First amendment. But Windebank’s group is supposedly informal, thus the group’s prayers aren’t technically school-sanctioned. One could say that since students are free to hang out freely during the free period, they should be allowed to meet to pray. One could also say that for a public school to allow a prayer group to go on violates the separation of church and state. But technically the state (by way of Pine Creek High School) has nothing to do with the prayer group. It’s just Windebank and his friends.

The Pine Creek case may be debatable, but it’s only a small story in a larger issue. The separation of church and state is a principle of secularism that can inadvertently lead to misguided policies that ironically go against secularism. An example of this phenomenon is France’s laws banning conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and banning veils that cover the face in any public place. The laws have been seen as de facto bans specifically on Muslim headwear for women, such as the niqab and the hijab. Proponents have defended the laws as protecting French identity and values, while others say they obstruct religious freedom.

The irony is that secularism and the separation of church and state mean that governments are neutral toward religion. Just like they can’t sponsor religious practices, they also can’t hinder them. It means no religion, not anti-religion. So when it comes to Pine Creek High School’s ban on Windebank’s prayer group, the question is whether or not by asserting the separation of church and state, it means that the school is actually restricting students’ freedom. The separation of church and state, at its core, never requires citizens to give up their freedoms. The prayer group was initially asked by the principals to stop meeting during school hours because what it was doing was religious. By doing that, the school could inadvertently be going against the very principle of separation. Whether or not that’s true, the lawsuit will decide.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado School Prayer Ban: Limiting Religious Freedom? appeared first on Law Street.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Christians and atheists this summer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS for allowing a church to preach about political issues during services. As religious organizations like churches can have tax-exempt status, they are forbidden from making recommendations about political candidates. While the atheists’ suit was settled, the debate remains far from over. The intersection of American religion and politics is complicated to say the least. From personal appeals to Supreme Court cases, it is hard to find more controversial issues than those involving both church and state. But we should not ignore the topic; rather, it should be tackled head on.

Anti-religious sentiment, or at least sentiment against religion in the public sphere, is alive and virulent. David Silverman, the President of the American Atheists, said that the American “political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance. Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. …There is no place for any of that in the political system.”

The American Atheists are at least 4,000 members strong; the FFRF has over 19,000 members who subscribe to the belief that “[t]he history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.” Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Betty Friedan, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may disagree. American slavery was countered by devout abolitionists like Sojourner Truth. The movement would not have been the same had it not been for those leaders who saw slavery as simply not Christian. The British colonies in America partially owe their origins to the religious movement of the day. People “free from religion” cannot be called superior in Western progressive movements.

Atheism itself is not the issue. But claiming a moral superiority over religious people based solely on their religiousness is a mistake. This extends to the political sphere. Not because any nation should necessarily adopt theocratic tendencies, but because we should treat religion as a social institution rather than a political taboo. Marriage, education, families, and the economy are each social institutions brought up frequently in political discussions. Beyond that, some of the most popular rhetoric connects different institutions to one another; the White House website says that “President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America.” Republican Marco Rubio’s website claims that “Senator Rubio believes there are simple ideas that Washington should pursue in order to improve education in America and prepare our children for the jobs of tomorrow.” Families, jobs, children, and education are all important in American society. They can also be highly personal and emotional when included in our political discourse; what really makes them so different from religion as a social institution?

To the liberals, even if you don’t buy into the idea that religion is an equally important social institution to others, you cannot deny that it shapes America’s politics, and therefore it deserves discussion. Every American president has been Christian and male, but could any liberal be taken seriously while arguing that we can’t talk about gender discrimination in our politics? Barack Obama is the only Black president of America’s forty four, but what Democrat could claim that we can’t talk about race in our politics? In this way, there is a deep hypocrisy in the liberal canon. Further, if religion in politics is shunned by everyone except for Christian conservatives, then the conversation will be dominated by them alone.

To the conservatives, look at the statistics. The Pew Research center shows that people who fall under the group “Protestant/Other Christian” (distinguished by Pew from Catholics and Mormons) voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama at a rate of 57 percent to 42 percent. This disparity is actually wider than it was during the 2008 election in which John McCain received 54 percent of the same group to Obama’s 45 percent. Jews in 2012 voted for Obama over Romney at a rate of 69 percent to 30 percent. The widest gaps are those within the groups “Religiously unaffiliated” and “Other faiths” who voted for Obama-Romney at rates of 70 percent – 26 percent and 74 percent – 23 percent, respectively. Reaching out to Latinos and Blacks is proving to be difficult, but there are plenty of non-Christian groups that the Republican party has largely overlooked.

Religion isn’t entirely absent from the political conversation, but where it is present, its place is static and stale. MSNBC will face off right-wing Christians who lambaste abortion and gay marriage against level-headed leftists. FOX News will pit religious people claiming family values against out-of-touch academics. When liberals eschew religious political discussion and conservatives only make room for their Christian constituents, the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. There is not only a need to have bring religion into the rest of our political discussion — to have faith in politics –but to remove it from its stereotypical and often misrepresentative position. Freedom of speech and religious freedom should flourish together with a substantial discussion that allows America to have faith in our politics.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Having Faith in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/faith-politics/feed/ 4 23714 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/hobby-lobby-wants-to-remove-the-corporate-veil-and-your-birth-control-coverage/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/hobby-lobby-wants-to-remove-the-corporate-veil-and-your-birth-control-coverage/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:28:30 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=13640

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control. Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either. So, keep your legs […]

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/hobby-lobby-wants-to-remove-the-corporate-veil-and-your-birth-control-coverage/feed/ 4 13640 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/brewers-choice-why-the-veto-was-the-only-choice/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/brewers-choice-why-the-veto-was-the-only-choice/#respond Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:46:12 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=12407

A new bill placed on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s desk had me looking at the calendar to make sure we’re still living in 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014 the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that would allow companies to deny services to gays and others on ‘religious grounds’. Other Arizonians, despite their conservatism, […]

The post Brewer’s Choice: Why the Veto Was the Only Option appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

A new bill placed on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s desk had me looking at the calendar to make sure we’re still living in 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014 the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that would allow companies to deny services to gays and others on ‘religious grounds’. Other Arizonians, despite their conservatism, spoke out against the measure, and various groups lobbied the governor to veto the bill. Both of Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, tweeted that they hoped Brewer would veto the measure. Thankfully, the veto came on Wednesday, February 26.

It seems unusual for an executive to veto legislation coming from a legislature dominated by their  own party. Arizona’s government is dominated by the GOP, both in the state legislature as well in the governor’s office. However, this was no ordinary bill: in fact, even some of the original supporters and drafters were having second thoughts about the potential consequences of the radical legislation. They noted that the bill’s final product was not what they originally intended and believed that its passage would cause the state “immeasurable harm.” 

Here are three reasons why it is important that Brewer vetoed the bill: 

1. It’s just bad business.

If the law passed, Arizona could have lost out on bringing new business and capital to the state. Representatives from Apple and American Airlines, two major companies that planned to build new operations in Arizona, wrote to Brewer to express deep concern about the bill’s effects and stated that they would relocate their new facilities elsewhere. And there was potential for many more companies to react the same way. 

Governor Brewer’s state had already experienced economic backlash due to the implementation of another controversial policy. After the state passed its notorious immigration law in 2010, Arizona’s economy lost about $140 million in business and tourism revenue. Moreover, the state is slated to host next year’s Superbowl, but the NFL has already publicly criticized the bill and could potentially threaten relocation of the game. Again, this wouldn’t be the first time — Arizona lost its ability to host the 1993 Superbowl because it failed to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a national holiday. Both of these experiences showed Brewer the economic danger of passing controversial legislation.

2. The bill misinterpreted religious freedom.

Supporters of the bill, SB-1062, argued that it was intended to better protect religious freedom. Doug Napier, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, commented after the veto: “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.” However, the grounds on which the legislation’s supporters argued that the bill enhanced personal religious freedom are not supported. If enacted into law, the bill would have changed Arizona’s religious exercise clause to allow citizens and businesses to refuse services to a specific group of people.

The drafters of the bill incorrectly applied the notion of freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans to freely practice their beliefs without persecution or discrimination. What freedom of religion was not intended for, however, was the imposition of one’s religious beliefs on another. It is understood that practitioners of some religions may oppose homosexuality due to the teachings of their faith, but that does not mean that services can be denied to gay Americans because of someone’s religious beliefs. The fact that someone identifies as anything other than heterosexual should not impact someone else’s practice of religion, and therefore to say that freedom of religion supports the Arizona bill is simply wrong.

3. And of course, the bill was highly discriminatory toward gay Americans.

If signed into law, SB-1062 would have allowed gay Americans and others to be denied services just because of who they are. These people would have been discriminated against because of their personal identities — something that cannot be changed. It is no different than denying someone services because of his or her race or ethnicity. In fact, the bill would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that states cannot limit the rights and privileges of American citizens. The bill would have limited the rights and privileges of gay Americans, and thus would have inflicted discrimination on a group of citizens in Arizona.

Because Brewer vetoed the bill, citizens in Arizona will not be forced to comply with the discriminatory law. However, the fact that the legislature passed it in the first place is deeply troubling. 

[New York Times] [Bloomberg] [NBC] [CNN] [FJC]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mel Green via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Brewer’s Choice: Why the Veto Was the Only Option appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/brewers-choice-why-the-veto-was-the-only-choice/feed/ 0 12407 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/happy-new-year-your-birth-controls-no-longer-covered/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/happy-new-year-your-birth-controls-no-longer-covered/#comments Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:12:15 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=10276

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014. This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless. During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of […]

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Parenting Patch via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/happy-new-year-your-birth-controls-no-longer-covered/feed/ 2 10276