//  1/3/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha comment on several cases addressing whether the Trump Administration may legally expand the number of employers who do not need to provide insurance that includes coverage for contraception.  As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

The trio start by doing a quick run-through of the many ups-and-downs of this controversial policy. They then turn to decisions from the Ninth Circuit and a court in Pennsylvania that stopped the Administration from implementing their proposed change that would expand the exemption from coverage. They note, however, that new rules are set to go into effect on January 14, so they opine on whether those rules may eventually become effective. 

They end with some promised listener feedback. Keep your emails coming!

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected] You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here

Notes

  • The Ninth Circuit's decision in California v. Azar is here. The decision from EDPa in Pennsylvania v. Trump is here.
  • A very useful Health Affairs article about the California case is here.
  • Nick Bagley's excellent post on the legal issues around the forthcoming final rules is here, at The Incidental Economist.

Could A Ruling Against LGBT Rights in Bostock Allow Employers to Discriminate on the Basis of Religion?

10/7/19  //  Commentary

Permitting employers to discriminate against LGBT employees would open to the door to the same kind of discrimination against millions of Americans of faith

Aaron Tang

UC Davis School of Law

When The Government Asserts An interest In Discrimination

10/7/19  //  Commentary

The Trump Department of Justice has recently started asserting that the federal government has an interest in discrimination, rather than in preventing discrimination

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Symposium on June Medical Services v Gee

10/4/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

June Medical Services v. Gee involves a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they perform abortions. SCOTUS has granted review of the constitutionality of that law.

Take Care