:: welcome to

NINOMANIA

:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::


"Scalialicious!"
-- Eve Tushnet


"Frankfurter was born too soon for the Web, but I'm sure that, had it been possible, there would have been the equivalent of Ninomania for Frankfurter."
-- Mark Tushnet
(I agree, and commented here.)


"The preeminent Scalia blog"
-- Underneath Their Robes


 Subscribe in a reader



Site Feed


Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter



    Bloglinks:

    Above the Law, by David Lat

    Balkinization

    CrimLaw

    Duncan's Con Law Course Blog

    Eve Tushnet

    Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords

    How Appealing

    Hugh Hewitt

    Justice Thomas Appreciation Page

    Legal Theory Blog

    Lex Communis

    Opinio Juris

    Overlawyered.com

    Paper Chase (from JURIST)

    Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.)

    Professor Bainbridge

    Public Discourse

    Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt

    SCOTUS Blog

    Volokh Conspiracy

    WSJ Law Blog





    Other fine sites:

    Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization

    Ave Maria School of Law

    Center for Thomas More Studies

    Family Defense Center

    The Federalist Society

    The Founders' Constitution

    George Mason University School of Law

    Immigration and Refugee Appellate Center

    Judged: Law Firm News & Intelligence

    JURIST

    Law Prose (Bryan Garner)

    Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

    National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA)

    Supreme Court decisions

    The Weekly Standard



    Something I wrote about marriage


    lawyer blogs


    [::..archive..::]
    ::

    :: Saturday, November 10, 2007 ::
    SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government.
    I'm very happy for the druggists-plaintiffs, but I'm not sure I agree with their attorney who says:
    "We believe strongly that forcing someone to choose between their religious beliefs and actually losing their business or their career is unconstitutional."
    Well, Braunfeld v. Brown? See, I've never been able to agree that the Constitution requires all things Nice and prohibits all things Not Nice. Requiring objecting pharmacists to dispense abortifactients (whether or not their objections are religiously based) is extremely Not Nice; come to that, abortifacients are extremely Not Nice. But neither is addressed in the Constitution, and disobedience to a generally applicable statute that requires the dispensing of these genocidal poisons is not "the free exercise" of religion within any originalist reading of that term.

    Of course a pharmacist in a state with an exemption-less "Plan B" dispensing requirement may have to face prison and/or loss of business as the cost of not participating in murder. What, you thought Free Exercise was a permanent all-purpose anti-martyrdom clause?

    The AP report article goes on:
    Some states also have laws that protect pharmacy employees who refuse to sell the contraceptive for reasons of conscience.
    That's the way.

    :: David M. Wagner 9:52 PM [+] ::
    ...

    Site Meter
    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?