{"title":"地区法院支持宗教豁免避孕强制令","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/npc.30843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, by decision dated January 15, held that the regulations providing certain religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act, are not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and are not unconstitutional as violations of the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses (<i>Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US Department of Health and Human Services et al</i>.).</p>","PeriodicalId":100204,"journal":{"name":"Bruce R. Hopkins' Nonprofit Counsel","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/npc.30843","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religious Exemptions to Contraceptive Mandate Upheld by District Court\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/npc.30843\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, by decision dated January 15, held that the regulations providing certain religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act, are not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and are not unconstitutional as violations of the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses (<i>Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US Department of Health and Human Services et al</i>.).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bruce R. Hopkins' Nonprofit Counsel\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/npc.30843\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bruce R. Hopkins' Nonprofit Counsel\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/npc.30843\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bruce R. Hopkins' Nonprofit Counsel","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/npc.30843","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Religious Exemptions to Contraceptive Mandate Upheld by District Court
The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, by decision dated January 15, held that the regulations providing certain religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act, are not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and are not unconstitutional as violations of the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US Department of Health and Human Services et al.).
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
