Skip to main content
Article
No Free Lunch, but Dinner and a Movie (And Contraceptives for Dessert)?
New York University Journal of Law & Liberty (2016)
  • John C. Eastman
Abstract
The Hobby Lobby decision incited a wave of vitriolic responses, but it is important to understand what the Court actually held before assessing whether such a response was warranted. After reviewing the circumstances leading to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its accompanying regulations, it is clear that the Court’s legal analysis was correct. Exploring the criticisms from the media and the legal academy in light of that fact reveals the current dispute in the United States over the very nature and purpose of government. In addition scholars and citizens should note the several questions left unaddressed in the litigation, including whether the contraceptive mandate regulations were even authorized by the Affordable Care Act or instead represent the kind of administrative overreach of which the Supreme Court has begun to take note. 
Keywords
  • Hobby Lobby,
  • Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
  • legislative process,
  • women’s health,
  • regulations,
  • religious belief,
  • contraception,
  • RFRA,
  • constitutional law
Publication Date
2016
Citation Information
John C. Eastman, No Free Lunch, but Dinner and a Movie (And Contraceptives for Dessert)?, 10 N.Y.U. J. L. & LIBERTY 282 (2016).