Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_23_issue_2?pg=78
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:21:25+00:00

Document:
81. Wheaton Coll., 2014 WL 3020426, at 1-2.
82. Id. at 3 (Sotomayor J., dissenting).
83. Id. at 2; see also Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius, 134 S. Ct. 1022 (2014) (granting injunction pending appeal).
84. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430-31 (2006) (“RFRA requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through the application of the challenged law “to the person”—the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”).
85. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Nos. 13–354, 13–356, 2014 WL 2921709, at * 23 (U.S. June 30, 2014) (“[I]t is arguable that there are features of the ACA that support [the objecting parties’] view.”); but see Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t. of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.3d 1208, 1240 ( D. C Cir. 2013) (Edwards, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“[T]he exemptions are not as broad as the Gilardis make them out to be.”), vacated in part 2014 WL 2931834, at 1 (U.S. July 1, 2014); Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 728 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rovner,, J., dissenting) (“The exemptions already provided for in the ACA neither undermine the compelling nature of the government’s interests in broadening American’ access to healthcare and ensuring that women have comprehensive healthcare nor do they make religious-based exemptions any more reasonable or feasible.”), cert. denied sub nom. Burwell v. Korte, No. 13-937, 2014 WL 2931855 (U.S. July 1, 2014).
86. See e.g., Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 2014 WL 2921709, at 28 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.