Mr. Speaker, beginning today, August 1, preventative health care provisions for women under the Affordable Care Act will begin going into effect for new insurance plans. As an increasing number of health insurance policies come under the…
Mr. Speaker, beginning today, August 1, preventative health care provisions for women under the Affordable Care Act will begin going into effect for new insurance plans.
As an increasing number of health insurance policies come under the reach of the Affordable Care Act, a growing number of women will finally be able to access--with no co-payments or deductibles-- important preventative services including breastfeeding support, counseling for domestic violence, screenings for HIV, and well-woman visits.
Also importantly, women with these new insurance policies will have access to all FDA-approved forms of contraception. This is an unprecedented victory for women in every district and for women of all backgrounds.
The use of birth control is nearly universal, with 99 percent of women using contraception at some point in their lives. A June Hart Research poll also found that 80 percent of all American women agree that cost should not be a barrier to using effective birth control.
In addition, a letter released by leading law-and-religion scholar Leslie Griffin, and co-
signed by 170 law professors at top religiously affiliated and non- religiously affiliated law schools clearly explains why the contraceptive-coverage benefit protects the rights of individual employees and in no way violates religious freedom. I ask unanimous consent to include the letter in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the majority of Americans that all women have the right to affordable and effective birth control, and I am proud to have fought for this great achievement.
Even before the Affordable Care Act went into effect, the benefits of publicly-funded family planning services could be seen, as these programs have assisted 7 million women each year and have prevented 2 million unintended pregnancies.
Every dollar spent on family planning services is also estimated to save four dollars on future Medicaid costs for prenatal services, delivery, and one year of the baby's medical care.
Affordable birth control and preventative health care services help women plan the timing and size of their families and protect their health. There is a direct link between increased access to birth control and declines in maternal and infant mortality.
The critical provisions within the Affordable Care Act will therefore allow us to expand on these previous successes and give women the freedom to make their own private health decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues and to acknowledge the hard work and long hours we devoted to ensuring that women have access to health care they deserve and I pledge to continue championing women's access to these important preventative services.
August 1, 2012.
To President Barack Obama and the Congressional Leadership:
We are law professors concerned about the Constitution,
religious freedom, individual liberty, and gender equality.
Today, the egalitarian notion that every American deserves to
enjoy religious freedom is under attack from those who would
cede employees' religious-liberty rights to corporate
executives and nonprofit directors. In this cramped and one-
sided view of religious freedom, supervisors are entitled to
decide, based on their religious sentiments, whether their
employees will be permitted to enjoy essential health
benefits without the slightest concern for their religious
beliefs. In particular, advocates claim that the Constitution
gives all employers the right to veto their employees'
health-insurance coverage of contraception.
This view, which is espoused by the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops and others, is both wrong as a matter of law
and profoundly undemocratic. Nothing in our nation's history
or laws permits a boss to impose his or her religious views
on non-consenting employees. Indeed, this nation was founded
upon the basic principle that every individual--whether
company president or assistant janitor--has an equal claim to
religious freedom.
Nor does religious freedom provide a constitutional
entitlement to limit women's liberty and equality, which are
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Throughout the 1960s,
religious leaders advocated laws banning contraception
because they believed contraception was immoral. Nonetheless,
in 1965 the Supreme Court held that contraceptive use enjoys
constitutional protection in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment requires that women enjoy the same health and
reproductive freedom enjoyed by men.
Women's liberty and equality are well-settled
constitutional law and must remain so. Just as the Court
ruled in 1983 in Bob Jones that the free exercise of religion
may not override government policies against racial
discrimination, today free exercise must not undermine
women's liberty and equality.
The diminishment of women's liberty and equality will be
the result if organizations claiming a religious affiliation
are granted an exemption from the Obama administration's
policy requiring all employers to provide contraceptive
insurance to their employees.
The battle against legal contraception has been fought and
lost before, not only in the 1960s, but also in the 1990s,
when state legislatures and courts repeatedly rejected the
argument that religious liberty provides a justification for
undermining women's equality and denying them contraceptive
insurance.
The same principle must apply today in the battle between
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their allies and
the Obama administration over insurance coverage for
contraception. Simply put, religious freedom requires
religiously affiliated employers to obey the law rather than
to become a law unto themselves.
Even forty-seven years after the Supreme Court recognized a
constitutional right to contraceptive use, many American
women continue to lack access to effective and affordable
contraception. One reason for this has been the disparate
insurance coverage for men and women. For that reason,
twenty-eight states have passed contraceptive equity acts
that help women gain equal access to reproductive health
care. Several of those acts, just like the Obama
administration's policy, require employer insurance plans
that offer prescription-drug coverage to include
contraceptive drugs and devices in their coverage. Most of
those acts, just like the Obama plan, do not apply to houses
of worship but to religiously affiliated employers like
Catholic Charities, a large social-services organization that
receives more than two-thirds of its funding from taxpayers,
as well as to Catholic schools, universities and hospitals
that employ both non-Catholics and Catholic women who use
contraception.
The bishops and their allies opposed those bills in the
legislatures and the state courts, arguing that religious
freedom requires a complete exemption for all employers that
claim a religious affiliation. As the recent debate
demonstrates, that argument has a certain intuitive appeal to
religious organizations that believe that free exercise
allows religiously affiliated organizations to avail
themselves of special rules. Under the leading free exercise
case (Employment Division v. Smith), however, religious
employers are subject to neutral laws of general
applicability. Two state courts, namely the highest courts of
New York and California, forcefully rejected the bishops'
argument for exemptions from laws requiring the provision of
contraception insurance to employees.
The state courts first ruled that providing insurance could
not be a matter of internal church governance protected from
state interference by the First Amendment. The courts also
held that insurance laws applying to all employers were
neutral laws of general applicability that could be
constitutionally applied to religious employers under Smith.
The two holdings reinforce each other. As the New York Court
of Appeals explained, ``The employment relationship is a
frequent subject of legislation, and when a religious
organization chooses to hire nonbelievers it must, at least
to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations
imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in
doing what their own beliefs permit.''
The California Supreme Court took a further step, ruling
that its women's health act survived strict scrutiny. Under
strict scrutiny, a law that substantially burdens a religious
practice is upheld only if the law represents the least
restrictive means of achieving a compelling interest. The
court concluded that the women's health care act was narrowly
tailored to the government's compelling interest in
eliminating gender discrimination, obviating the need to
undertake a substantial-burdens analysis.
The California Supreme Court's strict scrutiny analysis
remains relevant to criticisms of President Obama's plan.
Opponents of the regulations have argued that they violate
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which subjects
federal policies to strict scrutiny if they substantially
burden a person's exercise of religion. The opponents are
wrong. First, under existing case law, the provision of
insurance coverage is arguably not the exercise of religion.
Moreover, allowing individuals the choice of contraceptives
does not substantially burden any exercise of religion.
Even if the courts found a substantial burden on religion,
however, the government's interests in protecting women's
health and reproductive freedom, and combating gender
discrimination, are compelling. The Institute of Medicine
panel's report, and a mountain of evidence from other public
health groups, amply demonstrate the government's compelling
interest in ensuring widespread access to affordable
contraception as a means of promoting health and remedying
gender inequality.
The California Supreme Court ruled that a law nearly
identical to President Obama's initial plan to provide
insurance coverage--including a virtually identical exemption
for houses of worship--was narrowly tailored to protect
women's equality. Thus President Obama's original regulation
could have withstood constitutional scrutiny. The
constitutional case is even clearer for the accommodation,
which requires insurance companies to bear the burden of
providing coverage to employees claiming a religious
affiliation. The accommodation is even more narrowly tailored
than the initial regulation was to reflect the government's
interest in women's equality.
In past Supreme Court decisions, religious employers have
been required to pay Social Security and unemployment taxes
for their employees and to observe the minimum wage laws.
Federal courts of appeals have required religious employers
to comply with the child labor laws and to observe the equal
pay laws even when the employers believed head-of-household
pay was required by the Bible. As the California Supreme
Court observed, ``We are unaware of any decision in which
this court, or the United States Supreme Court, has exempted
a religious objector from the operation of a neutral,
generally applicable law despite the recognition that the
requested exemption would detrimentally affect the rights of
third parties.''
The federal government must continue to protect the rights
of women who need insurance laws so that they may make
reproductive choices consistent with their individual
consciences. Religious freedom must not provide a
justification to deprive women of legal rights they should
enjoy as employees and citizens. To the contrary, the First
Amendment specifically preserves space for their religious
liberty, and secures their right to act as individuals who
exercise their own
conscience on matters pertaining to their faith, body, and
health.
Leslie Griffin,
Professor of Law,
William S. Boyd School of Law,
University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Signed [Note: Affiliations provided for identification
purposes only]:
Paula Abrams, Jeffrey Bain Faculty Scholar and Professor of
Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; Libby Adler, Professor of Law,
Northeastern University School of Law; Janet Ainsworth, John
D. Eshelman Professor of Law, Seattle University School of
Law; Sara Ainsworth, Lecturer, University of Washington
School of Law; Catherine Albiston, Professor of Law and
Professor of Sociology; Executive Committee Member, Thelton
E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, University of
California, Berkeley School of Law; Jose Alvarez, Herbert and
Rose Rubin Professor of International Law, New York
University School of Law; Mark Anderson, Associate Professor
of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Susan
Appleton, Lemma Barkeloo and Phoebe Couzins Professor of
Law, Washington University School of Law; Margalynne
Armstrong, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara
University School of Law and Marie Ashe, Professor of Law,
Suffolk University Law School.
Barbara Babcock, Judge John Crown Professor of Law,
Emerita, Stanford Law School; Katharine Baker, Professor of
Law, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law; Susan Smith Bakhshian,
Clinical Professor, Director of Bar Programs & Academic
Success, Loyola Law School; Ann Bartow, Professor of Law,
Pace Law School; Carrie Basas, Visiting Associate Professor
of Law, Case Western Reserve University; John Beckerman,
Visiting Professor, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden;
Valena Beety, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia
University College of Law; Leslie Bender, Professor of Law,
Syracuse University College of Law; Mary Berkheiser,
Professor of Law, Director of Clinical Programs and Director
of Juvenile Justice Clinic, William S. Boyd School of Law,
University of Nevada Las Vegas; and Adele Bernhard, Associate
Professor of Law, Pace Law School.
Anita Bernstein, Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of
Law, Brooklyn Law School; Caroline Bettinger-Lopez, Associate
Professor of Clinical Legal Education and Director, Human
Rights Clinic, University of Miami School of Law; M. Gregg
Bloche, M.D., J.D., Professor of Law, Georgetown University;
Karen M. Blum, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Suffolk
University Law School; Grace Ganz Blumberg, Distinguished
Professor of Law Emerita, UCLA School of Law; AmeliaBoss,
Trustee Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law, Drexel
University; Cynthia Bowman, Dorothea S. Clarke Professor of
Law, Cornell Law School; Alfred L. Brophy, Judge John J.
Parker Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill; Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research
Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School;
June Carbone, Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law,
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.
David Cassuto, Professor of Law and Director, Brazil-
American Institute for Law & Environment, Pace Law School;
Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean, University of California
Irvine School of Law; Nancy Chi Cantalupo, Professor, Temple
University Beasley School of Law; Margaret Chon, Donald &
Lynda Horowitz Professor for the Pursuit of Justice, Seattle
University School of Law; Roger Clark, Board of Governors
Professor, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden; David S.
Cohen, Associate Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law
at Drexel University; Clare Coleman, Assistant Teaching
Professor and Director of Student Advising, Earle Mack School
of Law at Drexel University; Rebecca Cook, Faculty Chair in
International Human Rights Faculty of Law and Co-Director of
the International Program on Reproductive and Sexual Health
Law, University of Toronto; Bridget Crawford, Professor of
Law and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development,
Pace Law School; Lynn Daggett, Professor of Law, Gonzaga
School of Law.
Anne Dailey, Evangeline Starr Professor of Law, University
of Connecticut School of Law; Anne Dalesandro, Director of
the Law Library, Rutgers School of Law--Camden; Christine S.
Davik, Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law;
Martha Davis, Professor of Law, Northeastern University
School of Law; Kate Nance Day, Professor of Law, Suffolk
University Law School; Bernard Dickens, Emeritus Professor of
Health Law and Policy, University of Toronto; Norman Dorsen,
Frederick I. and Grace A. Stokes Professor of Law, New York
University School of Law; Margaret Drew, Professor of
Clinical Law and Director of the Domestic Violence and Civil
Protection Order Clinic, University of Alabama School of
Law. Jennifer Drobac, Professor of Law, Indiana University
Robert H. McKinney School of Law; and Linda Edwards, E.L.
Cord Foundation Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School
of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Maxine Eichner, Reef C. Ivey II Professor of Law,
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Law;
Kathleen C. Engel, Associate Dean for Intellectual Life and
Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; JoAnne Epps,
Dean, Beasley School of Law, Temple University; Deborah
Epstein, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Georgetown Law;
Martha Ertman, Carole & Hanan Sibel Research Professor of
Law, University of Maryland School of Law; Lisa Faigman,
Lecturer in Law, University of California Hastings College of
the Law; Bryan Fair, Thomas E. Skinner Professor of Law,
University of Alabama School of Law; Mary Fellows, Everett
Fraser Professor of Law, Emerita, University of Minnesota Law
School; Linda Fentiman, James D. Hopkins Professor of Law,
Pace Law School; and Zanita E. Fenton, Professor of Law,
University of Miami School of Law.
Victor Flatt, Taft Distinguished Professor of Environmental
Law, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Law;
Marsha Freeman, Professor of Law, Barry University Dwayne O.
Andreas School of Law; Jaqueline Fox, Associate Professor of
Law, University of South Carolina School of Law; Katherine
Franke, Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law and
Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, Columbia
Law School; Theresa Gabaldon, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of
Law and Director of Academic Programs and Administration,
George Washington University Law School; Ruben Garcia,
Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University
of Nevada Las Vegas; Leslie Garfield, Professor of Law, Pace
Law School; Marsha Garrison, Suzanne J. and Norman Miles
Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Susan Gary, Orlando J.
and Marian H. Hollis Professor of Law, School of Law
University of Oregon; and Bennett Gershman, Professor of Law,
Pace Law School.
Lauren Gilbert, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University
School of Law; Theresa Glennon, Professor of Law, James E.
Beasley School of Law at Temple University; Sally Goldfarb,
Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden;
Julie Goldscheid, Professor of Law, CUNY Law School; Leigh
Goodmark, Associate Professor, Director, Family Law Clinic
and Co-Director of the Center on Applied Feminism, University
of Baltimore School of Law; Michele Goodwin, Everett Fraser
Professor of Law, University of Minnesota; Cheryl Hanna,
Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; Kathy Hessler, Clinical
Professor of Law and Animal Law Clinic Director, Lewis &
Clark Law School; Steven J. Heyman, Professor of Law, IIT
Chicago-Kent College of Law; and Tracy Higgins, Professor of
Law, Fordham School of Law.
Jessie Hill, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve
University School of Law; Cynthia M. Ho, Associate Professor
of Law & Vickrey Research Professor; Director, Intellectual
Property & Technology Program, Loyola University Chicago
School of Law; Sharon Hoffman, Edgar A. Hahn Professor of
Law, Professor of Bioethics, Co-Director, Law-Medicine
Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Joan
H. Hollinger, Lecturer-in-Law, Berkeley Law School,
University of California; Deena Hurwitz, Associate Professor
of Law and Director of the International Human Rights Law
Clinic and Human Rights Program, University of Virginia;
Melanie Jacobs, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
College of Law; Stewart Jay, Pendleton Miller Endowed Chair
of Law, University of Washington School of Law; Faye Jones,
Director and Professor of Law, Florida State University
College of Law; Sital Kalantry, Associate Clinical Professor
of Law and Faculty Director of the Avon Global Center for
Women and Justice, Cornell University Law School; and Margo
Kaplan, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law.
Harriet Katz, Professor of Law, Rutgers University School
of Law--Camden; Linda K. Kerber, May Brodbeck Professor in
the Liberal Arts Emerita, and Lecturer in Law, University
of Iowa College of Law; Jaime King, Associate Professor of
Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law;
Kristine S. Knaplund, Professor of Law, Pepperdine
University School of Law; Ellen Kreitzberg, Professor of
Law, Santa Clara University School of Law; Sylvia Law,
Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law Medicine and
Psychiatry, New York University School of Law; Nancy
Leong, Assistant Professor, University of Denver, Sturm
College of Law; Nancy Levit, Curators' and Edward D.
Ellison Professor of Law, UMKC School of Law; Francine J.
Lipman, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, William S. Boyd
School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; and David
Luban, University Professor in Law and Philosophy,
Georgetown Law.
Jody Lynee Madeira, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana
University School of Law; Kevin Noble Maillard, Professor of
Law, Syracuse University College of Law; Maya Manian,
Associate Professor of Law, University of San Francisco
School of Law; Thomas McAffee, William S. Boyd Professor,
William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las
Vegas; Joyce E. McConnell, William J. Maier, Jr. Dean, Thomas
R. Goodwin Professor of Law, WVU College of Law; Marcia
McCormick, Associate Professor, Saint Louis University School
of Law; Ann McGinley, William S. Boyd Professor, William S.
Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; Michelle
McKinley, Associate Professor, Dean's Faculty Fellow,
University of Oregon School of Law; Laura McNally, Professor
of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, A.B. Chettle, Jr. Professor of Dispute
Resolution and Civil Procedure, Georgetown Law.
Cynthia Mertens, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and
Professor of Law, Santa Clara University; Vanessa Merton,
Professor
of Law and Faculty Supervisor of the Immigration Justice
Clinic, Pace Law School; Sally Merry, Professor of
Anthropology, Institute for Law and Society, New York
University School of Law; Carlin Meyer, Professor of Law and
Director of the Diane Abbey Law Center for Children and
Families, New York Law School; Naomi Mezey, Professor of Law,
Georgetown Law; Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, University
of New Mexico School of Law; Karen Moran, Associate Professor
of Law, General Faculty, University of Virginia; Daniel
Morrissey, Former Dean and Professor of Law, Gonzaga
University School of Law; Jill Morrison, Adjunct Professor of
Law, University of DC David A. Clarke School of Law; and Ann
Murphy, Professor of Law, Gonzaga School of Law.
Karen Musalo, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the
Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, University of
California, Hastings College of Law; Michael Mushlin,
Professor of Law, Pace Law School; Kimberly Mutcherson,
Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of
Law--Camden; Cynthia Nance, Dean Emeritus & Nathan G. Gordon
Professor of Law, University of Arkansas; Michelle Oberman,
Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law; Nancy
K. Ota, Professor of Law, Albany Law School; Richard L.
Ottinger, Dean Emeritus, Pace Law School; Justin Pidot,
Assistant Professor, University of Denver, Sturm College of
Law; Deana Pollard-Sacks, Professor of Law, Texas Southern
University Thurgood Marshall School of Law; and Andrew S.
Pollis, Assistant Professor of Law, Milton A. Kramer Law
Clinic Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
Terrill Pollman, Director of the Lawyering Process Program
and Professor of Law, Williams S. Boyd School of Law,
University of Las Vegas; Lucille M. Ponte, Professor of Law,
Florida Coastal School of Law; Sarah Ricks, Clinical
Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law--
Camden Angela R. Riley, Professor of Law, UCLA School of
Law, Director, UCLA American Indian Studies Center;
Dorothy Roberts, George A. Weiss University Professor of
Law & Sociology and Raymond Pace & Sadie Tanner Mossell
Alexander Professor of Civil Rights, University of
Pennsylvania; Rand Rosenblatt, Professor of Law, Rutgers
University School of Law--Camden; Susan Deller Ross,
Professor of Law and Director, International Women's Human
Rights Clinic, Georgetown Law; Margaret Russell, Professor
of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law; Carol
Sanger, Barbara Aronstein Black Professor of Law, Columbia
Law School and Nadia N. Sawicki, Assistant Professor of
Law, Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy, Loyola
University Chicago School of Law.
Robert P. Schuwerk, Professor of Law, University of Houston
Law Center; Elizabeth Sepper, Associate Professor of Law,
Washington University School of Law; Ann Shalleck, Professor
of Law, Director of Women and Law Program, Carrington Shields
Scholar, American University Washington College of Law;
Laurie Shanks, Clinical Professor of Law, Albany Law School;
Julie Shapiro, Professor of Law, Seattle University School of
Law; Jessica Silbey, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law
School; Rosalind Simson, Adjunct Professor of Law, Mercer
University School of Law and Associate Professor of
Philosophy, Mercer University; Jana Singer, Professor of Law,
University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law;
Abbe Smith, Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal
Defense and Prisoner Advocacy Clinic, Georgetown Law and
Cynthia Soohoo, Director of the International Women's Human
Rights Clinic, CUNY Law School.
Roy G. Spece, Professor of Law, University of Arizona James
E. Rogers College of Law; Carrie Sperling, Associate Clinical
Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; Ralph
Stein, Professor of Law, Pace Law School; Lara Stemple,
Director of Graduate Studies, Director of Health and Human
Rights Law Project, UCLA School of Law; Richard Storrow,
Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law; John Strait, Associate
Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law; Jennifer
Templeton Dunn, Executive Director, UCSF/Hastings Consortium
on Law and Adjunct Professor, University of California,
Hastings College of the Law; Tracy Thomas, Professor of Law,
University of Akron School of Law; Stacey Tovino, Professor
of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada
Las Vegas and Mary Pat Treuthart, Professor of Law, Gonzaga
University School of Law.
Ann E. Tweedy, Assistant Professor, Hamline University
School of Law; Carole Vance, Associate Clinical Professor of
Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University; Valorie K. Vojdik, Professor and Deputy
Director, Law Clinic, West Virginia University College of
Law; Lois Weithorn, Professor of Law, University of
California Hastings College of the Law; Robin West, Frederick
J. Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown Law;
Lesley Wexler, Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar and
Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law;
Deborah Widiss, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana
University Maurer School of Law; Lindsay Wiley, Assistant
Professor of Law, American University Washington College of
Law; Verna Williams, Professor of Law, University of
Cincinnati College of Law; Zipporah Wiseman, Thos. H. Law
Centennial Professor, University of Texas at Austin School of
Law and Marcia Zug, Assistant Professor of Law, University of
South Carolina School of Law.