Enemy and Ally: Religion in Loving v. Virginia and Beyond

Throughout the Loving case, religion appeared both overtly and subtly to endorse or lend credibility to the arguments against racial mixing. This use of religion is unsurprising given that supporters of slavery, white supremacy, and segregation have, for decades, turned to religion to justify their ideologies. Although these views are no longer mainstream, they have recently appeared again in arguments against same-sex marriage and gay and transgender rights generally. What is remarkable in the Loving case, however, is an alternate use of religion, not to justify white supremacy and segregation but instead to highlight the irrationality of its supporters’ claims. In a brief but memorable interaction during oral arguments, Chief Justice Warren analogized interracial relationships to interfaith ones and managed, in a few words, to underscore the absurdity of treating religion and race differently under the law. The inherent tension between religion as both enemy and potential ally of those with vulnerable social identities is the subject of this Essay. The fact that Loving incorporates both aspects of religion is telling. The story of America’s progression toward equal treatment regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation is inherently intertwined with religion, and the fiftieth anniversary of Loving provides an unparalleled opportunity to explore both sides of this fraught relationship

Separation of Church and Hospital: Strategies to Protect Pro-Choice Physicians in Religiously Affiliated Hospitals

On December 7, 2000, St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Granite City, Illinois asked Dr. Yogendra Shah to step down from his position as Chief of the Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology because of pressure that the Catholic hospital had begun to receive from the anti-abortion community. Dr. Shah performed abortions at a private clinic across the street from the hospital, and an increasingly vocal lobby viewed the employment of this doctor as a violation of Catholic principles. On March 19, 1998, Dr. David Mesches was forced out of his position as the chairman of the Department of Family Medicine at New York Medical College, a Roman Catholic-affiliated hospital and medical school in Kingston, New York. Dr. Mesches, in a twist of irony, was attempting to assist in completing a merger between a Catholic hospital and two non-sectarian hospitals in the area. The merger agreement required all three hospitals to bar the performance of abortion and sterilization procedures. As a result, Dr. Mesches had agreed to lease space in his offices in Kingston to a private clinic, which would provide abortions and other women\u27s health services that would be restricted in the hospitals as a condition of the merger. When questioned about this choice, Dr. Mesches commented to a local Kingston newspaper that the right to abortion is the law of the land and added, it\u27s the right thing to do. , Soon after these remarks were published, Dr. Mesches was dismissed from his position. In December of 1998, Dr. Schales Atkinson received a letter from the Deaconess Hospital in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma indicating that in order to grant him permanent medical staff privileges, the Methodist hospital required him to sign a statement agreeing not to intentionally perform any abortion other than to save the life of the pregnant woman, at the Deaconess Hospital or elsewhere....

Whistleblowing in the Compliance Era

International events over the last year have propelled theimportance of whistleblowers to the forefront. It is increasinglyevident that whistleblowers provide immense value to society.Yet, for years, whistleblowers have been victims of retaliation,commonly experiencing threats, discrimination, andemployment termination due to their reporting. Against thebackdrop of a society heavily defined by compliance-focusedinitiatives—where organizations and industries constructrobust compliance programs, internal policies, and codes ofconduct—this Article highlights a significant gap in legalprotections for would-be whistleblowers. While complianceinitiatives demonstrate that active self-regulation isincreasingly a staple of organizational governance, this Articlepinpoints the problems that arise when such initiatives extendbeyond applicable legal thresholds for retaliation protection.This over-extension leaves vulnerable employees and potentialwhistleblowers without legal recourse following adverseemployment actions, even if they comply with their employers’ internal policies and compliance programs. We examine thisgap in legal protections in the context of compliance initiativesin three domains: equal employment opportunity and sexualharassment; securities fraud; and anti-corruption. We thencompare these initiatives with the legal and regulatorycompliance postures under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and ConsumerProtection Act, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,respectively, to illustrate how most compliance initiatives failto mirror the retaliation protections under those statutes. Toremedy this gap in protections, we propose complementarysolutions under contract and tort law frameworks, coupledwith soft law initiatives

Separation of Church and Hospital: Strategies to Protect Pro-Choice Physicians in Religiously Affiliated Hospitals

On December 7, 2000, St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Granite City, Illinois asked Dr. Yogendra Shah to step down from his position as Chief of the Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology because of pressure that the Catholic hospital had begun to receive from the anti-abortion community. Dr. Shah performed abortions at a private clinic across the street from the hospital, and an increasingly vocal lobby viewed the employment of this doctor as a violation of Catholic principles. On March 19, 1998, Dr. David Mesches was forced out of his position as the chairman of the Department of Family Medicine at New York Medical College, a Roman Catholic-affiliated hospital and medical school in Kingston, New York. Dr. Mesches, in a twist of irony, was attempting to assist in completing a merger between a Catholic hospital and two non-sectarian hospitals in the area. The merger agreement required all three hospitals to bar the performance of abortion and sterilization procedures. As a result, Dr. Mesches had agreed to lease space in his offices in Kingston to a private clinic, which would provide abortions and other women\u27s health services that would be restricted in the hospitals as a condition of the merger. When questioned about this choice, Dr. Mesches commented to a local Kingston newspaper that the right to abortion is the law of the land and added, it\u27s the right thing to do. , Soon after these remarks were published, Dr. Mesches was dismissed from his position. In December of 1998, Dr. Schales Atkinson received a letter from the Deaconess Hospital in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma indicating that in order to grant him permanent medical staff privileges, the Methodist hospital required him to sign a statement agreeing not to intentionally perform any abortion other than to save the life of the pregnant woman, at the Deaconess Hospital or elsewhere....

Privileged but Equal? A Comparison of U.S. and Israeli Notions of Sex Equality in Employment Law

Ever-expanding media coverage, scholarship, and popular publications discussing the difficulty of combining work and family suggest that this issue is now the essential locus for gender debate in the United States. The essence of the debate is the meaning of equality: whether it carries the same meaning for women and men, whether biological and sociological differences should impact the understanding of equality, and whether law and social policy should reflect or encourage these differences. Privileged but Equal details the theory of sex equality that is embodied in Israeli employment law and contrasts it with the U.S. approach. The Article suggests that the Israeli system employs an equality through difference model, which approves of special treatment for women in the form of privileges, options, and exemptions so that women who maintain primary responsibility for family and home have greater opportunities to enter and succeed in the workplace. The Article explores the historical circumstances, societal needs, and cultural pre-dispositions that have shared in creating the Israeli conception of sex equality in an effort to determine whether Israel\u27s approach or any of its parts would be palatable, appropriate, or vastly unworkable in the United States

Enemy and Ally: Religion in Loving v. Virginia and Beyond

Throughout the Loving case, religion appeared both overtly and subtly to endorse or lend credibility to the arguments against racial mixing. This use of religion is unsurprising given that supporters of slavery, white supremacy, and segregation have, for decades, turned to religion to justify their ideologies. Although these views are no longer mainstream, they have recently appeared again in arguments against same-sex marriage and gay and transgender rights generally. What is remarkable in the Loving case, however, is an alternate use of religion, not to justify white supremacy and segregation but instead to highlight the irrationality of its supporters’ claims. In a brief but memorable interaction during oral arguments, Chief Justice Warren analogized interracial relationships to interfaith ones and managed, in a few words, to underscore the absurdity of treating religion and race differently under the law. The inherent tension between religion as both enemy and potential ally of those with vulnerable social identities is the subject of this Essay. The fact that Loving incorporates both aspects of religion is telling. The story of America’s progression toward equal treatment regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation is inherently intertwined with religion, and the fiftieth anniversary of Loving provides an unparalleled opportunity to explore both sides of this fraught relationship