Search for: "Doe v. Department of Health & Human Services"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 1,471
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2014, 12:24 pm
On New Year’s Eve, a divided Sixth Circuit panel granted a motion by Michigan Catholic Conference and Catholic Family Services to halt the so-called contraception mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services that went into effect under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 6:29 am
In Nelson v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 2:36 am
The ACA made a significant addition to this list: Congress decided that virtually all Americans should be entitled to a wide array of affordable “preventive health services. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 7:28 pm
”From the face of those complaints, and the plaintiffs’ briefs, it sure sounds as if the “Preventive Services” Rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (together with the Departments of Labor and Treasury) will, indeed, “substantially burden” the plaintiffs’ religious exercise: Plaintiffs allege that that Rule (together with other federal statutes) will require them to violate… [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 4:09 pm
That issue has come up in the two cases the Justices have agreed to hear presenting challenges to the “contraceptive insurance” Rule of the Department of Health and Human Services under Affordable Care Act: No. 13-354, Sebelius v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 12:20 pm
In early October, I wrote about a rule that the Department of Health and Human Services has proposed that would amend the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) to criminalize compensation for providing peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) given through apheresis. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 10:04 pm
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tribal consultation policy enacted in 2011. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 7:04 pm
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 1:04 pm
Simon.Stahl, Philip Michael.Chicago, Illinois : ABA Section of Family Law, [2013]KF547 .S733 2013 Family Law According to our hearts : Rhinelander v. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 1:15 pm
Department of Health and Human Services, (DC Cir., Nov. 1, 2013), two brothers, Francis and Philip Gilardi, owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, both Ohio corporations, claim that their free exercise rights, and those of their businesses, are burdened by the requirement that they furnish their employees health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and abortion. [read post]
19 Oct 2013, 8:53 pm
South Africa, England), this does not appear to apply for the chrysotile industry in North America. [read post]
13 Oct 2013, 3:36 pm
In Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 10:03 am
Germany, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom and Kennedy v. the United Kingdom. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 8:28 am
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury, along with their respective Secretaries (Kathleen Sebelius, Thomas E. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 8:04 pm
The need for inter-agency coordination with the IRS and Department of Health and Human Services (which have already adopted place-of-celebration rules) also led to adoption of the place-of-celebration rule. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 2:03 pm
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that HHS intends to issue further guidance on certain new marketing restrictions under HIPAA, finalized last January as part of the final HITECH omnibus rule, and to delay enforcement of those new marketing restrictions until November 7, 2013, instead of commencing enforcement on September 23, 2013, as previously announced. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm
The new rule, just announced by the Department of the Treasury, allows couples to file amended tax returns for past years if doing so would yield a refund, but does not require amended returns for those who would pay more. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 5:10 pm
See Perez v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 7:45 am
” In United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am
Supreme Court in Decker v. [read post]
