Sepper is a health law scholar whose work explores the interaction of morality, professional ethics, and law in health care and insurance. She has written extensively on conscientious refusals to provide reproductive and end-of-life healthcare and on conflicts over religious liberty and insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate. Her scholarship also examines the interaction of business religious exemptions and gay rights.
While courts around the United States have found President Trump’s travel ban on Muslim-majority nations unconstitutional, the courts may have overlooked an important point, says an expert on law and religion at Washington University in St. Louis.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has heard arguments on Mississippi HB 1523, which allows people with certain religious beliefs to refuse goods and services to LGBTQ and unmarried people. The bill is a textbook example of an unconstitutional law, says a law and religion scholar at Washington University in St. Louis.
On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the Zubick vs. Burwell case, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive requirement for employers, back to the lower courts for further examination, leaving women employees and students at workplaces around the country in limbo, says Elizabeth Sepper, associate professor of law and expert on health law.
On April 5, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law House Bill 1523, a controversial “religious freedom” bill, which says that the state government cannot punish public employees, social service providers and businesses that refuse to provide services to people because of a religious opposition. The law is unconstitutional, said Elizabeth Sepper, associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
Zubik v. Burwell, a new challenge to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, wants to deliver a knockout punch to the mandate, according to Elizabeth Sepper, associate professor of law and an expert on health law. At stake is whether employees of religiously affiliated organizations such as universities, hospitals and charities, can be stripped of their rights to contraceptive coverage.