<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Patrick Oden &#187; religious purpose</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patrickoden.com/tag/religious-purpose/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patrickoden.com</link>
	<description>The Common Lawyer, Now in Blog Form</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 04:36:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Rebuttal to Hamilton and No Possible Secular Purpose to Stupak</title>
		<link>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/rebuttal-to-hamilton-and-no-possible-secular-purpose-to-stupak/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/rebuttal-to-hamilton-and-no-possible-secular-purpose-to-stupak/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Oden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[establishment clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious purpose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secular purpose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupak amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patrickoden.com/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor and legal commentator Marci Hamilton posted an article on why she believes1 the Stupak amendment to the recently-passed health care bill in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. Her theory is, in part, that the amendment violates the Establishment Clause. The basis for this claim, according to Hamilton, is that the “anti-abortion movement is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/rebuttal-to-hamilton-and-no-possible-secular-purpose-to-stupak/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
