Another article discussing the SCOTUS HL decision is "<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/symposium-no-free-lunch-but-dinner-and-a-movie-and-contraceptives-for-dessert/ Symposium: No free lunch, but dinner and a movie (and contraceptives for dessert)?," by Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. Eastman raises six serious questions "that were not resolved or even addressed by the Burwell v./ Hobby Lobby, Inc. case, but perhaps should have been." Eastman observes: "Some might see in this litany of questions a slippery slope to anarchy, to every individual becoming a law unto himself, but it actually poses fundamental questions about the very purpose of government and the legitimacy of the laws government enacts. We have become too much of an entitlement society even to see the underlying problem, but these mandates are not of the 'cause no harm to others' variety that would render them legitimate (and would render individual exemptions from them problematic). They are instead of the 'take from A to give to B,' robbing Peter to pay Paul variety. That’s a purpose of government rejected by our founding charter, which defines the legitimate purpose of government as securing to each individual the inalienable rights they have from their Creator."