> if the English language is to mean anything at all, two things are clear:
But to allow the English language to mean anything at all would be profligate nonsense!
> "[S]hall not" does not imply any "shall," which is, to my way of looking
> at it, the question addressed by the North Dakota measure.
It's fairly clear the "shall not" is still operative. A doctor, for instance, refusing to perform a procedure while "privately" employed by an institution that receives some public funding, is freely exercising his religion by the NDRFA's lights, and the institution could not be penalized for his private choice.