Is what you're living for today, worth dying for tomorrow?
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
Women and men had personal responsibility issues long before ACA and yes there were unwanted pregnancies but the ease at which women and men can get contraception today makes all these claims look foolish. Any woman can go into Planned Parenthood and get birth control pills or you can go to any other women's center and get the same thing but rather than do this the radical left believes it is the taxpayers' responsibilities to fund their personal choice and responsibility issues even though the taxpayer does fund Planned Parenthood.
I don't get it, women aren't being denied healthcare no matter what the media tells you. This is nothing more than more distortion from the left in an attempt to fire up their base for the upcoming fall elections which will be a liberal disaster.
If a person (woman or man) doesn't want to get involved with the birth control of another person (woman or man), I have no desire to punish their uninvolvement. Some are claiming this as proof that I hate women.
If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.
Three cases weren't sent back for any review. I'll list the three: Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog
Burwell v. Korte. (CA DC)
Burwell v. Newland. (CA 10)
Department of Health & Human Services v. Gilardi. (CA7)
I noted that all three were won by Catholic employers who sued, and WON, the right to deny coverage for any of the 20 forms of BC. They won their cases at the Court of Appeals level, and the only place to go after that is the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the SC denied cert., which means the court proceedings are over for those three employers, and the decisions FOR the Catholic employers stand, and there can be no further review. That means the Catholic owners can, today, right now, as we speak, legally deny coverage for ALL forms of BC. They don't have to go back to court, they have won their lawsuits and there is no way for the government to appeal. The SC has denied any review of those cases.
There is no dispute about this. The SC ruling was broader than just the 4 disputed abortifacients and covered the "contraception mandate" in its entirety. If an employer can reasonably assert that he has a religious objection to ALL contraception, which is the official position of the Catholic Church, among other religions, the SC has said, clearly and unambiguously, that the business he owns can deny coverage for ALL types of BC.
If you disagree, give me a link. But insulting me or accusing me of bad faith when you got nothing but insults doesn't cut it. Show me your work, and we can have a rational debate.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!