A Supreme Feud Over Birth Control: Four Blunt Points

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that several forms of birth control were offered by Hobby Lobby's health plan, and the sticking point was they did not want to cover IUD's or the "morning after" pill, which is nothing but an early abortion pill.

The media says Hobby Lobby wants to force women to have babies, that they refuse to offer "birth control" in an effort to suppress women. Not so. They just don't want to pay for the destruction of life, which starts at conception. There ARE forms of birth control that don't cause the loss of pregnancy.

 

You are not, the rest of your post:

... is spot on. But people like the OP will continue to tell "The Big Lie" until it has been told so often people believe it is true. Pay no attention to him and don't play his game. Responding to his ilk is simply playing into their hands so they can continue to spew lies, hate and division in the Body.

 

Out of 20 forms of BC in Obamacare HL objected to only four. They will still provide 16 forms of BC.

 

Also, Jews like Bloomberg (the news source) and Ginsberg do not believe in freedom of conscience and are opposed to the Bill of Rights on that issue. They are slowly swinging the Democrat Party to oppose freedom of religion or conscience. They want everything to be secular.

 

Deception, pure & simple!!!
Check out Jezebel's solution to Ahab's desire for the vineyard of Naboth - I Kings 21.

Lies & deception - and the sheeple buy it hook, line, & sinker. :sleep::BangHead:

 

Crabby: "---in many cases being brought before the court? ---"

And this means squat considering the liberals love to SUE!

The liberal's favorite sport! Anytime, anywhere, any reason!!!

 

one difference between right and left

Scotus sides with hobby lobby and the left kicks up a hissy fit....Scotus sides with same sex marriage in CA, and the right saya so be it....life goes on. Left demonstrates that they are sore losers. How sad.:BangHead:

 

What does them being Jews have to do with it?

 

Why do we keep playing this clown's game? I'm as guilty as anyone.

My personal vow from this moment forth is to stay off threads started by this liberal shill, and not to reply to anything his empty head deigns to irritate electrons in order to post.

The rest of you may do as you wish. But if we ignore it, it will go away.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

The author of the article in your OP is ignoring the underlying flaw of why there is going to be a mass of court cases: the ACA was a mass of Constitutional contradictions. The proof of that? "We have to pass the legislation in order to find out what's in the legislation."

Of course there are going to be court cases: any time there's a law that people don't agree with, our country and our Constitution gives the people the ability to challenge that law.

That power of the people has been used by liberals to challenge same-sex marriage bans in many states. Do you consider those to be time-wasting and a mess?

This isn't a mess, CTB. This is cleaning up the mess. Yes, it's going to take years and lots of money; but we all knew this was going to happen.

Unless, of course, you think it would be better if we all just accepted the laws as written and never challenged them -- in which case, we'd need to stop all the immigration reform, the other same-sex marriage ban challenges, etc., etc.

But if you say those are worthy lawsuits, then now you've changed the subject as to why those are worthy and the ones trying to protect Constitutionally-granted religious freedoms are not.