The outcome of this case could be very scary, if the ACLU had their way...
1 posted on
11/29/2003 12:00:11 PM PST by
Pyro7480
To: Coleus; cpforlife.org; Desdemona; NYer; Salvation; Loyalist; Aquinasfan; Bigg Red; Polycarp
Ping!
2 posted on
11/29/2003 12:01:06 PM PST by
Pyro7480
("We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid" - Benjamin Franklin)
To: Pyro7480
They can pay for their own damned contraceptives, nobody's stopping them. Men have to pay for condoms.
I really want the Catholic Church to stand firm on this. If they respond by promising to shut down every hospital and every charity office rather than submit to this, I may convert.
To: Pyro7480
The two states note that churches are exempt from having to provide contraception coverage for employees who work inside parishes and houses of worship. That is known as the "religious employer exemption" because the parishes generally serve worshippers and employ those with similar religious views. That's not the point. The law is attempting to make the Catholic Church fund activities that it finds to be sinful...whether their funding them for folks who work on the parish property or at a Catholic Hospital is irrelevant. The only thing this suit will accomplish is the loss of a prescription drop plan to employees of Catholic institutions. And when that happens and the hospitals start closing and Catholic Charities can no longer operate...let the ACLU and the California state Attorney General's Office step up to fill the void.
4 posted on
11/29/2003 12:12:16 PM PST by
pgkdan
To: Pyro7480
"Versions of the law have been adopted in 20 states after lawmakers concluded private employee prescription plans without contraceptive benefits discriminated against women."
...accent on the word, "PRIVATE"!!! If those women feel they are the objects of discrimination, then they should go buy different insurance plans! That is the beauty of capitalism...you don't like a certain type of one thing, go get another one instead. Stop whining to the government to step in and make private insurers accommodate your sexual behaviour!
*steps down from her soapbox*
8 posted on
11/29/2003 2:05:45 PM PST by
dsfiscool
To: Pyro7480
The Bishops will close down the hospitals.
10 posted on
11/29/2003 2:34:32 PM PST by
OpusatFR
(If you don't like our laws, live in accordance with our laws, and believe in our way of life: leave)
To: Pyro7480
A real opportunity for Janice Rogers Brown to write an historic opinion.
To: Pyro7480
State regulators point to U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rulings in favor of a ban on polygamy, despite objections from Mormons, and against Native Americans who were denied unemployment insurance after being fired for using peyote during religious ceremonies. The principle is correct. But the principle is applied improperly. Unlike polygamy and hallucinatory drug use which violate the natural law, the proscription of artificial means of birth control corresponds with the natural law. The use of artificial birth control is an evil and does not represent health care. Artificial birth control is a means by which the proper operation of the body is impaired in order to prevent a good, the birth of a child.
The natural law argument for birth control was well understood not very long ago. No church recognized its licitness until the 1930s.
14 posted on
12/01/2003 5:55:33 AM PST by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson