Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rwfromkansas
"I would have no problem requiring contraception coverage and am pro-life. However, I ONLY AM OKAY WITH IT if the company already has a policy covering male stuff like viagra.

Libs (not that you are one) love to make this equivalence between contraception and viagra. They fail to distinguish that viagra is used to allow men whose abilities have been compromised by a medical condition to function normally - what is known as a medicine. Contraception is a means of PREVENTING a woman's body from functionally normally. They are trying to make pregnancy a "disease" - which, of course, dovetails nicely into their pro-abortion stand.

Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to cure a "disease" like pregnancy? And why shouldn't YOU have to pay for it? /sarc

62 posted on 01/20/2012 1:48:31 PM PST by In Maryland ("Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!" - Official Motto of the Main Stream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: In Maryland

That is a good point. They do have different functions. Maybe I am wrong here.


98 posted on 01/21/2012 8:15:33 AM PST by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson