Skip to comments.
Court strikes down mandate for birth control in ObamaCare
The Hill ^
| November 1, 2013
| Julian Hattem
Posted on 11/01/2013 10:25:55 AM PDT by jazusamo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-136 last
To: fwdude
Both sets of “good news” are temporary and hanging by a thread.
121
posted on
11/02/2013 8:07:48 PM PDT
by
Theodore R.
(The grand pooh-bahs have spoken: "It's Jebbie's turn!" to LOSE!)
To: jazusamo
Thank goodness.
Some more birth control administered to certain elements of our population WOULD help avert our ‘Idiocracy’ future...but I would no sooner vote for its implementation under Obamacare than I would vote for the Enabling - I mean Patriot Act under Bush. It has ‘gross misuse potential’ written all over it in orange marker.
To: jazusamo
Conservatives are doing a horrible job of presenting their objections to this part of Obamacare! Don't you think most companies are glad to supply birth control pills to their employees? Don't you think they're willing to supply most forms of birth control/contraception?
ABORTIFACIENTS are the problem! Why won't the ones debating the issue use that word, instead of the generic "contraceptives"! Even the Catholic Church spokespersons argue only against the "contraceptive" requirement. I've never heard one of them distinguish between regular birth control and abortifacients! (I know - Obama and Dems knew full well that "officially" the Church doesn't approve of birth control and they'd be hard pressed to allow one and not the other.)
Abortifacients are so benign, they're now available in vending machines! (So scary - but that's another debate!) Why can't people who want them, buy them for themselves? It's a step too far to not allow employers any say in providing them!
123
posted on
11/03/2013 2:40:09 AM PST
by
REPANDPROUDOFIT
(November can't come soon enough!)
To: GeronL
Which insurance companies will now offer insurance without birth control coverage?Why does it have to be a complete package - all birth control or no birth control? Why can't these employers just be excused from providing abortifacients, while still providing traditional birth control? Requiring that they provide abortifacients was/is a step too far!
124
posted on
11/03/2013 2:45:03 AM PST
by
REPANDPROUDOFIT
(November can't come soon enough!)
To: jazusamo; All
So does this mean, as a male, I no longer get access (or have to pay) to (for) abortion services, in the case of rape or incest, or any other sexual deviation???
What a relief!!!
125
posted on
11/03/2013 4:18:23 AM PST
by
stevie_d_64
(It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
To: REPANDPROUDOFIT
Why does an employer have to provide birth control? That sounds pretty ridiculous to me
126
posted on
11/03/2013 9:07:51 AM PST
by
GeronL
To: jazusamo
I wonder if they will abide by this ruling just like they do the ruling by John Roberts. I’ve never once heard a Democrat use the term “TAX” to refer to the penalties/fines in Obamacare.
127
posted on
11/03/2013 3:58:22 PM PST
by
REPANDPROUDOFIT
(November can't come soon enough!)
To: CitizenUSA
This is like requiring auto companies to give free cars to minorities or McDonalds to hand out free Happy Meals to EBT holders as a price of doing business. I understand the reasons for doing sobuying the votes of single women mostlybut the precedent is jaw dropping. What other things can the federal government force businesses to give away in order to stay in business?
Or telling Doctors they Must take care of Medicaid/Medicare as proposed by demonrat Democrat delegate candidate Kathleen Murphy AS POSTED ON Drudge.
128
posted on
11/03/2013 4:08:32 PM PST
by
Foolsgold
(Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
To: tflabo
Whats chief inJustice John RobsUS gonna docall it a contraceptive tax? Depends on how much cash Soros puts in his next briefcase.
129
posted on
11/03/2013 4:15:25 PM PST
by
COBOL2Java
(I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
To: Bender2
This is great news... that is until Chief Justice Roberts morphs it into another constitutional tax-- Have no fear...Soros' financier has the briefcase at the ready...
...of course, considering the state of US finances, this go-around Roberts may have negotiated for something a little more reliable...
130
posted on
11/03/2013 4:22:34 PM PST
by
COBOL2Java
(I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
To: Will not Live for another Man
IIRC, there is no severability clause in the ACA... therefor by logic and reason, the ehtire law is unconstituitional... how does Roberts CJ save that? He'll channel the spirit of his hero Roger B. Taney and come up with another piece of legal legerdemain to support his overlords.
131
posted on
11/03/2013 4:31:48 PM PST
by
COBOL2Java
(I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
To: jazusamo; TNMountainMan; alphadog; infool7; Heart-Rest; HoosierDammit; red irish; fastrock; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
132
posted on
11/03/2013 4:39:23 PM PST
by
narses
(... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
To: jazusamo
133
posted on
11/03/2013 4:54:31 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: JoeFromSidney
0bama and the Rats B-B-B-Barry and the RATs.
-Elton John
134
posted on
11/03/2013 5:10:10 PM PST
by
ROCKLOBSTER
("The government" is nothing but a RAT jobs program)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Because it is the only way that they will know enough about you to take total control of your life, not just your medical insurance. After all, the SEIU thugs need enough information to be able to completely steal your identity, right?
135
posted on
11/04/2013 9:51:21 AM PST
by
Pecos
(Kritarchy: government by the judges)
To: Vendome
I think that it was the regulation that was struck.
136
posted on
11/06/2013 9:47:12 PM PST
by
RobbyS
(quotes)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-136 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson