To: jsanders2001
...they’re just saying the government doesn’t have the right to force taxpayers to pay for their birth control ... It's not even that - they're just objecting to two of the dozens of contraceptives that they _will_ provide.
All this over 2 of 26 contraceptives? The objections are over the 2 that allow conception then abort the baby. So I think there is more to this than meets the eye.
Why would they fight this so hard if they don't really lose anything?
11 posted on
06/30/2014 4:10:09 AM PDT by
Principled
(Obama: Unblemished by success.)
To: Principled
1. Just to jerk people’s chain.
2. To establish that employers have the obligation to provide coverage for abortion.
13 posted on
06/30/2014 4:11:44 AM PDT by
Tax-chick
(I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
To: Principled
Why would they fight this so hard if they don't really lose anything?
It is about pure naked power and making the evil, devout Christian conservatives knuckle under to the almighty progressives...
44 posted on
06/30/2014 3:48:10 PM PDT by
Delta Dawn
(Fluent in two languages: English and cursive.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson