Posted on 11/01/2013 10:25:55 AM PDT by jazusamo
I really object to the use of the term “contraception”, when we all know that they are trying to force the policies to provide abortifacients, and/or abortion coverage.
That’s a whole lot different than what most people think of as contraception.
"Hello Mr. Powers, allow me to introduce myself: Fl*ck, Sandra Fl*ck"
"Come again?"
I’ll take a win.
Awesome, I need to copy that to my Facebook page, can u provide a link?
Good news, now we just wait on John Roberts, what in God`s Name will he say?
In clinical studies her face tested 38% more effective than Norplant...
LOL! I mean literally, LOL!
If this mandate gets tossed by SCOTUS, just be prepared for the Catholic Church to throw their support 110% behind Obamacare. The powers that be seem to like everything about it except this.
The judges were unconvinced, however, that forcing companies to cover contraception protected that right.
All of these years I thought that another individuals rights ended where my nose began.
In other words his rights could not be a burden on me without my consent.
All of these years I was wrong and didnt know it. Thanks to Obama the merciful I am now enlightened. /S
As I recall there must be a compelling public interest that can not be fulfilled in a less intrusive way for the government to force individuals to act against their religious liberties against there will.
It should be quite obvious to any intelligent person that contraception can be purchased by an employee at their own expense. It is also obvious that conception can be prevented by other than technological means (abstinence).
An individual can also pay for their own abortion if they wish to kill their unborn child. Forcing an employer to pay for this against their religious faith is the most dire of immoral acts I can imagine short of Chinas one child policy.
Great news!!!!
Sounds like the name of a rock group.
The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a companys owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.
How much more so with Abortion!!!?
The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a companys owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan, Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.
How much more so with Abortion!!!?
That won’t stop the blackmail. Roberts has adopted children who could be taken from him by Justice if the regime chooses to use what they have on the adoption process Roberts used. The process is not a secret, yet the unJustice department has not acted but that hangs over the pirate’s head and makes him ‘malleable’ for the regime to bend when it suits them.
this admin is not going to allow policies without that in them to be sold, anybody disagree?
He’s supposed to be Catholic, right. And he’s supposed to be straight too. LOL
Here’s the link to the D.C. Court of Appeals opinion on the Francis Gilardi v. HHS (13-5069) Case.
I just skimmed the opinion. Brown says that companies have no religious rights, but Gilardi's as living breathing human beings do; and their rights are offended and RFRA gives them a remedy. The judge that agreed with the judgment (which I see as a totally hollow and worthless win, the company has to comply with the law) said the company/individual distinction is nonsense in this case, as the company is an S-Corp. The dissenter says that law always trumps religion, and cites the Reynolds case against polygamy as authority.
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.