Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Scott Peterson
Quote:
Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) is an American convicted of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in Modesto, California, in 2002.
|
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Scott Peterson
Quote:
Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) is an American convicted of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in Modesto, California, in 2002.
Got quiet in here after that last post...
Via the Archdiocese of St. Louis:
Yep, it's that simple.
Hello again, Steve:
Why would a woman ask her Catholic employer to pay for her birth control?? Because, in THIS country, employers aren't allowed to discriminate against women..
It's that simple.
excon
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That still trumps your faux outrage.
I was a young mother (on birth control) who had considered applying for a job teaching at the local Catholic school. I would have expected the health insurance plan to cover my prescription, just as the Lutheran health insurance plan did.
Apparently you expected wrong.
Nobody is stopping religions from praticing whatever, but when it comes to personal issues of health and family, keep your nose out of what people have a right to do for themselves that's legal, and lawful.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You cross a line when you tell business what they can sell or what people can buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Your judicial history seems to show that it isn't simple. If anything it seems to be complex. Hence the unfortunate state of affairs you find yourselves in at the moment.
Tut
The only one interfering in anything is the Obama administration.Quote:
Nobody is stopping religions from praticing whatever, but when it comes to personal issues of health and family, keep your nose out of what people have a right to do for themselves that's legal, and lawful.
I swear you're right out of an Orwell novel.Quote:
You cross a line when you tell business what they can sell or what people can buy.
Hello again, Steve,
"No state shall.......... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That still trumps your faux outrage.
I'm not sure which part of the Constitution trumps the other.
Excon
Only in the mind of libs does anyone have a RIGHT to contraceptives. Please show us how contraceptives are a human right.
Hello again, Steve:
Not a HUMAN right.. The Constitution doesn't cover those.. But, I SHOWED you where they have a Constitutional right to them... Let me explain...Quote:
Please show us how contraceptives are a human right.
Contraceptives are an integral part of a woman's health care.. If a company, or church is going to COVER men's health care, then the Constitution says they must COVER women's health care.
It's that simple.
Excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes that's true, but not all rights recognized in you country are human rights.
Tut
As if they don't already?? I can assure you their plan denies contraceptives for both men and women. Doesn't get any more equal than that.
Hello again, Steve:
That would be true, if you pretend that men and women have the same health needs. Fortunately, the Constitution is not so blind.Quote:
Doesn't get any more equal than that
Excon
And I don't believe anyone is complaining about covering contraceptives if medically necessary. But you want to go beyond 'needs' into violating religious freedom.
Hello again, Steve:
That's a good argument. If you didn't need a doctors prescription to get them, and didn't have to purchase them from a pharmacy, I could buy it.Quote:
I don't believe anyone is complaining about covering contraceptives if medically necessary.
Excon
How does it violate YOUR religious freedom to provide for females health needs? That's up to her doctor, and none of your, or the churches, business.
As opposed to the phony arguments used to justify this whole whole sham, expanding access even though access wasn't an issue according to the CDC, and that it cost some idiot $3,000 a year because she'd never heard of Target or generics?Quote:
That's a good argument. If you didn't need a doctors prescription to get them, and didn't have to purchase them from a pharmacy, I could buy it.
Another phony argument we've been over. And over, and over, and over...Quote:
How does it violate YOUR religious freedom to provide for females health needs? That's up to her doctor, and none of your, or the churches, business.
Hello again, Steve:
Don't shoot the messenger.Quote:
and that it cost some idiot $3,000 a year because she'd never heard of Target or generics?
I see you ignored my argument... Since you need a doctors appointment to get them, AND a prescription, AND follow-up examinations, AND you can only buy them from a pharmacy, it LOOKS pretty medically necessary to ME.
Do you OBJECT to the advertisement for drugs on television?? If they were ACTUALLY medically necessary, the ads wouldn't end with, "ask your doctor". I'll betcha THOSE drugs, scooters, catheters, and diabetic testing supplies, ARE covered.
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 AM. |