Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again if conservatives didn't care there would be no issue.
If conservatives didn't care, they'd see birth control as what it is medical treatment, but conservatives don't see birth control as medical treatment.
They see birth control as enabling immoral consequence free sex for women.
And because conservatives want to control the sexual behavior of women, they don't want public money spent on birth control and they support employee's access to birth control covered in their employee health insurance to be determined by the morality of corporations.
Again despite your insistence to the contrary, people who don't see birth control in moralistic or woman hating/controlling terms just sees birth control as what it is medical care.
conservatives have an anti-birth control viewpoint as your posts keep proving.
Alright, lets turn your argument around. If some liberals "didn't care" there would be no issue. This isn't about birth control specifically. It is about having any kind of birth control available, namely abortifacients. Some liberals see ANY restrictions as infringing on their birth control options. You have an all or nothing viewpoint as your posts keep proving.
Alright, lets turn your argument around. If some liberals "didn't care" there would be no issue. This isn't about birth control specifically. It is about having any kind of birth control available, namely abortifacients. Some liberals see ANY restrictions as infringing on their birth control options. You have an all or nothing viewpoint as your posts keep proving.
This is "not" about birth control. It is about our Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion.
Whatever birth control, they can or cannot get in their own health insurance policies now rests with what religious person/corporation Hobby Lobby or other religious persons/corporations like hobby lobby decide are morally acceptable.
The Supreme Court once decided that a Native American who was fired for the religious use of peyote was not exempt from a general law prohibiting peyote use on the basis of religious belief. That case was written by Justice Scalia, who sided with the majority in Hobby Lobby.
Quote:
Smith concerned two members of the Native American Church who were fired for ingesting peyote for sacramental purposes.When they sought unemployment benefits, the State of Oregon rejected their claims on the ground that consumption of peyote was a crime, but the Oregon Supreme Court,applying the Sherbert test, held that the denial of benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause. 494 U. S., at 875.
This Court then reversed, observing that use of the Sherbert test whenever a person objected on religious grounds to the enforcement of a generally applicable law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” 494 U. S., at 888. The Court therefore held that, under the First Amendment, “neutral, generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 514 (1997).
Congress responded to Smith by enacting RFRA. “[L]aws [that are] ‘neutral’ toward religion,” Congress found, “may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb(a)(2); see also §2000bb(a)(4). In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion,under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b).3
Strange that you left what followed out... I'm assuming you didn't do that on purpose for nefarious reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
