if you cannot see the direct linkage between viagra and birth control, some mass hole smarter than you needs to tell YOU about the facts of life, buddy. really.
The ruling does NOT state that it only applies to abortifacients...any employer who objects to all contraception also has the same right.
that question is literally too stupid for me to lower myself to answer. This thread is about Chuck Todd warning the GOP about the ramifications of the HL rulings. If you really are unable to connect those dots then talking to you is like talking to the tar baby and I want nothing to do with it. Fly fly!
And Viagra has nothing to do with the topic nor does racial slurs... Or did you think i wouldnt notice that?
the juxtaposition of free viagra and out of pocket cost birth control has a lot to do with the topic and tar baby is not a racial slur. Have you read the story of Br'er Rabbit's confrontation with him? It is totally appropriate to our discussion.
He already admitted it doesnt matter. Its all about spinning and lying about it to get people to vote for Hilary.... - - - Updated - - - tar-baby n. (a) the doll smeared with tar, set to catch Brer Rabbit (see quot. 1881); hence transf., spec. an object of censure; a sticky problem, or one which is only aggravated by attempts to solve it (colloq.); (b) a derog. term for a black person (U.S.) or a Maori (N.Z.). http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/197754?redirectedFrom=tar+baby#eid19291859
and I am sure that the GOP will be spinning that angle as fast as their spin doctors can babble. We'll see which one works. "16 out of 20" is all "statistics and numbers and stuff" and pretty dry. "men get it for free, you have to pay for it and white MALE catholic republicans said so" has a pithier punch, doncha think? - - - Updated - - - so you agree... the first definition has no racial slur aspect to it at all. that is the way it which it was intended and presented. get over it, goody twoshoes.
Please post that part of the ruling that's applicable to your erroneous claim. That the entire point of the ruling was that it applied only to abortfacients seems to have totally passed you by.
There is no way to know intent over a message board. I pointed it out it was a racial slur perhaps you wont use it again. That and you keep complaining about "White Catholics"... Care to spin how Clarence Thomas is white? Or are you going to describe him with racial slurs are well? No intent of course
Oh yeah... I forgot about ol' Clarence. Four white guys and one not so white. Still a guy...still a republican... still giving guys free viagra and making women pay for birth control. The good news for you is that you've got a few months to figure out how to spin this... well... those charlatans of the right who actually do engage in spinning I mean... not you particularly. >>>MOD EDIT Rule 7 and Off Topic Removed<<<
The bigger question is why you would waste bandwidth on such a moronic question. Have you been following the conversation or not?
Only issue is this. The ruling is not an attack on women. It does not prevent them from obtaining BC, even the ones Hobby Lobby will not cover. You would think the left would be excited that constitutional rights are being protected. Instead they have to continue this made up war on women, which does not exist, while they call GOP women every name under the sun and bash any woman that is not a democrat. Makes me sick.
Actually, it's that Hobby Lobby doesn't want the insurance policy they offer their employees to include birth control. There would be no extra cost to Hobby Lobby, which makes me think it is a clear attack on women. Women use birth control for more than controlling birth. It is a medical necessity for many women, including those who do not want to get pregnant if they are raped. Some women use it to prevent health problems due to hormonal imbalances. The Right is making it sound like women who want birth control covered with their health insurance policies are just wanting to have sex all the time. Yet, there is no mention from the Right on health insurance policies covering Viagra. It's not a wonder that the majority of women in the US now feel the GOP is attacking them.
nobody is pissing on women. Only trying to (*)(*)(*)(*) on constitutional freedoms. This ruling prevents that. At the cost of nothing. It does not prevent anything, except forcing closely held corporations to go against their religious beliefs when it comes to contraceptives
Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the companys owners? Argument Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores - Oral Argument Conclusion Decision: 5 votes for Hobby Lobby Stores, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) Yes. Nothing in the ruling would seem to limit the ruling to only abortifacients....its just the only part that applies to hobby lobby.
Your problem is reality itself: Hobby Lobby does pay for birth control for it's female employees (of 20 types of birth control HL pays for 16 of them-abortifacients being the only exceptions). What Viagra has to do with any of this is anyone's guess. - - - Updated - - - I asked for proof of your claim...not a self serving restatement of your erroneous claims.
What lies are the liberals telling? So far, all I have heard from the Liberal media is that Hobby Lobby didn't want their insurance policies covering birth control for women because of religious reasons. It won't cost Hobby Lobby any more to have a standard health insurance policy for their employees. The next question will be, can corporations block access to other medical procedures based on religious ideology? This is opening up a new can of worms.
and I ask again...have you been following the conversation or not? just spare the bull feces... a simple yes or no is really all I want or need here.
I quoted the question asked of the court and the answer. I was unclear until reading that. If you can find something that says it only applies to the same bcs HL opposes, id love to see it and would happily admit I was mistaken.
