Of course,
Posted on 01/20/2012 10:14:36 AM PST by Pyro7480
An old tagline comes to mind....
“God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.”
So now womens health = consequence free recreational sex?
Follow Barack’s example and ignore the rule.
Simply categorize abstinence as “free contraception”.
Forgive me Father, for I have sinned ......
40 years plus of abortion isn’t enough for the left.
Those who laugh at the zero population growth folks .. keep laughing.
If you loved Mao you’ll go ape for Obama..
When PP says “Contraception” they mean anything that destroys an embryo up to implantation in the uterine wall. They deliberately distort the term to cover what they hope will be millions of abortions annually.
But because of the wedge between Protestants/Orthodox and Catholics on contraception, by using “contraception” this way they are able to divide the pro-life movement. Some prolifers at least are going to think, “contraception,” shoot, that’s a Catholic hobby horse, no concern of mine.
Canary in the coal mine, folks.
Yes, that's correct.
Typical liberal misrepresentation of terms which used to be known as "lying".
Separation of Church and State much?
Let me know when he declares Sharia law will not be allowed in the U.S.
The Benito Obamalini regime never ceases to amaze me... So free contraception is some sort of right that healthcare providers must bear the cost of (well, those paying premiums). Suppose all presecriptions here in nirvana should be free then? Perhaps they should also sign into law that rainbows and unicorns to appear when you pick up your meds....
Go back to Chicago Barry.
And the odds that waivers would be granted if the “religious institution” were Islamic, or anything but Christian?
100%
Of course,
Man I can’t wait to see this jerk booted out in 2013!!
I would have no problem requiring contraception coverage and am pro-life. However, I ONLY AM OKAY WITH IT if the company already has a policy covering male stuff like viagra.
And I am appalled that this will only exempt a select number of religious groups. Anybody who in conscious morally objects to this should be allowed to not offer coverage for it.
Indeed, in this case ignoring the lawless Federal Goverment is the only lawful & morally acceptable approach.
Tell the lawless Federal “court” that abstinence contraception is indeed without copay under their plan.
I sure hope the “Christians” that voted for Obama are proud.
"The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy." - John Maynard Keynes
Don't just be prolife be prolific!
Why do you think the federal government should mandate the coverages provided in private health plans, and do you think your stance is socialist/statist, and if not, why not?
This is on a fast track to the Supreme Court. Churches aren’t going to roll over for this. At least real churches won’t.
Anyone who doesn’t like the medical plan offered by churches, can opt to work somewhere else.
End of story.
Churches should not be victim to the whims of a child like Obama.
Didn’t Myth do this in Massachusetts by requiring Catholic hospitals to dispense abortion pills to rape victims?
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.