Posted on 11/26/2017 7:43:40 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
The Little Sisters of the Poor are heading back to court to defend themselves against the Obama administrations Health and Human Services mandate to provide contraception, yet again. In an unusual political move, Pennsylvania and California sued the Little Sisters, demanding the same group who won at the Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell provide contraceptives in their state.
In early October, HHS issued a new rule that protects religious non-profits like the Little Sisters of the Poor from providing anything like contraception that would violate their religious beliefs. In a press release, Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor, said: Sadly Josh Shapiro and Xavier Becerra [attorneys general in Pennsylvania and California, respectively] think attacking nuns is a way to score political points. These men may think their campaign donors want them to sue nuns, but our guess is most taxpayers disagree. No one needs nuns in order to get contraceptives, and no one needs these guys reigniting the last administrations divisive and unnecessary culture war.
Lets hope for the Little Sisters' sake, these frivolous lawsuits end swiftly and decisively so they can continue their good work.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Why use insurance at all? Just pay cash. Contraceptives are inexpensive. Abortion is a few hundred dollars, if not county/state funded.
Darkness hates the light. And their daddy is dark.
That works too. And its probably cheaper to self insure than to deal with a third party.
You pay for your own gas and oil in your car without involving an insurance company. You pay for your own hair dye and nail-salon visits.
“For the love of God, why can’t Democrats leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone?”
Because they have no love for God.
Because common sense actions, such as you have mentioned, don’t allow the leftists to make their political statement.
They are going after the Little Sisters of the Poor to make a political statement, and set legal precedents, that contraception must be provided, that it’s not optional, not up for discussion. They feel a strong need to make their statement, regardless of whether contraception is available or how much it costs.
This reminds me a bit of the Sandra Fluke situation. She bemoaned contraception not being covered by health plans, and/or being unaffordable. Yet we learned that basic birth control pills can be had for $9 a month in some places. And that various over the counter contraceptive measures will not break the bank either.
It’s all about making the political statement, more than the practicalities of whether contraception is available or affordable.
Forgive me Holy Sisters, I love and resrect you all, You’re married to Christ to do Holy work in his name, this is from good Protestan still asking for forgivness.
The DemCrats/Liberals/LgB/Satanists dissipate all that & us.
Because the Democrat Party rejects God. Now ask me a harder question.
I did not know that. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, their employees will want free birth control!
Isn’t Islam exempt from Obamacare because they don’t believe in insurance?
I asked a liberal friend on FB why it isn’t considered “blocking access to breathing” whenever my husband pays $45/month out-of-pocket for his inhalers.
That was 3 weeks ago - still no response. Lol!
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.