[FreeperCell]

Why are we even asking that question?

[Jim from C-Town]

I think a more practical question is what part of the Constitution requires employers to provide any form of Health Insurance to their workers regardless of that workers status?

[xzins]

Anthony Kennedy worries me. He voiced the opinion that Hobby Lobby could just pay the fine and be done with it. Moreover, Kennedy was the deciding vote permitting over-the-top homosexual agenda victories. Homosexuals were arguing against Hobby Lobby saying that if Hobby Lobby could argue that abortifacients were a violation of their religious rights that those bakers and photographers would be proven right...their religious rights trump providing services they deem contrary to their religion.

I’m predicting Kennedy sides with the homosexuals again and does not base his opinion on the government’s requirement for a compelling interest. He’ll base it on sophistry premised in discrimination.

The truth, however, is that the state has no compelling interest in violating religious expression in either case. Homosexuals can have their cakes baked elsewhere and their photos taken elsewhere. Sandra Fluke can get her abortifacients for free from Planned Parenthood...ALREADY funded by US tax dollars.

[beelzepug]

99% ? I call BS. I’d have to say that number is statistically impossible. You might get a number close to that if condoms were included, but the aim of the story is to make you believe that they are talking strictly about meds.

[SampleMan]

Employers shouldn’t be required to pay for any benefit, period. And once that is settled, the type and quality of any such benefits isn’t even an issue.

[MrB]

“should employers be forced to -”

NO!

forced to what? I don’t care.

[AppyPappy]

I thought doctors prescribed that stuff

[Red Badger]

They should not be ‘required’ to provide ANYTHING...................

[Charles Martel]

Health insurance plan pharmacy provisions have increasingly excluded certain drugs while allowing others of the same general category (sometimes excluding name-brand products but covering the less costly generics). I don't see why the same type of arrangement can't be employed here. These contraceptives are included, these others are not. If the patient insists on one of the latter - it's their choice and expense.

Of course, it appears that the political left doesn't simply want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, it deliberately wants to slaughter the unborn. Not even the Mayans could've imagined human sacrifice on this scale.

[grellis]

Unfortunately, the sentence "99 percent of American women have used contraception" jumped out at me before I began to read the article, and now I won't bother. People really need to stop pulling ridiculous numbers out of their orifices and throwing them about as if they were factual.