The edict says that all employers, even religious organizations, that have employer-provided healthcare must offer birth control meds without a co-pay.

 

Bingo! I guess that ends that debate!!!

Another area of loss of liberty is personal property. Immient domain has been expanded by local governments to include non-government projects for the public good, just so the local governments can collect more taxes.

 

A second case is the EPA taking away the rights of land owners to build for so-called environmental concerns, like having a mud-puddle on your property and calling it wetlands. A couple recently took this case all the way to the Supreme Court in the last couple of weeks.

My point was that there have been many episodes, from the founding of the country to Jacksonian era, to the Civil War, and so on that have been anything but Civil. This era is not greater or less than IMO, just the same as always.

 

This era doesn.t condone slavery.

Here in Louisville there's been a great controversy over Catholic Partnerships becoming a partnership with University Hospital because it would have meant the end of services such as tubal ligations at University, which is the largest provider of reproductive care for low income and indigent women in the region. Commonwealth Attorney Jack Conway ruled that a public institution cannot deny such services and the deal has fallen apart. Thus I believe the allegation that religious healthcare providers must offer birth control is false.

 

Now I understand....Religious employers must provide healthcare benefits that include coverage of birth control. I disagree wholeheartedly. My e-mail is on it's way.

"We have to pass the bill to know whats in it."

Now I understand....Religious employers must provide healthcare benefits that include coverage of birth control. I disagree wholeheartedly. My e-mail is on it's way.

 

I think it's a tough question. The Catholic Church is exempt, but its hospitals are not. On its face it seems to be a bad decision. But I also wonder if it would set the precedent that nearly any non-profit or corporation could claim religious exemption, which would have the effect of nullifying the law. I'm not sure where I stand here.

"We have to pass the bill to know whats in it."

 

That wasn't the quote.

That wasn't the quote.

 

 

The exact quote. "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."

 

My incorrect quote implied she was incompetent. The actual quote shows her to be merely corrupt.

 

My apologies.

 

The edict says that all employers, even religious organizations, that have employer-provided healthcare must offer birth control meds without a co-pay.

 

For me and my church, that is okay. That is between the health care provider and the staff member. The way I read some of the posts made me think that the church has to distribute birth-control. Big difference from my perspective. I can see Catholic institutions though having a real problem with this law.

For the first (and maybe only 2nd time) I support Mitch McConnell's position on something. Although his verbiage is a bit extreme to me, I agree in principle. And I must say, I got a kick out of this pic. :lol: