- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,674
- 59,277
- 2,290
What is so wrong with wanting to protect the 1st amendment on Religious rights? This is exactly why we have the 1st amendment.
That is what some of the bill is about.
If you take contraception for medical reasons your health care insurance will pay for it.
If you use birth control to prevent pregnancy then you pay for yourself or get it from any clinic that pays for for it. Just about anyone can afford 9 dollars a month for their own birth control.
Title Ten pays for contraception for anyone who is poor.
Peach while I respect your point, I don't see how we need a bill here on the state level that protects the 1st Amendment which already does protect Religious rights. It would seem to me that those who wish to take the "the pill" are in fact exercising a right to do so and it is a fully regulated drug by the FDA. Further, for those who have a moral objection to it, there is no obligation for them to take it, nor is there an obligation for them to purchase it.
Are you being deliberately blind?
The moral objection issue arises when a faith-based employer is forced to supply birth control coverage. This bill exempts such employers from violating their faith. They must supply birth control coverage for actual medical issues like ovarian cysts and whatnot. They do not have to provide it for the prevention of pregnancy.
It is as simple as that. Everything else is just a lot of smoke and misdirection from the anti-religious harpies.
Last edited: