How is this so difficult?

[emilynghiem]

The Most Willfully Ignorant Sentence Written By ‘Religious Liberty’ Advocates

I understand trying to SOLVE this problem is difficult.

But the question itself, of what is unconstitutional or not, should be straightforward.

If people DON'T agree on beliefs about birth control, sex and contraception,
that's a conflict of BELIEFS. Govt cannot judge one belief over another if they are
equally opinions and/or faith based "beliefs" -- in terms of NOT forcing one person
to fund another person's belief. Clearly these should be separate choices.

Now, finding a SOLUTION that both sides agree to, that might be hard.

But it's not fair to say "just because they don't agree on a solution that doesn't
violate either side's beliefs" then the GOVT has the right to push ONE side over the OTHER.

With Roe V Wade, the courts had no problem striking down a law that had conflicts
WITHOUT substitution a "solution" that "both sides agreed to replace the law with."

Am I the only progressive liberal prochoice Democrat here who sees it is equally
wrong to try to force "other people and parties" of conflicting beliefs to fund things they
either don't believe in or which go against their beliefs and violate their right to alternatives?

Does the problem has to be solved before substituting a different policy?

Why can't people of both parties fund their OWN policies and programs
with likeminded members, and keep members of the other groups out of it.