SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9446)2/16/2012 3:07:44 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 85487
 
BUT I don't want to pay for a child for the rest of her life because someone couldn't - or didn't get a contraceptive.

Didn't is their own choice. Couldn't isn't an issue here.

Sine there is no even hint that anyone must use the contraceptive there is absolutely no difference in this infringement than any other.

The difference here is the dubious constitutionality of the individual mandate in the first place, combined with the fact that your trying to force people to pay for what they consider immoral, and trying to force religious organizations to violate their religious principles.

Another difference is the total lake of need or justification for this. We are talking about employees covered by insurance, not desperately poor people. They can afford the relatively modest predictable cost of contraception. Also they will still be paying the cost anyway, even if its covered through insurance, they will just be paying for it a different way.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News