Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (23256)	2/24/2012 4:07:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Also the actual abortion procedure would itself likely be quite a bit more invasive. That only works as an argument if it's the state is imposing the abortion. It seems pretty obvious that forcing an employer to pay for a benefit that he considers immoral is a lot less oppressive than forcing someone to have a medical procedure, even a less invasive one. Paying money is clearly less offensive that having to undress and get prodded. That doesn't make either of them right, just saying. Not trying to duke this one out. Just making a point about 1) pots, kettles, and black and 2) the ongoing strength of the social conservative movement. It may be tabled for now but it took some heft to get it that far. It's that kind of strength that makes me disinclined to support their cause in the case of the contraception mandate. (Notice that the personhood bill has been set aside for now, as well.)