Supreme Court sends Obamacare case back to lower court

a reply to: watchitburn

If contraceptives shouldn't be covered, then abstinence-only options shouldn't be funded by the government either.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

i judged no one, and just made a simple statements of facts, i dare you to prove them prove them wrong.

It doesn't matter if you're right, that oral sex probably won't get a woman pregnant. But that's not what this SCOTUS case is about. It's about the Little Sisters not wanting to fill out the paper work that exempts them from "sin".

Maybe you remember that SCOTUS ruled that religious organization were exempt from having to provide birth control insurance coverage? But, under the law, their employees are still entitled to it though Title X.

All the Little Sisters have to do is fill out a paper informing the government that their employees are not covered, and are therefore eligible for Title X. But they say doing so is against their religion. Their objection is like a military conscientious objector refusing to say why they object to a certain assignment, because saying so would be against their religion.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Yes that will make for some very very short term marriages. Sorry honey no sex I don't want children. Come back when I'm 55. You're kidding right? OMG what year is this?

a reply to: windword

Why should it be necessary that they have to justify themselves to the government? That's like having to register your faith or something.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

What part of intercourse do you not understand? Penis goes in, sperm come out, egg gets fertilized. Unless you use birth control. Are you Catholic?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Yes that will make for some very very short term marriages. Sorry honey no sex I don't want children. Come back when I'm 55. You're kidding right? OMG what year is this?

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

I wonder how it that I haven't been on birth control for a long time now and still we've only managed one, and that was on purpose. In other worse, there are more ways to manage your reproduction than with chemical contraceptives, and it doesn't involve "no sex!" I think the husband would never have stood for that.

a reply to: ketsuko

I know of a few good marriages went downhill because one of the partners just wasn't being sexually fillfilled! heck one guy was a lawyer who had something like six kids with his wife, ended up not being able to avoid sex with her while she recovered from her pregnancies and well eventually ran off with his sexatary...and probably had a few more with her!!

a reply to: ketsuko

Why shouldn't they follow regulation? Even though they're non-profit, they still have to file tax forms every year.

That's like having to register your faith or something.

Well, they ARE claiming religious objection!

a reply to: dawnstar

Sex is the glue that keeps couples together. I'm married 35 years. I know.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

Why shouldn't they follow regulation? Even though they're non-profit, they still have to file tax forms every year.

NO.

Why did they need to be regulated to begin with?

a reply to: dawnstar

At this point in life. Wee... anything we like. We don't need birth control but Viagra sure is a friend.

a reply to: ketsuko

there is no religious exemptions available today that doesn't require the person or group to notify the gov't that an exemption is needed!!

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

Why shouldn't they follow regulation? Even though they're non-profit, they still have to file tax forms every year.

NO.

Why did they need to be regulated to begin with?

You don't think that they should follow health and safety regulation? Food safety regulations in their kitchen? Motor vehicle laws?
Tax laws? Did they file for tax exempt status?

Please! Stop with the "special snowflake" syndrome and join us in society!

a reply to: ketsuko

your infertile?? your lucky??

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Women died in childbirth at far greater rates too. What are you trying to prove? It seems women are not a priority with you.

a reply to: windword

like i said i never said word one about the case, just made the statement that dawnstar was wrong about a medical need.
you came in talking about my imagination and judgement, now your back peddling trying to save face, you lost and know it. so my replies to you are over.

a reply to: Sillyolme

you are wrong.

My husband was in an accident 9 years ago, and the "sex" part of our marriage was ended because of it.

It is not an issue , because I did not fall in love with "that part" of him. I fell in love with the man .

Our marriage is as strong ,if not stronger now than before. He laughs and tells me that most men worry that their wife will leave if they "can`t" anymore. And says it is a huge relief to find out that I am not going anywhere !!!

And I think the issue about Obamacare etc is why I should be forced to pay for you to have sex.

If you want contraceptives, buy them yourself. I did all my life, and it was no big deal because it was my resonsibility, not someone elses.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

like i said i never said word one about the case, just made the statement that dawnstar was wrong about a medical need.

Actually, she's not. A lot of women use "The Pill" for various health issues that have nothing to do with procreation. Even Nuns! Google it, if you don't believe me.

And, sex and birth control have nothing to with this case. It's about paper work.

a reply to: windword

Why should they be regulated JUST because they are a religious group which is what this so-called special accommodation is? Prior to Obamacare, they did what they did. No special mandates or regulations needed.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

your infertile?? your lucky??

You're illiterate?! Go back and read carefully.