So, what we recently had was yet another brain-dead Democrat desperate to show that Obamacare somehow significantly improves the level of healthcare available to women by attempting to make the case that it does so solely by making all manner of birth control, even abortion, something that MUST now be covered by all health insurances. So the responsibility for one’s contraceptive use would now something that is paid for by someone else. I guess this is another example of that much talked about ‘Liberal Logic’.
Spewing nothing more than what has become the typical brand of drivel heard coming from just about every Democrat, it was as recent as this past Tuesday that we heard Sen. Patty Murray, DEMOCRAT, tell fellow dingbat, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, "I've worked hard to make sure that women have access to the right kinds of health care, and it's their choice, not their employer's choice." And actually, we’re not talking about healthcare, per se, what we’re actually talking about here is the supposed ‘right’ to an abortion.
This imbecilic dingbat went on to say, "Sitting in that court today, it was stunning to me to recognize that nine people are going to make that decision, and will decide for a long time to come, whether women have to question when they go to work every day what the shareholders of that company's religious views could be." Is that what this progressive boob is really trying to make this about? What this is really all about is the attempt by Democrats to literally force people onto Obamacare by going after their employers.
So unless you’ve been living under a rock someplace, I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a critical religious freedom case. The court will decide whether, or not, the government is able to force family-owned companies to provide employees with health insurance that covers no-cost birth control and other medical procedures, i.e., abortions, that violate the owners' religious beliefs. But all means, the very last thing that we need to be concerned about is the protecting anyone’s Christian beliefs.
So the plaintiffs in this case argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to private, for-profit businesses. And of course our dingbat Murray said the "compelling" question for her is, "Should a private CEO of a corporation or their shareholders' religious rights trump the right of employees?" What right is it of the employee that’s being trumped here? The right to screw everything in sight while at the same time making sure that someone else is made to be responsible for covering the cost of one’s desire to do so?
According to morons like this Murray clown, if the court does rule that private companies have the religious right to deny contraception, could that then be extended to such things as immunizations? Murray asked. "It really opens up a wide, wide range of issues that shareholders could decide about what they provide," she said. What is this hapless bitch talking about? For years things had been going along pretty smoothly. And then along came the Democrats and their attempt to seize control of our healthcare system.
This idiot went on to say, "And secondly, the question really is: So do 51 percent of the shareholders get to vote that they don't provide contraceptive coverage? I mean, the thresholds are very interesting here, and it's going to be very difficult, I think, for this court to make those determinations on this case." Spoken like a true believer in the socialist/progressive philosophy. And that’s really the driving force behind all of this nonsense. And with a court that leans a little left these days, religion may be about to take a hit.
The question of religious objection to vaccinations came up several times in Tuesday's oral arguments. Paul Clement, the plaintiffs' attorney, said he thinks the government "may have a stronger compelling interest" in requiring vaccinations as part of preventive services than it does in requiring birth control. Donald Verrilli, Jr., arguing for the Obama administration -- agreed that the government has a "compelling interest" in advancing colorectal cancer screening and immunizations -- as well as contraception coverage
One brilliant suggestion I heard, and I’m sorry that I can’t remember from whom it cam, was for this company, a company that has always provided health insurance to its employee, to simply cease providing coverage, pay the ‘tax’, and force their employees to use the Obamacare exchanges. Is that what the employees want? And regardless of what any Democrat may claim, that’s what this entire case is really all about. Forcing companies to stop providing coverage, and thus their employees into Obamacare.
So I suppose what this is really all going to boil down to is, are women, or at least enough of them, actually going to be stupid enough to fall for the line of bullshit that we continue to hear coming from Democrats like this boob Murray? Is birth control really such a priority for most women that they would actually risk losing their current coverage and be forced into taking Obamacare? If so, then I suppose one could argue that if that is in fact the case then we’ve got far bigger problems going on here, societally speaking. Well ladies?
No comments:
Post a Comment