Women having abortions should have a CHOICE like that huh, they can choose an abortion but it would trigger a million dollar fine.
 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:31:44 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
wrote:

On 3/14/2012 2:02 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
BeamMeUpScotty wrote in
:

On 3/14/2012 12:49 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
Josh wrote in news:jjq0hh$sgc$2
@josh.motzarella.org:

On 3/13/2012 11:50 PM, Scout wrote:


"Josh" wrote in message
...
On 3/13/2012 7:24 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:


Quote "the law" where a church's insurance company must provide
"free
birth control,"

Requirement for employer to provide health insurance:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980H

Don't have to go past the first line....

"Large employers not offering health coverage "

IOW, there is no legal requirement to do so.

So looks like you're sunk before you even got started.

Keep reading ... those employers pay a fine for not complying.


Which is their choice, it it not?

NO it is NOT a choice it is a mandate and a penalty.

Women having abortions should have a CHOICE like that huh, they can
choose an abortion but it would trigger a million dollar fine.


Do you suppose the Supreme Court will go along with that one?

Do you think Viagra, Cialis and Levitra should be covered? Why?



Is it NORMAL body function that does NOT work properly?


Is getting pregnant a normal body function, it seems the measure of an
insured health item would be something that doesn't function as it is
supposed to function.


Such as a Pregnancy with a problem or a woman that can NOT get pregnant
as nature would make it happen. If it can be fixed so that things work
normal then it should be. if it is broken and can be fixed by un-natural
means that should NOT be normal coverage. You should be able to go buy
that insurance when and where you need it.

Life has no guarantees.

So you're saying that men should have boner pills covered only when
they're trying to get a woman pregnant, right? That's the "normal"
function.

And if the woman is using birth control, even if she's paying for it
herself, then the men's erectile dyfunction medications should *not*
be covered. In that case, the man would be engaging in an activity
that is not, by your definition, normal. No pills for you, buddy.

That's the logical conclusion of your argument. Your premise is
incomplete, so your deduction is wrong.

--
Ed Huntress