Comments on: The Case against Using Religious Freedom to Block Birth Control Access

By: Deborah Foster

Deborah Foster — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:19:01 +0000

As expected, courts are focusing on whether there is *harm* to the plaintiffs’s religious freedom and not on whether women’s civil rights are affected by birth control access when they rule on the merits of lawsuits: bit.ly/OUjUYH I predict this will be the ongoing debate and what the Supreme Court will do. I maintain that since they do not have to pay any additional money for coverage, they are not experiencing any harm. This will continue to be an important argument even if Churchlady blows it off.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Deborah Foster

Deborah Foster — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 03:37:52 +0000

I accept that you may have an additional angle on the argument. I don’t see where that makes any of mine “bad arguments.” Feel free to elaborate.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Churchlady

Churchlady — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:17:57 +0000

This is typical of bad arguments on good causes. The ONLY religious organizations required to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees are those that take tax money. This brings them under the Civil Rights laws of equal accommodation. That’s it. Period. This requires them to accommodate all their employees’ rights of conscience.

If the Supremes argue that Catholics and conservative fundamentalists have more rights than do we Protestants, Jews, Hidus, Muslims, and non-believers, then we officially have Holy War in America.

What do you think? 0 0