wiki wiki wiki wikipedia...

Mentha pulegium, commonly (European) pennyroyal, also called squaw mint, mosquito plant[1] and pudding grass,[2] is a species of flowering plant in the family Lamiaceae. Crushed pennyroyal leaves exhibit a very strong fragrance similar to spearmint. Pennyroyal is a traditional culinary herb, folk remedy, and abortifacient. The essential oil of pennyroyal is used in aromatherapy, and is also high in pulegone, a highly toxic volatile organic compound affecting liver and uterine function.

Ed, I hope you do realize that ruling did not prevent people for paying for the four drugs on their own. The ruling also did not prevent closely held corporations from offering plans that allow the 4 types of drugs listed. The ruling simply removed the REQUIREMENT that closely held corporations ONLY provide health insurance plans that have all 20 drugs.

To be honest this is the way the law should read for all companies. Whether you are in support of the 4 drugs in question or not, allowing competition amongst health insurance plans that have the flexibility to offer prescription services that the consumer decides upon is in all of our best interests.

Capitalization added to allow for emphasis.

quoting Ginsberg is not going to make you seem objective.

Saw a great quote this weekend:

Hysterically demanding that the government force people to pay for your birth control doesn't exactly say "strong, independent woman."

Boy did this become a hot topic! A little bit of push back regarding the difference between birth control and abortifacient and people start going berserk!

But the thing that's driving me most insane is the lack of respect for other's opinions. Used to be people would say, 'I don't believe in (x) but I respect your right to your belief.' Not anymore. It's 'my way is right and you're wrong and stupid and don't deserve to exist'. I truly believe this is the handbasket that's carrying society to he//.

I read several articles this weekend like this one:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118547/facts-about-birth-control-and-hobby-lobby-ob-gyn

Not arguing one way or another, but puts all the "what is an IUD?" posts above in perspective.

I could not agree more.

And it comes from both sides of whatever the argument du jour happens to be.

That is true

So..only mainstream christian religious objections matter?

Where did the SC say that S.Man?

How would you define "mainstream" Christianity?

When did "tolerance," "open-minded" and other feel-good terms come to mean that if you choose not to monetarily support something, and the Supreme Court agrees that you should not have to monetarily support it, you are a hate-monger who is trying to eradicate all opposition to your own opinions?

Anything the other-side does not like.

That would be the exponential of my 'I'm right/you're stupid' comment above, GD. The world is driven by absolutes now, not tolerance of our differences.

1992

I'm saying that if this religious objection is allowed, then others (vaccines, transfustions, psychological drugs) must either also be allowed, or not. You can disagree with Jehovah's witnesses objection against transfusions, but i think it's reasonable to conclude that they are sincere.

If those aren't, then why? what's the criteria to determine whether a religious objection is valid? That's the precedent that concerns me.

My interpretation is that this ruling was narrow it your group (not yours personally) does not agree with something bring it up and they may decide.

As for the Jehovah Witness, they are not required to take transfusions since 1931

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

how true...and all the more reason for people who vote to do their own research regarding facts instead of relying on the media to provide their talking points for them. Because all media is biased in their reporting - some are just less obvious about it than others.

How would the precedent concern you exactly?

Were you at all concerned when the Federal Government decided it could tax a behavior or force someone into a market place that they did not want to engage in?

yes. i was/am actually against the mandate. But this is the wrong way to "attack" the law.

I'm basically against religious exemptions in the first place. Think what they may give in religious freedom they more than take away from the establishment clause. Like, you know how every spring there's a story about some school banning prayers at the graduation? To me the issue is treating different religions differently. So, pray all you want, but since it's a government event, if a muslim or buddhist or even scientologist wants to do the same you have to let them. Otherwise you're choosing one over the other.


So, i dont think the law should be. But since it is the law, there shouldn't be these exemptions.

well, no one is saying that the women can't purchase their own medicines outside of company provided insurance, just that the company doesn't have to cover these 4 specific ones. Nothing prevents them from picking up a secondary policy that covers these items only (a smart insurance guy would start marketing that plan). And the ruling covers only these 4 items, nothing else.

All the speculation and what-ifs are just that...meant to create fear among people. And it certainly appears to be working.

Well, Bill Clinton signed into law in the first 50 days of his Presidency the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. It was almost unanimous in the Senate, a body composed of a majority of Democrats at the time. It is law too.

As far as the argument that the SC is made up of "mainstream" Christians that favor their religious bent, there are a couple of cases to consider.

The first is Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente Uniăo do Vegetal, a 2006 ruling in which the court sustained a RFRA claim brought by "a Christian spiritist sect based in Brazil." The vote was 8-0.

The other case is Hobby Lobby. The owners of the companies that brought that suit are a family of fundamental evangelicals. In the companion case, Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell, the company seeking to vindicate its religious liberty is owned by Mennonites. The court has six Catholic justices.

As the majority emphasized, Hobby Lobby deals with contraception only.

But is it not true that the Affordable Health Care act only a law because it it a tax?

Could they not sue based upon taxation of religious expression and win anyway (and cause a bigger issue)?

I'm afraid that no one talks about the real issue here. Where is the outrage that I, and all other men like me, must pay for our condoms? Shouldn't insurance cover my reproductive needs, too?