Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women

[FlaGator]

There is now.



They would be breaking the law.

But again, like the Amish in 1982, religious freedom is not an out.

No law is being broken, a mandate for a government bureaucracy is not a low. It is a regulation and there is a difference. For example the Amish (since you brought them up) don't pay vehicle registration fees or usages fees even though they use public highways roads. There are several regulations from the EEOC that do not apply to religious based organizations because they run contrary to the beliefs of particular groups.

[Arroyo_Doble]

No law is being broken, a mandate for a government bureaucracy is not a low. It is a regulation and there is a difference. For example the Amish (since you brought them up) don't pay vehicle registration fees or usages fees even though they use public highways roads. There are several regulations from the EEOC that do not apply to religious based organizations because they run contrary to the beliefs of particular groups.

I am not saying accommodations cannot be made (in this case, they have been); I am saying that the constitutional question has been answered. You cannot be relieved from the obligations of the law due to a conflict with your religious beliefs.

[FlaGator]

It figures that the house leadership would leave women out of the process.


The pill is more than just a contraceptive. It is used to treat excessively painful menstruation or to regulate a woman's cycle if she has drastically irratic periods. Most women could tell the panel that.

The meeting was not about the legality of contraceptives. It was about the encroachment of government in to religion.

[FlaGator]

I am not saying accommodations cannot be made (in this case, they have been); I am saying that the constitutional question has been answered. You cannot be relieved from the obligations of the law due to a conflict with your religious beliefs.

Then what is the argument? The churches and their organizations are asking for an exception based on their beliefs when it comes to providing a service that is relatively cheap or free to begin with? They have never been asked to do this before and things have been working just fine. Now all of a sudden it becomes a big issue when it could have been left alone and no one would have even thought about it. Normally I'm not the conspiracy type of thinker but I do have to wonder if there isn't more to this than meets the eye (or maybe this is some type of diversion)

[AmPat]

The meeting was not about the legality of contraceptives. It was about the encroachment of government in to religion.

the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience

Exactly, and we should not accept the liberal media's (the one AD claims doesn't exist) attempt or language used to portray it that way.:mad:

[michaelsean]

I am not saying accommodations cannot be made (in this case, they have been); I am saying that the constitutional question has been answered. You cannot be relieved from the obligations of the law due to a conflict with your religious beliefs.

So could you explain the purpose First Amendment if the government can make any law it wants that violates a person's religious freedom?