BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,638
- 16,608
Well what the fuck is it Holder? I know, just a bunch of cells...that becomes what each and everyone of us are, a human being! The cruelty and degradation of humanity is startling!
Ignorant nonsense and hyperbole.
If you want to understand the governments position on the issue, then read its actual court filings, not the lies and spin of a rightwing website.
As the government correctly stated:
And the governments position as reviewed by SCOTUBlog last week:
Clearly the notion that this provision of the ACA violates religious freedom is false, unfounded, and predicated solely on partisanism, where the issue concerns only subjective, unwarranted hostility toward the Obama Administration, having nothing to do whatsoever with the merits of the ACA or facts of law.The Obama administrations merits brief in Hobby Lobby focused on the RFRA claim, and its separate brief in the Conestoga case sought to answer claims under both RFRA and the First Amendment.
In each filing, the government made the same basic points: profit-making businesses do not exercise religion at all, for purposes of either federal law or the Constitution; the mandate only applies to corporations and not to their owners and, in any event, corporations law treats the business separate from the owner; and, even if the mandate did have to satisfy a compelling government interest, it does so by assuring that female workers have access to an important health benefit as part of a comprehensive health insurance scheme.
The contraceptive coverage requirement, according to the government, is a neutral obligation that applies to profit-making businesses in general, and does not target any religious exercise. The exemptions that have been provided for other businesses those whose plans are grandfathered and thus do not immediately have to obey the mandate will only exist in a phased sequence, and that alone is not enough to deprive the mandate of its neutral character, the U.S. brief said.
In passing RFRA, the brief contended, Congress did not intend to uniquely disable the government by working a dramatic expansion of the claims for exemption based on religious liberty. Besides, it added, there has not been a single decision by the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law or required an exemption to it on the theory that that was necessary to protect the rights of a for-profit corporation or of the owners, managers, or directors of the corporation.
Argument preview: Religion, rights, and the workplace : SCOTUSblog
They can argue all they want, but killing a living human, whether it's 2 celled or 8 3/4 months old, is murder!
A zygote is not a living human. So not allowing them to develop via birth control is not nor will it ever be murder in this country.