People are more productive and enjoy a higher standard of living when they're not "cared for" by their government, You_Fool. That I'm saddled with the cost of taking care of people like you taxes the standard of living of my family. In our humble opinions, you're not worth it.

It's rude to respond to what Einstein is actually talking about. He never does it to anybody!

MTV is so disgusting. WTB better parents so they go out of business.

Planned Parenthood is good at helping minors hide their destructive and unhealthy (both physically and pscyhologically) behavior from their parents, who are still legally responsible for their well-being. Yay for hurting kids?!

Because if your 16 year old daughter gets a disease and pregnant, clearly what she needs most is an abortion and some medication. All better!

Justinian I,

"1. If S needs X to survive and can not afford it, then you may agree that a conscientious objection is cancelled out because S's rights are more important."

S is a null set, so what are you talking about? The state already provides contraception via healthcare assistance to the poor. Every single woman with an income disqualifying her for state assistance can afford birth control. It's that cheap.

You're just trying to parse my arguments because you refuse to respond to my simple, inescapable points. Nobody is being denied birth control. Nobody is dying for lack of it. The state provides it. It's cheap. Nobody with a job providing health insurance which doesn't cover it can't afford it. Nobody. I've pointed this out repeatedly but you're just ignoring it because, for whatever reason, you're fixated on birth control as a human "right." In any event, nobody knows who you're talking about. There's literally nobody in your S group.

I'm glad the Constitution of the United States gives us rights (not that many are still protected), because many share your view that people are slaves to the state.

"Moreover, I believe that the freedom of religion should be radically reinterpreted. It should mean that while people are free to practice their religion privately within reason, the public is also free from their religion."

I agree. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for someone who objects to paying to kill their babies. So it's already interpreted in that way today. And nobody is forcing anybody to pay to kill others' babies. So it's already interpreted that way today. Though, government does use my tax money to kill human beings. So you're objecting to government providing contraception except, perhaps, in the case of medical conditions (not counting pregnancy)?

"Again, I did not say anything about saving poor women. Unless, of course, saving them means ending abstinence-only education for good. "

How about, the government isn't responsible for teaching my children, or anyone else's, about the birds and the bees? The government cannot solve trashy culture. The government cannot save everyone's children from crappy parents. Any ignorance is not a result of abstinence-only education. I find your attempts to substitute government for your mother disturbing.

Regarding Democrat culture,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6G0-UbESeo
(As Joe Biden would say, "those are the facts.")

Language warning: He uses a certain word starting with the letter "n" nobody likes. But he's black. And he's not using it hatefully. So I'm pretty sure he's not being racially insensitive... to himself. Chris Rock has been using this context for more than a decade, btw.

Anyone disagree? Or is he 100% right?

This guy should have debated Obama.

I love how I'm going to be required to pay for insurance covering birth control and herpes [etc etc]. Because I really deserve to be saddled with the costs of irresponsible whores. Yeah, I said it.

I know at least one who's happy about this. No shame, just happy that others have to burden the costs of her irresponsible (whorish) behavior. How far we have fallen.

On YOUR smart phone. My Android 4 shows it all pretty!

Bacchus, entitlements already include it. Justinian is demanding employers offer it directly. Which makes no sense. Because employers who pay enough that their employees can't get state assistance, and who offer health insurance (the ones he's talking about), already pay far more than enough for their employees to easily afford birth control.

"Blah blah blah blah. Keep putting words in my mouth. I do not care about the moral conscience of the an employer..."

That's the point. I said you don't care about their first amendment right. The argument is about their freedom to practice their religion, which includes rules of conscience. Forcing them to provide the service of ending human life is outlawing the practice of their religion, which certainly prohibits their free exercise thereof.

"You don't agree with the principle that those who can not afford life-saving medicine and can't afford it should not have their medicine subsidized by the state? So let them die?"

Nobody's arguing the state shouldn't provide (fund) contraception to the poor to treat medical conditions. Nobody's refusing to pay taxes because those taxes are used to terminate human life. The employers you're demanding directly pay for abortive drugs already provide them via state assistance programs.

If they're unemployed or making minimum wage, they already qualify for state programs. If they're employed so well their employer provides health insurance, they positively can afford $9 $50 or even significantly more every month.

What are you objecting to? Are you seriously proposing that anyone with a job which provides health insurance, which provides wages which raise them out of state assistance programs, can't afford birth control? That's ridiculous. Birth control is cheap, and anyone with employer-provided health insurance can afford it. Period.

Your claim that the poor are ignorant and need to be taken care of is insulting. In addition to being offensive, it's not a sound basis for any government action, let alone infringing upon Constitutional liberties. Such an argument could be made to rationalize everything. Poor ignorant people, you could say, can't make good education decisions. Or good career choices. Or good mating choices. Or good choices regarding where to live. Or who to vote for. Or sign legal contracts!

You haven't provided a reasonable example where the moral outrage you allege is remotely possible. Woman with wages high enough not to qualify for assistance and with employer-provided healthcare? She can afford contraception on her own dime. 100% of the time.

Unless you have dozens upon dozens of electoral votes, it doesn't mean anything for the country. You're being squashed by demographics and birth rates.

And unless the civil war hasn't happened yet and states still have rights, what doesn't mater federally won't matter locally the moment anyone cares to force you to do something differently.

They've been at this for generations. They're pretty good at it.

There are no elections in the USA. Democrats and Republicans offer up 2 crappy options which will continue to rob us via the fed and attack our freedoms, and we pick which tyrant rules over us for 4 years.

Justinian I,

Of course there are state interests in squashing rights and getting more involved in people's lives. That's why we have those rights and why defending them is paramount to freedom.

If you think a $50 dollar cost as a result of a medical condition (isn't the average cost significantly less?) is a huge burden that women need government to help them with, that's about the most sexist thing I've ever heard. Not only does that have to be the cheapest medical condition in the history or horrible conditions requiring government assistance, but anyone who can't afford it is obviously on welfare already. And the government DOES pay to terminate human life. So you're kinda getting your way already: Employers who don't want to be a part of killing human life are paying for it after all, through their taxes.

I think I just read you describe the cost of birth control as "severe financial hardship." LULZ!

"Poor women might have irresponsible sex for economic support, but it's deplorable to hold them morally responsible because of their lack of options."

You really are a big-government, anti-freedom guy after all! You do know that this, empirically, results in lower standards of living, right? And that freer people are happier than slaves (empirically), right?

Way to abandon your claimed preference of measure. Those poor working women! They're too DUMB to respect themselves or take care of themselves! Government needs to save them with $9/month for birth control!

It's also unconstitutional. I wish that mattered today. There's no constitutional power of extorting me in order to pay for a sexist view that poor women are too stupid to make good decisions, use their brains, or take care of themselves.