Personally I don't have a problem with it either but obviously others do. And I respect freedom of religion (as long as its doctrines are within the country's laws) more than I do the freedom to receive free BC pills.

Face it we were lied to once again. If BC actually lowers healthcare costs overall insurance companies by way of free market would have had it included all along.

one's got nothing to do with the other. not sure why you keep trying to tie them together. providing birth control in no way infringes on someone's ability to follow whatever religion they wish, nor does it make them use something they don't wish to use.
and they aren't free. people pay for their coverage, don't they? anyone who owns health insurance doesn't ever use most of the products covered by their carrier. and some religions don't believe in organ donation, blood transfusions, etc-yet those are still covered. where is your outrage about that?

I wish religion had never been invented by those greedy, power trip folks. any religion.

I'm not outraged by this administration forcing BC as part of health insurance polices, i simply don't agree with it. I suppose Jehovah’s Witness members who shun health care in addition to blood transfusions should be outraged with the prospect of forcing them to have coverage.

Why not require all citizens who can reach the peddle in a car to purchase car insurance even though they don't have and have no plans to own a car. Plenty of people are in accidents who don't own cars and plenty of kids and theives going to drive regardless. We can set up exchanges and give tax credits to those who can't afford it. How about homeowners' insurance? Or better yet umbrella policies for all! :wf

car policies cover any driver given permission to drive. so an individual doesn't have to have car insurance, but the owner of the car does...so there goes your analogy. they aren't similar, so i'm not sure why people keep trying to have a correlation between one kind of insurance and another.

they are forcing people to buy, so as to keep the whole thing afloat. if there was no way to compel the young and healthy to buy, obamacare would be far too costly for insurance companies.

Once again, Dell, what you say is blatently false: this administration is NOT forcing birth control as part of health insurance policies on any group with religious objections. There is a simple out, to protect the civil rights of employees from religious persecution (for not agreeing with employer), where the insurance company will provide it, and the employer will have nothing to do with it.

You're entitled to your opinions Dell, but you've been far outvoted by the rest of your American fellows, who prefer a 21st century country, rather than a 1700's one. Get over it or move out.

Yeah that.

Except mine of course, LOL.

No religion.

and back to the topic at hand (gotta love the title to this thread :rolleyes: )


judge rules:


http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-j...141100233.html

He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said.


much like the scotus ruling a few years ago. the burden to get i.d. is the same for all, the law isn't discriminatory.

Just to be clear ... the judge did not overturn the challenge or rule on the challenge, nor did he rule the law Constitutional. He simply addressed the technicalities. It's going right to higher court for ruling.

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.

Nope, no ruling there.

Yes, the judge used the word "ruling". There's a little more to it than that.

No, it was not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether the law was constitutional or not) it was a ruling on that he would not give an injunction right now against implementation. Will you give us an injunction temporarily halting implementation, Judge? No, Judge says. But the law is still being appealed immediately to the higher court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of the actual law. The law has not been ruled "legal".

" He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

Before the trial, Pennsylvania conceded that it was not aware of any instances of voter impersonation fraud in the state.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said."

You sure?

Yes, according to the legal opinions that have been stated about what it was the judge was ruling upon, which was only the injunction. The judge was asked to stop the current implementation, while the constitutionality is determined. The judge chose not to block implementation while the constitutionality is being determined.

Try this, it's pretty detailed:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...-supreme-court

http://www.pacourts.us/NR/rdonlyres/...Inj_081512.pdf

This is more detailed. And not a blog.

NPR is not a "blog".

The judge did not rule on the constitutionality, he was not asked to rule on the constitutionality, he was asked, and he ruled only not to give an injunction while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed.

You can't possibly still be disputing that, are you? You are saying you think the judge ruled the law unconstitutional? No, he didn't.

The judge only ruled against a temporary injunction. He only ruled the law can go into effect (no injunction) while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed before November.

Law upheld as constitutional. Repeats over and over in the pdf.

No, it does not. The judge comments on the consitutionality, yes - but that's not what the judge ruled upon which was only the injunction

etc, etc., he talks about the constitutionality. But the judge did not rule upon the constitutionality of this law. He declined to do so Please read page 68 of your PDF, which is the judges final order: it is only that the petition for injunction is denied - there is NO RULING on the constitutionality of this law.