CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
Posts: 1,530
|
 |
« on: December 22, 2014, 10:44:37 AM » |
|
The problem for the Democrats is that the majority of Americans support a ban on partial birth abortion as well as abortions after 20 weeks.
From a completely political standpoint, it is curious as to how Democrats can equate supporting religious freedom for employers = a ban on contraception.
Congressman Gardner, for example, wanted to make these pills available over the counter, which would reduce costs further. If DC pols weren't completely owned by Big Pharma, patents (which raise costs insanely) could be restricted on free market grounds.
Voters in that race, in particular, seemed to understand the difference between supporting religious freedom vs. actually restricting access to birth control.
It's about freedom of decision making - if one needs contraception covered under my insurance plan, working for a religious biz (and requiring insurance to be paid for by that biz) may not be the best choice.
I am staunchly pro-life and strongly oppose abortions on moral grounds - but I would prefer expanded access to contraceptives on free market grounds, and it can be done in the way Gardner proposed, without infringing on constitutionally protected free exercise of religion
|
