Bitsy

There are an estimated 52% of employers that possibly fall under the private held corporation ruling. No one has suggested that any other private held corporation will take the path chosen by the companies in this case but to suggest that they won't is what I would consider ignorant. I will not venture to guess why there is any concern one way or the other by Canadians who are not affected by this ruling. Maybe you can explain. Why should any of the methods be denied? I don't want a corporation prescribing the best pharmaceutical choice for me, that is between me and my doctor. Many women prefer an IUD for either personal or medicate reasons, they should not be denied that choice.

Are you seriously saying that 96% of people working in the US are employees either of non-profits, publically traded corporation or civil servants. No offense, Shady, but I believe that NYU Stern School of Business has more knowledge than you about private employment in the US. I will stand corrected if your have any reputable study that says only 4% will be affected by this ruling. Guess what? What Ontario covers or does not cover has no bearing one me of any other US female.

And just what would those forms be, and how successful are they in preventing a pregnancy in comparison to prescription drugs. Further, do they serve any other health benefit for the woman other that birth control?

I think a estimated 52% of private employment is a significant number of people. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/30/hobby_lobby_supreme_court_ruling_how_many_people_work_at_closely_held_corporations.html There are only two drugs considered abortiofacients by the FDA and the medical profession, RU-486 or methotrexate/ misoprostol combination, and they are not included in the mandate. The birth control methods objected to by these religious zealots are designed to prevent a pregnancy not cause an abortion but in this case dogma outweighs science, as is the case in IUD's which were part of the case.

That was always part of my argument. Birth control is not mutually exclusive to Democrats and to suggest that was the purpose for its inclusion in the ACA is beyond the pale. This is not a victory for religious freedom. Lost in the argument are the women who work for these corporation who are also practicing Christians that use birth control for family planning or health reasons, they have no religious freedom according to the men on the Supreme Court. Their rights and freedom are trumped by certain corporations based on the owners religious narrow beliefs.

The ACA is the law of the land, allowing a for profit corporation to deny a guaranteed benefit based on religion is the real absurdity and a slippery slope, an argument that I dislike using but in this case, applicable.

Non-profit have different rules....this ruling was that for profits corporations had religious rights.

Hobby Lobby is not a non-profit corporation. In a nut shell. "This is a deeply troubling decision. For the first time, the highest court in the country has said that business owners can use their religious beliefs to deny their employees a benefit that they are guaranteed by law," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU."Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but that freedom does not include the right to impose beliefs on others. In its ruling today, the Court simply got it wrong."

As Reid says, the Republican amendments are 95% gotcha amendments. Why are Republicans afraid of an up or down vote on clean legislation is the question to be asking not why Reid won't allow a vote on legislation with "wrecking amendments". . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)

Link, please.

His growth was evidenced in this line..... "And when you’re nothing at all, there’s no reason to be afraid.”

I really enjoyed the quality time spent with Sam. Though rarely seen, Sam is a favorite of mine, especially his scenes with Jon. Jon: “I’m not a bleeding poet,” Sam: “No, you’re really not.”

Another overview......... http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/UN_Watch

The reasons for the decline are of interest. http://www.ibtimes.com/gun-violence-down-49-1993-peak-despite-public-perception-high-crime-1243671

Source, please.

I answered the question asked, was it a consulate or a CIA outpost. The fact check article pre-dating the new emails does not change the fact that it was a CIA facility.

Yes, it was known from the beginning that it was a CIA operation. "First, some important context: Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi consulate was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-alternative-explanation-for-the-benghazi-talking-points-bureaucratic-knife-fight/2013/05/10/22a8df5c-b98d-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew Chapter 25

Do you have an example where this has occurred? I have never seen any Medicare supplemental plans or Medicare Advantage plans that included maternity leave.

Yep, typical Palin still using her Down’s Syndrome child for her political advantage as she plariarizes the words of another.

The implication was clear....she spiced it up for Trig and then proceed to read the words of another.

Hardly, she implied that it was a couple of lines. And her intro to it implied that she had read it so often to her other 4 children she had to spice it up for Trig.

Did she say words or a couple of lines were lifted? http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-origin-palins-green-eggs-ham-poem

Did Sarah given a shout out to the author those words she borrowed or did she take them for herself? http://politicalhat.com/2013/11/29/i-do-not-like-this-uncle-sam/