by Indy » Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:02 am
You guys realize right that what the plaintiffs are calling "abortion" here is using one of the strictest, questionable definitions?
So not only is it more than debatable that these are anywhere near abortion--you could have a case on that and I believe that's exactly what happened, and they lost--once you get through that then comes the whole religious thing.
In other words, we're considering allowing these companies to opt out of a law based on a dubious definition of "abortion" and the even more dubious argument that because of this, it violates their "religious beliefs," as if we should start letting that be a blanket excuse for ignoring laws you don't like.
That slope izza slippery...