Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
What a quanundrum! Jim says there is no war on woman yet House Repubs. think the opposite???
"WASHINGTON — House Republicans, unsure how to proceed, have slowed their efforts to overturn a federal rule requiring employers, including religious institutions, to provide female employees with free health insurance coverage for contraceptives.
While most House Republicans still support legislation to broaden the exemption for religious employers, House Republican leaders are carefully reviewing their options on the issue, which Democrats used to political advantage in the Senate.
The goal of House Republicans has not changed, they said, but they worry about further alienating women in this year’s elections"
|
Paul - I never said the media wasn't spinning this as a war on women. I'm saying that's not what it is, if you look at the facts surrounding the issue.
Instead of posting a gotcha! link, can yuo answer a question?
As you may or may not know, the church
is covering contraception where there is a valid medical need. The church won't cover contraception if it's a tool to engage in recreational sex. Here is my question...why would liberals assume that an employer is legally obligated to pay for the voluntary, recreational activities of its employees?
That's all this issue boils down to. The rest is liberal spin. It may be effective spin, but it's still intellectually dishonest spin.
If your side needs to frame the debate in a totally dishonest way right off the bat, qwhat does that tell you?
Threaded Mode