http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_religious_cases;_ylt=AoxacQSq7VJcmaBp0.6fdf07Xs8F
2007-10-02 02:31:40 · 8 answers · asked by Holy Cow! 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you provide prescription coverage, then you should provide coverage for ALL prescriptions. What's next, denying coverage for mental disease because you don't believe in mental illness?
2007-10-02 02:37:16 · answer #1 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They didn't. They refused to hear the case so any previous lower court ruling will stand. That actually upholds a law that was passed by NYs legislature thus meaning upholding the law is not activism. Forcing a government to create law or remove established laws would be the act of activist judges........
2007-10-02 09:36:56 · answer #2 · answered by Brian 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's tough being educated and religious too,it would seem....(enough already with the birth control malarkey).Thinking that preventing a pregnancy and killing a baby constitute the same thing would be an example of being only one of the afore mentioned.
2007-10-02 09:34:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Unfortunately it's already law and since they are not liberal activist judges that like to legislate from the bench they won't interfere.
2007-10-02 09:36:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
To prevent unwanted pregnancies, of course!
2007-10-02 09:56:27 · answer #5 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Please re-read the article. You misinterpreted it. Conservatives do NOT want employers to pay for birth control and the judges do not want to handle the lawsuits.
2007-10-02 09:37:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Smart people. Sure beats abortion, eh? I would think that would be their reasoning.
2007-10-02 09:35:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Employers should in NO way be responsible for health care of any type. You do work for them and they compensate you monetarily for your time - end of story.
2007-10-02 09:35:05 · answer #8 · answered by Chad 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋