They want her to try a bunch of cheaper alternative treatments before approving the ones she needs, I bet. They always want to make sure you’ve exhausted your cheaper options first.

Do you really think she’s staying at home 20 hours a day and never thought to ask about portability? I think it’s probably safe to assume that there’s a reason she’s not doing that.

Hmm... I don’t think I mentioned the arrest either? I responded entirely to your disbelief that no one would have said anything in the 80s. Home Alone is not an accurate representation of childhood reality in the 80s. Yes, in 1985, if someone had seen a child grocery shopping alone, they probably would have commented…

Actually, they can't under Title VII: "And the federal courts have uniformly rejected the notion that Title VII's religious exemption permits religious schools to fire unmarried employees because they become pregnant, even where the schools objected to the pregnancy on religious grounds. That is because, as one judge…

Just to clarify, "at-will" means that an employer can terminate employment with or without cause; it doesn't mean that they can't get in trouble if that cause is illegal.

I would think the bigger case in her favor is that this same church has allowed other single mothers to continue their employment. Obviously not…

I think a more interesting conversation would be whether or not a religious institution should be allowed to do this kind of thing if they're going to be running businesses and hiring people. Like, my sister works at a day care owned by a church, and we've discussed whether or not we think her work could fire her for…

It is terrible that people think like you. Most of the time is not in the worker's power to dictate the terms of employment. That is why we have anti-discrimination laws and that is why we need more of those. The view that because she willingly took the job then we should not care is terrible. Workers are often…

For one thing, diction's way to good.

Next you'll be saying that CEOs should be punished when they are caught embezzling. Or that Companies should pay when they release toxic chemicals and crude oil into the environment.

Don't forget fighting in their wars. It is the poor kids enlisting to be on the front lines, not going to officer's training.

If even one more of these goblins suggests that marriage is a magical rite that automatically confers financial stability on people I am going to go on a rage spree that leaves a smoking trail of wreckage and blood.

Yup, and husbands never die or leave their wives either.

DING DING DING!

I knew a guy who met someone in one of his classes that looked a lot like him. Turns out they had same father and said man had fathered 17 children with numerous women. But yeah... men don't share any of the responsibility....

or married males who have sex outside of marriage... or rich men slumming in the 'hood (because that's where all the poor women are right??), and condoms NEVER EVER break... and and and...

My brain can not compute how one can deny access to birth control/abortion AND ON THE SAME FUCKING BREATHE tell people to stop having kids. Those two ideas are completely in contradiction with one another. You want people to have fewer or NO children? GIVE THEM ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL AND SAFE ABORTIONS. I have a very…

"married with kids versus unmarried with kids is the difference between living in poverty and not."

What? So if I marry my SO and we have kids, this will provide blanket protection against life events such as lay-offs, serious illness, and other unforeseen events which can often mean the difference between living in…

And I think the rich should pay their taxes, but that just me crazytalkin'.

Of course unmarried poor males do not contribute to the problem at all.

You know what Rand Paul? I am gonna have some extra sex this week just for you. And every time I come I am going to shout how much I love living in a welfare state. Who's with me?