Pretty sure the brain is part of the central nervous system.

Do they? Because it’s not taxed.

And strangely enough, the whole basis of this debate is about what is legally required as a benefit. Like, for example, dental coverage is not legally recovered as a benefit.

This just perpetuates the stereotype that George Lopez is funny.

It’s weird, I feel like if they were selling these parts it would be immoral, but I can’t muster any fucks to give if they are. Which I doubt anyway.

This is not a part of compensation. It’s a separate benefit. That’s why they call them “benefits” and not “compensation”.

Forcing someone to implicitly condone something their religion finds morally objectionable isn’t exactly allowing them to be free to live by their rules.

They’re not seeking to prevent people from acquiring elective birth control. They’re seeking to not be included in the process. How do you equate “not paying for…

It’s not a complete abstain from the system, but there is a legitimate effort to accommodate their religious beliefs in a way that acknowledges their objections and allows them to abstain from activity that conflicts with their religion. It’s not a “duly noted, but it actually changes exactly zero about the actual…

We have to take those idiots into consideration; for the most part, they’re the ones gumming up the works of finding and implementing a solution. Everything is black & white, “we get 100% of what we want or no one gets anything” to them.

Quakers don’t get to dodge the draft because they’re pacifists

It kind of was...

It’s not really so much about money as it is forcing them to, as they see it, implicitly approve it as a right. It could not cost them a dime, but they’re still (to some weird extent) being forced to condone it. The costs are a wash as far as they’re concerned either way.

If there is a way so that…

Actually, it’s closer to the Quaker objection to conscientious objection. We’re forcing them to acknowledge that birth control is an innate right. (Which is a dubious proposition.)

It’s actually not about money. It’s a wash on money. The problem is that the exemption, or the non exemption, is a de-facto wash. It would…

I’m also passionate about reproductive rights. And I’m passionate about personal freedoms and structuring things in a way that we can come to a best consensus with some degree of understanding. (Note: I donate to planned parenthood and the national abortion access fund.)

1) The right wing dipshits don’t count. We need…

The irony of that statement: You’re forcing religious people to acknowledge that people have an innate right to something they find morally objectionable. Because you don’t find it questionable. You’re forcing your moral code on someone else in the name of making them not force their moral code on someone by refusing…

I did. The slate article mischaracterizes the case a bit.

It’s a weird legal twist more than anything... But it spells out the need for another solution for providing either free or low cost birth control, which bypasses the employer entirely. That would just be much neater in avoiding the religious objections of…

You know that non-elective birth control had to be covered regardless of the exemption, right?

This is only about elective birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

This is not about discrimination.

First and foremost, lets chill out. I (mostly) agree with you, aside from a couple of points.

1) I actually don’t care about socialism. And that is totally irrelevant to whether or not that is a viable option. (I think single payer, or massive insurance reform, is needed above and beyond what the ACA did. I think the…

No, you’re not. You’re treating catholics and non catholics exactly the same. You’re not paying for a particular service for anyone. The fact that some people may or may not use it because of their religious beliefs is irrelevant. If they said they would cover elective birth control for non catholics but not catholics…

Nope... It’s not about no healthcare for women. They’re willing to provide healthcare for women. That healthcare is required to cover non-elective birth control (for medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention) regardless of exemptions.

The difference is that they do not wish to provide elective birth control to…

Actually, My take is this:

You have to treat one group the same as another group. So, if you sell sporting goods equipment, you have to sell it to everyone or no one. This is the definition of protection from discrimination. (Same with cakes for same sex marriage. If you want a cake, they can’t not bake a cake that…