Dear liberal,
This is not a debate about birth control; it is a debate about who has the responsibility to pay for birth control and whether an institution that is protected by first amendment freedoms should be FORCED to pay for something it finds objectionable. I know you are so focused on words like FORCE AND CONTROL so I think it's important you pay attention to them here because at issue is whether religious institutions with(stated again in case you missed it) first amendment protections from this kind of state intercession and control should be FORCED AND CONTROLLED to provide something they are within their rights to object to. Making this whole debate even more insidious is the fact that the thing they are being forced to pay for can be reasonably accommodated by most budgets and only affects the portion of the population able to produce children.
I know, dear liberal, you have a tendency to lean to the straw man and allow yourself to get mired in the subterfuge of your protected little buzz words, but this really is the heart of the matter:should a constitutional right be stomped and violated to accommodate the LIFESTYLE/financial choices of individuals ie should a church be FORCED to provide a service or product that runs contrary to it's doctrine? Should anyone for that matter be forced to provide something that there is not constitutional guarantee of protection or provision? I find this to be the heart of the argument overall when provision for the common defense continues to be stripped and attacked while we find new things that everyone seems to think they were guaranteed: cell phone, birth control, etc.j
PS Something tells me the toad that stood up in Georgetown with her fabricated story would be using her newly acquired legal skills to defend Muslim's against violating their usury laws under first amendment protections and every liberal stomping their feet now would fall right in line. I'd bet the last dollar in my pocket on that one.
