Could The Blunt Amendment Allow Employers To Block HIV Screening?

[HockeyMom]

1. There is another flaw in their "logic"

An employer can refuse to cover what he is morally opposed to? Well, what about federal, state, and local public employees? Think about that small business employer. Clearly, he has to pay taxes. If these public employees are covered by government health plans, whether they themselves pay premiums or not, their government employer pays the rest. Where do goverment employers get the money from to pay for the preimums? TAXES from the citizens of that state, city, etc. That small business employer is STILL paying for morally objectionable coverage for all the public employees. Same for ANY CITIZEN paying taxes who might find thi s objectionable. How many tax paying citizens have moral objections to war? Can they opt out too? How is it any different. A part of my premiums for health insurance was paid by the public school district I worked for. It covered contraceptives with a co-pay. Taxpayers paid it through the portion of school property taxes --- IN FORIDA. Hello, Senator Rubio???? Oh, a STATE can opt out? The state is of one religion? That is almost like Mr. Target and Mr. Walmart being "persons".

Bishop Dolan of NYC. Yep, same is true there too, and HAS BEEN for a long time. Any Catholic living in NYC is already pay for other people's BC (public employees). Where is your OUTRAGE on that, Bishop? Not a peep for years.

The bottom line is that if you are morally opposed to BC, or Blood Transfusions, or ALL Medical Care, don't YOU YOURSELF use them.