A Flood of Suits Fights Coverage of Birth Control

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. No, that's not the only issue; in fact, it's not actually one of the issues at hand here

The political issues here are:
Should regular contraception be covered by employer health insurance?
Should emergency contraception be covered by employer health insurance?
Should religious-affiliated corporations get exemptions to the general rule?

See - nothing about abortifacients there at all.

The HHS does not have a 'rule' to reverse. It uses the definition of pregnancy of the major scientific organisations in the USA:

The medical establishment--including the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--holds that emergency contraceptives prevent pregnancy.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-20/news/0506200177_1_emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-regular-birth-control-pills

Is that data broad enough for you?

I'm not in witch-hunting mode. I was correcting the bad definition you tried to use in #19. You may claim you are being hunted, but you claimed that it was a question for the left as to whether abortifacients should be banned. I had to get you to answer it yourself (after asking you twice) because you claimed that's all we had to decide.

"The issue for the courts is this: If abortifacients are legal there is no cognizable legal basis to exempt an employer from providing coverage for its employees."

Well, no, of course that's not the issue. A treatment can be legal without it having to be included in health insurance. I don't think you understand what people are arguing at all. Maybe you should read up on the basics of this before proceeding.