Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

52. The litigation is about abortifacients.

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #51)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:42 AM

Jan 2013

The HHS rule states it does not require coverage of abortifacients because of its definition of the onset of pregnancy. The litigation, among other things challenges that.

Now, as to "new lows", you again repeat your bullshit: "You are putting forward right wing misinformation". Combined with your intital assertion in #20, "Only if you accept the right wing re-definition of 'abortifacient'", your doubling down on that in #24, "I think you want to use the right wing definition (#19 either means that, or it means you made a mistake in reading what you quoted), but won't say that directly", and your McCarthyesque questions in #30, who do you think you're kidding?

I would say this is a new low for you but it's not new from you.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A Flood of Suits Fights Coverage of Birth Control [View all] rug Jan 2013 OP

What a mess. cbayer Jan 2013 #1

I still think the ultimate result will be Catholic hosptals closing or selling. rug Jan 2013 #2

I'm not so sure about that. I think they will find a way around it. cbayer Jan 2013 #3

What about those states that have contraception coverage requirements already? Freddie Jan 2013 #4

Got any links to those states and statutes? rug Jan 2013 #6

28 states including CA & NY Freddie Jan 2013 #9

Whew, there's a lot on that site. Can you point me in the right direction cbayer Jan 2013 #10

www.guttmacher.org/statecenter Freddie Jan 2013 #13

RU-486 is permitted under the ACA. rug Jan 2013 #11

'permitted', perhaps, but not required muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #18

But it does require coverage of abortifacients. rug Jan 2013 #19

Only if you accept the right wing re-definition of 'abortifacient' muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #20

Then you must believe 57% of U.S. OBs are rightwing. rug Jan 2013 #21

Could be; it was British dictionaries and an encyclopedia I used muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #22

I'm not a biologist but the only political issue is whether it should be legal. rug Jan 2013 #23

How contraception and abortion is paid for is also a political issue muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #24

Biology is not "right wing" or left wing. rug Jan 2013 #25

Of course abortifacients shouldn't be banned muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #26

So, a right winger is someone who subordinates facts to ideology. rug Jan 2013 #27

You did, in #19 (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #28

Wrong, you put a political spin on a medical term in #20. rug Jan 2013 #29

You were acccepting the right wing redefinition muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #30

I'm accepting the obstetricians' definition. rug Jan 2013 #32

You're agreeing with 57% of American obstetricians in a survey muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #35

Lol. So, the political party determines the fact, not the science. rug Jan 2013 #41

No, that's not the only issue; in fact, it's not actually one of the issues at hand here muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #43

Contraception, as well as abortifacients, are part of the litigation. rug Jan 2013 #46

"witch hunting"? You asked the question first. After I answered it, I asked you, twice muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #47

You yourself brought it up and asked iit in#30. rug Jan 2013 #48

Can you read your posts #6, #11, #19 and #25? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #49

Of course I can. rug Jan 2013 #50

#25 muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #51

The litigation is about abortifacients. rug Jan 2013 #52

Since I have shown that the re-definition was indeed a right wing move muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #53

Oh, now you say I'm championing Bush? rug Jan 2013 #54

Moroever... LeftishBrit Jan 2013 #55

I'm curious as to which states those are and what kind of language cbayer Jan 2013 #7

Here: rug Jan 2013 #12

Thanks so much. Looks like 28 states have requirements similar to ACA. cbayer Jan 2013 #14

That narrows it done. rug Jan 2013 #15

Right. I would think that if they have complied without dissent, it would cbayer Jan 2013 #16

Exactly. rug Jan 2013 #17

As you pointed out skepticscott Jan 2013 #5

If they wish to maintain the affiliation they do. rug Jan 2013 #8

the usual religious crap Skittles Jan 2013 #31

Yea, all that religious stuff is such crap cbayer Jan 2013 #33

Yes, it cetainly is. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #34

religion is not required for charity Skittles Jan 2013 #36

No it's definitely not, but many religious people and organizations are focused cbayer Jan 2013 #37

again, RELIGION IS NOT NEEDED for charity, civil liberties, social justice, environmental issues Skittles Jan 2013 #38

No, it's not, but it's still there anyway cbayer Jan 2013 #39

yes and don't we ALL know it Skittles Jan 2013 #40

One last thing (then you can have the last word) cbayer Jan 2013 #42

and I prefer doing the right thing because it is simply the right thing Skittles Jan 2013 #44

Aw, jeez, I said I was done, but I have to say one more thing. cbayer Jan 2013 #45

Trying to deny people the right to birth control is indeed crap... LeftishBrit Jan 2013 #56

Completely agree. cbayer Jan 2013 #57