[Vision2020] SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

[Sue Hovey]

Roger, you are a father of daughters.  I can’t believe you can be so dismissive about a woman’s  need to protect herself against an unwanted pregnancy.  

sueh

From: Scott Dredge 
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:54 PM
To: lfalen ; viz ; Lynn McCollough 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

Roger - the gloom and doom is so-called 'religious freedom' being used to exert control over women's options for birth control coverage.  If you want to make an argument against birth control coverage based on cost, then put up the numbers.  Note that:

  a.. Insurance companies aren't the ones pushing for dropping birth control likely because it's lower cost than prenatal care and birthing 
  b.. Employers aren't basing their objections based on cost


Your comments regarding abstinence are just plain nutty.  That's never worked for the simple fact that the vast majority of men and woman do not abstain.  Get real.


-Scott




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 21:26:40 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com; lmccollough at gmail.com
From: lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision



Why the gloom and doom. It is not a disease like cancer that you have mostly no control over. It is the result of sex that except for rape is voluntary. A person can abstain, pay for their own control or go the Planed Parenthood. I understand they give away birth control products free.
This from my oldest daughter- If a women's  preferred method of birth control is to keep her clothes on, will her employer pay for her clothes?
Roger
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  -----Original Message-----
  From: "Lynn McCollough" <lmccollough at gmail.com>
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com
  Date: 07/08/14 07:42
  Subject:  [Vision2020] SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision


    
  On Thurday, SCOTUS filed an injunction that widely expanded an employers ability to not cover birth control for women. This decision will have much greater impact than their decision regarding the Hobby Lobby filing.
  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2014/07/08/12325985/

   
  It is a shame this isn't getting the media coverage.
   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  =======================================================
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
 

======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140709/a1adc958/attachment.html>