Not ecstatic about the wording in the first paragraph, considering Ron Paul doesn't believe the morning after pill causes an abortion, but I still agree none of it should be paid for by Fed Govt., or regulated, etc.
to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortions.
I think there are more than one kind of morning after pill. But in any event, Ron would be against the subsidy being paid for by forcing payment from those with moral objections.
I seem to remember that BHO promised that he would NOT enforce the portions of ObamaCare that would offend the pro-life folks. I recall that as a promise he made to the 'right wing' who then voted for this new law. Perhaps I misunderstood his intention or I (and the pro-life crowd) were naive in believing his promise.
But, wait! As the chief executive wouldn't a promise to ignore portions of the law be... oh, I don't know, Illegal? As chief executive is he allowed to pick and choose which portions of a law to enforce?
I think there are more than one kind of morning after pill. But in any event, Ron would be against the subsidy being paid for by forcing payment from those with moral objections.
I'm even against this and I take birth control and I hate paying $40 a month for it, but I think it'd be so weird getting it for free. It wouldn't feel right.
I'm even against this and I take birth control and I hate paying $40 a month for it, but I think it'd be so weird getting it for free. It wouldn't feel right.
When Rand was running I read some article about a morning after pill that literally was the morning after, and it kept conception from occurring, toughened the egg or something. Can't say I really know what I'm talking about, scientifically, but people were making a distinction about before and after conception.