There is something to be said for the Interstate Commerce Clause placing this into Federal jurisdiction rather than State, but that would be a very massive change and would probably be better suited for the Supreme Court rather than either the Legislative or Judicial branches.
Finally a legitimate use for the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the ball is dropped.
Hobby Lobby covers some forms of birth control. Other companies currently litigating against the mandate don't want to cover any form of birth control. For example, Wheaton College or Eden Foods. The ruling simply stated that "closely held" corporations with "sincere religious beliefs" could opt out of providing birth control.
Providing birth control is a treatment, not a medicine. Many medicines and devices can be used in multiple sorts of treatment regimes. I've not seen any evidence that a person who was prescribed (for example) hormone pills chemically identical to BC for the purpose of mitigating cysts could be denied coverage of that treatment.
Not covering BC at all is OK for me really, as would be not covering Viagra or any other sort of lifestyle choice medical interventions. Whether or not to cover those sorts of things being up to the company seems fair.
Actually. Many more than you think? Just in Canada recently a border crossing gone wrong for 4 alleged terrorist resulted in 40 arrests of a group planning acts of terrorism.
First, citation needed, second, has how much to do with discharged devices on airplanes?
Real Users never use the Help key.
