Hillary

Hillary is showing her true colors. She is blasting the Supreme Court decision allowing closely held (meaning privately owned) corporations to opt out of the Hussein mandate that contraceptive devices must be provided to female employees. She claims the court has gotten onto a "slippery slope". First, not all contraception is included in the ruling. The ruling is specific to four means of contraception, which can be effectively used after a pregnancy has begun and can be construed as a form of abortion. Secondly, the ruling simply affirmed a part of the Constitution upholding the freedom of religion as the owners of the company have strong feelings about abortion. The ruling did not say the female workers could not use contraception nor even that they cannot have an abortion - it simply allows the employer, acting on their religious beliefs, to avoid paying for those things.
As an allegedly responsible, highly visible woman in this country, why doesn't Hillary suggest some level of abstinence to her minions rather than loudly objecting to the lack of a law providing contraception? It would certainly seem reasonable that a woman could provide her own contraception using anything from a crossed leg procedure to purchasing her own pills out of her own pocket. To go so far as to say that the prevention of pregnancy is a necessary protection of a woman's health is an awfully long reach.
Taking a step further in the whole mess, what are the rights of a company that is required to provide contraception? Suppose the company does pay for the pills or devices and yet a female employee becomes pregnant. The employer's insurance must now pay for both the birth costs and provide a paid leave for the employee and then offer health insurance to the child until age 26. Would it be fair to argue that the employer offered the contraception with their insurance and the employee simply refused to avail herself of same and allowed herself to become pregnant? Why, then would the company's insurance be required to pay for her refusal to use that which is provided? Should there be a limit on the number of times an employee could become pregnant despite the availability of employee provided contraception? If a company can provide that an employee can be terminated for using certain drugs the employer deems harmful, could it not be reasonably argued that an employee be terminated for failing to use certain drugs provided by that employer? Talk about a "slippery slope".
If an employer has to provide insurance to cover, for example, flu shots, should the employee be required to receive that shot? What if an employee opts to forego that inoculation, gets the flu and then infects numerous other employees who miss work and cost a company a great deal of absenteeism? Is there any recourse for the company?
It is a frightful thing to think Hillary is the current front runner for the next presidential election. Hopefully, her true ignorance of the Constitution and the foundations of this Nation, through her outspoken tongue wagging, will doom her chances and she can go on being a "broke" grandmother.