-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Except that doesn’t work out for the employee unless the employer *does* pay to buy your own contraception. Otherwise you, the woman who relies upon contraception, are just a damaged party.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You seem to be zero percent of the way towards grasping why that is an entirely unrealistic real world proposition. https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/healthcare-costs-increased-twice-as-fast--over-last-decade …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Your tweet is 60% of the way there to understanding the bizarre tax treatment of health insurance means these choices are tied unnecessarily to your job.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Which is a step further to the (correct) conclusion that the rule was not put there to make contraception available, but to *force* those who believe it wrong to have to pay for it. The real purpose was specifically to violate their rights gratuitously.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulwaldman1 wants to buy gas with his car insurance.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So are employers who pay their workers “complicit” if their employees use the money to buy contraceptives? How is that different from the Little Sisters argument?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.