22 Jul 2014 6:39 pm
But if they provided it of there own free will, they would have had to comply with the rules under the ACAgreatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 5:10 pm » wrote:
Yet Hobby Lobby challenged it on a religious objection to covering abortifacients, despite the fact that they were not yet under any coverage obligation at all.
From my perspective, if they were going to object to an aspect of it that had not yet been implemented, why couldn't they have objected to the whole of it?