If your boss doesn't believe in blood transfusions,

is he exempt from paying for your lifesaving blood transfusion?

This is utter nonsense.

So much hypocrisy.

I took local trains to a medical appointment this morning. On the way I asked women whether they had heard about the decision. Trust me. Based on the gleams in the eyes of most of the women I talked to, this is going to bring a lot of women out to the polls who might not otherwise vote.

Abortion may be controversial, but access to birth control, the right to make family planning decisions without the interference of your boss, that's something that women really care about.

So, I go to this large, large medical center in downtown Los Angeles and continue my political activism telling women about the decision and urging them to vote. I get in the elevator and what do I see but a woman with a hospital badge pushing a large cart with two stacks of brochures entitled "Vasectomy." I figure this woman has to be on my side on the reproductive rights issue. But guess what? She informed me she agrees with the decision and does not approve of abortion. (Who said anything about abortion?)

I was flabbergasted. That woman makes her living at least in part from carting around brochures on vasectomy but does not believe in reproductive rights for women. The hypocrisy of it. Why is she working in the medical field if she does not support a woman's right to make medical decisions for herself, if she supports an employer's ability to interfere in his employees' basic right to make medical decisions for herself? And that is what this is about, whether an employer has the right to make medical decisions for his employee.

That is hypocrisy. If you don't respect the patient's right to make his/her medical decisions, get out of the medical profession. And get off the Supreme Court.

And if you don't believe in medical intervention to prevent birth, then be consistent and refuse medical intervention to save your life.

Medical miracles are a two-way street. If we use medicine to lengthen and save life, then we must also use it to control births. Taking one benefit and refusing the other could overpopulate our planet and bring disaster. We are already overpopulated. The flood of juvenile refugees from Central America and Mexico are evidence of that.

I think women are going to organize around this issue to take not only Congress but the Supreme Court as well.

Be prepared to hear a lot about what really happens in very large families. A large family sounds so wonderful, but, in many large families, somewhere one or more of the older children sacrifices his educational or social development to take care of the younger ones. And somewhere along the line, the mother lacks the time to give to a middle or younger child the spiritual and emotional and maybe the physical attention and encouragement that child needs.

We need to look into what happens to children in very large families. Even when the parents are religious, the choice to have a large family can be disastrous for one or more of the children. Somebody pays the price. Children need so much love.

If a family chooses to have a large family, they should be free to make that choice. But they should understand from the get-go how much work and money and family resources that decision will take. Being a responsible parent, not just having a large or small family should be the goal.

EVERY CHILD A WANTED CHILD!

It isn't a question of how many children you have (I originally wanted sic and had to settle for two). It is a question of how many children you can responsibly care for. And that is a question that only the parents of the child can answer, not the Supreme Court and certainly not some self-righteous employer.

What does Hobby Lobby pay its employees per hour? What percentage of them are on welfare. I want to know how much responsibility Hobby Lobby takes for the well being of the children of its employees.

I posted this as an OP at a DUer's request. Thanks for reading it.