home
RSS
Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute
Thomas Monaghan, the multimillionaire founder of Domino's Pizza, pictured at the University of Ava Maria, which he founded September 27, 2007.
December 31st, 2012
05:35 PM ET

Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute

By Bill Mears, CNN

(CNN)– The billionaire founder of Domino's Pizza has won a temporary court victory, with a federal judge blocking enforcement of part of the health care reform bill requiring most employers to provide a range of contraception and reproductive health services.

Some business owners and their staff see that as a violation of their religious rights.

Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff issued his order late Sunday, saying Thomas Monaghan had "shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion."

"The (federal) government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest," said Zatkoff, a 1986 Reagan appointee. "Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs have established at least some likelihood of succeeding on the merits" of their claim.

Monaghan filed the emergency petition this month, on behalf of himself and Domino's Farms Corp., a Michigan property management firm he operates, not directly related to the pizza-chain empire. Monaghan sold his majority interest in the pizza company in 1998.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

The case will continue to be heard in the federal courts while the stay remains in effect. The Obama administration has the option of appealing the order.

The judge's opinion comes just days after two federal appeals courts in Chicago and St. Louis became the first to rule against enforcement for businesses of the contraceptives mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The policy was set to go into effect Tuesday for many companies whose new insurance year begins on January 1st.

At issue is whether secular, for-profit enterprises– owned and operated by those of a strong religious or personal faith– are exempt from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The separate health care law - dubbed Obamacare - provides such exceptions for religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, of which Monaghan is a member. He argues individually that contraception or abortion does not constitute "health care" and involves immoral practices that destroy "innocent human life."

"Causing death can never be considered a form of medical treatment," said Monaghan in court papers.
Other religious-affiliated groups like parochial schools and church-run hospitals are also temporarily exempted until new final rules are written in coming months.

That followed complaints from a variety of entities over who exactly was covered under the mandates, and who could bring legal objections in court.

The Justice Department, on behalf of the Obama administration, said the 2010 law - upheld this year by the Supreme Court - was designed to provide a range of preventive health services through expanded coverage and lower costs.

Federal lawyers - backed by a range of medical and abortion-rights groups - said economically disadvantaged women in particular need affordable access to reproductive health services contained in the law, which it said was a "compelling governmental interest."

Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare

Under the law, companies with at least 50 employees must provide their female employees of child-bearing age insurance coverage for pregnancy-prevention care, including doctor visits and medicine.

Those firms face daily fines and tax penalties for failure to comply.

Other federal courts - including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor last week– have allowed the new mandates to go into effect. Sotomayor in an order December 26 said the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether individuals or companies can rightfully claim federal mandates under their constitutional rights of religious freedom.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

That case involved Hobby Lobby Inc., and Mardel, Inc. and five family members involved in ownership and control of the corporations, who had protested the requirement.

Those separate companies said they would be required "to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs and devices that the applicants believe can cause abortions," which would be against their religious beliefs.
The petitioners said they would face irreparable harm if forced to choose between paying fines and complying with the requirement.

But Sotomayor - who handles emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit - said the applicants failed to meet "the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief," and that they could continue to pursue their challenge in lower courts and return to the higher court, if necessary, following a final judgment.

There was no indication when or if the high court would ultimately decide the religious freedom question. Several dozen separate lawsuits are pending in various lower federal courts.

The Michigan case is Monaghan v. Sebelius (12-15488).

CNN's Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Christianity • Faith & Health

soundoff (1,866 Responses)
  1. Hapdog

    His pizza is made with ketchup

    January 1, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
  2. Reality

    Some nitty-gritty:

    "Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia."

    http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

    There are different opinions as to what a religion really is or what a non-profit is and therefore all non-profits should file Form 990's. At the moment, religious groups are exempt. To be fair therefore, there should be no tax-exemptions for any group and that includes the Democratic and Republican Parties. Faith and community initiative grant monies should also be cancelled and there should also be no tax deductions for contributions made to charities and non-profits.

    January 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
  3. carpe diem

    Earlier this week, news stories came out that Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan had filed suit against the federal government regarding healthcare. Since that time, the story has been widely misreported to indicate Domino’s was involved in this action, which is completely untrue. Tom Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998 and today has NO active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. His views are not our views, nor are his actions in any way related to our actions. Domino's Pizza has made no public statements about health care, as we are still waiting to see how the final rules will affect our network of small business owners. Domino's is not a political company; it is not a religious company – we are a pizza company........From Dominos Pizzas Facebook page

    January 1, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Rational Humanist

      The carpe diem troll has a large pepperoni stuck up his tiny ass.

      Tom Monaghan still owns a 7 percent stake in the Dominos Pizza company. It's open season on Monaghan's piece of the pie.

      January 1, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
  4. moderateagainstweirdos

    i will be boycotting dominos and the far right ideologues who want to keep a woman without the right to make personal, economic decisions in her family. The founder of dominos is using his money to brainwash people and to control them through religion, like he thinks he is a messiah

    January 1, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • carpe diem

      Earlier this week, news stories came out that Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan had filed suit against the federal government regarding healthcare. Since that time, the story has been widely misreported to indicate Domino’s was involved in this action, which is completely untrue. Tom Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998 and today has NO active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. His views are not our views, nor are his actions in any way related to our actions. Domino's Pizza has made no public statements about health care, as we are still waiting to see how the final rules will affect our network of small business owners. Domino's is not a political company; it is not a religious company – we are a pizza company........From Dominos Pizzas Facebook page

      January 1, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Brainyard food?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • zaggs

      How does one's exercise of their 1st amendment rights affect any woman's decision? Please give an example of this or shut it.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • Meh

      Make and pay for your own personal decisions regarding your contraceptives. Obviously you are ignorant and a product of government "education."

      January 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      This isn't about someone exercising first amend. rights. This is about someone refusing to obey the law. I can't just decide that according to my religion I'm supposed to kill people with red hair, and go disobey the law, and expect everyone to agree with me because it's part of my religion.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
  5. debra

    What about the rights of employees to decide their OWN options? No more Dominos for me, and unfortunately, I was a loyal patron.

    January 1, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
    • carpe diem

      Earlier this week, news stories came out that Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan had filed suit against the federal government regarding healthcare. Since that time, the story has been widely misreported to indicate Domino’s was involved in this action, which is completely untrue. Tom Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998 and today has NO active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. His views are not our views, nor are his actions in any way related to our actions. Domino's Pizza has made no public statements about health care, as we are still waiting to see how the final rules will affect our network of small business owners. Domino's is not a political company; it is not a religious company – we are a pizza company........From Dominos Pizzas Facebook page

      January 1, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
    • Rational Humanist

      The carpe diem troll has a large pepperoni stuck up his tiny ass.

      Tom Monaghan still owns a 7 percent stake in the Dominos Pizza company.
      It's open season on Monaghan's piece of the pie.
      and open season on the carpe diem troll. hehe

      January 1, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
  6. Lola

    HR I understand your daughters problem had the same one as a teen and I did't say condoms would help I said insurance shouldn't have to pay for them.

    January 1, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • Akira

      Why? Where do you let employers draw the line at? Do you think that if, God forbid, you got cancer of the cervix and had to get chemo/hysterectomy that the insurance shouldn't cover it because it has to do with your reproductive organs? Seriously?
      By the same token, Viagra/Cialis shouldn't be covered, either.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • zaggs

      Akira. Nothing in the catholic would prevent chemo/hysterectomy idiot. Good god you libs will stop at nothing.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Way to completely miss the point, idiot.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
  7. SamuraiCowboy

    Thomas Monaghan no longer owns Dominos. He used the proceeds to build an exclusive, gated Catholic town and a Catholic University in Florida.

    January 1, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
  8. lionlylamb

    The "side-effects" from the 53,000,000+ doctor assisted abortions are of those who would have kept social security alive and solvent but alas there are nowadays far too fewer paying into social security. Dumb pro-choice futzes who fail to see the socialized security welfares versing wanton after-conceptualized abortions. You just can't tell those morons who cannot fathom that social securities of the nation's commonwealth means more than individualized benefits we call abortive!

    January 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So, idiot, women are supposed to stay pregnant and barefoot to support YOUR sorry non-working ass?

      If you are on here, you are capable of working. Get off your ass and start paying your OWN way.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Tomboy,

      You'll say anything to avoid my rather blunt statements won't you? One person cannot deflate social securities but with 53,000,000+, yes 53+ millions of doctor assisted abortions since 1973, does deflate the social fabrics of commonwealth securities upon any nation's social nets.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Your definition of "rather blunt" must be "totally moronic," LL. You are using funds when you are obviously perfectly capable of working at a job where you can use your "writing skills" and work from home. Why aren't you?

      You are such a moron that you honestly think that if ALL the women who had abortions had given birth instead that the resulting children would make up for the shortage of SS funds? How fvcking dumb are you? Do you realize that since abortion has been legal the crime rate has DROPPED? Do you really think unwanted children would all have grown up to be productive tax-paying citizens? Do you realize how many of the unwanted, unplanned pregnancies would have resulted in MORE people on welfare than we have now? Do you realize that many of the babies born to these women would have had birth defects? Learning disabilities?

      What the fvck is wrong with you?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      You know what else would have kept SS alive and solvent? Congress not using it as a slush fund.
      We are all aware that 53 million "zygotes", as you so adroitly put it, have been aborted; you argument that the 53 mil would have contributed to SS hinges on the thought that there would be 53t million jobs available; not a good reason to have an abortion, I agree, but then it's not your choice.
      This isn't about abortion, anyway; it is about one man trying to dictate what medications are available to his employees because HE (emphasis on HE) doesn't agree with them.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
    • Bob

      I would be willing to bet that many of the 53 million aborted would have become murderous psychpaths. Or the next Hitler. They certainly would have made worse urban sprawl and global warming and starvation around the world. We have too many people on Earth. I for one am glad those 53 million are not around to make things worse.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Tom-child,

      Your negativity toward me is rooted upon your biasness of just about everyone you come into contact with that conflicts with your rather racist commentaries. I'll be 58 sometime this month. I have been diagnosed as having an incurable mental disorder and the price of my meds, should I have a job, would equal most of my income. :-( Your imbecilic rants and raves against me and others seems to fuel your case hardened desires to give everyone who stands in your moronic way your hellish ranting without any means of coming to grips by anyone trying to have a sensible talk with you. :-(

      January 1, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Bob,

      Your glass is then half-empty rather than half-full? Negative thinking does none the better of wear,,, :-(

      January 1, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "lionlylamb", but 53,000,000 is actually a small number compare to the population increase during the same time period. I understand it is difficult for humans to grasp such large numbers. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches this problem with human interpretation is: Try not to make a federal case out of every large number you read about, meat head.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hal 9001,

      I think your server needs an upgrade. Too much variable input is hard on the hard-drives giving rise to hanging chads!

      January 1, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • Akira

      So you think your anti-psychotic meds should be covered, but not contraceptives? Really? What happens if somebody decides that Zyprexa goes against his religion and decides to cut out that med from what Medicare/Aid covers? Would you agree with that?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Akira,

      I am not against any 'drugs' whatsoever! The Federalist's stance upon regulating what drug is legal and which drugs are illegal goes against everyone's right to choose! My sometimes' stance against pre-zygote day-after-pills does lay with a long held belief that life is sacred. The more I see life as not truly being of sacredness dulls my sacred sensitivities. Oh the sacredness of it all!

      January 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Your negativity toward me is rooted upon your biasness{ biasness isn't a word} of just about everyone you come into contact with that conflicts with your rather racist {What is "racist" about my comments} commentaries. I'll be 58 sometime this month. I have been diagnosed as having an incurable mental disorder and the price of my meds, should I have a job, would equal most of my income {So fvcking what? That's no excuse for not working}. Your imbecilic rants and raves against me and others seems to fuel your case hardened desires to give everyone who stands in your moronic way your hellish ranting without any means of coming to grips by anyone trying to have a sensible {You haven't written a "sensible" thing on this blog-EVER}talk with you.

      You are a complete and utter waste, LL. You don't know what the fvck you are talking about. You don't have a clue as to the difference between Plan B, abortion, and RU 486. You don't seem capable of grasping even the simplest concept. You are so deluded you seem to think that married women should just use NO contraception and should instead abstain. Funny stuff. I wonder how many of their husbands would go for that option. If you are ill as you claim, you would not be able to operate a computer. As you are, get a job. Otherwise the issue is none of your business. You pay NO taxes, you are not married, you are dependent on government aid, and you're a loon.

      January 1, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lying Loopy says: "goes against everyone's right to choose!"

      Are you completely non compos mentis? What "right to choose" are you giving women, you fvcktard?

      If you are as nuts as you claim, LL, you have no business trying to opine on someone else's health issues. You don't pay a dime for anyone else's welfare. I, in fact, am paying for YOURS. YOU are costing people money. If you can't pay your way, you shouldn't get a cent. How's that feel?

      January 1, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • THE TRUTH

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son = HATE MONGER

      January 1, 2013 at 8:37 pm |
  9. David G.

    I'm frankly amazed at the anger and hatred that I'm seeing in some of these comments. Thomas Monaghan is not forcing his religion on any of his employees. He isn't telling them that they must convert to Catholicism nor is he demanding that they not use artificial birth control. He's just saying that he doesn't want to pay for it. It's the federal government which is forcing their mandate on him which violates his religious freedom. I guess to some people there's a bit of a double standard when it comes to freedom. Some people feel they are free to criticize and ridicule Tom Monaghan but yet Monaghan is not free to fight back when he is told that he must pay for something which goes against his religion.

    January 1, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      He is breaking the law. Period.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • jerri uhl

      HE IS NOT PAYING FOR IT!!! THE EMPLOYEE PAYS FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE. HE JUST HAS TO MAKE INSURANCE AVAILABLE TO HIS EMPLOYEES. MONEY FOR INSURANCE STILL COMES OUT OF THEIR CHECKS!!! HE HAS, LIKE IT OR NOT, if he has had insurance available for employees to buy, BEEN DOING IT THIS WHOLE TIME.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • My goodness but you're stupid

      "It's the federal government which is forcing their mandate on him which violates his religious freedom"
      Just like the government mandate against slavery violated the religious freedom of Sothern Baptists in the 1800's

      January 1, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
  10. DebbyJay

    If they don't have to pay for birth control, then they shouldn't object to not be able to get Viagra or other erectile dysfunction medications either.

    January 1, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
  11. Lola

    its not a healthcare issue and employers shouldn't have to cover anymore than a condom.

    January 1, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      In your opinion. The SCOTUS differs. Go call Scalia and burble your opinions to him.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • HR

      Lola, you may not consider it a health care issue, but for my teenage daughters it certainly was. Hormone therapy is the only thing that got them through a decade of very painful & debilitating menstruation, and a condom would certainly have NOT helped.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lola, it IS a health care issue according to the law. What part of that do you not grasp?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      How is it not a healthcare issue if it saves from the horrible side effects of endometriosis; helps in the prevention of certain cancers; regulates a menstrual cycle? The pill is not just used for prevention of pregnancy but even if that is the purpose it is being used for, it is not the business of anyone but the people directly involved.
      The other big and frivolous argument seems to be over the coverage of the morning after pill. The "morning after pill" is a high dose of birth control pills taken within 120 hours (or five days)...the sooner it is taken the better. Pregnancy cannot be confirmed until about 7-12 days later (with a blood test in your doctor's office) or 10-16 days later with a home pregnancy test.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
  12. mccgeno

    No more Dominos, for me.

    January 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • carpe diem

      Earlier this week, news stories came out that Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan had filed suit against the federal government regarding healthcare. Since that time, the story has been widely misreported to indicate Domino’s was involved in this action, which is completely untrue. Tom Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998 and today has NO active affiliation with our company. The media often neglect to note this fact. His views are not our views, nor are his actions in any way related to our actions. Domino's Pizza has made no public statements about health care, as we are still waiting to see how the final rules will affect our network of small business owners. Domino's is not a political company; it is not a religious company – we are a pizza company........From Dominos Pizzas Facebook page

      January 1, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • Rational Humanist

      carpe diem is crying like a baby over people opposing this guy. How sad.

      Hey carp-head, Monaghan still owns a 7 percent stake in the company. When were you going to mention that tiny fact?

      January 1, 2013 at 8:35 pm |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Still haven't seen a SINGLE ONE OF YOU MEN commenting here answer, so I'll ask again: do you use a RUBBER every time you have s3x? Or do you intend to impregnate a woman every time? If not, then how are these women supposed to avoid pregnancy if they don't want to be pregnant? Just avoid s3x with YOU? I'll bet most wouldn't mind that option a bit.

    Why the h#ll do you imagine you get to decide how a woman protects herself when YOU'RE doing NOTHING to make sure you don't cause an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy?

    January 1, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Lola

      why are you so nasty about this. Can't you give an opinion without insulting someone who is just having a conversation/

      January 1, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • HR

      Tom, as a matter of fact, I did, including into my marriage and up until my vasectomy. We still wound up with three children, only one of which was "planned".

      January 1, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Tells you how effective those forms of BC are, doesn't it? Then why should you object when a woman chooses a reliable way to protect herself?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why should I, Lola, when those commenting are lying?

      January 1, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
  14. Lola

    then pay for it yourself

    January 1, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Should I also have to pay for a blood transfusion if my employer is opposed to them on religious grounds?

      You DO know that health coverage isn't free, don't you? That these employees are paying premiums for coverage, right?

      Idiot.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
  15. Angela Freda

    Don't agree with abortions? Don't get one.
    Don't want to use the morning after pill, BCPs or other meds whether because they go against your religious beliefs or you just don't want to? Don't.
    But others have the right to be employed and get the medical coverage they need via that employment... and their employers faith should not effect the ability to get that coverage.
    In other words, keep you religion out of my health care.

    January 1, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bravo.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      Monaghan stated that birth control "is a gravely immoral practice."
      Monaghan has called my virgin daughter, on BC because of PCOS, "gravely immoral."
      Monaghan can fvck off, but not before kissing my ass.
      He worships the god of money.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • John Casd

      Angela, "employment" is NOT a right; "get the medical coverage they need via that employment" is NOT a right either. Both are privileges. Also, since your "health care" is partly paid for by your employer, your employer DOES have the RIGHT to agree or not agree to pay for the types of cares that the employer is PAYING part of it.

      January 1, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • raisequestions

      Studies shows that providing free birth control to women decreases the frequency of abortion by up to 50%. It seems that these wealthy business leaders are simply uneducated about birth control or are hiding financial motives behind pseudo-religious beliefs. Check out my blog for more info: http://raisequestions.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/opportunity-in-a-pill-pack/

      January 1, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
  16. Elaine C

    NOBODY makes it "ON THEIR OWN." Any college graduate knows that is propaganda made up by a white, male dominated social class who became rich at least IN PART BY PAYING LOW-WAGES TO HOURLY EMPLOYEES.
    LOOK AT THE FACTS, He probably only offers health insurance to managers NOT to his hourly employees. Wake up. I personally don't eat that crap he calls pizza. The old way of "doing business" which is, driven by pure and only greed.

    January 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
  17. ken s.

    interesting

    January 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
  18. lionlylamb

    I have nothing wrong to say regarding drug usages for physical or mental conditions where the side effects are pre-zygote abortions. But for socialist capitalists to demand abortions via drug inducements seems to be contrary to the naturalness of Life. Where to people tend to be for natural ways and means and against such naturalized conditionings as in fertilized conceptualizations? Or are we becoming garbage in and garbage out socialists capitalizing on sheer emotional pleasures without the very realities of doing the deeds to become of Life? Yes, I am pro-life and if this is against your racist views regarding willful abortions than so be it!

    January 1, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      The morning after pill doesn't cause abortions. It prevents conception. Dear God, I wish you would get that through your thick skull.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      LL, you're a complete imbecile. How many times does it have to be explained to you that Plan B is a CONTRACEPTIVE, NOT AN ABORTION PILL?

      January 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      LL, you're a complete imbecile. How many times does it have to be explained to you that Plan B is a CONTRACEPTIVE, NOT AN ABORTION PILL?

      You babble nothing but manure on here day in and day out. Not much you ever write makes even a lick of sense. You aren't informed, you aren't mentally capable, nor are you intelligent enough to comment on something you obviously are clueless about.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      You also need to learn what the term "side effects" mean.

      January 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      LL is a dolt. He doesn't understand that medications often are found to have treat diseases and conditions other than those they were created to treat. Dumb sh!t probably doesn't know that Humira is now used to treat Crohn's Disease. It wasn't developed for that purpose but it has been found to be effective.

      Why is someone so uninformed even commenting?

      January 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
  19. Buffey

    Some women use estrogen pills not as a form of birth control but to regulate their monthly cycle. An employer should not be able to control their medical choices

    January 1, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
  20. Grisel Taybron

    Keep up the wonderful piece of work, I read few articles on this website and I conceive that your weblog is really interesting and has got sets of superb info.

    January 1, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.