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. Clyde

    Heath care means, I'm assuming, care ordered towards a person's health. The worst possible state of health is death. Death is the cessation of life. Why, then, is something that ends life considered health care? Forgive me for being philosophical, but verbal contradictions confuse me.

    January 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Totally irrelevant since there's nothing in the health care plan that ends life. Just because morons believe the equivalent of eating twinkies causes demonic possession doesn't mean that it's true or that they get to disobey the law.

      January 1, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • Jim Sittnick

      Thanks Moby. I couldn't have said it so well.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:38 pm |
    • == o ==

      Clyde – "Forgive me for being philosophical"

      Boneheaded is more like it. See Moby's reply and grab some reality.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:42 pm |
    • Jim Sittnick

      I didn't know that Twinkies did that!!!!

      January 1, 2013 at 11:43 pm |
  2. Lisa

    No more Dominos for me!

    I trust that they have found a way to deny the following to any of their immorally-inclined employees –

    1) Viagra if not married
    2) STD treatments if not married
    3) Medications to treat the fallout from tobacco use ( a well-proven carcinogen)
    4) Medications to treat obesity (gluttony per the Bible)
    5) Medications to treat drug addiction
    6) Post-menopausal estrogen for unmarried women
    7) Child birth if the couple is not married.

    January 1, 2013 at 6:07 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 8:20 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 8:26 pm |
  3. Sy2502

    Let's sell birth control pills over the counter and end this idiocy. That way the religious zealots won't hold any more women hostage of their lunacy.

    January 1, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
  4. Extra Medium

    So here is what we know:
    1) Tom Monaghan sold Domino to Bain Capital in 1998 ( which explains why the pizza tastes terrible )
    2) Domino went public a short time after that ( which explains why the pizza still tastes terrible )
    3) It would help to clear the air if Domino would publicly come out to say if its health care conforms to federal law.

    January 1, 2013 at 6:06 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 8:19 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 8:26 pm |
  5. Honoria Rhodes

    If the poor quality of the food were not enough reason to ban Domino's from the dorm, this certainly makes the case. I can find something else for the next late night study session food run.

    January 1, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • Extra Medium

      Please add Popa John, and God Father pizza to your list

      January 1, 2013 at 6:10 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 8:19 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 8:27 pm |
  6. Jim Sittnick

    If you don't want to use contraception, Mr Monaghan, that's fine. But Domino's is a PIZZA business, and if your employees have a different "faith view", then who are you to block their health care rights? I may be just one, but I liked your new improved pizza ads, and I bought quite a few and liked them, but I'll never taste another Domono's Pizza unless it's smuggled into my house!

    January 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • lbdukeep

      I for one shall Boycott Domino's. I don't appreciate that such a business who desperately needs my money, will force a faith on iits employees and refuse to pay for health care. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT!

      January 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • lbdukeep

      The owner serves PORK (aka ham) and cuts his hair. Therefore, he is a hippocrit!

      January 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • Apatheist

      If you're going to stop eating Domino's you should do it because there pizza sucks, not because of this. Thomas Monaghan sold Domino's in 1998 and currently has no stake in the company. Monaghan filed this motion as an individual and Domino's hasn't given any indication that it is opposed to offering contraception to its employees. The fact that he created Domino's is inconsequential and should have been called out in the article.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • Apatheist

      *their* pizza sucks...

      January 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • The other side

      I also may be just one, but I do not want to the government have the power to force owners of private businesses to do that which they feel in their conscience to be an act of aggression. I will still eat at Dominos.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Akira

      If that private business is a profitable organization, they have to follow the law.
      Domino Farms Property Management isn't a religious organization and makes a profit, and therefore does not fall into the exempt category.
      He is free not to take contraceptives, but he cannot deny his employees, based on the his religion.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Pro-choice

      This ruling violates a woman's right to make choices about her health. A woman's right to make choices about her body trumps anything unborn.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:53 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 8:18 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 8:28 pm |
  7. scriptfoo

    But he'll keep the business open on Sundays, picking and choosing which religious tenets or directives he wants to follow, and caring more about lining his pockets and those of investors while screwing over the health of the thousands that are employed.

    January 1, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
  8. Lilly

    So we are using freedom of religion as an excuse to not follow the law of the land. So if a man wanted to sell his daughter into slavery(which is considered ok in the Bible), he should be allowed because otherwise the law of the land is infringing on his religious freedom. Really?

    January 1, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
  9. BuckNaked

    Funny , a Federal judge the other day told the store Hobby Lobby, they had to provide it. They used the same argument, and were told that if they did not provide contraceptive medical insurance, they would be fined $1.4 million a day...

    January 1, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
  10. Camella

    already don't eat Zapp's, Chick-Fil-A and Papa Johns. NOW, I've added Dominoes Pizza and Hobby Lobby.
    They have the right to their opinion. The way we can TRULY show displeasure, is to take our business else.
    I also make sure I don't buy any Koch Brothers products.

    January 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • BuckNaked

      But I bet you use your food stamps at WalMart.

      January 1, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • John

      Um, you did actually read the story, he no longer owns Domino's Pizza and the lawsuit was not filed or applies to Domino's Pizza. About the only thing in this that is related to the pizza chain is the fact the guy started the company

      January 1, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Yeah Yeah Yeah

      He is no longer associated with Domino's Pizza, please read the article.

      January 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Jim Sittnick

      He may no longer be associated, other than being founder, but very few of us can talk with our feet against the injustice to the employees of Domino Farms, but if Domino's Pizza is affected – they might give Mr Monaghan a call. I'm still walking away from Domino's.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Don't care if he has skin in the game or not. If he has an interest in the company policy, then said company deserves what it gets from the public.

      January 1, 2013 at 7:47 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 8:17 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.

      He only sold 93 percent of the company. Whoever this "carpe diem" weenie is, they are acting like Monoghan is the Pope and carpe diem is the Catholic apologist trying desperately to make it sound like the guy hasn't done anything wrong.

      January 1, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
  11. Sharon Murray

    Does he take Viagra? If he does it stands to reason that he is not a true follower of his religion as god has already deemed that he should not be able to procreate and yet he artificially enhances his possibility to do so. Same thing in reverse.

    January 1, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • JustMe

      So is it your job to instruct everyone what their faith must consist of based on your logic, or just Pizza Places?

      January 1, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • TXJenny

      Actually, you're wrong. The official Catholic stance is that for medical treatments to be morally licit they must be meant to restore health. Fertility in adults = state of health; thus, Viagra restores health in some men. Infertility = state of disease; thus, hormones meant to induce a state of infertility, e.g., birth control pills, are morally illicit treatment because they do not restore health, but induce a state of disease. You have now been enlightened.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Akira

      So what does the RCÇ say about using contraceptives for women suffering from PCOS, which, if left untreated, leads to infertility?
      And we all know that those men taking Viagra are mostly old men who have absolutely no intention of impregnating anyone.
      Please.
      What a bunch of hooey.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      TXJenny, does the RCC advocate Viagra for men who are married to women long past child-bearing age?

      January 1, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
  12. Kaoticman

    Maybe they have a point about their religious beliefs being violated to too large a degree, but let us not forget that the first amendment is not absolute. It it was, then no school associated with a church could claim federal or state money, and many do despite that money being used, to some extent, for religious education. In this case, we must judge the rights of the employees (who should not have to choose between having a job and having good health care), the health care benefits of contraceptive and reproductive medicine (outside of the actual contraceptive effects) and the religious rights of the individual owners.

    I would say one thing: If the company is a corporation, then there shouldn't even be a case. The CEO of a corporation, or even a majority share holder, is not really providing anything no matter how this is decided, the corporation is. And corporations, regardless of them being "persons" of a sort, can not actually have a religious belief. Therefor, any incorporated company probably should not be allowed to bring any suit like this to court, nor should their officers on behalf of the company.

    So, if this specific case, nobody's rights are going to be violated, as the company is question is a corporation, and is unable to have or form views on religion and beliefs.

    January 1, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • Lilly

      So we are using freedom of religion as an excuse to not follow the law of the land. So if a man wanted to sell his daughter into slavery(which is considered ok in the Bible), he should be allowed because otherwise the law of the land is infringing on his religious freedom. Really?

      January 1, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
  13. Eric

    He opposes abortion on the grounds that it takes life, but conservatives are the ones that endorse capital punishment, water-boarding and other forms of torture, and justified the Iraq war which killed over one million Iraqis and thousands of Americans. This is what is called hypocrisy.

    January 1, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Akira

      It would be one thing if he only opposed abortion; many do.
      He is opposing contraceptives of any sort because of HIS religious beliefs.
      As for the rest of what you stated: quite the conundrum.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
  14. nathalie

    funny that men want to bloc oral contraceptive, very funny that many do no mention that viagra and cialis are on most health plan for "heart" issues. why is that not fougth against since to onset of those 2 drugs are responsible for the explosion of std and aids in the senior population.

    January 1, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
  15. Andy

    I am not going to have dominos Pizza ever again.

    January 1, 2013 at 3:36 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 4:20 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 8:31 pm |
  16. megan

    This law would not prevent business owners from *their* exercise of religion, but this injunciton certainly allows them to force the beliefs of their religion on others. Why can't they understand that any and every employer has the responsibility to provide a common set of medical coverage for all employees. A person who follows their beliefs won't avail themselves of the benefits, but those who don't follow the same beliefs should have the right to coverage...

    January 1, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • bforr

      where do you see the "responsibility" of anyone or any business must provide health care to any person?? this is what is wrong with our country now - everyone thinks that someone else is "responsible" for giving them anything/everything

      January 1, 2013 at 8:02 pm |
  17. Medically Sound

    I get the feeling that many people here don't know the definition of 'liberal'. Lincoln would be slammed as a liberal today for trying to pass the 13th ammendment to give free slaves. Many from the south (who still vote against liberals) still show their bias.

    I bet if Reagan or Nixon tried running against Obama many conservatives wouldn't know who to vote for. Obama and Reagan occupy the same political spectrum.

    I doubt Reagan would push legislation that jeopardized women's health.

    Want to cut health care costs? Then ban Viagara-style drugs. A real man shouldn't need them, right? I don't.

    January 1, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • Akira

      Exactly.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
  18. E101

    What We Learned About Humanity in 2012

    http://www.livescience.com/25818-human-ancestors-evolution-2012.html

    January 1, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
  19. lionlylamb

    One man's 'opinion'.

    Pre-zygote contraceptives or the day-after-pills may well be womanhood's price to be paid for wanton s e x issues. It just goes to show that unprotected s e x is still being as the means to spread s e x u a l l y transmitted diseases. Even in matrimonial couples their choices for the pre-zygote contraceptive day-after-pills shows that women trust their spouse and vice-versa of not cheating even though many do so cheat. Abstinence is still the best choice against conceptualizations and even STD's! But alas there are still many so many stupid morons all wanting a few minutes of pleasure,,, :-(

    January 1, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • Akira

      One women's opinion:
      Because you do not have s3x, your trying to force everyone not to have s3x is an unrealistic proposition.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Straw man spotter

      Straw man argument, not wanting to fund contraception is not the same thing as telling others not to have relations. Non issue, both parties.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
    • Akira

      And if I ever see you calling a woman who has been r.aped and taking the morning after pill "wanton" in your ridiculous generalizations again, I will not be so polite.
      It's not all black and white; there are shades on gray, and I don't mean the kind that book was written about...

      January 1, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Akira,

      Wherever the hell do you get the idea that I am 'forcing" my ideas upon any individual? Don't I have the right to be heard without someone making rants and raves to muddy up my views without much thought recognitions? I have always been held to the idea that Life is sacred but as I hear others thoughts, they haven't a sacred bone in their bodies!

      January 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • Akira

      I was replying directly to ll; I know his history, do you?
      Hence, my answer to him was just to HIM, as I indicated by the "you" in my post.
      He's celibate.
      He admits that.
      I am not using any straw man argument to anyone but him.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • Akira

      Let me rephrase that, ll:

      Because you do not have s3x, the opinion that everyone not to have s3x is an unrealistic proposition.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • Akira

      Lol. This isn't ranting, ll.
      When I do, you'll know it.
      The rant and raves aren't on my part.

      January 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Sorry Akira, I went to Lil Cesar's Pizza, they still have the 5 buck pizza,,,,,,

      Do you believe that Life is sacred?

      January 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Akira

      I believe life is life, ll; sacred or profane.

      Little Ceasar's pizza: you get what you pay for.

      January 1, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Where else can one buy a meal for 2 for only $5.oo?

      January 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Akira

      Lol. True.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Akira,

      Catch me on a good day and I might side with contraceptive rights while on a serious day I might abhor such rights. My belief in Life being a sacredness issue does hardly ever change. I can see the downtrodden women in great needs of contraceptives and even their needing abortions. But for those women who are well off financially have no need of abortion should they be impregnated by their husband or boyfriend or even a one night stand. I love life's sacredness and do attempt to let others know that Life is to be cherished no matter how such life came to into being Love life and do no harm..

      January 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Unbelievable. You are completely off your gourd. Women don't answer to you, idiot. No wonder the one you had kicked you to the curb.

      January 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Tommie girlie,

      My 1st wife died and my 2nd wife wouldn't keep herself clean and smelled like dead fish and I quit 'bobbing for apples' due such an awful odor! Need I say more or do you want a day to day accounting? When pigs fly!

      January 1, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sure. And I'll bet you're a candidate for the Chippendale calendar, too. You still haven't answered the question, you lying sack of excrement. Did you ALWAYS wear a rubber during s3x? Why shouldn't women protect themselves from being knocked up by a nut-case like you, whether they're married or not, regardless of their means? Where do you get off?

      Get off it, you old goat. You are sitting around collecting government aid pretending to be "disabled" when you're perfectly capable of operating a computer. Someone should report you. You're a fraud.

      January 1, 2013 at 7:45 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Hey there Tommie girlie,

      You're a dipstick short of a quart in your buttress. Just because someone knows the basics of a computer does not mean they are fully literate of computer ops. I can type! Big friggin deal! That doesn't make me a pro now does it?

      January 1, 2013 at 8:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're faking a disability. I hope someone reports you for fraud.

      January 1, 2013 at 8:13 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      For 25 years and being adjudicated by many psychiatrists as have a mental dysfunction and even sentenced to a state hospital twice and finally was given the right medication to ease my mental dysfunction only a few years ago and you 'feel' I am lying?!!! You Tom haven't a fvcking clue of all the despair I've been thru since I was 33! Not a clue!

      January 1, 2013 at 8:29 pm |
    • yeah its a straw man

      yep – flimsy straw man

      January 1, 2013 at 8:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you are capable of typing day in and day out on a web site, you can work.

      Many people with mental illness work and do so full-time.

      You choose not to be productive.

      January 1, 2013 at 8:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You seem a mite upset, LL. Why? All I'm doing is expressing my opinion of your needs and capabilities. No different that what you do when discussing women's bodies and pregnancies.

      If you have a problem with it, maybe you should stop posting.

      January 1, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Tell me Tommie know it all,'

      Just because I type a lot you 'feel' I am able and capable of working somewhere and with someone who finds out I have a mental disability for some 25 years? Who in their right mind would hire me?!!! My typing skills are limited to hen-pecking to say the least! If you know of an organization willing to hire one such as me and let me work at home, I would be willing to give it a try! But alas, you probably don't know so what is the point?

      Angry? yes, I get angry at folks like you who claim a know-it-all position regarding everyone's suppositions! Just because you claim me aptly able to work due my typing abilities needs to have your own head examined!

      January 1, 2013 at 8:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Lunatic chirps: "Angry? yes, I get angry at folks like you who claim a know-it-all position regarding everyone's suppositions! "

      Then why are YOU doing exactly that concerning women you don't know, you nitwit? Do you not get it? You have no business deciding what women "need" to have access to contraceptives or abortion and which ones are "well-off" enough to suck it up.

      You are a fraud. If you are capable of blabbing away here day and night, then you can work. Get off your ass and do so.

      January 1, 2013 at 9:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      When Is a Woman Pregnant?
      To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy. First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman's egg) must occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an egg to form a new cell ("zygote"). This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a "preembryo" while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.
      Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.

      Did you see that last sentence? THe one that ends with "only after implantation occurs"?

      January 1, 2013 at 10:47 pm |
    • ADA - look it up

      So according to TomTom, people with disabilities aren't disabled if they can drag their stumps across a keyboard?
      And they are committing fraud by using a computer? Seriously?

      Good going, Tomtom, you have just qualified for disability by being mentally retarded, and since you are using a computer, you must be guilty of fraud. Time to find a lawyer, Tomtom!

      January 1, 2013 at 11:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Aww. Did I hurt your widdle feelings?

      January 2, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
  20. Mr Everyman

    Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff is wrong. Segregationists once claimed the same "religious" burden. They were wrong and billionaire Thomas Monaghan is wrong for the same reasons. Contraception is absolutely a medical procedure essential to birth control and family planing. Abortion as practiced under Roe v Wade copies what nature often does on its own. Nature aborts conceived eggs in natural miscarriages and by allowing only one egg to implant. If nature allowed all fertilized eggs to implant we would have a steady stream of twins, triplets, quadruplets and, more. Abortion is not murder. The Pythagorean view of personhood starting at conception is in conflict with what nature does.

    January 1, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • Sheila

      @Everyman. Stupidest argument for abortion I've ever heard. It's easy to make flowing philosophical statements to justify the murder of unborn children, but it doesn't change the facts. The dream world of liberals. Killing babies is an act of nature.

      January 1, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • Akira

      Sheila, while I disagree with much of what he said, consider this:

      Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians.

      Can you please identify the "liberal" and the "conservatives"?
      Thanks.

      January 1, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Jim Sittnick

      THANK YOU, Mr Everyman. Very well said.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:45 pm |
    • Jim Sittnick

      THANK YOU, Mr Everyman. Very well said. This is NOT a duplicate reply.

      January 1, 2013 at 11:46 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
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.