So now Burwell is all about recreational sex and "consequence free sex." But only where women are concerned.
According to Eric Erickson: "My religion trumps your 'right' to employer subsidized consequence free sex."
During a Monday interview with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), conservative radio host Andrew Wilkow said that the Supreme Court decided "whether or not a person who runs a business should be forced to provide something that is largely for recreational behavior, if it goes against their religious beliefs."So I guess they both agree employee provided health insurance should not also cover Viagra and vasectomies, right? Or is "consequence free" man sex somehow different from female sex? And what is the difference, since the last time I checked, it takes two parties to have sex. Is the consequence of sex still really all on the women? Are we still blaming Eve?
"Yea, that’s right, that’s right," Lee responded.
Really?
I'm just tired of hearing children described as "consequences" by these folks. From people who supposedly love the little babies so much. I've never held a crying consequence in the middle of the night, or wiped the poopy bottom of a punishment. I do these things for my children.
ReplyDeleteYup.
ReplyDelete