“Your reasoning would permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions"

“Your reasoning would permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who defended the contraceptives provision of the Affordable Care Act.

...Verrilli argued that for-profit corporations do not have a right to religious liberty that trumps federal law.

Oh, really? So if federal law is passed that requires for-profit corporations to pay not only for abortion-causing medications like contraceptives and emergency contraceptives, but also for abortions, or non-profits for that matter, then our religious freedom is KAPUT and to hell with the First Amendment?

Do you even hear what they are saying and trying to do to this country? (For why this freedom applies to corporations as well as individuals, read this and this.)

Do you even care? Maybe not. I would challenge you: pull your eyeballs away from Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow for just. one. hour. and really begin to educate yourselves. You simply have to have more working brain cells than to listen solely to those types of sources.

For those who honestly say they don't care about religion or the rights of those who are religious, or they're angry like Bill Maher is angry because who would follow a God who's a "psychotic mass murderer" (in his response to the upcoming feature film "Noah"), let me ask you one question:

Do you want to take the word of someone who hasn't ever really tried all that hard to answer his own questions about God, but also avoids doing so because it keeps his TV ratings high?

And now a second question:   Or do you want to hear some real answers?

Here's a short answer to Maher's rant about the movie "Noah" and his objection to God:

Responding to [Maher's] comments, conservative radio host Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis at the American Family Association, reminded listeners on Monday that the picture presented of God in Scripture is that He is the Creator of the entire world, and that the reason for the flood was the evil of men at the time, who according to the story had nothing but evil in their hearts.

"The point was, God had nothing left to work with. God's heart was not to destroy, God's heart was to redeem, but He only found one man, and perhaps the members of his family, who had a heart to respond to Him, to work with Him, to obey Him, and that man's name was Noah," Fischer said.

Want to do some more thinking for yourself? Think about this relevant response to Bill Maher by actor Kevin Sorbo, here. Think about how the blackest, meanest, nastiest of atheists, somehow, not through anyone's convincing or preaching to him, becomes religious, and even a Roman Catholic convert. Think about intelligent folks, intellectual even, who ranted in eminently more eloquent terms than Bill Maher ever will, against the God of Christians and Jews, one day becoming devout Catholic.

What did it? I'm not entirely sure, but in my opinion, it had something to do with just seeing a few true Christians going about the things they do as Christians, helping pregnant women in need of help,   not attacking people back in kind when they'd been attacked, verbally, emotionally, for just standing up for what they believe,   seeing how liberal, secular friends had been emotionally moved to their own conversions by "the story of St. Maximilian Kolbe."

That's it. That's all it took, for them to start Doing.Their.Own.Research.

What will it take for you to start doing yours?

So it really does matter, if not to you, then to at least to the 74% of Americans who believe in God (according to the Harris Dec. 2013 poll), when the Supreme Court Justices note in court, that

"Under your view, a profit[-making] corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," [Supreme Court Justice] Kennedy said. That is true in principle, Verrilli said,

but he added that no law "requires for-profit corporations to pay for abortions." Roberts sounded surprised. "I thought that's what we had before us," he said.

"THAT IS TRUE IN PRINCIPLE, Verrilli said." This is the absolute definition of "slippery slope," to 74% of us, as we have been saying since 2010, before the ACA/ObamaCare law was passed:

$11 BILLION [earmarked and "paid for" by ObamaCare, i.e., taxpayers and premium-hike-payers like me and you and everyone else] THAT IS OUTSIDE THE HYDE AMENDMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO, FROM YOUR AND MY TAX DOLLARS, TO "COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS" INCLUDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND AS SUCH WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.

And we were not the only ones upset in 2010, but most of Americans also were, then:

ACCORDING TO THE LATEST [2010] QUINNIPIAC POLL: "Voters disapprove 52 – 42 percent of the way the President is handling health care" AND "Voters mostly disapprove 48 - 40 percent of the proposed health care reform pending in Congress."

So it's only gone from bad to worse: the RealClearPolitics Aggregate Poll today (averaging 9 media polls) on the question of "Public Approval of Health Care Law" shows that 53.2% oppose it today, with CNN/Opinion Research's poll at 57% against (same as FOX's poll!), and Gallup's at 55% against it. And the maximum support shown for ObamaCare was a mere 43% in GWU/Battleground's poll, 42% in Rasmussen Reports. Not one of the 9 polls had ObamaCare as favored by a majority, and the average in favor currently is only 39.8%. The margin of disapproval is between +9 and +18 points higher than those approving.

Not exactly a "winner," as quoted earlier.

Another objection to think about that the Obama Administration cannot counter:

As Chief Justice John Roberts observed, minority-owned businesses can bring racial discrimination lawsuits. So why can't Christian- or Muslim-owned businesses exercise religion? Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had no good answer.