No... You are wrong, nowhere in the constitution will you find the term inalienable rights, the words unalienable rights are found in our Declaration of Independence, the exact phrase is as follows....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Those rights were later codified in what we call the Bill of rights within our constitution. Nowhere in the bill of rights do you find provision for the government to force employers to pay for the shit that liberals want. In fact, as president Obama complained while teaching constitutional law, he viewed the constitution as a negative charter, that it did not go far enough, that it was not redistributive enough. You see Silver, the Constitution restricts the federal government, it was intended to keep contained within a particular set of boundaries... That is why progressives hate it so... but they are beginning to like it more and more because they have been fairly successful in destroying it through the court system.

Really..... Let's have a look see.....


silver wrote:

"So you would rather have women have the resulting babies that probably end up on welfare or state aid rather then have birth control available for a couple of dollars? The denial of birth control by businesses that claim to be so religious that any of their female is truly disgusting, its shameful that female employees are not allowed to be covered with birth control. These people are hypocrites and just evil. If you think that any sane person will stop having sex you are a real nut. How about married women that dont want to have any more children or none at all, are they going to be forced to find help from other sources when men have no restrictions whatsoever? This is not an expensive thing to have birth control, oh yeah, you would rather see all those women have babies that they can't care for."

silver wrote:

"First amendment rights forcing religion on employees? HA"


silver wrote:

None of this would be necessary if it weren't for people as the ones that feel that they have the right to impose religious beliefs on their employees and people that own restaurants that have discounts for people that pray. There is no lie here, just religious people forcing their beliefs on others.

silver wrote:

If birth control is a part of health care universally then why does a religious entity have the right to deny female employees birth control? How about the freedom of those women to use their health coverage as they see fit.


silver wrote:

So you dont think that women should be in control of their bodies?


silver wrote:

So, what lies are you talking about? Controlling women's bodies is what its all about, its the ultra christian nut cases that want to control woman's bodies.


silver wrote:

You are a hater of women. You dont want them to have the same rights when it comes to having control of their bodies. You make women second class citizens by calling these two people "ugly". In reality you are the ugly one here. Trying to degrade these two woman by calling them ugly is disgusting and base. You really have no compassion for women's rights. Neither does hobby lobby.

Whatever Silver, your words speak for themselves... and just in case you have not figured it out, the founders in the statement.. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." affirm that "Natural Rights" do not come from the government, they come from the creator, be the creator a god or mother nature herself, the government has no claim on these rights, they do not belong to the government to either grant or take away, they are innate in the human being. Such rights can not be taken or relinquished, they are natural and a part of the human being... That is the difference between the two words inalienable and unalienable. The ACA fits nowhere into that definition of human rights.