BO’s senior adviser is quasi-quoted in the WaPo:

“Plouffe said an army of advocates for the president will argue that Romney is on the wrong side of the issues. One example they will cite: the Republican’s support for the Blunt Amendment, which allows employers to opt out of health-coverage mandates, such as paying for birth control, if they have a moral objection to doing so.”

Mittens, here, is on the right side of the issue. What is “right” about forcing people to do that which they are morally opposed to doing?

Follow up question, which is mostly irrelevant to the core issue but which I wonder about whenever this kind of issue is raised: If somebody cares very strongly about some issue (here, taxpayer sponsored contraception) why would somebody want to work for a person/company that is opposed to this? Why would you support the very group of people that you’re opposed to?

-JD Cross

PS: for the record, I am all for letting people acquire – using their own money – whatever form of X they desire for whatever reason they desire. I am not for that same group of people asking others to pay for that X. (X = contraception in the above context, but I used the variable to indicate that this is not, fundamentally, a women’s health issue.)