Friday, March 2, 2012

more for Feinstein

...and when Boxer responds, I'll be cc-ing these to her.

After further thought on my last email to Feinstein, I had another inquiry of Senator Feinstein.  Here it is:

Dear Ms. Feinstein,

Regarding your failure to support the Blunt (conscience protection) amendment, AND your enthusiastic support of the unConstitutional HHS mandate requiring employers (including religious employers...even private businesses run by religious men/women) to pay for birth control/abortifacients that strongly violate their faith and consciences [and be sure that We The People are aware that the "compromise" is only an accounting maneuver that will require employers to pay via premiums]; how do you justify this when your top priority as a Senator of the United States is to defend the Constitution...chief of which is religious liberties?  I'm curious to know how you are able to prioritize birth control/abortifacients as more important than the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Can you please respond and explain this to me?  You took an oath to protect the Constitution, not to provide birth control/abortifacients.

I don't see the logic.

Kori Peterson


I'll keep you posted on how this goes.  I don't have high hopes.  But would love for her to tell me the Constitution doesn't matter to her...because I'm not sure it does.

No comments:

Post a Comment