| Not many statistics in the Financial Times article.
Basically, it builds on a pyramid of "worst case scenarios," most of which will never take place.
Case in point: It is in the interest of government to see businesses remain solvent. The idea that they would issue gigantic penalties is ridiculous.
The way I see it is this: they approved the mandate because of their feminist supporters, and because, even if they stood on their heads and whistled "Dixie" the bishops would find some obscure arcane reason to criticize them.
Most politicians are that way--if you are for their opponents no matter how much they try to win you over, eventually they'll write you off.
But they've won the feminists' support on this one...so what wouldn't hurt the economy? Probably a "penalty" of $80 a year for every woman of childbearing age.....small potatoes.....enough for government to buy the birth control for these women if they wanted it. A slap on the wrist.
They will never let companies or an economy collapse over this overblown, overheated stalemate.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
| 
Linear Mode
