If the point is responding to "there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions", a statement that doesn't mention abortion doesn't qui

If the point is responding to "there is no corollary law everywhere else forcing people to get abortions", a statement that doesn't mention abortion doesn't quite suffice. Apparently there's a place, California, where health-insurance-buyers (so, ideally, everyone, and presumably all Salesforce employees) all unavoidably fund abortions, this arrangement of things being upheld by force of law. > Consider if they’d written: “California forces people buying health insurance to pay for insulin.” That sounds silly. Doesn't sound silly to me. If you're against insulin, then you have grounds to object against California's laws. "It’s technically true" So it's true. Will you bite the bullet with regard to the equivalent statement about abortion? Sure, it's an indirect arrangement of things. See my revised, hedged formulation above.