I think the one who has to live with her decision should be the one to make the decision

Can anyone just point out where I've ever said the woman shouldn't make the decision? Based on my words, not yours that is.

And while we're at it, in regards to your beef about not defunding PP because of the health care services they provide, seems WaPo has caught the Poser in another lie (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-tonight-show-remark-planned-parenthood-provides-mammograms/2012/10/26/c07f331e-1f16-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_blog.html), his repeated claim that PP would no longer be providing mammograms under Romney. Well, they don't under Obama either.


The problem here is that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms or even possess the necessary equipment to do so. As such, the organization certainly does not “provide” mammograms in the strict sense. Instead, its clinics provide referrals and direct low-income women toward resources to help pay for the procedure.

Can a woman get a mammogram without a referral?

Can a woman get a mammogram without a referral?
Not that I know of (US).

So they do provide a service in that regard I guess.

You guys really work overtime to avoid the point, which is Obama lying to scare women into believing Romney will cut health care services that aren't being provided anyway.


The Facts

Obama has talked about Planned Parenthood’s supposed mammography services throughout his 2012 campaign. Here are a few examples of his remarks:

“When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care. They rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings.”

— Obama during second presidential debate, Oct. 16, 2012

“When people say we should get rid of Planned Parenthood, they’re not just talking about restricting a woman’s ability to make her own health-care decisions; they’re talking about denying, as a practical matter, the preventive care like mammograms that millions of women rely on.”

— Obama during White House Forum on Women and the Economy, April 6, 2012

“In many of these states Planned Parenthood is your only possible access to not only abortion but pap smears, cervical cancer screenings, mammograms. It is a place where women who may not otherwise have the means can take care of their own bodies.”

— Obama interview with Glamour magazine, October 2012

The problem here is that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms or even possess the necessary equipment to do so. As such, the organization certainly does not “provide” mammograms in the strict sense. Instead, its clinics provide referrals and direct low-income women toward resources to help pay for the procedure.

But cover for the man, Obama, whose entire campaign is built on myths, lies, smears and fantasies.

You guys really work overtime to avoid the point, which is Obama lying to scare women into believing Romney will cut health care services that aren't being provided anyway.

But go ahead and cover for the man, Obama, whose entire campaign is built on myths, lies, smears and fantasies.
PP, on a sliding scale and at low cost, teaches women, especially women who don't have health insurance, how to examine themselves and what to watch for regarding cancerous growth, weird bleeding, etc. If Romney eliminates PP/undercuts its services, he will do a huge disservice to our country.

PP, on a sliding scale and at low cost, teaches women, especially women who don't have health insurance, how to examine themselves and what to watch for regarding cancerous growth, weird bleeding, etc. If Romney eliminates PP/undercuts its services, he will do a huge disservice to our country.

One dodge after another.

One dodge after another.
How so? Where would your wife go if you were uninsured and making $3,000 or less a year?

How so?

Irrelevance.

Can a woman get a mammogram without a referral?

Yes. But the usual route is to have a doctor order one and then the doctor and specialist review the results. Most of the time the family physician is the frontline for ordering tests. But a patient could order a test and sign papers without a doctors permission and have a test done.

Where would your wife go if you were uninsured and out of work?

To the J.O. Wyatt Clinic (http://www.fmc-clinics.com/wyatt.html). Don't tell me Amarillo is the only city in the country that doesn't have health care services for the needy without going to PP.

Came across another interesting point of view about the Mourdock non-issue via Timothy P. Carney (http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-2012-not-all-men-and-women-are-created-equal/article/2511726?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinio n%20Digest%20-%2010/26/2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Di gest#.UIrM4mf1bf1).



Go ahead, tear into me.


Hi Steve,

Yes, it is interesting, but I think I can explain it in this way.

Unless you replace the word "created" with the word "conception" you have not actually stripped away the theology as the author of the article suggests.

The distinction the author is actually making ( although he don't realize this) is based on the distinction that exists when we try to think of people being the production of CONCEPTION or the product of CREATION. It is a false dichotomy to think you can make a ethical judgement for other people based on this distinction.

Tut

Hi Steve,

Yes, it is interesting, but I think I can explain it in this way.

Unless you replace the word "created" with the word "conception" you have not actually stripped away the theology as the author of the article suggests.

The distinction the author is actually making ( although he don't realize this) is based on the distinction that exists when we try to think of people being the production of CONCEPTION or the product of CREATION. It is a false dichotomy to think you can make a ethical judgement for other people based on this distinction.

Tut

I think the whole concept is false Tut, we are a product of creation and we are the result of conception, there is no dichotomy unless you deny the concept of creation. The ethical judgement here is whether the product of a woman's body is entirely her possession and at what point does it cease to be her possession. If you carry the arguments of the abortion debate to their logical conclusion then the mother is entitled to dispatch the child at any point in its life, this is an absurdity and so is the concept that a woman has sole possession of her body after conception.

This is no different to the idea perpetrated the other day that God consents to rape because he regards every child as his own. A totally false premise, however conception as a result of rape is still conception, and the child will not be rejected

I think the whole concept is false Tut, we are a product of creation and we are the result of conception, there is no dichotomy unless you deny the concept of creation. The ethical judgement here is whether the product of a woman's body is entirely her possession and at what point does it cease to be her possession. If you carry the arguments of the abortion debate to their logical conclusion then the mother is entitled to dispatch the child at any point in its life, this is an absurdity and so is the concept that a woman has sole possession of her body after conception.

this is no different to the idea perpetrated the other day that God consents to rape because he regards every child as his own. A totally false premise, however conception as a result of rape is still conception, and the child will not be rejected

Hi Clete,

As you probably know I am in the pro-life camp. I was pointing out there are some people in this world that don't accept we are the product of creation.

These people tend to fall into the scientific camp so they are more than likely prone to justifying the ethics of abortion on a scientific basis. As to whether this is legitimate undertaking is subject of many pages of debate. However, I will stick to a basic outline of the scientific argument. I actually reject the scientific argument, but I understand that many people accept it.

Science would probably want to say that the difference between a fetus and a child in the womb is the difference between being conscious and not conscious.
Science claims to be able to tell us at what point a fetus becomes conscious. In other words, they claim to be able to give us a figure in months. They base this on the neurological development of the brain and spinal cord.

Again, I have problems with this, but I won't go into it. I will try and stick to the scientific explanation.

At six weeks of development there is probably a reasonable argument for claiming that the developing fetus is not conscious. There is not enough neurological development at this stage. On the other hand ,at six months of development one would have great problems in try to convince someone that a fetus isn't conscious. Obviously it is a sentient being from now on.

The problem for science is pinning down the point at which a fetus becomes conscious. Once consciousness is achieved it would be wrong on all counts to try and abort.

Prior to consciousness there is a belief that getting rid of the fetus is not really a significant act. It is acceptable because the fetus feels no pain, it has no experiences, it is not conscious.

We are probably lead to believe this is similar to having a unwanted hair removed from your body. Hair feels no pain. Again, I find something inherently wrong with this type of thinking. However, I am probably no being fair to the other side because I have neglected to mention the significance of the mother in the argument. I accept the argument that the wishes and feeling of the mother need to be taken into account as well.

So Clete, I guess the possibility of the mother deciding the fate of a child at ANY STAGE of development in the womb is not justified on a scientific basis.




Tut

HI Tut I'm glad you finally got to defining the difference between conscious and sentient otherwise your argument would suggest we are less than human when asleep..
The ethical dilemna is whether to take a life under any circumstances is valid.

We seem to be able to make an argument that any of our actions are valid. Situational ethics, and I see the yield to feminism and the abortion debates as nothing more than situation ethics and pure emotionalism.

Instead of teaching children responsibility and morality we teach them emotional rubbish under a thin veneer of scientific reason and some sort of flawed logic. You speak about the feelings of the mother, which feelings are these the fear of a teenage girl or the feelings of guilt carried over a life time, the resententment of the product of a few moments of fun verses what that viable life might have been

Tut, I read an article yesterday there is a movement to give plants rights. I'm sure those same people cannot possibly find a reason to give an unborn child rights, not even a beating heart, fingers and toes. But because plants "communicate" with each other it's time to afford them protections.

A mother can either legally snuff out their child's life in the womb or criminally snuff out the life and throw it into the dumpster on her way home from the birth clinic. The difference between legal abortion and murder could be the difference in days or even hours .

Or point of development.

a mother can either legally snuff out their child's life in the womb or criminally snuff out the life and throw it into the dumpster on her way home from the birth clinic. The difference between legal abortion and murder could be the difference in days or even hours .
Most abortions occur within the first trimester, even early in that trimester.

So would you favor a ban on abortions after the 1st trimester ?

so would you favor a ban on abortions after the 1st trimester ?
No, I would not be so hubristic to tell anyone when she should have an abortion. I wouldn't have had the problem to solve in the first place.

So your point that most abortions occure in the 1st trimester is irrelevant to my point that the difference between a legal killing and murder is the matter of minutes and hours.

Yes. But the usual route is to have a doctor order one and then the doctor and specialist review the results. Most of the time the family physician is the frontline for ordering tests. But a patient could order a test and sign papers without a doctors permission and have a test done.


In Australia we have mobile mammogram clinics. The service is free and readily available to everyone. No referral required and the service is extensively advertised.

Self-examination is important but the early detection through technology is essential. If both sides are not providing the service, or not intending to provide the service then perhaps they should.


.

so your point that most abortions occure in the 1st trimester is irrelevent to my point that the difference between a legal killing and murder is the matter of minutes and hours.
Which then implies that a first trimester abortion is not "legal killing."

Or point of development.

And at what point does it become murder?

And at what point does it become murder? When does it become murder? It becomes murder when the little bay-bee pops out and get tossed in the trash.
Did you have another legal definition for murder? You really ought to bone up on your terms. Murder only occurs OUTSIDE a woman's body. Back to English 101 for you. Ya got the talk Spineless but I somehow doubt that you have enough stones to walk the walk.
Speedball1

It is always murder, it is just a question of whether it is legalised or not.

Speedwad, you're projecting again. Therapy can help you with that but first you have to admit you have a problem.

When does it become murder? It becomes murder when the little bay-bee pops out and get tossed in the trash.
Did you have another legal definition for murder? You really ought to bone up on your terms. Murder only occurs OUTSIDE a womans body. Back to English 101 for you. Ya got the talk Spineless but I somehow doubt that you have enough stones to walk the walk.
Speedball1


Hi Speedball

You are not quite correct.

What depresses me about the reality of the whole thing is that you are almost correct.



Tut

Unborn Victims of Violence Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act)

Scott Peterson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson)


Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) is an American convicted of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son in Modesto, California, in 2002.

Got quiet in here after that last post...

Via the Archdiocese of St. Louis:

enC0eFJgmpA

Yep, it's that simple.

Hello again, Steve:

Why would a woman ask her Catholic employer to pay for her birth control?? Because, in THIS country, employers aren't allowed to discriminate against women..

It's that simple.

excon

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That still trumps your faux outrage.

I was a young mother (on birth control) who had considered applying for a job teaching at the local Catholic school. I would have expected the health insurance plan to cover my prescription, just as the Lutheran health insurance plan did.

Apparently you expected wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That still trumps your faux outrage.

Nobody is stopping religions from praticing whatever, but when it comes to personal issues of health and family, keep your nose out of what people have a right to do for themselves that's legal, and lawful.

You cross a line when you tell business what they can sell or what people can buy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That still trumps your faux outrage.


Your judicial history seems to show that it isn't simple. If anything it seems to be complex. Hence the unfortunate state of affairs you find yourselves in at the moment.

Tut

Nobody is stopping religions from praticing whatever, but when it comes to personal issues of health and family, keep your nose out of what people have a right to do for themselves that's legal, and lawful.

The only one interfering in anything is the Obama administration.


You cross a line when you tell business what they can sell or what people can buy.

I swear you're right out of an Orwell novel.

Hello again, Steve,


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That still trumps your faux outrage. "No state shall.......... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm not sure which part of the Constitution trumps the other.

Excon

Only in the mind of libs does anyone have a RIGHT to contraceptives. Please show us how contraceptives are a human right.

Hello again, Steve:


Please show us how contraceptives are a human right. Not a HUMAN right.. The Constitution doesn't cover those.. But, I SHOWED you where they have a Constitutional right to them... Let me explain...

Contraceptives are an integral part of a woman's health care.. If a company, or church is going to COVER men's health care, then the Constitution says they must COVER women's health care.

It's that simple.

Excon

Only in the mind of libs does anyone have a RIGHT to contraceptives. Please show us how contraceptives are a human right.


Yes that's true, but not all rights recognized in you country are human rights.

Tut

As if they don't already?? I can assure you their plan denies contraceptives for both men and women. Doesn't get any more equal than that.

Hello again, Steve:


Doesn't get any more equal than thatThat would be true, if you pretend that men and women have the same health needs. Fortunately, the Constitution is not so blind.

Excon

And I don't believe anyone is complaining about covering contraceptives if medically necessary. But you want to go beyond 'needs' into violating religious freedom.

Hello again, Steve:


I don't believe anyone is complaining about covering contraceptives if medically necessary. That's a good argument. If you didn't need a doctors prescription to get them, and didn't have to purchase them from a pharmacy, I could buy it.

Excon

How does it violate YOUR religious freedom to provide for females health needs? That's up to her doctor, and none of your, or the churches, business.

That's a good argument. If you didn't need a doctors prescription to get them, and didn't have to purchase them from a pharmacy, I could buy it.


As opposed to the phony arguments used to justify this whole whole sham, expanding access even though access wasn't an issue according to the CDC, and that it cost some idiot $3,000 a year because she'd never heard of Target or generics?




How does it violate YOUR religious freedom to provide for females health needs? That's up to her doctor, and none of your, or the churches, business.

Another phony argument we've been over. And over, and over, and over...

Hello again, Steve:


and that it cost some idiot $3,000 a year because she'd never heard of Target or generics?Don't shoot the messenger.

I see you ignored my argument... Since you need a doctors appointment to get them, AND a prescription, AND follow-up examinations, AND you can only buy them from a pharmacy, it LOOKS pretty medically necessary to ME.

Do you OBJECT to the advertisement for drugs on television?? If they were ACTUALLY medically necessary, the ads wouldn't end with, "ask your doctor". I'll betcha THOSE drugs, scooters, catheters, and diabetic testing supplies, ARE covered.

Excon

I need a doctor to get a nose job, too. That doesn't make it medically necessary.

You can't speak for a female though, you have no right to speak for any one other than yourself because what her and her doctor deem necessary has nothing to do with how you feel about YOUR nose.

You can't speak for a female though, you have no right to speak for any one other than yourself because what her and her doctor deem necessary has nothing to do with how you feel about YOUR nose.

Oh waaa! Your guy is installing an unaccountable board that's going to decide what to pay for so your protestations are misdirected. And as far as ex's point goes, I'll let him spin his way out.

Hello again, Steve:

Why is "medically necessary" the issue? Or, better yet, why is YOUR definition of what's medically necessary a valid one? I'll bet there are many doctors who would disagree with definition. Frankly, THEIR opinions carry more weight with me than your religious based one does.

Now, you're entitled to your religious beliefs, but you can't impose them upon the public at large. When you're a public employer, you must adhere to the rules ALL public employers have to.

By the way, if you think contraceptives are a CHOICE, why can't you buy them at 7/Eleven?

Now, it COULD be argued, and I'm sure it is, that if a family wanted to CONTROL its output, it would be MEDICALLY necessary to have a doctor manage it...

excon

Why is "medically necessary" the issue?

Really? Because some things are optional.


Now, you're entitled to your religious beliefs, but you can't impose them upon the public at large. When you're a public employer, you must adhere to the rules ALL public employers have to.

Um, a Catholic school is not a PUBLIC employer, and as I've said before you are free to accept their terms of employment or you're free to work elsewhere. But leave it to you lefties to turn voluntary association with an employer into imposing religious beliefs on the country instead of the government imposing its beliefs on the church.

Let me rephrase what I said to Tal earlier, you're both right out of an Orwell novel.


By the way, if you think contraceptives are a CHOICE, why can't you buy them at 7/Eleven?

Heck, you can still buy them in truck stop restrooms if you have a couple of quarters.

Hello again, Steve:


Heck, you can still buy them in truck stop restrooms if you have a couple of quarters.Those are the ones for men. We're talking about woman's health. They need to see a DOCTOR.

That's all you got?

Excon

Those are the ones for men. We're talking about woman's health. They need to see a DOCTOR.

Well I suppose if it's two women involved they don't need contraceptives now do they?


That's all you got?

Nope, you ignored this part:


Really? Because some things are optional.


Quote:
Now, you're entitled to your religious beliefs, but you can't impose them upon the public at large. When you're a public employer, you must adhere to the rules ALL public employers have to.

Um, a Catholic school is not a PUBLIC employer, and as I've said before you are free to accept their terms of employment or you're free to work elsewhere. But leave it to you lefties to turn voluntary association with an employer into imposing religious beliefs on the country instead of the government imposing its beliefs on the church.

Let me rephrase what I said to Tal earlier, you're both right out of an Orwell novel.

Um, a Catholic school is not a PUBLIC employer,Since when is a catholic school an insurance company?

Since when is a catholic school an insurance company?

Who said they were?

Some things for you and your way of thinking may be optional but that doesn't hold for a female who is poor, or working poor or a working poor guy.

Why are you even presuming to know what's best for any female? And show me where its an unaccountable board making decisions about what's necessary or not.

What do you have against doctors, science, medicine, and the truth AND women?

Plus if catholics cannot use contraceptives then there will zero demand for them, right? The problem solves itself.

Some things for you and your way of thinking may be optional but that doesn't hold for a female who is poor, or working poor or a working poor guy.

Oh boo hoo, don't play the pity card. I've already shown there is no problem with access to contraceptives so it's a phony, phony argument.


Why are you even presuming to know what's best for any female?

Another straw man.


And show me where its an unaccountable board making decisions about what's necessary or not.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, look it up.


What do you have against doctors, science, medicine, and the truth AND women?

Love 'em all. And you? Especially that truth thing.

Oh boo hoo, don't play the pity card. I've already shown there is no problem with access to contraceptives so it's a phony, phony argument.
Please run it by me again. I read your posts faithfully and don't remember what the access point is.

Try the search feature.

Try the search feature.
I was hoping you would remember and give me a word or two.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, look it up.

My pleasure,I love researching for FACTS!!

Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board)


The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions through supermajority vote.

If the Board fails to submit a proposal that the Chief Actuary certifies will achieve the savings target, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must submit a proposal that will achieve that amount of savings. The Secretary must then implement the proposal unless Congress enacts resolutions made to override the Board's (or the Secretary's) decisions under a fast-track procedure that the law sets forth.[1]

So much for the no accountability.


IPAB is composed of fifteen members appointed by the President, subject to Senate confirmation. The Secretary of HHS, the Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration serve ex officio as nonvoting members.[15] In making the appointments, the President consults with the Majority Leader of the Senate concerning the appointment of three members; the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning the appointment of three members, the Minority Leader of the Senate concerning the appointment of three members, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives concerning the appointment of three members.[16]

Bi partisan for sure, the goal,


IPAB is tasked with developing specific proposals to bring the net growth in Medicare spending back to target levels if the Medicare Actuary determines that net spending is forecast to exceed target levels, beginning in 2015.

To put it simply, oversight to bring down health care costs,and increase coverage. Geez guy we have to do better than the increases of the past or none of us will be able to afford aspirin, and unless you have a better idea besides criticizing those who try then doing NOTHING is NOT a great option is it.

I know you think that access for everybody has already been established, but in the real world, that's just not the case and your catholic charities will confirm that if you talk to them. The bigger the city, the bigger the problem, and people do fall through the cracks because its easier than you think, even for the rugged small town studs like yourself.

And you won't replace honest debate with that 'straw argument' phrase. Its a cop out. Go volunteer at some hospital or church and tell me about all those people who have all that access.

I was hoping you would remember and give me a word or two.

"there is no problem with access (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-34.html#post3209943) to contraceptives."



I guess Tal doesn't get what "independent" means and that cutting Medicare costs means cutting services. If it isn't funded, it isn't provided.

"there is no problem with access to contraceptives."Which page of the report says that?

"there is no problem with access (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-34.html#post3209943) to contraceptives."


I guess Tal doesn't get what "independent" means and that cutting Medicare costs means cutting services. If it isn't funded, it isn't provided.

Easy enough to miss I guess?


which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.[1

They may be independent, but the congress can over rule anything the recommend.

It would require a 2/3 Senate majority to overrule their recommendations.

Same as it takes to pass anything, except reconcilliation which can only be done if its budgetary related. SO??

Not quite, most Senate votes only require a simple majority.

Hello again:

Republicans are changing up... They want to present a kinder gentler message. By the way, how do you gently say vaginal probe?? Never mind. I digress... They keep on talking about why lower taxes and smaller government DOESN'T appeal to minorities... What they DON'T realize is that it DOES resonate with the electorate. But, when tempered with the wars it perpetrates on certain classes of people, that message gets buried.

The Republicans are NOT addressing the war on women.. I guess since they don't think there IS one, they don't have to address it... They didn't think they were warring with the Hispanic community either, but now they get that they were.. They don't think they're warring on women, but women think they are...

Are they going to CONTINUE to deny it, or are they going to address it?? Me?? I'd just as soon they deny it. That way the Democrats WILL take over the House in '14.

excon

Ex it is all amyth, a very, smart myth that won an election

I see you intend on continuing the lie, ex.

Are you saying Obamas lies are better than Romneys?

No one lies better than Obama.

Romney was great at it and we knew he was lying. Especially the women. I guess all of us are fools and dufusses. Your liar still lost!

Or the American people were going to lose no matter who won?

America loses when the media helps the president cover for his lies.

And the right wing media is honest, truthful, and factual? Blaming the media is par for the right wing course.

And the right wing media is honest, truthful, and factual? Blaming the media is par for the right wing course.

The establishment media in this country has pretty well forsaken journalistic ethics.

You can blame them speech, just about everyoneelse has abandoned ethics of one sort or another

I'm not that cynical.

And don't you just love those two Republican politicians that claimed that rape was Gods will and if she got pregnant that was Gods Will also? Then along came another Republican That informed us the women couldn't get pregnant because all females have a system that shuts down during a rape. I guess these guys never had a talk with mommy about the birds and the bees.
But. On the other hand I expect no less from Republicans. Think about it. Every bad thing that's happened to this nation has been under a Republican president starting with Nixon Regards, Tom

Speednut, you're not only way late to that party, you must have partied through the Carter years.

Seems I recall something about being reminded repeatedly that the courts keep blocking voter ID laws so we should take heed. Well, for the third time now the courts have rejected the contraceptive mandate (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/16/bible-publisher-beats-obama-abortion-hhs-mandate-in-court/)... two of them in favor of for-profit businesses.


A federal court today stopped enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Bible publisher which filed a lawsuit against it.

The mandate has generated massive opposition from pro-life groups because it forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.

The Obama administration opposed the order, arguing that Tyndale House Publishers isn’t religious enough for an exemption from the mandate, a component of ObamaCare that forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.

The decision only applies to the company and does not stop the Obama HHS mandate nationwide against other religious groups, businesses, hospitals, or educational institutions.

Represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom, Tyndale House Publishers, based in Illinois, is the world’s largest privately held Christian publisher of books, Bibles, and digital media and directs 96.5 percent of its profits to religious non-profit causes worldwide. The publisher specifically objects to covering abortifacients under the mandate.

The court’s order is the third nationwide against the mandate and the second obtained by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys.

“Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, who argued before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Nov. 9.

Bowman told LifeNews: “The court has done the right thing in halting the mandate while our lawsuit moves forward. For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is willing to disregard the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes.”

In its opinion accompanying a preliminary injunction order in Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the court wrote that “the beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable…. Christian principles, prayer, and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays from its faith-oriented mission.

The opinion continued: “The Court has no reason to doubt, moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a non-profit religious organization; indeed, the case law is replete with examples of such organizations asserting cognizable free exercise and RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] challenges.”

Tyndale is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious, even though Tyndale House is strictly a publisher of Bibles and other Christian materials and is primarily owned by the non-profit Tyndale House Foundation. The foundation provides grants to help meet the physical and spiritual needs of people around the world.

On July 27, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever court order against the Obama administration’s mandate on behalf of Colorado’s Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it.

Surely the courts are waging a war on women.

P.S. A bible publisher isn't "religious enough" for Obama?

By the way, anyone notice Obama's latest breach of protocol? Didn't anyone tell the man that public kissing is a no-no in Asia, especially someone other than your wife who might be a head of state and whose name you can't pronounce?


For someone alleged to have grown up in Asia, Barack Obama is repeatedly clueless about customs there (http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/112112-634228-burma-aung-san-suu-kyi-obama-kiss-gaffe-.htm).

It's one thing if you're a tourist. But as the president of the United States? More problematic.

You may recall earlier trips there, part of his apology tours, when the Democrat president was bowing to just about everyone. In Japan, Emperor Akihito in a gesture of hospitality stuck out his hand for a Western greeting rather than expect a bow as he would from a subject.

Maybe Obama skips his protocol briefings too. He shook the Emperor's hands and bowed, very low like the gardener. Not like a visiting head of state. One or the other, bucko. Not both.

...

Eager to take advantage of such a photo opportunity before the world media, Obama leaned in for a little kiss, as a Chicago pol might at a South Side rally where women would squeal for a presidential peck. Obama is a big political kisser. He kisses females everywhere. Introduce him at a rally, you get a kiss. Hug too, probably. He knows the ladies love it.

But Asia ain't Hyde Park. Public kissing, even between husband and wife, is rarely seen. Between a man and woman not married it's downright outrageous, even scandalous. So Obama's presumably affectionate but impolite, totally out of place smooch created an international moment more awkward than a first date.

I think he's just a sexist womanizer. What a priceless image though for the "leader of the free world."

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/o-kyi-kiss-lg.jpg

Add your own caption...

Being nice to the ladies is how Obama will conquer the world! She looks like she's smiling to me! Or is that a silly school girl grin?

Being nice to the ladies is how Obama will conquer the world! She looks like she's smiling to me! Or is that a silly school girl grin?

I'm sure you thought Bush rubbing Merkel's shoulders was endearing, too.

Wrong! I didn't give a rats patoot!

Bobby Jindal fired a shot (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/bobby_jindal_contraceptiv.html) in the war on women, and I agree.


Gov. Bobby Jindal said oral contraceptives should be available over-the-counter in a Thursday evening op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. The self-described "unapologetic pro-life Republican" governor of Louisiana said this would lower health-care costs, prevent government intrusion into citizens' lives and fight the influence of big pharmaceutical companies.

"As a conservative Republican, I believe that we have been stupid to let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend, during debates about health-care insurance, that Republicans are somehow against birth control," Jindal said in the op-ed.

Jindal cited a December committee opinion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which came out in favor of over-the-counter access to the pill "to improve contraceptive access and use and possibly decrease unintended pregnancy rates."

Although the op-ed might seem like a shift to the left for the Catholic governor, Jindal also reiterated his conservative reasoning behind his support for the issue.

First, he made clear if oral contraception was more readily available, employers currently mandated to provide it under President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act would not need to do so.

This argument most clearly is geared toward religiously-affiliated employers who have come out against providing birth control against Church doctrine.

Second, he touted the impact it could have on individual buyers, saying "it's time to put purchasing power back in the hands of consumers."

Finally, he said if oral contraception is available over-the-counter, this would put an end to the politicization of the issue.

"Contraception is a personal matter -- the government shouldn't be in the business of banning it or requiring a woman's employer to keep tabs on her use of it."

"The latest opinion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a common-sense call for reform that could yield a result everyone can embrace: the end of birth-control politics."

Ok you libs out there, ready to end the politicization of birth control?

Hello again, Steve:


Ok you libs out there, ready to end the politicization of birth control?We're NOT the ones who politicized it in the first place. But, it doesn't matter who started it, at least Jindal is calling an end to it.

However... If WOMEN'S health care is going to be offered over the counter, why not MEN'S?? If Viagra isn't ALSO offered, then you're just switching VICTIMS in your war.

Excon

PS> (edited) Upon further consideration, why would pharmacists who won't fill a prescription for birth control, be OK with ladies buying it off a shelf 5 feet away from him??

Hello again, Steve:

We're NOT the ones who politicized it in the first place. But, it doesn't matter who started it, at least Jindal is calling an end to it.

Bullsh*, Planned Parenthood politicized it a long, long time ago and your side hasn't let up since, all the way to mandates and a mythical war on women.


However... If WOMEN'S health care is going to be offered over the counter, why not MEN'S?? If Viagra isn't ALSO offered, then you're just switching VICTIMS in your war.

Men can already buy condoms, with this they could buy the pills, too.


PS> (edited) Upon further consideration, why would pharmacists who won't fill a prescription for birth control, be OK with ladies buying it off a shelf 5 feet away from him??

For the same reason a grocery store checker that hates alcohol will run your beer across the scanner?

Bobby Jindal sounds like a smart, sensible politician, the Republican party needs more like him.

Why should women pay for them free otc when the new Obamacare regs say they can get them for free if they are prescribed ? Jindal's jui-jitsu will not fool true believers . Their goal is not women's access to birth control .Their goal is the strong arming of the Catholic Church ,forcing it to bend to their will.

I think the goal is to keep other people noses out of private business between companies, doctors, or consumers. What gives religion the right to say what goes on in people lives and think it's a conspiracy when they get told to screw off?

I think the goal is to keep other people noses out of private business between companies, doctors, or consumers.

I think anyone who believes that is either naïve, willfully ignorant or clueless. In fact, based on your posts you're obviously just fine with getting your nose between others and their private business.


What gives religion the right to say what goes on in people lives and think it's a conspiracy when they get told to screw off?

See? Exhibit A.

Ok, if this isn't an example of why the contraceptive mandate is an affront I don't know what is, it requires celibate nuns to provide free contraceptive coverage.

Obamacare could drive Little Sisters of the Poor out of the US (http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/19/obamacare-could-drive-little-sisters-of-the-poor-out-of-the-us/#ixzz2FWoERSJX)


A religious order of nuns is concerned about its future presence in the United States because of Obamacare’s impact on its charitable operations. The Little Sisters of the Poor told The Daily Caller that it may not qualify for a long-term exemption from Obamacare’s healthcare mandate. The law requires the order to provide government-approved health insurance to its 300 sisters who tend to the elderly in 30 U.S. cities.

The exception is needed, said Sister Constance Carolyn Veit, the Little Sisters’ communications director, because Catholic teaching opposes contraception and medical treatments that cause sterility or can cause abortions.

President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul law requires employers to include those services in qualifying health care plans they provide for their employees. Failure to comply will bring hefty fines — even for religious orders whose members have taken vows of poverty.

“t could be a serious threat to our mission in the U.S. ” Constance told TheDC, “because we would never be able to afford to pay the fines involved. We have difficulty making ends meet just on a regular basis; we have no extra funding that would cover these fines.”

The crux of the matter is a religious exemption that the federal government is expected to make available to Catholic churches, but not to other Catholic institutions.

That’s because unlike Catholic parishes and dioceses, the church’s many affiliated schools, charities, religious orders and hospitals don’t discriminate in their hiring or service, often employing staff — and serving people in need — who come from other Christian denominations or from other faiths entirely.

Now that's a war on women. But I know,[I] if these nuns would just stop acting like a business instead of a church they wouldn't have this problem.

The services just need to be included in the package, it's obvious they will never be used so what's the big deal?

On the abortion debate - I get frustrated with both sides. Unwanted pregnancy is a horrible situation for a mother to be in. I used to be a pro-choice advocate because of the "exceptions" to the norm - rape, incest (which I consider to BE rape), the life of the mother. I'm Catholic and my church does permit the use of the morning after pill in cases of rape and incest. They do permit the use of tubal ligation in the case of a tubal pregnancy to save the life of the mother - there is no chance of the child surviving and the mother wouldn't survive it either. I differ with the church on this tubal ligation - I think if the tube can be spared, it should be. To me, that choice does more to preserve life and the potential for life.

At the same time, I have changed my mind on elective abortion except in these critical circumstances. Women do have the choice not to get pregnant if they do not want to parent from the beginning. We are not such weak people that we cannot abstain from intercourse if we don't want children. It really discredits men and women alike to perpetuate this argument that women need the choice of abortion as a form of birth control. When a woman has intercourse, she knows it can result in pregnancy. If she engages in it regularly whe knows it is more likely than not to result in pregnancy. Well, in making this decision - stupidly if she doesn't want a child - she, in my view, voluntarily relinquishes a part of her body, agreeing to share it with another person. I'm not sure her rights, at that point, trump the rights of the unborn child. She has all the power, and child needs some protection.

For some reason if a woman is pregnant and wants her child, then is shot and killed and her child also dies, we have no difficulty considering it a double homicide. But if she doesn't want the baby and elects for the child to die, we consider it a medical choice. We need to be careful of this kind of thought process.

From the moment of conception, that child is human and real and alive - that's scientific fact. Some will argue that it's less human, or not yet human enough to be accorded any rights of it's own. I think that's silly. We know better. So then the question becomes, "when is killing a baby justfiable?" I would challenge women considering abortion to ask themselves if their circumstances are so intolerable as to warrant terminating that child's life. She has the option of placing the child for adoption, so once the pregnancy is over, she certainly has the option to resume her normal life.

What is she sparing herself by taking the life of the child? A temporary interuption in her education? Embarrassment in her community? The upset of her family? Disapproval of a man who isn't man enough to help her parent?

To me, there are very few situations in which taking the life of the child is morally justafiable. And on this point, some people will go on and bluster over the audacity of considering a moral position. Well, I believe in morals. And manners. And Ethics. And laws. And personal standards. All of these things are meant to lead us to healthier, happier, more productive lives during which we are not a pain in the neck to the rest of society.

I am not convinced that our government can effectively discern when an abortion is justified and do not want it addressed in the government forum with laws barring the practice. However, I certainly am offended by those who diminish the idea of human life to a "medical decision" or a "personal choice" or the suggestion that a woman who was not raped, who's life is not in jeapordy and who is not pregnant form incest, should suck it up and carry out her pregnancy, placing her child for adoption if she is unable or unwilling to parent herself. Yes, it's hard. When we put ourself in dumb situations, sometimes it's hard to get out of them. That's how life works. When we're spared the consequences of our decisions, or let ourselves off the hook, we don't learn a damned thing.

We are not such weak people that we cannot abstain from intercourse if we don't want children.
And that's the powerful message we need to give our sons and daughters!

The services just need to be included in the package, it's obvious they will never be used so what's the big deal?

Seriously? You don't get the absurdity of forcing nuns to buy contraceptives?

The nuns buy nothing but insurance that covers a full range of services. They would be buying the insurance any way. They don't turn down tax exemptions either. It's a simple fix, contract your clerical work out. DUUUHHH!!


From the moment of conception, that child is human and real and alive - that's scientific fact.

Show me. Links please.

The nuns buy nothing but insurance that covers a full range of services. They would be buying the insurance any way. They don't turn down tax exemptions either. Its a simple fix, contract your clerical work out. DUUUHHH!!!

FYI: Orders of women religious (nuns and sisters) operate independently of local diocese and the Vatican in all matters financial. They recieve no money from these entities and each order is completely independent financially. As such, they buy their own insurance. It is ludicrous that women who are celibate and chaste should have to include birth control in their policies. They should have the choice not to have these things in their policy and if they shoudl require it individually, because they do still possess free will and could cheat on their vows if they so chose to do, they would simply have to pay for it out of pocket.

Show me. Links please.

You need links to confirm that a human embryo or featus is human, alive and real? What do you think it is - a pot roast until the 7th month? Come on - let's be reasonable.

You know the left, life doesn't begin until you can see it with you'un own eyes, they think a baby is akin to a hen egg or maybe they are still born in cabbage patches.

This whole issue is because the left wants easy abortion, easy contraception and of course the easy lifestyle that goes with it. You would have thought that having won the cold war and seen what the easy lifestyle did to the Soviet Union, they wouldn't want to go down the same path, but they just don't make the connect

You need links to confirm that a human embryo or featus is human, alive and real? What do you think it is - a pot roast until the 7th month? Come on - let's be reasonable.


I think Tal was referring to a scientific link.

The science would tells us that the embryo is a potential human being. Science also tells us that a fetus is not conscious until a certain number of months into the gestation period. Prior to this number of months the fetus is consider not to be conscious enough to feel pain. In other words, it has no experience. Another way of saying it would be the there is not enough neurological development for experience to occur.

In most societies that practice abortion this magical number of months always turns out to be very loose and is always seems loosely applied depending on the country.

I might, and I say I MIGHT accept that a fetus is not conscious in the first trimester, but I cannot accept that it isn't at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third.

Personally, I have a lot of problems with this scientific approach to determining what is and isn't conscious. Even though science would try and tells us they have an understanding of consciousness I am rather skeptical.

I may have a very good metaphysical argument as to why a fetus is conscious even in the very early stages of development, but he reality is that, laws in this area tend to allow for scientific argument rather than for metaphysical arguments.

I am against abortion for a different reason. That reason being that no one actually know what consciousness is.

Tut

When children are considered a disposable commodity depending on convenience , we really shouldn't be surprised that a disturbed person with a gun likewise thinks children are disposable .

I agree Tom the recent tragedy is as much a mental health issue as it is a gun issue and they is a lot of community attitude caught up in it and in this so called war on women

The nuns buy nothing but insurance that covers a full range of services. They would be buying the insurance any way. They don't turn down tax exemptions either. Its a simple fix, contract your clerical work out. DUUUHHH!!!

One post you're whining about keeping your nose out of other people's health care decisions and the next your for forcing celibate nuns to buy birth control. You can't make this stuff up.

Hello again, Steve:

What you can't make up, is the right wing's LAST gasp attempt at trying to hang on to a bankrupt policy... I know YOU don't think there was a war on women. But the MAJORITY of the country's women think there IS. Your policy's have been REPUDIATED by the country, and we're moving in a different direction now. You can change up, or you can die on the vine..

excon

The nuns don't buy contraceptives, they don't make them, pay for them, or provide them. That's just right wing fantasy to make a false point so no one else can buy them or use them. That's my problem with what you have said many times about how you have a right to make others practice what you believe. You don't have that right.

What's a celibate nun have to do with an employees private doctor writig a script for birth control? How would they even know if they weren't sticking their nose into personal business and trying to control the business interests of private companies who have a right to offer services to private citizens.

To be clear though the law applies to insurance companies paying for contraceptives, not a celibate nun using them, paying for them, or passing them out.

I am pro life for ME, and its not my care or concern what anyone else is. Why is it the concern of a celebate nun? Who gives her power and authority over everyone else who is not celibate or Catholic?

Hello again, Steve:

What you can't make up, is the right wing's LAST gasp attempt at trying to hang on to a bankrupt policy... I know YOU don't think there was a war on women. But the MAJORITY of the country's women think there IS. Your policy's have been REPUDIATED by the country, and we're moving in a different direction now. You can change up, or you can die on the vine..

Excon

Oh stop trying to intimidate me into caving to your bullsh*t, I'm not moved in the least.

I would have thought even you would get that you this nun example is total nonsense. And just so you know, Obama is going to end up caving because the courts have recognized this intrusion on religious freedom and are holding his feet to the fire.


Federal Appeals Court Hands Victory to Religious Colleges, (http://www.becketfund.org/federal-appeals-court-hands-victory-to-religious-colleges-commands-hhs-to-act-quickly-to-fix-contraception-mandate/)Commands HHS to Act Quickly to Fix Mandate

For Immediate Release: December 18, 2012
Media Contact: Emily Hardman, 202.349.7224

Washington, D.C. — Today, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. handed Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College a major victory in their challenges to the HHS mandate. Last summer, two lower courts had dismissed the Colleges’ cases as premature. Today, the appellate court reinstated those cases, and ordered the Obama Administration to report back every 60 days—starting in mid-February—until the Administration makes good on its promise to issue a new rule that protects the Colleges’ religious freedom. The new rule must be issued by March 31, 2013.

“The D.C. Circuit has now made it clear that government promises and press conferences are not enough to protect religious freedom,” said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who argued the case. “The court is not going to let the government slide by on non-binding promises to fix the problem down the road.”

The court based its decision on two concessions that government lawyers made in open court. First, the government promised “it would never enforce [the mandate] in its current form” against Wheaton, Belmont Abbey or other similarly situated religious groups. Second, the government promised it would publish a proposed new rule “in the first quarter of 2013” and would finalize it by next August. The administration made both concessions under intense questioning by the appellate judges. The court deemed the concessions a “binding commitment” and has retained jurisdiction over the case to ensure the government follows through.

“This is a win not just for Belmont Abbey and Wheaton, but for all religious non-profits challenging the mandate,” said Duncan. “The government has now been forced to promise that it will never enforce the current mandate against religious employers like Wheaton and Belmont Abbey and a federal appellate court will hold the government to its word.”

While the government had previously announced plans to create a new rule, it has not yet taken the steps necessary to make that promise legally binding. Lower courts dismissed the colleges’ cases while the government contemplated a new rule, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the cases should stay alive while it scrutinizes whether the government will meet its promised deadlines. The court acted quickly, issuing Tuesday’s order just days after hearing lengthy arguments.

The administration admitted as much that the mandate infringes on religious freedom and the court is going to hold them to more than a promise to fix it.

P.S. It might be a good time for you guys to stop with all the nonsensical war imagery in light of Newtown.

QUOTE by talaniman;
The nuns don't buy contraceptives, they don't make them, pay for them, or provide them. That's just right wing fantasy.

Aren't you done with this fantasy? The fact is the law would require them to furnish insurance that covers contraceptives or pay a fine, you cannot deny that. Give it up Tal, we're not fooled by this convoluted thinking of yours... and note my previous post, (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3350763-post860.html) the courts agree with me so you can drop the charade.

Before you take a victory lap lets see what the final compromise looks like.

Before you take a victory lap lets see what the final compromise looks like.

The admin admitted it infringes on religious liberty and the courts agree. What are you missing?

Hello again, Steve:


The admin admitted it infringes on religious liberty and the courts agree. What are you missing?Uhhh, that there are HIGHER courts than that.

And, I don't think it's us. It's YOU.

Excon

Nowhere in any of your links has such an admission been made nor has it been proven that the mandate does indeed violate the freedom of religion. The only thing the courts have enforced is a promise not to enforce a mandate, and put in writing an exception/exemption for religious employers. (Churches and schools, NOT businesses)

This already exists in many states already including Texas. Just as many religious employers allow for insurances that cover birth control for women already and have no objections to the mandate.

Some religious groups agree and some don't. I suspect the issue will be between the employees and the church that hires them.


Hello again, Steve:

Uhhh, that there are HIGHER courts than that.

And, I don't think it's us. It's YOU.

excon

Yes the government can apeal to a higher court... if it has too! SHHHH.Don't tell the right wing, because they think they have won something other than an accommodation. Notthing is in writing yet.

And both of you missed the link within my link to the decision (http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DC-Order1.pdf). I stand by my post with one correction, the government "in effect" admitted the mandate infringes on religious freedom. If the government makes such a concession a higher court is just going to send it back and remind them of their obligation.

It's not the end of it but religious employers have gotten a victory here.


SHHHH.Don't tell the right wing, because they think they have won something other than an accommodation. Notthing is in writing yet.

And you can dispense with the condescension, Tal.

You have no sense of humor or the nuance of sarcasm. That's no fun. Rise above the sense of thrill at watching the grass grow. That not condensation, just an acknowledgement.

Good luck to YOU and Tom this week!

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know where you been.. But Every right we have is BALANCED by EVERY other right people have. The question at hand ISN'T whether the government infringed on somebody's right's. It's a matter of WHO'S rights take precedence.

It's a problem you guys have. You're looking for SIMPLICITY where NONE exists.. For example, you home in on the rights of the unborn, but NEVER, never, EVER consider the rights of the mother. I suppose if you did, you wouldn't be able to disregard them like you do..

excon

It really is just an accommodation:

“The Departments intend to propose that, when offering insured
coverage to a religious organization that self-certifies as qualifying for the
accommodation, a health insurer may not include contraceptive coverage in that
organization's insured coverage. This means that contraceptive coverage would not be
included in the plan document, contract, or premium charged to the religious
organization.” 77 Fed. Reg. 16,501, 16,505 (Mar. 21, 2012). (The ANPRM went on to
State: “Instead, the issuer would be required to provide participants and beneficiaries
covered under the plan separate coverage for contraceptive services . . . without cost
sharing .. . ” Id.)

your for forcing celibate nuns to buy birth controlcan you show where the nuns are being forced to buy birth control, I missed that part.

If they are forced to provide insurance for their employees ,and they are forced to provide birth control in that plan ;then ipso facto ;they are forced to buy birth control to their employees . There is no other way to spin it .

if they are forced to provide insurance for their employees ,and they are forced to provide birth control in that plan ;then ipso facto ;they are forced to buy birth control to their employees . There is no other way to spin it .
Nah, nice try. They only need to have the rider in the offerings. If absolutely no one will be using it then there will be no need to stock any. No one is forcing nuns to buy birth control, that's just hyperbole to misrepresent a position so that you can easily criticize it - the exact definition of a strawman argument. That's a dishonest way to have a discussion.

You have no sense of humor or the nuance of sarcasm. Thats no fun. Rise above the sense of thrill at watching the grass grow. That not condensation, just an acknowledgement.

Good luck to YOU and Tom this week!

I'm an authority on sarcasm. I should put that in my profile.

Tom is going down!

AP is going to tweek a hammy

Nah, nice try. They only need to have the rider in the offerings. If absolutely no one will be using it then there will be no need to stock any. No one is forcing nuns to buy birth control, that's just hyperbole to misrepresent a position so that you can easily criticize it - the exact definition of a strawman argument. That's a dishonest way to have a discussion.

Would they have birth control in the plan they offer if they were given a choice ? Nope . So by forcing them to provide the coverage ,you are forcing them to buy birth control .

Nah, nice try. They only need to have the rider in the offerings. If absolutely no one will be using it then there will be no need to stock any. No one is forcing nuns to buy birth control, that's just hyperbole to misrepresent a position so that you can easily criticize it - the exact definition of a strawman argument. That's a dishonest way to have a discussion.

As I said before, "the fact is the law would require them to furnish insurance that covers contraceptives or pay a fine." That is no straw man, it is not hyperbole, it is a fact that this mandate as it stands requires the nuns to violate their beliefs or pay a fine. No amount of spin will change that fact.

As I said before, "the fact is the law would require them to furnish insurance that covers contraceptives or pay a fine." That is no straw man, it is not hyperbole, it is a fact that this mandate as it stands requires the nuns to violate their beliefs or pay a fine. No amount of spin will change that fact.
Do the nuns say that even though non-Catholics work for our organization and use birth control, we will not allow our insurance plan to include it and thereby refuse to provide it for our fellow employees?

That's the way it had been when the church ,schools etc had their private plans .

that's the way it had been when the church ,schools ect had their private plans .
So non-Catholic employees were out of luck for birth control coverage and then paid out of pocket?

So female employees need extra insurance if they work for the church?

So female employees need extra insurance if they work for the church?

No, they need $9.00 to buy their own. They don't have to work there, if they don't like the benefits they can work elsewhere... it's a free country. Well, hopefully it stays that way.

My wife's insurance won't pay for Prilosec, are they waging a war on her?

This whole argument on birth control is ridiculous. It was a campaign morsel for Obama to pretend like he cares more about women but it's a joke. Birth control is dirt cheap. Any idiot who can scrape together coins from the couch cushions can buy condoms, and the pill is about $5 a month. People have unplanned pregnancies because they didn't plan. To get birth control, they would have to find a doctor, schedule the appointment and actually go there, then ask for the prescription, do whatever tests are required first, go to the pharmacy and get it filled. People who don't even havec the self control to stop at the gas station for a condom, or to fish a few quarters out of their pocket at the bar and buy one from the vending machine, are not likely to be responsible enough to get birth control.

I've worked with many women who were dealing with unplanned pregnancy, and NONE of them have EVER cited that the reason was that they couldn't afford birth control. The reasons were, rather: "1. We wanted a baby but my boyfriend changed his mind and I can't do this alone; 2. It just happened and we figured it wouldn't happen the first time; 3. We were drinking shots and....; 4. I don't know - I guess I wasn't thinking."

If people can afford to buy a can of pop from a vending machine, they can afford birth control. If they can't afford it they can still get it from many non-profits. Several AIDS organizations and even some high schools give condoms away for free. Planned parenthood and other community clinics provide birth control to low income people too.

There is NO NEED and NO VALUE to providing free birth control. Really - we need to now pay people's sex-related expenses as a nation?

If we really want to show care for women why don't we give women free cardiac screanings and cover their lipitor and other blood pressure, cholestrol medications. Cardiac disease is the biggest cause of death among women.

The real value of free birth control is less abortions. That's the goal.

The real value of free birth control is less abortions. That's the goal.

No, it was about cost as your hero Sandra Fluke said.


"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You just move the goalpost as needed to justify your position. If it wasn't about cost there would be no need to offer it free.

The goal post hasn't moved you just can't see how far off it is or the obstacles like costs that stand in the way since you need insurance to get that $5/$9 buck birth control. That doesn't include the doctor visit required for a prescription.

All things you righties take for granted. My insurance doesn't cover any drug that has an over the counter substitute for less money. The first thing they ask for at a pharmacy for filling any perscription is your insurance card or else you pay full price.

Hello don't:


There is NO NEED and NO VALUE to providing free birth control. Really - we need to now pay people's sex-related expenses as a nation? If that was the issue, I'd agree with you... But, it's not. It's how the right wing is SPINNING it.. It's what they'd LIKE you to believe. But it's NOT the truth. Nobody is asking for FREE birth control - not Sandra Fluke, and not ANYBODY.

There ARE women, however, who work for the Catholic church who are demanding that THEIR health be covered by their health insurance just like the MENS health care is. We DO have equal rights in this country... The church can't discriminate, but it is.

excon

Yes all that discretional expenditure should uninsurable, it would reduce the costs considerably, just consider, no cosmetic surgery, no abortions, no contraceptives, no snip, no nip and tuck, just insure for accidents and serious illness.

Hello don't:

If that was the issue, I'd agree with you... But, it's not. It's how the right wing is SPINNING it.. It's what they'd LIKE you to believe. But it's NOT the truth. Nobody is asking for FREE birth control - not Sandra Fluke, and not ANYBODY.

Then there was no reason to make it free which is what I've said all along, the mandate was a cure in search of a disease. Thanks for finally validating that for me.

Yes all that discretional expenditure should uninsurable, it would reduce the costs considerably, just consider, no cosmetic surgery, no abortions, no contraceptives, no snip, no nip and tuck, just insure for accidents and serious illness.

Bingo ! That's why insurance costs went out of control in the 1st place... mandated coverage.

Well now we have analysed the problem to death, you can implement the solution

Hello again,

Wow, another federal appeals court decision. This one isn't so good for the right wingers.


By Steve Olafson

Hobby Lobby Must Cover Emergency Contraceptives For Employees: Federal Appeals Court rules (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/hobby-lobby-emergency-contraceptives_n_2342378.html?ir=business&utm_campaign=122112&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-business&utm_content=Photo).

OKLAHOMA CITY, Dec 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday rejected a claim by an arts and crafts chain that wants to be exempted from a requirement to provide emergency contraceptives to employees because it violates the religious principles of its owners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against family-owned Hobby Lobby's assertion that the religious beliefs of its owners should relieve them from providing the "morning after" and "week after" pills to their employees, as required under President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms.

Excon

Hello again,

Wow, another federal appeals court decision. This one isn't so good for the right wingers.


excon

Like you said, they can appeal higher.

The case that will reach SCOTUS will be Notre Dame v Sebillius
http://opac.nd.edu/assets/69013/hhs_complaint.pdf
Go Fighting Irish!!

Here is another shot in the war on women


Mood swings on PMS: is it all a myth? (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/mood-swings-on-pms-is-it-all-a-myth-20121221-2brjw.html)

So guys what have we been putting up with then?

While the media is fixated on Hobby Lobby's courageous battle they are ignoring all the court challenges to Obamacare .

Hobby Lobby and religious book-seller Mardel Inc. which are owned by the same conservative Christian family, are suing to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.

The companies claim the mandate violates the religious beliefs of their owners. They say the morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman's womb.


On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the companies' request for an injunction while their lawsuit is pending, saying the stores failed to satisfy the demanding legal standard for blocking the requirement on an emergency basis. She said the companies may still challenge the regulations in the lower courts.

Kyle Duncan, who is representing Hobby Lobby on behalf of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement posted on the group's website Thursday that Hobby Lobby doesn't intend to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.

"The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees," Duncan said. "To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs."
Atty: Hobby Lobby won't offer morning-after pill :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/atty-hobby-lobby-won-t-offer-morning-after-pill/11920122/)

The Obots have been arguing that the plaintiffs in various challenges have no standing to sue because they have not yet been injured by the contraception rule.But not surprising ;the judges in many of the lower courts are not buying that reasoning.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) arguing on behalf of a plaintiff properly noted that.. “By January 1, 2013, at the latest, Paul and Henry Griesedieck face a stark and unavoidable choice: abandon their beliefs in order to stay in business, or abandon their businesses in order to stay true to their beliefs.”

The district court agreed .

Plaintiffs must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.”

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).

Here, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that, on January 1, 2013, they will be forced to either: provide their employees with health insurance policies that include the contraceptive services required by the ACA, which is against their religious beliefs, or incur fines for not complying with the requirements of the ACA. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately established that they will suffer imminent irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Accordingly, this factor favors the Court's entry of injunctive relief.
Griesedieck v Sebelius (http://www.scribd.com/doc/117572183/Griesedieck-v-Sebelius)

4 of 5 of the rulings handed down in federal hearings this month have agreed . But all the media tells us about is the Sotomayor ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.

Hello tom:

As you know, I'm a "job creator". I'm also a vegan. I'm EVEN religious about it. A LOT of the illness my employees suffer from is from eating meat... IF I stopped covering THOSE illness's, I'd save a lot of money, AND I'd be TRUE to my beliefs.

Would that be OK with you?

excon

What kind of religion thinks its okay to discriminate against women in the workplace? You guys don't want to let unions collect dues, or woman to get contraceptions. I thought religion was voluntary, and personal? I guess I was wrong.

No I ain't. Its wrong for YOU to make following your beliefs a term of employment! Will you ban rubbers too!

Hello tom:

As you know, I'm a "job creator". I'm also a vegan. I'm EVEN religious about it. A LOT of the illness my employees suffer from is from eating meat... IF I stopped covering THOSE illness's, I'd save a lot of money, AND I'd be TRUE to my beliefs.

Would that be ok with you?

excon

As far as I'm concerned you can cover whatever you want.

What kind of religion thinks its okay to discriminate against women in the workplace?

Still with this old canard? It isn't discrimination, until Obamacare it was called freedom. You guys scream about choice 'til you turn blue in the face but you don't want anyone else to have a choice.


You guys don't want to let unions collect dues or woman to get contraceptions. I thought religion was voluntary, and personal? I guess I was wrong.

Do you really not see the irony of arguing for the right to choose in one breath while arguing against it the next?


No I ain't. Its wrong for YOU to make following your beliefs a term of employment! Will you ban rubbers too!

Oh the drama...

Hello again, Steve:


As far as I'm concerned you can cover whatever you want.Whewee. I was worried...

What if I HATE Texans, and don't want to cover them, or anybody who's married to one? What if I don't like women, and eliminated coverage for them entirely?

Would that be cool with you?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Whewee. I was worried...

What if I HATE Texans, and don't wanna cover them, or anybody who's married to one? What if I don't like women, and eliminated coverage for them entirely?

Would that be cool with you?

excon

Then you'd probably have problems.

Hello again, Steve:


Then you'd probably have problems.So, WHERE do you draw the line? Is hate OK? In this great country of ours, I'm CERTAINLY allowed to HATE, aren't I? That's in the First Amendment too, isn't it?

Why is it wrong for me to exercise my Constitutional right to HATE?

Excon

I said feel free to cover "whatever" you want, not "whoever." If "whoever" doesn't like your benefits they are free to go elsewhere for "whatever" they're looking for.

Hello again, Steve:

To be clear, I'm FREE to do it, as long as my employees are FREE to seek work elsewhere. That's your position?

excon

What part of the difference between "whatever" and "whoever" do you not get?

Whatever happened to the right to work? Oh that's right, it's a misleading spin you guys use like renaming the greedy rich guys job creators. When are you going to learn that telling people to do as you say ain't going to work?

Discriminating against the majority ain't going to work either. Denying the unique needs of half the population won't work either. I know, you believe YOU have that right, but you don't, yet still you fight your WAR and call it practicing YOUR religion.

We will see how that works out.

So you hate the first and second amendments, we get that. When will you get the irony of taking opposing positions in the same breath?

I have heard that straw argument before, but there are more than just two amendments in the Constitution last I looked.

I have heard that straw argument before, but there are more than just two amendments in the Constitution last I looked.

None of them negating the first two.

But subject to and regulated by the federal laws. The federal government can and should define the boundaries of limitations of the right afforded us by the Constitution, or you would have a right to own a 50 caliber machine gun,or holler fire in a crowded theater where there was none.

What you thought you had unlimited rights? Don't be silly. Army guns and ammo was banned before, and will be again.

The federal government can and should define the boundaries of limitations of the right afforded us by the Constitution
That is an amazing position to take. The government decides how much of your rights you are allowed to exercise.

Ex ,Speech is correct in his position on coverage. However ,I'd take it further and say that a vegan diet coverage is one thing ;and a pill that aborts is quite another. Do you have the right to not hire someone contingent on a medical exam ? Can you refuse to hire someone who smokes tobacco ? In some states the answer is yes.

The government had already limited the right of the people when they said all are created equal except slaves, women, and indians, and white guy with no property. That changed over time and a war, and a bunch of protesting.

So past rights violations justify violating my specifically enumerated rights today?

Looks like it's the pizza people that are carrying the fight. First it was Papa John's... and now Domino's .
Pizza magnate wins temporary ruling on contraception coverage dispute – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/31/pizza-magnate-wins-temporary-ruling-on-contraception-coverage-dispute/)

Time to enlist Herman Caine to lead the charge.

Hello tom:

As you know, I'm a "job creator". I'm also a vegan. I'm EVEN religious about it. A LOT of the illness my employees suffer from is from eating meat... IF I stopped covering THOSE illness's, I'd save a lot of money, AND I'd be TRUE to my beliefs.

Would that be ok with you?

excon

Nope not O.K.

You have to eat to live. So your choice of religion leads you down a different path is all up to you. Contraception is a choice just like what it was to get to that point.

Hello again, Steve:

So, WHERE do you draw the line? Is hate ok? In this great country of ours, I'm CERTAINLY allowed to HATE, aren't I? That's in the First Amendment too, isn't it?

Why is it wrong for me to exercise my Constitutional right to HATE?

excon

Nope not allowed.

There are laws that designate certain speech as hate speech that is not covered by the Constitution. Also there are crimes in a separate category that carry an extra penalty for hate crimes. I wish there weren't so it truly was as you say. That way we could identify those that are true haters from those that are not rather then stirring an underground swell resentment.

Hello, again:

I see that you don't like my religion... What if I was a HEALTH nut "job creator"? Eating McDonalds is a choice, isn't it? From MY perspective, and from MY wallets perspective, it's a BAD choice.

Why should I be REQUIRED to cover those people?

Look. I KNOW what you're going to say. If it's RELIGIOUS, you can discriminate... But, if you have similar deeply held beliefs, they don't count. I certainly don't know why.

What about smoking? What about drinking? What about texting while driving? ALL of those activities EFFECT my bottom line. Why shouldn't I have the right to REFUSE to cover people who DO that?

excon

If YOUR religion allows you to discriminate against any group of people from getting what is lawfully allowed that's just plain wrong. But the fix is a simple one, we have universa lhealth care and not employer based health care.

So instead of benefits, employers can pay MONEY to the workers and we take care of our own business. It will be interesting to see how the church competes with the rest of the market place for skills and services of workers they need.

The only way the church gets away with this discrimination in the first place is a tight job market.

Universal care will never happen here. When the people see the disaster your side has inflicted on us with Obamacare ,then it too will be universally rejected . You think I would have less objection because my tax money pays for something I think is immoral ?

Hello again, tom:

Nahhhh... It's ONLY your side who's saying that. But, you've ALWAYS said it, so what's new?

What's REALLY going to happen is that people will FINALLY see that our health care costs are OUT of control, and the ONLY way to stop them, is to STOP them. Then the amount we save can be spent on AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Doesn't THAT moral good, outweigh the moral bad you see in universal health care?

These are REAL dollars we're talking about here, unless you don't believe we'll be able to do it, or you don't believe Romney, and the WORLDS, numbers.

excon

universal care will never happen here. When the people see the disaster your side has inflicted on us with Obamacare ,then it too will be universally rejected . You think I would have less objection because my tax money pays for something I think is immoral ?

According o the last election your opinion is a growing minority one, and despite denial the woman fought back to get what they wanted and rejected what you wanted them to (NOT) have. All the minority groups did.

2014 will be very interesting don't you think?

universal care will never happen here. When the people see the disaster your side has inflicted on us with Obamacare ,then it too will be universally rejected . You think I would have less objection because my tax money pays for something I think is immoral ?

You know what is immoral Tom, that you should think that you should have no responsibility towards those who are less advantaged than yourself. The reason you have taxes and no say in how they are used is because you will not address these issues yourself. You live in a country that makes majority decisions by a process you call democracy, but you want it to be the Autocracy of Tom, where only decisions that advantage you are made. How does it feel to be an oppressed minority, Tom? Do you want this for all those disadvantaged people too?

What are you talking about ? Your TGA just approved the use of RU-486 . Does your taxes pay for it ? Are you forced to cover it in your insurance ?

I can say the same thing, what are you talking about

Tom I don't pay for anything. RU-486 is not available on the PBS, all the announcement means is it has been approved for use. If someone wants to use it they will pay for it and a private health fund may or may not provide a benefit to offset part of the cost. You don't understand our system, I am not forced to do anything. I have a right to medical services with choice of doctor, hospital, etc. I can choose not to use these services. I can have private health insurance, or not have it, and it costs a great deal less than your schemes which appear to have the sole purpose of riping off the insured. The advantage of private health insurance is that procedures might be scheduled earlier because of availability of beds in private hospitals

I correctly understand then that your comment to me has no relevance to what an employer in this country who has a moral objection to supplying abortion pills is confronting .

Moral objections are one thing, political insurrection another. Your government has mandated a scheme including the benefits. The place for changing that lies in the ballot box and if your objectors cannot gain sufficient support then they will have to opt for a different set of benefits, pay the workers sufficient wages so they can buy their own insurance, or decide it is all too hard. This is what you get for having a scheme where the government passes the buck to employers rather than implementing their own health care scheme.

The supply of abortion pills is still optional by medical practitioners in your country isn't it, why should an employer be involved with the medical decisions of a medical practitioner or a patient? What sort or tyranny are you running over there

Have you not been paying attention ? The issue is that the government is forcing the employer to cover that in violation of the employer's 1st amendment protections . Tyranny ? Damn straight !

Tom if what you say is correct then the legislation would have been struck down by the Supreme court as unconstitutional, it wasn't, so what you have is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. What I don't understand is your perpensitity for endless argument long after the matter is decided.

The employer doesn't pay for services, insurance companies do. The church isn't even notified of claims, doctors, or services that insurance companies pay for. If you want a tyrant, look at the church who promotes the right to set business services, and tell doctors what their patients need and don't need. That's true tyranny no matter what you believe. Its discrimination against female medical needs.

How does the church have more rights than the citizen? They don't. How do employers have more rights than a citizen? They don't.

It's just the inquisition mentality all over again, the thought police are loose again, this time in the form of presuming everyone who has health insurance will use contraceptives or have an abortion. Heaven forbid that anyone should be able to make a decision for ourselves, they want to take away our God given free will. I wonder what they use the confessional for these days

Hello again, tal and clete:


If you want a tyrant, look at the church who promotes the right to set business services, and tell doctors what their patients need and don't need.


presuming everyone who has health insurance will use contraceptives or have an abortion. Heaven forbid that anyone should be able to make a decision for ourselves, they want to take away our God given free will **GREENIE'S**

Excon

Tom if what you say is correct then the legislation would have been struck down by the Supreme court as unconstitutional, it wasn't, so what you have is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. What I don't understand is your perpensitity for endless argument long after the matter is decided.

The court cases haven't made it to SCOTUS... yet.

The employer doesn't pay for services, insurance companies do. .

Lol too funny... that is the Through the looking glass logic that Sebilius used too. Fine. Then the employer can stop paying the insurance company for that service ? NO ? Well then stop the game playing .

the court cases haven't made it to SCOTUS ...yet.

Yeah well what was that little ruckus a couple of months ago

That was only whether the funding for the Obamacare mandate was constitutional. The next tests working their way through court will decide if the Sebillius decision on contraceptive mandatory coverage violates 1st Amendment religious rights.
And their will be more court challenges after that .

Hello again,


Well then stop the game playing .I've been TRYING to find some sort of a situation that's similar... But, it appears that YOUR First Amendment violation is the ONLY one you'll consider... This IS, supposedly, a discussion about an employer who finds a government policy that CONFLICTS with his personal beliefs, and what he should DO about it...

But, it seems that only YOUR beliefs can be discussed... MY beliefs don't measure up... Well, that ain't going to win you sh1t.

WHY?? Because if you were SERIOUS about an employer NOT being required to go against his beliefs, you'd be for ALL employers having that right, and you aren't. I assume you do that, because if you DID grant ALL employers the same latitude, you'd SEE how utterly ridiculous your argument is.

Excon

Make your case to the courts. Right now ,42 lawsuits have been filed challenging the contraception mandate .

Hello again,

I've been TRYING to find some sort of a situation that's similar... But, it appears that YOUR First Amendment violation is the ONLY one you'll consider... This IS, supposedly, a discussion about an employer who finds a government policy that CONFLICTS with his personal beliefs, and what he should DO about it...

But, it seems that only YOUR beliefs can be discussed... MY beliefs don't measure up... Well, that ain't gonna win you sh1t.

WHY???? Because if you were SERIOUS about an employer NOT being required to go against his beliefs, you'd be for ALL employers having that right, and you aren't. I assume you do that, because if you DID grant ALL employers the same latitude, you'd SEE how utterly ridiculous your argument is.

excon

When you tell me which specifically enumerated right you're referring to and we'll talk about it.

Hello again, Steve:

I did, but I'll do it again... I have the right to HATE. Dad mentioned that we have laws against HATE crimes, but NOT covering health care for people I HATE ISN'T a crime or speech.

Do I NOT have the right to hate? Do I NOT have freedom of thought? Do I NOT have the right to appear in public with my robes on? Do I NOT have the right to act upon my BELIEFS and MORALS??

excon

PS> (edited) I also mentioned my belief in VEGETARIANISM, and my belief in the dangers of fast food. I have the RIGHT to those beliefs, do I not?

Oh, I know YOU don't like my beliefs, but that's NOT the point, is it?

Oh, that canard. I believe I addressed that thoroughly when I said feel free to cover "whatever" you want but not "whoever" you choose to cover.

What?? Now you can pick who gets what coverage, service, or rights? That's blatant discrimination.

Why does a person have to give up THEIR rights for you to have YOUR rights?

What?? Now you can pick who gets what coverage, service, or rights? That's blatant discrimination.

Having reading comprehension issues today, Tal? I said, "I addressed that thoroughly when I said feel free to cover "whatever" you want but not "whoever" you choose to cover. What part of the difference between "whatever" and "whoever" do you not get?


Why does a person have to give up THEIR rights for you to have YOUR rights?

ZZzzzzzzz. We were never guaranteed any right to health insurance. Your faux outrage on this is getting tiresome.

That's no explanation of why you think the church and bosses should have the right, or authority to tell a female what she can do with her doctor, and insurance carrier. That's the issue, not what you believe.

Let the female get her own policy . There is no "right " to contraception . You may as well argue that there is a right to a face lift ,tummy tuck or botox injections . Contraception is elective.

Thats no explanation of why you think the church and bosses should have the right, or authority to tell a female what she can do with her doctor, and insurance carrier. Thats the issue, not what you believe.

Same tired argument. You probably think if I'm buying you a Christmas present you have the right to dictate to me what it will be. That's the issue, you dictating how I run MY business, what to do with MY money and .expecting me to violate MY constitutionally guaranteed religious rights in the process.

That's not what females say, just YOU guys. You think you have the right to dictate what's acceptable reproductive health care is all about. Holler all you want because they are pushing for want they want and not what you think they should have.

Hell we had to fight a war to get you to honor the rights of slaves and you guys still didn't learn. You do know women can vote don't you?

Your rights aren't violated lets be clear, nor is the right to practice YOUR beliefs, but your beliefs should have anything to do with MY rights, or beliefs, or anyone else that doesn't believe as you do.

Its too late for a Christmas gift, but I do have a birthday coming, and will appreciate anything you decide on.

Need suggestions?

Hell we had to fight a war to get you to honor the rights of slaves and you guys still didn't learn. the presumption being that I would've been on the side of the slave states ? I wonder how a Black would feel about you equating their freedom from bondage with a women getting a contraception pill ?

Hello again, tom:


There is no "right " to contraception . You may as well argue that there is a right to a face lift ,tummy tuck or botox injections .But, there IS a right to equal protection under the law. If they're going to cover MENS health, then they're REQUIRED to cover Women's health...

It says so, right there in the Constitution. You surely don't LIKE that 14th Amendment, do you?

Excon

Women's health is covered .

Hello again, tom:

Women's health IS covered
Well then, we're done here.

Excon

Your rights aren't violated lets be clear, nor is the right to practice YOUR beliefs, but your beliefs should have anything to do with MY rights, or beliefs, or anyone else that doesn't believe as you do.

Um, you still have it EXACTLY backwards. The only one who rights are being violated are those forced to buy contraceptives against their religious beliefs. There is no constitutional right to health insurance and there is no constitutional right to contraceptives.

That's what mystifies, you libs have no problem trampling on clearly enumerated rights; speech, religion, guns - while expecting us to honor nonexistent rights. Come back to reality.

Hello again, Steve:


while expecting us to honor nonexistent rights.... " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I don't know. I think the 14th Amendment counts as rights... What? Did you stop after reading the 2nd Amendment? There's OTHERS, you know.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

..." nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I dunno. I think the 14th Amendment counts as rights... What? Did you stop after reading the 2nd Amendment? There's OTHERS, you know.

excon

I don't know how that adds up to a constitutional right to health insurance or contraceptives but it is that "whoever" thing I keep mentioning.

Hello again, Steve:

It's a simple concept, really... If a company, or a church is going to cover MEN's health needs, then they MUST cover WOMEN'S needs as well. That's where the word EQUAL comes in.

I don't know what's so HARD about that.

excon

Not all things that men may think they "need " is covered . I really don't see where this becomes a 14th amendment issue. I'd say if anything ;it discriminates against men. Not all plans cover medicines like Viagra . Yet I don't see the HHS mandating it's coverage .

Hello again,

In this same vein, your Republican party wants to INCLUDE more women the next time around. Do you think your position ATTRACTS women, or REPELS them? If it REPELS them, as it did in the last election, do you plan to MODERATE your position? Do you think you SHOULD? Or, is it that women just don't understand your position, and if you only explained it better, you'd get 'em?

I really want to know.

excon

Dear excon:

I read somewhere that Republicans are going to educate women about what they need to be REAL women.

Fondly,
WG

Hello again, Steve:

It's a simple concept, really... If a company, or a church is going to cover MEN's health needs, then they MUST cover WOMEN'S needs as well. That's where the word EQUAL comes in.

I dunno what's so HARD about that.

excon

And I don't know what's so hard to understand about how utterly wrong and ridiculous it is for government to compel the church to violate its religious beliefs.


Dear excon:

I read somewhere that Republicans are going to educate women about what they need to be REAL women.

Fondly,
WG

As opposed to Democrats treating them as helpless tools.

Hello again, Steve:


And I don't know what's so hard to understand about how utterly wrong and ridiculous it is for government to compel the church to violate its religious beliefs.Our laws attempt to BALANCE your rights against somebody else's rights. That's all this is..

Maybe the Supreme Court WILL say 1st Amendment rights trump 14th Amendment rights... But, I don't think, even this right wing court, will rule that way. But, I could be wrong... I was wrong back '08.

Excon

As opposed to Democrats treating them as helpless tools.
What would make us REAL? What aren't we doing right now?

Hello again, Steve:

Our laws attempt to BALANCE your rights against somebody else's rights. That's all this is..

There is no balance in forcing the Catholic church to violate its specifically enumerated rights. There is not even any logic in forcing celibate nuns to cover birth control.


Maybe the Supreme Court WILL say 1st Amendment rights trump 14th Amendment rights... But, I don't think, even this right wing court, will rule that way. But, I could be wrong... I was wrong back '08.

Is the government arguing 14th amendment?


federal judge halts obama birth-control policy for domino's pizza founder (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/275015-judge-halts-birth-control-policy-for-dominos-founder)
By elise viebeck - 12/31/12 02:13 pm et

A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt on the obama administration's birth-control coverage policy for tom monaghan, the catholic billionaire who founded domino's pizza.

Federal district court judge lawrence p. Zatkoff issued the decision Sunday, less than two days before the policy would have taken effect and exposed monaghan to fines for non-compliance.

"plaintiff has shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion," zatkoff wrote.

"the government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.. . This factor weighs in favor of granting plaintiffs' motion."

What would make us REAL?

Being female.


What aren't we doing right now?

I have no idea.

the presumption being that I would've been on the side of the slave states ? I wonder how a Black would feel about you equating their freedom from bondage with a women getting a contraception pill ?

They all seem to have gotten together to repudiate you guys so maybe its not a mandate but one helluva statement. How do you ignore that?

Hello again, Steve:


There is no balance in forcing the Catholic church to violate its specifically enumerated rights.I don't know what's NOT enumerated about 14.

Therein lies your war with women.. Women, in the main, DO believe their rights under the 14th Amendment matter. Your unilateral dismissal of their concerns is emblematic of the war you're engaged in. It ain't going to corral ANY of 'em to your side.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Therein lies your war with women.. THEY believe their rights under the 14th Amendment DO matter. Your unilateral dismissal of their concerns is emblematic of the war you're engaged in, and it ain't gonna corral ANY of 'em to your side.

excon

a) You didn't answer my question, is the government arguing 14th amendment?

b) I will not compromise our constitutional rights for political points. I have a spine.

P.S. Women LOVE me.

Hello again, Steve:

a) I don't know.

b) I applaud you. I won't compromise mine either.

PS> The women of America DON'T love your position. See last election.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

a) I dunno.

b) I applaud you. I won't compromise mine either.

PS> The women of America DON'T love your position. See last election.

excon

The women of America didn't get the truth, they got a myth.

Hello again, Steve:


The women of America didn't get the truth, they got a myth.Then your POLICY is not wrong. If women only UNDERSTOOD it, they'd embrace it... Really??

Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

I'll bet that's how you feel about immigration too. If ONLY the illegals UNDERSTOOD your policy, they'd skedaddle on out of here.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha again.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Then your POLICY is not wrong. If women only UNDERSTOOD it, they'd embrace it... Really????

Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

I'll bet that's how your feel about immigration too. If ONLY the illegals UNDERSTOOD your policy, they'd skedaddle on outta here.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha again.

excon

Dude, they don't understand your policies either. There was nothing more sexist and patronizing to women than Obama's Julia.

That's what YOU say, that's NOT what THEY say.

Thats what YOU say, thats NOT what THEY say.

The smart ones do. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/obama-condescending-to-women.html?_r=0)

The smart ones do. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/obama-condescending-to-women.html?_r=0)
Just wait. We'll be in charge one day.

Just wait. We'll be in charge one day.

And when you are is that how you're going to treat Julia?

If Julia needs some help we would give it to her, wouldn't you? That should go for anyone who had hard times through no fault of their own.

And when you are is that how you're going to treat Julia?
We will treat Julia with hugs and snacks and drinks and whatever help she needs.

If Julia needs some help we would give it to her, wouldn't you? That should go for anyone who had hard times thru no fault of their own.

I've made my position on that more than clear.

We will treat Julia with hugs and snacks and drinks and whatever help she needs.

And as a woman too helpless to do anything without her benevolent government's help?

In a short time ;the women who are already getting the better educations in this country will take their place in the ranks of the higher earners ,most likely tipping the scale in their favor . When that happens will the Lilly Bedwetter law be repealed ;or applied to wage discrimination against males ?

in a short time ;the women who are already getting the better educations in this country will take their place in the ranks of the higher earners ,most likely tipping the scale in their favor . When that happens will the Lilly Bedwetter law be repealed ;or applied to wage discrimination against males ?
We wealthy and well-educated women of all cultures won't swing the same way that rich old white males do.

No you will appoint women to positions and push men down

No you will appoint women to positions and push men down
We'll corral them and use them for reproduction purposes. (I think there is a dystopian novel about that.)

We'll corral them and use them for reproduction purposes. (I think there is a dystopian novel about that.)

I thought as much

We'll corral them and use them for reproduction purposes. (I think there is a dystopian novel about that.)

I didn't think you needed men for anything.

I didn't think you needed men for anything.I know it's been a while since you participated in the sexual reproductive process but c'mon! :D

I know it's been a while since you participated in the sexual reproductive process but c'mon! :D


Since my wife has been unable to reproduce for over 30 years you would be correct.

Seems conservatives get so wrapped upin what the church tells them that they forget what a female really needs forhealth and quality of life. Why can't they let females and their doctors decide what they need, and what must be done.

Unmarried with children, single, divorced, widowed, or unemployed females don't get much consideration from the right these days.

That makes you bullies.

Since my wife has been unable to reproduce for over 30 years you would be correct.You forgot how humans reproduce?? Most people learn that in their teens and never forget it!
Playing the pity card is really low but I'm not surprised.

You forgot how humans reproduce???? Most people learn that in their teens and never forget it!
Playing the pity card is really low but I'm not surprised.

LOL, has nothing to do with pity. Just pointing out sometimes you should think before speaking.

Seems conservatives get so wrapped upin what the church tells them that they forget what a female really needs forhealth and quality of life. Why can't they let females and their doctors decide what they need, and what must be done.

Unmarried with children, single, divorced, widowed, or unemployed females don't get much consideration from the right these days

That makes you bullies.

Another straw man followed by an insult. I'm not Catholic so I don't don't give a rat's a$$ what they tell their members. My argument is based solely on the right to practice their faith without government interference. The fact is no one is preventing women from deciding their health care needs, you just have this ridiculous idea that if the church doesn't PAY for it they're interfering.

What's even more ridiculous than that is you want to force the very institutions that do more to care for people in need than anyone else to cease doing their work in the process, then blame us for not caring about people. That takes a hell of a lot of nerve.

What's even more ridiculous than that is you want to force the very institutions that do more to care for people in need than anyone else to cease doing their work in the processI don't think he ever said that did he?

I don't think he ever said that did he?

In effect yes. If he supports the mandate then he supports religious institutions closing their doors to helping people.

The fact is no one is preventing women from deciding their health care needs, you just have this ridiculous idea that if the church doesn't PAY for it they're interfering.

That's my point, the church doesn't pay for contraceptives or band aids used by YOUR doctor. The insurance company does. Why can't you see the obvious difference?


In effect yes. If he supports the mandate then he supports religious institutions closing their doors to helping people.

Now who is making straw arguments and assignning positions I haven't taken?

That's my point, the church doesn't pay for contraceptives or band aids used by YOUR doctor. The insurance company does. Why can't you see the obvious difference?

Oh stop pretending you don't know how this works.The insurance company pays for nothing, it all comes from the policyholder's premiums, i.e. they just redistribute the church's money. You pretend the insurance company is just doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, which is quite an odd position to take coming from the guy who rants daily about corporate greed..



Now who is making straw arguments and assignning positions I haven't taken?

You do understand what "in effect" means don't you?

Now who is making straw arguments and assignning positions I haven't taken?You aren't use to it by now? LOL It's the only way some people can discuss; by putting words in your mouth and then tearing them down.




You do understand what "in effect" means don't you?No, please explain it.

Then point us to the post where he says

you want to force the very institutions that do more to care for people in need than anyone else to cease doing their work

You aren't use to it by now? LOL It's the only way some people can discuss; by putting words in your mouth and then tearing them down.


No, please explain it.

Then point us to the post where he says

Sorry, but I've made my case clearly many times. Look it up.

I think you should apologize to him. What you do is intellectually dishonest.

I think you should apologize to him. What you do is intellectually dishonest.

Coming from you? Bwa ha ha ha!!

You really need to stop assigning positions to people that they did not overtly take.

And those greedy bast@rd insurance companies have been raising those premiums and stopping them from providing certain benefits will save you nothing. And I ASSUME the church pays those premiums and doesn't deduct a part of a workers pay to support paying those premiums. All the companies who offer employer based insurance do but if the church DOESN'T you may have a point,but unless you can indeed verify it,you may have a belief,or opinion, but not facts so do your homework, and don't assume.

I guess that's why all the civilized countries have universal health care to keep the religions out of the health care process and NOW it makes perfect sense. Thanks Speech for making the case.

You really need to stop assigning positions to people that they did not overtly take.

ZZzzzzzzz... if you had any credibility someone might care.