That does indeed show your level of discourse LOL.

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.

Tal, all employer based insurance is either paid for or subsidized by the employer. You cannot seriously expect the church to subsidize something that violates their beliefs, ESPECIALLY when there never was any contraception crisis to begin with. This whole thing started with a sham testimony by a college student and ended with a shell game "compromise." We're not stupid and we're not backing down from protecting our constitutional rights.


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.

So since the U.S. doesn't one can only conclude we aren't a civilized country?

So since the U.S. doesn't one can only conclude we aren't a civilized country?

No.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us").
His statement can also be read as all civilized countries other than the US.
The US is indeed a civilized country... barely :D

Hello again, Steve:


If he supports the mandate then he supports religious institutions closing their doors to helping people.I don't know.. If it was ME, and I was running one of those institutions geared towards helping people, and I was faced with making a choice between the lesser of two evils: (1) holding my nose and covering those things that I'm morally opposed to, OR (2) closing my doors, thereby DEPRIVING people in need of my services, not to mention my family and my creditors, I'd pick the one that does the LEAST damage.

You seem to think they'd close. I don't think they would.

Excon

No.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

His statement can also be read as all civilized countries other than the US.
The US is indeed a civilized country...barely :D

I really don't think Tal needs your help.

[QUOTE=excon;3360241]Hello again, Steve:

I don't know.. If it was ME, and I was running one of those institutions geared towards helping people, and I was faced with making a choice between the lesser of two evils: (1) holding my nose and covering those things that I'm morally opposed to, OR (2) closing my doors, thereby DEPRIVING people in need of my services, not to mention my family and my creditors, I'd pick the one that does the LEAST damage.

You seem to think they'd close. I don't think they would.

excon[/QUOTE

You can't seem to make up your mind if compromising one's principles is a good thing or a bad thing. So how long do you think that group of nuns can survive after paying the fines heaped on them?

So since the U.S. doesn't one can only conclude we aren't a civilized country?

I never knew the boy was so quick, did you

This whole debate is moot because Obama is working on an exemption you can live with. But I got to say your nuns are some slick business folks if the can leverage their help and get workers to convert to their way of thinking. I mean if they can build, lease, rent HOSPITALS, and missions, and pay nurses and doctors, they ain't that broke.

No body has been fined yet, and I seriously doubt any will ever be. We will see what the courts say about those for PROFIT true believers who try that though. Seems to be aimed at just the females so far and that bothers me.

But of course the nuns who have spoken out and said so have been blasted by the righties. And you may think we are so civilized here, but I think we could/should do much better.

This whole debate is moot because Obama is working on an exemption you can live with. But I got to say your nuns are some slick business folks if the can leverage their help and get workers to convert to their way of thinking. I mean if they can build, lease, rent HOSPITALS, and missions, and pay nurses and doctors, they ain't that broke.


You obviously don't know how these things work. The vast majority of churches and their ministries operate on a shoestring budget. They can't afford to pay thousands in fines (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-85.html#post3350249) and it's patently absurd to force a groups of nuns to furnish contraceptive coverage.


No body has been fined yet, and I seriously doubt any will ever be. We will see what the courts say about those for PROFIT true believers who try that though. Seems to be aimed at just the females so far and that bothers me.

Funny how you aren't bothered by destroying the first amendment.


But of course the nuns who have spoken out and said so have been blasted by the righties. And you may think we are so civilized here, but I think we could/should do much better.

Tell it to that hungry mom and her kids that would have been fed with that fine money.

So when will Obama end his war on women ?

White House War on Women Escalates | Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/white-house-war-on-women-escalates/)

[QUOTE=tomder55;3360800]so when will Obama end his war on women ?

White House War on Women Escalates | Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/white-house-war-on-women-escalates/)[/QUOTE

No, they LOVE women.

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_joe_biden_cruisers_diner_jt_120909_wblog.jpg

http://tx1.cdn.caijing.com.cn/2012-11-20/112296410.jpg

Nice try fellas, but woman spoke in the last election and you would do well to listen.

Nancy K. Kaufman: Women and the Vote in 2012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kaufman/women-voters_b_2076590.html)


For those candidates looking to court women voters, focusing on the survival of programs that keep food on the table, provide medical care, ensure a fair and equitable workplace, and give women the deciding voice in their own reproductive health care choices is a good place to start. And to be heard by those candidates, we women must speak up, make our votes count, and ensure that whoever governs, from state capitals to Capitol Hill and the White House, is held accountable to us.

How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/politics/women-election/index.html)


"Women like all voters felt the economics were most important," Swers said. "Women tend to be more supportive of government spending (such as cutting things as Medicaid, and food stamps) than men are ... so they were less responsive to Romney in that way and more responsive to Obama's message on empathy and helping the middle class."

Easy to see which side women voters took. So keep on ignoring the facts right in front of your face.

Nice try fellas, but woman spoke in the last election and you would do well to listen.

Nancy K. Kaufman: Women and the Vote in 2012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kaufman/women-voters_b_2076590.html)



How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/politics/women-election/index.html)



Easy to see which side women voters took. So keep on ignoring the facts right in front of your face.

I know the results, but I also know that the people were shortchanged by the compliant media. Six years of campaigning for president and Obama still hasn't been vetted by the adoring media.

I also know that the people were shortchanged by the compliant media. Six years of campaigning for president and Obama still hasn't been vetted by the adoring media.Are americans that dumb? They will do as they are told? How did the Bushs and Reagan and Ford and Nixon get into the White House?

That about not taking any personal responsibility - it always has to be someone else's fault.

Hello again, wingers:

Can we switch gears for a moment? I KNOW we're not going to convince you that you ARE at war with women, and you're NOT going to convince us that you aren't.

So, this is more about POLITICS than women. I want to know MORE about HOW the Republicans plan to change the dynamics, IF what Steve said is true - that women have been sold a MYTH. You DO know that, using the same tired arguments, you LOST the women's vote. Are you going to keep on doing the SAME thing and hope for a different result?

I'm just looking out for you.. I don't want you get ROUTED in 2014.

excon

Are americans that dumb? They will do as they are told? How did the Bushs and Reagan and Ford and Nixon get into the White House?

That about not taking any personal responsibility - it always has to be someone else's fault.

You try shouting louder than the media, let me know how that works out for you.

Hello again, Steve:


Obama still hasn't been vetted by the adoring media.Birtherism?? Is that all you got? You're going to get SMASHED in 2014.

Excon

Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage

Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/10/17/study-finds-obama-received-unrelentingly-negati/183623)

Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage

Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/10/17/study-finds-obama-received-unrelentingly-negati/183623)

As if the guy coordinating with the White House has any credibility? LOL, you crack me up sometimes.

Hello again, Steve:

Birtherism???? Is that all you got?? You're gonna get SMASHED in 2014.

excon

Geez, not that again. You know damn well I'm not a birther.

Hello again, Steve:

Then tell me what you meant by the media NOT vetting him. You think FOX News vetted him? They TOLD you about his pals, the terrorists... What MORE do you want? Do you believe the movie 2016 is VETTING him. What about the Sins of My Father? Do you believe THAT?

What do YOU know that we DON'T know?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Then tell me what you meant by the media NOT vetting him. You think FOX News vetted him? They TOLD you about his pals, the terrorists... What MORE do you want? Do you believe the movie 2016 is VETTING him. What about the Sins of My Father? Do you believe THAT??

What do YOU know that we DON'T know?

excon

We've had all those discussion, the media hasn't.

Let me help you out. When someone who has insider access like Bob Woodward says that Obama is still a mystery to him... then don't you think that perhaps the press isn't doing it's job ?
Bob Woodward: ?Who is Barack Obama?? - Emily Schultheis - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/woodward-on-fiscal-cliff-no-way-to-govern-84617.html)

Hello again, tom:

I think that's Bob Woodward.. Bob Woodward ISN'T the press.

So, let's get down to it... The main stream media DIDN'T vet Obama, but FOX did... Ok, so what? He was VETTED. Do you think FOX has an audience SOOOO small that NOBODY else in the country KNEW he palled around with terrorists?? IF the liberal press didn't tell them, Sarah Palin surly did.

Is it just possible, that people didn't CARE? Is it possible that people DID know what FOX thought, and elected him ANYWAY? Do you REALLY think the electorate is BLIND??

Ok, never mind... I think you DO believe the country is under the spell of the liberal media, and only FOX watchers know what's going on..

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I think that's Bob Woodward.. Bob Woodward ISN'T the press.

So, let's get down to it... The main stream media DIDN'T vet Obama, but FOX did... Ok, so what? He was VETTED. Do you think FOX has an audience SOOOO small that NOBODY else in the country KNEW he palled around with terrorists??? IF the liberal press didn't tell them, Sarah Palin surly did.

Is it just possible, that people didn't CARE? Is it possible that people DID know what FOX thought, and elected him ANYWAY? Do you REALLY think the electorate is BLIND???

Ok, never mind... I think you DO believe the country is under the spell of the liberal media, and only FOX watchers know what's going on..

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Funny you should mention Palin, just compare her vetting in the media to Obama's. She got more scrutiny in a month than he's gotten in six years.

Explain how a reporter of Woodward's stature ;a man who has had insider access through the President's 1st term ;and has written a few books about his Presidency ,can still say the President is a mystery .
I think the press will spill the beans after he is out of office . Yes I think they intentionally have not covered in detail many aspects of the President before he was in office... and they still gloss over many of the issues of his Presidency.
How many days was Katrina in the news ? How many days has the press concentrated on the fiasco which is the Federal response to Sandy ? The President said he's cut the red tape .Well that didn't happen . FEMA was virtually MIA throughout this... and that's just one example.

Hello again, tom:


explain how a reporter of Woodward's stature ;a man who has had insider access through the President's 1st term ;and has written a few books about his Presidency ,can still say the President is a mystery .If he wasn't talking about his past, I.E. birtherism, then it's because he IS a mystery.

What is it you DON'T know about him that worries you? Besides, I don't know what you MEAN by mystery... Are there gaps in his life story that need filling? Is THAT when he underwent terrorist training?? If there IS stuff, why weren't the crack reporters at FOX able to uncover it? You're not going to mention sealed college records, are you, because that's BIRTHERISM?

I'm sorry... All I detect from you is a heightened sense of paranoia.

Excon

She got more scrutiny in a month than he's gotten in six years.She gave the media all the material they needed with every public appearance. Even Fox dumped her.

She gave the media all the material they needed with every public appearance. Even Fox dumped her.

If she gave them all they needed there was no need for the “media colonoscopy” she endured.

Most of the time they just reported what she said and that was enough.

Most of the time they just reported what she said and that was enough.

Stop pretending they didn't dig into her personal and professional life and that of her family relentlessly. Geez, give it up dude.

Ok.
Have a great day!

Lets just say the lame stream media did a lousy job. That means YOU guys did an even worse one since you didn't find the dirt either.

Lets face it, you had a lousy primary, a lousy message, a lousy candidate, so you got lousy results. Spin it any way you want but Anybody But Obama didn't work. Neither did We Love You Women.

Maybe you do love them in your own way, but they didn't fall for it. To be fair the new congress on our side has a bunch of new women even some gays, so maybe hollering loud and saying nothing may NOT be a credible strategy going forward.

I betcha.

Lets just say the lame stream media did a lousy job. That means YOU guys did an even worse one since you didn't find the dirt either.

Lets face it, you had a lousy primary, a lousy message, a lousy candidate, so you got lousy results. Spin it any way you want but Anybody But Obama didn't work. Neither did We Love You Women.

Maybe you do love them in your own way, but they didn't fall for it. To be fair the new congress on our side has a bunch of new women even some gays, so maybe hollering loud and saying nothing may NOT be a credible strategy going forward.

I betcha.

Yeah I know, to your side a Republican woman isn't really a woman just a like a Republican black really isn't a black. At least we don't denigrate them that way.

You don't have enough of either to make a difference at the voting booth.

Yeah I know, to your side a Republican woman isn't really a woman just a like a Republican black really isn't a black. At least we don't denigrate them that way.
Then why have Christian Republicans held me back since I was a kid? I could never do or have whatever because I was female.

Hello WG:


Then why have Christian Republicans held me back since I was a kid? I could never do or have whatever because I was female.Shhhhh, you'll remind them that they've BEEN at war with women for a LONG, LONG time.

You saw what tom said about the Lilly Ledbetter law.. He called her Lilly Bedwetter... I suppose it's because she wanted to be paid the same as guys are, and had the TEMERITY to SPEAK up. Clearly, she does NOT know her place.

But, there's no war. Look over there at the commie Marxist...

Excon

No war on women huh, then why hasn't the house passed the violence against women act? Because it expand protection to all women (and men), illegal or gay and soveriegn Indian nations within our borders?

No Tal it just they are lazy

No because as usual the Dems added all types of bs to their Senate version of the bill . If it was only a violence against women bill like it was when it was passed over a decade ago ,there would be no issues. But the Dems added provisions that were different to the bill passed in the House . The reconciliation process was not complete before the 112 th Congress ended.
Tal just threw out another phony issue. I'm sure it will be reintroduced in this session .

I'm amazed how this reconciliation process doesn't work

Not hard to understand when you know the specifics . First ;theoretically violence against anyone is a crime. But OK they made special provisions for crimes against women in 1994 by a bi-partisan Congress ;and Clintoon signing.
So what happens this time when it comes up for reauthorization ? Well the House passes the bill like it was . But the Dem Senate suddenly decides that the violence against women law should now extend to lesbians ,gays ,transgenders ,transformers ,and illegal aliens .

When 2 different versions of the same bill gets passed by both Houses of Congress then there needs to be a conference committee to iron out the differences . There is where the bill stalled . So who's at fault . The House that passed the bill as it had always been ;or the Senate that unilaterally changed the bill ?

What I mean is this Tom we have a mechanism for resolving empasses, it's called a double dissolution. When one party blocks legislation the government can use it as an excuse to dissolve both houses and force an election. Even relatively minor matters can provide this excuse. The threat means that there has to be negotiation in good faith in most matters and only a few thorny issues remain which will only force a dissolution if the government thinks it can win the election. No solution and the bills ultimately lapse.

The question isn't who is at fault, the two houses exist so that there is even handedness in legislation, it is part of the democratic process that legislation gets reviewed and modified. I know that sometimes undesirable changes are made for political purposes particularly when you have the situation you do where the party controlling the House is essentually the opposition to the governing party typified by the President. It is all part of the cut and thrust of politics

Lets see 1994, now we are in 2012, its time to modernize because we have more diverse people to protect. I can go with the process, and see what happens but adding gays and trans genders is no big deal, is it? How does that slow the process down?

Why do you need separate legislation when violence against anyone is a crime... no ? It is essentially the same problem I have with so called 'hate' crime. Violence against anyone is illegal.

House Passes Violence Against Women Act That Leaves Out LGBT, Immigrant Protections (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/house-passes-violence-against-women-act_n_1522524.html)

They passed a watered down version that excludes gay and immigrants. Just like everyone thought they would.


During the House debate, Democrats charged that the GOP bill would actually leave victims of domestic violence worse off than they are under current law. Unlike the Senate bill, the House proposal discourages undocumented immigrant women from reporting abuse without the threat of being deported. It also makes it harder for Native American women to seek justice against their abusers, and it leaves out protections for the LGBT community altogether.

Republicans "rarely miss an opportunity to exclude LGBT Americans from important rights and benefits," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said. "They're saying if you're a woman in a relationship with another woman, then you don't deserve the same protections from domestic abuse or sexual assault."

Hello WG:

Shhhhh, you'll remind them that they've BEEN at war with women for a LONG, LONG time.

You saw what tom said about the Lilly Ledbetter law.. He called her Lilly Bedwetter... I suppose it's because she wanted to be paid the same as guys are, and had the TEMERITY to SPEAK up. Clearly, she does NOT know her place.

But, there's no war. Look over there at the commie Marxist...

excon

Given that Obama pays his women staffers 18% less than his male staffers; I'm surprised none have brought him up on Bedwetter charges. This was also true of his campaign staff. Female employees were earning an average of $6,872,compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of 5.3 percent or $2,100 per year.

Now we know that Valerie Jarrett is a top advisor to the President ;but a recent photo of him from a White House Flickr account shows him surrounded by his "top advisors" ,an all male cast .Where is Jarrett ?
P122912PS-0422 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/8341728444/in/set-72157632418300447)

Seems like his only female advisor of note recently was Sandra Fluke.

shows him surrounded by his "top advisors" ,an all male cast .Where is Jarrett ?
The women had gone off to the ladies room.

One picture is hardly evidence of anything and I would need job description to verify he indeed is paying woman less for the same job, so lets not assume unless you have those facts and for sure NO lawsuits have been filed or complants from the females involved.

None of that has anything to do with what the right has done and the laws they have written and passed or the election results we have just witnessed.

The information was obtained through the White House own web page . You can do the calculations yourself or trust that the information ;available at many cites ,is accurate .
Female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000... Male employees $71,000.

2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011)


One picture is hardly evidence of anything
Look at the caption again... "In the Oval Office, the President meets with senior advisors to discuss the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations."
Where are the female "senior advisors " ?

Lets see 1994, its time to modernize

Tal aren't you a couple of centuries out there?

It's silliness . You could write up hundreds of pieces of legislation identifying which special group deserves protection against violence. Or you can have one law that says violence against anyone is illegal.

Yes Tom violence is illegal and the instruments of violence should be illegal too

yes Tom violence is illegal and the instruments of violence should be illegal too

Most violence... especially domestic violence, is done with blunt instruments knives and bare hands . Good luck making them illegal.

White House salaries, 2011 - Spreadsheets - Los Angeles Times (http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/white-house-salaries/)

What do republicans have against lgbt, and immigrants?

Nothing ;why do you think they deserve special treatment under the law ? Isn't that against the 14th amendment ? Doesn't laws against violence already cover equal treatment under the law ?

That's the point, they have not gotten the equal protection under the law they seek. That's why they holler. Because you don't listen to their needs, and don't know what they are, then how can you dismiss it so easily?

What's the skin off your nose to include them? Don't tell me they don't need it because you don't know that.

Thats the point, they have not gotten the equal protection under the law they seek. Thats why they holler. Because you don't listen to their needs, and don't know what they are, then how can you dismiss it so easily?

Whats the skin off your nose to include them? Don't tell me they don't need it because you don't know that.

Can you show me where is says in any law that violence is a crime except against these people...


Honestly I can't seem to find it anywhere Or is this the tired old argument that everyone should be a special class except those deemed by a political party? What part of illegal is beyond your understanding?
.

One of the obstacles for lgbt, immigrants, and native Americans is in the low priority there cases are prosecuted and like rape victims the difficulty in even bringing a case against the perpetrators because of jurisdictional conflict in local courts and low evidence because of resources.

That's why even domestic violence cases have been difficult to bring forth and usually after repeated incidence of a clear paper trail do these actually even get to a court, so there are groups that have no avenues to get away from the perpetraor, orthe resources toeve be treated for their being a victim,especially in te Indian naion who have been hollering for years at not having jurisdiction to even serve a warrant to perpertrators outside their own land.

Illegals have the added obstacle of fear and intimidation because they have no recourse in courts as they have no standing just being illegal. They are victimized with no fear of retaliations ever. Often by the ones who employ them in the first place.

Including them in the new bill would raise them as a priority of the court and allow prosecutors and the victims the resources to actually get these cases through the courts and eliminate the ease they are exploited and victimized. It also resources the processing of evidence like rape kits and adds them to a national data base and sadly even domestic cases by citizens already is way behind in getting DNA and other evidence that can only be done in a lab.

Making domestic violence a higher priority should be a national focus and all should be included. So its not about special laws for special groups, its about raising the level of awareness and resources for groups that have had the least access and resources to get the equal protection under the law that's guaranteed us.

You know as well as I do where no money is earmarked specifically, there will be NO action. That's what the original VAWA was supposed to address, and expanssion is needed at this time to prevent some who are falling through the cracks by the millions. Heck it's the same money but stretched farther.

Advocates stunned Violence Against Women Act allowed to expire | News - Home (http://www.news4jax.com/news/Advocates-stunned-Violence-Against-Women-Act-allowed-to-expire/-/475880/18022414/-/rqmw0q/-/index.html)

Maybe this will shed some light of what local advocates around the country actually are faced with.

All I know is all this effort by the left to bring us together by separating everyone by special interest group is counterproductive.

By the way, I'm glad all those Sandra Flukes are thrilled (http://twitchy.com/2013/01/07/binders-full-of-moochers-thank-obama-for-free-birth-control-non-deluded-angry-they-are-paying-more/) with getting free birth control, even though their paycheck is smaller and it's not so free for others.

All I know is all this effort by the left to bring us together by separating everyone by special interest group is counterproductive.

While at the same time your right wing special interest groups are pushing your own agenda too, like banning abortions by making special rules on the clinics and doctors and forcing people to read the bible and counselled how wrong they are.

While abortions are legal. For sure your way isn't bring us together either. Now what?

While at the same time your right wing special interest groups are pushing your own agenda too, like banning abortions by making special rules on the clinics and doctors and forcing people to read the bible and counselled how wrong they are.

While abortions are legal. For sure your way isn't bring us together either. Now what?

No one is forcing anybody to read the bible, but I'll take being a defender of the most innocent human life any day over defending the right to kill babies.

Seem you should be with me on educating and showing all women the proper use of contracepion and make it as easy to get as possible since I think that's one of the best ways to prevent abortions no matter when you believe a baby, is a baby.

State Trends for 2011 on Abortion, Family Planning, Sex Education and Insurance (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2012/statetrends42012.html)

RCRC - "I'm a Fan of Birth Control" (http://www.rcrc.org/issues/contra.cfm)

I guess you missed one of the 29 times I said access to birth control was not an issue, in fact use among American women was almost universal according to the CDC. But now thanks to your president poor women with no insurance are paying more as of Jan. 1.

I disagree as access is the issue along with knowledge and education. There are obstacles to all these things being workable and efficient as a whole.

As far as the tax holiday for us middle class voters being over with. I am sad too. But this isn't my first time adjusting my budget because of government changes.

Still reading upon those religious groups peddling misinformation and masquerading as government funded independent abortion counselors though.

I disagree as access is the issue

Wrong Bucko, I posted the link more than once where the CDC said access was NOT an issue which is why I keep calling the mandate a disease in search of a cure. It is an issue now for women with no insurance because the price just escalated.



Still reading upon those religious groups peddling misinformation and masquerading as government funded independent abortion counselors though.

You're looking for the exception, not the rule and women go there or not of their own free will. It's called CHOICE.

I will pass over the BUCKO inference and point out that the CDC's position is there are many forms of contraceptives available but if you don't have a doctor or the insurance to see one then you have hardly any accesss to them and without insurance the price may not be affordable. That's what the mandate is about, having access.

I can go with choice but it also has to be acurate information to make an informed decision and not some activist saying its against god rules.

http://www.dovechristiancounseling.com/Abortion.html


It is obvious from the above scriptures that God abhors abortion and considers it to be MURDER. And the liberal media and politicians and feminists who try to tell you otherwise are ignoring what God says about it. Not only that, those who help a woman get an abortion will pay for it in the next life.


THOU SHALT NOT MURDER is VERY CLEAR. And if you murder an innocent child you will end up in hell. So if you are trying to decide whether to abort your baby or not, the clear answer is NO. Save not only your babies life, but your life as well. For when you kill your child you also eternally kill yourself. The choice is yours. If you do not believe in God or the Bible and think you can kill another human being with no consequences you will find out you are wrong.


Not only that, but women who have already had abortions become very depressed and even suicidal years later. Many of them end up in counselors offices unable to live with their sin. It affects them the rest of their lives.



There are too many loving adults who cannot have children who would love to adopt your baby. Even if you were raped, DO NOT MURDER the baby inside you as it is entirely innocent. Have the baby and put it up for adoption. So you do have an alternative.



If you have already had an abortion then you can confess that as a sin before God and ask God to forgive you of the sin of abortion. If you do this, and are sincere, He will forgive you and you will not end up in hell when you die.


This isn't an exception, it's the religious right wing. They should go to Planned Parenthood of their own free will to. Their CHOICE.

I will pass over the BUCKO inference and ask if they are soaccessible as you say,then why they are not used more widely?

What part of “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf) among women of reproductive age" do you not understand?


Why did the price escalate?

Gee, Obama mandates "free" contraceptives and his buddies in the pharmacy industry wouldn't raise the price on a guaranteed sale?

P.S. I'm sure that had at least a small part in insurance rates going up by double digits (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/business/despite-new-health-law-some-see-sharp-rise-in-premiums.html?smid=pl-share&_r=2&). Obama bent the cost curve all right, sharply upward.

The flaw in your logic is male condoms are included in that universal tag, as are other methods of birth control, like the withdrawal method and sterilization. Oral contraceptive require a doctor visit prescription and insurance, costly to poor people, but you tie the president to rising costs? Now that's a joke since you are fine with rich guys having the right to get rich as they see fit.

Costs for health care has been rising unchecked for 20 years before Obama showed up my friend. Pull out some old pay stubs if you don't believe me.

The flaw in your logic is male condoms are included in that universal ta.


The flawed logic is you don't comprehend the words "among women."

The flawed logic is you don't comprehend the words "among women."
Women are to provide condoms at encounters?

Contraceptive method


Female sterilization...
Male sterilization...
All methods other than sterilization...
Injectable...
Pill...
Male condom............................
Withdrawal...
Periodic abstinence...
Spermicides...

Do you read your own links, condoms are mention through out. Page 4 [ Series 23, No. 29

Do you read your own links, condoms are mention thru out. Page 4 [ Series 23, No. 29

What part of any of that changes the meaning of "Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age"? Nothing.

I think tom asked this the other day, but when will Obama end his war on women (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-failture-to-nominate-women-for-two-top-cabinet-posts-questioned/2013/01/07/eac2e9aa-58e5-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html)?


Obama’s failure to nominate women for two top Cabinet posts questioned

President Obama brought his top Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency chiefs together Monday with their potential replacements, and some critics noticed one thing that stood out: Each of them was a white man.

Personally I think the NAACP, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be outraged as well, the racism in nominating three white guys in a row is obvious.

What part of any of that changes the meaning of "Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age"? Nothing.

What part of poor people use rubbers because they can't afford pills, doctors, or insurance is it you don't get?


Personally I think the NAACP, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be outraged as well, the racism in nominating three white guys in a row is obvious.

The race card? Or a white guy telling 4 black guys what they should think, or do?

[QUOTE]What part of poor people use rubbers because they can't afford pills, doctors, or insurance is it you don't get?


Some people don't like to take pills, but you have yet to offer any wisdom that invalidates the meaning of "Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age." The mandate was a cure in search of a disease.


The race card? Or a white guy telling 4 black guys what they should think, or do?

Come on Tal, try to stick with the facts. I know it's difficult to acknowledge that Obama pays his increasing number of white male buddies better than his wimmen.

Heck ;even the Compost notices .

Obama’s Cabinet diversity in danger with new picks - In the Loop - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/obamas-cabinet-diversity-in-danger-with-new-picks/2013/01/07/15b8a3ce-58dd-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_blog.html)

LOL, you really are stubborn, or stuck, I don't know which, but you dispute your own facts in the link YOU provided that includes condoms,and spermacides and that's what makes contraceptives universally available.

I gave you a link to the job descriptions and titles as well as the pay, and they were well within equal work for equal pay standards so your race baiting is plain silly.


Heck ;even the Compost notices .

Obama’s Cabinet diversity in danger with new picks - In the Loop - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/obamas-cabinet-diversity-in-danger-with-new-picks/2013/01/07/15b8a3ce-58dd-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_blog.html)

Also from your link...


Of course, there’s still time for the picture to change. There’s only been one official nomination and the game of second-term musical chairs is barely underway.

Yeah of course the Compost was giving it the best spin. But there is no reason to assume he won't go into his 2nd term with an all white male cadre of advisors.

Maybe Obama can borrow some of Romney's binders

LOL, you really are stubborn, or stuck, I don't know which, but you dispute your own facts in the link YOU provided that includes condoms,and spermacides and that's what makes contraceptives universally available.

Stuck? I'm not the one working overtime trying to convince us that a contraceptive isn't really a contraceptive. But your side has issues with that, a conservative woman isn't really a woman, a conservative black isn't really black, and apparently some contraceptives aren't really contraceptives.

Nothing you've said changes the meaning of contraceptive use being "virtually universal."


I gave you a link to the job descriptions and titles as well as the pay, and they were well within equal work for equal pay standards so your race baiting is plain silly.

No more silly than being called a racist for saying the word "basketball" or "golf."

Hello again,

Hello again,

There you go again, we hate women and clean air, blah, blah, blah. I love both, I also love children... they aren't disposable.

we hate women and clean airNo, the graphic is about about regulating. Where did you get "hate" from?

I know you love kids Speech, and women too, but most of them want you to stay out of their business. The have a right to an abortion, you think they don't.

And their children have a right to life.

No, the graphic is about about regulating. Where did you get "hate" from?

Yes, anyone with half a brain knows that's the implication. Do you have at least half a brain?

Why do Republicans hate clean air, clean water? (http://eideard.com/2011/10/22/why-do-republicans-hate-clean-air-clean-water/)

Republicans Hate Clean Air And Water (http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2011/02/republicans-hate-clean-air-and-water.html)

Republicans Hate Women (http://www.republicanshatewomen.com)

Well over 93% of (http://republicanretardclub.blogspot.com/2012/04/michele-bachmann.html)

Republicans lie (lie a lot)
Republicans hate fair pay for women
Republicans hate fair elections
Republicans hate socialist firemen
Republicans hate socialist teachers
Republicans hate socialist policemen
Republicans hate the middle class
Republicans hate the environment
Republicans hate clean water
Republicans hate clean air
Republicans hate the gays
Republicans hate women
Republicans hate abortions
Republicans hate contraception
Republicans hate social security
Republicans hate health care
Republicans hate healthy people
Republicans hate disabled people
Republicans hate war veterans
Republicans hate poor people
Republicans hate smart people
Republicans hate students
Republicans hate seniors
Republicans hate blacks
Republicans hate kenyans
Republicans hate mexicans
Republicans hate latinos
Republicans hate native americans
Republicans hate muslims
Republicans hate arabs
Republicans hate atheists
Republicans hate science
Republicans hate facts
Republicans hate art
Republicans hate libraries
Republicans hate government ?

Hello tom;


and their children have a right to life.Not according to present LAW.. I thought you wingers were the LAW and ORDER party. No, huh?? It depends on WHAT law, huh?

Didn't you tell me on another thread that law abiding right wingers would NEVER carry their weapons onto a NO GUN zone because they're soooooooo righteous and law abiding??

You DID tell me that... But, you wingers don't mind undermining a woman's LEGAL rights... How do you deal with THAT hypocrisy?

Excon

What are you talking about ? I'm trying to change the law because the law is an unconstitutional violation of their baby's rights. What ? You don't think I have that right to have that opinion ;and to do what is in my power to change it ?

Yes, anyone with half a brain knows that's the implication. Do you have at least half a brain?You can divine implication all day but that doesn't make you right. The graphic clearly uses the word "regulate".

BTW your personal attacks are getting tedious, better tone it down.

Hello again, tom:

You have the right to CHANGE the law through the legislative process. You DON'T have the right to pass laws that INTERFERE with SUPERIOR laws. That is just SO. THOSE laws are ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

For example, there's some NEW anti abortion laws dealing with the physical parameters of the building.. The INTENT of those laws is to INTERFERE with a women's RIGHTS. It's NOT about buildings.

That isn't how we do things in this great land of ours.. In fact, those actions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions. Just like you're chipping away at the Civil Rights Act with voter suppression laws is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

Law and order party... Yeah, right.

excon

You can divine implication all day but that doesn't make you right. The graphic clearly uses the word "regulate".

BTW your personal attacks are getting tedious, better tone it down.

Yes master, it was just a question, don't be so sensitive.

Hello again, tom:

You have the right to CHANGE the law through the legislative process. You DON'T have the right to pass laws that INTERFERE with SUPERIOR laws. That is just SO. THOSE laws are ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

So you agree the contraceptive mandate is unconstitutional, because my right to freedom of religion is SUPERIOR to regulatory overreach.

I knew it, you think your rights are superior to a woman's rights. That's not so, sorry. The church is not the law, nor are your beliefs. Neither should be imposing their BELIEFS on others who have different beliefs.

We all have a right to practice our beliefs within the law. Women have a right to abortions, and insurance companies must provide contraceptives to those they cover. That's the law. And it was ruled constitutional despite your beliefs that it isn't.

You don't believe in contraceptives, then don't use them. Don't stop me though because I do believe in them as a better choice than abortions. Now if giving up MY rights as a condition of employment for the church, then pay me and I will get my own insurance that meets MY needs. Of course the church would never do something so reasonable because they rather you do as they say according to THEIR beliefs.

I don't believe the church or anyone's belief should be above the law. Especially when they disregard my rights under the law. That's religious OVER REACH in my book. How is that okay?

I knew it, you think your rights are superior to a woman's rights. That's not so, sorry. The church is not the law, nor are your beliefs. Neither should be imposing their BELIEFS on others who have different beliefs.

We all have a right to practice our beliefs within the law. Women have a right to abortions, and insurance companies must provide contraceptives to those they cover. That's the law. And it was ruled constitutional despite your beliefs that it isn't.

You don't believe in contraceptives, then don't use them. Don't stop me though because I do believe in them as a better choice than abortions. Now if giving up MY rights as a condition of employment for the church, then pay me and I will get my own insurance that meets MY needs. Of course the church would never do something so reasonable because they rather you do as they say according to THEIR beliefs.

I don't believe the church or anyone's belief should be above the law. Especially when they disregard my rights under the law. That's religious OVER REACH in my book. How is that okay?

I've never seen such convoluted thinking, Tal, not to mention outright fantasy. It's as simple as this, I have a constitutional right to religious freedom.


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

No one has a constitutional right to free contraceptives and again, you are the only one imposing anything on anyone by forcing the church to bow to the god of government and capitulate to YOUR beliefs.

I mean really, how do you come up with this nonsense?

How is mandating insurance companies to carry contraceptives prohibiting the free exercise of your religion?

How is mandating insurance companies to carry contraceptives prohibiting the free exercise of your religion?
... especially when it prohibits free exercise of mine.

It's as simple as this, I have a constitutional right to religious freedom.

So do those who work for the church don't they?


No one has a constitutional right to free contraceptives and again,

They have a right to equal protection under the law.


you are the only one imposing anything on anyone by forcing the church to bow to the god of government and capitulate to YOUR beliefs.

The government is not a god, just a vehicle to write and apply the laws equally and protect ALL its citizens no matter what individual beliefs they have or don't have.

The law applies to employers with 50 employees. The church does take out payroll taxes don't they?? Stop crying until the exemption language comes out. Since you believe any bodies rights except yours and your church is a fantasy.

Fact is free contraceptives is a benefit of the insurance policy you have. The insurance policy is a benefit in place of cash/salary. Just saying.

...especially when it prohibits free exercise of mine.

Exactly how does not buying your contraceptives prohibit your exercise of religion?

So do those who work for the church don't they?

Do they worship condoms or something?


They have a right to equal protection under the law.


Fine, we won't pay for contraceptives for men either.


The law applies to employers with 50 employees. The church does take out payroll taxes don't they?? Stop crying until the exemption language comes out. Since you believe any bodies rights except yours and your church is a fantasy.

40 something organizations are suing to stop this intrusion you seem to think is imaginary.


Fact is free contraceptives is a benefit of the insurance policy you have. The insurance policy is a benefit in place of cash/salary. Just saying.

And you still seem to be deluded about who's paying for this benefit. I'm just saying.

And you still seem to be deluded about who's paying for this benefit. I'm just saying.Oh is that the justification for your objection? That the insurance company, who covers thousands of medications and procedures, adds one more item to the list and that's the tipping point?
But what if they never, ever use that service or product? In the same way that they may never use a hundred of other services and products.

Exactly how does not buying your contraceptives prohibit your exercise of religion?
How does my getting them under an insurance plan violate yours?

How does my getting them under an insurance plan violate yours?

Answered many times, you first on this one.

Oh is that the justification for your objection? That the insurance company, who covers thousands of medications and procedures, adds one more item to the list and that's the tipping point?
But what if they never, ever use that service or product? In the same way that they may never use a hundred of other services and products.

It's always been the tipping point, where have you been? You should read up from the beginning of the thread.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

Yeah, I knew you wouldn't read the thread, but you should read this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3350763-post860.html)..

Hobby Lobby lost their case on those grounds. Good luck.

You already have an amendment:

The administration allowed a religious exemption. The exemption applies to church organizations themselves

"The new rule must be issued by March 31, 2013."

Hobby Lobby lost their case on those grounds. Good luck.

You already have an amendment:

Hobby Lobby is not a church, but then neither is Domino's Pizza and they won an injunction (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14124-dominos-pizza-founder-wins-injunction-against-contraception-mandate).

"The new rule must be issued by March 31, 2013."

So back to square one, you must also agree now that the constitution is ABOVE the mandate now that I've reminded you that the courts are requiring the administration to codify the exemptions as opposed to promising with their fingers crossed.

Hobby Lobby is not a church
Hobby Lobby's owners are religious.

I interned at Catholic Charities and was asked to work there after graduation. I am Lutheran and was on birth control pills at the time.

Hobby Lobby's owners are religious.

Yes, but the relevance is as a response to NK's quote " The exemption applies to church organizations themselves."

Hobby Lobby is not a church.


I interned at Catholic Charities and was asked to work there after graduation. I am Lutheran and was on birth control pills at the time.

A) Who paid for them?

B) Still waiting to know how not buying your contraceptives violates your religious freedom.

Yes, but the relevance is as a response to NK's quote " The exemption applies to church organizations themselves."

Hobby Lobby is not a church.
I know they aren't. I mentioned it because unless you're a church (who has the exemption) you face a losing battle. That's why I wished you 'good luck' in your venture.
It seems like a lot of wasted effort in my opinion.

I know they aren't. I mentioned it because unless you're a church (who has the exemption) you face a losing battle. That's why I wished you 'good luck' in your venture.
It seems like a lot of wasted effort in my opinion.

I guess you missed the part where Domino's won an injunction. There is no such thing as wasted effort to defend my constitutional rights.

It goes beyond a church's rights . Free exercise is primarily an individual's right .

Exactly.

Charlie Rangel hits Obama on diversity - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/charlie-rangel-hits-obama-on-diversity-86005.html)

Hello wingers:

Don't look over here. Look over THERE. Obama hasn't chosen a women. Now, THAT'S a war on women, all right...

You DO know a war involves MORE than 10 or 12 people, don't you?? Nahhh, you DON'T know that... YOUR war, of course, is being waged against 150 MILLION women, and you've got the balls to call what he's doing a war... If you guys weren't so pathetic, you'd be silly.

excon

Hobby Lobby is not a church, but then neither is Domino's Pizza and they won an injunction (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14124-dominos-pizza-founder-wins-injunction-against-contraception-mandate).

Dominos isn't involved as the former owner is suing on behalf of his new buiness, real estate development.


That confusion led the current Domino's owners to release a statement declaring that the company “has never supported organizations on either side of the reproductive rights issue. The corporation and its 1,825 independent franchise owners across the world have one goal: to sell pizzas and grow our market share.”

Get your facts straight. And to be clear the injunction is temporary pending a final ruling. It delays the inevitable, for profit businesses must obey the law. The mandate has already been ruled constitutional so good luck trying to overturn it.

Hello wingers:

Don't look over here. Look over THERE. Obama hasn't chosen a women. Now, THAT'S a war on women, alright...

You DO know a war involves MORE than 10 or 12 people, don't you??? Nahhh, you DON'T know that... YOUR war, of course, is being waged against 150 MILLION women, and you've got the balls to call what he's doing a war... If you guys weren't so pathetic, you'd be silly.

excon

It didn't take any more balls than it did for you to manufacture your mythical war on women.

Dominos isn't involved as the former owner is suing on behalf of his new buiness, real estate development.

That isn't a church either.


Get your facts straight. And to be clear the injunction is temporary pending a final ruling. It delays the inevitable, for profit businesses must obey the law. The mandate has already been ruled constitutional so good luck trying to overturn it.

I know what temporary means, the significant part is the court granting it all. And by the way, I don't recall the contraceptive mandate has been ruled constitutional. Could you point me to that ruling?

The mandate has already been ruled constitutional so good luck trying to overturn it. The only mandate ruled constitutional was the requirement for everyone to have insurance or to pay a penalty... ooops I mean tax. The Sebillius HHS decision has not been decided in court except a series of preliminary calls in the lower courts and one ruling by Sotomayor .Get your facts straight.

My apologies guys, you have been losing so many arguments on the right, I jumped the gun and ASSUMED you would lose this one two.

My bad... for now.

My apologies guys, you have been losing so many arguments on the right, I jumped the gun and ASSUMED you would lose this one two.

My bad............................................... ...............for now.


Yes, I think they are winning this one.


Tut

Yes, I think they are winning this one.


Tut

I don't, but they have enough lawyers and cheerleaders to make it look interesting. But do they have facts and the rule of law on their side? I am not as sure as they are, and so far all you have heard is their side. What about the female workers affected by what the beliefs of the boss are? Or their unions, if they have one? What if they don't want the bosses or the churches insurance, do they have to pay for it?

I mean churches and companies generally get a lot of push back when they make workers feel descriminated against. We all are waiting for a final decision and hollering and posturing will mean little.

As Speech said he is just happy for a temporary injuction by a lower court not to be fined while this case is decided. I doubt that has anything to do with the final outcome though.

I've spent the past week in California trying to help my daughter navigate government incompetence, apathy and flat-out lies. Seems to me they're waging a war on her but then, I don't know nuthin' about women and the benevolent nanny state being forced on us...

Just sayin'

I've spent the past week in California trying to help my daughter navigate government incompetence, apathy and flat-out lies. Seems to me they're waging a war on her but then, I don't know nuthin' about women and the benevolent nanny state being forced on us...

Just sayin'

We do have a law board (shameless plug) and we are there to help if you should need it.

We do have a law board (shameless plug) and we are there to help if you should need it.

Nothing wrong with a shameless plug now and then. I just may be asking a question or two...

Hello again,

New Mexico bill criminalizes abortions after rape as 'tampering with evidence'.

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial. House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html)would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."


Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says. Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

But, there's no war on women... If this wasn't so outrageous, I'd give you a bwa, ha ha ha. But, it's ANYTHING but funny.

Excon

Meanwhile, what the hell is government doing for my daughter besides lying through their teeth? Nothing.

Hello again, Steve:

I wish you well with your daughter. And, I don't blame you for changing the subject.

excon

Not changing the subject, dealing with reality as I have been. If you knew it all you would see how laughable this war on women crap has been.

All I can say is if she were a black woman with six kids from several baby daddies or just needed some free birth control the government would be tripping over themselves to help. But a sick, single white woman doesn't stand a chance. All we get are lies and kicking the can to the next bureacrat. But these are the solutions you support.

P.S. I do appreciate the concern my friend. Now I need a drink.

All I know is 40 years of Roe... 55 million babies killed .

Steve your daughter is in my prayers .

I add my prayers, and support too my friend.

Thanks guys.

To try to counter the number of lawsuits that have been filed ,that will eventually bring the Sebillius contraception decision to a SOTUS ruling ,the Obots have made new proposed changes to the mandate .
Under the new proposed rules, employees who work at " non-profit religious hospitals or institutions of higher education, that object to contraception on religious grounds", and want "free" contraception and abortifacients will be able to get " stand-alone coverage" from a third party.
This is still bs because the insurance company is not going to give it away for "free" the coverage will still have to be paid by the provider .Despite their claim to the contrary ,there is no such a thing as 'free " when they are forcing providers to participate. The Obots falsely assert that this coverage could be provided for free because the cost of the contraceptives would be offset by the “tremendous health benefits” that women enjoy from using contraception.

This proposal still leaves for profit companies, like Hobby Lobby (a company that does provide contraception ,but strongly objects to abortion pills) , who object to the mandate on religious grounds, out of luck . Don't forget ,it's the Obots who decide who can be afforded true protection of their religious freedom and the ability to live and act according to their beliefs.

It's the same gimmick in a different package. What is still even more outrageous is the administration redefining what qualifies as a religious organization. They'll exempt First Baptist Church but not the Sister's orphanage.

Its really simple, employees of a for profit business is not subject to the whims of the boss, and the church doesn't pay for, or have to have anything to do with contraceptives for there employees. Now if it's the goal of the religious right to impose their religion, well this preserves the individual rights workers to practice as they want no matter what the boss practices.

If the goal is to limit what services an insurance company can provide you lose. And my understanding is this will have no bearing on any religious group, and no one has redefined the Sisters orphanage. Unless they have defined themselves as a for profit business.

Its really simple, employees of a for profit business is not subject to the whims of the boss, and the church doesn't pay for, or have to have anything to do with contraceptives for there employees. Now if its the goal of the religious right to impose their religion, well this preserves the individual rights workers to practice as they want no matter what the boss practices.

If the goal is to limit what services an insurance company can provide you lose. And my understanding is this will have no bearing on any religious group, and no one has redefined the Sisters orphanage. Unless they have defined themselves as a for profit business.

It's really simple, we have a right to freedom of religion and if you don't like your benefits you are free to find an employer that suits you.

And yes absolutely Obamacare redefines the church as ONLY places of worship. Any other church ministry is NOT exempted, soup kitchen, orphanage, homeless shelter, clinic, ANYTHING not exclusively a place of worship. That my friend is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

Show me where this is true? And why can't employees have outside benefits to go along with the insurance the boss/church gives you?

Hello again:

Abortion is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.. IF right wingers SUPPORT the Constitution, like the SAY they do, then they would be expanding access to MORE women. Instead, they're doing the opposite.

Personally, I support the ENTIRE Constitution.. I don't pick. People who pick really don't like the Constitution at all. How could they?

excon

So when Slavery was Constitutional ,the abolitionists were really anti-Constitutionalists ?and the Suffragettes were anti-Constitutionalists too ?

Hello again:

Abortion is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.. IF right wingers SUPPORT the Constitution, like the SAY they do, then they would be expanding access to MORE women. Instead, they're doing the opposite.

Personally, I support the ENTIRE Constitution.. I don't pick and choose. People who pick and choose really don't like the Constitution at all. How could they?

excon

Abortion is NOT a constitional right. It is a right supported by the constitution but it is not specifically written into the constitution by amendment like other rights have been.

It is a right supported by the constitution

found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" according to William O. Douglas

Hello again,

I'm NOT a hair splitter. The right to counsel is NOT written into the body of the Constitution. But, the Supreme Court said it's a right, and they SAID it BASED on the Constitution. Therefore, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

A women's right to choose is a Constitutional right in the very same manner...

Now, I agree with your right to challenge the law. But, laws that RESTRICT the physical buildings where abortions are provided, and laws putting onerous requirements on the providers, is NOT challenging the law.. It's VIOLATING it.

excon

Hello again,

I'm NOT a hair splitter. The right to counsel is NOT written into the body of the Constitution. But, the Supreme Court said it's a right, and they SAID it BASED on the Constitution. Therefore, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

A women's right to choose is a Constitutional right in the very same manner...

Now, I agree with your right to challenge the law. But, laws that RESTRICT the physical buildings where abortions are provided, and laws putting onerous requirements on the providers, is NOT challenging the law.. It's VIOLATING it.

excon

It is written into the connstitution. Look at the 5th amendment and how it applies to court proceedings. Without representation then self incrimination is eminent.

Hello again,

I'm NOT a hair splitter.

excon


Also about splitting hairs. The constitution holds abortion legal but it does not create all encompasing law when it comes to the right of choice. Both State and Federal law can be created and regulate for your protection (cough) and be upheld by the courts.

Lets say a woman wants to have an abortion (the law says she has a choice) but on the way home from the clinic she gets pulled over and a ticket for not wearing a seat belt (her choice at the time).

Hello again,

I'm NOT a hair splitter. The right to counsel is NOT written into the body of the Constitution. But, the Supreme Court said it's a right, and they SAID it BASED on the Constitution. Therefore, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

A women's right to choose is a Constitutional right in the very same manner...

Now, I agree with your right to challenge the law. But, laws that RESTRICT the physical buildings where abortions are provided, and laws putting onerous requirements on the providers, is NOT challenging the law.. It's VIOLATING it.

excon

So why do you split hairs on our SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED RELIGIOUS RIGHTS? When you come out against HHS redefining the church and FORCING people and institutions to violate their faith I'll listen

What's your problem with church employees dealing directly with an insurance company?

So why do you split hairs on our SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED RELIGIOUS RIGHTS? When you come out against HHS redefining the church and FORCING people and institutions to violate their faith I'll listen
Why can't a Catholic non-profit have ABC Insurance Company that covers contraceptives for the non-Catholics who work there? Sister Jameson doesn't have to buy contraceptives.

The Catholics just haven't got the point that catholics use contraceptives whether the hierarchy like it or not

Why can't a Catholic non-profit have ABC Insurance Company that covers contraceptives for the non-Catholics who work there? Sister Jameson doesn't have to buy contraceptives.

Why can't a Catholic ministry be free from government imposing on their faith as guaranteed by the first amendment?

These aren't questions regarding faith and religious practices within a church but matters regarding the provision of health care insurance by an employer. They are matters of individual conscience between and individual and their health care insurer

The Catholics just haven't got the point that catholics use contraceptives whether the hierarchy like it or not

It's irrelevant what the members do, the church has a standard and is protected by the constitution from being forced by the government to violate that standard.


these arn't questions regarding faith and religious practices within a church but matters regarding the provision of health care insurance by an employer. they are matters of individual conscience between and individual and their health care insurer

Wrong, the church is paying the premium. What do you not get Clete?

The church pays PART of the premiums. The employee pays a greater share. Ask a church employee to show you his check. Or any employee for that matter.

What you think employeers provide health insurance for FREE?? Do your own investigation. And you never answered the question of what's wrong with employees talking directly to the insurance company about their contraceptives? Separate from church provided insurance?

The church pays PART of the premiums. The employee pays a greater share. Ask a church employee to show you his check. Or any employee for that matter.

What you think employeers provide health insurance for FREE??? Do your own investigation. And you never answered the question of whats wrong with employees talking directly to the insurance company about their contraceptives? Seperate from church provided insurance?

Some pay part and some pay all, but regardless none would be available without the church/employer providing and subsidizing the benefit. That makes it THEIR choice what to buy. You like choice don't you?

Choice is great, but if it doesn't meet your needs then its useless. Then the employee must make a choice to meet THEIR needs. That's why a supplemental insurance to cover those that don't have their needs met was the compromise.

Why would you deny an employee going outside the church to make their own choices? It no longer matters what choices the church offers does it, when you can have your own.

You are saying church employees have no right to look beyond the choices the church makes for them. You say the church pays for these extra insurance policies, I say they don't. It's the same as any special rider you get, beyond your employer provided insurance.

It's irrelevant what the members do, the church has a standard and is protected by the constitution from being forced by the government to violate that standard.

Wrong, the church is paying the premium. What do you not get Clete?

You have this all twisted and so do they. That they want to take an ethical stance is commendable but not constitutional. The members of the church are not being forced to use contraceptives and the provision of health care insurance is not a matter covered under the provisions of the constituition relating to the establishment and conduct of a religion. The church is not being forced to violate any standard, since, as I said before, the use of contraceptives is not forced or enforced by the provisions, the members of the church are simply being placed in the same status as any other human being.

We all have to be protected from the thought police and the inquisition in all its forms, this is a case of the inquisition in action, dealing with private communication between a health insurer and its client to enforce a church doctrine. If you allow them to get away with this they will be interrogating the members to determine whether they have used contraceptives next

Why is tal editing my posts?

How do you edit someoneelse's posts?

You have this all twisted and so do they. That they want to take an ethical stance is commendable but not constitutional. The members of the church are not being forced to use contraceptives and the provision of health care insurance is not a matter covered under the provisions of the constituition relating to the establishment and conduct of a religion. The church is not being forced to violate any standard, since, as I said before, the use of contraceptives is not forced or enforced by the provisions, the members of the church are simply being placed in the same status as any other human being.

We all have to be protected from the thought police and the inquisition in all its forms, this is a case of the inquisition in action, dealing with private communication between a health insurer and its client to enforce a church doctrine. If you allow them to get away with this they will be interrogating the members to determine whether they have used contraceptives next

Clete, that's some really irrelevant non-reality based gobbledygook.

Choice is great, but if it doesn't meet your needs then its useless. Then the employee must make a choice to meet THEIR needs. Thats why a supplemental insurance to cover those that don't have their needs met was the compromise.

Why would you deny an employee going outside the church to make their own choices? It no longer matters what choices the church offers does it, when you can have your own.

You are saying church employees have no right to look beyond the choices the church makes for them. You say the church pays for these extra insurance policies, I say they don't. Its the same as any special rider you get, beyond your employer provided insurance.

I said without the employer there would be no policy. That's choice, they choose a plan and pay a premium... you choose to accept their offer and work there or not. You are not guaranteed employment somewhere that fills all your wants and needs. What's next, compulsory free employer provided day care, fitness rooms, massages

Clete, that's some really irrelevant non-reality based gobbledygook.

Think what you may speech but there are red herrings a plenty in these debates

how do you edit someoneelse's posts?

You can NOT edit someone else's post. Only the OP has that right for a limited time. The only other way is if you're a Super Mod. They are allowed to edit an OP's post for content.

Other then that you can do light editing if it is a quote. But only the quote will be edited and not the Original Post.

Why is tal editing my posts?

Your post wasn't edited, you have a time stamp note because I hit the wrong button.

I actually meant to edit my own post.

Think what you may speech but there are red herrings a plenty in these debates

They aren't coming from me. But let's break down your post...


You have this all twisted and so do they. That they want to take an ethical stance is commendable but not constitutional.

Wrong, it is not merely an ethical stance it is a doctrinal stance which the constitution does protect.


The members of the church are not being forced to use contraceptives and

No one is saying they are.


the provision of health care insurance is not a matter covered under the provisions of the constituition relating to the establishment and conduct of a religion. The church is not being forced to violate any standard,

Wrong, the mandate is against church doctrine and forces it to violate said doctrine if they furnish insurance coverage. If the church cannot stay true to their doctrine that is a violation of the free exercise clause.


since, as I said before, the use of contraceptives is not forced or enforced by the provisions, the members of the church are simply being placed in the same status as any other human being.

Wrong, the issue is not about forcing anyone to use contraceptives, that's a red herring. The issue is forcing the church to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients against church doctrine - directly or indirectly - and redefining what qualifies as a religious institution with first amendment protection.


We all have to be protected from the thought police and the inquisition in all its forms, this is a case of the inquisition in action, dealing with private communication between a health insurer and its client to enforce a church doctrine.

Another red herring. No one is asking the insurer to enforce church doctrine or forcing church members to adhere to church doctrine. The issue is as I stated in the previous paragraph, it is about EMPLOYEES and the benefits they receive. If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.


If you allow them to get away with this they will be interrogating the members to determine whether they have used contraceptives next

That's just plain bullsh*t.

If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.

That's the choice you give? There are other options besides yours. That's what you are mad about because if they look around, they can keep their job and your benefits, and get more choices than you offer, on their own.

The churches attempt to limit an individuals choices will fail, but you guys will come up with something else, no doubt.

Hello again, Steve:


If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere. If we didn't let black people live in certain neighborhoods, you could answer in the same vein... But, I'll bet you wouldn't, because you can SEE the inherent UNFAIRNESS of THAT position..

Or, maybe you can't.

But, because people like you AREN'T able to discern inherent unfairness, we wrote a Constitutional Amendment about it. Nonetheless, you STILL are UNABLE to grasp the VERY obvious UNFAIRNESS embodied in your position.

That's OK. People like you will NEVER be convinced. That's why my beloved Constitution will prevail.. I thought you LOVED the Constitution... No, huh?

Excon

That's the choice you give?

Uh yeah, it's called freedom.


There are other options besides yours. That's what you are mad about because if they look around, they can keep their job and your benefits, and get more choices than you offer, on their own.

Dude, all I know is if I own a business I'm the only one that should be calling the shots. That's how it works, but that's what you are mad about, you want to call the shots for someone else's business, soup kitchen and obviously the Church. If you don't like how others do things start your own and do it your way.


The churches attempt to limit an individuals choices will fail, but you guys will come up with something else, no doubt.


Now that's a red herring.

Hello again, Steve:

If we didn't let black people live in certain neighborhoods, you could answer in the same vein... But, I'll bet you wouldn't, because you can SEE the inherent UNFAIRNESS of THAT position..

Or, maybe you can't.

But, because people like you AREN'T able to discern inherent unfairness, we wrote a Constitutional Amendment about it. Nonetheless, you STILL are UNABLE to see grasp the VERY obvious UNFAIRNESS embodied in your position.

Life isn't fair, and I'm OK with that. But speaking of meaningless things, it's the liberal use of "fairness." You can't define it, you can't create it and your attempts to make life fair are inherently unfair to those you impose on to create your utopia.


That's OK. People like you will NEVER be convinced. That's why my beloved Constitution will prevail.. I thought you LOVED the Constitution... No, huh?

As soon as you can show me where free contraceptives are a constitutional right and defend my specifically enumerated first and second amendment rights I'll listen. You haven't and you won't, you don't like those parts of the constitution.

Hello again, Steve:


As soon as you can show me where free contraceptives are a constitutional right and defend my specifically enumerated first and second amendment rights I'll listen.We've been here before, but you don't want to get it.. That's OK. I'm patient... The COOL thing about our wonderful Constitution, is that it's NOT written in legalese.. It uses SIMPLE easily UNDERSTOOD words. Here's the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: The state may NOT "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means, if a company is going to cover MENS health needs, it needs to cover Women's health needs.

Now, you can SAY that if women don't like it, they can seek employment somewhere else... But, that's NOT what our Constitution says... I cannot imagine how your reading of that sentence differs from mine..

Do you think they just wrote those words to take up space? What the hell do you think those words MEAN?? I'm listening.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

We've been here before, but you don't want to get it.. That's OK. I'm patient... The COOL thing about our wonderful Constitution, is that it's NOT written in legalese.. It uses SIMPLE easily UNDERSTOOD words. Here's the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: The state may NOT "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means, if a company is going to cover MENS health needs, it needs to cover Women's health needs.

Oh I get it, and I've already addressed that. No employer offers men one one policy and women another, they get the same policy. I'm OK with not covering Viagra except for medical necessity, it's used to treat pulmonary hypertension you know.


Now, you can SAY that if women don't like it, they can seek employment somewhere else... But, that's NOT what our Constitution says... I cannot imagine how your reading of that sentence differs from mine..

That's because you're under the same mistaken impression as tal, the constitution does not guarantee whatever employer provided benefits you think you deserve. Please, tell me where that's in there


Do you think they just wrote those words to take up space? What the hell do you think those words MEAN?? I'm listening.


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

What the hell do you think that means? It's SIMPLE and EASY to understand.

Even if contraceptives are not a protected right, it doesn't mean they can't be free, or accessible. Now if insurance companies agree to give them out, how is that the business of a church?

They can always stop doing business with them, and go elsewhere. Just because you hate government doesn't mean everyone does, and I believe in government "for the people, by the people", and will resist any effort to subvert it otherwise.

That's not liberal talk, but American talk, and you have a right to disagree of course :)

Hello again, Steve:


the constitution does not guarantee whatever employer provided benefits you think you deserve. Please, tell me where that's in thereThis ISN'T about what we WANT, or think we DESERVE. It's about treating people EQUALLY... That's NOT a difficult concept.. If they offer it to ONE sex, they MUST offer it to the OTHER.. I don't know WHY you don't get it. IF they offer (that's a key word) MEN'S health care, then the law says quite CLEARLY, that they MUST offer WOMEN'S health care...

You talk about Viagra... But, what about treating prostate problems... What about testicle problems? What about urethra problems?? Should men get those services? Should denying women's health care result in THESE mens services being withheld?? Why should MEN have to get a supplemental policy that they PAY for themselves to get THOSE services, and ONLY those services?? I don't even know IF a policy for that exists..

Excon

Even if contraceptives are not a protected right, it doesn't mean they can't be free, or accessible. Now if insurance companies agree to give them out, how is that the business of a church?

They can always stop doing business with them, and go elsewhere. Just because you hate government doesn't mean everyone does, and I believe in government "for the people, by the people", and will resist any effort to subvert it otherwise.

That's not liberal talk, but American talk, and you have a right to disagree of course :)

They ARE accessible, that's the red herring in all of this - the mandate was a cure in search of a disease. There was no problem with access, contraceptive was use was already almost UNIVERSAL in the US.

In fact... NYC schools hand out 12,721 ‘morning-after’ pills (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/3/nyc-schools-hand-out-12721-morning-after-pills/).


New York City schools are offering young girls a full menu of birth control options, free of parental counsel, thanks to an unpublicized project by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration.

School nurses handed out 12,721 doses of the Plan B One-Step “morning-after” pill in 2011-12, up from 10,720 in 2010-11 and 5,039 in 2009-10, the New York Post reports.

Mona Davids, president of the NYC Parents Union, was stunned by the report.

“I’m in shock,” she said. “What gives the mayor the right to decide, without adequate notice, to give our children drugs that will impact their bodies and their psyches? He has purposely kept the public and parents in the dark with his agenda.”

Besides “emergency contraception,” about 40 school-based clinics have dispensed prescriptions for contraception, intrauterine devices and hormone-delivering injections, the Post reports. Officials refused to discuss the project.

I forgot to mention subverting parental authority in my list of things the left has done to create the mess they're whining about now. I mean hey, why should a teenager, dependent on her parents for food, clothing, shelter and protection have to get permission to be administered abortifacients and hormone injections? Parents don't need to know what the government is doing to their children or God forbid, have a CHOICE in how to raise their children. This should pi$$ you off, but I know you'll make excuses.

When women get prostates and testicles we can discuss covering them. Please.

They ARE accessible, that's the red herring in all of this - the mandate was a cure in search of a disease. There was no problem with access, contraceptive was use was already almost UNIVERSAL in the US.

In fact...NYC schools hand out 12,721 ‘morning-after’ pills (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/3/nyc-schools-hand-out-12721-morning-after-pills/).



I forgot to mention subverting parental authority in my list of things the left has done to create the mess they're whining about now. I mean hey, why should a teenager, dependent on her parents for food, clothing, shelter and protection have to get permission to be administered abortifacients and hormone injections? Parents don't need to know what the government is doing to their children or God forbid, have a CHOICE in how to raise their children. This should pi$$ you off, but I know you'll make excuses.

When women get prostates and testicles we can discuss covering them. Please.

Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly, and engaging in risky behavior,and many of our youth fear there parents when they make mistakes.

But your argument that when woman grow balls and the rest that comes with it then you will cover the maintanance is kind of ridiculous ince God didn't make 'em that way and different does not mean inferior.

Ex is right you do discriminate to make females dependent on men.

Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly, and engaging in risky behavior,and many of our youth fear there parents when they make mistakes. .

Yeah well, nanny Bloomberg is just like Planned Parenthood and many 'educators', they don't care what the parents want, they think they know what's best for your child.


But your argument that when woman grow balls and the rest that comes with it then you will cover the maintanance is kind of ridiculous ince God didn't make 'em that way and different does not mean inferior.

I see the joke went right over your head.


Ex is right you do discriminate to make females dependent on men

Are you kidding me? I serve my wife and daughter and their friends, I don't subjugate them as your government polices do. The mandate is a cure in search of a disease and it violates the first amendment. That is no red herring.

Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly
Sort of demonstrates what Speech is talking about... the unintended consequences of liberal policies...

sorta demonstrates what Speech is talking about ....the unintended consequences of liberal policies...



Nonsense Tom.

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect and love to chatter in place of exercise. Plato



What liberal policies were evident in ancient Athens that cause this problem?

Tut

Tut I'm sure ancient Greece was decadent in their decline .

I was reminded of this little gem from Obama the candidate in 2008...


"Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."

I was reminded of this little gem from Obama the candidate in 2008...
That should be your little gem too. Now, let's do something about it.

I was reminded of this little gem from Obama the candidate in 2008...

You would think the courts would be more proactive with fathers but sorely they are not. They need to stop viewing fathers as walking wallets that are idiots about being able to take care of children.

I was reminded of this little gem from Obama the candidate in 2008...
Someone in the press corpse should stand up and remind him... yea right... likes that's ever going to happen.

Tut I'm sure ancient Greece was decadent in their decline .


Tom, I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt that decadence was not and is not the exclusive domain of liberalism. So what are you trying to tell me?


Tut

I was reminded of this little gem from Obama the candidate in 2008...

So, you are saying that Obama is actively working against the family unit?


Tut

Tom, I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt that decadence was not and is not the exclusive domain of liberalism. So what are you trying to tell me?


Tut

Of course it is not the exclusive domain of liberalism .
Decadence is a luxurious self-indulgence. It is often used to describe a decline due to an erosion of moral, ethical, or sexual traditions.

In the United States case it can be traced to the things Speech described .If it makes you feel better.. I'll call it progressive policies.

Hello again, tom:


Decadence is a luxurious self-indulgence. It is often used to describe a decline due to an erosion of moral, ethical, or sexual traditions.

In the United States case it can be traced to the things Speech described. If it makes you feel better.. I'll call it progressive policies.Your side laments the spread of freedom. You always have. You view it as a LOSS, whereas it's actually a GAIN.

I'd call it progressive policies, too.

Excon

I like the freedom to decide the size of a drink. Your freedom allows the state to give my daughter unlimited access to abortifacient in school without my permission.

So, you are saying that Obama is actively working against the family unit?


Tut

No, I wish he would say such things more often.

Hello again, tom:


I like the freedom to decide the size of a drink. Your freedom allows the state to give my daughter unlimited access to abortifacient in school without my permission.What? You don't know how to say give me TWO!

Yes, even your daughter has dominion over her own body.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

What? You don't know how to say give me TWO!

I thought you liked the freedom to choose.


Yes, even your daughter has dominion over her own body.


So in your world parents have no rights. Yep, you guys keep proving my opinion on liberal policies correct.

I thought you liked the freedom to choose.
He did. He chose two, one Cola and one Sprite.

So in your world parents have no rights.
What have the parents been teaching their daughter all those years? Or is she floundering all clueless and looking for love and subject to the whims of her peers and unscrupulous people?

Hello again, Steve:


So in your world parents have no rights.
If your daughter can screw under your nose, then she can get an abortion under there too.

After she's pregnant, and you've already FAILED at being a staunch right wing father, you have NO right to inflict yourself into her life at THIS point. This is HER body, and it's HER decision what to do with it.

Excon

He did. He chose two, one Cola and one Sprite.

So why can't he choose one 32oz?


What have the parents been teaching their daughter all those years? Or is she floundering all clueless and looking for love and subject to the whims of her peers and unscrupulous people?

Personally, I really don't care. That the school would give my minor child abortifacients and hormone injections without my consent is an outrage that should have everyone up in arms.

Hello again, Steve:


If your daughter can screw under your nose, then she can get an abortion under there too.

After she's pregnant, and you've already FAILED at being a staunch right wing father, you have NO right to inflict yourself into her life at THIS point. This is HER body, and it's HER decision what to do with it.

excon

Bullsh*t, that's EXACTLY the wrong attitude.

Bullsh*t, that's EXACTLY the wrong attitude.
Parents owe it to their kids to bring them up with a healthy knowledge about and respect for their own bodies as well as respect for others'. That's what is missing today.

Parents owe it to their kids to bring them up with a healthy knowledge about and respect for their own bodies as well as respect for others'. That's what is missing today.

And the problem is the left feels fine giving birth control and abortions to kids without their parents permission... but let someone in the class hold a paryer and they get their panties in a knot.

Parents owe it to their kids to bring them up with a healthy knowledge about and respect for their own bodies as well as respect for others'. That's what is missing today.

What's missing is the support the community gave those parents. Now the community undermines the parents ,and ,the schools the government says to the kids... "it's ok to screw around" .

Parents owe it to their kids to bring them up with a healthy knowledge about and respect for their own bodies as well as respect for others'. That's what is missing today.

As long as a parent loves their children and is not abusive or neglectful I really don't find your point relevant. Parents have the right to raise their children their way, and when the kids get out the door and everything their parents have taught them is undermined by the school, Planned Parenthood or some other authority what do you expect?

This is exactly again what I suggested before, that liberal policies led to this mess and their answer is more liberal policies undermining more parental rights. Just ask Ex, he already said it, parents don't have rights in his book. What's missing today are those things weakened and demonized just as I said (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3387623-post681.html).

that liberal policies led to this messWhat are some conservative policies that schools and families should institute to make things better?

What are some conservative policies that schools and families should institute to make things better?

I'm not suggesting "conservative policies," I said I believe "as long as a parent loves their children and is not abusive or neglectful" they "have the right to raise their children their way." What I refer to are what used to be common sense policies that we all valued. Even Tal agrees with me that parents should have the say, do you?

What are some conservative policies that schools and families should institute to make things better?

I will tell you one that needs to come back. That is allowing children to fail. When you play a game there is always one side that loses. Sometimes you actually do need to study to pass a test or you can get a bad grade. Sometimes when children play they are going to get hurt. It is part of life. Cuts and scapes happen to the best of us. They need to fall on occasion so they can learn how to pick themselves back up. We can't protect and coddle the children from the world and then expect them to perform when they get into the real world. They need to learn critical thinking and be able to apply it later in life.

I will tell you one that needs to come back. That is allowing children to fail. When you play a game there is always one side that loses. Sometimes you actually do need to study to pass a test or you can get a bad grade. Sometimes when children play they are going to get hurt. It is part of life. Cuts and scapes happen to the best of us. They need to fall on occassion so they can learn how to pick themselves back up. We can't protect and coddle the children from the world and then expect them to perform when they get into the real world. They need to learn critical thinking and be able to apply it later in life.

Absolutely, and that is one of those values both sides used to share.

of course it is not the exclusive domain of liberalism .
Decadence is a luxurious self-indulgence. It is often used to describe a decline due to an erosion of moral, ethical, or sexual traditions.

In the United States case it can be traced to the things Speech described .If it makes you feel better ..I'll call it progressive policies.


Well Tom, there is your answer. Liberalism has made decadence accessible to the majority. You think it should be the exclusive domain of the wealthy?


Tut

Well Tom, there is your answer. Liberalism has made decadence accessible to the majority. You think it should be the exclusive domain of the wealthy?


Tut

Then again ;we can always trace liberalism to the Roman Bread and Circuses .

I think we all have a hand at segregating a large part of the population to poverty and a lack of viable options to raise healthy kids. Its more serious than idealogical finger pointing.

All that's does is loses yet another generation and create even more dysfunctional parents who don't have a clue.

Its more serious than idelogical finger pointing.For the righties on this board it is ALWAYS ideological finger pointing. It's what excites them.

For the righties on this board it is ALWAYS ideological finger pointing. It's what excites them.

And trolling excites you

and trolling excites youNonsense, one has to simply look at the posts here or one other threads.

I will tell you one that needs to come back. That is allowing children to fail. When you play a game there is always one side that loses. Sometimes you actually do need to study to pass a test or you can get a bad grade. Sometimes when children play they are going to get hurt. It is part of life. Cuts and scapes happen to the best of us. They need to fall on occassion so they can learn how to pick themselves back up. We can't protect and coddle the children from the world and then expect them to perform when they get into the real world. They need to learn critical thinking and be able to apply it later in life.
This is the best post made in this thread. I bet we all agree this would be a Good Thing to happen in our world. What can we do to get the word out?

then again ;we can always trace liberalism to the Roman Bread and Circuses .


Tom, you are the political philosopher here. Perhaps you can tell me about ancient liberalism.


Tut

originally posted by califdadof3
I will tell you one that needs to come back. That is allowing children to fail. When you play a game there is always one side that loses. Sometimes you actually do need to study to pass a test or you can get a bad grade. Sometimes when children play they are going to get hurt. It is part of life. Cuts and scapes happen to the best of us. They need to fall on occasion so they can learn how to pick themselves back up. We can't protect and coddle the children from the world and then expect them to perform when they get into the real world. They need to learn critical thinking and be able to apply it later in life.

>greenie<

Hello again,

Nahhh.. There's no war on women (http://amestrib.com/sections/news/ames-and-story-county/bill-would-define-abortion-murder.html)...


A right wing lawmaker in Iowa is trying to define abortion as murder.

"Those charged with murder, under the bill, would include a mother who takes abortion-inducing drugs or a doctor who performs an abortion. It also grants no exceptions for rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother." Right winger Rep. Rob Bacon believes abortion is murder and he wants the Iowa Code to reflect that.

Bacon and eight other Republicans introduced such a bill in the Iowa House Wednesday. It would alter the definition of a person in murder cases to “an individual human being, without regard to age of development, from the moment of conception, when a zygote is formed, until natural death.”

“It's to protect the life of the unborn,” Bacon told the Tribune. “There's still some of us that believe life begins at conception.”

Those charged with murder, under the bill, would include a mother who takes abortion-inducing drugs or a doctor who performs an abortion. It also grants no exceptions for rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.

Excon

I'm so confused. I thought the lib mantra these days was "If it only saves one life" .

Hello again, tom:

And, I thought the right wing mantra, was OBEY the Constitution. Guess we're BOTH wrong.

excon

What do you expect from the party that hollers about rights, and principles, while they nullify a woman's constitutional rights to an abortion and denies then access to contraceptives and other health care.

We should change the title to this thread to a war on poor women AND their children, since they are the victims almost exclusively of republican right wing hypocrisy and lies. I mean if they can't even understand rape, then surely its too much for them to grasp that woman are people too with guaranteed constitutional rights as important as theirs.

But NOOOOOOO!! They want a female in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant and helpless and dependent, while they keep their weapons at he ready for the tyrants of the king.

That's why those loonies on the right bear watching because they are serious about taking their country back. Just think if they had ONE jobs bill for every abortion bill, we would all have two good paying jobs. That's why the right wing wants power, and that's what they do with it when they get. They eliminate every right and principle, but their own. And tell you there is NO WAR on women, and holler about their constitutional rights.

Believe them at your own peril!

Hello tal:

**greenie**

excon

We should change the title to this thread to a war on poor women AND their children

Nahhh that was Margaret Sanger's grand design when she created 'Planned Parenthood.
We can chalk the Dems up as the party of eugenics too.

Don't think you will slice and dice and justify repubs ZEAL for restricting the rights of others to further their own religious agenda on the non believer for their own good. That's crap, and we all know beneath the thin veneer of righteousness we have the heavy hand of tyranny by you guys.

The war on PP is the direct war on the people who don't have the means to defend themselves against your agenda because the ones that can afford a private physician don't even listen, nor care about the crazy stuff you guys holler about.

You guys are nothing but bullies and stalkers because nationally your ideas and policies have been rejected decisively, and you can only find solace in the regional pockets that you cheat to keep. And in many of those you will be yet again rejected.

Its only a matter of time. Just keep hollering so you keep being exposed.

Deleted by user

Rome's Leviathian was a one world government like the libs dream of today. . Rome put their people on Bread and Circuses... the equivalence of the modern nanny welfare state.To pay for this largess ,the Romans slashed military spending and debased the currency . The emperors created a massive bureaucracy to run the government... same here .Values deteriorated ,same as modern post-constitutional secular liberal America. Infanticide was practiced in the declining decadent Roman Empire same as post Roe liberal America. Romans persecuted the Christians .Obama's liberal America wants them to do things that violate their religious conscious .
Rome made no effort to control it's borders and massive influxes of Germans crossed the Roman open borders . The libs want open borders here . The reasons are the same. They wanted the cheap labor to do the menial tasks that was beneath the subsidized populace.But of course they needed the alien population because abortion, and infanticide had taken it's toll .
The middle class of Rome were the merchants and traders . In the earliest days of the Republic Rome's taxes were modest, consisting mainly of a wealth tax on all forms of property, including land, houses, slaves, animals, money and personal effects. Beginning with the third century B.C. Rome began to tax the middle class out of existence... just like the good ole USA .

That' s the very basic comparison.

“If Sparta and Rome perished, what state can hope to last forever?” ( Rousseau'The Social Contract.')

Well Tom we will welcome the decline of this empire too, it has already contracted its boundries letting go of some of its conquests, but the USA was never Sparta and never Rome so it doesn't have as far to fall. Empires don't last as long as they used to

Deleted by user

Tut why do you keep deleting your replies ?

Perhaps he thought better of the comment, I sometimes do but the limited ability to alter anything means there is only one alternative

I was going to address his eugenics comment.

Hello again, tom:

Well, why don't you address the Pope QUITTING this morning?? I guess he READ my posts.. He should be in JAIL!!

excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, why don't you address the Pope QUITTING this morning??? I guess he READ my posts.. He should be in JAIL!!!

excon

Obama and Bill Clinton are both walking the streets... they should both be in JAIL.

Yeah nice.. he's resigning because of health!! The sex abuse scandal did not happen under his watch ;and he has addressed it in policy decisions and actions including assigning a prosecutor to the case.

Hello smoothy:

I didn't know the right wing was SOOOO pro child abuse. You learn something every day on this website.

Let me see if I can figure this out.. Clinton LIED about having sex with ONE adult. The Catholic church, on the other hand, as an ORGANIZATION, MOLESTED thousands and thousands of children, and ruined their lives...

Obama committed NO crime, except being born black.

How you can conflate these issues, and say they're the same is actually quite insane.. Does it surprise me that the right wing is out of touch with reality?? Nahhhh. I pay attention.

excon

The Catholic church, on the other hand, as an ORGANIZATION, MOLESTED thousands and thousands of children, and ruined their lives...

Absolutely not true... it was individual priests committing the crime and rogue Bishops covering it up . It was not an organizational decision... unless you take into account the opening up the priesthood to abusive homosexuals after Vatican II .

Hello again, tom:


absolutely not true... it was individual priests committing the crime and rogue Bishops covering it up .That's what I thought. Then I saw the movie, and I don't think that anymore.

You sound like an apologist for the church... If there weren't so many of you, this would have been over years ago, and countless other children would have been SAVED from RAPE.

See the movie.. I don't expect it'll convince you, but see it anyway.

Excon

PS> (edited) So, you think the release of the move a WEEK ago, and this resignation is simply coincidental? This hasn't happened in 719 years...

Pro child abuse? You've gone off the deep end.

Hello again, Steve:

When members of an organization commit CRIMES, and their leaders COVER it UP, you'd call it organized crime. So would I.

You TOO sound like an apologist for the Catholic church.

excon

[QUOTE]Hello again, Steve:

When members of an organization commit CRIMES, and they're leaders COVER it UP, you'd call it organized crime. So would I.

OK.


You TOO sound like an apologist for the Catholic church.

Excon

For calling you on your "pro child abuse" nonsense? I thought you were for having rational discussions.

Defending first amendment rights does not make one "pro child abuse" any more than going to school in Indonesia makes Obama a Muslim.

You sound like an apologist for the church absolutely not . I have joined Catholic organizations that are demanding accountability .

Hello again, tom:

See the movie.

excon

excon, Bill Clinton should have gotten Jail time for the Perjury conviction he got. And yes he WAS convicted of it.

If any of us had committed perjury... we would have done time in jail for it. A not insignificant amount of time in jail.

The Pope has not been accused much less convicted of a single case of child abuse... unlike a certain former president.

Hello again, smoothy:

Look. I'm NO apologist for Bill Clintoon. YOU, on the other hand, appear to be apologizing for the systematic rape of 1,000's and 1,000's of innocent children..

In my view, to compare the two is OUTRAGEOUS. But, that's just me.

excon

Geez smoothy because catholics are afraid to challenge the Pope, how does that compare with what repubs did to Clinton? Now when I see the pope in court, then we can compare it. Fact remains though, no matter who is at fault, the catholic church has little credibility when it comes to protecting children, and women.

But they are great at protecting themselves, I will concede that.

Look, if you guys want to distract from the issue at hand and attack the Catholic church why not start a new thread? None of us support child abuse, all of us expect accountability, but it is irrelevant to protecting OUR right to religious freedom.

I thought it was settled Speech because YOUR rights are for you to decide. I have already decided no church will stand between me and the God that I understand and MY rights to protect me and mine and pursue MY happiness through Good Orderly Direction.

I really don't have a problem with YOU, or the church pursuing YOUR rights, be it on Sunday, or a court date. Just don't expect ME to let YOUR rights interfere in MINE. Then we have a problem.

As the spirit moves you.

Geez smoothy because catholics are afraid to challenge the Pope, how does that compare with what repubs did to Clinton? Now when I see the pope in court, then we can compare it. Fact remains though, no matter who is at fault, the catholic church has little credibility when it comes to protecting children, and women.

But they are great at protecting themselves, I will concede that.Let me start by stating I'm not a Catholic (but my wife is)... but the Pope hasn't been charged much less convicted of anything.

And there are plenty of crooks in any slice of the population you might chose to pick... even among the Law Enforcement community.

The Catholics don't have that market cornered by any definition of the word. And in fact I could argue certain other groups are far worse than they are..

I thought it was settled Speech because YOUR rights are for you to decide. I have already decided no church will stand between me and the God that I understand and MY rights to protect me and mine and pursue MY happiness thru Good Orderly Direction.

I really don't have a problem with YOU, or the church pursuing YOUR rights, be it on Sunday, or a court date. Just don't expect ME to let YOUR rights interfere in MINE. Then we have a problem.

As the spirit moves you.

Not sure what any of that has to do with the government violating religious freedom but OK.

Hello again, tom:

See the movie.

excon

What movie ? Send me a link . I'm sure it treats Catholics as fair as most of the media .

He would be referring to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_Maxima_Culpa:_Silence_in_the_House_of_God).

Father Lawrence Murphy molested deaf boys in Milwaukee in the 1950s,and Pope Benedict is responsible and should go to jail ? I can tell you that when the revelations started to come out ,Pope John Paul II asked Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) to investigate the various reports . If anything this Pope has shed sunshine on the problem. He was not involved in covering it up.

excon, Bill Clinton should have gotten Jail time for the Perjury conviction he got. And yes he WAS convicted of it.

If any of us had committed perjury.....we would have done time in jail for it. A not insignificant ammount of time in jail.

The Pope has not been accused much less convicted of a single case of child abuse.....unlike a certain former president.

You see ;covering up pedophilia should be the exclusive domain of the MSM... and the Obama DHS .

ABC news knew of allegations involving Senator Menendez on May 2, 2012, and sat on the story.. and DHS covered up their investigation of an illegal alien child abuser that Menendez hired until after the elections.