Are you a femenist, this scenario was played out a hundred years ago

That's his opinion, agree or disagree, but woman have a right to their choices and opinions, BY LAW.

This is not about laws, it's about life. Jack gets it.

I don't see Jack running around telling others what to do, just that he is grateful for his life. You agree with him, but has nothing to do with the decisions of others.

A lot of pro life people believe in letting others make their own choices.

I don't see Jack running around telling others what to do, just that he is grateful for his life. You agree with him, but has nothing to do with the decisions of others.

A lot of pro life people believe in letting others make their own choices.

You keep saying that sort of thing as if we don't allow others to choose. a) We just happen to believe they should make an informed choice, there's a life on the line besides the mother's. b) I'm about changing hearts and minds, not forcing my will on others, that's what liberals do (while being blinded to their hypocrisy).

Hello again, Steve:

b) I'm about changing hearts and minds, not forcing my will on others, that's what liberals do (while being blinded to their hypocrisy).Bwa, ha ha ha ha... Snicker, snicker... Steve, Steve, Steve...

You ARE the one who supported the CLOSING down of abortion clinics in YOUR state because they didn't meet newly enacted trap laws DESIGNED to CLOSE the clinics..

That's NOT changing hearts and minds.. That's FORCING YOUR WILL ON OTHERS. And, you've got the balls to call US hypocrites...

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
Bwa, ha ha ha ha... Snicker, snicker... Steve, Steve, Steve...

You ARE the one who supported the CLOSING down of abortion clinics in YOUR state because they didn't meet newly enacted trap laws DESIGNED to CLOSE the clinics..

That's NOT changing hearts and minds.. That's FORCING YOUR WILL ON OTHERS. And, you've got the balls to call US hypocrites...

excon

Get back to me when you can find where I supported forcing abortion clinics to close. I support reasonable safety standards, you don't. If they can't meet them they SHOULD close. They have a year to comply, so you guys get together and help them out and everyone's happy (PP makes millions, I think they can afford to make sure women are safe).

Get off the liberal stuff since its conservative lawmakers who have an agenda to stop all abortions no matter what. I have laid out my position many times and an informed decision starts a lot sooner than when you get in the situation you have to choose.

I mean its you guys who are willing to stop poor women from receiving health care, and get rid of planned parent hood just because a small part of their services are abortions. Sticking probes up their birth canal and biblical counseling may be your idea of informed choices, and restriction on their ability to act on their choices, and decisions, within reason and dignity are patently non existent. But we all know what happens ultimately when you don't listen to what women are saying they want and need.

You add to that the total ignorance of listening to poor working class people, mostly females with kids, we see your assaults on females rights, and obstruction crosses many lines and it's a wide ranging war not just on women, but poor, old, and young, and minorities.

But of course you live by the notion you know best what's good for everybody else. So I guess you feel no need to listen and accommodate, or in most cases, act on anything that compromises your so called principles no matter the discriminatory and exclusive nature of them.

On top of all of that crap, you conservatives send a very insulting and condescending message to others that you just don't care. Not you personally, as you have no more power than the average citizen, but conservative law makers who listen to the fringe right, and fear them.

And you and Ex just keep ignoring what I actually say and believe in favor of your preferred narrative. Get back to me when you're sincere about the discussion.

Hello again, Steve:

Get back to me when you're sincere about the discussion.You're either being insincere or gullible if you think trap laws have ANYTHING to do with safety.

Personally, I DON'T think you're gullible.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
You're either being insincere or gullible if you think trap laws have ANYTHING to do with safety.

Personally, I DON'T think you're gullible.

excon

You're the ones that call them trap laws. If unsafe clinics close so be it. If they want to be safe they'll find a way, but my position is based purely on the facts of the Gosnell case. Allowing clinics that perform medical procedures, especially those that can put lives at risk, to remain open with unsafe conditions is not acceptable to me, I really don't give a rat's a$$ if the law hoped to close abortion clinics or not. To me that seems like an area we could agree on but as I said, you guys put the policy ahead of the woman's safety.

One Democrat war on women is at least temporarily halted. Bob Filthy Filner plead guilty to 3 counts (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/san-diego-mayor-charged-crimes-20575808), including one felony, rather than face the jury.


Former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner was subdued from the moment he strode into the courtroom alone to answer charges that he put a woman in a headlock, kissed another against her will and grabbed the buttocks of a third.

"Guilty," he told a judge three times during a brief hearing before making a quiet exit and avoiding a throng of reporters.

It was a sharp contrast to a fiery resignation speech less than two months ago in which the city's first Democratic mayor in 20 years said he was the victim of a lynch mob and denied that his actions amounted to harassment.

Filner blamed his own shortcomings then but also said those failures were "ammunition" for city power brokers who pointed the gun and the news media that "pulled the trigger."

Filner, 71, did not comment on his behavior after pleading guilty Tuesday to one felony and two misdemeanors, but his attorney said the former mayor "profusely apologizes."

"I think he wants to redeem his original legacy, which was a wonderful one, and put this behind him," attorney Jerry Coughlan said.

I think he was afraid of prison and I'm sure Dems didn't want a recounting of his follies in a trial.

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about the mythical war on Christians/Christmas. Getting to be that time again...

Bwo ho ho.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about the mythical war on Christians/Christmas. Getting to be that time again...

Bwo ho ho.

excon

That war is in Syria (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/syrias-christians-nearing-extermination/) and elsewhere (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/11/rand-paul-shames-media-for-ignoring-worldwide-war-on-christianity/) at the moment, but I'm sure you'll ignore it like our leadership and the media.

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about the mythical war on Christians/Christmas. Getting to be that time again...

Bwo ho ho.

excon

Maybe we can start with this one.

DOD Bars 50 Priests from Administering Sacraments, Locks Up Eucharist; Priest Sues | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terry-jeffrey/dod-bars-50-priests-administering-sacraments-locks-eucharist-priest-sues)

DOD took this action because Hagel determined--after consulting with Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department--that civilian Catholic priests, working under contract as chaplains, did not, among other things, “contribute to the morale” and “well-being” of service personnel.

That's due to the Antideficiency Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Deficiency_Act) as mentioned in the article.

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about the mythical war on Christians/Christmas. Getting to be that time again...

Bwo ho ho.

excon

Ex that war is being fought out in many places. It will be fought on the streets of Sydney, it is being fought in Nigeria, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa. It is fought anywhere the Christian population is a minority.

Doesn't every minority feel downtrodden?

What is sad is when the majorities of the world are downtrodden

What is sad is when the majorities of the world are downtrodden

Explain with examples please for clarity, and better understanding of that concept.

That's due to the Antideficiency Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Deficiency_Act) as mentioned in the article.

Maybe this part wasn't clear enough to you.

DOD has been prohibiting Father Leonard and the other Catholic priests from administering the sacraments and providing other services to their congregations even though two weeks ago Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law that instructed DOD to maintain on the job and keep paying contract employees who were supporting the troops. - See more at: DOD Bars 50 Priests from Administering Sacraments, Locks Up Eucharist; Priest Sues | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terry-jeffrey/dod-bars-50-priests-administering-sacraments-locks-eucharist-priest-sues#sthash.K15zamTC.dpuf)

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, led by Archbishop Timothy Broglio, explained to CNSNews.com on Tuesday that there are about 900 Catholic priests serving Catholics in the military and their families at bases worldwide. These include priests who are serving on active-duty in the military, priests who are general schedule civilian government employees, and priests who are not government employees but who are on contract to the military to provide chaplain services to military personnel. -

They furloughed 50 priests and a whole bunch of other people too. Not to minimize the furlough, But how do you extend contracts for any one until the congress does its job? Its any interesting case, given the church he serviced on the base was open to other religions.

-

They furloughed 50 priests and a whole bunch of other people too. Not to minimize the furlough, But how do you extend contracts for any one until the congress does its job? Its any interesting case, given the church he serviced on the base was open to other religions.

To me it seems a matter of singling out a segment. As you are aware for a person of faith (doesnt matter which one) that has a belief and practices that faith then there is usually a benefit to that person. How they can say there is no benefit is beyond my comprehension.

I may be wrong but passing the pain of this furlough was more the goal than singling out just a few. But lets not get lost on the artificial circumstance that led to the suffering in the first place. If other religious contractors were not equally affected the same way though, that's just not fair.

I may be wrong but passing the pain of this furlough was more the goal than singling out just a few. But lets not get lost on the artificial circumstance that led to the suffering in the first place. If other religious contractors were not equally affected the same way though, that's just not fair.

Im not finding specifics but it seems they couldn't even volunteer to do it reguardless of the shutdown. They were barred from doing so.

Several articles on the situation.

Religious Services Denied to Military Personnel Due to Gov't Shutdown; Priests Could Get Arrested for Volunteering (http://www.christianpost.com/news/religious-services-denied-to-military-personnel-due-to-govt-shutdown-priests-could-get-arrested-for-volunteering-105984/)

Military Chaplains 'Shutdown' During Government Shutdown (http://www.christianpost.com/news/military-chaplains-shutdown-during-government-shutdown-106281/)

Enyart: Why I voted against exempting religious programs from shutdown | Navy Times | navytimes.com (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131007/NEWS05/310070020/Enyart-Why-voted-against-exempting-religious-programs-from-shutdown)

Im not finding specifics but it seems they couldn't even volunteer to do it reguardless of the shutdown. They were barred from doing so.

Several articles on the situation.

Religious Services Denied to Military Personnel Due to Gov't Shutdown; Priests Could Get Arrested for Volunteering (http://www.christianpost.com/news/religious-services-denied-to-military-personnel-due-to-govt-shutdown-priests-could-get-arrested-for-volunteering-105984/)

Military Chaplains 'Shutdown' During Government Shutdown (http://www.christianpost.com/news/military-chaplains-shutdown-during-government-shutdown-106281/)

Enyart: Why I voted against exempting religious programs from shutdown | Navy Times | navytimes.com (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131007/NEWS05/310070020/Enyart-Why-voted-against-exempting-religious-programs-from-shutdown)

What does furlough mean? it means you aren't there to do the job and it was made abundantly clear in certain places people weren't wanted on site. Now you know that if people attended places of worship they would have found help and they could have got help from those who were not on furlough. What is irrational about this is, the rangers who erected barriers were considered essential but the priests weren't. That is some sort of discriminatary agenda, not necessarily anti-religious, but certainly pro-B/S

Hello again,

Kansas: Former Attorney General Loses Law License (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/us/kansas-former-attorney-general-loses-law-license-for-anti-abortion-actions.html?_r=0)for Anti-Abortion ActionsCertainly, the Kansas Supreme Court thinks there's a war on women. And, they IDENTIFY a perp. Who, would have ever figured this would happen in Kansas?

excon

Hello again,

Do ya think connected and powerful teens should be able to get away with rape? Read about these guys (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/10/14/maryville_rape_case_the_horrifying_details_of_what _happened_to_daisy_coleman.html)who almost did. Do ya think maybe, that because it happens in our society MORE and MORE, that it TOO could be considered a war on women?

I think it COULD be.

excon

I don't tolerate rapists.

I don't tolerate rapists.

You don't holler when Kansas does either, just saying.

You don't holler when Kansas does either, just saying.

Oh good grief. Is there ever a time I can stand on your side without being criticized for it? Sheesh, this is ridiculous.

Oh good grief. Is there ever a time I can stand on your side without being criticized for it? Sheesh, this is ridiculous.

I like pushing your buttons, you're easy. :) :D

Hello again,

There's no war on women. Move along. Nothing to see here. Just 12,000 shiny rape kits that went untested..


Memphis police are coming forward (http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2013/11/06/memphis-pd-holding-12k-untested-rape-kits/3461063/) with a revelation that's angering thousands of victims in the city.

Police say they have more than 12,000 untested rape kits in their possession.

To test them and get rid of them, the department will have to pay more than $4.5 million. The money isn't the concern to the victims; several are worried the police weren't investigating cases and finding the closure for victims. They say crucial information that could have led to a rapists' capture sat on the police department's shelves.

I report, you decide.

excon

Hello again,

There's no war on women. Move along. Nothing to see here. Just 12,000 shiny rape kits that went untested..



I report, you decide.

excon

I give and outragous and an iffy on that story. For the ones that went unprocessed because they had a means to conviction Im not outraged about. But on the ones where it makes a difference, yes I am outraged about it.


Something like that should never happen.

I agree, that should never, ever happen. Just curious though, who are you blaming this on? Memphis is the most liberal city in Tennessee.

Hello again, Steve:

Just curious though, who are you blaming this on?The cops. They're the same everywhere.

excon

Where the Backlog Exists | ETB (http://endthebacklog.org/backlog/where-backlog-exists)

Tip of the iceberg.

Where the Backlog Exists | ETB (http://endthebacklog.org/backlog/where-backlog-exists)

Tip of the iceberg.

The iceberg has already melted. It is about priorities. One of them being the "war on drugs". That part of law enforcement sucks all the money away from the real police work. It has become a lucrative business for local police departments.

Tax Dollars and Government Spending | Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org/making-economic-sense)

Hello again,

Do my right wing friends believe there can be MEDICAL reasons, as opposed to contraception worries, for a woman to be prescribed birth control???

If it's determined that there CAN be, can a doctor at a Catholic hospital prescribe them to his patients?

If you determine that he CAN'T, AND as a card carrying right winger who doesn't want ANYBODY between you and your doctor, wouldn't that mean the BISHOP is standing between you and your doctor???

How would you resolve those conflicts?

excon

Hello again, dad:

That part of law enforcement sucks all the money away from the real police work. It has become a lucrative business for local police departments.It's NICE when both the right and the left can recognize the same demon.

excon

Hello again,

Do my right wing friends believe there can be MEDICAL reasons, as opposed to contraception worries, for a woman to be prescribed birth control???

If it's determined that there CAN be, can a doctor at a Catholic hospital prescribe them to his patients?

If you determine that he CAN'T, AND as a card carrying right winger who doesn't want ANYBODY between you and your doctor, wouldn't that mean the BISHOP is standing between you and your doctor???

How would you resolve those conflicts?

excon
I would advise her to try a natural approach 1st . The whole idea of shutting down a woman's sexuality is a serious issue and in only GRAVE situations should it be considered. Still if a serious doctor recommends the pill for other medical conditions ,then neither I or the Catholic Church oppose it .


"15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19) "
( Humanae Vitae Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) )

98% of catholic women disobey the pope. Now what?

Not my call. Maybe they should examine their own convictions .

I would advise her to try a natural approach 1st . The whole idea of shutting down a woman's sexuality is a serious issue
If anything, taking a contraceptive would STRAIGHTEN OUT her cycle and sexuality. Without it, she could even have emotional and mental issues with her hormones all over the place. She might even have access to firearms.

Do you really need me to document all the adverse side effects ? Let's put it this way. Things like low libido and mood swings are commonly described by many women who have experience with hormonal contraception. Not being a doctor I can't officially recommend alternatives ;but if asked my opinion I would opine that starting with a change in diet ;and a supplement regimen... then certain herbal remedies before considering going on any drug regimen that's likely to last many decades .

Do you really need me to document all the adverse side effects ?
How many have you taken? I took them for years and they did a world of good for me. If the doctor is watchful and careful and oversees what he gives his patients, contraception can change a woman's world from a gloomy, even painful and miserable place to one with sunshine flowing over it.

I'm all for herb therapy, but not so much with this kind of problem.

How many have you taken?

That's a real bogus argument .

I took them for years and they did a world of good for me. If the doctor is watchful and careful and oversees what he gives his patients, contraception can change a woman's world from a gloomy, even painful and miserable place to one with sunshine flowing over it.
Glad it worked out for you .Still the risks are more real then you dismiss. You talked of mood swings without them .The truth Is that many patients experience depression with them ,and then the doctor compounds the problem with anti-depressants .
You chance ,increased risk of cervical and breast cancers ,increased risk of heart attack and stroke ,migraines,high blood pressure,gall bladder disease,liver tumors , bone density loss,and blood clotting on the pill. So like I said ,glad it worked out for you . But that doesn't change the fact that it's over prescribed .

Glad it worked out for you .
You have to be an informed consumer and your own best advocate. That's what I would be preaching instead of no contraceptives no matter what and here, drink this herbal tea I've made for you. I was taking contraceptives back when they were first invented, and there weren't many choices. Now there are tons of different brands and types, so there's no excuse to be a martyr about side effects and mood swings.

Just saying.. take them ,especially the ones with synthetic hormones, at your own risk. D@mn right be informed . It's potentially very dangerous . 15 year old girls get strokes and heart attacks on the pill.

I guess that's why a doctor prescribes them, not the pope. I can't believe you think BC is over prescribed. According to you because of the listed known side effects we shouldn't take anything.

Viagra Side Effects in Detail - Drugs.com (http://www.drugs.com/sfx/viagra-side-effects.html)

(to many side effects to copy and paste)

BBC News | Viagra | Viagra risks 'bigger than first thought' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/viagra/163915.stm)

Truth about Viagra Blindness (http://www.globalchange.com/viagra.htm)


23 million men have used Viagra since 1988, including 900,000 in the UK. Although few serious side effects have been seen, recent reports (2005) suggest a possible risk of blindness from non-arteritic ischaemic optic neuropathy. This is a rare condition in which blood supply is reduced to the optic nerve causing permanent nerve damage, and research workers at the University of Minnesota believe they have detected a cluster of cases of blindness from this cause in men who have taken Viagra.

The US Food and Drug Administration has also identified 50 men with blindness who have taken Viagra, but who also had diabetes and heart disease. However these problems with blindness need to be seen in the context of 23 million users, most of which have experienced significant benefit to their sex lives, and the fact that blindness is a known risk in those with both diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Now we are supposed to believe you are concerned for the poor dumb woman taking BC? Talk about a bogus argument. Yeah the pope says Viagra is okay.

[a few] 15 year old girls get strokes and heart attacks on the pill.
And the rest of them don't get pregnant.

I can't believe you think BC is over prescribed it is .

According to you because of the listed known side effects we shouldn't take anything.
Your words . Other than that I won't respond to your BS . And why are you wasting time about Viagra. It is irrelevant to the discussion except that it also is over prescribed .

Viagra. It is irrelevant to the discussion except that it also is over prescribed .
The taking of Viagra makes the need for contraception even more necessary.

And the rest of them don't get pregnant.
Ah so we've gone full circle from a drug prescribed for specific medical conditions to a dangerous prophylactic .

Ah so we've gone full circle from a drug prescribed for specific medical conditions to a dangerous prophylactic .
Rare is the 15 year old taking a birth control pill for hormonal reasons. YOU are the one who dragged in the red herring.

The taking of Viagra makes the need for contraception even more necessary.

And ? It is irrelevant to this discussion . The topic Ex started was about medically prescribed birth control pills not about men getting artificial erections..

And ? It is irrelevant to this discussion . The topic Ex started was about medically prescribed birth control pills not about men getting artificial erections..
And what are they going to do with those artificial erections?

So quit the Viagra discussion. Contraception is needed for all sorts of reasons, and preventing a sperm and egg from getting together is only one of them.

And ? It is irrelevant to this discussion . The topic Ex started was about medically prescribed birth control pills not about men getting artificial erections..

No it was about the war on women that you guys deny you are waging. You are trying to blame them for the ills of society and make them subject to your rules, and they ain't going for it. Hence a war because you guys need to just quit.

You guys need to find other distractions from your failed policies.

You guys need to find other distractions from your failed policies.
Tell us you love us and want us to be fully autonomous.

Tell us you love us and want us to be fully autonomous.

Why would we do that when you love yourselves so much?

Why would we do that when you love yourselves so much?
But we NEED your love to make ourselves complete -- The Handmaid's Tale and its dystopian society all over again!

But we NEED your love to make ourselves complete -- The Handmaid's Tale and its dystopian society all over again!

Get your focus off yourself and you will be complete

Get your focus off yourself and you will be complete
Uh oh.

Humans are connected, NO man (or woman) is an island.

The point being Tal you are completed by what you do for others not what others do for you

And that has what to do with contraceptives or the insurance to pay for the doctors to prescribe them? What does that have to do with making a personal choice between career and brood mare? Or conversely between house wife and career? To work or not to work, or BOTH?

And of course your idea of being complete is equally universal for man, or woman, or whatever? Careful now as I already know you have prejudicial tendencies toward other ethnic groups.

And that has what to do with contraceptives or the insurance to pay for the doctors to prescribe them? What does that have to do with making a personal choice between career and brood mare? Or conversely between house wife and career? To work or not to work, or BOTH?

And of course your idea of being complete is equally universal for man, or woman, or whatever? Careful now as I already know you have prejudicial tendencies toward other ethnic groups.

It has everything to do with it. The point being that once a person remains focused on self then they have lost society at large. As it takes a selfless person to grow a society. Isnt that the prime directive of liberal thinking ?

To understand it you have to live it. In todays society too many are focused on self. That is where most of the problems stem from in this country. Its a liberals paradise splitting everyone into pieces.

And giving women contraceptives and doctors splits society to pieces? Giving poor and working people mostly women and children splits society.

Poverty splits society more I think.

And of course your idea of being complete is equally universal for man, or woman, or whatever?


Yes that is stating the obvious. You want a warm fuzzy feeling, do something for someoneelse.


Careful now as I already know you have prejudicial tendencies toward other ethnic groups.

I think you mistake my "tendencies" I don't suffer fools of any persuasion. What I observe is that some people or peoples have a greater tendency to foolishness. You can hang an ethnic tag on some, a religious tag on others, certainly an environmental tag on many, certain nationalities have a national perpensitity to foolishness in regard to sacred cows and we have to realise that science is not settled in any respect on anything, what we know is not the sum of all knowledge but merely a waypoint upon the journey

And giving women contraceptives and doctors splits society to pieces? Giving poor and working people mostly women and children splits society.

Poverty splits society more I think.

Taking more and more from me to give to others is the antithesis of concern for others. You guys think force is more conducive to bringing us together than charity and the solution to poverty is more dependence on government. Government dependence breeds selfishness and dare I say the greed you claim to despise.

Hello again,

So, I'm watching Morning Joe, and they have Va governor, Bob McDonnell on. They ask him about his accomplishments, and he rattles off jobs, and education, and lowering taxes - but he NEVER mentions abortion... However, abortion was the FIRST thing he did.

You'd think he'd say stuff like, "we're adding jobs, and fixing our schools, and cleaning up the abortion crap in my state".. But, he didn't say ANY of that, and they didn't ASK him about any of that.

Given that abortion seems to be the PRIMARY issue confronting Republicans, you'd think they'd TALK about it. No, huh?

excon

All I know is only in the mind of a liberal does a health plan in the cart count but a baby in the "cart" doesn't.

Don't know how Repubics issues are prioritized . Mine is the uncontrolled growth of the Federal government and it's out of control habit of spending money it doesn't have.

I would have to agree with that.

Tell me again about this Republican war on women...

Martin Bashir Says Someone Should Sh*t in Sarah Palin’s Mouth | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-bashir-says-someone-should-sht-in-sarah-palins-mouth/)

It doesn't get any more disgusting than that, so spare me any more of your faux war on women .

Hello again, Steve:

Here's what you miss.. Your war against women ISN'T rude individuals, like Bashir.. It's the ENTIRE party passing anti women laws...

How come stuff like this escapes you?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Here's what you miss.. Your war against women ISN'T rude individuals, like Bashir.. It's the ENTIRE party passing anti women laws...

How come stuff like this escapes you?

excon

It's a party passing laws to protect the most innocent human life, how come stuff like that escapes you? Had there been a law requiring my daughter to see a simple, non invasive image of her child she might not have made the decision she regrets the most. No one tried to protect her child or her emotional health and she is scarred for life.

Again, spare me any more of your faux war on women. I've seen yours waged up close and personal and watch you give your own a$$holes a pass.

Hello again, Steve:

Had there been a law requiring my daughter to see a simple, non invasive image of her child Then you'd AGREE that a law REQUIRING your daughter to have a HUGE vaginal PROBE of shame stuck WAYYYYY up inside her, WOULD have been a war on her...

Of course, you would.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
Then you'd AGREE that a law REQUIRING your daughter to have a HUGE vaginal PROBE of shame stuck WAYYYYY up inside her, WOULD have been a war on her...

Of course, you would.

excon

Let's review. I have never said I supported an invasive procedure, but again which law makes it mandatory? So, since we're on the same page there I repeat, it's a party passing laws to protect the most innocent human life. No one tried to protect my grandchild or my daughter's emotional health and she is scarred for life (though I would add she takes responsibility for the decision).

So again, spare me any more of your faux war on women. I've seen yours waged up close and personal and watch you give your own a$$holes a pass.

Tell me again about this Republican war on women...

Martin Bashir Says Someone Should Sh*t in Sarah Palin’s Mouth | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-bashir-says-someone-should-sht-in-sarah-palins-mouth/)

It doesn't get any more disgusting than that, so spare me any more of your faux war on women .

Did you hear what Cher said about Palin ?

Did you hear what Cher said about Palin ?

No, but I noticed Alec "I love gay people" Baldwin was again firing off homophobic slurs (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-alec-baldwin-rails-at-media-says-his-msnbc-show-may-not-come-back-20131116,0,7678126.story#axzz2l6Ltd8GM) and Education Secretary Arne Duncan insulting "white suburban moms." (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/111813-679647-duncan-blames-white-suburban-moms-against-common-core.htm) Do tell what Cher said.

Hello again, Steve:

I have never said I supported an invasive procedure, but again which law makes it mandatory? Your party's WAR on WOMEN doesn't need your approval. That you vehemently DENY participation in that aspect of the war, looks like you AGREE that there's a war.

Uhhhh... Which laws make it mandatory?? ALL of 'em (http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/08/republican-laws-ultrasound-vaginal-probe.html). Here's what Wisconsin is doing.

The language of Wisconsin Senate bill is an example of how they imbed the transvaginal probe while claiming you have a choice, “An ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses; provide a simultaneous oral explanation during the ultrasound including the number of unborn children and presence and location of the unborn child; display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them; provide a medical description of the ultrasound images including the dimensions of the unborn child and a description of any viewable external features and internal organs of the unborn child; and provide a means for the pregnant woman to visualize any fetal heartbeat, in a quality consistent with current medical practice, and a simultaneous oral explanation of the visual display of the heartbeat in a manner understandable to a layperson (ultrasound requirements).”

Hint: In order to achieve most of that with the “quality consistent with current medical practice”, a transvaginal ultrasound must be used. Oh, but they didn't SAY vaginal probe. Republicans learned after the Virginia debacle. They found a new way to mandate vaginal ultrasounds without saying it.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
Couple things. Your party's WAR on WOMEN doesn't need your approval. In fact, that you vehemently DENY participation in that aspect of the war, looks like you AGREE that there's, INDEED, a war on women.

There is a war on women and it's waged by your side.


Uhhhh... Which laws make it mandatory?? ALL of 'em (http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/08/republican-laws-ultrasound-vaginal-probe.html).Here's what Wisconsin is doing.

Yeah that's some pretty good spin there. Meanwhile, all I hear is crickets chirping when I mention the life of the child or protecting women from people like the butcher of Philadelphia.

the life of the child or protecting women from people like the butcher of PhiladelphiaWho doesn't want to protect women from that butcher, or care about the life of child?

And by the way, women apparently aren't too impressed with the Obamacare "hosurance" ads. Leave it to people who think we're waging a war on women to come up with that piece of work.

f-SVV2n3Vpc#t=27

Who doesn't want to protect women from that butcher, or care about the life of child?

Planned Parenthood. They are suing to stop Texas from enforcing regulations to protect women having abortions. SCOTUS weighed in yesterday.

Abortion Curbs in Texas Allowed by Divided U.S. Supreme Court - Businessweek (http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-19/texas-abortion-restrictions-allowed-by-u-dot-s-dot-supreme-court)

Planned Parenthood.Wrong.

Wrong.

They didn't protect my daughter's emotional health or my grandchild.

One case does not a policy make.

One case? How many millions of abortions since Roe v. Wade?

That's the choice of the women.

PP set themselves up as the guardian angel of women, they are not protecting the whole woman. They were silent during Gosnell's reign of terror and in fact enabled him. They were not on the front lines ensuring that never happens again, they were covering their a$$es. And now they are fighting regulations that would prevent just such another atrocity. They don't get a pass and it does not just boil down to"choice." Lives are at stake.

Doesn't matter how many abortions have been performed if they were legal abortions. Women have a right to them. Of course you may not agree but it's their choice. Women want that choice and well to do females exercise it with no problem.

Its just the lower incomes that are adversely affected, made worse in Texas by not expanding Medicaid. So such selective control over reproductive health care actually takes choice and options from already cash strapped females.

What's bogus is the admitting privilege requirement that hospitals only give to doctors that actually admit patience as rarely does an abortion lend itself to a hospital visit, and the cost to hospitals isn't worth it since they bring no new customers to offset the costs of those rare visits. But you knew that and closing PP, and other clinics was the plan since Perry's sister is has her own clinics she is a part of to take up the slack. I know you said that was debunked, but offered no link to it.

I am sorry for your daughter, but she is exactly the demographic most affected by failing to expand Medicare, single with no kids, and little or no income. It's state governments not the feds you should direct your anger and outrage to, and in Texas the county hospitals which run their own health care.

Think about it, one in four uninsured people just in Texas. To poor to buy,and not poor enough to qualify for help. UNNACCEPTABLE!! Makes no sense to make the good pay for what the bad have done no matter how the intentions. The locals dropped the ball in PA, but what's the excuse right here in our state? How does that help the females who have more needs than an abortion, but no insurance and no money?

PP set themselves up as the guardian angel of womenPremise fail.

Premise fail.

Dude, I should know better than to get in an argument with an unarmed man.


Planned Parenthood is (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/) the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate.

For nearly 100 years, we’ve worked to improve women’s health and safety,

General Health Care (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/general-health-care-32720.htm)


Planned Parenthood health centers around the country offer you the health care you need. Our caring and knowledgeable staff provide a wide range of services. Many health centers provide general health care.

Yeah makes sense to shut it down because 3% of its business is abortions. That's blind ideology.

Doesn't matter how many abortions have been performed if they were legal abortions. Women have a right to them. Of course you may not agree but it's their choice. Women want that choice and well to do females exercise it with no problem.

It DOES matter and is relevant to NK's argument, "One case does not a policy make."

"Roughly 50 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_ in_United_States) legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States" since 1973. He apparently thinks my daughter is the only one thrown under the bus and scarred for life.


Its just the lower incomes that are adversely affected, made worse in Texas by not expanding Medicaid. So such selective control over reproductive health care actually takes choice and options from already cash strapped females.

In light of the Obamacare promises to lower our healthcare costs I think you should spare us the cost argument.


What's bogus is the admitting privilege requirement that hospitals only give to doctors that actually admit patience as rarely does an abortion lend itself to a hospital visit, and the cost to hospitals isn't worth it since they bring no new customers to offset the costs of those rare visits. But you knew that and closing PP, and other clinics was the plan since Perry's sister is has her own clinics she is a part of to take up the slack. I know you said that was debunked, but offered no link to it.

The charge is the bill was designed to help his sister profit, which is pathetically stupid. She is a partner in a surgical group, and most surgical groups are not geared toward abortion - particularly those steered to her by a bill you guys call a TRAP law.


Perry’s sister an advocate for surgical centers - Texas Politics (http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2013/07/perrys-sister-an-advocate-for-ambulatory-surgical-centers/)

One of the controversial tenets of the abortion restriction bill would require all abortions to be performed in ambulatory surgical centers, which are a distinct type of healthcare facility set up for outpatient surgeries. Abortion rights advocates say the new requirement would force many clinics to close because they wouldn’t be able to afford to upgrade their facilities. They also say the upgrades are unnecessary and that no data shows current clinics aren’t properly equipped to provide good care.

If the bill passes, only five Texas abortion clinics would remain open — those that are already equipped as ambulatory surgical centers, advocates say. But a question remains: would the 420 other ambulatory surgical centers that exist in Texas begin performing the operation? Abortion rights advocates predict that the demand for the procedure won’t disappear with passage of the law.

One company that will be faced with that decision is United Surgical Partners International, based in Addison, TX. Their vice-president of government affairs is Milla Perry Jones, Gov. Rick Perry’s sister. She is also on the board of the Texas Ambulatory Surgical Center Society. It should be noted that the legislation now under consideration by the Texas Legislature is patterned after proposals that have been adopted in other states, so it did not originate with Gov. Perry’s office. Rich Parsons, a Perry spokesman said he could not say whether Perry has discussed the legislation with his sister, but said, “he strongly supports protecting women’s health by raising the standard of care they receive at abortion clinics.”


I am sorry for your daughter, but she is exactly the demographic most affected by failing to expand Medicare, single with no kids, and little or no income. It's state governments not the feds you should direct your anger and outrage to, and in Texas the county hospitals which run their own health care.

Spare me, PP has no regard for women, children or the law.

General Health Care (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/general-health-care-32720.htm)



Yeah makes sense to shut it down because 3% of its business is abortions. That's blind ideology.

Dude, you really don't want to argue about PP and ideology do you?

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate.

For nearly 100 years, we’ve worked to improve women’s health and safety, I don't see where it says that they are "the guardian angel of women".

In the same vein that hospitals have misfortunes as well. Do you want to close them all down too?

Hello again, Steve:

my daughter is the only one thrown under the bus and scarred for life.Nahhhh... You're perfectly willing to throw a poor pregnant single girl under the bus and SCAR her for life...

There are NO winners in the abortion debate, your crocodile tears notwithstanding...

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Nahhhh... You're perfectly willing to throw a poor pregnant single girl under the bus and SCAR her for life...

If that were true you might have a point.

Hello again, Steve:

If that were true you might have a point.
Look. Let's continue on with your "scarred for life" metaphor. First off, I'm sorry your daughter had to endure an abortion... But, IT didn't scar her for life. How she DEALT with it could have done that. Having a family that thinks she committed MURDER might do that. But, the surgical procedure itself doesn't scar anybody...

That's not to say it's like getting cyst removed. It's a MOMENTOUS decision... But, with family support people get past it and live a normal life. Even WITHOUT family support, women get past it.

What they AREN'T, is scarred for life.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Look. Let's continue on with your "scarred for life" metaphor. First off, I'm sorry your daughter had to endure an abortion... But, IT didn't scar her for life. How she DEALT with it could have done that. Having a family that thinks she committed MURDER might do that. But, the surgical procedure itself doesn't scar anybody...

You really don't get it do you?

It DOES matter and is relevant to NK's argument, "One case does not a policy make."

"Roughly 50 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_ in_United_States) legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States" since 1973. He apparently thinks my daughter is the only one thrown under the bus and scarred for life.



In light of the Obamacare promises to lower our healthcare costs I think you should spare us the cost argument.



The charge is the bill was designed to help his sister profit, which is pathetically stupid. She is a partner in a surgical group, and most surgical groups are not geared toward abortion - particularly those steered to her by a bill you guys call a TRAP law.





Spare me, PP has no regard for women, children or the law.

>Deleted because poster must think I'm STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<

>Deleted because poster must think I'm STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/butchers-philadelphia-743581.html

Hello again, Steve:

You really don't get it do you?Sure I do. Do YOU think you're the ONLY one who's been touched by abortion?? Listening to you rant, you'd think you're the only person in the world who's had to deal with it.

I've dealt with it. To this day, I wonder who that person would be. It's still PAINFUL. I would NOT do it today. Does it make you feel good to know that this liberal wouldn't have an abortion today? Did you think we just screwed and aborted for fun??? Listening to you, I think you do believe that. It was a DIFFICULT decision. But, I'm glad I had the RIGHT to make that decision.

There are NO winners in the abortion debate.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Sure I do. Do YOU think you're the ONLY one who's been touched by abortion?? Listening to you rant, you'd think you're the only person in the world who's had to deal with it.

Never said I was, in fact I've explicitly told you I know others with the same story. I've witnessed and shared in their pain and their shame - none of it induced by "Having a family that thinks she committed MURDER" as you so harshly put it.


I've dealt with it. To this day, I wonder who that person would be. It's still PAINFUL.

Then you DO get it, she may have overcome the shame but like too many others will never overcome the pain of having aborted their child.


I would NOT do it today. Does it make you feel good to know that this liberal wouldn't have an abortion today? Did you think we just screwed and aborted for fun??? Listening to you, I think you do believe that. It was a DIFFICULT decision. But, I'm glad I had the RIGHT to make that decision.


I never expected it to be an easy decision, and I have already said I don't believe the right will ever be lost. Just spare me the argument that PP is interested in protecting and serving the best interests of women or that they, and people like Wendy Davis (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=973180#.UozWrSfb2nO) want to make abortion "safe and rare."


There are NO winners in the abortion debate.


There can be fewer losers.

Hello again,

People form corporations to AVOID some of the responsibilities of BEING a person. That's the ONLY reason they do it.

Having done so, is it fair to say that you really ARE a PERSON, with ALL the Constitutional rights that come with BEING a person??

Do rights come with responsibilities?? Having shed one, are you entitled to the other??

excon

The ACLU is suing NSA over 1st and 4th Amendment violations . How could they do that if they weren't people who's rights had been violated ? Where is thier standing if the ACLU is not people ?

Hello tom:

The ACLU is a law firm that represents individual PEOPLE. And, it doesn't address my argument anyway.

If you GIVE up something to GET something, should you BE entitled to HAVE all the stuff that came with what you GAVE up???

excon

What other rights should they give up ? You already want to deny them speech ,religious freedom ... how about their 6th amendment right to trial ,or any of the other due process clauses ? How about search and seizure rights ,or 7th amendment right to trial by jury for lawsuits ?
The ACLU is a corporation . The law suit I'm speaking of is called 'ACLU v Clapper'. That tells me they are representing themselves .

SCOTUS will hear the case of a boss, or religious corporation having the right to deny benefits for its employees because of what they believe.

In an added unexpected tidbit, Walmart will pay its employees who work on this holiday time and a half, and spring for a turkey lunch. WOW! Progress?

What other rights should they give up ?

Why do workers give up their rights so bosses, and church corporations can exercise theirs?

???? I already know your position ... like people ,you want corporations to be wards of the state .

Hello again, tom:

Let's say the Supreme's agree that corporations HAVE all the religious rights that come with being a person... Would that mean a company run by Christian Scientists wouldn't have to provide health care to its employees AT ALL? Would it mean that Jehovah's Witness's don't have to cover blood transfusions??

Who's religious rights WOULD be recognized?? Could a Jewish run company FORCE its employees to be circumcised? Would my religion that sanctifies pot allow me to FORCE my employees to get high? What if the Westboro Baptist Church formed a corporation??? Could they force their employees to carry signs at funerals?? What if the Aryan Nation church formed a company.. Could they deny employment to black people?

excon

Do you want to force Christian Scientists to buy insurance and Jehovah's Witnesses to cover blood transfusions? Is anyone wanting to force their employees to be circumcised? And I'm betting Westboro is incorporated.

Hello again, Steve:

Do you want to force Christian Scientists to buy insurance and Jehovah's Witnesses to cover blood transfusions? Is anyone wanting to force their employees to be circumcised? And I'm betting Westboro is incorporated.If they run a company with 50 or more employees, then the law says they DO have to cover their employees. So, YEAH, Christian Science and Jehovah lead companies DO have to obey the law.

Nobody wants to force their employees to be circumcised, because Jews like me who run companies NEVER, in a million jillion years, thought that OUR religious beliefs could be FORCED on our employees... But, if the Supreme Court tells me I have that right, I'm SURE I will. More than that, I certainly wouldn't hire gentiles. We don't believe in mixing the races. At least MY sect of Judaism believes that.

excon

I will stipulate that when SCOTUS decided that a corporation is a person that they distinguished between LEGAL person and NATURAL person. You wouldn't want it any other way . Because if BP was not a legal person under the law then there would be no standing for the lawsuits they have to address. Tal wouldn't want it because their employee contracts would not be binding . If a customer slips and falls at Hobby Lobby ,you want Hobby Lobby to be sued.
You just want it all one way . They are legal persons when it comes to responsibility ,but you refuse to recognize that as a legal person/people they also have rights.

What I like about the case is that Hobby Lobby isn't suing about contraceptives . They don't want to provide insurance that covers abortion pills . The question that matters is not whether a corporation is a person, but whether people must relinquish their First Amendment rights if they own a business.

btw I am not convinced that the same court that decided Citizen's United will also say that Congress intended the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to apply to corporations. Such is my uncertaintly with the Robert's court . But they should be clear that a business owner like David Green and his family should not be compelled to leave relgious convicitions and their morals behind when they walk into their place of business.

The abortion pill is in fact not an abortion, it stops fertilizing and egg. Abortions are after they are fertilized. Thus inaccurate. Are they against condoms to? Does it apply to older females with endometriosis who are treated with BC pills?

Endometriosis Symptoms, Causes, Treatment - How is endometriosis treated? - MedicineNet (http://www.medicinenet.com/endometriosis/page4.htm#medical_treatment_of_endometriosis)


Since endometriosis occurs during the reproductive years, many of the available medical treatments for endometriosis rely on interruption of the normal cyclical hormone production by the ovaries. These medications include GnRH analogs, oral contraceptive pills, and progestins.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRH analogs)

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRH analogs) have been effectively used to relieve pain and reduce the size of endometriosis implants. These drugs suppress estrogen production by the ovaries by inhibiting the secretion of regulatory hormones from the pituitary gland. As a result, menstrual periods stop, mimicking menopause. Nasal and injection forms of GnRH agonists are available.

The side effects are a result of the lack of estrogen, and include:
hot flashes,
vaginal dryness,
irregular vaginal bleeding,
mood changes,
fatigue, and
loss of bone density (osteoporosis).

Fortunately, by adding back small amounts of estrogen and progesterone in pill form (similar to treatments sometimes used for symptom relief in menopause) many of the annoying side effects due to estrogen deficiency can be avoided. "Add back therapy" is the term that refers to this modern way of administering GnRH agonists along with estrogen and progesterone in a way to keep the treatment successful, but avoid most of the unwanted side effects.

Oral contraceptive pills

Oral contraceptive pills (estrogen and progesterone in combination) are also sometimes used to treat endometriosis. The most common combination used is in the form of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP). Sometimes women who have severe menstrual pain are asked to take the OCP continuously, meaning skipping the placebo (sugar pill) portion of the cycle. Continuous use in this manner will free a woman of having any menstrual periods at all. Occasionally, weight gain, breast tenderness, nausea, and irregular bleeding are mild side effects. Oral contraceptive pills are usually well-tolerated in women with endometriosis.

Bottom line letting any untrained and uniformed person, boss, or religious corporation getting between a person, and their doctor is a death panel. Agreed?

Another reason to cut out the middle man.

Maybe it is time to better define who has what rights and when the rights are limited to personal preference, and cannot be trumped by more powerful entities. That's the bottom line.

Hello again, Steve:
If they run a company with 50 or more employees, then the law says they DO have to cover their employees. So, YEAH, Christian Science and Jehovah lead companies DO have to obey the law.

Nobody wants to force their employees to be circumcised, because Jews like me who run companies NEVER, in a million jillion years, thought that OUR religious beliefs could be FORCED on our employees... But, if the Supreme Court tells me I have that right, I'm SURE I will. More than that, I certainly wouldn't hire gentiles. We don't believe in mixing the races. At least MY sect of Judaism believes that.

excon

That's as much a false premise today as it was the first time you tried. No one is forcing their religious beliefs on others by not buying them contraceptives. Those employees can have all the contraceptives they want, no one is telling them they can't.

You aren't buying them contraceptives, the insurance carrier does. The law says he must provide every consumer with a minimum insurance package that included what females need too.

I can respect you conducting yourself according to what you believe, but why should women and companies suffer for your beliefs? If we have to buy extra stuff because you don't believe in it then that's a burden. What about blood tranfusions being eliminated by JW's? What about the boss being a scientologist, and he doesn't believe in doctors?

Where do your rights stop, and everybody else's starts? If you are saying the boss can tell me what rights I have you are surely LOONY.

You might think discriminating against the rights of women using religion as an excuse, but I do NOT!

I of course would take the arguement further and ask why a person should be forced to buy coverage they don't want and need ? I think all our rights are violated in this law ,and the idiot Chief Justice's twisting of the wording of the law doesn't change that .

You aren't buying them contraceptives, the insurance carrier does. The law says he must provide every consumer with a minimum insurance package that included what females need too.

You keep believing those greedy insurance companies are paying for them and we'll see. Thus far the courts have come decidedly in favor of religious freedom.

I of course would take the arguement further and ask why a person should be forced to buy coverage they don't want and need ? I think all our rights are violated in this law ,and the idiot Chief Justice's twisting of the wording of the law doesn't change that .

If you don't need it, you won't use it, and won't pay for it. And hospitals won't pass the cost of treating the uninsured onto its other clients, though I imagine they will jack up the costs of surgical gowns, or aspirin any way. Wonder how many of your private market insurance companies would flat out go out of business if you could buy across state lines?


You keep believing those greedy insurance companies are paying for them and we'll see. Thus far the courts have come decidedly in favor of religious freedom.

So you think workers have NO rights, huh? Or not as much as YOUR church?

What is it with you libs thinking it's all or nothing? Is there no such thing as balance? Yes workers have rights and yes the church has rights, but there is no right to free contraceptives especially at the expense of specifically enumerated constitutional rights. You can't and won't force me to violate my religious freedom to provide an imagined right to free contraceptives any more than I can or would force my employees to be circumcised.

FREE contraceptives don't exist. You have to pay a premium for insurance to get them since its prescriptions only. That means a licensed doctor, and you have to actually visit them. Even with a script without insurance you pay the full amount. Ask your pharmacist how that works.

You have been severely misinformed.

You have been severely misinformed.


Yes they think that everything is free, the universal provider syndrome otherwise known as the ACA. Has anyone told them there is a cost to participate which must be borne by someone; individual, employer or government

Clete I wish there was an easier way to get everybody on the same page, but we haven't found it. None of us have. Damn!! Just have to keep working at it.

Tal it all has to do with how reasonable you are and how much you are beholden to lobbists, and vested interests, and, of course, those inevitable eighteenth century ideas.

Change is important as we wrestle with changed circumstance and holding the status quo does allow us to deal effectively with change. What you have is people who don't want change, either because they are stuck in a time warp, or because it might mean they actually have to admit the system isn't perfect

FREE contraceptives don't exist. You have to pay a premium for insurance to get them since its prescriptions only. That means a licensed doctor, and you have to actually visit them. Even with a script without insurance you pay the full amount. Ask your pharmacist how that works.

You have been severely misinformed.

Nah, I dont think so. Maybe your the one that is misinformed. Check this out.

And while lack of awareness about the so-called "contraception mandate" might reflect overall, widespread confusion about Obamacare's details, an expert who has been following the issue said it also reflects the fact that pharmaceutical companies aren't advertising the fact that their contraceptives could be effectively obtained free by many women.


Three separate surveys by Phoenix earlier this year found that less than 50 percent of women ages 18 to 45 knew that the Affordable Care Act requires health insurance plans to provide contraceptives without out-of-pocket payments to women for birth control methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration.


Maybe Im misinformed but to me no out of pocket expenses means it is free.

Low awareness of Obamacare birth control mandate (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101207136)

your serfdom predates my 18th century ideas .

para- what is missing from this debate most of the time is one side refuses to open thier eyes and see the truth and when they do come accross it they would rather "pretend" it doesnt exist and just spout the party lines they have been given. Change can only take place when you have transparency. So far there is no transparancy from the Obamacare plan. There is only emperor granted loopholes and lies being pushed as truths to fool the sheeple into believing.

When you say free, cdad, you meant without a co pay, so the amount is paid for by your insurance carrier through your premiums as your article points out repeatedly you only get benefits if you have insurance. No copay for certain things is a part of your benefits when you purchase your plan, much like my free high speed internet service, or free HD cable. Without a subscription I would get neither... for free.

If indeed it was free why are church corporations so adamant about NOT paying for it?

My mind would be more open if you quit denying facts from your own links. Okay many don't know the benefits yet, but transparency isn't the problem.


Change can only take place when you have transparency. So far there is no transparancy from the Obamacare plan. There is only emporor granted loopholes and lies being pushed as truths to fool the sheeple into believing.

Talk about the party line!! Word for word.

whose serfdom Tom? I don't live in a place where I have to buy health insurance.

Tal, it should be obvious. They (the church coporations) are either A) Paying for that premium or B) They are self insured and the money for it comes directly out of thier own pocket.

So yes they are paying for something that is against thier beliefs.

If Obamacare is so transparent then why use words like "pretend" to defend it? It all started with the perfectly transparent passage of the bill. You have to pass it to find out whats in it. So lets pretend from the start they actually read it somewhere along the line before voting on it. Yeah right !!!! lol

You mean there is no employee contribution for church workers for health insurance? Interesting.

My dad was a Lutheran pastor for over 30 years and paid into a Lutheran health insurance plan. When I taught Lutheran school, I paid into the same plan.

FREE contraceptives don't exist. You have to pay a premium for insurance to get them since its prescriptions only.

Thank you for finally coming around to my side. So the insurance company doesn't pay for them after all, the policyholder does.

So the insurance company doesn't pay for them after all, the policyholder does.


thus the church objection

Thank you for finally coming around to my side. So the insurance company doesn't pay for them after all, the policyholder does.

And Lutherans want and use contraception -- and even abortion when necessary -- so they are willing to pay the premiums to get them.

So it's a good thing I decided not to teach at a nearby Catholic school (there was an opening and I was qualified, had already talked with the principal about it). I wouldn't have been adequately covered as I had been under the Lutheran plan.

And Lutherans want and use contraceptionpssst... many catholics as well. ;-)

Lets correct a misinformation here. The policy holder doesn't pay for contraceptives either. They pay a co premium with the employee for a policy. The insurance companies is billed by the pharmacy, doctor, or hospital for all covered benefits under whatever benefits the policy covers. The law says every policy but those grandfathered and exempted must have the minimum that covers the needs of men, women and children.

Churches and affiliated organizations are exempt, but church corporations are not. The church balked at their employees dealing with the churches insurance carrier for a separate policy, but they can enter the exchange and get a separate rider, often a whole policy under the exchange, so may not have a need for church health insurance but churches have so far balked at that too.

Fact is all churches are not suing, nor are all church groups balking at this exemption controversy. Its been a long held fact that 99% of the female population use BC and want to have them as part of a health plan, and don't want either the church, or government making that choice for them. That will be an interesting battle, as even catholic women have done what they want despite the pope being against it.

Don't the American female population have a right to make their own choices like everyone else? I mean would a church really allow a female with endometriosis to suffer because doctor prescribes BC pills? The answer appears to be yes. I just don't think its very fair to get between a patient and a doctor, by government, church, or the insurance company.

Churches rights end with the individual rights begin, and no religion can trump the law of the land. A young female nurse in a church run hospital shouldn't have to give up her right to equal protection under the law to have a job should they?

SCOTUS will decide where that line is.

Tal, after your last few posts I wouldn't be talking to others about misinformation if I were you. Whatever the insurance pays is only possible by the policyholder paying the premium. And the church corporation is still the church.

The church has many options, and often at great saving to the church. Giving females the ability to plan their own family, and make their own health care choices with their doctor is what everyone wants except some churches who decide to enter into the consumer domain of the private market.

I think church employees should have the option to skip the church insurance myself, which is a private insurance any way, closed to the public, and be part of the exchange market. What's wrong with that?

What's it to you what the church does? Employment there is voluntary, if you don't like it you go elsewhere. Contraceptives are not a right, religious freedom is.

Lets correct a misinformation here.

Don't the American female population have a right to make their own choices like everyone else? I mean would a church really allow a female with endometriosis to suffer because doctor prescribes BC pills? The answer appears to be yes. I just don't think its very fair to get between a patient and a doctor, by government, church, or the insurance company.

Churches rights end with the individual rights begin, and no religion can trump the law of the land. A young female nurse in a church run hospital shouldn't have to give up her right to equal protection under the law to have a job should they?

SCOTUS will decide where that line is.

The answer to the first part of your statement is NO !. They dont have the rights of choice like you think they do or should. It is your side that seeks to strip freedom of choice through making mandates on behavior. You can plead your case to those girls in California that have to pee and find themselves with a male in thier bathroom. Some choice that is. You side hides behind the truth and tries to disguise it as something else while attempting to crush opposing views with lies.

The chuch has already stated that for medical reasons they would allow bc pills to be perscribed but not for the sole purpose of birth control. You can run duck and hide but the truth is going to catch up.

Fact is all churches are not suing, nor are all church groups balking at this exemption controversy.

I have acknowledge that!

But you think all of them should choose to bow to the state.

Working within the law would be my words. We ARE a nation of laws and the church has every right to have its day in court and make it's case.

SCOTUS has it in their hands and we are bound by whatever decision they make. Some will like it, some won't. That's just the process we have chosen as a nation.

You have no problem creating laws that impose on our rights and dictate our choices.

I don't always like the outcomes of the decisions SCOTUS makes, but respect the fact of duly elected officials doing their job, and that includes the rights of it's citizens to handle disputes through the court rather than other means.

That right applies to all of us, and that's as fair as it get's for ALL of us.

You have no problem creating laws that impose on our rights and dictate our choices.


perhaps you are making the wrong choices, or trying to circumvent existing laws

I don't always like the outcomes of the decisions SCOTUS makes, but respect the fact of duly elected officials doing their job, and that includes the rights of it's citizens to handle disputes through the court rather than other means.

That right applies to all of us, and that's as fair as it get's for ALL of us.
So you oppose the emperor's attempt to get around Citizen's United through bureaucratic end runs ? Glad you see it my way.

My reference was to SCOTUS hearing the churches case. I don't believe in secret donors, or tax exempt political groups. Do you?

I don't believe in tax exemptions for anyone . But the biggest problem is the tax code itself . Flat tax for everyone ! I'm all for transparency. What I oppose is limits on campaign contributions and political free speech.

What I oppose is limits on campaign contributions


Now that's where you have the bull by the tit, there should be limits on campaign contributions so the rich can't buy influence and a president, a senator, a representative or a governor. we just had the rediculous situation where a billionaire tried to buy an election

What I oppose is limits on campaign contributionsThen you need to shut up about what the government is doing because you will have absolutely no say in it.

Then you need to shut up about what the government is doing because you will have absolutely no say in it.

You first.

You first.It's not my position to allow unlimited campaign contributions. Try to keep up.

It's not your position to tell others to shut up. Try and keep up.

Once again you didn't even read a whole sentence to get the message. It's come to this. Try to keep up. Don't be a thread emperor.

Thank you for your always thoughtful responses.

No problem. Have a great weekend!

Those darn wingers are at it again, this time in New Hampshire. Democrats there (no, not right-wingers) are waging war on Republican Rep. Melinda Garcia in a twofer on a pretty, qualified minority woman.

War on Women: Dems attack Garcia with sexist language, imagery [UPDATED] « New Hampshire Journal (http://nhjournal.com/2013/11/25/war-on-women-dems-attack-garcia-with-sexist-language-imagery/)

Hello again, Steve:

OMG! The Dems have a misogynist in their midst?? I'm APPALLED.. Do you have room for me over there?

Oh, that's right..

excon

Obviously your disgust for the war on women has its limits.

Hello again, Steve:

Obviously your disgust for the war on women has its limits.Let's be CLEAR. The WAR on women is being waged by an ENTIRE political party. If it was ONE guy espousing SEXIST views, neither tal, nor I, nor would call it a WAR, cause it wouldn't be..

Pointing out the actions of INDIVIDUALS, when your side moves in LOCKSTEP, isn't a good argument..

You're welcome.

excon

Politics is a dirty game ain't it? Especially during election season.

As I was saying...

Sullivan was a disgusting boob. He did apologize after somebody(S) put pressure on him.

State Rep. Marilinda Garcia wants to bring youthful perspective to Congress, GOP | New Hampshire Politics (http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20131125/NEWS06/131129559/-1/newhampshire1411)

Sounds like a winger to me though.

Just saying.

This is not an apology.


After careful consideratin, I want to apologize to Kim Kardashian for comparing her to a right-wing extremist like Marilinda Garcia.

Funny how you guys whine about right-wingers allegedly walking in lockstep but think women should. I have news for you, they don't. And if they don't walk in lockstep with you it's not a war on women for you to marginalize and demean them in lockstep? Amazing how fluid your standards and logic are.

update ....Lis Smith, spokeswoman for Bill de Blasio. and formerly director of the rapid response team for Obama for America (OFA)pushed the bogus Republican “War on Women” theme. She you will recall was behind the whole 'Romney's 'binders full of women' phony issue .

Well now she is dating Eliot Spitzer (aka 'Client No. 9'). Go figure.

I'm sure the irony of that is completely lost on them. By the way, I also hear Anthony Weiner is leaving the (barn) door open for another run at something.

war on women, UK style

Appalling treatment of mothers-to-be at maternity units | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2522540/Appalling-treatment-mothers-maternity-units.html)

Soon coming to America via Obamacare.

Its already here, care of the TParty, and the right wing.

More aversion to reality, the tea party did not pass Obamacare.

I never said they did. Closing Planned Parenthood to stop them from doing abortions is mistreatment of the 97% of the woman AND men who go there for other things. Asking Grandma to get a free ID to vote with no way to get a birth certificate that's been lost for decades to get that ID is mistreatment. To put a time limit on it is gross and intentional mistreatment.

That's the reality you deny.

Dude, no one has closed any PP clinics, if they close it's their own doing. Widening your doors so emergency crews can get in and out is not that expensive and common sense, ask Gosnell's victims. Having a doctor with admitting privileges is common sense, you'd rather their doctor that's supposedly caring for them abandon them if there's a problem. Someone has to protect women in a vulnerable situation, you won't.

Having an ID is common sense, how can you not have one and do anything? SCOTUS has ruled it is not an undue burden so get over it. It's the law, that's what you keep telling me about Obamacare so what's good for the goose...

Those are the realities you ignore.

Carry on.

Appalling treatment of mothers-to-be at maternity units | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2522540/Apalling=treatment=mothers-maternity-units.html)

I think it is far too early to make comparisons when it comes to health care. Obama care may well become a single payer system. If it did the British system would be very different to your system. Both may well be single payer, but in name only.

It's a works in progress Tut, and any system can be improved on. If I read the article correctly, it's a lack of trained help that is the main contributor to the problem, driven by administrative decisions no doubt having to do with budgets and costs. A global concern in all the labor intensive industries.

the problem here is costs in medical provision won't be curbed while free enterprise rules the system. Medicine isn't supposed to be about money making, but an MD is a license to print money. Even in systems where there is strong regulation they do well. In my own country they are now saying a surplus of doctors drives costs up, guess we will have to send all those imports home

All I can say is we have two hospitals next door to each other, a for profit hospital and a non profit effort between Baptists and Catholics. My daughter has been in the corporate hospital since Friday, my wife just came home from the non profit hospital yesterday. The medical care is comparable I think, but the total care my wife received is miles above my daughter's care. From the kid that brought her meals to the nurses, techs, coordinators and the sweet girl that cleaned her room everyone was without fail respectful, courteous, professional, outstanding. Not a person that came in her room left without asking if there was anything they could do for her. Five star care, I don't want to screw that up.

Apparently the "Catholic" Supreme Court is waging the war on women according to one obviously bigoted and clueless columnist.


The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women - Jamie Stiehm (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Jamie-Stiehm/2014/01/07/the-catholic-supreme-courts-war-on-women)

Et tu, Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Really, we can't trust you on women's health and human rights? The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year's Eve in Times Square. Or maybe she's just a good Catholic girl.

The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic. Let's be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.

In a stay order applying to an appeal by a Colorado nunnery, the Little Sisters of the Poor, Justice Sotomayor undermined the new Affordable Care Act's sensible policy on contraception. She blocked the most simple of rules – lenient rules – that required the Little Sisters to affirm their religious beliefs against making contraception available to its members. They objected to filling out a one-page form. What could be easier than nuns claiming they don't believe in contraception?

I don't know, what could be easier than not imposing your beliefs on nuns in violation of a very clear first amendment?


Sotomayor's blow brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if "you" are female. This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. But right now, the climate is so cold when it comes to defending our settled legal ground that Sotomayor's stay is tantamount to selling out the sisterhood. And sisterhood is not as powerful as it used to be, ladies.

Ok little miss bigot, first of all it was just a temporary stay. Second, do you not see the irony in whining about someone allegedly imposing their beliefs on you while demanding others walk in lockstep with you? Not all women want anything to do with your "sisterhood", quite a few are smart enough to be independent and think for themselves. Now, go back in the rat hole you climbed out of and let the nuns exercise their rights. Nuns are women, too, or is that fact to obvious for clueless wenches like you?

Now, go back in the rat hole you climbed out of and let the nuns exercise their rights. Nuns are women, too, or is that fact to obvious for clueless wenches like you?
This quote is an example of how many of us view catholics - mean-spirited and not following their teachings.

You are personalising the debate Karma and being equally mean spirited

Nk, I'm not Catholic. But feel free to show me the same kind of bigoted vitriol from the nuns as this wench and then we can talk.

Karma confuses individual opinions for the opinions of a group or organisation. As an athiest he thinks all Christians think alike and can therefore be tarred with the one brush. He is just doing a little God bating

He apparently believes as she does that is ok to bash Catholics and Jews and shut them out of political and public life. Just insert the words blacks or gays in her column for Catholics and Jews and see how the attitude changes all around.

I'll remember that when you go on your anti liberal tirade and play the victim card. I guess everybody hates something or somebody.

Ok, I believe in free speech, not hypocrisy and bigotry. You think it would have been different had she said such things about blacks and gays? Or are you like her think it's fine to bash Catholics and Jews, particularly Catholic women in of all things an ignorant rant about the "sisterhood?" Nuns are women, too, and it’s the ultimate hypocrisy to demand they walk in lockstep while pretending to defend a woman's right to make their own choices but I fully expect that irony to be lost on you.

It's not irony, just a nut expressing themselves. You ignore yours, I ignore mine.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” .” —C.S. Lewis

Right?

Come now, you think the nuns have no complaint either.

They have complaints, and they are having their day in court.

War on women, Democrat style...


War on Women: Massachusetts Democrat Heading to Jail for Choking and Punching Woman Who Refused Sex (http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/war-on-women-massachusetts-democrat-heading-to-jail-for-choking-and-punching-woman-who-refused-sex/)

Posted by Jammie (http://www.jammiewf.com/author/jammie/) on Jan 15, 2014 at 1:34 pm

http://www.jammiewf.com/assets/warrenhenriquez1-150x150.jpg
Don’t worry, Democrats, he’ll be out of jail in time (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/01/15/rep-carlos-henriquez-guilty-two-assault-charges-acquitted-three-other-charges/2A8hR4s5Z7tzz82tEDynPI/story.html) for the next election cycle.
State Representative Carlos Henriquez was sentenced to serve six months in Middlesex County House of Correction today after he was convicted of charges that he choked and punched an Arlington woman he was dating in July 2012.



A Cambridge District Court jury convicted Henriquez on two assault and battery charges, but acquitted Henriquez, a Dorchester Democrat, of a third assault and battery charge, one count of intimidation of a witness, and one count of larceny under $250.

The victim, Katherine Gonzalves, testified about the events that unfolded on July 8, 2012, and underwent a rigorous cross-examination by Henriquez’s defense attorney, Stephanie Soriano-Mills.

Following the verdict, Judge Michele Hogan expressed concern that Henriquez was not accepting responsibility for the actions the jury convicted him of. Speaking from the bench, she also told him that he should have ended his interactions with Gonzalves early that morning when she told him she was not interested in having intimate relations.

“When a woman tells you she doesn’t want to have sex, she doesn’t want to have sex,’’ Hogan said, adding that she was “very concerned that you’re not remorseful.’’



Why would he be remorseful for basically getting a wrist slap? Oh, and not that anyone in the media will mention it, but his mother is an Obama appointee (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/principal_staff/assistant_secretary_henriquez).



Yeah, yeah I know, he's just one guy, after the last guy (http://www.everyjoe.com/wp-content/gallery/carlos-danger/carlos-danger-nude-photos-1.jpg), and the guy before that (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/jan/15/ticker-city-named-third-lawsuit-related-filner/)...

Meanwhile, the regime talks the talk (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/06/10/equal-pay-equal-work) but still doesn't walk the walk.

Men still make a lot more than women in Obama's White House | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/analysis-men-still-make-a-lot-more-than-women-in-obamas-white-house/)

Then it surely was originated, perpetrated and perpetuated by women

Exposed: the treachery of hairy women - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-21/ford-the-treachery-of-hairy-women/5208716)

I guess a Kermit Gosnell wasn't enough for Philadelphia's Planned Parenthood to make some changes to protect...minors.


The Pro-Life Action League has uncovered some disturbing information in Philadelphia (http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2014/phillypredators/). The Pennsylvania Department of Health posted inspection reports recently, which the Pro-Life Action League then reviewed. What they found was not only despicable and disgusting, but also criminal.
On August 29, 2013 Department of Health inspectors conducted an annual registration survey [PDF] of Planned Parenthood's Locust Street Health Center, during which they reviewed the facility's policy related to external reporting to appropriate agencies as related to The Pennsylvania Crimes Code and the Child Protective Service Law.

The Planned Parenthood Locust Street Health Center's policy, updated December 2012, stated:

Statutory sexual assault (“statutory rape”) is sexual intercourse when one person is under the age of 16 and the other is 4 or more years older. It is a crime, however it is NOT a mandated reportable incident.



This is, of course, false. And the Pennsylvania Department of Health inspectors found that for six of the girls seen at Planned Parenthood under the age of 16, no one at Planned Parenthood had any documentation proving that they had verified the age of the person who had sexual intercourse with the girls.

But it only gets worse:
Of these six girls, two were age 14, and four were age 13.
… Two of the 13-year old girls were known to have had sex before the age of 13. One reported her first sexual intercourse at age 11. Another reported her first sexual intercourse at age 12. It was in their medical records. Even Planned Parenthood's own policy acknowledged that sex with a child under age 13 is always, by definition, rape.

Under Pennsylvania law, a child under 13 cannot give consent. These incidents of child sexual abuse should have been reported by Planned Parenthood employees, but they were not.



This is an ongoing problem at Planned Parenthood, and it should be shouted from the rooftops until all Americans know that this is the “health care” that our daughters get at Planned Parenthood. Their counselors do not care if someone is a victim of rape or sex trafficking. They do not care if the abortion is coerced. What matters is the dollars that the girl brings in — as long as the money is flowing, Planned Parenthood will look the other.

Yes it is an ongoing problem with PP, they've been subverting parental authority for decades and more importantly breaking the law in looking the other way when they should be reporting rape. How can any of you support a group that looks the other way when little girls are molested? There's not only your war on women, but a war on our children. This has nothing to do with "choice" or "health care," this is an atrocity.

Hello again,

Mike Huckabee (http://http://www.thenation.com/blog/178064/mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today) said that if only women could control their LIBIDO, they wouldn't NEED birth control. Rush Limprod agrees, if they weren't such SLUTS, everything would be cool...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

best to thin the herd from the likes of the Huckster early in the process before he pollutes the whole process like he did in 2008 .

not the right way to put it ex that remark only applies to some women

Which ones Clete?

Hello again,

Mike Huckabee (http://http://www.thenation.com/blog/178064/mike-huckabee-actually-said-about-women-today) said that if only women could control their LIBIDO, they wouldn't NEED birth control. Rush Limprod agrees, if they weren't such SLUTS, everything would be cool...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Except you know that's not what he said. He said that's what Democrats believe and it is true, you think women aren't smart enough or capable enough to live without a government nanny, I.e. Julia. That's your war on women.

Mike Huckabee Makes Epic Flip-Flop On Birth Control Coverage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/mike-huckabee-birth-control_n_4659975.html)?


Huckabee signed state legislation in 2005 (http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2005/R/Acts/Act2217.pdf) that required all health insurance plans providing prescription drug coverage to cover contraceptive drugs and devices as well. According to the Arkansas Times, Huckabee's exemption for religious organizations was actually narrower than the exemption in the Affordable Care Act:

But like the original federal regulation proposed by Obama, the Arkansas law did not exempt church-affiliated hospitals and universities. It exempts only "religious employers" that are nonprofit organizations whose primary mission is "the inculcation of religious values," and primarily employ people who share the same religion, a standard few Catholic hospitals meet.

Hello again, Steve:

Except you know that's not what he said. He said that's what Democrats believe and it is true,Yeah, I saw O'Reilly spin it that way, but he said what he said.

I DO agree, though, that he said it SOOOO inartfully, ANY interpretation could be made of it.

Beyond that, libs believe women's health care ought to be covered just the same as men's. You DON'T. Your side thinks HER boss should decide what health care she gets.. That's STUPID, MEAN, and VERY VERY much a WAR on WOMEN!!

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Yeah, I saw O'Reilly spin it that way, but he said what he said.

I DO agree, though, that he said it SOOOO inartfully, ANY interpretation could be made of it.

Beyond that, libs believe women's health care ought to be covered just the same as men's. You DON'T. Your side thinks HER boss should decide what health care she gets.. That's STUPID, MEAN, and VERY VERY much a WAR on WOMEN!!

excon

The only spin is from your side. I got chastised over taking Schmucky out of context and yet this obvious distortion gets off? What the hell? Here's the context:

45553

It's unequivocally clear he said this is what Democrats think, so give it up.

" I got chastised over taking Smucky out of context and yet this obvious distortion gets off."

Fair enough comment.


Others may join in of course, but how about you take care of the left-wing distortions and I take care of the right-wing distortions? This would suit our political leanings.

Why did Huckabee sign as governor of Arkansas a law that made contraceptive coverage a part of an insurance policy despite the religion, and now as part of the ACA law he derides it as making woman dependent on government sugar?


Why does the right always run away from their own ideas when it shows up in the lw they vote against? You holler about the presidents poll numbers but ignore the republican poll numbers, wonder why?

I have supplied links to that effect which the right ignores rather than explains. Leads me to believe the right is stalling, BSing, or BOTH.

Explain to me why it takes 3 republicans to rebut the upcoming State of the Union address tomorrow?

Why did Huckabee sign as governor of Arkansas a law that made contraceptive coverage a part of an insurance policy despite the religion, and now as part of the ACA law he derides it as making woman dependent on government sugar?

What does Huckabee's comments on the difference between how Republicans and Democrats treat women have to with religious exemptions on contraceptive coverage? Nothing, they're separate issues.

And if nothing else it belies the ridiculous idea that Republicans, including the religious right, are anti-contraceptive neanderthals.

People that don't have the money to buy a condom or "The Pill" don't have the financial resources to have and raise a child... and therefore should be abstaining from sex until they do.

You know as well as I do that few can abstain from sex, whether they have money or not. Hell those that take a vow of abstinence have trouble abstaining.

We have huge forums here that illustrate that point.

That's their problem then... not ours to finance.


The point being....they can easily afford the small cost of birth control themselves.

Few of us can ignore the need to breed so investment in prevention of pregnancy is a reasonable alternative for those with no money but a high libido. Better that than the costs to society of the consequences of unprotected breeding by those that can barely afford a pot to piss in.

Good luck with just say NO during a full moon and a willing partner. After a load is dropped is to late for regrets.

You avoided responding to my point that ALL of these people have the money to buy their own birth control... they have it to waste on stupid stuff if they lack the capacity to keep their clothes on. If they can afford to date they can afford the tiny amound birth control would cost. A months worth of condoms cost less than half their monthly cell phone bill even on a basic prepaid service.

The Pill at Walmart cost $9.00 a month which is even less.


What I suggest is reversible sterilization operations for everyone on some form of public assistance....above the age of 12.....male or female FREE at no charge and manditory to collect handouts.. When they can afford to have it reversed...they can afford to support and raise a kid. And they will be off the doll.

Like the rest of the world a growing number of American women are making use of the morning after pill and it's getting cheaper and more available. Speaking of Walmart its those workers who are on the public dole since 7/8 bucks is hardly a living. Not with kids. Lets not limit this too just women as a growing number of men are raising kids without females also, and trying to get better jobs that are not that widely available. Life is tougher than you acknowledge and its not always the fault of workers with no skills.

I will pass over the forced sterilization as being way out there.

No sterilization then they forfeit getting tax dollars... if they can afford to breed.. they can afford to pay for them, themselves.

THose of us who actually have a shred of responsibility... don't have kids we can't afford... because we are smart enough to take the required precautions.

And you have seen the numbers of people dumb as stumps with the "Duh...I had unprotected sex...could I be pregnant?" Seriously... these people should not be allowed to breed if they don't understand that much. Women knew this eons before sex education was put in schools... so what is the excuse other than lower intelligence being bred into certain communities?

There is NOTHING wrong with conditions being attached to handouts... in fact there are almost always strings attached every other time.

We aren't talking hysterectomies and neutering... we are talking reversible procedures that are commonly had by the responsible members of society every day.

Taking a pill every day is obviously too much of a burden for some of these women... but if you could smoke it I'm sure they never forget to do that.

And to be fair with the other gender as well, the idiot guys who are too lazy to put a condom on because it takes a few precious seconds... I guess if you can't last more than a minute or two a few seconds is a long time. They should have vasectomies... if they bothered to pay their child support bills they would learn to keep their zipper up.

Geez smoothy, don't be so hard on those not as blessed with your common sense and brain, or work ethic or experience.

As long as I have to pay higher taxes as a result of their stupidity and laziness... I'm going to be.

You pay more in taxes to subsidize Walmart and GE profits than you do for poor people.

No... I pay far more to people that don't work... have never worked... and don't have the desire to work.

And every dollar I pay in taxes to support their lazy butts is a dollar I don't have to put towards my future retirement... or to spend on something that will support jobs of people who actually get up in the morning.

People at Walmart actually work... unlike the welfare class.

Walmart is meant to be a starter job... meaning a first job to get experience... not to be a career to raise ten kids on because you can't be bothered to use birth control. YOU get work experience and move on to other better paying jobs.... its intented to be entry level....thats what entry level is.

THEY even say as much unless you get into management.

People that spend 10+ years in an entry level job need to revist their lack of ambition and the choices they make in life.

When you close down all the blue collar jobs and send them overseas then there are no more entry level jobs in America.

Obama has been doing that... by insisting people with ZERO job skills should be earning what people with several years of experience make...

WHy pay someone that figuatively can't tie their own shoes over $10 an hour when you can get someone overseas to do it for a fraction of that... what might have been worth paying someone here $7.55 an hour... is rarely woth paying then $10+ an hour unless they have actual value that excedes that.

Obamas has done NOTHING that has been pro business in the last 5 years, or that even encourages them... and he's done everything to drive business out of the USA and to overrseas where comparatively there is a more business friendly enviroment.

That's why blue collar jobs have fallen significantly in the last 5 years.

Obama has been doing that... by insisting people with ZERO job skills should be earning what people with several years of experience make...

WHy pay someone that figuatively can't tie their own shoes over $10 an hour when you can get someone overseas to do it for a fraction of that... what might have been worth paying someone here $7.55 an hour... is rarely woth paying then $10+ an hour unless they have actual value that excedes that.

That's an exaggeration of his wanting to raise the minimum wage like most other Americans want. There are a lot of states rising their minimum wage already and more to follow. Saves taxpayers money too.


Obamas has done NOTHING that has been pro business in the last 5 years, or that even encourages them... and he's done everything to drive business out of the USA and to overrseas where comparatively there is a more business friendly enviroment.

That's why blue collar jobs have fallen significantly in the last 5 years.

The truth is that blue collar jobs have been leaving America for 30 years since the first Bush's "New World Order". Corporations have been running for cheaper labor and sweat shops, and tax havens and done quite well. Workers here have not. What we should dumb down to those other countries like China, and India to compete with them?

Well.. the results of his actions and the resulting pathetic employment numbers back up my point... every number related to employment was far BETTER when W left office than its been at any point in the last 5 years.


Incidentally... Offshoring went into high gear under Bill Clinton. Not under Bush Sr.

I was involved in setting up a number of data centers for offshore call centers and other offices that were moving operations overseas, and never did more of those at any time than Under Clinton before or since.

Businesses move where its adventageous for them... that happens to be overseas in the hostile business environment that's existed the last 5 years.

You cannot ignore the job losses at the end of W's term that shed jobs and tanked the global economy because of greedy private sector banks, and their regulatory flunkies, the ratings agencies. The banks have come back with a roar, main street has not.

More people had jobs at the end of Bushes term than at any time under Obama... a much greater percentage of the population also had jobs BEFORE obama took office... the labor participation rate is now at 30 year lows.

The official unemployment rate was lower when Bush left office than it has ever been in the last 5 years as well. Ignoring the more accurate U2 rate which shows how much worse its really been under Obama.

Every other claim about Obama is pure propaganda. He has made nothing better.

If as you claim Obama has made things better...then why are food stamps and other handout propgrams at all time highs in useage....
If as you claim Obama made things better ...then there should ne no objections to rolling Unemployument compensation as well as welfare and food stamps BACK to the levels under Bush and further reduce them even lower as they aren't needed since things are supposedly so much better for all now. We are wasting huge ammounts of money on those programs as they are no longer needed.

The truth is that blue collar jobs have been leaving America for 30 years

It's been a LOT longer than that. "Made in Japan" was a meme in the 60s. "Look for the Union Label" was a commercial in the 70s. Your nemesis Wal-mart hade their "Made in America" campaign in the 80s.

A valid debate can be had as to whether FDR started the move with the Wagner Act or Truman with the Marshall Plan. It's been going on a long time.

More people had jobs at the end of Bushes term than at any time under Obama... a much greater percentage of the population also had jobs BEFORE obama took office... the labor participation rate is now at 30 year lows.


TRUTH-Bush left office shedding 800,000 jobs a month


The official unemployment rate was lower when Bush left office than it has ever been in the last 5 years as well. Ignoring the more accurate U2 rate which shows how much worse its really been under Obama.


Truth-We had a financial meltdown main street lost jobs, and homes.


Every other claim about Obama is pure propaganda. He has made nothing better.


43 months of job growth (slow as it may be) and the return of prosperity of job creators who haven't made jobs. (wealth extraction of supply siders with no trickle down. A conservative failed business model)


If as you claim Obama has made things better...then why are food stamps and other handout propgrams at all time highs in useage....

No blue collar jobs, they have been going overseas and to Mexico before that for 30 years. Replaced by Walmart and McDonalds service jobs at the low end of the wage totem pole, while prices and profits have been rising steadily, forcing more people into the safety nets just to eat, and pay rent, and energy costs.

If as you claim Obama m
ade things better ...then there should ne no objections to rolling Unemployument compensation as well as welfare and food stamps BACK to the levels under Bush and further reduce them even lower as they aren't needed since things are supposedly so much better for all now. We are wasting huge ammounts of money on those programs as they are no longer needed.

A jobless recovery and higher profits have not trickled down fast enough to provide jobs. Those safety net programs are more needed than ever considering rising costs, low wages, and NO trickle what so ever. Private business has failed and gotten so greedy it's legal robbery. The top 85 people have extracted more wealth than half the population of the entire WORLD!!

Just curious where is your tax haven?

@Catsmine.

True that.

Bush inherited that from Clinton...

That's the excuse Obamas been using for 5 years...

Incidently.....the last few months of Bushes administration.....everyone knew what was comming....a half black bobblehead disaster that hasn't run anything successfully in his life.

and 5 years later....every prediction of doom and gloom has come true. Elect someone who's sole accomplishment in life was voting present more than anyone in history....you get what you deserved.

Bush inherited what from Clinton... a balanced budget, an expected surplus??

What planet have you been living on Tal..

IF you are going to use that logic... then admit Obama is responsible for every mess that's happened the last 5 years... and admit he was a loser for trying toblame it all on Bush. You can't have it both ways...

EIther Obama is responsible for historically bad decisions... or Bush inherited everything that happens under his watch from Clinton.

Oh the storis I could tell about what really went on in the Clinton Admionistration behind closed doors......


One of these days when enough time has passed I'll tell them....

I blame everything on the right wing extremists who have hi jacked the democracy and the greedy b@st@rd that stole the money.

You mean the same ones responsible for reducing the spending in Clintons second term by forcing it on Bill, who was not the pig headed ingnoramous we have in the White house now? When the Republicans took control of the house AND the Senate?

I didn't like Bill Clinton, but at least he was a true politition and wasn't above negotiating, and I respected him for that. Obama on the other hand is an arrogant (insert euphamism for a male apendage) who thinks he's a dictator and doesn't grasp the fact we have three co-equal branches of government... despite his bogus and unproven claims of having been a Constitutional law professor...
He clearly doesn't grasp the simplest basics of our Constitution.

Tal, when are you going to blame the guy who single-handedly cut living standards for most of us with Obamacare? Your president made me and millions of others poorer with his promised drop in insurance costs, not to mention all those turned into part timers because he's too stupid or stubborn to recognize the negative consequences of his stupid law, or just indifferent to them as even his allies have noticed (http://cdn.ralstonreports.com/sites/default/files/ACA%20LIUNA%20UNITE%20Jan%202014.pdf).

You guys think we're ignorant and that we haven't noticed this is Obama's economy and that Dems are directly responsible for screwing us over. Nobody believes your guys any more and for good reason.

I didn't like Bill Clinton, but at least he was a true politition and wasn't above negotiating

You're right about that much. "Triangulation" was probably Clinton's one stellar achievement. That's why this year's Congressional elections are more important than 2016. If the Senate leadership remains for 2 more years we may not have a 2016 election. Sen. Feinstein is just dying to nominate the "President for Life."

If the economy is as good as Obama claims it is... then there is rampant and overt fraud in the food stamp program since he came to office.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/201206_blog_edwards141.jpg

The pile on of the Huckster is just part of what has emerged as the Dems attempt to take down any potential Repub candidate for 2016 POTUS election. So far ,in less than a month they have gone after Christe . He'll spend the next 2 years using his resources to defend himself . They have also gone after former Virginia Guv McDonnell . Now the Huckster is in the cross hairs ..... and lets not forget Dinesh DeSousa . For the Dems this is a blood sport . The Repubs should keep that in mind .

Well we have to vet you guys pretty good Tom. No doubt you will do the same.

nah we don't have the Holder Justice Dept running roughshod over the process.

That'll change when Cristie or Bush get elected I'm sure.

This is nothing less than the criminalization of politics . It's how the Chinese do it .
Everyone I mentioned except the Huckster is either under investigation by the Holder Justice Dept or is indicted . What is D'Souza's crime ? He made a movie about the emperor .
Meanwhile Holder rubber stamped the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.He refuses to appointment of a special prosecutor.

That is why the lefties are so intent on disarming the population... they clearly have no use for the constitution and are clearly on the path to declaring themselves dictators very much like the USSR... where you had one party rule and you got to "elect" the one person who could run. Or more like Chavez did. He was Obamas hero... he had a Chavez poster in his campaign office in the early days. Heaven help the person who ran against Chavez... which are not that much different than what the Obama flunkies are doing now in a somewhat more restrained way.

You don't need to disarm the population to have proper gun control and the whole question could be resolved by weapons kept in armories Chavez is now history and he did in Venezuela what needed to be done, changing the society he can be admired for his accomplishments without needing to use his methods

You don't know much about Venezuela then... how it was before (not very many years ago it was one of the most prosperous south American countries)and the true third world joke it has become. Chavez and his thugs destroyed that country. It will take generations to recover from it if it ever does. And his hand picked successor is no different..

You just haven't had a egotistical meglomaniac like Obama yet.....if that ever happens your country won't be able to defend against it. THe fact we are so well armed has prevented Obama and his brain damaged minions from disolving Congress and appointing him supreme leader for life.

In fact Obamas own words point towards that.......where despite the Constitution and the fact we have three coequal branches of government...he has actually said he's going to do whatever he wants despite what the other two branches might say.....if thats not Treason and high crimes....and dictatorial behaviour....nothing is.

as you said the branches are coequal so therefore he feels he has a right to govern in the face of outright obstructionism from a minority. What your right forgets is he was individually elected by the people, not once but twice. That must give him a clear mandate for something. He wasn't elected in a vacuum and he wasn't elected without a platform

I don't know how you feel my country wasn't subjected to six years of egotistial crap from leftist leaning politicians but fortunately our electoral system works to resolve the differences. We had what could only be described as two coups in that six years, one where an elected leader was thrown aside and another where the usurper was thrown aside. If Venezeula was so prosperous how did the left gain the foothold among the population to overthrow the privileged? You see what you want to see

removed wrong topic

as you said the branches are coequal so therefore he feels he has a right to govern in the face of outright obstructionism from a minority. What your right forgets is he was individually elected by the people, not once but twice. That must give him a clear mandate for something. He wasn't elected in a vacuum and he wasn't elected without a platform

The constitution clearly defines the authority of the branches. Making law is a Congressional perogative . The emperor has some authority to issue executive orders where it applies to the enforcement of law. But there is nothing that gives him the authority to make law ....as he has frequently done with his EO's .

Yesterday ,without the authority of a law passed by Congress, the emperor announced the creation of so called myRA's .If there is ANY appropriations of Federal money involved then the Constitution requires the law to originate in the House of Reps. It's too f'n bad that the emperor hasn't the ability to work with Congress . He's not the 1st President who has had to deal with an opposition party majority in Congress. They all managed to do the job without resorting to dicatorial methods .

Hello again,

excon wins this round.

I did not say EOs aren't legit under the proper circumstances . But when the President uses them to make law then it is an unconstitutional application of the executive power.

It doesn't suprise me at all that Roosevelt is the one who most abused them. SCOTUS had to smack down his whole original recovery plan.