[excon]

My name is neither The Limp one, Isis or Santorum.

Now about that constitution thingy again, where is that free contraceptives civil right found?

Hello again, Steve:

Dude! Well, my name isn't whomever the hell said contraceptives should be free...

excon

[speechlesstx]

OK, so you're fine now with the executive branch dictating laws instead of our elected representatives doing it? I don't recall you being so happy about Bush doing that, why the change of heart?

[tomder55]

Which brings us back to the real issue here. Obamacare's mandates in all their manifestations are unconstitutional . In that, Obama is an equal opportunity tryant .

[speechlesstx]

Which brings me back to oft repeated warning that this is only the first step in destroying our freedoms by the tyrant-in-chief..

[tomder55]

Indeed... contraception becomes... "preventive services" and the lid is off . If this can be mandate then what else ?

[speechlesstx]

Anything. Obamacare, like the new CFPB whose illegally appointed director is already wanting more power, are from bills filled with phrases such as “The Secretary/Director shall determine... ”

Sky's the limit.

[talaniman]

Chances are if the state mandates and exemptions meet constitutional muster, so will the federal mandates and exemptions since they are basically no different, and the free market that you righties preach about can work its will.

OOOOPS! Didn't mean to say FREE market!

But I would sure not listen to what the catholics say about what's right for a female, especially since catholic females don't. And this farce of a congressional hearing on free speech for the church is a farce, and even the right wing claims of conscientious objections fall well short of already settled law. Now we all have a right to object, and express whatever views we have, and that includes at the ballot box.

So until you guys get something better than you have, I predict you are out voted, but what's obvious is in the end the females will have the final say about their bodies. Now you can keep playing the outrage hand, but the consequences are on YOU!

I have yet to see any prescription with no out of pocket expenses, as insurances companies don't roll that way. If you know one let me know.

[talaniman]

indeed ... contraception becomes ... "preventive services" and the lid is off . If this can be mandate then what else ?

Naw! We call it a females rights to reproductive health care. And they need it to keep the catholic right from imposing influence and beliefs on them without their CONSENT. I call it and the Blount bill political RAPE, and subjugation.

[talaniman]

Anything. Obamacare, like the new CFPB whose illegally appointed director is already wanting more power, are from bills filled with phrases such as “The Secretary/Director shall determine...”

Sky's the limit.

I used both the link you provided, and the internal one, but couldn't find what the S/D shall determine. Please guide me or clarify.

[speechlesstx]

Right there in the headline, "Consumer agency wants oversight of debt collectors, credit bureaus". It's easy, Tal,Obama and the Democrat congress created bureaucracies and allowed them to set their own boundaries. That ought to scare the hell out of you.

[TUT317]

Men do not have a "right " to "free " viagra . There are many things I take to prevent disease . Why can't I get them for "free" ? I take all types of supplements as preventives . I want my saw palmetto for "free " . I want my very expensive co Q "free" . I'm thrilled they found such wonderful other uses for "the pill " besides the reason the vast majority of women use it for (to prevent the disease called pregnancy ). However ,they are also finding many other reasons to take aspirin than for relief from headaches. Why can't we all get "free" aspirin ?
When the nanny state can make such mandates anything is possible ! Why not mandate that women take the pill if it's such a compelling state interest ?
.

Hi Tom,

Probably because the ones you mention are over the counter. The others require a prescription .

[tomder55]

That's going to change here too once the government fully implements it's coversion to the rediculously low dosages in Codex Alimentarius .

[speechlesstx]

Because it needs to be read, Bishop William E. Lori's testimony regarding the effort to destroy our liberty.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people, who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things.

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.

[Wondergirl]

It's time men become responsible. There needs to be a fool-proof contraceptive measure for men so women no longer have to worry about getting pregnant every time they agree to have intercourse. All males would undergo a vasectomy before puberty, say at age 10, and have it reversed when they and their brides can produce a current valid wedding certificate.

Think of the problems that would solve!

[speechlesstx]

Surely you jest. And by the way, I am responsible and I do take offense at the suggestion that it's all men's fault.

[Wondergirl]

I didn't say it's all men's fault.

Isn't time the other gender takes responsibility now with medical science so advanced? Women have been responsible (and getting "blamed") since the dawn of time.

And how do all those babies get started in the first place?

[paraclete]

Yes Speech a very scarry scenario painted there, however oversight doesn't mean setting your own boundries but reviewing actions and calling into question practices as well as responding to complaints

[talaniman]

Right there in the headline, "Consumer agency wants oversight of debt collectors, credit bureaus". It's easy, Tal,Obama and the Democrat congress created bureaucracies and allowed them to set their own boundaries. That ought to scare the hell out of you.

And I guess its okay that these lending agents, and credit bureaus, and debt collector had nothing to do with shrinking the american pie, and sinking the economy??

[paraclete]

And I guess its okay that these lending agents, and credit bureaus, and debt collector had nothing to do with shrinking the american pie, and sinking the economy????

Bit of a disconnect there Tal, I fail to see how debt collection shrinks the pie and sinks the economy. The economy sinks because people, corporations, don't pay their bills leading to bankruptcy of suppliers, so with responsible debt collection (and responsible taxation and collection) you get a bigger pie. Now lending also adds to the pie by enabling economic activity, no lending and the economy slows down (economics 101.)

Look at Greece, no responsible policies there and the result; chaos

[talaniman]

“The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.

Now that's just ridicules! You can't make up a scenerio and offer it as fact! It hasn't happened in reality. Come ON!!