Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Feb 9, 2012, 06:04 AM

Thanks NK, their first "lie" is a lie. No need to go further, nothing to see there.

NeedKarma · Feb 9, 2012, 06:15 AM

No it isn't since you can't even refute it. It's true and you know it.
It's fun to watch you come in and say it's a lie with absolutely no supporting info while the article links to its sources. LOL!

TUT317 · Feb 9, 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I believe you can still buy Bush*tler shirts.

I find it interesting that excon calls him "Bush on steroids" but defends him every time we protest one of his power grabs. This one is his most shameless and disturbing. So far...

Hi Speech,

"Shameless and disturbing?" So you mean there have been other power grabs by politicians on both sides that don't compare? Don't worry future administrations regardless of their political persuasion will run with this gauntlet.

Tut

speechlesstx · Feb 9, 2012, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Speech,

"Shameless and disturbing?" So you mean there have been other power grabs by politicians on both sides that don't compare? Don't worry future administrations regardless of their political persuasion will run with this gauntlet.

Tut

No, I mean this is HIS most shameless and disturbing, just as I said.

speechlesstx · Feb 9, 2012, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No it isn't since you can't even refute it. It's true and you know it.
It's fun to watch you come in and say it's a lie with absolutely no supporting info while the article links to its sources. LOL!

Been refuting it flawlessly all week, I just can't copy and paste their lies using my phone. So now that I'm at my desktop...

Republican politicians and religious-right leaders—particularly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, known previously for its willingness to tank healthcare reform over private abortion coverage that women could purchase with their own money—are claiming, incredibly, that the Obama administration's ruling that birth control should be covered by health insurance without a co-pay infringes on their freedom of religion.

A) The ruling is not that "birth control should be covered", the ruling is birth control AND abortifacients MUST be covered.

B) The Catholic church including their works such as "homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs", etc., regardless of member behavior stands doctrinally against birth control and abortifacients. This violates their constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Period.

It does not matter if some Catholics believe in birth control or if some Catholic institutions furnish birth control, that does not justify mandating ALL Catholic institutions violate their beliefs. THta's the same stupid argument Planned Parenthood uses to justify violating parental rights. "Kids are going to have sex anyway so we're going to violate your house rules and provide them anyway."

excon · Feb 9, 2012, 08:05 AM

Hello again:

So, I understand that STATES, like mine, have laws that MIRROR the policy the HHS just instituted.

Why doesn't it bother you when a STATE does it?

excon

speechlesstx · Feb 9, 2012, 08:32 AM

Dude, if the church in your state wants to make a deal with the devil that's not my problem. Most that do have this provision provide an exemption for religious employers. As for those that don't I'm surprised this hasn't already been challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on religious rights. But don't worry, Obama has awakened a sleeping giant so I expect that to change.

NeedKarma · Feb 9, 2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As for those that don't I'm surprised this hasn't already been challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on religious rights.

Answer: because it isn't.

tomder55 · Feb 9, 2012, 09:25 AM

State mandates have been challenged at least twice. In 2007 New York state’s Women Health and Wellness Act of 2007 was challenged. An appeal by Catholic Charities of Sacramento of a California law requiring prescription coverage to include contraceptives was also challenged . SCOTUS decided to not hear the cases . That doesn't mean that they aren't violations . It just means that SCOTUS probably decided it was a states power issue ,or didn't think it important enough to intervene. It is my view that SCOTUS will have no choice but to hear a challenge to a Federal law on this issue.

Catholic challenge to contraception law is rejected in New York :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Sebelius admitted already she used the NY ,California and Oregon laws as template for crafting this regulation. These are the states that have gotten away with violating the religious freedoms the most. If it succeeds on a national level that'll be used as a precedent for more and more religious encroachments in the future.

speechlesstx · Feb 9, 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Answer: because it isn't.

What tom said. This isn't over, a woman's mythical "right" to free contraceptives does not trump my explicit right to freedom of religion.

NeedKarma · Feb 9, 2012, 10:13 AM

Still not getting how getting free contraceptives affects your freedom of religion.

tomder55 · Feb 9, 2012, 11:11 AM

Suppose not . But I get it . That's why I support the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012'

talaniman · Feb 9, 2012, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I'm calling bullsh*t. What link did I furnish that said the Catholic church has been providing free contraceptives for decades? Seriously, until you stop making crap up we can't have an honest discussion.
Read it again, I didn't say free, I said "freakin", as an explicative
Fact is, contraceptives are readily available and accessible. This regime believes wrongly that every woman has a nonexistent constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay.
They have a right to health care, and contraceptives are a key to preventive maintenance for many woman. To deny that is blatant discrimination.The solution is easy, don't offer a prescription drug coverage in the policies. I can show you my constitutional right to freedom from being forced to violate my religious beliefs, you show me your constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay. Put up or shut up.

Okay, show me where your rights are being violated! Love to see that!

TUT317 · Feb 10, 2012, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What tom said. This isn't over, a woman's mythical "right" to free contraceptives does not trump my explicit right to freedom of religion.

Hi Speech,

Probably not quite. As I understand your constitution your right to religious freedom comes with a caveat.

Secular law takes precedence if it can be show that the issue is of enough importance. In other words, a decision in relation to religious freedom would be enunciated under 'the strict scrutiny' review.

That's may understanding, what's yours?

I don't think the current Obama proposal would pass this strict scrutiny test. Then on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.

Tut

tomder55 · Feb 10, 2012, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Speech,

Probably not quite. As I understand your constitution your right to religious freedom comes with a caveat.

Secular law takes precedence if it can be show that the issue is of enough importance. In other words, a decision in relation to religious freedom would be enunciated under 'the strict scrutiny' review.

That's may understanding, what's yours?

I don't think the current Obama proposal would pass this strict scrutiny test. Then on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.

Tut

Render unto Obama .........

TUT317 · Feb 10, 2012, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Render unto Obama .........

What does that mean??

NeedKarma · Feb 10, 2012, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

What does that mean?????

He's comparing Obama to Caesar. The right-wing fanatics do that in that country, they'll allude that the leader from the other side that they despise is akin to Hitler (he's already done in this thread) or some such other figure. It's in lieu of an actual argument; lowest common denominator stuff.

tomder55 · Feb 10, 2012, 04:37 AM

Mark 12: 13-17

tomder55 · Feb 10, 2012, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

He's comparing Obama to Caesar. The right-wing fanatics do that in that country, they'll allude that the leader from the other side that they despise is akin to Hitler (he's already done in this thread) or some such other figure. It's in lieu of an actual argument; lowest common denominator stuff.

Actually if I'm looking for a historical example ,I'd go with Napoleon ripping the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII ;and crowning himself Emperor.

TUT317 · Feb 10, 2012, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Actually if I'm looking for a historical example ,I'd go with Napolean ripping the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII ;and crowning himself Emperor.

Hi Tom,

Obama didn't write the constitution. He just has a bad habit of wanting to test it out all the time.

I find it strange that I have more faith in your constitution than you do.

Don't worry he'll probably lose out on this one if he doesn't back down.

Tut