[speechlesstx]

Hello wingers:

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

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

excon

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

[speechlesstx]

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

That isn't a church either.

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

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

[tomder55]

The mandate has already been ruled constitutional so good luck trying to overturn it.

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

[talaniman]

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

My bad... for now.

[Tuttyd]

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

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

Yes, I think they are winning this one.


Tut

[talaniman]

Yes, I think they are winning this one.


Tut

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

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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

Just sayin'

[cdad]

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

Just sayin'

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

[speechlesstx]

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

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

[excon]

Hello again,

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

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

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

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

Excon

[speechlesstx]

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

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

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

excon

[speechlesstx]

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

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

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

[tomder55]

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

Steve your daughter is in my prayers .

[talaniman]

I add my prayers, and support too my friend.

[speechlesstx]

Thanks guys.

[tomder55]

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[talaniman]

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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

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

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

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