Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: The Huffington PostThree Democrats walked out of a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on religious liberty and the birth control rule on to protest Chairman Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) refusal to allow a progressive woman to testify in favor of the Obama administration's contraception rule.
So, this is the GOP/Issa plan to put his hands over his ears like a petulant two year old and say "la-la-la, Ia! Can't hear you"
Issa and the GOP need to be dragged from the Hill and flogged. Whoever heard of holding a hearing without listening to both sides? This is an egregious abuse of power and this idiot needs to be ousted from congress. Hey, California--time for a recall, yah think?
I don't know why any woman would vote for a republican after the last two years of them trying to strip their rights.
You are so on it! My question about this story is where are the constitutional lawyers? There must be rules of engagement for or during hearings. Where is that guy from Georgetown(Turley?) always flapping away on the networks? ACLU?
Issa and his brother were car thieves. Shouldn't that be grounds for dismissal from office?
(if a troll jumps on that, here is my response: la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you! :)
Issa is an embarrassment to California! This won't go away - women are going to start coming out in droves to put a stop to this lunacy! But you're right - how does a constitutional argument for freedom of religion usurp a constitutional argument for freedom FROM religion?
Sounds like this was just a political stunt on the part of the Democrats. They submitted names of witnesses and they didn't like the one that was selected by the majority, so they made a scene to score some points.
JC - Really??????????????
And where was the female representation on this? You think that was OK that they turned one down?
Does Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) believe in the Ten Commandments?
Because if he does, there is NO mention of contraceptives.
How many "rules" do we need?
Apparently the Democrats didn't think it was important enough to make her the sole witness. They knew that the minority would only have one witness and they put forth other choices. If they didn't think it was important enough and proffered one or more male witnesses with more credentials, I fail to see how that is the fault of the Republicans.
ncslim - #1- It is the dems who doesn't listen to both sides. They constantly blame others for any and everything they disagree with and say their side is the only one.
For the GOP to have a hearing on reproduction and contraception and not insist that at least one woman talk is just total misogyny... given that we can't reproduce without women and the issue being debated is their purchase of birth control... Given that the GOP didn't have one woman on their list, they should have jumped at the opportunity to have one suggested by the dems... Isn't the idea of a hearing to 'hear' all sides of the issue?
I don't know why any woman would vote for a republican after the last two years of them trying to strip their rights.
You know, if you look at this logically, there should be offsetting penalties on this issue. I mean think about it.
If you are a woman that supports the current GOP platform that strips away any and all rights that they have, then one of those rights that they obviously don't support is a right to vote, then wouldn't those women NOT VOTE?
I don't know why any woman would vote for a republican
Don't you know that women are suppose to vote the way that their husband tells them to do?/s
I have always maintained that the GOP would love to take away the right of women to vote because we are not mentioned in the Constitution that way we would not have the right of privacy with our health care provider which is the cornerstone of Roe v Wade.
For the GOP to have a hearing on reproduction and contraception
Funny. I was under the impression that this was a hearing on Religious Liberty and the Birth Control Rule, which are legal positions that may be at odds with one another. I'm not certain that reproduction and/or contraception have any bearing on the focus of the hearing.
Typical rightwing response JC, well, keep it up and we will have a Democratic LANDSLIDE as the MAJORITY of women decide that men like you should be allowed to be in ANY political position. Just keep it up, and show the people JUST what religious fanatics REALLY want, and what ANY republican victory could mean.
so birth control has nothing to do with reproduction... thank you JC for making it clear just how well your mind works. In my wee mind, birth is a big part of reproduction and controlling birth is a huge issue for those who do or don't want to reproduce. I love how religious liberty is about restricting the liberties of others... very nice double speak by the GOP...
JC I am a woman and the hearing on Religious LIBERTY and the BIRTH CONTROL Rule affect me and my daughter and all the women I know. Our LIBERTY is at stake, not the liberty of the Catholic church. No one is being forced to take birth control but they are trying to deny to those who want it.
Issa is an embarrassment to California!
That's a good one! The names Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein come to mind a lot quicker. Lol
The GOP are trying mightily to turn the House back over to the Dems.
Pissing off more than half the population isn't the way to go, but cutting off their noses to spite their faces seems to be the game plan.
Good going, GOP! One can only wonder if there will be a few buckets of tar and some feather pillows to give them a good send-off, come November.
Their smug faces will have mud on them when women rise up and make their voices and votes heard. @!$%# them for their misogynistic, chauvinist bull@!$%#. I can't wait til they all get smacked down by people who actually care about women and their rights.
Pissing off more than half the population isn't the way to go,
Liberals think all women are liberals. Lol
No greenwood, liberals think all women are smart enough to protect their own rights.
Liberals think all women are liberals. Lol
When the Nazis were killing off the jews, then, to a greater or lesser degree, we were ALL jews. It may be a similar thing.
Liberals think all women are liberals. Lol
Yes liberals do think that birth control is a women's issue and any women who votes for the current crop of GOP candidates or office holders has to really dislike their own sex.
any women who votes for the current crop of GOP candidates or office holders has to really dislike their own sex.
Why do you say that?
Liberals think all women are liberals. Lol
No, but all women are women and most of them, at some time in their lifetime use birth control.
And don't forget that this issue affects most men too. Men love the pill. The pill liberated everyone.
In the meantime, this whole flap is just hilarious. It's absolutely astounding to me that the Repubs would allow this to become an election year issue. It's a complete loser for Republican's. It's as if they have a death wish and are trying to hand reelection to the President and the House back to the Democrats. Unbelievable. Thank you Republican's, you're making the Dem's job so much easier.
I watched the various reports on the farce called a 'hearing' today, and that there was one GOPTeaBag woman lawmaker at the hearing that said she agreed with Issa that, the woman who was chosen to be a witness at the hearing (the only who was to be a witness) was not qualified to be a witness. So the opinion, and that is all it is, of this one GOPTeaBag woman who agreed with her party seems to outweigh not only the rights of her own gender, but, against the First Amendment of free speech. Obviously, she does not need to use contraceptives, either for birth control or for any medical prevention, so she has n problem condemning millions of other women who do use contraceptives to prevent and/or treat other serious and/or fatal medical issues, to an unnecessary health risk or even death. We can't blame the insurance companies this time, as it is a win situation for for them to give the contraceptives out free, as it will save them tens of millions of dollars in child birth, and the many problems that can result from a problem child birth for many years to come.
I would say I hope that woman is happy with herself, but, as she likely got rounds of applause and back patting from her party for her support against millions of other women, she likely does feel very proud and happy with herself. But, she and the others who are trying to condemn millions of women to the possibility of untimely death, should remember that what goes around, comes around.
And I hope that somewhere a very large picture of that female GOPTeaBag lawmaker will be posted on line so that every women in America can see who of their own gender sold them out for the benefit of her own party, and a few pieces of the Koch Brothers Fools Gold.
No, but all women are women and most of them, at some time in their lifetime use birth control.
And your point is?
1.25 - You and everyone else screaming on this post are all missing the point. The Dems have fooled you and turned this into a women's health issue and it's not. They are not saying women cannot have birth control. It is still available and women have been getting it. It's about who will pay for it. Is there anything about this issue that has said women will no longer get contraception? Are there stats that show women aren't getting it either through insurance or free from a clinic?
And why should women who have been paying for it no longer have to pay for it? I heard some stupid Dem say something about it costing $700 per year. Well, so what - that's part of life, just like any other expense you incur for living. You pay for your own vitamins, sinus medication, and other items - why not birth control, too? What's next - we have to start paying for all women's tampons? Try thinking about this issue logically and you will see that they have obscured the issue to turn it into a socially-charged issue to make Repubs look like bad guys.
The issue is whether the govt. has the right to tell a religious organization that it has to provide something it doesn't agree with. Who cares if practicing Catholics use it. The fact is that the organization itself does not believe in it and therefore, should not have to provide it. What if the Admin. decides to mandate assisted-suicide drugs be paid for by the employer, either directly or through the insurance company? Is that OK, considering it will offend who knows how many religions?
And furthermore, the bigger question is why the govt. has the right to tell any business and insurance company what it must provide and must provide for free. I find it arrogant of this man when the uproar started for him to come out and say, OK, I'll change the rules for you but then I am going to tell insurance companies they have to provide it for free. What about Catholic organizations that self-fund for their insurance? They are still having to provide it for free.
Setting aside the religion issue, it is more abhorrent that the govt. thinks they have the right to tell business what it must do and how it must charge. Those costs, you know, are going to cause all of your premiums to go up. Why not let women pay for it like they always have, and if they can't afford it, go to Planned Parenthood for free birth control? They can pay for it like they pay for sinus medicine or anything else. (And before you all get upset because I can't relate, I am a woman.) Why should an insurance company have to provide a coverage for free? I am going to end up being charged - through my plan - for everyone's birth control.
Tell me, what happens if Obama decides ugly people should get free plastic surgery? You OK with him telling insurance companies they have to provide that? I mean, how is this any different? He is deciding what people should and should not get and telling business that they have to provide it and provide it for free. What is to stop this progressive liberal narcissist from doing whatever he wants? At some point, if he (God forbid) gets re-elected, business needs to start suing the govt. like they did to FDR to stop his abuses.
Our only hope is that he is not re-elected and the new President wipes out everything this idiot idealogue has done.
#1.1:I don't know why any woman would vote for a republican after the last two years of them trying to strip their rights.
I said the same thing about a YEAR ago. I guess I am just a little ahead of my own time! I was serious then and am just as serious now, if not more!
1.24 - You are so right. Read my post at 1.27. THAT is what every Republican should be saying about this issue, instead of letting them keep turning it into a women's health issue and obscuring the real issue. What is wrong with the Repubs. You would have thought after the McCain campaign debacle that they would have learned.
The Dems have fooled you and turned this into a women's health issue and it's not. They are not saying women cannot have birth control. It is still available and women have been getting it. It's about who will pay for it. Is there anything about this issue that has said women will no longer get contraception?
That's why I was wondering what that person's point was.
1.30 - When Obama was running, I remember thinking he was like the fable about the Emperor with no clothes - no one wanted to see the truth. I was happy when finally the facade started to come down with some people after the election. However, this issue is another one of those "emperor" issues. They don't do critical thinking; they are told one thing and believe it blinding. When the liberals tell them to grab their pitchforks and go after the enemy of the day, they blinding accommodate them. What's happened to our country that people don't stop and think about what the real issue is?
The Republicans holding a "hearing" is like my wife saying we "need to talk." This does not mean I should talk. This means we will be told what we allowed to think and do.
Comment collapsed by the communityThe First Amendment not only gives us freedom OF religion, but when read closely and interpreted, it also gives us the freedom FROM religion.
There is an implied separation of church and state- for a reason. No ONE religion should dictate what policy is acceptable, nor should anyone of any religious persuasion tell a person what to do, think or believe.
People who fail to understand what is at stake here, my right, your right, to choose, is inherently ignorant.
That just rips it, man. Women should call a national strike on menfolk. No Conjugation Without Representation!!
#1.34 - Actually, the Amendment is as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
When analyzed within the context of what had been happening in England, it makes sense they would put this in. They had centuries of Kings telling people they had to join a particular church or be killed (think Henry VIII), and persecution for religion is why they came here. There were laws that could interfere with the free exercise of any religion but the state religion at the time. Clearly, they did not want the Church telling people what religion to be nor interfere with their ability to practice whatever religion they wanted.
So we have this separation of Church and State. If you have a Church who says they don't believe in something but the govt says you will do something that goes against your belief, isn't that the same as passing a law to interfere with the free exercise? What if the govt. decided they wanted to tell the Church they had to do other things against their beliefs?
If you hadn't heard, the Supreme Court unanimously backed a church in a case allowing it to pick teachers that held same religious beliefs and not hire someone who didn't. See:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/supreme-court-backs-church-in-landmark-religious-liberty-case/
If the Church takes this to the Court, I can imagine the Court would say that you cannot make it go against its beliefs through a tangential issue like insurance or providing a benefit to its employees. It's only time before people and businesses start suing the Obama Admin like they did to FDR to stop some of these stupid tactics.
I wonder why insurance companies wouldn't sue over the govt. telling them that they HAVE to provide a coverage and HAVE to provide it for free. That seems to be clear interference contra the commerce clause.
I wonder why insurance companies wouldn't sue over the govt. telling them that they HAVE to provide a coverage and HAVE to provide it for free. That seems to be clear interference contra the commerce clause.
Because if it's decided that HCR is constitutional, they would lose. The government has already mandated that preventative care (annual physical, etc) are covered for free, so they would have to sue to remove that too.
Insurance companies also know that paying for birth control is significantly cheaper than paying for pregnancy.
Bld 1.27, 1.29, 1.31 & Greenwood10
Here you GOPers go again--playing the semantics game. The issue of contraception or birth control was brought up by the Republicans as a wedge issue, hoping to bring on-board the Catholic Church.
Issa called for the hearing, saying the focus was religious freedom. In reality, it was the contemporary version of the Star Chamber. The same words and phrases were used over and over during orchestrated testimony from 5 men on the mandate for insurance coverage of contraception. Of course, the clergymen are intimately familiar with birth control, contraception, and all things female. Irony of ironies--there were no the female witnesses. Issa refused to allow 2 witnesses to testify because they were “not clergy” and he felt one woman was not qualified.
The hearing was a sham. It was used as a political weapon by the GOP handmaiden, Issa, to regain footing after Mr. Obama offered a compromise. The Repubs--every election cycle beat the same dead , cultural and social horses. According to a Gallup poll:
...the president's approval rating among Catholics before and after the controversy erupted this month. Approximately 46 percent of Catholics approved of Obama's performance after the controversy -- a drop of just 3 percent, which is within the margin of sample error, from Catholics' previous level of support.(NJ.com)
The administration’s position won the support of the Catholic Health Association, which is overseen by a woman and she runs 600 Catholic hospitals, 1400 health care facilities and Catholic Charities. Still more support from Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas.
Are the right wingers willing to pay for Viagra? And will Issa and those 5 “petticoat peepers” go along with the Pope. In 2010 he said men may use CONDOMS under certain conditions. No crisis of conscience there!
A new New York Times/CBS News poll has found that 57 percent of Catholic voters supported the requirement for religiously affiliated employers, like hospitals or universities, to cover the full cost of birth control for their employees, while 36 percent opposed it (7 percent said they did not know). There was almost no difference between Catholic and other voters on the question.
The Catholic bishops have a problem. They are still being investigated in the pedophile priest scandals and they need GOP friends to act as their shield.
I wonder why insurance companies wouldn't sue over the govt. telling them that they HAVE to provide a coverage and HAVE to provide it for free. That seems to be clear interference contra the commerce clause.
And I wonder why insurance companies wouldn't sue over the government telling them that they CAN'T provide a coverage. At all. Like has happened in my state and many others.
No, no, everybody has this wrong. This is the Republican jobs program. Have all of the women leave their jobs and have babies. That way, every "man" will have a job and unemployment goes to 0. Just joking and I hope I didn't give any Republican any new ideas, I know how hard it is for them to come up with new ideas, they are conservatives after all and they like to keep the old ways.
Actually, this is bullcrap and for either side to pull stunts like this is why Congress' approval rating is so low.
There is a pattern here and it comes directly from the Christian right. This mentality lead to the inquistion and the murdering of women they called witches. A witch back then was any women that interferes with a married couples copulation. They even blamed impotence on these witches. Anything that interferes with couples having children via a marrige bound by God is considered evil and the work of the Devil. Welcome to the 21st century.
What, something else free... pathetic and BTW why the hell do we have to buck the bill for rubbers and diaphragms... and Ill be pissed if my tax dollars go to support abortions... if you don't want a kid don't do the deed !!!
And your point is?
That the Republican's have staked out a ridiculously unpopular position that will cost them big time in November.
but really it all about Obama pulling the female vote in the end... hes in the tank right now with the women vote so he and his croonies had to cook up some plot that depicts republicans in some ill position when it comes to a women's Vajayjay and somehow put him has King and Savior...
They are not saying women cannot have birth control.
Well, Rick Santorum has certainly made it plain that that's his position.
Well, it's little wonder why the "war on women" label is sticking to the GOP...
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/211303-overnight-health-war-on-women-label-starts-to-stick-to-gop (OVERNIGHT HEALTH: 'War on women' label starts to stick to GOP)
So we have this separation of Church and State. If you have a Church who says they don't believe in something but the govt says you will do something that goes against your belief, isn't that the same as passing a law to interfere with the free exercise? What if the govt. decided they wanted to tell the Church they had to do other things against their beliefs?
What if? We've already been there and have legal precedent for outlawing religious practice of polygamy and outlawing the Christ Scientist practice of denying medical treatment when they deny medical treatment to their minor children.
We've already done it and we can do it again.
Three Democrats walked out
Way to stand up for the people, there. Very heroic.
I guess it's only "quitting" when a Republican does it.
My first thoughts in reading the article headline was about more grandstanding, waste of time, energy and money and all a diversion from jobs and the economy. As far as I am concerned, each individual American has the right to make his/her own decisions about birth control. Government needs to butt out of that decision. This is really all about fundamentalists trying to impose their code of conduct on the rest of America.
Teapublicans had the constitution read aloud to an empty House of Representatives, then they had a massive discussion on "In God We Trust." I don't know if they even have a concept that they were elected to serve ALL of the American people instead of waste time self righteous wrapped in the flag waving the Bible around at others.
#1.30:The Catholic bishops have a problem. They are still being investigated in the pedophile priest scandals and they need GOP friends to act as their shield.
Good testimonial friend. I said in an earlier seed that these catholic bishops are supporting and favoring republicans, thus hoping that this "made-up issue" will help dent the President's popularity in a negative way.
surprise, surprise, IT DIDN'T AND IT WON"T!
Again epic fail on the part of the repugs, and that makes me happy! Every slight of hand manuever, and dirt trick the repugs attempt will be turned away by us voters with vim, vigor and enthusiasm.
Keep it coming, we don't believe ANY THING what you say now. All of your credibility is gone-permanently.
I listen to conservaradio on a fairly regular basis.
They are being pretty persistent in their claim that this is a 'religious freedom' issue, and not a contraceptive issue, because they know quite well that they will lose if they make it about contraception.
But my question is who or what's religious freedom are they concerned about? Because it seems to me that they are advocating that the Church have the freedom to infringe on other people's freedoms by denying them the insurance coverage that they might desire.
Why would the RCC or any religious body feel the need to ban contraception coverage for their employees? What moral value is there in that?
Also, how does this mandate work exactly? It's something to do with Obamacare, right? Do these hospitals have to only provide Obamacare to their employees, or are there multiple options?
If the hospital has other options, but wants to dip into that federal pot of money, they need to abide by federal regulations. Plain and simple. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's... pretty sure that's in the Bible and someone named Jesus said it.
The issue of contraception or birth control was brought up by the Republicans as a wedge issue, hoping to bring on-board the Catholic Church.
Obama is the one who dissed the Catholic Church. LOL
Can anybody tell me why the commission had even ONE MAN on it? If we're talking about birth control, men don't take the pills vicariously. So, why should they have the right to govern them at all?
If this is the situation, I'd like a board entirely made up of women determine the method of ensuring men pay for the children they've voted not to prevent. Let's start with the biological contributions (testicles, semen) and work towards the fiscal edge.
Woodie, I hear you! You are spot-on.
#1.52 Greenwood
The Catholic Church has dissed all non-Catholics by trying to insinuate itself into lives of those with different beliefs. You know, being dictatorial.
#1.48 Marty Moose
We'd like to see Issa quit his BS and his job.
Ryoushi #1.13,
Since I don't have a political position and have no intention of running for office your little jab is rather pointless.
However, it does not change the facts. The hearing is about "Religious Liberty" (as outlined in the 1st Amendment) and the "Birth Control Rule" (issued by HHS) and whether the latter infringes upon the former. It has nothing to do with contraception. The ruling from HHS could just as easily have dealt with false teeth. The question is whether or not this type of rule can override the liberties guaranteed by the constitution.
Taking a partisan viewpoint and trying to make this about contraception, rather than what it really is, does not advance your cause in the way you think it does. Instead, it makes you appear as if you simply do not want to discuss the actual issue.
I must be missing something in the whole controversy.
Are these democrats saying that women are being FORCED to accept jobs at faith based organizations?
Are they saying women are too stupid to know that when they freely accept a job at a Catholic organization that it IS A Catholic organization?
Surely at some during the hiring process and reading of the employee handbook it is revealed……….
Are democrats saying those women are barred from obtaining contraceptives? NO. Are they barred from asking a doctor for contraceptives? NO.
No one is being denied anything.
The hearing is about "Religious Liberty" (as outlined in the 1st Amendment)
So why didn't Issa bring in some constitutional scholars?
Obama needs the womens vote so they make a false issue and keep telling lies until people finally believe them. Let's not stop with the Catholics , how about Jewish hospitals and doctors , let's have them telling everyone to eat pork instead of beef. Obama is willing to talk to the Taliban but he lies to the priest. What a leader. Typical of this administration., Bye the way a lot of Catholic schools and hospitals are self insured, so much for the insurance company picking up the tab. Obama won't mention that plus where is the health issue here for woman? She has a mind of her own and if she wants birth control she knows where to get it unless you think that the government will take them by the hand and show them what birth control is. Still not a health issue.
That's bs Phil and you know it. NO ONE Is being forced to take birth control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO ONE.They only have to offer it. The fact that most Catholic women already use birth control seems to be totally ignored by the GOP, the only difference here would be the their insurance companies would have to offer and cover it. Insurance that the person pays for.
Are these democrats saying that women are being FORCED to accept jobs at faith based organizations?
Are they saying women are too stupid to know that when they freely accept a job at a Catholic organization that it IS A Catholic organization?
Sounds like you're saying that Catholic orgs should hire only Catholics, even in a job market where there are not enough jobs to go around to keep most folks employed. Some folks work for Catholic orgs because they're subcontracted with secular corporations and don't know that they're denied contraception coverage until after they're hired. Try again.
Subcontractors would get their insurance from the company they work for, not the company they subcontract with.
Obama needs the womens vote so they make a false issue and keep telling lies until people finally believe them
In other words, women are too stupid to know what they want, is that honestly what you are claiming?
Obama is following the "will of the people". 60% of the American People support this measure, since the compromise was created allowing Insurance Companies to provide contraception directly (by passing the "oh so sensitive" feelings of the Catholic Church), over 70% of Catholics now support the measure.
The only people who still refuse to accept reality are those suffering from ODS ("Obama Derangement Syndrome").
Kim, The issue is with the insurance companies and paying for a service that is against ones BELIEF. Women have all sorts of access to birth control, that's not the issue.The dems want to make it the issue. Do you want a religious organization to provide a service that is against their belief? Pork is suppose to be better then red meat, would you tell the Jewish people to serve pork in their organizations. Obama is crossing the line and he knows it, but like I said , tell a lie long enough and soon they will believe it. Notre Dame has over 30,000 employees, it is self insured and there is not one woman claiming that she doesn't have access to contriceptives. It boils down to the government telling the church what to do. Is that what you want?. If you were to study history , you would see that thats how Germany slowly took over the people's rights by chipping away a little at a time. Gypses, Jews and mixedraces then the gays and anyone who did not agree with them. I want women to have all the rights that are out there , also I want church to be left alone by the government, That was one of our founding factors. Obama comes along and we got to change, I don't think so. We live by a constitution not by what he thinks.
MJM, there's the problem , there is no by pass when your self insured. I go to a Baptist church and they are very concerned about government stepping into the church. Next maybe we could stop the tax exemption for churches and let the government help the needy. After all the government knows what is best for you and your money. This is just a starting point for more crap to come down the road. As for woman being too stupid, I am not saying that, the dems are.
I go to a Baptist church and they are very concerned about government stepping into the church
The Government isn't "stepping into the church", your Insurance Company is trading your "peace of mind" for their bottom line.
I would appreciate it if you would please try and understand this...the Insurance Industry is in 100% support of this action because it LOWERS their costs.
Your Insurance Company has ZERO concern how many children you or any of their other customers have. Point of fact, your Insurance Company makes MORE MONEY the FEWER children their clients have because of the enormous healthcare costs involved in bearing and raising a child.
Please stop sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing to pretend that it's "mean old Government intruding"...Government has nothing to do with it (aside from "big Government" Republicans who insist on sticking the Government everywhere it's not wanted...abortion, gays, etc.)
Letting yourself be lead by the nose (as the Republicans are doing) will NOT do you any favors later, sir.
there is no by pass when your self insured
Then I guess you should support a Government run-single payer plan. If the Government ran Insurance, then you could make demands that they shouldn't support birth control.
Unfortunately the Insurance Industry is 100% free-market and the free-market says Birth Control is cheaper than abortions or paying healthcare costs so people can raise kids.
I don't mean to be so crass, but I'm afraid it won't sink in any other way.
Next maybe we could stop the tax exemption for churches and let the government help the needy
Strawman argument.
After all the government knows what is best for you and your money
The Republicans sure seem to think so. They've spent the last thirteen months declaring war on gays, abortions, guns...pretty much any and everything EXCEPT WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO (i.e. -- improve the economy).
This is just a starting point for more crap to come down the road
Sorry to say, I remember hearing virtually the same flipp-ed comments when the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 60s.
As for woman being too stupid, I am not saying that, the dems are.
Women are saying "we want the Insurance Companies to offer the option of free birth-control". Insurance Companies are saying "we want to offer free birth control because it saves us money vs. unwanted children (either through birth or abortion)". Therefore the your Elected Government is doing what the majority of its citizens want.
I understand YOU don't want that...but I'm afraid in the Representative Republic (as the Founders gave us), the minority opinion often isn't worth that much, sir.
The best your going to get is what you've got right now. If you don't want your church to, personally, be responsible for providing birth control, THEY WON'T HAVE TOO.
But you have LITTLE say in what your Private Insurance Company chooses to do, sir. Their only goal (and this is the mandate handed to them by their shareholders) is TO MAKE MONEY.
Again, I'm not trying to be purposely crass or hateful, but I get very upset when I see people jumping on bandwagons and pointing fingers based on nothing but fear and innuendo.
MJM, Let me say it this way: You say insurance company, when the church self insures itself they are the insurance not a private corporation that rips off people for profit. If it was no different then BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD then they woulduse BC&BS but they don't. The church is the insurance company to itself. The issue is not birth control it is making a religious insurance company go against their beliefs. You are using the talking points of the far left. Not one woman is being denied birth control every woman in this country has access to it.I myself support birth control that is not the issue with me ,again it's the government telling the church. You may not be on my side but when an archbishop who is now a cardinal says that's is what the government is trying to do, HE carries more weight then me. Have a blessed day. Post script: it's the Obama supporters that are on the band wagon spreading fear an inundos the church was saying nothing about birth control it was the dems who made it go in that direction when they were exposed.
#1.66 Phil
I’m always amazed by the Repubs who start the fight then try to blame Democrats for calling them out. The right-wingers and the Catholic bishops began the cultural wars under the guise of first amendment rights. The Catholic Church does not speak for the majority of Christians in fact, it can’t control its own parishioners. Catholic women ignore the draconian rules.
The real fact of the matter is the clerics and the GOP brought up the “dog-whistle” issues as a deflection. The Repubs have no economic plan. All they have are complaints. Despite the promises of 2010, the Repubs have not created those JOBS,JOBS, JOBS! But they have complaints. The bishops are still under investigation for the acts of the pedophile priests against little children. The bishops are siding with the right wing, seeking cover from Sunday-Only-Christians.
Post Script: Obama supporters are not using innuendo or spreading fear. The Repubs are doing a good job of that all on its own. Thanks, wingers--you’ve alienated more than half of the population.
Ummm, I thought it was Obama this time that started this whole deal by his move regarding insurance. Wut?
Clara,,, So true, this topic went from forcing the church to give out contraceptives to pedophile priest. It truly amazes me as to what degree these people will go. So now it's my turn,,, NCslim, this would never have happened if the teacher in California didn't fool around with his students, it seems that almost every day we here of teachers abusing our children. How's that for thinking like a lefty.
NCslim, this would never have happened if the teacher in California didn't fool around with his students, it seems that almost every day we here of teachers abusing our children. How's that for thinking like a lefty.
The one has nada to do with the other. FAIL
Clara, exactly the point I was making about NCslim, he believes that it does so I acted foolishly, just like him.
What? That's an outrage! What could they have been thinking that would...oh, it was Issa. Never mind, no surprise there.
----------
FoolsGladly
How could a woman ever vote for any GOP/TP hater? Issa is an embarrassment to California. The GOP is an embarrassment to America and the World. The world is watching the daily Clown Show from the GOPERS.
wwaugh- I agree, Issa is an embarrassment to California, and he should be an even greater embarrassment to Congress. But, he is exactly what his GOPTeaBag party prides themselves on being, all that is unfair, corrupt and extreme. There are three people who represent the Three Monkeys very aptly; Issa, Cantor and McConnell. The rest are just wannabes with all the stupidity, hatefulness, bigotry and radical religious extremism required by their party and its base supporters.
Issa is a poster child for corruption and bigotry being excused and/or applauded by the GOPTeaBag party and its base. In all his pride and smug feelings of superiority, I am in hopes that his district will grow a brain before Nov and boot his a$$ out. But, I know his area well, and they are only interested in one thing, their own property values. All Issa has to say is that he is going to fight to raise their property values, and lower their property taxes and he is sure to won. He has been promising the same thing for years, yet, the property values keep going down and the property taxes keep going up, and it does not seem to sink in to those people that Issa is lying to them, playing them for the fools they are, and laughing his ay to the Hill do keep doing all he can to keep their property values from going up, and that he can do little or nothing to keep property taxes from going up.
2 & 2.1 - Please read my post at 1.27 above. It is not about women not being allowed contraception. It's about who has to pay for it and the fact the govt. does not have the right to tell anyone what they have to provide and pay for. Women have been getting it for years and will continue to get it. So what if they have to pay for it?
And so what if they pay, say, $700 per year? If they can't afford it, go to the liberal temple called Planned Parenthood. And if they have the money, well, then pay for it. These same women complaining about paying this money probably have plenty of money to spend on clothes, shoes, jewelry, make-up, and their cell phone. It's called priorities.
When I was a divorced parent in college, I had priorities and that meant some things got put to the back burner because we needed food or clothes. I went an entire year without any new clothes because my daughter came first. Yet probably many of these women complaining about the cost of birth control are out in bars every weekend and spending the money on other things. Maybe it means fewer clothes, etc., but that's life. If you don't have money for extras or vacations or iPhones after paying for necessities, so be it.
But that's the problem with our country and especially the liberal Dems - they are so used to getting everything paid for that allows them to have the extras that they don't know how to prioritize the necessities versus extras. It's called budgeting: list your food, insurance, rent, utilities, health items (including b.c.), and then whatever is left over is for fun stuff.
It is not about women not being allowed contraception.
Unless you're against the totality of the ACA and the concept that providing preventative care without co-pays or deductibles is more economical for EVERYONE in the long run and you're only allowing that complaints about birth control coverage have some validity, then, yes. Yes it IS just about women and contraception.
2.4 - Birth control is NOT healthcare. It is not to correct a health abnormality. Sorry, but I don't think that everything should be paid for by the govt. It's part of life. If you are of reproductive years, then it's your responsibility for practicing safe sex and paying for it. You take your budget and deduct all the necessities of life: rent, food, utilities, car insurance, birth control, and if you have money left over, then go out drinking or whatever you do for fun, or shop, or buy your iPod. At what point does the govt. not have to pay for everything just so you can have the latest laptop or phone or shoes?
Sorry, but we have gotten away from teaching kids responsibility for themselves and are raising a bunch of peope with an entitlement mentality that someone else should pay for everything. Why don't you ask someone from the former USSR how that went?
BDL, the insurance company pays for your viagra. Why shouldn't they pay for my birth control pills?
Birth control is NOT healthcare.
Actually, the birth control pill is used to treat many medical conditions, including, but not limited to, the following:
Regarding ovarian cysts, birth control pills are the only medicine that can prevent them from recurring (aside from having your ovaries removed). If cysts rupture, not only are they very painful, but complications can include infertility (if they twist), internal bleeding, and sepsis, from which you can die.
Let me add to that:
Birth control pills can
Yes true but birth control prescribed in this fashion is under insurance policies... also hows the constitutionality of this making the church do stuff its strictly against.. good liberals are always crying separation but when it comes to certain things I guess not !!!
Birth control is NOT healthcare. It is not to correct a health abnormality.
Tell that to insurance companies that consider pregnancy a "pre-existing condition". Given that this is the case, and given that this definition is ALREADY out there, then birth control IS preventative healthcare.
Birth control is to PREVENT a condition.
bbj
The comprehensive insurance plans will cover contraception from ALL employers so it is not even an issue...should we let a jewish doctor allow someone who had a heartattack stuffing his face with pulled pork die because he doesn't want to be contaminated with pork, or the christian scientist decide you cant get any medical treatment or blood transfusions?
Reality Check:
Current price for a normal delivery where I work is $10,000 and a c/s is $35,000. Insurance covers most of that cost if the mom has insurance. If she doesn't and can't pay the bill, we all pay for all of it. These babies are wanted and loved. Woman and their partners can't afford this cost year after year just because one religion says they have to. Insurance companies and hospitals pass on the unpaid bills to the rest of us in higher prices.
We also treat etopic pregnancies either medically or through surgery (technically an abortion.) These are wanted babies. We also have mom's who lose their babies near or at birth. Tragedies that break their hearts (and ours.) These babies can't be saved. Which of these would you blame on the woman? Which would you refuse to help the mother survive?
These are not choices made for convenience, you white male idiots.
To those who so want to protect religion, don't mix it up with the church and it's politics. here we have the catholic church ruled by dictatorship from the Vatican , a foreign power, I might add, messing with American internal affairs, politicizing on women to the point of perversity and obscenity. Now who's for separation of church and state under the same "god" ?
#2.2:I agree, Issa is an embarrassment to California, and he should be an even greater embarrassment to Congress. But, he is exactly what his GOPTeaBag party prides themselves on being, all that is unfair, corrupt and extreme. There are three people who represent the Three Monkeys very aptly; Issa, Cantor and McConnell
Excellent comment- and true. These 3 Monkey do-do's all need to lose their gravy-train, plump comfortable jobs -and join the unemployed for a long while.
On top of that, I sincerely hope with all of my heart and soul, that the property values keep going down and the property taxes keep going up for the idiots that support this dirtbag! This is what they deserve for continuously voting for this scuzball!
- Birth control is NOT healthcare.
Yes, it is. Not only does it do many of the things already listed, pregnancy is indeed a health issue - so meds that stop pregnancy from happening fit under that umbrella as well, especially those that effect body chemistry.
Birth control is to PREVENT a condition.
Exactly, also it saves insurance companies lots of money if their customers prevent pregnancies and STD's - because the treatment associated with those medical conditions is expensive and preventable (yes, pregnancy is a medical condition, a medical condition is not always a negative thing)
If Catholics want to exercise their religion, they should stop hiring non-Catholics. Simple.
If Catholics want to exercise their religion, they should stop hiring non-Catholics. Simple.
That would be hiring discrimination - illegal.
Wrong. It wouldn't be discrimination because they wouldn't be in any kind of business of any kind of hiring. They should just get the hell out of business--OR--get taxed and get regulated like everybody else, with the same insurance coverage as everybody else.
Do you want a religious organization to provide a service that is against their belief?
This is an obfuscation of the issue. The issue is not whether "religious organizations" should or should not provide anything. The issue is whether or not employers should be subject to the laws of the land.
This is not a religious issue, it's a labor issue.
@2.16
If Catholics want to excercise their religon, they should stop hiring non=Catholics. Simple.
And after they did that, you would blame them for discrimination for only hiring Catholics. It seems that Catholics can't get a fair shake from liberals. How many seconds do you think would pass before the ACLU would be screaming discrimination if a person's faith was the deciding factor on whether they were hired or not? If a company hired employees using faith as a criteria, they would have to be really stupid.
If a company hired employees using faith as a criteria, they would have to be really stupid.
How is it less stupid for a company to insure employees using faith as a criteria?
#2.20 newwtricks
For those with selective amnesia--
Do the names Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzales ring any bells? They broke Civil Service laws by using politics in the hiring and firing process at the DOJ. The Republicans in the White House(Bush-Cheney-Rove), AG Gonzales and the AG’s aide,Goodling screwed employees or potential employees thought to be even the least bit liberal. The ACLU didn’t have a hand in that!
Goodling was never charged criminally. She didn't lose her law license. Gonzales cut and ran. So, show me the fair shake rules used by the Bush WH in this egregious flouting of the law?
And after they did that, you would blame them for discrimination for only hiring Catholic
Wrong. I blame them for hiring anybody. No church should be running a business without being taxed for it and being subject to all the laws and regs every other business is subject to. They should just get the hell out of running businesses.
How is it less stupid for a company to insure employees using faith as a criteria?
Exactly. Religion shouldn't be a get-out-from-under-all-laws card. Or a be-above-all-laws card. That's pure lawlessness.
Clara,
While you can certainly make the case that hospitals are a business (with the possible exception of those like St. Judes Children's Hospital) as are colleges, you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. are businesses. Exactly how much tax do you suppose the homeless shelters should pay?
Charities comply with the laws. Soup kitchens must meet regulations regarding food preparation, just as restaurants do. Homeless shelters cannot simply pack people in without regard to maximum occupancy regulations issued by the Fire Department. Of course the follow the laws. But they also have the right to speak out against laws, just as anyone else does.
So, what businesses are you even referring to?
So, what businesses are you even referring to?
The ones that hire people as employees. Soup kitchens, thrift shops and shelters are run entirely by volunteers (or should be).
Religions should get out of everything that hires anyone.
Well. I'm certainly glad you are so ready to just tell all these people that they shouldn't have a job, since you've decided that only volunteers should be allowed to work at charities. And, since religions shouldn't hire anyone, you obviously think they should shut down the hundreds of major hospitals across the country. However, I would have to guess that, given the choice, the employees would likely opt for having a job over shutting down hospitals and charities or even over contraception coverage.
Just a thought....... perhaps they should run their businesses/charities and you can hire whomever you choose for your own businesses.
You're trying to tell me that religious jobs are the only jobs out there. FAIL
Nothing wrong with their people running businesses under their own names, without the religion and without the tax exemptions and without the religion, and subject to the same rules regs and laws every other business has to comply with. Again--religion has no business running businesses.
You're trying to tell me that religious jobs are the only jobs out there
Not at all. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.
YOU are the one that suggested that religions should get out of everything that hires anyone. If they do that, it follows that they would necessarily have to shut down those businesses and the people working there would lose their jobs. Although I imagine that they would, in time, be able to get another job, your suggestion would certainly result in the loss of their current job.
Since religious institutions have been running businesses for thousands of years, why do you think that it should suddenly change? Why do you hate religion so much?
Indeed, religion has no business running any business. You claim that if people don't work for a religion, they'd have no job when, in fact, there are other jobs out there. When religion stops competing with legitimate businesses for business, then legitimate businesses could do more hiring. Can't do the math, can you.
You claim that if people don't work for a religion, they'd have no job when, in fact, there are other jobs out there
I claimed no such thing. I said that if you shut down the hospitals and colleges run by religions, the people that work there would have to find another job. And, since there will be hundreds of hospitals that are no longer open, finding a job would be much harder.
You still didn't answer the question "Why do you hate religion so much?"
I'm sorry, but Clara has not been able to make a cogent case here. The question I have is more along these lines: Religion has done a lot of evil, but a lot more of good in this world. If all the good that religion has done were removed, what would remain of our humanity? And please don't stand on intellectual pride - the last one to say that they could do it all themselves and actually obtained power was Kim Il Sung. Nice role model.
I'm sorry, but Clara has not been able to make a cogent case here. The question I have is more along these lines: Religion has done a lot of evil, but a lot more of good in this world. If all the good that religion has done were removed, what would remain of our humanity? And please don't stand on intellectual pride - the last one to say that they could do it all themselves and actually obtained power was Kim Il Sung. Nice role model.
Let's stipulate that there is good and bad (and good and bad people) in all religions.
I have a deep and abiding belief in a Creator and I am blessed to live a richly spiritual life. But religion is a construct of man. God did not create "religion", the people of the planet have created their religions to satisfy a human need.
As to "what would remain of our humanity", I suspect that if we did not have the religions we have today we would have created other ones. We are endowed with free will and animated by imagination which imbues us with a desire to know ourselves. That is why we have the religions we have. Human kind invented its religions to fill a need in itself. If we had not invented Hindu or Jewish or Catholic or Islamic we would have invented other ones.
Clara is not attacking anyone's belief in God or the teachings of any religion.
I think that the point is that any entity, religious or sectarian, when operating a business, should operate under the law of the land, in this case, that of the United States and that all of its laws should apply equally to all.
As to Kim Il Sung, you have chosen the most extreme example. Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un were and are psychopathic tyrants. The problems in North Korea are the result of an autocratic regime channeling the religious fervor of their people to themselves and then starving them - physically, socially, intellectually, economically and spiritually.
I don't think that's what Clara is suggesting.
Over time I noticed a shift in American politics, especially on the right-wing. I proposed a hypothesis that the right-wing had become extreme. That hypothesis was proved correct.
I proposed the hypothesis that the right-wing has become fascist. That has proved correct.
My most recent hypothesis is that the right-wing are so fascist and extremist as to be anti-American, by way of being anti-democracy and pro-tyranny. This hypothesis is also being proved correct.
Our freedoms and prosperity are in danger today, Americans. We must move away from fascism and back to democracy. The alternative, the direction we are heading in, is unacceptable.
Up with democracy; down with fascism. Up with freedom; down with tyranny.
#3 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:46 PM ESTThat's why I changed to the Democratic Party.
I don't know if anyone has ever had Labyrinthitis (I suffer from it occasionally) but it hits you suddenly and you lose your equilibrium. I'm reminded of this only because once when I woke up with it, I got out of bed and staggered to the right. Fortunately, the bedroom wall was there and I just felt my way where I was going.
Anyway, I see the Republican Party having this malady and staggering right - only they aren't hitting a wall - they are still going!
I think the GOP want less Government but they have NO IDEA what that MEANS.
What a bunch of idiots, why are they SO INTO women"s uterus's and contreceptives
WTH is wrong with this nuts.
I think the GOP want less Government but they have NO IDEA what that MEANS.
What the r/tp/con wants, is a small/no government if it impedes their greed, their destruction, their lies, and their hatred. The government is no where large enough if anyone who disagrees with their warped views of reality, is allowed to dare question them or gasp, utter the truth.
No rules for them and not enough rules for those that don't believe their lies. I think that pretty well explains their viewpoint of what government should and should not be allowed to do.
#3 - Tell me - where are you getting the idea women will not get birth control? They have been getting it and paying for it or getting it free from a clinic. How is this any different than what had been in the past? Do some critical thinking about the issue and ask yourself that question: where does it say Republicans are banning women's right to birth control?
And tell me, also, why should it be free? What's next? Your sinus medication has to be provided free? Your Ibuprofen? Your eye drops? Heart medication is very important, too - is that the next item the govt. decides has to be free?
No, it's about the govt. telling a business what they must do and then when it decides to tell them they don't have to do it, telling another business (the insurance company) that they have to provide it and provide it for free. If you don't think those extra costs are going to be absorbed by other people through increased insurance costs, then you are sadly mistaken.
Contraception is provided free in the Affordable Health Care Act along with all preventative tests and drugs.
A colonoscopy is free because it prevents cancer. Same with mammograms.
Contraception saves the health system money. It is far more expensive to treat a pregnancy and delivery than to provide a pill a woman wants do she won't get pregnant.
And do not scoff at 700 dollars. For some, that is money they can't spare.
Sometimes I feel like I am discussing the obvious with wildly intellectually blind people.
Sometimes I feel like I am discussing the obvious with wildly intellectually blind people.
No, they're not blind, they just don't give a @!$%# about anyone but themselves.
3.5 - Ah, a colonoscopy does not prevent cancer; it detects it. Same with mammograms. Who told you testing prevents cancer? Tests diagnose. And, I have read stories where people go under to have one and wake up with a bill for $1,000 or more. Why? Because if they actually remove something, that's not part of the "diagnostic" aspect of the colonoscopy.
And, if the preventive aspect is so important, why has the govt. been coming out with these stories about women not needing as many mammograms or men not needing the PSA screenings? Why? To prepare you for the rationing to come. Well, we aren't paying for those items anymore (e.g., certain age groups) because WE found they aren't needed. And, what about when they stop paying for certain drugs to treat what they found? They are already trying to pull a certain breast-cancer drug off the market because they basically feel it isn't worth it. Try telling that to the few who are benefitted by the drug.
Oh, and you sound like you have been fooled by all of this "preventive care" nonsense. Let's look at reality and do some critical thinking. So what you pay for someone to go to the doctor, who tells them to stop smoking, lose weight, exercise, or whatever. Unless the person does it, it doesn't matter one iota that they had this "preventive" care. So, we already know we should lose weight, exercise, stop smoking and drinking to excess, etc., yet people just don't listen and continue to do what is bad for them. (If you didn't know these things already, then you've been living under a rock.) You can't tell me the fat people who smoke are really going to learn anything more at a "preventive" visit than they didn't already know? So what - they are told they are diabetic and what to do; do you think they will do it? No.
This whole preventive care is nothing but a way to sell something to the people, namely, a govt. plan that is a march toward universal care. They make you feel they are really doing something when they aren't doing anything. It's like making a point that could be said in a single sentence in a three-page document.
Ah, a colonoscopy does not prevent cancer; it detects it. Same with mammograms. Who told you testing prevents cancer? Tests diagnose. And, I have read stories where people go under to have one and wake up with a bill for $1,000 or more. Why? Because if they actually remove something, that's not part of the "diagnostic" aspect of the colonoscopy.
Removal of non-cancerous polyps during a colonoscopy procedure reduces your risk of developing colon cancer. Thus, while it is also a screening tool for early cancer detection, when it's potentially curative, it's a prevention tool as well.
And, if the preventive aspect is so important, why has the govt. been coming out with these stories about women not needing as many mammograms or men not needing the PSA screenings? Why? To prepare you for the rationing to come. Well, we aren't paying for those items anymore (e.g., certain age groups) because WE found they aren't needed. And, what about when they stop paying for certain drugs to treat what they found? They are already trying to pull a certain breast-cancer drug off the market because they basically feel it isn't worth it. Try telling that to the few who are benefitted by the drug.
The government has indicated that yearly mammogram and PSA screenings are not necessary because statistically they do not increase the detection of cancer at that frequency. The government has never and will never suggest that cancer screenings at regular intervals reduce the chance of developing inoperable, incurable, Stage III/IV cancer.
The FDA pulled Avastin from the market because the required 2 post-marketing studies did not show statistical significance (i.e. efficacy), but showed increased risk (i.e. side effects). Would you go on taking a medication that doesn't help you and increases your risk for more deadly side effects besides your cancer? This is why the FDA exists, to prevent the sale of snake oil. Avastin is still used and covered for other types of cancers, such as colorectal cancer. So if they didn't want to cover it because of cost/benefit reasons, why then is it still on-label for colon cancer where it has show efficacy? Oh yah, because your remark is simply WRONG.
Oh, and you sound like you have been fooled by all of this "preventive care" nonsense. Let's look at reality and do some critical thinking. So what you pay for someone to go to the doctor, who tells them to stop smoking, lose weight, exercise, or whatever. Unless the person does it, it doesn't matter one iota that they had this "preventive" care. So, we already know we should lose weight, exercise, stop smoking and drinking to excess, etc., yet people just don't listen and continue to do what is bad for them. (If you didn't know these things already, then you've been living under a rock.) You can't tell me the fat people who smoke are really going to learn anything more at a "preventive" visit than they didn't already know? So what - they are told they are diabetic and what to do; do you think they will do it? No.
This whole preventive care is nothing but a way to sell something to the people, namely, a govt. plan that is a march toward universal care. They make you feel they are really doing something when they aren't doing anything. It's like making a point that could be said in a single sentence in a three-page document.
Preventative care has been used to detect and treat diabetics. Most people do not wake up in the morning and go, wow I have high blood sugar. It has been used to treat heart conditions. Renal problems. Early cancer detection. Plus, these issues are cheaper when detected early. Waiting until someone has stage IV cancer is not the cheap route. Waiting until we have to amputate a foot, or someone collapses from hypergycemia and is hospitalized--- not cheap. Waiting until someone has a heart attack, guess what.. not cheap. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and furthermore every health care study and official would disagree with you.
Ah, a colonoscopy does not prevent cancer; it detects it.
Wrong again. A colonoscopy detects polyps which generally become malignant. Detecting them early, and removing them prevents them from becoming malignant.
It's simple, folks. Pregnancy is a condition that birth control prevents, so it IS preventative health care. You don't take birth control after you're pregnant to cure pregnancy.
@3.11
So if pregnancy is something we want to prevent from happening, then tie the tubes at age 12 and be done with it. Problem solved, one of the worlds most deadly diseases has been defeated. Yep, we won't have to worry about anyone accidentally contracting that nasty "medical condition" known as pregnancy as the medical community has taken the pro-active steps to stop it before it begins.
UUhhh, but won't the human race die off? Who cares? We beat this medical condition and should be proud of our ability to use technology and the federal governments money to stamp out this medical condition that costs everyone so much money. Great job everyone.
Oh, come on......why would Issa need to listen to any woman about contraception, it's just like the panel on most news programs.....ALL men....who's wives/girlfriends/others have probably all used contraception.....I'm sure they know EVERYTHING they need to know about women, reproduction and contraception thru osmosis...../s
His excuse was that the hearing was on "religious liberty" and not "contraception" so the woman/women attempting to testify weren't "qualified" on the subject.
In which case, maybe they should have had some constitutional scholars instead, don'tcha think? Unless they were women, of course.
OK, how about some Episcopalian women ministers? Would THAT shut him up?
Taking note of General Convention statements in support of family planning and freedom of information about birth control, Convention in 1965 went on record opposing "such laws as may now exist that serve to prevent or inhibit the dispensing of birth control information and contraceptive devices by licensed physicians, hospitals, and medical clinics." This applied to both married and unmarried persons, and included support for the use of government funds for such purposes (for example, "making birth control information available to welfare recipients").
This is about religious fanatics USING a so-called "liberty" to grind woment down intoi the dirt, and ANYBODY who can support such vileness, ESPECIALLY a woman, is beyond belief.
"OK, how about some Episcopalian women ministers"
Only if they were Republicans. Otherwise, they would still be unqualified in his opinion for what I am sure are many equally as lame excuses as the one woman who he would not let speak today.
#4 - see my posts at 3.4 and 1.7 - Repubs are not saying women can't get it. They just believe that a business (whether it be a religious or secular one) should be told what they have to provide and provide for free. Why should it be free?
"Why should it be free"
Why not? The insurance companies don't have a problem with providing it for free, so why should it not be free to the women?
#4.6 - Who told you insurance companies don't have a problem with providing it for free? My plan at work never provided it for free? The insurance companies - upon hearing Obama's edict on Friday - did comment about it and they were not pleased. Tell me, why should it be free - and especially for women who can afford it? That's called life.
Maybe you are too young to grasp the concept because we have created an upcoming generation or two who think everything that is a necessity should be provided so they can spend money on fun things, but there are things we should pay for: food, clothing, rent, utilities, and other necessities, and that includes birth control. Once you do your budget and pay those things, then you see if you have money left over for extra clothes, shoes, entertainment, vacations, iPhones, iPads, etc. It's called "priorities" - a word we need to start teaching our future generations along with personal responsibility.
All preventative medicine should be free.
It stops people from getting sick- which then costs the system more money.
Do you not get it?
Are people that clueless?
#4.8 - Yes, I get it but I think you don't get it. Preventive medicine does not always stop people from getting sick. What kind of preventive medicine are you talking about? Seeing a doctor who tells you what you already know - stop smoking, stop drinking to excess, lose weight, exercise? We all know this and if not, then someone who doesn't has been living under a rock. Yet, there are plenty of people who don't follow doctors' orders. We all know it's not good to "supersize" yet we continue to do it.
What is the "preventive" medicine you are talking about that is going to stop these people? Are we going to lock them in camps until they comply? Kind of like "1984"?
Getting mammograms or colonoscopies is not "preventive" - rather, it is "diagnostic." A test does not prevent someone from getting cancer. There are no known ways to stop us from getting cancer. And so they diagnose it early but the govt. is now trying to pull some drugs to treat the conditions. For example, a breast cancer drug - it's basically not worth it in their eyes, but ask the few women who are helped by it? So, I find out I have breast cancer and a drug that might not help me won't be available. Or, the govt. panel will decide that it's not worth it for someone in my age-group to get treatment that might prolong my life or cure me, so their edict will be that I am not allowed to get certain treatments and the insurance companies will follow.
I really would appreciate your explaining what you feel is considered "preventive" medicine and how it saves money if people aren't going to comply.
#4.8 - Yes, I get it but I think you don't get it. Preventive medicine does not always stop people from getting sick. What kind of preventive medicine are you talking about? Seeing a doctor who tells you what you already know - stop smoking, stop drinking to excess, lose weight, exercise? We all know this and if not, then someone who doesn't has been living under a rock. Yet, there are plenty of people who don't follow doctors' orders. We all know it's not good to "supersize" yet we continue to do it.
Please provide the name of the medical school you attended who taught you that this is all a doctor does.
Preventive medicine does not always stop people from getting sick.
Um. Preventive medicine catches diseases early and PREVENTS them from becoming catastrophically expensive or, you know, pointless to treat.
BLD - "Maybe you are too young to grasp the concept because we have created an upcoming generation or two who think everything that is a necessity should be provided so they can spend money on fun things,"
Full Stop!!!! For someone who does not know me, you presume to know a lot about me, but, you presume in error. I am a WWII war baby. And your condescending statement is not only offensive, but, totally uncalled for.
Most insurance companies have no quarrel with the idea of providing free contraceptives, as they will save money in the unwanted pregnancies and the various long term illnesses that could have been prevented or mitigated by contraceptive therapy and/or treatment. So they are going to be saving a much greater amount of money than the cost of contraceptives in the long term, and they very well know it. Of course, there will always be those, who like fish wives, will b*tch and pule about anything and everything, unless of course, it is free to them. But, they will happily pocket the money they will save and pay themselves even bigger bonuses at their investors expense. And, some of the GOPTeaBag supporters who are insurance lobbyists will add their howling to the din. But, they know that insurance companies will do nothing but save money by providing free contraceptives. And so do the right wing religious radicals, but, they want to make a big deal of it for political mileage to extend their war on women.
BLD - even if the birth control is not free, even if it had a copay like other medication it would be fantastic for it to be covered. My insurance does not cover birth control at all. Not for any reason. There a multitude of reasons women take the pill. In fact I took the pill long after I had a tubal ligation. Had I known I would have to do that I would not have had that surgery. It certainly had nothing to do with preventing pregnancy.
You seem to be stuck on the idea of this being FREE. The fact is I pay for my health insurance, I pay quite a hefty sum every month, any benefits I receive through my insurance have been paid for, they aren't free.
My insurance does not cover birth control at all. Not for any reason.
In 2014 when "Obamacare" kicks in, it will. All plans will. That's a feature of the law.
In 2014 when "Obamacare" kicks in, it will. All plans will. That's a feature of the law.
Not entirely true. If you work for a church, the church is not required to include birth control. The current controversy only has to do with church affiliated organizations, not the church itself.
The Repubs have a death wish. I cannot believe that they are going to make contraception and other women's issues campaign issues in an election year. It's truly unbelievable.
#5 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:33 PM ESTThey can't win on the economy cause it is getting better. So they fall back on culture war issues.
All they have is fear and greed. With the economy perking up they will rely on fear. Attack women and minorities.
They can't win on the economy cause it is getting better. So they fall back on culture war issues.
Well, they WON'T win on that. They are so radical and extreme and they are doing damage to the party that will last for a long time.
You can not, repeat, can not force the Catholic Church to help pay for contraceptives of its employees. This is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
There is nothing stopping a man or a woman employed by the Catholic Church from going to a pharmacy and buying condoms or pills.
Accidently voted up xerxes.
Totally disagree with the comment.
There is nothing stopping a man or a woman employed by the Catholic Church from going to a pharmacy and buying condoms or pills.
Yes there is. It's called "no insurance coverage". Duh.
So a man goes to a drugstore and tells the clerk, "I need condoms but I have no insurance". And the clerk , being a liberal says, "I feel your pain. If only Republicans were to open up their cold hearts, I could give you this $5.00 pack of condoms for free. But, as it stands, you will not be able to have the $5.00 pack of condoms because it is the Republicans fault. What other items do you need?"
Man: "Uh, I need a carton of cigarettes, this giant size bag of potato chips, 2 cases of beer, and a box of wine. I am taking my best friends girlfriend out for a night on the town and I only wish I could afford the condoms so I could get her nice and drunk and treat her like the slut she is and not wory about it later."
Clerk: "What is her name?"
Man: "Iwana Getlaid"
Clerk: "Hey, that's my sister. Here, take the condoms, she is already saddled with 3 kids and she still has to get through her last year of high school."
Clerk: " I guess I have done my part to protect the rights of women everywhere, not to mention provide treatment for a "medical condition" that the man obviously could not have provided for himself, thanks to those nasty Republicans. Where do they think he will get the money for condoms? He has other needs that are far more pressing, like smoking and drinking and eating junk food, along with going out to bars with high school aged girls, and getting them drunk so he can ...
nice fairy tale... not relevant at all, though... why did you waste the time?
nice fairy tale... not relevant at all, though... why did you waste the time?
Good question. He's got a long record of being unpersuasive so far.
Oh fairy tale hour! There once was this guy who supposedly was born of immaculate conception and he walked on water......
What is sad is that the GOP women think their representiatives is looking out for them and voting the way they want them too. If that is the case then they all must like to be lead around and be called a second class citizen because that is what the GOP is slowly doing.
#6 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:15 PM ESTconcerned: what is sadder is that voters in general are so very un or misinformed. They just don't know what they don't know. Then they go pull the lever, OMG-STOP, learn something about this whole situation first, will ya'???? They are too busy being busy and not even listening to the radio, any tv or all they listen to are the nut stations. Those of us who do inform ourselves need to, at least, ask them some questions about WHY they want to jump off a cliff before they do!!
carol - that sounds like dems who say they only vote straight ticket no matter what the election is about.
Let's see if I've got this straight..... you're saying that registered Republicans vote straight ticket Republican while registered Democrats vote straight ticket Democrat. And this is surprising to anyone at all in what way?
I'm an independent and I can't see myself voting republican for the rest of my life, they are truly disgusting. And I'm not the only independent who feels that way.
mospin1: did I say that??? And here I thought I said be an infomred voter.
#6 - My Repub reps are (not is) looking out for my views that govt. should be out of my life and not telling business what to do and not to do. And hopefully they will vote the way I want them to (not too) when they vote to get rid of this bill when Obama is out of office.
And I am not being led (not lead) around and I don't feel I am a second-class citizen; I think for myself because through critical thinking, I can see this is nothing but ridiculous spin the Dems have put on this issue in order to make the Repubs look bad. Not one person is saying women won't get birth control. They just don't believe the govt. has the right to tell anyone what they have to provide in terms of coverage nor to provide it for free - especially if it goes against something they don't believe in. (In reality, it's those screaming about this who are being led around because you have bought into the Dem spin on this and believe their suggestion that women will no longer get contraception. They have been getting it for years and will continue to do so. They may have to pay for it, but they have been paying for it so why should that change?)
What if the Admin. decides assisted-suicide drugs have to be covered? Would you find the Church in its right to object to providing those? In fact, there are any number of religions who would be offended on that one.
Iapologize to you Carol. My comment was in reference to another post I had read.
I do think you are an informed voter and also think that most voters are also informed.
I say all of us women cluster bomb any Facebook or web pages they happen to have! Sure worked on another recent issue.
#7 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:23 PM ESTFrom the looks of his page, the cluster bombing is already well underway.
Also, his office number is (202) 225-3906, press #4 to get through the automated system to a live person.
Now that's what I call teamwork.
Great job, I have a phone call to make.
Great job, I have a phone call to make.
I hope the number is right. I copied it from a post on his FB page.
trm2008, thanks for the link, just made a comment. I was very polite, but I made my point. The Catholic Church DOES NOT speak for ALL Christians.
The Catholic Church DOES NOT speak for ALL Christians.
Or ALL Americans.
What I really hate about FB is that I have to "Like" the page in order to write on it. But I can always unlike it later, at least.
The GOP is an affront to democracy.
#8 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:31 PM ESTCanadian Dave,
This is a freedom of religion issue. The US government can't compel the Catholic Church to help pay for artificial contraception. Period. No if or buts.
If an employee of a Catholic-run instituion wants to buy condoms, he or she can head to a pharmacy and buy them with his/her own money.
Why don't you get a clue. The goverment isn't trying to get the Catholic Church to pay for contraception. This is about their insurance company provding contraception. The church won't pay for and no one has to use it. And it has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion. Yeesh.
big mouth Rush has been married 4 times with no kids. so were all these women using something or are the swimmers missing in action?
#9 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:00 PM ESTPlease don't drag Darwin into the cesspool that is Rush Limbaugh...
big mouth Rush has been married 4 times with no kids. so were all these women using something or are the swimmers missing in action?
Maybe, you know, he can't get it up. That would explain why he's such an angry puke. Just saying....
What does Rush having 4 wives and no kids have to do with the Catholic Church and insurance companies being forced to provide contraception for free?
Other than trying to spin a comment that shows you hate Rush.
you hate Rush
Count me in. Limbaugh is a mean-spirited demagogue who contributes nothing good to our society. Nothing but lies spew from his venamous mouth.
What does Rush having 4 wives and no kids have to do with the Catholic Church and insurance companies being forced to provide contraception for free?
It's abundantly clear that if Rush can't have kids, he thinks everybody else should be forced to, to make up for his own shortcomings.
The GOP no longer needs to pander to the right wing extremists, they are the Right Wing Extremists.
The inmates are running the asylum.
#10 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:01 PM ESTYEah the republican sounds too much like Nancy Pelosi. He is just as bad. Terrible.
But the Democrats used their favorite play from their playbook. Get up and walk out. That is so like a child. Yes we have more of the same jsut the shoe is on the otehr foot. So much for compromise and cooperation.
Only Republican have to play by the rules. the democrats are so perfect they do not need rules.
#11 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:09 PM ESTRules? Who the f*ck cares about the rules? This is about a war on women that is being waged by a bunch of misogynistic old farts. If they want to start the fight I will be on the front lines fighting them - and so will half the country.
I'm glad they walked out! It is offensive to have a panel of men presiding over a hearing about what amounts to being a predominately female issue....insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Who cares about the rules. Who cares about the laws. As long as I get my contraceptives paid for by someone else I do not care about nothing.
Everyone has their issues. Everyone wwant something. Everyone want someone else to pay for it. It is good to live in a free society where we have no persoanl responsibility and we can get the governemtn to force others to pay for what we want. That is not a female issue. That is everyone's issue.
Women have access to contraceptives and abortions. I even hope they use them. A lot. But my issue is this: I do not want to pay for it.
I believe in equal rights. Totally. But when people talk about they have special rights because of whatever reason I have issue. I thought we were al equal. At least that is what I hope for.. But we do not want totall equality. Then we would have to be responsible to ourselves.
Who is this someone else? Do you not understand that this is about health insurance covering it without a co-pay?
I do not want to pay for it.
who is asking you to?
I believe in equal rights.
really? Then why should women have to pay for birth control outside of their health coverage when viagra is covered?
#11 Concerned 75
This is not about Pelosi. Don't even try playing the aggrieved party. Issa acted like a brat. When those five men who took part in that charade carry a child to full term--maybe all of us will listen.
thak you for pointing out why I hate this bill even more. i do not want to pay for viagra either. If people want to have fun and play in a bed they need to be prepared to pay for the results.
ANytime there is a governemtn program I as a tax payer am paying for it. The Government has no money except for mine and every other tax payers money. They jsut spend and spend and spend without a carte and say how good it is. Now they want us to buy contarception, viagra and abortions becuase there are so many irresponsible people out there? No way. Enough is enough.
We are all equal and all have equal responsibilities. I am tired of the excuses. Either you can cut the mustard or you can't. WEither way I do not care. You are not my responsibility. SO please support me in getting Viagra off the table too. Scrap the whole bill it is terrible.
what bill... viagra is covered because of the insurance providers, not some health care bill. You can thank white haired male legislators for the kowtowing to big pharma so that phizer could get viagra into the insurance coverage. Now phizer makes a killing and the cost is spread across all insured. your anger is directed in the wrong direction. read the art of war.
Nope, I see the value in providing both and because this is about health insurance coverage.
If people want to have fun and play in a bed they need to be prepared to pay for the results.
Wow. This is the 21st century, not the 19th. You sound like my great-grandmother.
If people want to have fun and play in a bed they need to be prepared to pay for the results
I guess then we should also do away with Social Security as well. After all, if people choose to live to the ripe old age of 65, they should pay for the results. /s
If people want to have fun and play in a bed they need to be prepared to pay for the results
That's the best argument I've heard so far in favor of all women going on strike, actually. No women play in a bed, forcing male celebacy. Thay'll go bonkers and cave inside of a week. I like it.
I am concerened as to how women have survived at all. Never has a women been given free contraception, and yet, as a species, they somehow have survived. How? The general mood here is that to not give a woman free contraception is to sentence her to a life not worth living. As we are being told, pregnancy is a "medical condition" that needs to be treated.
If we are to provide free drugs to treat this "medical condition", then we should get pro-active and tie the tubes at an early age to totally prevent this "condition" from ever happening in the first place. We now have the technology and knowledge to wipe out a disease that has plagued mankind since the beginning, pregnancy. We need a government that is willing to force the population to eradicate this "condition" once and for all. Hurray for Obama. Hurray for the Democrats. Thank you all for attacking this "medical condition" known as pregnancy and bringing it to it's knees. I know it won't happen in my lifetime, but I hope and pray that one day, we will defeat this terrible affliction, that somehow only seems to affect women and wipe it off the face of the earth.
On another note, I hear that scientists have just about discovered how this "condition" happens.
That's the best argument I've heard so far in favor of all women going on strike, actually. No women play in a bed, forcing male celebacy. Thay'll go bonkers and cave inside of a week. I like it.
Naa, we'll be alright for a week or two.....the SI swimsuit issue is out.
Naa, we'll be alright for a week or two.....the SI swimsuit issue is out.
Ya, and guys have their anatomically correct inflatable females. I know. They'll cave in a month, then.
I'm telling you if we don't recruit more female Democratic politicians the U. S. will suffer. We need an all female supreme court and a Democratic female president and vice next after president Obama is reelected. Get freakin' testosterone out of politics completely. stop telling women what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies. It's nuts.
#12 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:20 PM ESTReally? You are honestly suggesting that the Democrat party adopt an anti-male platform? And you think this will have broad appeal? Really?
Why do you consider this anti-male, JC? I prefer to think of it as EQUALITY. Because right now, there is an assault on women that is being conducted by old white males in a male dominated government. And don't even get me started on male domination in religion!!!
Some men pound away on a woman's right to choose and then squeal that we're anti-male? Get a grip, as all we want is equality and for our choices to be left alone. Do some men hate so much and are such cowards that sticking it to women is all they have going for them? Curious, indeed. Many men complain that women are against them and out to get them but they are they the ones continually yelling, "Bring it On". If men thought the 60's were trying just wait and see what this debacle is going to bring.
Shelby,
I consider this anti-maile because of the statement "Get freakin' testosterone out of politics completely." Is there any other way you think a statement like that should be taken?
Wanting more women in politics seems reasonable - even admirable. Wanting the best person that is capable of doing the job seems good. Wanting someone just because they aren't male....... well, sounds pretty much like "anti-male" too me.
JC, both males and females make and use testosterone. strike 11 for you today. I think the point was to get the behaviors associated with testosterone out of politics, and those can be exhibited by either sex...
JC, you have NO idea what this is going to unleash. It is beginning and this will decimate the republicans in Nov.
All hell will break out as many men are as sick of this crap as the women. In the 60's men were unsure, now they are smarter and more protective of their women. Look out GOP, you've stepped in the La Brea Tar Pits and you won't be coming up for air any time soon.
I would ask to refrain from making this a Male/Female issue. The issue is so much larger than gender. I have a mother, sisters, wife, female co-workers and female friends in my life. I defend their rights as I do my own.
Please don't lump me in with the fanatical religious, GOP/TP small-brains just because I'm male.
Mr. G #12.8
Did you read Matthew's response at #12.5? . A good explanation.
Matthew,
I think the point was to get the behaviors associated with testosterone out of politics, and those can be exhibited by either sex
Are you simply trying to be argumentative or are you just being obtuse? The statement made by polyscidude does not really leave a lot of question regarding what they are talking about:
I'm telling you if we don't recruit more female Democratic politicians the U. S. will suffer. We need an all female supreme court and a Democratic female president and vice next after president Obama is reelected. Get freakin' testosterone out of politics completely.
While I'm aware that both males and females make and use testosterone, the simple fact is - it has absolutely nothing to do with what was said. Everything in their little rant was very specific about wanting nothing but females. Did that rather obvious fact simply escape your attention or was it deliberate?
Since it is obvious that the only thing you are actually interested in is an argument, I'll give you some fodder for the next round.............. The sky is blue.
P.S. NC Slim - if you think that the absurd testosterone response at #12.5 is a "good explanation", then you might want to read the original text too, without the partisan goggles.
NC Slim, I did read Matthew's response. It barely grazes my point.
Excerpt from polyscidude's post 12...
We need an all female supreme court and a Democratic female president and vice next after president Obama is reelected. Get freakin' testosterone out of politics completely.
How would this sound?
We need an all male supreme court and a Democratic male president and vice next after president Obama is reelected. Get freakin' estrogen out of politics completely.
Just as ridiculous, right?
This is not a male/female issue and polyscidude's statement minimized it to just that. It's a distraction from and disservice to the larger cause.
I think this is great. The Republicans are so thick headed that they can't see how bad these tricks make them look to independent voters who will decide the election. Independents may not be as involved as political activists but Republicans overbearing statements and tactics are calling the attention of anyone who reads a newspaper or listens to the news to the harsh reality that Republicans do not respect women and are willing to bully them in order to push far right Christianity on the public.
So go Mr. Issa! Go, go, go! You are talking yourself and your party right out of office.
#13 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:39 PM ESTIf the GOP were serious about lifting people out of poverty, rule number 1 is don't have more kids than you can afford, so why are they against contraception?
What, it's so much better to have a bunch of unwanted babies? If the Catholics and Bible thumpers want to take care of all of these babies, by all means, until then, shutup and allow women access to birth control.
Permitting access is not the same as supporting use of it.
As for foisting the responsibility to the insurance companies drawing outrage, they'll take on that responsibility in a second. You know how much more medical costs to deliver babies versus just providing the pill and condoms?
#15 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:44 PM ESTThe difference between the Democrats and Republicans should be no more clear than today.
When GOP front groups launched AstroTurf attacks during the Healthcare Debate, Democrats refused any and all calls to block them from speaking (even knowing they were inauthentic).
Yet when American Citizens (not apart of any group, merely wanting to speak "truth to power" in the presence of their elected Government), Republicans do any and everything they can to prevent them from speaking (as this incident demonstrates).
Only people with something to hide behave in such a fashion, folks.
#16 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:45 PM EST#16.1 MYOB
Remember Paul "I got a budget" Ryan started charging his constituents money to attend town hall/luncheons because he didn't want to hear what they had to say. He even had some arrested for visiting his offices paid for by voters.
Unfortunately the only men or women who will have a voice in this are the men and women on the supreme court. Why waste your time with hearings? 9 people will decide for us.
#17 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:50 PM ESTSettled law, courts have already ruled on this years ago. This is just a smoke screen or red herring the right is getting unhinged over.
They seem to believe they do not need to hear womens voices. They should read their history. It is now time for American women to unite and march on Washington. When the million man march was first held everyone thought that was something. Well ladies there are more women on this planet than men and I say WE MARCH. I also hope they understand and eat their words about how the Moslems of America want to have us wear burka's and obey our men. I am pissed and tired of listening to this conservative crap about freedom of religion. I am a Christian and I will fight to remain the Christian that I believe God wants. It is my responsibility, not my fathers, brothers, husband or my government. I am now putting on my marching shoes and want my sisters to join me. Time to hear from N.O.W and other womens organizations. UNItE and just tell us when and where to be. I am entitled to equal representation within my congress and our voice will be heard. Let them clean the toliets, starting with Newt baby.
#18 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:50 PM ESTLet them clean the toliets, starting with Newt baby.
Didn't Nancy Pelosi promise to clean out the toilet?
GB #18.1
Yes. She's hitting the GOP/tp flush button. Swoosh!!!! Dirt all gone.
It's simple. Register every single person you can into the democratic Party. Every single person you can, in every state in the union. Then, vote all the republicans out of office.
#19 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:59 PM ESTRegister every single person you can into the democratic Party.
Didn't ACORN try that? Mickey Mouse?
Didn't ACORN try that? Mickey Mouse?
No, ACORN was an organization that registered the poor and that's why it was hated by Republicans in particular and Conservatives in general.
Wealthy Republicans didn't like poor people exercising their Constitutional Rights to vote and poor Republicans didn't like the idea of other poor people being given the tools to do what they themselves couldn't/refused to do.
It's truly ironic how similar the right-wing is to the Soviet Union in their ways of handling obvious failure.
While Democrats do everything they can ensure every American gets involved in the voting process (even when their votes move against Democrats, such as in 2010), Republicans do everything they can to stifle and reduce voter turnout (such as the actions of the various Republican Administrations in State's like Wisconsin, Arizona, etc.)
This is very much the way the Soviet Union behaved after World War II. As Western Europe flourished under Progressive-democratic (little "d", as in democratic vs. authoritarian) policies and Eastern Europe stifled and teetered on Economic Collapse under Authoritarian-Moscow-led domination, the only thing the Soviets could do (again, much like the Republicans today) is build walls in places like Germany (made most famous in Berlin) to attempt to force people to remain.
The Republican Party is attempting to simply dominate and overrun any and all opposition to their plans (they certainly can't claim to have a "public mandate" to curb birth control, abortion, union rights, etc.) and they are learning that in this era of the Internet and near-instantaneous communication that it isn't taking 27 years (the length of time the Berlin Wall stood) for their authoritarian "regime" to fall.
Point of fact, it's looking more and more like it will disappear "into the dust pan of history" in about nine months.
#19.3 GB
I assume it was those Hollywood Mickey Mouse Club members who voted for Issa( R-Ca). Jeez! Just can't stop those little rats who dine on elite "whine" and cheesy wedge issues.
Using the Christian religion to malign, hammer, demean and take away contraceptives, ban abortion and promote "personhood" as a way to charge them for murder sounds like a bunch of women hating men that will stop at nothing to punish women for being human. If they were to be compared to the Muslim Taliban they'd freak out and go postal but his is just how their play book is reading.
#20 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:14 PM ESTThe morning panel at the hearing consisted exclusively of men from conservative religious organizations
So what new idea was Issa expecting to get from this stacked line-up of old hogs? This "hearing" is a great example of how taxpayers' money is wasted. The Democratic representatives did the right thing in walking out rather than lend credence to what obviously was a charade.
These unwarranted attacks on female citizens have got to stop. Maybe we should all visit Issa's office and confront him on his blatant prejudice.
#21 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:40 PM ESTSpeaking of contraceptives, I'm going to invest all of my retirement monies into them. It just makes sense. The govt. is going to force everyone to buy insurance and they'll force all the insurance companies to provide "free" contraceptives to their clients. I'M GONNA MAKE A FORTUNE!!!!!
#22 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:49 PM ESTSo, if one pays for their own contraceptives you hate women? Cuz, if you hate women you will need them?
Feds mandating @!$%# against your beliefs for freedom???????
#23 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:54 PM ESTThe GOP has become the American version of the Taliban. They are hell bent on imposing their narrow beliefs that they base on a 2000 year old book of fairy tales on the rest of the population.
#24 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:12 PM ESTIf most Demos in Congress would simply check the polls, they could repeatedly embarrass the Teapublikans by allowing those idiots to convene an inquiry, state for the record what specific issue the inquiry addresses and then, if the inquiry is an obvious ultra-right wing attempt to subvert the will of the majority of those polled on the issue, simply walk out and refuse to participate in the hearings, thus leaving the dumbass Teapublikans wielding their gavels with one hand and choking their chickens with the other. An immediate press conference on the Capitol steps would ice the deal. That would show the vast majority of the electorate how insipid and anti-freedom the idiot TP'ers are and how the Demos simply refuse to dignify those sham hearings by lending their participation on any level.
#25 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:17 PM ESTAnd the paid Obama bloggers are out en mass.
Libs are too funny as to their sheer ignorance of the whole situation. Do you really think Obama cares about women's rights to have FREE birth control and FREE abortions? Oh no, that is not what is going on here. Where do you think the king will stop? I bet you won't like it when the mandate comes down as to what we can all eat? I bet you won't be smiling when gas gets up to the $5/gallon that he has been pushing since day 1.
Obama is destroying our country but libs are just too blind to see. The handouts will end because there won't be enough money. We are borrowing from China. You think when China owns us, they will allow FREE birth control. Heck no, they will just say "you can only have one kid", just like they do in their country!
#26 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:19 PM ESTpaid Obama bloggers
aka: anyone on the entire Internet who doesn't agree with you.
And the paid Obama bloggers are out en mass.
Libs are too funny as to their sheer ignorance of the whole situation. Do you really think Obama cares about women's rights to have FREE birth control and FREE abortions? Oh no, that is not what is going on here. Where do you think the king will stop? I bet you won't like it when the mandate comes down as to what we can all eat? I bet you won't be smiling when gas gets up to the $5/gallon that he has been pushing since day 1.
Yeah, sure. Anyone who has an opinion to the contrary based on fact...is a paid liberal?
Your comment only portrays you political biased. Obama, does in fact, have a history of supporting Women's Rights. If you deny that, you're being dishonest.
"On his third day in office, President Obama rescinded the “Global Gag Rule” and restored U.S. funding to international family planning organizations that fund abortion. Less than two months later, the Obama administration restored U.S. funding to the U.N. Population Fund after a seven-year hiatus. What’s more, the administration created the Office of Global Women’s Issues in the State Department, reporting directly to Secretary Clinton, and appointed Melanne Verveer as the first ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues."
What's destroying America is/are people like you who post misinformation, lies and plain bullsh!t. You're too dishonest to admit the previous 8 years of Republican leadership (or lack thereof) is the main reason our country started to spiral downward.
Fact is, Republicans have nothing of value to offer the American people but, their warmed over lies and fear-mongering. Don't believe it?...what positive jobs bills have the Republicans offered up since, Boehner proclaimed jobs were the Republicans #1 priority!
Another fact is, Republicans have been willing to toss Americans under the bush to obstruct and undermine the Obama administration. They don't care if what they do hurts American or Americans so long as they can put it on Obama's watch.
Sadly, for the Reich Wing/Republicans, the country is much better off than it was in 2008. The economy is coming around, business are hiring, the unemployment rate is coming down, we've ended a war and we've killed Osama Bin Laden.
What are the Republican contribution to American these last 3 years?
Why is it so hard for the rep/tpers to accept that the citizens of this country are not stupid. "...I bet you won't be smiling when gas gets up to the $5/gallon that he has been pushing since day 1."
The true citizens of this country will not like $5 gas, but the educated ones will understand that the President of the United States is not responsible for the price of gas. For those who are illinformed there are some very serious issues across the world which will determine the price of gas. I refuse to buy that the President is so powerful he can control the price of gas in Europe and other parts of the world. FYI: the world is no longer flat and what happens across the seas has a very hard impact here at home.
I suggest that we drill for oil off the coast of florida. Of course "We" the people can not own oil wells as that would be called communisim. God Bless America and the President of this United States.
When has ANY PRESIDENT been able to control the price of gas?...So, now it's Obama's fault and responsibility to control the price of gas??
You know what would have worked?...If Ronnie Raygun hadn't cancelled all Carter's energy initiatives when he took office....we would find ourselves in this situation.
#26 dandegirl
You Repubs need to get your facts straight.
As of November, China owned $1.13 trillion of Treasuries...That's 7.6%. Who owns the rest? The largest holder of U.S. debt is the federal government itself...The rest of our debt is owned by state and local governments ($700 billion), private domestic investors ($3.1 trillion), and other non-Chinese foreign investors ($3.5 trillion)....Of all Treasury debt held by foreigners, China is indeed the largest owner ($1.13 trillion), followed by Japan ($1 trillion) and the U.K. ($429 billion).Right there, you can see that Japan and the U.K. combined own more U.S. debt than China. (From the Mottley Fool, 2/13/12)
China’s one-child policy has changed because its society is aging out--over 65.
So, please stop making up stuff or switch the channel.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
