Comment on Entry: The politics of personal hygiene, authored by Stefan Sharkansky
1. When I saw that Brodeur column, I was reminded of a very old Doonesbury cartoon, so old, in fact, that the characters are still in college.

Mark the radical is spouting off with a bullhorn, while Mike Doonesbury watches him from a near by wall.

Finally, Mark stops for a bit, and Mike says: "You actually believe that stuff, don't you?"

And that was my surprised reaction when I read the Brodeur column.

Oh, I know Patty "no rocket scientist" Murray has been saying similar things, but I didn't think anyone serious believed her.

Posted by Jim Miller at March 6, 2012 05:37 PM
2. .
Good for you Stefan Sharkansky and Jim Miller!

Somebody on the WA Republican side needs to stand fore-square with Rush Limbaugh in this debate where Rush "chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation".

Be sure to let Rush know of your more correct analogy before the misogynist loses all his sponsors and radio stations and is forced off the air by hysterical feminazis.

Good for you.

Glad to see that you see the issue analogous to "federally-mandated supply of free toothpaste and toilet paper".


Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 6, 2012 05:57 PM
3. @ 2- Meanwhile you are silent when all your fellow misogynist goons like Keith Olberman, bill Maher and Ed Schultz call conservative women even worse names on a repeated basis. Of course, clowns like yourself and Brodeur would never bring this hypocrisy up in your self righteous indignation of Limbaugh. The left only squeals when it is said by someone on the right (which is few and far between) which makes the hypocrisy even worse in measure. Face it Mike BS, you're a tool.

That said, if the "roundheeled" Ms. Fluke (talk about living up to your name) wants government supplied birth control, what's next? Gym memberships in the name of "women's health"? She has all the access in the world to these items and at a far less cost than 3K a year she sputtered at the hearing. She's simply a tool for the ultra feminists to push their radical agenda as well as further proof of the indocrination that has been going on in academia for the past 35-40 years.

Show me someone with a "Give us free stuff" attitude and I'll show you a lazy, self absorbed brat with no work ethic; yet they still expect to receive their "participation trophy" in life.
Exhibit A: Occupied Wall Streeters

Posted by Rick D. at March 6, 2012 06:17 PM
4. Stefan asks, "How is this different from the proposition that people can't take responsibility for brushing their own teeth and wiping their own rear ends without a federally-mandated supply of free toothpaste and toilet paper?"

One difference is that the contraceptives in question are provided in medical offices or in pharmacies by prescription.

While this is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, it is the one normally used in health insurance.

Posted by Bruce at March 6, 2012 08:37 PM
5. ...the contraceptives in question are provided in medical offices or in pharmacies by prescription

But not contraceptives in general. Other contraceptives for male and females are abundantly available over the counter, just like toilet paper and toothpaste. Nice try, Bruce, but your point is moot. Ms. fluke is obviously "pro choice" and has made a personal decision to not go with an OTC contraceptive; therefore,she should pay for her personal decision out of pocket as any reasonable person has to do with their pharmaceutical purchases everyday in America.

Posted by Rick D. at March 6, 2012 09:15 PM
6. Rick, actually I think you made my point. When a physician prescribes a prescription drug over an OTC product, the prescription drug is normally covered by insurance.

This is not the only (or even the best IMHO) reason why contraceptives should be covered by insurance. But it's the most obvious answer to Stefan's question of what the difference is between birth control pills and toilet paper.

Posted by Bruce at March 6, 2012 09:21 PM
7. This is not the only reason why contraceptives should be covered by insurance.

Then why not mandate that employers also pay for gym memberships in the name of "women's heath", Bruce? Let's take this insanity to its illogical conclusion here.

Posted by Rick D. at March 6, 2012 09:27 PM
8. Rick, let me try again.

Birth control pill: DOES require a doctor's prescription.

Toilet paper: DOESN'T require a doctor's prescription.

Gym membership: DOESN'T require a doctor's prescription.

Get it?

Posted by Bruce at March 6, 2012 09:35 PM
9. The birth control pill IS a form of contraception

Contraception DOES NOT require a doctor's prescription (unless you've "chosen" to do so)
Toilet paper DOES NOT require a doctor's prescription
Tooth Paset DOES NOT require a doctor's prescription.

Get it?

Of course you don't...You know you're wrong, you're just too stubborn to admit as much. Choice is not free, Bruce. As we find out everyday when we purchase pharmaceuticals.

Posted by Rick D. at March 6, 2012 09:47 PM
10. This debate is not about accessibility/affordability of contraceptives, it is about leftist politicians and media attempting to force religious institutions and hospitals to refute their firmly held values and march to the beat of their Godless, Marxist drummer.

Ms Fluke is hardly a young, innocent college student, but a 30-year old leftist with a history of political activism. Her masters merely trotted her out as a show pony when they needed another dupe to make their case. Why did Fluke choose a Jesuit school if birth control was such an issue? How did she afford the nearly $25K annual tuition if she can't afford to purchase birth control pills? Why force the college to pay for what is readily available off campus for all but free?

This doesn't pass the sniff test with me.

Posted by Saltherring at March 6, 2012 09:57 PM
11. The bottom line is this: the old mantra "keep government out of my vagina" is total bullshit if you want government to pay for what goes in it.


Odd that the Empty Suit can find time to call this fluker, but can't find time to, say, call the parents of Border Patrol personnel killed in the line of duty.

He's really got his priorities straight.

Fricken moron.

Posted by Hinton at March 6, 2012 10:02 PM
12. "It's 2012, and the battle for control of the American uterus rages on."

Ms. Brodeur is doing a dishonest thing here; the issue is NOT control of a single person's uterus. It's all about freedom of conscience: should people be forced to pay for someone else's child-killing (as LaShawn Barber would put it, quite plainly and truthfully), or should the person wanting to do the child-killing be forced to pay for it themselves.

Freedom of conscience, people. That's all it ever was about, this time. The leftists keep trying to change the subject, like Ms. Brodeur. But nobody is trying to touch anyone's uterus. Don't fall for the bait & switch. Call your elected representatives and tell them you cherish the long-held american tradition of religious freedom and/or freedom of conscience, whichever light you wish to view it in. It's all the same, basically.

Posted by Michele at March 6, 2012 10:16 PM
13. "... a new national debate about how women can maintain ownership of, and responsibility for, their own bodies."

If they are taking responsibility for it,then why aren't they paying for it? If Joe Taxpayer is paying for it, he is taking responsibility for it.

Posted by Matt at March 6, 2012 10:29 PM
14. Btw, for all of you leftists who are screaming for Limbaugh's head, I presume you are also standing up for Laura Ingraham, who points out that no one thought anything when she was called a slut. In fact, the girls on The View, when she told them about it, simply laughed it off.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/when-i-was-called-slut-barbara-walters-just-laughed-laura-ingraham-slams-the-view-on-double-standard/

Theblaze.com makes this very fair point: "Consider this: The Weekly Standard's John McCormack wonders if Obama will tell his super PAC to return Bill Maher's million dollar donation after the HBO host has repeatedly called conservative women by words we cannot print here. However, McCormack's point about Maher's offensive joke at the expense of Rick Santorum's wife is important and printable: He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum's wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama's name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job."

And what about all those lefties (including Rachel Maddow and other far-leftists) who continually use the "Teabagger" reference over and over? It even gets allowed in the Seattle Times comments section.
Where is the outrage?

Hmmm?
Those who continually use vile language about conservatives (remember the endless "F__K Bush" juvenile name-calling?)are now complaining about vile language.

The leftists weren't even nice enough, so to speak, to call Michelle Malkin a "prostitute". No, she has been called "an asian whore" by leftists. Sarah Palin gets called a "C__t".

Where's the outrage? We conservatives simply write it off as just more leftists behaving badly. It's all we've come to expect, from experience.

We don't see the outrage about all those leftists-behaving-badly examples, but we sure see the RAGING double standard.

The day Rush loses his show ought to be the same day Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman and others lose theirs. That would be quite fair.

Posted by Michele at March 6, 2012 10:31 PM
15. ...and the always-entertaining (when not silly or just plain dangerous) Al Sharpton is calling for Rush's job, yet he has been heard saying this:

"White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires.... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."

So the lesson here? You can say the most vile, disgusting things you want---as long as you vote Democrat. That's all the standard has ever been.

Posted by Michele at March 6, 2012 10:43 PM
16. re 12: How can you kill a theoretical child?

Isn't a woman who 'just says no' just as culpable?

Posted by dorky at March 6, 2012 10:47 PM
17. Rush was out of bounds. Of course so are the endless number of political celebrities who have joyfully made much more inflamatory flagrantly sexist comments about conservative women when they had the audacity to express their naive female ramblings on such tittilating issues as energy policy or voting rights or national defense.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it hasn't escaped us that we are engaged in a game where the self proclaimed refs only call foul when one side steps over the line. When they do so these narrow minded throwbacks are obviously cheaters who are openly and malicously violating the rules of the game. When the other side does similar or even worse stuff, well they are just highly spirited but well meaning champtions of good that just got over excited in trying to demonstrate the moral superiority of their position over stupid menstruating bimbos - but all in the name of good fun.

Rush's remarks were idiotic and over the line. They were also quite pedestrian compared to many remarks made by those that the currently indignant defenders of civil discourse and sensitivity defend that are directed towards women they don't happen to agree with - women who need to be appropriately shamed and put in their place.

Yes, as most conservatives have said (not just believed, but have said), Rush went out of bounds (remember all the voices on the inclusive left who have objected to the many offensive characterizations of conservative women?). He almost sounded as coarse and mysoginistic as the cocktail party appropriate jests that the left comfortably snickers at and considers sophisticated satyrical commentary that help to put all those ignorant overambitious upstart know-nothing skirts back in their place.

Posted by davmicro at March 7, 2012 12:08 AM
18.
Brodeur's central premise is that women can "maintain ownership of, and responsibility for, their own bodies" only if the federal government forces third parties to provide free birth control supplies.

How many statements have begun, "If the taxpayers are paying for [blank], then they have a say in [blank]"?

We pass helmet and seatbelt laws to protect ourselves from our own stupidity - because the taxpayers pay for the consequences through the emergency rooms and higher insurance premiums.

We restrict smoking, salt, and transfats because of the health risks that the taxpayers may have to pay for.

If women really want to "maintain ownership of, and responsibility for, their own bodies", the last thing they should want is to have taxpayers paying for it, because we will use that as our excuse to pass laws to protect them from their own stupidity - for their own good, and because we need to make decisions for them to protect them.

Helmets, salt, tobacco, transfats, junk food, happy meals, seatbelts, cell phones, nutritional warnings, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by SouthernRoots at March 7, 2012 07:31 AM
19. SouthernRoots is absolutely right. I couldn't give a flying fig what these "ladies" do with their free time on campus or anywhere else. That is absolutely their decision to make. And it is my decision that I don't want to pay for it either by funding birth control or contraception. And I am not coming at this from a religious standpoint. I simply feel what is in my wallet should stay in my wallet, and not be stolen by someone who wants me to pay for her sex life.

Posted by katomar at March 7, 2012 08:14 AM
20. Nick Gillespie of Reason has the best piece I've seen yet on the whole Rush/ Fluke affair here.

The larger point: Rush really screwed up here in that this is exactly the kind of distraction Leftists are looking for to keep voters from thinking about the failed healthcare, energy and economic policies of the Obama Administration.

The Leftist Democrat media will beat this horse to death a dozen times.

Posted by Jeff B. at March 7, 2012 08:33 AM
21. Rick D @9
"The birth control pill IS a form of contraception"

First let me state, I think the whole controversy is blown way out of proportion. Further, the "left" may cause more harm by raising this issue because if "the pill" is covered by insurance everywhere, won't this be an incentive for drug companies to "hike" the cost instead of it being generic and lower cost each day?

On your statement, though Rick, this line is not 100% correct. It should read "The birth control pill IS a form of contraception AND other female related health issues." It is the second part that separates it from strictly contraception and why a doctor's prescription is appropriate.

That being said, is there any reason, necessarily, to not have "the pill" go the route of Claritan and similar drugs that are now over the counter? Even some over the counter drugs are controlled.

Posted by tc at March 7, 2012 11:26 AM
22. The most compelling reason for readily-accesible contraception and abortion is reduction of births in the lower classes.

Posted by realist at March 7, 2012 11:29 AM
23. Nicole Brodeur still writes a column? Who knew?

Posted by jimg at March 7, 2012 11:36 AM
24. People are falling right into the media's trap. They WANT you to keep talking about contraception because then you're not talking about the crappy economy, the lack of jobs, the ballooning national debt, the skyrocketing gas prices, the threat from Iran, etc, etc, etc.

Posted by Palouse at March 7, 2012 12:25 PM
25. Palouse is right. The discussion merits a reponse, but not all the way into next November. Obama knows his numbers aren't good; they always try to fool people by changing the subject.

Posted by Michele at March 7, 2012 01:00 PM
26. Keep your d****d uterus out of my wallet!

Pregnancy is volitional, it's NOT a disease.

Feminism is a disorder.

Posted by Tomas de Torquemada at March 7, 2012 01:27 PM
27. Taxpayers can't get an even break in this debate it seems. The left demands we pay for their contraceptives and abortions, and if the baby makes it through that gauntlet...welfare, food stamps, education, subsidized housing, college grants/loans and so on until such a child reaches adulthood, when the poorly-educated, undisciplined, son or daughter of the single-parent culture makes the ultimate choice between becoming a career criminal or a career welfare recipient in their own right. In any case, the folks paying the bills have little or no say as long as amoral, simple-minded leftists continue to make the rules.

Posted by Saltherring at March 7, 2012 01:35 PM
28. Brodeur is spewing BS and she knows so. She must have flunked the course on ethics in journalism school, that is assuming now was taught.

Posted by Paddy at March 7, 2012 02:30 PM
29. Liberals consistently confuse free stuff with freedom and Ms. Fluke (as well as a few posters here) is no different. When the government starts mandating that others pay for the stuff you want for free, the wheels have come off the train.

But beyond the free rubbers and pills, this is about freedom and nothing more. The freedom of a church to follow its beliefs. Today its the Catholics and tomorrow it may be the Mormons or the Baptists. Today Obama decides tomorrow it could be a right winger stomping on a sacred cow of the left. This bullshit cuts both ways boys and girls (the righties posting here know that but the leftists seem to ignore it).


"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."


Next on Big Government's cross hairs is you and you and you.


Posted by Oscarphone at March 7, 2012 03:03 PM
30. Our President has mandated that health insurance must cover CONTRACEPTION for WOMEN with NO COPAY. Why? What is the problem that this executive order will solve?

Why focus on "covering" a condition, having sex without getting pregnant, that is entirely a matter of individual choice?

Why women and not men? Don't men share in the condition of wanting to have sex without getting someone pregnant?

And why should this coverage be "free"? Will that make anyone more likely to use contraceptives than they are now? Only if you believe the excuse that someone got unintentionally pregnant because they couldn't afford birth control.

This insurance mandate is a great gift to irresponsible studs everywhere, because it encourages woman to be available for no-cost, sex-without-consequence at any time. It does nothing for the problem of STD's that such behavior engenders.

Zero's mandate itself is the "war" on women's health.

Posted by Mom at March 7, 2012 05:39 PM
31. Many people here are under the impression that this is about the government paying for birth control. These people do not understand the issue at hand; they are not informed and we shouldn't take them seriously. (Saltherring, katomar, SouthernRoots, Hinton)

Every single state mandates what insurance companies provide in health insurance plans, and nearly every single state mandates what insurance companies must provide for "free" (i.e. without a co-pay) -- you know, besides the thousands of dollars in premiums that people pay for insurance. But this issue is not just about those mandates, it is specifically about contraception, and it's an issue about morality. Republicans would not be talking about it constantly if it were not about morality. There are legitimate problems when governments mandates that businesses should do x, y, and z, but we're not talking about x, y, and z. We're talking about birth control because religious, social conservatives hold a lot of sway over the Republican party. If you refuse to admit this then I'm not sure your commentary should be taken seriously because you're likely relying on partisan bias. Rush Limbaugh did not make economic arguments, he made disgusting appeals to morality by calling women who take birth control without having a co-pay sluts and prostitutes (and again -- as if insurance premiums don't exist).

Insurance is largely a scheme of redistributing wealth from poorer, younger people to sicker, older people. This policy, at the worst, slightly changes the balance of that redistribution and it's not obvious that is a bad thing on its own merits. No one else is "paying for" Sarah Fluke's birth control: she is paying for insurance, which includes birth control w/o co-pay and other medical treatments. Because of her young age, she in fact is certainly paying much more in premiums than she consumes in services -- and that wouldn't be the case if she got pregnant.

What do you call a women who gets paid to have a baby?

Posted by John at March 7, 2012 05:45 PM
32. Why women and not men? Don't men share in the condition of wanting to have sex without getting someone pregnant?

Condoms are not a prescription drug covered by insurance.

And why should this coverage be "free"? Will that make anyone more likely to use contraceptives than they are now?

Yes: "We find that the three- to ten-fold increase in the price of the Pill reduced the use of oral contraception by 1 to 1.8 percentage points, on average, or 2 to 4 percent, among college women." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-economics-of-birth-control/2012/02/20/gIQAqUDWPR_blog.html

This insurance mandate is a great gift to irresponsible studs everywhere, because it encourages woman to be available for no-cost, sex-without-consequence at any time.

More evidence that this is an issue about morality. Stop worrying about what other people want to do with their bodies. Not everyone has your moral code. Who cares if two adults want to bone each other?

I like the idea that women need to have sex "cost" something to stop them from fucking every bro in sight.

Posted by John at March 7, 2012 05:54 PM
33. I like the idea that women need to have sex "cost" something to stop them from fucking every bro in sight.

Apparently John agrees that Ms. fluke should pay for her birth control pills. Me too. This is more of a seperation of church and state issue than anything. Obama is over-reaching under the guise of "women's health". It's a good scheme, but wholly dishonest and unethical. Not unlike Obama himself.

Posted by Rick D. at March 7, 2012 06:34 PM
34. It is not enough to scoff at the left about this. This notion and claptrap needs to be repudiated by the Presidential candidates and Republicans in Congress. Why are they not pushing back here ? If they are, they are not doing it enough.

By pushing back, I mean pointing out their fallacy - their agenda to coerce the women vote - that's what it is all about and it has worked. In the past month, Obama's approval with women has increased 7% mainly because Republicans are sitting idly by and allowing it to happen - I know its hard, but they need to stop being the stupid party and cowering needless here. They had better grow a pair and fight back, by reframing this issue if they hope to win in November; The intrusion of Government into women's lives (and everyone elses), Sandra Fluke is a mooch - wanting an entitlement for birth control at taxpayers expense and the Democrats are trying to mask and obfuscate the real issue - the vetting of Obamacare.

Posted by KDS at March 7, 2012 07:30 PM
35. Brodeur is a political hack and sounds like a clone of Patty Murray. It's all about bolstering the Democratics for November, truth be damned. It's time to read a counterpoint to her verbal swill (It might help increase circulation Seattle Times if they had the guts and ethics to do it)

John is conflating the issue about insurance companies vs. chuches paying for birth control. Either way, people will have to pay more for it than currently - just another shell game. The element of choice for purchasing of birth control has been removed. Pro-choice who support this are hypocrites...

Posted by KDS at March 7, 2012 08:29 PM
36. .
Congratulations to the female staff, female commenters and female readers of this blog on
International Women's Day!

As Stefan Sharkansky well knows, it's was a woman who brushed his teeth and wiped his rear end and a woman who took the time and taught him to do it himself.

Women! Free, smart, strong and entitled to their opinions and political beliefs without being defamed as whores.


Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 8, 2012 04:22 AM
37. Women! Free, smart, strong and entitled to their opinions and political beliefs without being defamed as whores.

You may want to inform your fellow liberals Maher, Schultz, Olbermann, etc. Afterall, they're the misogynists who regularly defame women on their shows for exactly the reasons you give above.

Posted by Rick D. at March 8, 2012 06:16 AM
38. Brodeur's central premise is that women can "maintain ownership of, and responsibility for, their own bodies" only if the federal government forces third parties to provide free birth control supplies.

Yes, that is his central premise, and there's no other way to say it but that someone of Brodeur's intelligence is simply lying.

Whether the pill requires a prescription or not, whether it is normally covered by insurance or not, the point is that any adult in this country can get contraception without much -- or any -- money. Period.

This isn't about Rush, this isn't about a cyncially invented "war on women." It's about the fact that you can't make up a story about being burdened by the cost of contraception and expect us to not laugh at your lies, and the people who feign belief in those lies.

There is no rational way to spin it so it is even in the realm of the craziest fantasy that your employer controls your body or your "reproductive health" in any way whatsoever. Go get condoms for free, or for really cheap, and stop whining.

Posted by pudge at March 8, 2012 08:10 AM
39. Can someone please show me ONE example of a woman in America who doesn't have access to contraception? Just one woman, please.

I don't believe she exists. I don't believe contraception necessary to control your "health" costs $3000 in 13 years, let alone three. I don't believe that any woman in America (especially at a law school in DC!) can't get condoms for free.

I don't believe the left is being even slightly honest in engaging in this debate, as their argument centers around a complete fiction: that any woman needs contraception paid for by their employer-supplied insurance coverage in order to "control their own reproductive health."

No one is controlling, or is trying to control, your reproductive health. No one is preventing you from controlling your reproductive health by not giving you something you can get for cheap, or free. Stop whining, buy a pack of condoms, and get on with your life.

Posted by pudge at March 8, 2012 09:24 AM
40. Come on, college gals! There is free birth control out there, and you don't need a prescription. If you're smart enough to be in college, you can certainly figure out how to use the rhythm method, which involves tracking your ovulation by taking your temperature every day and abstaining while ovulating. Of course, that does involve a little bit of work, and temporarily not "hooking up",EEK!, but it does mean you are totally, personally, in control of your reproductive system, and you don't have your hand in my wallet to achieve that control. Come on, girls, you should be jumping at this one!

Posted by katomar at March 8, 2012 10:18 AM
41. How ironic is it that liberals only appear to be happy when they're complaining. If there isn't anything to complain about, then they'll create something in their head to complain about, i.e. Ms. flukes vapid argument.
That, ultimately, is the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Posted by Rick D. at March 8, 2012 10:33 AM
42. Rick D.,

Liberals and leftists are also not happy unless they are making others' lives miserable. Their primary goal is to shove their failed, immoral, statist, collectivist agenda down the throats of people who would rather lead happy, productive lives free from government control and oppression.

How ironic and utterly perverse is it that those who once demanded freedom from the "establishment" in the 1960's have now become the oppressor...and that those who demanded their "rights" are now so quick to confiscate the rights of others...

Leftism has always been...and will always be the epitome of evil.

Posted by Saltherring at March 8, 2012 11:28 AM
43. ~!~ I was away for a few days ...
... And was mildly surprised the Fluke kerfuffle was still kerfluffling. I find it enlightening on several levels, but mostly in how it illustrates the wild untethered hypocrisy on the left and in the media.

As this political season moved forward I groaned when issues turned cultural. I believed and still believe our country has massive and frightening economic, over-regulation, loss of freedom and foreign policy problems that should be the focus. Far too many don't pay attention to the economic climate or the minutiae and consequences of foreign policy. Far too many get their news tainted by the sin of omission by those reporting it. They are busy with their lives and accept the sound bites they hear with no further curiosity. I was once that American. Then I realized with Obama's attack on the church and the contraception/abortion mandate on the heels of the Komen and the hate-filled attacks these issue generated are also, and probably far more, important because it makes (or should make) Americans examine their values. It should make them examine their own personal defining line, the one they will not cross. How we treat each other, especially in conflict, how we treat the least amongst us, our manners, our civility (and lack of them) is the base line of who and what we are as a country.

I can't help but wonder if my liberal friends and family (especially those who are Catholic), if all liberally inclined hardworking Americans are ashamed or embarrassed by this spectacle perpetrated by those they allow to speak for their ideology; if they are ashamed or embarrassed by the attack on my Catholic church and our freedoms. Or do they simply turn a blind eye as the unfortunate cost of their ideology?

We've recently had hard conversations in our family about the cost of living our values. It's a very difficult thing when there is much to be lost in doing so, but my bottom line is that if I were to sacrifice one 'little' value here, possibly another there and so on, what would be left of me? My values and the constancy of them (which some call stubbornness) are who I am. It is the foundation on which I am built and live.

It is on that basis that I wonder if everyday liberal-cause supporting Americans are embarrassed by the actions, words and hypocrisy of their 'leaders'. Those I know and love are good, loving, kind and moral people, the 'salt of the earth' folks I'm blessed to have in my life. I suspect that is true of most 'liberal' middle America. But, I wonder if they connect the dots between what/who they support and their own values. I pray they do.

I am not walking away from these battles, these lies, this hypocrisy, these people who will destroy American and ask her citizens to ignore their values.

On a different note the story you aren't hearing is Sandra Fluke: Your Health Care Should Cover Gender Reassignment Surgery and
Omission Watch: Feminist Fluke Insists Insurers Must Fund Transgender Surgeries

Finally, SCATHINGLY funny and sadly true:
But, I have a vagina

I have a vagina, and I insist someone pay to maintain it. You've come a long way, baby. I remember when you could bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never - never - let me forget I'm a man. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. You're gonna make it after all!

It turns out a woman needs a man like a fish needs a taxpayer to subsidize its spawning. Who knew being born with a vagina entitles you to a lifetime of free vagina care? A set of knockers gets you free mammograms. Hey, women have to wipe after they pee so there must be a subsidy to spare women humiliation of running out of toilet paper. You wanna see a conspicuously wide stance? Imagine the indignity, being caught short and having to air dry your girlie bits in a public restroom.

... You win the lottery of life - you're born white and wealthy in America - and it just isn't enough. You're special. You have a vagina. You deserve more. A life without consequences. No respect for conscience after (or before????) choosing to attend a private religious university. No out-of-pocket expense for birth control. What a loser.

Frankly, slut is too kind a word. A slut sleeps with everyone but you (if you're a guy) or the guy you wanted to sleep with (if you're a girl), right. She's promiscuous. That's an insult in America circa 2012? We celebrate promiscuity. Well, as long as she's a sister in good standing. No, there's a more appropriate word for someone who uses the power of the state to impose their beliefs. She's a fascist. A greedy, self-absorbed fascist pig feeding at the trough of big government. Georgetown Law, media cause célèbre, self-absorbed, shameless. She'll go far.

*Emphasis mine

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 12:13 PM
44. My view egarding the importance of the cultural issues:
We the PEOPLE are America.
Our liberty is her heart which we protect and defend.
Our decision making is her brain which we must vigorously exercise.
Our politicians are her arms which we empower to act.
The economy is her legs on which she moves forward.
But our culture is her soul and her conscience.
And without her soul to guide her heart, her brain, her arms and her legs she is but an empty nothing set adrift by those who care nothing about her heart and would gladly damage the rest of her.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 12:19 PM
45. @43 - Well stated and supportable. It makes the leftist progressives sneer. No surprise, once again here, they have a problem with the truth.

Posted by KDS at March 8, 2012 12:23 PM
46. @38 pudge on March 8, 2012 09:24 AM,

"I don't believe the left is being even slightly honest in engaging in this debate, as their argument centers around a complete fiction: that any woman needs contraception paid for by their employer-supplied insurance coverage in order to "control their own reproductive health.""

I'm sorry. Who, exactly, said a woman needs contraception paid for by their employer supplied insurance?

STRAW MAN!

Go watch and listen to the testimony Ms. Fluke gave at the Democrat hosted hearing. Ms. Fluke is no one's employee. Ms. Fluke is a student who is herself paying for health insurance.

There are two issues here:

1) The right of citizens to have universal and regulated insurance plans (especially when employers are permitted to deduct health insurance cost from their taxes).

2) The right of citizens or their legally constituted fictional persons (corporations) to pursue their religious beliefs.

Despite where you choose to align yourself on either or both of these issues vis-a-vis the Affordable Care Act, there is no need to defame someone of the opposite opinion as a "slut" or "prostitute".
But, this being America, you have the right to free speech even if it is offensive, misogynist and wrong. If you make a living off of your speech, you might want to consider the commercial considerations of being offensive to more than half the population.

ps. I want to thank Stefan Sharkansky and the (un)Sound Peanut Gallery for their participation in this discussion. I look forward to linking to it in my communication with women who are "undecided" in the upcoming election.

Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 8, 2012 05:10 PM
47. I look forward to linking to it in my communication with women who are "undecided" in the upcoming election.

As I am sure you are looking forward to telling them the WHOLE truth about this episode:

That it's nothing about women or their freedom to use contraception but rather about the right of religious organizations to continue to enjoy the rights and protections of the first amendment.

That her 'testimony' was contrived and private before a democrat panel and yet portrayed as the whole committee.

That she wasn't denied the whole panel she was rejected because she was an expert in absolutely NOTHING and that the democrats had an expert which at the last minute THEY called back.

That she is not an innocent coed but a 30 year old activist who sought out a Catholic school to intimidate and persecute.

That she has a long history of contraception activism.

That she lied about the 'cost' of contraception and it's availability and cheap cost often FREE cost to her in her area.

That she testified with hearsay in mentioning examples with no particulars.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 05:30 PM
48. @47 RagnarDanneskold on March 8, 2012 05:30 PM,

"That she testified with hearsay in mentioning examples with no particulars."

You have a valid point, and if I were you I'd DEMAND Congressman Darrell Issa re-open hearings to get to the bottom of the issue.

We look to you Ragnar to lead the charge to set the record straight!!

Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 8, 2012 05:39 PM
49. How easily you ignore that which you cannot refute.
How telling your sarcasm is.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 05:44 PM
50. @49 RagnarDanneskold on March 8, 2012 05:44 PM,

Look, to the extent you believe what you say, it was the Republican Congressman Darrell Issa who created the situation where Ms. Fluke presented testimony that did not have the opportunity to be challenged by Republicans.
If you have a problem with that, YOU have a problem with Republican Congressman Darrell Issa and the way he conducted the hearing he called.

You can call my comment sarcastic if you want, but I honestly concede your point and am simply reminding you of its course to resolution. If you have no intent of following up on your point, then you're just pissing in the wind.

Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 8, 2012 05:50 PM
51. Oh, my, Mike BS is such a shining example of the fact that the abortion issue and contraception have been, from the very beginning, a male-originated issue for self-evident reasons. And here comes Mike, hiding under the skirts of potential female voters, the very skirts under which he and so many other modern, mostly liberal males desire to lurk with no consequences whatsoever.

Posted by katomar at March 8, 2012 06:04 PM
52. Get your facts straight.
No, Mr Issa did NOT create the problem. Them Democrats submitted two names, Ms Fluke and the guy who fights Christianity ( I can't remember his name .. .Barry... something or something Barry?). In vetting the submitted candidates for testimony it came to light that Ms Fluke had NO expert credentials for this subject. While they said no to her, they approved the other guy as per the rules of the Congress. The Democrats knew this and the other guy accepted. At the last minute, the other guy didn't show up and it was PORTRAYED that the Republicans did not allow any. Then the democrats rudely started yelling about 'where are the women?' DURING the testimony. It was following the whole committee testimony that the Democrats invited Ms Fluke for their dog and pony show and portrayed the dog and pony show as something it was NOT. It was a private, democrat only sub-committee testimony with NO audience, NO questions, NO press. This poor stupid women allowed herself to be used by a scared party to divert the attention from our failing nation, our failing economy, the assault on religious freedom.

Get your facts straight.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 06:06 PM
53. @47 RagnarDanneskold on March 8, 2012 05:30 PM

And while you're at it
"That she is not an innocent coed but a 30 year old activist who sought out a Catholic school to intimidate and persecute."

Her plan to surreptitiously attend a Catholic school and sand bag Catholicism at a Congressional hearing had to be planned well in advance. You should DEMAND Congressman Darrell Issa or Speaker Boehner investigate who tipped her off years ago that this issue was coming to the fore and that Congressman Darrell Issa would be holding hearings.

Don't dismiss the chance that Congressman Darrell Issa or someone on his staff is a liberal feminist anti-Catholic communist mole. Have you forgotten Alger Hiss?
The fate of our nation is in your knowledgeable hands Ragnar!

Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 8, 2012 06:12 PM
54. Furthermore, she would not have been able to get away with dishonest hearsay at the full committee hearing.

Of course her puppeteers knew that.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 06:12 PM
55. Your ignorant, manipulative and blatant dishonesty demand you be ignored. You can fool yourself, you can lie to your 'friends', but it doesn't change FACTS.

ps, the key word is MANIPULATIVE: the hallmark of liberalism, just as they manipulated that stupid young woman.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 06:17 PM
56. @52 RagnarDanneskold on March 8, 2012 06:06 PM,

It's okay if YOU are willing to let the testimony stand as is. But if that's the case YOU don't have a leg to stand on complaining about it.

If you believe what you say, do something about it.
DEMAND Issa re-open the hearings and use his subpoena power and get to the bottom of it.

Cripes Rags, the liberals took action and have left your man Rush doing his show for free. You can't compete on such a vital issue?

Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 8, 2012 06:18 PM
57. Your straw dog is dead. RIP straw dog.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 06:19 PM
58. Meanwhile, unemployment is up over 9% again and Israel is requesting bunker buster bombs. Let's talk more about contraception, and abortion! That's really what we need to fix this country.

Posted by Palouse at March 8, 2012 06:20 PM
59. Israel is requesting bunker buster bombs.

Actually they were OFFERED bunker busters NOT to bomb Iran until after the election by the foreign policy clown sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Oh gee, isn't 2013 after the election?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 06:21 PM
60. And it's not about contraception and abortion. It's about FREEDOM, this time specifically RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

And that is exactly the conversation to have.

Which is why the scared liberals are desperate to change the subject.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 06:24 PM
61. Mike BS @ 46: Go watch and listen to the testimony Ms. Fluke gave at the Democrat hosted hearing.

Mike BS @ 50: ...YOU have a problem with Republican Congressman Darrell Issa and the way he conducted the hearing he called.

I think Mike's middle name is confusion.

Posted by Short Bus Mike at March 8, 2012 06:29 PM
62. @60 RagnarDanneskold on March 8, 2012 06:24 PM

"It's about FREEDOM, this time specifically RELIGIOUS FREEDOM."

And yet you firmly believe that Ms. Fluke and her "puppeteers" were allowed to change the debate. Will YOU, RagnarDanneskold, DEMAND Congressman Darrell Issa or Speaker Boehner hold Ms Fluke accountable on the important topic of "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"?

No, I didn't think so. There's a word for your type; Chicken. :-D LOL!!!!!

Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 8, 2012 06:37 PM
63. At this point, President Obama is officially a coward on this controversey. He speaks out against Limbaugh's use of the term "slut", but is silent on Bill Maher's repeated reference to Sarah Palin as a "C--T". Not to mention his super PAC accepting a smooth million from the misogynist Maher without a peep from the whitehouse press AKA, mainstream media outlets. President Obama is a lying coward, this much we know. The evidence is how he condones one conduct by his political allies and condemns another by his political foe.

Posted by Rick D. at March 8, 2012 07:06 PM
64. DEMAND Congressman Darrell Issa or Speaker Boehner hold Ms Fluke accountable on the important topic of "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM"?

Ms Fluke has no expertise in the subject of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Which is exactly why the democrats trotted her out to change the subject.


On the other hand, those who DO know a bit about religious freedom are ignored:

We don't need no stinking Bishops!

I guess this is like "smart" diplomacy, right? If you need to affirm your special relationship with the United Kingdom you ship back the bust of Winston Churchill, and if you are having trouble with Catholic bishops, you go talk to... anybody but Catholic bishops.

And, for some reason, they're talking to self-insuring unionistas who -- as Thomas Peters notes, "have had their self-insured plans exempted form Obamacare's mandates through special favors and waivers, at the same time as a huge number of Catholic dioceses and employers who also self-insure are required to follow the mandate" -- but they're not talking to the bishops.

White House fails to call Catholic bishops for mandate talks

Despite rumors of a compromise on the government's controversial contraception mandate, the White House has not offered any concessions to the U.S. bishops' conference and has not contacted them about possible negotiations.
Bishop Lori, who chairs the bishops' committee for religious liberty, maintained that "the only acceptable solution to the HHS mandate is for the Administration to rescind completely the mandate to cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception."

Lions

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 08:24 PM
65. Saving the Culture Means Defeating Deceit
The culture warriors of the left are insidious, invidious, dishonest, ruthless, and very, very clever. As soon as they assert the absolute right to new ground they have never before held or even suggested acquiring, they then start accusing traditionalists of "rolling back" the "right" to the ground the left doesn't yet actually hold.

... What prompts these comments is the amazing act of political jujitsu the defilers of the culture have pulled with relation to the federal government's new requirement that almost all health insurers provide free sterilization and abortion-inducing prescriptions (along with other contraceptive prescriptions). Because most religiously affiliated institutions are not exempt from the requirement, this of course raises serious questions about religious liberty - and, more broadly, the new requirement violates the rights of conscience and free religious exercise belonging to individuals, not just institutions.

When the year 2012 dawned, it was true that never before in the history of the United States had the federal government required, as a cost of doing business, the provision of free contraception. Nor had the government ever before dared to so directly interfere with any churches' doctrinal-related actions. The abortifacient mandate is thus a dual attack on free enterprise and free conscience, on ground that had never been fought over before.

Yet somehow, suddenly, the media is portraying this issue as if it is an "attack on a woman's right to use contraception." Never mind that not a soul has suggested that contraception be forbidden from those who want it; all anybody has done is resisted the notion that somebody else should be forced to pay for it. What was an assault from the left against the right, from libertines against traditionalists, from big-government against freedom, suddenly is portrayed as an attack from the latter groups against the former.

... The American people must somehow be roused from their slumber. Tyranny creeps in on little cat feet, but it eventually rips into its victims like a ravenous tiger. Once you've been half-eaten by a tiger, it's safe to say that your uneaten half is of very little value. The fight over culture is a fight for our very survival. It is a fight in which traditionalists must fully engage, and which we must win.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 08:49 PM
66. Same game, different pawns
The lesbian who is attempting to get a Catholic priest removed from his parish for denying her Holy Communion at her mother's funeral is a Buddhist who describes herself as a "naturally born agitator" committed to a "culture war."

... In the ensuing national media coverage, Johnson was repeatedly painted as the victim of prejudice, while the priest was lambasted as a bigot, even being censured by his own diocese.

But in the days following the incident, new information has emerged about the woman at the center of the controversy that raises questions about why she presented herself for Communion in the first place. In addition to personally asking Johnson not to present herself for Communion, the priest had publicly explained the conditions for receiving Communion during the funeral mass.

... she wrote, "As a Buddhist, my role model of an enlightened, highly realized, and happy human being is Gautama Buddha."

Under canon law, only Roman Catholics are permitted to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass.

In her paper about her experiences in Catholic education, Johnson portrays herself as committed to a "culture war," insisting it is "important to note the place in which the issue exists in our society, a place of deep and historically violent conflict - war...Ironically, the group who most often portray LGBT people as a menace is the same group responsible for 'virtually all rape, assault, murder, theft, child abuse, spouse abuse, and war.'"

... Canon 915 of the Roman Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law states those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." However, canon lawyers disagree about how much interaction is necessary before a priest may deny someone Communion in practice.

A source close to the incident, Diego von Stauffenberg, told LifeSiteNews.com exclusively that Johnson introduced herself and her "lover" to Fr. Guarnizo before the ceremony, and the priest asked her not to present herself for Communion. She then reportedly stormed out, with her lesbian partner blocking the door. After being denied the Eucharist by Fr. Guarnizo, Johnson went into another line and received Holy Communion from an Extraordinary Minister.

... "The liberal narrative is that the Catholic Church is oppressing women," Bowman wrote at Prolix Patriot, "but the truth is that radical liberals who do not believe in the Church's teachings are manufacturing controversy with the help of manipulative media elites."

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 8, 2012 09:06 PM
67. John has hit it on the head. Government is dictating what I should have to buy. They shouldn't. And they shouldn't say i can't buy it from someone in NY or FL or OK. it should be open and my decision. If it was, it would be cheaper. Government only makes things more expensive.

Be pro choice John. Go for it...and not just about killing a baby.

Posted by Dengle at March 8, 2012 09:59 PM
68. MBS - I forgot. What is your definition of religion?

Also, why bring up a liar to lie again by opening hearings? That ugly bitch doesn't need the pill, well yeah...she does. Cause she could get laid anytime she wants...even if she's homley. Men like pussy. Well 99% of them.

Posted by Dengle at March 8, 2012 10:09 PM
69. MBS,

If this is the (un)sound peanut gallery as you say, then why do you bother to come here and comment?

What is it about Leftists that drives you so desperately to try and change our minds? And if you really want to convince us to your way of thinking, why do you do such a poor job of arguing with so much fallacy and ad hominem?

Posted by Jeff B. at March 9, 2012 07:43 AM
70. Simply in an attempt to understand why you think as you say, MBS, were you raised with or without a fully participating father figure? I'm starting to wonder if single female parent households tend to raise more extreme liberal or feminist children. Purely scientific question for my theory.

Posted by shaydo at March 9, 2012 08:48 AM
71.
1) The right of citizens to have universal and regulated insurance plans (especially when employers are permitted to deduct health insurance cost from their taxes).

Please show me EXACTLY where this alleged "right" comes from.

Posted by Bastiat Fan at March 9, 2012 09:41 AM
72.
Her plan to surreptitiously attend a Catholic school and sand bag Catholicism at a Congressional hearing had to be planned well in advance. You should DEMAND Congressman Darrell Issa or Speaker Boehner investigate who tipped her off years ago that this issue was coming to the fore and that Congressman Darrell Issa would be holding hearings.

Don't dismiss the chance that Congressman Darrell Issa or someone on his staff is a liberal feminist anti-Catholic communist mole. Have you forgotten Alger Hiss? The fate of our nation is in your knowledgeable hands Ragnar!

Somebody's been studying their Alinksy, like a good little progressive thug. Way to go, Mikey Bull Shit.

Posted by Bastiat Fan at March 9, 2012 09:45 AM
73. MikeBS: Who, exactly, said a woman needs contraception paid for by their employer supplied insurance?

Most Democrats, including Obama. They say -- literally, over and over again, and in the very article referenced above, by Brodeur -- that an employer not providing an insurance plan that offers contraception coverage means that the employer is controlling the woman's health. That can only be true if the woman cannot get contraception easily without the employer-provided insurance offering it.

This popular image sums it up: these people say, and apparently many of them bizarrely believe, that not getting contraception from your boss means you "can't control your reproductive health."

They are saying it. And they are lying. And you are lying by saying they aren't saying it.


STRAW MAN!

YKUTWIDNTIMWYTIM.


Go watch and listen to the testimony Ms. Fluke gave at the Democrat hosted hearing. Ms. Fluke is no one's employee. Ms. Fluke is a student who is herself paying for health insurance.

I'm not talking about her in the context of whether she can or would get it from an employer (and who the hell would hire her?!). I only mentioned her because she lied about contraception costing about $1000 a year.


The right of citizens to have universal and regulated insurance plans

... clearly does not exist.


The right of citizens or their legally constituted fictional persons (corporations) to pursue their religious beliefs.

... clearly does exist.


there is no need to defame someone of the opposite opinion as a "slut" or "prostitute".

I don't care. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. You are just trying to dishonestly distract, as usual.

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 10:53 AM
74. This is absolutely not an issue of religious freedom: if the issue is very important for Catholic hospitals, then they can stop offering health insurance and start offering additional financial compensation to their employees. There is no requirement in the least that employers provide health insurance to employees.

I don't think employers should pay for health insurance, but since it's a government policy that creates the norm that health insurance is given as a form of compensation I feel we should remind everyone that insurance is employee's property just like the rest of his or her compensation.

Insurance companies are required to provide contraception without co-pays, just like they must pay for prostate exams and mammary exams without a co-pay. What if my employer didn't want to pay for mammary exams? Prostate exams? Open-heart surgery? Why aren't these issues controversial? The reason is that Republicans have a social conservative, religious base that is uncomfortable with sex and moral decline, so politicians and pundits trying to appeal to the base are latching on to this issue.

Pudge: It's obvious that free contraception -- like free anything -- will increase access to it. ECON 101 or common sense will tell you that. One marginal person in a country of 300+ million will absolutely change behavior in response to the price signal.

And if people are lying, so what? Rush Limbaugh lied about how often someone has to take contraception. He lied about Fluke. He's an asshole. There are assholes on the other side, too. Why are you so insistant on arguing about personalities and people rather than public policy? Is your entire life going to be dedicated toward incriminating the other side? No one here is interested in defending those people from your dense illogical logic, just like you're not interested in Rush Limbaugh. Get the fuck over it: political pundits and blowhards say stupid shit all the time.

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 11:51 AM
75. @73 pudge on March 9, 2012 10:53 AM,

Thank-you for clearing up who exactly said a woman needs contraception paid for by their employer supplied insurance.

The answer for those uninitiated in the pudge linguistic looping style is that pudge says it because that is how pudge interprets what people mean.

And pudge, despite what your fertile imagination tells you about what Brodeur wrote, no where in that piece does she say "that an employer not providing an insurance plan that offers contraception coverage means that the employer is controlling the woman's health.", so your conclusion about what she meant by a statement she never made is a bit much ... even for you.

Brodeur did ask at the end of the article

Is that logic too much for some people? Am I talking too fast? Or is it that I'm a woman?
:-D

Posted by MikeBoyScout at March 9, 2012 12:02 PM
76. Don't give Inslee a free pass. He needs to be tied to the anti-religion narrative based upon corruption of the 1st Amendment and loss of personal liberty that it portends.

Posted by Paddy at March 9, 2012 01:57 PM
77. Don't give Inslee a free pass. He needs to be tied to the anti-religion narrative based upon corruption of the 1st Amendment and loss of personal liberty that it portends.

Posted by Paddy at March 9, 2012 01:58 PM
78. Jeff@69 asks some good questions about why liberals bother to comment here. I'll answer for myself: To understand trhe weak points in my reasoning. (Go ahead, everyone, make a joke here. I know you want to.) To understand how the other side thinks. To have my opinion changed -- rarely completely changed, but many issues have many shades of gray. To change others' opinions -- I never expect to change the opinions of some of you, but I assume some readers recognize shades of gray and are open to shifting their opinions somewhat.

OK, and sometimes I just can't resist poking holes in idiotic statements.

Posted by Bruce at March 9, 2012 02:00 PM
79. Bruce @78:
OK, and sometimes I just can't resist poking holes in idiotic statements.
We have a similar motivation for welcoming you here, Bruce.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 9, 2012 02:25 PM
80. John: This is absolutely not an issue of religious freedom

False.


if the issue is very important for Catholic hospitals, then they can stop offering health insurance

False. First, they are not allowed to. They are requiered to offer insurance, by law. Second, even if they were not required, what if they WANT to provide health insurance? It makes no sense to say that because their only option in offering insurance is to provide contraception (and thus commit a moral sin), that therefore they can simply choose to not provide insurance.

That's like saying someone has to have a THERE IS NO GOD bumper sticker on their car in order to drive on the public road, and it doesn't infringe on their religious freedom because they could simply choose to not drive.


There is no requirement in the least that employers provide health insurance to employees.

False. Under "Obamacare," there is.


Insurance companies are required to provide contraception without co-pays, just like they must pay for prostate exams and mammary exams without a co-pay.

That's irrelevant. The point is that the employer pays for those services to be provided without a copay.


What if my employer didn't want to pay for mammary exams? Prostate exams? Open-heart surgery?

Then so be it. Fine by me. I just won't work there.


Why aren't these issues controversial?

Because those are not a significant matters of religious freedom, and contraception is ... this disproving your point.


The reason is that Republicans have a ... base that is uncomfortable with sex

You're lying. I am FOR CONTRACEPTION, as are almost everyone one I know who thinks the government is overreaching in this matter (including many socially liberal Democrats and independents!). I know a few Catholics who are anti-contraception, and I stand up for their right to not pay for it.


It's obvious that free contraception -- like free anything -- will increase access to it.

It's often free, and it's always widely available. What's your point?


And if people are lying, so what?

Is that the new DNC bumper sticker slogan?


Rush Limbaugh ...

I am not talking about him, and do not care about him.


Why are you so insistant on arguing about personalities and people rather than public policy?

I'm not. I am simply stating the fact that they are lying. And this is important because the only reason this is an issue at all is because the left is lying. If we discussed this on a purely factual basis, this would not be an issue at all. Here's the facts:

* Many people believe it is a mortal sin to provide contraception to others, including paying for an insurance plan that covers it
* Anyone can get contraception for free or cheap


Therefore, even if you think many health insurance services should be mandated to make sure people have access, it's a fact that contraception is not among those, and therefore there's no significant government interest for overriding religious freedom.


No one here is interested in defending those people ...

You're lying. That's precisely what MikeBS is doing. And YOU are doing something even worse: using their lies to pretend that this is not an issue of religious freedom.

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 02:42 PM
81. MikeBS: And pudge, despite what your fertile imagination tells you about what Brodeur wrote, no where in that piece does she say "that an employer not providing an insurance plan that offers contraception coverage means that the employer is controlling the woman's health."

Not in those words, no, but she says right in the beginning that this is a "battle for control of the American uterus." But it's not true: no one wants to control anyone's uterus. At all. She is making the case that the Republicans and some Catholics are trying to control women's reproductive health BY allowing employers to not cover contraception. That is literally what she is saying, and she's lying.

And simply saying I am wrong without showing how I am wrong doesn't win you any points.


Is that logic too much for some people? Am I talking too fast? Or is it that I'm a woman?

Logic is much, much too much to ask for Brodeur and MikeBS.

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 02:48 PM
82. Friday Fun:
Men's Cough Drop Health

MANdate

Obamacare Freebie

And now BACK TO THE POINT:
The Left's War on Christianity

... Liberalism is so unrelentingly hostile to Christianity that it's virtually impossible to be both a devout Christian and a devout liberal at the same time. To be a liberal Christian means you either have to completely gut your religious beliefs to make them compatible with your political inclinations or alternately, you have to spend your days cowering with your eyes down while your fellow liberals demean, smear, and mock everything you should hold dear.

Christianity, with its absolute moral order, is a dire threat to liberalism. If you're a Christian with staunch morals who's not in favor of abortion, gay marriage, teaching little kids about fisting or banning schools from mentioning Christ over Christmas, you're in conflict with liberalism. If liberals started living up to the religious beliefs they claim to have, then they'd upset the general philosophy of the Democratic Party, which says that anything that will add more votes must not just be tolerated, but enthusiastically sanctioned. In the end, liberalism always trumps Christianity for Democrats. That's why you saw "pro-life" Dems like Bart Stupak throw the babies under the bus when push came to shove over Obamacare.

This has guided the liberal approach to Christianity. Liberals believe Christians should be mocked, impugned, and driven from the public square at every opportunity, except when there's an election coming up. Then, Democratic candidates engage in pandering that liberals forgive them for, because they know they don't really believe it.

... You can't endlessly spew hatred at Christians, sneer at people who take the Bible seriously and then claim to be friendly to people of faith.

Limbaugh And the, Um, Lady

... Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns - with pride - her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she's a hero.

It's genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman - though very nice, I'm sure - would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman's "right" to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own "preventative medicine," why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.

... But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women's movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can't survive without welfare. Women's empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.

Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left's entire "denied access to contraception" premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control - already cheap and often free - have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.

Name one woman who has been "denied access" to birth control - ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to "ban contraception."

There are none.

Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.

Freedom is forged from responsibility
Free people are not slaves to their urges.

...The "old fashioned" model of holding people accountable for their sexual urges - expecting men to take responsibility for the women in their lives, and holding men and women responsible for their children - was an engine that generated a great deal of true freedom. It placed layers of family, community, and religious faith between people and the State. It gave married couple and their children the resources necessary to avoid government dependency. It would have made people ashamed to appear at public hearings and hand other people the invoice for their sex lives. It would have made the young men of a university profoundly embarrassed to be viewed as cads, who apparently shoulder little of the alleged $1,000-per-year burden for hooking up.

Of course all that "regressive" talk of family, responsibility, and honor had to go. We could never have arrived at gigantic government programs mandating religious organizations to pay for birth control and abortifacient drugs otherwise. It's an important step on the way to a future where no one is responsible for anything, everything vital is "free," and the wise masters of the State decide what is "vital." We can have an irresponsible society, or a free nation, but not both.

Contraception Deception Is No Fluke

... So how did Fluke gain a hearing before Congress? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called a hearing on the constitutionality of the Obama mandate. Democrats first wanted Americans United for Separation of Church and State executive director Barry Lynn to testify. Lynn is a typical anti-religious leftist, but at least he has some measure of "expertise" on the matter of Obama's interference with the church.

However, in a last-minute effort to misdirect the issue to "women's health," Democrats asked that Fluke appear. The committee had not vetted her, and Issa denied the request. Undeterred, Democrats held a subcommittee hearing, called their media accomplices for ample coverage, and allowed Fluke to testify about the plight of young women at Georgetown who supposedly can't afford their own birth control (despite its availability at the local pharmacy for $9 a month) and demand that the university buy it for them. She has no expertise on the subject of Obama's mandate, and her testimony was completely irrelevant hearsay.

... It's critical to remember that the real issue is Obama's determination to deny religious liberty in the name of "women's health." Democrats realize that if the issue is framed properly, they lose. Their only hope is to distract and deceive by making the issue about women's access to birth control, or whether Rush is a misogynist or whatever other sideshow they can contrive.

Democrats claim that they want reproductive choices left between a woman and her doctor, but it is they who demand government control over health care in general, and, more specifically, authority to force employers and others to pay for certain "health" benefits regardless of the cost. Democrats claim that they love individual rights and liberties, but it is they who deny them for the sake of their pet causes. ObamaCare is designed to destroy liberty, and we mustn't let the Left's Big Top Circus distract from the mission to repeal it.

Liberals are losing the Fluke battle
A phony narrative blows up in their faces.

*Emphasis mine

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 03:34 PM
83. Ragnar: why do you hate women? :-)

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 03:50 PM
84. Sigh. Especially because I am one???

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 04:09 PM
85. They are requiered to offer insurance, by law.

You're lying. Many jobs do not offer insurance and it is completely legal to do so. Please avoid lying again.

Under "Obamacare," there is.

Liar. There is no requirement that employers provide insurance.

Employers don't even have to pay *anything* for health care unless their employees get federal subsidies. Then they help to pick up the tab. But there is no requirement that insurance is provided to employees.

Second, even if they were not required, what if they WANT to provide health insurance?

Then they have to follow the law. Just like their hospitals must treat non-religious people and provide emergency abortions. A hospital or a business is not a church.

It makes no sense to say that because their only option in offering insurance is to provide contraception, that therefore they can simply choose to not provide insurance.

Uh, yes, it does make sense. Liar. It's an obvious solution.

That's like saying someone has to have a THERE IS NO GOD bumper sticker on their car in order to drive on the public road, and it doesn't infringe on their religious freedom because they could simply choose to not drive.

That's a stupid analogy. The government cannot require someone to have a bumper sticker like that. It obviously has authority to regulate what type of services health insurance companies must offer, and has been exercising that authority for decades.

And YOU are doing something even worse: using their lies to pretend that this is not an issue of religious freedom.

Don't accuse me of "pretending," you pathetic asshole. Insurance companies should be regulated by the government and that has never had anything to do with religious freedom. There is no requirement that religious organizations buy health insurance for others, so there is no requirement that anyone buys any services against their will.

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 05:21 PM
86. Thanks for proving my point: Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman's "right" to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility?

1) Like I said, this issue is about sex. Many in your party are uncomfortable with sex.

2) There is a right to be promiscuous, and it would be facially unconstitutional for a law to regulate promiscuity. The reason that word is in quotes is because many Republicans are uncomfortable with sex and demonize women who have sex.

3) It is completely absurd to imply that any woman who takes birth control is promiscuous. The Republican party has very backwards views on contraception, probably stemming from how uncomfortable many of its members are with sex.

4) It is not your financial responsibility, it is her insurance company's -- the same company she pays thousands of dollars in premiums for. This is just like any other prescription, but the reason this author is calling women whores is because they -- like many Republicans -- are uncomfortable with sex.

----

A lot of people are claiming that birth control is practically free: First, you'll need to get a prescription. (...) Your health care provider will discuss your medical history with you, check your blood pressure, and give you any other medical exam that you may need. If you need an exam, it may cost about $35-$250.

Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15-$50 a month.

Needless to say, $35-250/one-time + $15-50/month is expensive for many women. These costs add up. It will without a doubt help some women for contraception to be free, just like it will help some men for prostate exams to be free.

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 05:48 PM
87. pudge wrote: But it's not true: no one wants to control anyone's uterus. At all.

Rangar quoted: The "old fashioned" model of holding people accountable for their sexual urges - expecting men to take responsibility for the women in their lives, and holding men and women responsible for their children - was an engine that generated a great deal of true freedom.

You're a liar, pudge. The Republican party and many of its members think this is an issue of morality. They think women should have sex less often, and the way to make women have sex less often is to force them to have children when they have sex. Rangar's quoted author calls this "responsibility."

Republicans in Virginia wanted to put an ultrasound device into a woman's vagina -- right up to her uterus, pudge -- before she could have a legal abortion -- one that she has a right to access. Thankfully, due to progressive outrage, Republicans backed off from that invasive approach.

Republicans want to outlaw abortion because they are comfortable putting their morality into the force of law -- no matter what women want to do with their uterus. Many people, including me, take that as a sign that "someone" wants to control someone else's uterus.

And over, and over, and over again Republicans throughout this debate have implied that women are sluts and "promiscuous" if they use birth control. It sounds to me that these people want to judge women into acting differently, and putting things near their uterus less often.

Yes, this is an issue about morality and sex to many in your party, pudge. Many in your party want to use the government to put women in situations where they have sex less often. When you wrote "no one," you were lying.

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 05:58 PM
88. Republicans in Virginia wanted to put an ultrasound device into a woman's vagina -- right up to her uterus, pudge -- before she could have a legal abortion -- one that she has a right to access. Thankfully, due to progressive outrage, Republicans backed off from that invasive approach.

Of course I love it when a liberal who thinks he/she is making a point befouls himself, poor, sad fool:

Planned Parenthood Already "Rapes" Women in Pre-Abortion Ultrasound

Dahlia Lithwick's Sonogram Lie Implodes
Virginia Planned Parenthood Is Raping Women!!!!!

...Her claim was that Virginia was RAPING WOMEN!!1!!!! because an ultrasound was being required before a surgical procedure was undertaken.
Today the story descended into farce.
"Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we're able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound."
So to get an abortion in Virginia a woman would have to get at least two ultrasounds. This would be at least three times in which, to quote Lithwick's own words, something was "inserted into the vagina, and then moved around."

... The defenders of abortion are rightfully feeling beleaguered. Polls have shifted in the past years making approval of abortion a minority position. As more and more states take aim at the abortion industry, the supporters of infanticide, like Lithwick, are becoming more and more shrill... if that is possible... and unhinged.

Pro-Abortion Rape Myth Debunked, 99% of Abortion Clinics Do Ultrasounds

Ultrasounds before abortions are standard care, so why are pro-aborts getting so worked up?

Pro-aborts 'completely made up' vaginal ultrasound requirement in Virginia bill

Pro-choice and not pro-abortion? Then why oppose the sonogram laws?


Nice try.
Thanks for playing.
Please come back when you're better at it.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 06:37 PM
89. John: Liar. There is no requirement that employers provide insurance.

Nonsense. If an employer has at least 50 employees, they are penalized for every full-time employee with federally subsidized insurance.

"Yeah, we won't 'require' you to provide it, but if you don't, then we'll force you to pay for it anyway." And you say it's not a requirement ... who do you think you're kidding?


Then they have to follow the law.

Yes, just like the government has to follow the First Amendment and not force them to pay for contraception.

Then again, the government's ignoring the Tenth Amendment by forcing everyone to have insurance coverage, so it's not like they give a damn about the Constitution.


Just like their hospitals must treat non-religious people and provide emergency abortions.

Only when the life of the mother is at stake, and in such cases, there is no religious prohibition (not in mainline Catholic or Protestant beliefs, anyway).


A hospital or a business is not a church.

I don't recall seeing those words in the First Amendment. On the contrary, it doesn't say "churches" get protection, it says religions do, and a university and a hospital are explicitly part of the mission of the Catholic religion, as much as the neighborhood church is.


Uh, yes, it does make sense.

Only if you ignore the First Amendment. Which you do.


That's a stupid analogy. The government cannot require someone to have a bumper sticker like that.

I would have thought so too, but I also would have thought the government cannot require someone to buy health insurance.


It obviously has authority to regulate what type of services health insurance companies must offer

No, it has no such authority whatsoever.


... and has been exercising that authority for decades.

Unconstitutionally, yes.


Don't accuse me of "pretending"

I can and will and do.


Insurance companies should be regulated by the government and that has never had anything to do with religious freedom.

False. It always has. You're pretending again.


There is no requirement that religious organizations buy health insurance for others

False. I already proved this, and you already unwittingly conceded it. Either they provide it directly or they are forced to pay for it.


... there is no requirement that anyone buys any services against their will.

False. You already conceded this point when you admitted that they are forced to "help to pick up the tab." That services they are buying, helping to pick up the tab for -- against their will -- includes contraceptive services.

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 07:29 PM
90. Rangar, linking to right wing blogs is not convincing. You are misinformed, which is no surprised.

If there was nothing wrong with the original bill, why was it amended?

The bill was originally written such that an ultrasound wand would have to be inserted into the woman's vagina for abortions that are in the first trimester because it required the ultrasound determine the gestational age.

The bill was amended to: "If gestational age cannot be determined by a transabdominal ultrasound, then the patient undergoing the abortion shall be verbally offered other ultrasound imaging to determine gestational age, which she may refuse." If there was no need for this amendment, why was it added?

Either way. This is a law REQUIRING a woman to do something with her body that she may not want to do. Yes, Republicans in Virginia want to control how women receive health care and they want to make women uncomfortable when they get abortions, which women have a Constitutional right to have.

Pudge was lying when he said "no one" is trying to get into women's vaginas. Republicans in Virginia wanted to insert themselves into women's vaginas, and they succeeded in inserting themselves into a personal, reproductive choice. Yes, "someone" does want to control what women do with their reproductive organs.

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 07:34 PM
91. John: Like I said, this issue is about sex. Many in your party are uncomfortable with sex.

False on both counts.


The Republican party has very backwards views on contraception

False. I don't even know what "views" you're talking about: I've never heard of or seen any Republican views on contraception. There is a Catholic view against it, one I do not share. That's about it. You're pretending again: either pretending that the Catholic view is a Republican view, or that some things are contraception that are not (abortion, Plan B, etc.; well, Plan B *can* be used as contraception, but its contraceptive use is not why it is opposed by many).


probably stemming from how uncomfortable many of its members are with sex.

You're pretending again.


It is not your financial responsibility, it is her insurance company's

You're lying. This is about the people who are forced to pay for her insurance.


A lot of people are claiming that birth control is practically free: First, you'll need to get a prescription.

For some, yes. For most, no. Condoms require no prescription. So you're lying.


Needless to say, $35-250/one-time + $15-50/month is expensive for many women.

And condoms are LITERALLY free in many places.


It will without a doubt help some women for contraception to be free

It IS free. Stop pretending.

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 07:36 PM
92. John: The Republican party and many of its members think this is an issue of morality.

You're pretending. SOME people see it as an issue of morality. The Republican Party does not, and I don't. I see it as an issue of liberty, pure and simple. And even then, NO ONE wants to control anyone's uterus. They may see it as a moral issue, but they still have expressed no desire or policy to control their behavior. You're just lying, John.


They think women should have sex less often, and the way to make women have sex less often is to force them to have children when they have sex.

You're a liar. No one said they should be forced to have children when they have sex. That's not even remotely true.


Republicans in Virginia wanted to put an ultrasound device into a woman's vagina -- right up to her uterus, pudge -- before she could have a legal abortion -- one that she has a right to access.

While I can understand outrage over that, considering that you have absolutely ZERO outrage from the far more harmful and invasive act of destroying a human life inside the womb, I just can't find it in me to give a damn.


Republicans want to outlaw abortion because they are comfortable putting their morality into the force of law

You're a liar. I want to outlaw abortion because it denies the right to life of the human in the womb completely, and takes that life away.


Many people, including me, take that as a sign that "someone" wants to control someone else's uterus.

Then you're stupid or a liar. That's like saying that because I want to end slavery, that I want to control someone else's right to do business.


And over, and over, and over again Republicans throughout this debate have implied that women are sluts and "promiscuous" if they use birth control.

Some have. And over, and over, and over again, even more Democrats throughtout this "debate" -- which is completely manufactured by the left -- have stated that Republicans are against women if they believe that government should not be able to force companies to commit a moral sin.

I consider the latter far worse, because not only is it despicable ad hominem, but the latter group is pushing to actually force us to do things, where as those you are defaming don't want to force anyone to do anything.


It sounds to me that these people want to judge women into acting differently

Trying to change behavior of people through saying "tsk, tsk" isn't nearly as bad as trying to do so through the illegitimate force of the federal government. So again, you're not making a serious case here.


Yes, this is an issue about morality and sex to many in your party, pudge.

False. It's actually only a very small minority -- the Catholics, mostly -- for whom this is about morality in terms of sex. It's about sex for everyone, of course: Sandra Fluke was making a case explicitly about sexual freedom. But for me, and most Republicans, it's only a moral issue in the sense that it is highly immoral for government to force Catholics to commit a mortal sin.


Many in your party want to use the government to put women in situations where they have sex less often.

You're a liar. They don't want government to do ANYTHING AT ALL. This is about us wanting government to NOT use its force to ANY effect.

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 07:47 PM
93. You didn't have a single substantive point in your post, you arrogant asshole. Contraception isn't free, you lying asshole.

I've never heard of or seen any Republican views on contraception.

Then you're a misinformed asshole, too. Read what I just quoted, asshole: many Republicans seem to think that women who take birth control pills are sluts.

Plan B is a higher dose of birth control, you misinformed asshole -- it's contraception.

Condoms are not birth control pills, you oblivious asshole. Some women are allergic to latex. Rapists don't often wear condoms. Birth control pills have a higher effectiveness rate.

No one is forced to pay for her insurance, you lying asshole. Fluke pays her own insurance; her future employer is not required to pay for her insurance.

This is about the people who are forced to pay for her insurance.

What are you talking about, you stupid asshole? She pays for her own insurance. Jesus Christ, you have to be one of the densest people I've ever encountered. Learn to read, jackass.

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 08:00 PM
94. Rangar, linking to right wing blogs is not convincing. You are misinformed, which is no surprised.

That straw dog is the last refuge of the lazy and ignorant. That the facts are REPORTED by an organization of any ideology does not change the veracity of the FACTS. Disprove them rather than criticize the source REPORTING them.

many Republicans seem to think that women who take birth control pills are sluts.

And of course you have a source for that ugly and inflammatory statement.

She pays for her own insurance.

Perhaps she does. However she does not WANT to; she wants an intrusive government to break with over 200 years of religious freedoms to FORCE the Catholic Church's to go against the tenets it has held for over 2000 years.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 08:11 PM
95. She's a whore, and it's a distraction. Keep your eye on the ball people. Just a little reminder:

Fuel is pushing $4/gal, expected to reach around $6/gal this summer - no realistic plan from our idiot President.

Iran is priming to bomb Israel off the face of the earth - President Downgrade doesn't care, and neither does the UN.

Way too many people are dependent on the federal government - Barack Idiot and every other liberal Democrat seems to WANT THIS.

Unemployment is still ridiculously high - no realistic plan from our idiot President.

Half of the population isn't paying taxes - President Downgrade's answer is "MOAR SPENDING PLZ."

Illegal immigration (and its associated woes) is still a very serious problem - Eric Holder and Barack Idiot are making it worse.

Foreclosures and bankruptcies are still rising - President Downgrade wants to CONTINUE the insane practice of sub-prime lending, and hamstring the banks even more.

Class and racial warfare is on the rise - Barack Idiot and every single Democrat we see are stoking the flames.

Green Energy projects? Failure. All ending in bankruptcy, not creating any jobs.

Federal budget? Failure. Laughed out of Congress. Even by the Democrats.

Government Motors? Failure. Still a waste of money. ps. Congrats, we all now own a slice of Peugeot. Peugeot.

1st Amendment is being whittled away. 2nd Amendment is being whittled away. 4th Amendment is being whittled away. 9th and 10th Amendments are all but ignored. President Downgrade supports all of this.

Not one single policy of this Administration has panned out successfully, or in a way that has at all benefitted America and Americans. He has killed jobs, he has skyrocketed our debt, he has crippled our economy, he has paved the road for criminals to abuse what this country has to offer, he has thrown our greatest allies under the bus, he's saddled this country with an asinine health care plan (against our will!) that will break our spine, and he's stuck us and our children with the bill for ALL of it.

And the entire country is whining about Sandra fucking Fluke being called the slut she is, and is proud to be.

Get your priorities in order people.

Here's Obama's Legacy folks. Who in their right mind would vote for this twice?​

Posted by AT at March 9, 2012 08:24 PM
96. I posted too soon, here are some substantive points!

While I can understand outrage over that, considering that you have absolutely ZERO outrage from the far more harmful and invasive act of destroying a human life inside the womb, I just can't find it in me to give a damn.

First of all, you have no idea whether I "have ... outrage"; just because you're an asshole doesn't mean you're a mindreader.

My view is that life doesn't begin at conception, so forcing a miscarriage is not destroying a human life. We disagree. Let's not make laws that force women to live by one of our moral codes.

I think we should work to reduce abortions because of the unique controversy around them; part of that is providing easy access to contraception, including birth control pills.

I want to outlaw abortion because it denies the right to life of the human in the womb completely, and takes that life away.

That's your morality, you fool. Many people disagree. Please stop trying to force your morality on the rest of the country.

Trying to change behavior of people through saying "tsk, tsk" isn't nearly as bad as trying to do so through the illegitimate force of the federal government.

Fair enough, but you are denying that the "tsk, tsk" is at all relevant to debate when in fact it is driving the debate for much right. Look at what Rangar quotes. What kind of sexist, idiotic bullshit is this? Who knew being born with a vagina entitles you to a lifetime of free vagina care? A set of knockers gets you free mammograms. Hey, women have to wipe after they pee so there must be a subsidy to spare women humiliation of running out of toilet paper.

Are you kidding me? Get these idiots in your party to shut their fucking mouths before they convince more women to vote for Obama. Step 1 is stop pretending that words like this aren't a REAL and SIGNIFICANT reason that Republicans have latched to this debate.

They don't want government to do ANYTHING AT ALL. This is about us wanting government to NOT use its force to ANY effect.

You're living in a fantasy world. Republicans want to outlaw abortions -- forcing millions of women to bend to your moral code. They oppose Plan B -- a strong dose of contraception -- want to force it behind the counter. Some feel it shouldn't exist at all, by force of law. And just like Rush did, many are making an issue about contraception a moral discussion about sexuality. Humiliating women for using birth control may not carry for the force of law, but it's just as disgusting.

To be fair, you probably have more libertarian views. But that doesn't mean that this isn't part of a larger debate; it's ridiculous to pretend that it isn't.

Again, hospitals and businesses are not churches. Catholic hospitals must treat atheists and they must provide abortions. They cannot offer prayer in lieu of the minimum wage. We accept many reasonable limits on religious freedom, and given that Catholics are not forced to buy insurance for their employees, this is a somewhat arbitrary issue.

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 08:31 PM
97. AT: She's a whore

Classy. There's your source, Rangar.

Pudge: Why do you think people in your party are calling Fluke a whore? I thought this was just about religious freedom?

Posted by John at March 9, 2012 08:38 PM
98. "No one said they should be forced to have children when they have sex. That's not even remotely true."
Of course it's true. Republicans clutch their pearls over abortion. But they also are fighting like hell to restrict two really good strategies to reduce the need for abortion in the first place: sex ed in our schools and access to reliable #read: not condoms# contraception.
Anyone who's truly "pro-life" would support broader access to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But with conservatives' crusade to outlaw abortion, AND prevent sex ed AND reduce access to contraception, the message is pretty clear. If you're a woman and you can't afford the luxury of dependable contraception, then you have one of two choices: don't have sex or be prepared to be a mother.
Are Republicans waging a war on women? Of course they are. You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

Posted by doggril at March 9, 2012 08:40 PM
99. Again, hospitals and businesses are not churches. Catholic hospitals must treat atheists and they must provide abortions. They cannot offer prayer in lieu of the minimum wage. We accept many reasonable limits on religious freedom, and given that Catholics are not forced to buy insurance for their employees, this is a somewhat arbitrary issue.

A Catholic hospital, school, orphanage, convent and/or rectory are CONSECRATED and considered HOLY GROUND in no way different than a church building other than in its mission. Further, while Catholic service organizations may enjoys some federal benefits, the majority of their mission is in CHARITY. They provide far more than they receive.

What if American Catholic hospitals close?

Obama Risks $100 Billion If Catholic Hospitals Close
Bishops May Close Facilities Rather than Bend to Contraception Dictate

HHS mandate could close 13 percent of the nation's hospitals

FYI T there is precedent Catholic Charities of Boston (as one example) stopped it's adoption services rather than disobey their own teachings and belief against homosexuality.

Imagine how the 'social justice' crowd will howl when they withdraw from homeless mission, food missions, prison missions...

And, FYI
Prominent Abortion Backer Slams Ultrasound-Rape Comparison

When even a veteran pro-abortionist says "no more," we can at least hope that it may signal a return to a sane discussion of ultrasound legislation in general, Virginia's ultrasound bill in particular.

Carole Joffe, a professor emerita at the University of California-Davis, wrote at Slate.com yesterday that she has "considerable concerns about what calling [transvaginal] ultrasounds 'rape' and 'unnecessary' will mean for abortion patients and providers."

Joffe's op-ed is written against the backdrop of a media-frenzy that is as over-the-top as it is disconnected from reality. With truth counting for nothing, pro-abortionists and their allies unmercifully pummeled Commonwealth legislators and the governor of Virginia, carrying the day by characterizing as 'rape' the very same procedure abortionists routinely use: a transvaginal ultrasound.

Joffe, to her credit, cuts right to the heart of the issue in her opening paragraph. She quotes a longtime abortion provider, who asked (either tongue in cheek or out of a genuine concern), "Are we now going to have to convince our patients we are not raping them?"

To Joffe, this "demonstrates what is wrongheaded about the rhetoric that abortion rights supporters have been using to oppose ultrasound laws. In the short run, the labeling has sent pro-life legislators running. But in the long run, it risks turning a benign and routine part of the abortion procedure into cause for alarm."
Get that? A "benign and routine part of the abortion procedure" has been turned "into a cause for alarm."
If you or I wrote this (and, as it happened, I have, numerous times), we would be dismissed as pro-life 'fanatics.'

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 09:20 PM
100. But with conservatives' crusade to outlaw abortion, AND prevent sex ed AND reduce access to contraception, the message is pretty clear.

Big accusation, no proof.

Typical.

Name ONE person who wants to OUTLAW abortion.
Crickets.

Name ONE person who wants to prevent sex ed.
More chirping. No the fact is we want ALL options taught, including (horrors!) ABSTINENCE.

Name one person who wants to reduce access to contraception.
The cricket choir is at full voice.

Is there an honest liberal anywhere on these boards?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 09:26 PM
101. Classy.

Bingo!

Now please express your outrage against Bill Maher, Ed Shultz, Olbermann, Letterman, Loius CK that charming union activist in Wisconsin who has been emailing invective to Sen Pam Galloway for the last year.

I hear those crickets warming up again.

At least one liberal is honest about the misogeny, hypocrisy and double standard of liberal MEN - you know the ones who evoke total silence by the 'women'' advocates'.

Rush Limbaugh Isn't the Only Media Misogynist
by Kirsten Powers Mar 4, 2012 10:00 AM EST
Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

~~~

Critics of Rush Limbaugh Ignore Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi Misogyny
Mar 8, 2012 9:35 PM EST
If Democrats are so outraged by misogyny in the media, why is President Obama's super PAC taking Bill Maher's $1 million? And why is David Axelrod reportedly going on 'Real Time'?

~~~

Democrat Congresswomen Refuse To Condemn Bill Maher Calling Sarah Palin Names (Video)

~~~

Scathing New Video Slams Obama's 'Double Standard' on Maher and LimbaughScathing New Video Slams Obama's 'Double Standard' on Maher and Limbaugh

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 09:48 PM
102. Unofficial Transcript of Obama call to sandra Fluke

Shouts About 'Choice' And 'Women's Health' Are Disengenuous

There is something special about a mother and her love.

We seem to know it innately. We tend to reflect it in our laws, at least family law. It's one reason "women's health" rhetoric, of which we've heard so much lately, resonates to the point of drowning out the details of any policy, controversy or testimony.

But such purported respect for women, and mothers, can also ring hollow.

... This has less to do with politics than with misogyny, unless politics itself has become nothing more than a sexual power play. If it has, you might be surprised to learn that it's not the GOP that has led the way.

The current White House mandate debate is not so much about birth control as it is about effectively shutting religious citizens and entities down when it comes to contraception, sterilization and even abortion. The government is saying, "Sure, you can believe that crazy stuff, but you can't practice it in the public square." The debate is an existential threat to liberty as we've known it in America.

Meanwhile, Republicans are said to be waging a "war on women" by doing such supposedly radical things as proposing bills that would protect conscience rights (by restoring them to where they were the day President Obama was inaugurated) and offer women a look at the ultrasounds that are often a routine part of the medical preparation for an abortion. It's ironic, isn't it? In both cases, legislation is about protecting choices. Isn't "choice" what self-proclaimed women's health advocates are all about? Or is it just one main choice -- treating pregnancy as a disease -- that is really of value?

... The Catholic Church only proposes to honor its own morality. NOW, on the other hand, insists that politicians impose its values. That's exactly what the mandate does

... "Transparency" is a buzzword; how about insisting it be an operating principle instead? If you want to shut Catholic and other religious believers out of the public square because you think true believers are actually troglodytes who are not to be tolerated in polite or legal company, say so, already. Or do you think that might be a step too far, because it would make your ideological intentions all too clear to people who might not be with you?.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 9, 2012 10:04 PM
103. John: Contraception isn't free

False. Planned Parenthood gives away condoms, as do many other establishments.


Then you're a misinformed

False. I am just pointing out the fact that you're pretending.


Read what I just quoted ... many Republicans seem to think that women who take birth control pills are sluts.

False. Nothing you quoted that implied that "many Republicans" think any such thing. You're pretending again.


Plan B is a higher dose of birth control

True.


it's contraception.

AS I SAID (can you read?) it can have a contraceptive effect, but it has the effect -- which is intended -- of preventing implantation if the egg is fertilized, which is not contraception.


Condoms are not birth control pills

I never said they were. I said they are contraception, which is true.


No one is forced to pay for her insurance

I am talking about people in general. This WHOLE ISSUE is about you and other leftists wanting to force other people to pay for contraception even if they believe it is a mortal sin to do so.


My view is that life doesn't begin at conception, so forcing a miscarriage is not destroying a human life. We disagree. Let's not make laws that force women to live by one of our moral codes.

That's just stupid, frankly. Categorically insipidly dumb. By the exact same standard, a slaveowner could say, "My view is that blacks aren't people. We disagree. Let's not make laws that force plantation owners to live by one of our moral codes." It's just retarded.

If I believe a black slave deserves rights, or that a human life in the womb deserves rights, then hell yes, I am going to fight to protect those rights, just as I would fight to protect your rights or anyone else's. There's absolutely no logical merit to the idea that I should sit back and let someone's rights be violated because the person violating their rights disagrees with my "moral code" on the matter.

Now granted, you think there is no life with rights to protect in the first place. You see only the mother's rights. I understand that. For you it seems like it's just another personal liberty issue. But that is not how I see it: I see it as people literally taking away the human rights of another person, and you don't seem to understand that at all, because if you did, your arguments might make sense.


I think we should work to reduce abortions because of the unique controversy around them; part of that is providing easy access to contraception, including birth control pills.

Fine. Just don't force someone else to pay for it when they think it's a mortal sin to do so. Join me in opposing Obama's policy that forces them to.


That's your morality, you fool. Many people disagree. Please stop trying to force your morality on the rest of the country.

Said the slaveowner to the abolitionist.


you are denying that the "tsk, tsk" is at all relevant to debate

Since it has nothing to do with valid public policy, yes, I am.


Look at what Rangar quotes. What kind of sexist, idiotic bullshit is this?

Do you realize Ragnar is a woman? Just curious.


You're living in a fantasy world. Republicans want to outlaw abortions

I meant in the context of contraception, Republicans are not trying to use government to force anyone to do anything. Yes, many Republicans want to ban most abortions, and I am among them (though I would not do so right away ... as with Lincoln and slavery, I recognize you can't force that sort of thing on society, that no matter how evil it is, the people have to want to change).


They oppose Plan B -- a strong dose of contraception -- want to force it behind the counter.

I wonder if you don't actually understand Plan B, or if you are lying. Again, the reason it is opposed by so many of us is because of its noncontraceptive effects: it can literally -- by design -- end a conceived human life by preventing implantation.


Again, hospitals and businesses are not churches.

Again, you're pretending the First Amendment gives a damn about your distinctions.


Catholic hospitals must treat atheists and they must provide abortions.

... neither of which violates Catholic beliefs, as part of their religious mission is to help all people, not just Catholics; and the only abortions they "must" perform are those required to save the life of the mother, which does not violate their religious beliefs.


They cannot offer prayer in lieu of the minimum wage.

The minimum wage does not violate their religious beliefs.


We accept many reasonable limits on religious freedom

Not really, no. There's a very few.


... and given that Catholics are not forced to buy insurance for their employees

As I proved, "Obamacare" does force them to, by penalizing them if they do not (and that employee gets subsidized care, which surely some of them would).

And as is entirely clear, IF this is a First Amendment issue -- and it clearly is, despite your bizarrely irrelevant protestations about the hospital not being a "church" -- then whether or not they don't have to buy insurance is irrelevant, because the only legitimate way to say that they have to provide contraception if they provide insurance is to show that there is a significant government interest in doing so (which I think there's not, but let's just assume it for the sake of argument) and that there's no less restrictive (in terms of religious freedom) means of accomplishing that interest ... and no matter how you shake it, there's simply no rational way to say there's not a less restrictive means here, because you can simply point women to where to get the condoms or birth control pills, subsidize the cost if necessary, and hell, even subsidize the very cheap doctor visit to get the prescription, all of which would cost the government FAR less than subsidizing their entire health insurance plan (which is, as you know, what happens if the hospital doesn't buy the insurance).

To put it more succinctly: the Court says that if I have religious freedom in an area, the government must demonstrate there's no other reasonable option but to deny that freedom in order to justify a law taking away that freedom.

So your entire case rests on saying this isn't about religious liberty, but you haven't made that case. And I don't envy you that job, because it's an unwinnable case.


Why do you think people in your party are calling Fluke a whore?

I couldn't care less. I never said it. I will say she's an idiot and a nutjob and a liar, though. She lied about it costing $3000 for contraception, she's an idiot for thinking that it should be someone else's responsibility, and she's a nutjob for thinking it is unconstitutional for health insurance to not cover sex changes.


I thought this was just about religious freedom?

You're pretending. I never said that. For the majority of the party, including myself, it is about religious freedom, but not ONLY about religious freedom. For me it is also about the Tenth Amendment and overreaching government power even in trying to force us all to have insurance in the first place, let alone mandating that employers pay for it. And I conceded that for a small minority of others, it is about moral issues.


Oh and a quick work about employers paying for insurance: it's sad that so many Democrats spent so many hours in the 2008 debates talking about decoupling insurance from employment, and now they are driving even more employers to tie employment to insurance. Now granted, under the new system, getting different insurance will be easier, and so on, but they are still going completely backward on this matter.

Posted by pudge at March 9, 2012 10:34 PM
104. Oh but golly gosh dilly dally silly sally John, you're misreading me! See, I was only joking - I'm being politically incorrect and topically ironic. That's so chic these days, right? Or wait, no, it's being taken out of context - I was referring to her as a media whore. Golly, what are we to do with these ambiguous terms! Or wait, no, I was empowering her as a female - since there's so much respect and credibility that's associated with feminist notions of sexual liberation these days. They're proud to be whores, dontchaknow!

Hey, way to prove my point by the way. Anything to avoid focusing on the abyssmal failure that has been the Obama Administration. Anything to avoid copping to the fact that not ONE THING he's done during his tenure has helped America AT ALL. I guess it's easier to whine about big bad Rush Limbaugh than it is to defend President Downgrade, huh.

ps. Protip Johnny boy - liberals don't get to use the word "classy." They don't know its meaning. At all.

Posted by AT at March 10, 2012 02:05 AM
105. That clueless liberal: Again, hospitals and businesses are not churches. Catholic hospitals must treat atheists and they must provide abortions. They cannot offer prayer in lieu of the minimum wage. We accept many reasonable limits on religious freedom, and given that Catholics are not forced to buy insurance for their employees, this is a somewhat arbitrary issue.

Me: Imagine how the 'social justice' crowd will howl when they withdraw from homeless mission, food missions, prison missions...

Another thing liberals seem to forget when they dismiss and ridicule Catholic Hopsital's and charities is the money in relation to salaries and benefits. Nuns do not take the salaries nor have the retirement benefits their equivalent lay workers do. They work for far less, usually a barely living wage stipend and do not get golden parachutes - which is why there is such a crisis in convents with so many retired/elderly nuns. Who will pay to replace those good Sisters when they are forced out of Catholic Hospitals?

YOU will.

And for those who doubt the Bishops will close or withdraw rather than bend:

California bishop defunds non-profit whose president supports abortion, same-sex 'marriage'

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, March 9, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Diocese of Sacramento has withheld funds from a non-profit organization whose leader publicly supports abortion and same-sex marriage.

Diocesan spokesman Kevin Eckery said that Bishop Jaimo Soto personally approved the decision to defund Francis House Center because of the outspoken stance of its leader - United Methodist Rev. Faith Whitmore - in opposition to Catholic teaching on key moral issues.

I fully support that position and as I have stated before:

"Perhaps, Catholics should give Obama and the secularists exactly what they want. Shut down in America. Perhaps, Catholics should close their businesses; Perhaps, Catholic charities should pull out: ministries for the homeless, the incarcerated, the poor, the ill, and the hungry. Perhaps, Catholicism should stop doing business in America - leave only the houses of worship for their congregations. Let them have what they so clearly want. See how they like getting exactly what they want. Liberals always insist on learning things the hard way."

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 10, 2012 10:46 AM
106. Ragnar: yeah, he keeps repeating the canard that a hospital is not a church, as if that is in any way legally important.

The First Amendment provides for the free exercise of religion. It does not provide for the free exercise of religion by churches.

The Catholic Church, a religious institution, considers many things part of its religious mission, going back centuries, including: ministering to local Catholics and people in need (through churches), providing education to the public (through universities), and providing health care to the public (through hospitals).

None of these rationally has any more First Amendment than the other. It is true that the mission of the hospital is perhaps more a secular one than a sacred one, and that there is more justification for government intervention in certain areas. But that only begs the question of whether that intervention -- according to the very commonly used test -- is related to a compelling government interest AND that there is no less restrictive means of achieving that interest ... and no one can rationally make that case here.

Posted by pudge at March 10, 2012 10:56 AM
107. providing education to the public (through universities), and providing health care to the public (through hospitals).

Indeed, I believe I read that both the first university and the first hospital in America were both started by the Catholic Church.

There are going to be some ugly consequences if Barry O'DisatrousPresident continues down this path. The Bishops have been firm and unequivocal about their position. I think we will see Catholic institutions closed completely or (as I prefer) see them turn away non-Catholics from employment or patronage.

Gee, I wonder how many non-Catholics benefit from homeless missions, how many hungry non-Catholics benefit from food banks, how many non-Catholic parent and children benefit from parish Giving Trees?

Catholics now give without pre-condition. What if they didn't?

Again, it's time to give liberals exactly what they want and let them deal with the fall out.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 10, 2012 11:17 AM
108. And the very best part of The Catholic Church closing down and/or denying access to Catholic Hospitals etc, because of unacceptable demands and actions is that it has AN OBAMA PRECEDENT.

Gotta love that 'goose/gander' equivalency.

Thanks for leading by example, Barry O'DisastrousPresident.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 10, 2012 01:36 PM
109. I just heard today that Obama (through his White House staff) actually told the the bishops' conference that the Catholic Church should change its religious views to be more in line with more "enlightened" voices within the Catholic community.

It is just utterly amazing. This guy either has no shame, or no clue.

Posted by pudge at March 10, 2012 05:11 PM
110. Pudge@109, nothing in your link supports your statement that the White House suggested the church change its religious views, just that they suggested the church accept the insurance compromise. I know you don't agree with either suggestion, but that doesn't make them equivalent. If you have another source, please share it. Otherwise, please stop making stuff up.

Posted by Bruce at March 10, 2012 05:39 PM
111. Bruce, from the linked article:

And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops' conference and the White House staff ended with the President's people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom -- that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption--are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops' conference that we should listen to the "enlightened" voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.
Posted by SouthernRoots at March 10, 2012 05:53 PM
112. nothing in your link supports your statement that the White House suggested the church change its religious views, just that they suggested the church accept the insurance compromise.

What exactly is the compromise between right and wrong, good and bad, black and white?

The Church has traditions and tenets that it believes and obeys or it doesn't. How do you compromise?

If YOU, Bruce, "compromise" on one of your values, what does that say about YOU as a person? I would posit not much: that you are wishywashy, not worthy of trust, can't be counted upon and value yourself cheaply.

The popular opinion of the Catholic Church is that it's like a cheap menu: pick and choose from various columns until you get a meal you like. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that's inconvenient to those who won't, can't or simply refuse to obey.

To compromise you have to give up something. What would you have the Catholic Church give up? Her soul? Her mission?

The subjects of contraception, abortion, and sterilization are not ornamental aspects of the Catholic faith; they flow from the Church's central teachings about the dignity of the human person.


Have yourself some light reading about the "compromise", Bruce:

1- Bishops say White House 'exemption' not entirely true
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops does not buy White House story on exemption from HHS mandate.

2- Catholic Bishops Rep: Obama Mandate Compromise Maybe Worse

3- Catholic Bishops: Obama's Solution 'Is Unacceptable'

4- The bishops' tougher response to the Obama 'compromise' mandate
After an initial muted reaction to President Obama's proposed "accommodation," the leaders of the US bishops' conference have released a second, stronger statement, declaring that the mandate for contraceptive coverage in health-care programs remains "unacceptable and must be corrected."

5- Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance

6- Bishops call Obama's contraception compromise 'unacceptable'

7- Catholic Bishops: Don't Revise, Rescind

8- Catholic Church Continues to Warn of Administration's Faux Compromise on HHS Mandate

9- The 'Compromise'
If I understand the White House announcement correctly, their newly proposed rule would not actually change the moral circumstances at issue in any way.

10- What "Compromise"?
Not surprisingly, the "compromise" is nothing but a raw political effort to arm his allies with talking points, and "divide and conquer" -- that is, confuse or buy off enough critics to stop the uproar over the President's effort to trample America's foundational principle of religious liberty.

11- Obama's Trojan Horse
Obama contraception 'accommodation' still imposes state mandate on church, actually

12- Pro-lifers pan Obama contraceptive adjustment: Still 'attacking religious freedom'

13- No, White House Not "Compromising" On Birth Control Mandate

14- The "Compromise": Just Hard, Raw Politics
How can there be a true "compromise" if both sides haven't agreed to it?

15- Out of the Fire and Into the Frying Pan
But the administration's "retreat" is a distinction without a difference on multiple levels.
... Any government with the slightest respect for the Constitution or conscience, if they were to involve themselves where they have no business--such as in federal regulation of health insurance--would reach the exact opposite conclusion from the new Obama rule. Health insurance companies should be prohibited from, not required to, offer free contraception and sterilization to the employees of organizations which are morally opposed to the use of such products.

The new Obama administration rule is no less tyrannical than the old.

16- Obama "accommodation": Insurers must cover contraception at no cost to ... anyone?

17- Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women
Al Kresta, who hosts a syndicated Catholic talk show, says the revised mandate is not something pro-life advocates can support.
"Our bishops have made clear that we cannot, we will not, comply. And this so-called accommodation sounds a hollow gesture. We call on the Catholic faithful and all who value freedom of conscience to continue the battle for true conscience protection for religious organization and individuals. Make no mistake, we are in a fight for the future of religious freedom in this country," he said.

18- Obama's pill-plan re-do
President Obama, under fire even from his own party, yesterday moved to stifle a political controversy over the contraception-coverage mandate in his health-care plan.
But for all the fancy window dressing, the "accommodation" announced essentially changes nothing.

19- Barack Obama's Idea of Compromise
He is definitely and absolutely committed to getting his ideological way, and his method for dealing with legal, moral, and theoretical objections to his agenda is simply to find a linguistic formula that redefines those obstacles out of existence.

20- Obama's 'accommodation'
Don't you just love the use of the word "accommodation" to describe Obama's action concerning birth control and freedom of religion?

21- Obama's doublespeak on Catholic healthcare compromise
Obama is forcing the same issue on Catholic groups, just by a different method.

22- 'Birth control pills don't fall out of the sky like manna': economic experts blast revised mandate

23- Obama's HHS Mandate Revisions Were Just a Shell Game

24- Obama's Birth Control Bait and Switch
With the exception of Catholics and others in the religious community that closely follow such issues, few people took note of the Obama administration's rhetorical shift from "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship" in 2010. This seemingly innocuous modification carried with it significant implications, however, as Ashley Samelson of the Becket Fund explained in an article for First Things:
"Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet 'freedom of worship' would protect none of these acts of faith."
... Catholics are right not to transgress conscience on this issue, and Protestants should stand in solidarity with them even if they don't affirm the same position when it comes to birth control. Given recent cultural, social, and political attitudes towards faith in America - Christianity in particular - one has to wonder, what's next? Who's next? This policy is extremely serious, reflecting government's willingness to promote social engineering at the expense of religious conscience, and President Obama's 11th hour "accommodation" is a dishonest ruse that does nothing more than provide a thin veil of plausible deniability for those that might lack the courage of their convictions.

25- Obama Mandate Panel Never Considered Conscience Clause

* ~ *

If these aren't enough I can easily give you a hundred more. You liberals like to whine when we refer to 'right wing' website, but I suggest you get you noses out of HuffPo every once in a while to see what the rest of America is saying that you aren't hearing ... if, of course you are actually willing to get all sides and not just the koolaid stained one.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 10, 2012 07:01 PM
113. Re 109: So Bruce is evidently calling Cardinal Dolan a liar:

Cardinal: Obama Admin Lectured Bishops on Catholic TeachingCardinal Dolan: Obama Admin Lectured Bishops to Listen to 'Enlightened' Voices in Private Mtg.


Aww. That's Adorable. The President Is Lecturing Catholic Bishops On How To Get "Enlightened."

Let me explain something about Catholic education by the Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth in the 50's and 60's Bruce. If we were not beyond prepared we might as well stayed home and taken the failing grade.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 10, 2012 07:06 PM
114. Bruce: nothing in your link supports your statement that the White House suggested the church change its religious views, just that they suggested the church accept the insurance compromise.

... which would require them to change their religious views. They think paying for an insurance plan that includes contraception is a mortal sin. That is their religious view. To accept the "compromise" that more "enlightened" Catholics accept is to change that religious view. This is very straightforward.

It is pretty stunning. Now, I actually believe the White House doesn't realize that it was asking the Catholic Church to change its religious views. But that is precisely what it was doing. They don't understand us Bitter Clingers. What they probably were actually thinking is that religious rules are just for convenience and not born from principles, and that we can always find compromise to achieve some greater good ... which sounds an awful lot like their view of the Constitution, and Law in general. Law to them -- whether the Constitution or Church doctrine -- is only there to help us all get along, and when it gets in the way, we should alter or abolish it. They hate the rule of law, and love the rule of men. The care for the law only when it gets them what they want.

Maybe Obama should add "Constitution" to his list of things that we bitterly cling to.

Posted by pudge at March 10, 2012 10:29 PM
115. Maybe Obama should add "Constitution" to his list of things that we bitterly cling to.

Hells bells, I'd be happy if he just attempted to honor his oath to it.

Maybe someone should suggest he signup for the FREE 10 week course on the Constitution provided by Hillsdale College. ... clearly he didn't understand what he claims he taught.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 10, 2012 10:52 PM
116. Pudge@114, there you go making stuff up again. (Or, as some obnoxious people would call it, "lying".) A "view" is a belief. Even if following the law of the land requires someone to commit what they believe is a mortal sin, that does not mean they are "changing their religious views". And your link makes it clear that the White House was suggesting the former, not in any way advising the church on what to believe.

You've argued that the government shouldn't be able to regulate health insurance, force people to buy health insurance, force an insurance provider to cover any particular item, or do lots of other things that have helped make our country great. You haven't convinced me of any of these things on constitutional or moral grounds, but you've made your point. But claiming this requires any religious person to change their views -- or that you're provided any evidence that the White House suggested the church change its views -- is a flat-out lie.

Posted by Bruce at March 10, 2012 11:07 PM
117. Bruce: Even if following the law of the land requires someone to commit what they believe is a mortal sin, that does not mean they are "changing their religious views".

Wow. So you think they are asking them, rather than to change their religious views, to explicitly violate their religious views? That is far worse than what I proposed, Bruce, but if that is what you think the White House was doing, so be it.

Posted by pudge at March 11, 2012 08:09 AM
118. The next time I just read a weblog, I actually hope which it doesnt disappoint me up to this 1. Get real, Yes, it was my choice to read, but I personally thought youd have something interesting to convey. All I hear can be a handful of whining about something you could fix inside the event you werent too busy trying to find attention.

Posted by Yuko Osterhoudt at March 11, 2012 08:37 AM
119. Have you liberals no common sense?

If the common 'good' is evil to just one, it is no longer GOOD.

Ends justify the means? Harm one for the many? Is that your rationalization?

You're hungry so no problem killing the baker for his bread?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at March 11, 2012 11:00 AM
120. Pudge@117: "So you think they are asking them, rather than to change their religious views, to explicitly violate their religious views?"

What if it explicitly violates your religious views to pay taxes to support a war? Or to hire people of the wrong skin color for your business? How is this worse than having to buy your employees a nationally standardized health insurance policy that covers procedures you don't think God wants them to have?

We live in a secular country. You have the freedom to decide what medical procedures God wants you to have. Your employees have that same right. But I don't interpret the constitution to let you violate any law just because you feel it violates your religious views.

Posted by Bruce at March 11, 2012 04:24 PM
121. Bruce: What if it explicitly violates your religious views to pay taxes to ...

That is a different situation. The Catholic Church does not oppose taxes going into the general fund. The church opposes USING those funds for certain purposes, yes, but does not extend that opposition to being therefore against taxation in general. We are talking here about forcing religious people to allocate money specifically for services that they believe are mortally sinful (even in the "Obamacare" penalty for federally subsidized employees, the section talks about the penalty being explicitly for sharing the cost of that specific employee's insurance).


And even if they did oppose such general taxation on the grounds that some of it is used for mortally sinful purposes, the Court has been very clear that there is a compelling federal government interest in collecting taxes, and that there is no less restrictive means (in terms of religious liberty) of achieving that interest. Again: you can't say that about this insurance mandate, because it is far less obvious that there is a compelling federal government interest in making sure that all women have access to contraception, and even if there is, it is completely obvious that mandating that all insurance includes it -- and that employers in many, if not most, cases have to pay directly for it -- is not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

(Again, it would be far cheaper for the government, and obviously much less restrictive, to simply pay for basic birth control for women whose insurance doesn't cover it, than to have those women not be insured and then be subsidized for ALL of their insurance by taxpayer dollars.)


We live in a secular country.

One where religious liberty is supposed to be respected ... though not by Obama, unfortunately.


You have the freedom to decide what medical procedures God wants you to have. Your employees have that same right.

Yes. This does not help your point, though.


I don't interpret the constitution to let you violate any law just because you feel it violates your religious views.

No one interprets it that way. My arguments -- which you apparently didn't understand -- have explicitly recognized that government can override religious liberty if it is a compelling government interest AND there is no less restrictive (upon religious liberty) means of achieving that interest.

I wrote that two days ago, and repeated it since, and now you're throwing out a nonsensical straw man about how I'm saying any religious view can override any law. Can you please be serious?

Posted by pudge at March 11, 2012 05:20 PM
122. Oh, and Bruce, it's cute how you changed the subject to throw out that straw man. We go from the fact that Obama is asking the Catholic Church to either change their religious views, or ignore them; to a straw man about how broadly this principle could be applied.

You sure you don't want to admit that the White House crossed the line there?

Posted by pudge at March 11, 2012 05:21 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?