Obama COMPROMISES on birth control issue

[squealpiggy]

not true, cuauth i like you but youve tried that line on me before...



its not america, stop sounding naive. you know as well as i do he would lose the catholic church and then some without this decision. does it mean he'd auto lose? no but it makes his odds a lot worse than he wants them and this decision shows that.

He may lose the lunatics in the Catholic church but he won't lose catholics in general by ensuring that catholic affiliated institutions provide equitable coverage with regards to contraceptives. Catholics at large are either users of contraceptives or of the same opinion as American society at large about them. This is not an electoral issue for them.

What this is an example of is evangelical misogynists forming a truce with Catholic misogynists to attempt to punish women for being sexually active.

Remember that this proposal was for catholic affiliated institutions like hospitals and schools, not for the religious institutions themselves. You think that every staff member a hospital with the word "Saint" in front of the name is a papist? Every specialist, every technician, every nurse and porter is not only the owner of a baptismal certificate, they're fully committed to the more insane doctrines of the Church?

As has been pointed out covering birth control does not in any way coerce women into using birth control. It's a red herring anyway. This whole issue is not about church doctrine, it's about sex and about the fucked up "morality" that social conservatives think apply to everyone except them.

Shame on Obama for capitulating.

[Jim Jeffries]

It's actually hilarious to see your stance on subjects like these in which you argue only because you oppose obama so strongly.

You're so worried about the cost but surely wouldn't mind a boatload more poor kids being born would you? More welfare, foodstamps, etc. Hey let's ignore the fact more access to birth control would actually help us in the long run!

I oppose any President's encroachment on individual liberty and I somehow doubt a president who has seen an increase in the number of people on foodstamps of 14 million worries about reducing that number (it actually provides him with more votes and additional ammunition for his class warfare.) All of this will be moot anyway if the Supreme Court does the right thing and does away with the monstrosity that is Obamacare.

Telling that you try to make this all about BC while continually omitting the abortion inducing drugs and sterilization. Which is typical from the looney left.

[ИATAS]

Lol i did and all im seeing is thats its a religious movement, not an established religion

It is a religion which has members worldwide. Small in numbers yes but still a religion.

And i agree. We're arguing this part but the main thing about the "compromise" is that regardless of who, someone is being forced to pay for BC

sure.

I've always thought BC should be covered for everyone. I think it really helps poor and working class people. It's not only about preventing births but it is also something that is a medical necessity for many woman, who may have medical conditions or problems (uncontrolled bleeding, etc.).

[Jim Jeffries]

Shame on Obama for capitulating.

Well at least you're no longer pretending that you sincerely desire compromise. You'll be happy to know that there wasn't, in fact, any capitulation or real compromise (though I'm sure you already know this.)

[ИATAS]

I oppose any President's encroachment on individual liberty and I somehow doubt a president who has seen an increase in the number of people on foodstamps of 14 million worries about reducing that number (it actually provides him with more votes and additional ammunition for his class warfare.) All of this will be moot anyway if the Supreme Court does the right thing and does away with the monstrosity that is Obamacare.

If it wasn't for the Right planned parenthood, access to birth control, abortion, etc. would be available to all people by now, which of course would drastically decrease unwanted pregnancies which in turn would create less poor babies being born (and families going on welfare, etc.).

I'm not an Obama supporter by any means but I find it funny you call him the Foodstamp president when in fact under the Bush government spending on foodstamps increased $19 billion and $11 million more people began using food stamps. But whatever.

Telling that you try to make this all about BC while continually omitting the abortion inducing drugs and sterilization. Which is typical from the looney left.

haha let's not get into who's looney man. More right ring psycho's out in this world then the left, that's for sure.

[squealpiggy]

How about Christian Scientists? They don't believe in medicine, they believe in prayer. Their employers are still required to get them health insurance. They individual has the right to use that for medicine if they wish even though the church opposes it.

Interestingly enough I have coverage to see a "christian science practitioner". I was horrified to see that when I was checking my coverage considering that it's a total waste of time, I mean you might as well have coverage to see a witch doctor or to be let and leeched. Having said that it's not me spending money on it, it's the insurance company so it's really not my business.

Rather like providing contraceptives. It's the insurance company providing it, not the institution, and it's down to the individual to opt in or out. You would never suggest that a religion who believes that the soul dwells in someone's teeth should prevent the insurer from covering root canals.

Birth control is not a basic right of people but religious freedom is a basic right

Birth control perhaps should be a basic right. Women's health and liberty from the tyranny of the baby-mill is important to a civilised society.

People have the right toaccess to BC. Its not a fundamental human right like religion. You cant sacrifice the right to practice religion to give chicks BC

This is a false dichotomy. Ensuring that women who need birth control have the right to access it on their insurance is not the same as outlawing religious practice. "I was going to go for communion but an insurance company hired by the university I work for allows women that choose to obtain contraceptives with not personal cost to themselves so now it's just sack-cloth and ashes for me..."

The "morning after" pill sells for 50 bucks and up. Obviously when you provide something like that for free, people will use more of it. If you believe that individuals have a soul and that life begins at conception, then this pill doesn't simply induce abortion, but murder.

The birth control pill does not "induce abortion", it prevents pregnancy. This is another situation where you boringly defend social conservative nonsense that you personally do not support for no other reason that it's a partisan talking point. You do realise that you're allowed to disagree with the Republican party right? When they come up with stupid STUPID talking points like this you're allowed to say "that's ridiculous" you know. In fact I would say as a Republican you have an ethical duty to do so. To contact these religious fascists and say "You are not representing me or my views".

You're a social conservative. You claim that it's fiscal responsibility that made you choose the Republican party. So why do you feel the need to defend this sort of backwards politicking? Why do you feel the need to make the absurd charge that the corrupt lunatic Sarah Palin was a "victim" of Katie Couric's "ambush journalism" because she was too insular and stupid to know the names of any political magazines or journals? Why do you feel the need to side with religious fascists like Rick Santorum or bumbling ****phobes like Rick Perry if they don't represent your views?

[squealpiggy]

Well at least you're no longer pretending that you sincerely desire compromise. You'll be happy to know that there wasn't, in fact, any capitulation or real compromise (though I'm sure you already know this.)

I wonder if he will be ensuring that ALL insurers cover birth control now. I don't desire any compromise when it comes to religious fascists and misogynists trying to impose their wacky beliefs on other people.

[squealpiggy]

Again it needs to be pointed out that these are not religious institutions. These are instutions affiliated with a religion. They are schools, colleges and hospitals, not churches.

Birth control is probably not much use to employees of churches. Most of the victims of the church are too young to derive any benefit.

[Jim Jeffries]

If it wasn't for the Right planned parenthood, access to birth control, abortion, etc. would be available to all people by now, which of course would drastically decrease unwanted pregnancies which in turn would create less poor babies being born (and families going on welfare, etc.).

Poor is not a permanent condition in this country, though the Left's policies go a long way towards making it one.

I'm not an Obama supporter by any means

You could at least attempt to be the slightest bit honest.

but I find it funny you call him the Foodstamp president

I believe that was Gingrich.

when in fact under the Bush government spending on foodstamps increased $19 billion and $11 million more people began using food stamps. But whatever.

Your point being Obama has been much worse than a very poor president?

haha let's not get into who's looney man.

Fine, communist if you prefer, I can't really be sure of your mental state (though 100+million deaths and countless destroyed economies later, you almost have to be crazy to believe in such an insane ideology.)

More right ring psycho's out in this world then the left, that's for sure.

Impossible to infer that in this country by comparing the Occupy and Tea Party movements.

[ИATAS]

You could at least attempt to be the slightest bit honest.

I am being honest. I've always opposed Obama. Always. Why would a commie like me ever support a democrat? Makes no sense. I firmly oppose the corrupt two party system.

I believe that was Gingrich.

Don't care who said it first it you said it in your post.

Your point being Obama has been much worse than a very poor president?

He's equally as poor as Bush.

Fine, communist if you prefer, I can't really be sure of your mental state (though 100+million deaths and countless destroyed economies later, you almost have to be crazy to believe in such an insane ideology.)

Yes we've discussed this before but ignore the fact most of those "100 million" deaths comes from WWII and Stalinist regimes, which I am not (like I've told you before I am not a Stalinist nor were the Stalinist countries of the past truly communist). But that's a different discussion.

Impossible to infer that in this country by comparing the Occupy and Tea Party movements.

Yeah because I'm sure that sums up all the left & right wingers in america. Protest or shoot someone in the face, bomb an abortion clinic, or Oklahoma City bombings, etc.

You don't see too much extreme left wing violence in america these days. There was some in the 70's though, mostly bombings targeted at landmarks, police stations, stuff like that.