Talk Elections

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZWqls5KE5d8

"My grandmother is a typical white person"

They all say dumb things sometimes... the guillotine comment was over the top but the rest of what he said was dead on

The Christian Right is so 2004.

You mean the part about what's left is "a government telling you who you are what you'll do and when you'll do it."

But isn't that his whole campaign platform?  I will label you immoral and I will tell you who you can marry?

Freedom of religion is absolutely essential. He is on the mark there. However, he is turning off some voters by arguably being a bit hyperbolic about Obama and Co. "taking faith and crushing it." Some conservatives agree with that rhetoric. It is not a winning message, a message that will help topple Obama, but nobody accuses those conservatives of caring about actually winning an election that is going to require some nuance to win. What matters to them is being so right-wing that you cannot beat Obama. And you are not going to outdo Obama when it comes to Big Government. Just because you're proposing Big Government social conservatism, that does not mean the results are going to be any better than Obama's version of Big Government, anyway. Pork is pork whether it smells good and is tempting, or is expired and rotten. I'll take Romney's lean beef over Obama's pork or Santorum's pork any day of the week.

Santorum and crew are the enemies of religious freedom. I and a vast majority of liberals strongly support a secular state whose citizens can freely practice the religion of their choosing.

In all fairness, and I am not a Catholic or even a particularly religious person, the whole situation with the Catholic hospitals is taking the power of the state a bit too far. Calling it "taking faith and crushing it" is over the top, of course. However, it is called separation of church and state, not state dictating to church.

Part 10,569

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as2Z5K-eN4s&feature=endscreen

FACEPALM.

In regards to his ending argument, which I believe just doesn't connect well at all.

Obama does far too little to crush organized religion in America, IMO.

I'm half-joking.

Can somebody please get the Right off their cross already? It's not a good look for them.

Hrm? Given that Obama is forcing Catholics to pay for abortion and contraception - Santorum's spot on here.

If the Obama administration had any respect for religious freedom - then they would back off. Instead, they've been so gracious as to give the church a years 'grace'.

The 1905 Separation of Church and State was one of the best things man and humanity has ever done. The French Revolution's founding principles far outweigh your reactionary, narrow-binded bigotry. Go screw yourself, Frothy.

Birth control is used by 98% of Catholic women. This opposition to basic healthcare based on far-right old-fashioned ideas that the vast majority of the country disagrees with is disgusting. I hope Obama doesn't back down on this.

He sure does love his slippery slopes, doesn't he?

Yeah.  I have no idea why Santorum insists that he's a Catholic.  He's on the side of the hierarchy on this one issue, but all of his positions are pretty much hearsay to either the church or the Catholic community.

You know, pre-revolutionary France is probably pretty close to Santorum's fantasy government. 

I loled.  Correct.

Santorum.

opebo.

Agreeing on something.

Scary times, my friends, scary times.

Contraception yes, but abortion? Cite?

Maybe if you include NFP, but otherwise there is no way that stat is true. At most 60% or 70% of sexually active Catholic women, but certainly not 98%.

Exactly - this argument has gone into the stratosphere because a) Rick is a theo-fascist b) the Obama plan has abortion excluded... unlike the Romney plan.


Either way, an overwhelming majority of Catholic women use contraception, look at De Paul University, they've covered birth control for a while now, as do a lot of Catholic-owned institutions.

This is a storm in a tea cup to get people riled up because the GOP can't necessarily rely on the economy returning to the toilet, so hedging their bets on the most extreme wedge issue they've used in a long time... and it's going to backfire on them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/06/cecilia-munoz/white-house-official-says-98-catholic-women-have-u/

I really don't see how anyone who is against abortion can be against birth control. I really can't comprehend it. Abortion is the taking of a possible life (or a life in the eyes of many). Putting it even close to the same level as contraception is ridiculous. The best way to prevent abortions is greater use of contraception, no doubt about it.

The state is not in a position to dictate to churches what they must do. I agree that opposition to contraception is absurd, but people have their beliefs and they ought to be respected. Not just that, it's a slippery slope saying the state can start telling churches what to do. Be careful: The pendulum can swing the other way down the road. Do you really want that kind of power in the hands of somebody like Santorum some day? Recall "man-on-dog"?

It is called separation of church and state, not state over church like Obama thinks, NOR church-led state like Santorum thinks...

Let us know when you wish to rejoin the rest of us on planet earth.

What?  The power to force us to do what 98% of us are doing already?  Sure.  Why not?

Contraception need not be covered for church workers AFAIK. Only for Hospital employees. It's a great thing that the Catholic church is involved in running Hospitals, but it ain't a church.

Really? You do realize what Santorum wants of 2-10% of the population, or whatever the percentage is, right?

Rick Santorum should go back to Spain, 1939.

Say what you will about the Catholic church, but they do a hell of a better job running hospitals than the government. And if they don't want to provide contraceptives or abortions, so be it. The government is not in a position to force Catholic hospitals to provide services that are not compatible with their religious beliefs. Consumers are free to get those services elsewhere.

LOL ok. Did I even try to do a comparison? Do you know my position on the government providing care, you ignorant fool? A Hospital is a Hospital though.

That being said all providers who have ever worked for the VA love it.

You'll take his beef like a big boy....

Some types of contraception perhaps, but certainly not all. I have far less problem with condoms or even the pill than the morning after pill. Granted, if that were the compromise I'd have to make to get rid of abortion, I certainly would.

As far as the Guttmacher study, it refers to 98% of highly sexually experienced Catholic women have ever used birth control, which is different than saying that 98% of all (or even all sexually active) Catholic women actively use birth control. I will not believe the latter.

Hey, all I want is a bone thrown my way every now and then. I don't expect filet mignon. I'm just a dawg who wants a ride in the pimped out dawg crate on top of the Mittmobile. Who let the dawgs out? Romney, that's who, who.

All I am saying is that comparing the beef and pork of other men is....

Is there something you need to tell us?

Vets deserve better than the service usually provided at VAs. The health care offered to vets is part of the benefits package offered in return for their services provided to America. Not that VAs are bad, but in general they could be better. They certainly will never get better if we open government hospitals to all comers "free" of charge AKA the liberal dream.

I'll believe that anything other than a negligible amount of Catholics virtually anywhere use "natural family planning" when I see any evidence. I absolutely don't believe that for a second.

Stand with Santorum!

Assuming the Catholic-owned institution is employing people without concern for their faith, they have the same obligation as any other employer.

If anything this shows how ridiculous it is that your employer has ANYTHING to do with private health matters.

Nor does it mean that the women were even Catholic at the time when they used birth control. If you ever used birth control at any point of your life  you count.

Terrible statistic btw. I would like to see the numbers for practicing Catholic women as a whole presently using contraception. I would highly suspect that they are a minority.

I would HIGHLY doubt that's the case. There's a big difference between 'practicing' and 'practicing and observant'... BIG difference.

Most Catholic institutions do take faith into consideration and try to hire faithful Catholics. This requirement would also apply to nuns who work for various Catholic charities. Terrible optics for Obama not doing the standard opt out clause - where those wishing for a conscience exemption can simply choose not to participate.

I'm not sure why the government should require people to purchase elective coverage. No one has any medical need for contraception.

Yes, I would assume the 98% would only be for sexually active women. I don't know why sexually inactive women would be on BCP's, unless they have a disease which requires therapy with BCP's, in which case it wouldn't exactly be birth control.

Morning after pills are not abortions. They do not kill a fertilized embryo. They mostly prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. But there is evidence it can prevent implantation which would be your gripe with it? It's not it's main mechanism of action though. Anyways here is what Clinical Pharmacology tells us.

http://clinicalpharmacology.com/?epm=2_1

LOL you should talk to some vets sometimes. But yeah, that level of care cannot be sustained for all Americans. Not without massive tax increases which would cripple the economy.

Um... really? Do you know how many OTHER conditions are treated by the pill?

In fact, I'll help you out...
* Acne
* Severe period pain
* Polycystic ovarian syndrome
* Ovarian cysts
...and plenty more...

Plus women who use oral contraceptives have a much lower rate of ovarian and endometrial cancer...

2%≠10%  It's 1/5 of 10%.  Nice try.

No actually I don't know what Santorum wants of 10% of the population.

98% of Catholics volunarily use contraception.  Please name for me some other issues regarding sexual reproduction where 98% of the population not only have an opinion but have at some time in the past followed through and acted on that opinion.

And this isn't forcing someone to take contraception.  This is forcing certain institutions to cover it on their insurance.  If no one at the company wants to take it then there is effectively no change for the company.  No change seems  pretty benign.  What could be better than that?

The ignorance of this statement is astonishing.

Yes they are. They prevent implantation, not contraception. You take them after contraception in order to procure an early term abortion.


By the time you take them - the egg has already been fertilized. They take effect after, not before conception.


If that were the case you would take them before having sex. We don't call it the 'morning before' pill, do we?


That's the whole purpose of the pill.


When you define personhood - as Santorum does, as beginning with contraception - then yes, it procures an early term abortion.

Look, if Republicans want to run on a platform straight out of the 1950s against contraception, and lose women voters by an even greater percentage than they did in 2008, I encourage them to. It would be hilarious.

I was being nice by inflating the estimate to 10%. Personally, I suspect it is closer to 2% than 10%.


You might want to look into why Santorum means what it means.


Stop being such a Big Government stooge. This is a bad precedent regardless of what percentage of Catholics do or do not use contraception.

We the people own the state, not the other way around. Any actions that imply otherwise are to be soundly rejected and opposed.

Nobody NEEDS contraception. Want contraception? It's readily available at the local drug store or grocery store. It's dirt cheap, too. It is a want, not a need, and if you can't afford condoms at the local drugstore then you should probably re-consider your priorities.

Forcing a religious institution to do something that is against their beliefs is not American. It's practically communist.

Cite?

To be fair Polnut, I do think the Catholic church covers it for those disorders. Correct me if I am wrong though.

Birth control pills have valid hormonal purposes outside of contraception, and the Catholic Church recognizes that (principle of double effect, etc). I can't think of any other specific medical need for contraceptives though.

For what? Santorum's position - or the fact that the morning after pill prevents implantation?

You already said so yourself.

() (http://endometriosis.org/treatments/oral-contraceptive-pill/)

So if you are a Republican do you just not give a flying fuck about anyone other than white males?

I believe that's a case-by-case issue, I was just referencing the ignorance of the statement primarily.

I've never heard of using condoms to treat endometriosis.  Link please or we will all assume you are lying.

() (http://endometriosis.org/treatments/oral-contraceptive-pill/)

The ignorance on the far right is astonishing.

Like I said, I'm a practicing Catholic. I see refusal to pay for contraception as part of my faith. Obama wants me to pay - he's welcome to have me arrested and thrown into jail.

But we all know that forcing people to pay for the things that you want is part of liberal democracy.

To the best of my knowledge, the Church doesn't have anything against birth control pills prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes.

Of course a side-effect will be contraception...

I'm somewhat touchy about this as my sister suffered terribly from a reproductive disorder that required the pill to manage it.

The basic principle is that an employer should NEVER be able to interfere with the private medical matters of their employees.

I mentioned the principle of double effect earlier. Basically, if the primary purpose of taking the pill was to cure a medical condition, but it happened to have a contraceptive effect, the Church would be ok with that, provided that there is no other non-contraceptive medicine that could easily provide the same remedy.

Sperm can live in the human body for a long time, believe it or not. That being said the main mechanism of action is to prevent ovulation, you cannot deny that. It may also prevent implantation, but the evidence for that is weaker. As my citation states, it prevents ovulation 70-80% of the time, but is effective 96-98% of the time. Plan B is a gray area, I agree, but it's not straight up killing the embryo like abortion is. Normally implantation fails to occur for many, many different reasons. Nobody ever cares about that though.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry to bust your bubble. I'm not Teddy. :D

If you are taking the pill solely to treat endometriosis, you are NOT taking the pill as a contraceptive. Furthermore, there are other ways to treat said illness. Finally, the Catholic hospitals are not denying treatment of endometriosis.

Contraception is a want, not a need. If you want something strictly for contraceptive purposes, it's readily available at the local drug store. Condoms are cheaper, and also help prevent STDs and HIV/AIDS. The latter is on the rise again because people are using condoms less and less, especially for activities involving "santorum." Condoms are the best contraceptive, and you don't even need a prescription.

You truly are without help aren't you?

So you know better than doctors?

A minute ago you hadn't even heard of the disease and now you are an expert?  Give us a break.

If you can name a contraception other than condoms that helps prevent the spread of STDs and HIV/AIDS, let me hear it.

Thank you for playing. You admit that it prevents implantation, I have a problem with that because I believe that personhood begins at conception.

This is altogether a completely different issue from actual contraceptives (things like condoms), which are prohibited by the Church for use by practicing Catholics.

If people don't want to be Catholic - the solution is really simple. Don't be a Catholic. By the same token, the state should not infringe on the free exercise of Catholic religious beliefs, as Obama is doing here.

That people are justifying Obama's edicts strikes me as self-serving. Rather than paying for contraception that they use, they would rather force the majority of the tax paying population (which has no use or desire for contraception), into payment.

If contraception is so wonderful, then people should have no problems paying for it as necessary. I have no problem with people choosing contraception, but I do have a problem paying for other people to use it when I do not use it or need it myself.

Speak for yourself. I once had a girlfriend who had endometriosis.

() (http://www.uihealthcare.org/2column.aspx?id=22811)

Hey politico - they'll probably question whether she was actually a woman now. ;)

Your support of this nonsense makes you a Big Government stooge who implicitly believes the state owns you and I.

BCP's that need to be taken everyday can get very expensive after a while. They need to be taken everyday even if you only have a sex a few times a month.

I already noted implantation does not occur naturally many, many times after conception. Perhaps we need to craft up some legislation to prevent that as well. ::) You are free to protest against it all you like, but no one will care. You absolutists lost in Mississippi. Mississippi.

If you Big Government stooges want to do something that will help people, go promote the use of condoms. One person becoming infected with HIV in America is one too many in this day and age. Promote awareness instead of just spreading santorum. It is THE contraception everybody outside of marriage should use.

I don't think doctor's recommendations are "nonsense."  No offense but I would listen to them before I listened to you.

Yeah, and? Why should I be paying for it? I get along just fine without contraception. You want filet mignon every night - great. Does that justify me paying for the steaks?


The point being that the morning after pill prevents implantation. You admitted this was so and asked if that was the reason I was against it. You are correct. It is also the reason that Santorum has come out against it too.


I'm sure the same was said after Dred Scott. Sure, they didn't hit a home run, but they did reach the warning track. :)

By "nonsense" I was obviously referring to your belief in having the government force religious institutions to do things that are against their beliefs (i.e., forcing Catholic hospitals to give contraceptives on demand for the sole purpose of contraception). Again, Catholic hospitals are not denying treatment for illness.

You believe the state has the right to force religious institutions to render services that are against their religious beliefs. You implicitly believe that the state owns the people. I believe we the people own the state. That is the key difference between you and I. You believe in force and Big Government; I believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Two hundred years after Burke the Guillotine still presses the right buttons on the reactionary American right, fascinating.


(Not that Burke really used the Guillotine in that way, of course. In the Anglophone world Carlyle would have been the first to really stress it, I believe).

Who asked you to pay for it? Employers of Hospital workers should pay for it though, whether it be some for profit corporation or the Catholic church. Also it will prevent lives from being lost, if you believe abortion is murder. As someone who is pro-choice only pragmatically, opposition to contraception to me is an tantamount to an endorsement of more abortions.

I don't know when a life starts, but an embryo failing to implant due to natural reasons or due to levonorgestrel is the same to me. If it is a life, then it has been lost in both cases.

Anyways, by including Plan B as something that must be required in the health plans, Obama made a mistake. Plan B only needs to be used once, and thus is not that expensive as opposed to BCP's which need to be used everyday (unless you are a retard and need to use plan B over and over again). There was no need to include it in a health plan. And the Catholic church fighting contraception would have been a losing proposition with church members, not to mention the overall population.

It's always religion looking to shove itself where it doesn't belong. Anybody out there defining their university or hospital as a religious institution is just looking to stir up sh**t.

These "religious institutions" should not get a special exemption from this birth control coverage mandate that every other university and hospital must cover.

These theocrats need to take their stone-age mythological beliefs and crawl back into their cave. They obviously can't handle living in the 21st century.

98% of self-identified Catholic women between the ages of 18-44 who have had sex in the last three months used an artifical method of contraception. So naturally the Obama administration must mandate Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control and Plan B. Because Catholic hospitals employee non-Catholic staff and treat non-Catholic patients. We can't have that ;) Those institutions must not be religious. Jesus would not have qualified for a religious exemption. The president gets to run the entire country, including the religious institutions within it. Who's going to stop him from rewriting Catholic teachings? After all, the Bishops are clearly the 1% in this case.

All of the people out there who are having unprotected sex (RE: NO CONDOM) outside of a committed relationship are actually the ones who can't handle living in the 21st century. The 1970s ended a long time ago.

Again: If you want to help people in the realm of sex/contraception, promote awareness of HIV/AIDS and the ability of increased condom use to help stop its spread. You want to talk about a sad development, the fact that HIV/AIDS is back on the rise is the biggest sin in America today. My cousin did not die for nothing. The fact that so many people are still spreading HIV/AIDS in America over a quarter century after his death just blows my mind. And you people on the left have the nerve to try to force charitable religious institutions to do something that is against their religious beliefs? Shame on you. If you want to help with something, how about tackling the REAL problems in America instead of always trying to force Big Government down everybody's throat?

Issues like this just prove that you right-winger fucks don't actually care about unemployment or people struggling to pay the bills or anything like that. Rather than save literally tens of millions of American women thousands of dollars on what can be prohibitively expensive medicine, you decide it's more important that employers be allowed to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies based on the employer's religious beliefs!

Upwards of 90% of sexually-active, fertile women who do not want to become pregnant are practicing contraception. If Republicans keep pushing the views of a couple of right-wing bishops and conservatives stuck in the 1950s, they are going to get destroyed in November. You can't just demonize and attack every single group in this country that is not white Christian men and expect to win elections.

If Republicans (and Catholics) want to keep turning off young people and women with their reactionary policies ripped straight from 1950s America, be my guest.

See, I thought anybody could buy condoms at the local 7/11. Dirt cheap, too. No prescription necessary. And even more effective than the pill! Last but not least, condoms actually help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, unlike the pill. In the 21st century, condoms are really the only rational choice for anybody who chooses sex outside of a committed relationship, if not marriage.

Keep thinking you are re-igniting the "culture war" with this. This is no such thing. This is about you trying to shove more and more Big Government down everybody's throat. Enough is enough. The government does not have the right to tell religious institutions what to do. People are saying enough is enough because they know it will not stop unless a line is drawn in the sand eventually, preferably now rather than before it is too late. I know this offends your communist sensibilities, but deal with it.

lol

Also, it's funny that Politico is whining about "big government" when his lover-boy Romney isn't exactly a small government conservative Republican.

Small government is a load of crap anyways, in most incarnations.  The small government most Republitards talk about is "small" only in the sense that it's small enough to fit into your uterus, or small enough to fit in your bedroom.

But the Catholic Church is the enemy! It must be destroyed at all costs because religion is an outdated means to control the populace! No justice, No peace!

Romney and Paul are clearly the small government choices, and they want nothing to do with your bedroom judging by that pony in your signature. There's a reason why Paul has not lambasted Romney, unlike the rest of his opponents.

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft

Obama.


It's not just hospital workers. It applies to everyone without exception.


So you're best reply is a Hobbesian choice? No, this only works if you believe that contraception reduces the incidence of abortion AND if you believe that the ends justify the means. First, your premise is flawed, secondly, even if contraception reduced abortion, it still wouldn't be justified.


Nobody is pro choice out of pragmatism. If that were so you wouldn't have to force people to cover abortion and contraception. People are pro choice out of idealism - the desire to shape the world to fit themselves.


So it's ok to demolish a building when you don't know if there's someone inside? That's not very good logic.


So if I were to walk up, mug you, kill you, strip your body and sell the organs to save the lives of 5 others - that's no different then if you died from a heart attack?


Ah, so because it's a losing proposition means that they shouldn't fight it. Rubbish. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and protects the rights of Catholics to not pay for contraception.

If Obama wants to ram it through- the constitution also guarantees the right of the people to expel and remove officials who have exceeded their constitutional authority.

Myself, I think they're just envious of the type of power the Catholic Church once had. They want the government to have that type of power over you, I and everybody else in America in the 21st Century. Conservatives, libertarians and moderates have one word for that: NO!

The Catholic Church is doing more to destroy themselves with this 19th century bullsh*t than even the most anti-Catholic atheists could ever hope to do.

No-one's saying anything remotely like this. ???

e: Just read Politico's latest terrible, terrible post. As I said a while back, Politico, you should be put in hack prison and given the death penalty.

Good lord.  Politico is like the 2012 forum's own BRTD.

Actually there is an exception for religious institutions but to qualify they must employ exclusively members of their religion and serve exclusively members of their religion (or very close). So the Catholic Church could get around this by firing all non-Catholic employees and releasing all non-Catholic patients. Of course, Jesus would not have qualified for such an exemption because he cured non-Jews.

I'm sure I deserve no less!
Okay, maybe I'll use a little hyperbole for once tonight.

My issue here is that the Obama administration does not believe Catholics should be allowed to have a hospital without using contraceptives. He believes that there is an inaliable God-given right to the having birth control for free. And the Catholic Church is oppressing people by not giving it to them. I have a problem with that. It's not okay. It's the type of event that is making me re-think my ideas about the role of government to the point where I'm starting to view the government as fundamentally antagonistic rather than just sort of there. This is the type of issue where the government is telling me I am so "backwards" that I am not allowed to have the opinions I have. It's just not allowed.

One Santorum remark is worth 1000 lapsed Catholics.

Apologies for the confusion, I edited my post to reflect that it's Politico who should be sent to maximum security Hack Prison, not you.

Oh yea... the only thing keeping America from totalitarianism is Christianity.  

Allow me to go throw up.

So you believe that forcing everyone to pay for contraception is helping people pay their own bills? Rubbish. Let people make their own decisions - not the state, and you'll see that they will be better off than if you force them to pay the state to make decisions contrary to the well being of the people.


Actually, we're saving tens of millions of American women money. You realize that there are plenty of American women who do not want/use/need contraception?


Why don't we pay for boob jobs, nose jobs too? That's prohibitively expensive elective medicine that would benefit millions of American women.


Well duh. If you work for the Catholic church - shouldn't you expect to follow what the Catholic church teaches?


And what is that total compared to the total number of women? 10 percent? 20 percent? Do you believe it's right to raid their pocketbooks in order to help the others for elective medicine?


Didn't 50+ percent of Catholics vote Democrat last election? Remind me, how many elections have the Democrats won when they failed to win a majority of Catholics.


Sure, not paying for contraception is a winning issue. You want contraception - you pay for it. Oh, and btw - all you democrat men - why is your woman having to pay for her contraception? Shouldn't you be paying for it so that she doesn't have to rely on the state? Or are we paying for her contraception because you can't be bothered to look after her?

I retract the communist sensibilities comment, and apologize if it offended anybody. But, to me, agreeing that the government should force a religious institution to render a service that is incompatible with their religious beliefs strikes me as pretty damn communist. It's like something straight out of the Soviet Union. I would not expect this in America. The Supreme Court will definitely strike it down, but it is still scary what some  people are trying to push through drip by drip. Eventually the bucket overflows....

And I am not religious, let alone Catholic...

That's not what communism is.

The hilarious thing about this right-wing faux indignation is that under the Bush administration this was already policy; the only change is that Obama is mandating that health plans fully cover contraception, instead of only partially covering it. And yet despite controlling the Congress and presidency, nothing was never done about it!

And let's not forget that this is already the law in the great state of Massachusetts, and in the four years that Politico's savior was governor (and in the healthcare bill that he signed into law) nothing was done to overturn this "communist" and "authoritarian" and "anti-freedom of religion" policy.

Just preaching to non-Catholics would deprive them of the 'exemption'. Obama has already said that the Church has a year to comply. The Church has replied saying that they will not comply with the unconstitutional mandate. That means we can tell Obama to stick it where the sun don't shine.

He wants to bring the brownshirts down to close everything 'Catholic', he's welcome to try.

Thinking the government can force a religious institution to render a service that is incompatible with their religious beliefs is certainly not compatible with the Constitution. It is perfectly compatible with communism, however, in the sense that part of communism is control over social activity by a totalitarian state.

First of all, unless you own a business and offer employees health insurance, you don't pay for sh**t.

The requirement does not extend to church employees, but institutions run by the church like Universities and Hospitals are covered by the requirement.

Contraception does prevent abortions since many of those people would choose to have an abortion if they got impregnated due to lack of contraception. And if abortion was illegal, they would go the illegal route which not only ends the life of the fetus but in many cases the life of the mother and in even more cases leaves her infertile and incapable of having children in the future. So yes, you can be pragmatically pro-choice. Don't know if that is the best way to describe it, but that's my stand on the issue.

Oh and Plan B does not kill embryos. Preventing implantation (which has not even been proven yet but that doesn't matter for your absolutist brain of course) is not the same as killing an embryo. Much, much better than killing the fetus after the nervous tissue has started developing.

Lolno

Then provide proof of such. The indignation is neither faux, nor right wing either. Plenty of Dims, including Sen. Casey have petitioned Obama to rescind the executive order.



Yeah, and MA isn't TX. If MA wants to embrace Romney and communism, they will bear the consequences.

Sure, communism is anti-clerical, but in communism there's no government.  You're thinking of authoritarian socialism.

Politico, will you still support Mitt Romney despite his support of communism during his time as Massachusetts governor?

Religious institutions in Massachusetts have not been forced to provide contraceptives for the express purpose of contraception nor have they been forced to provide abortions on demand. May I suggest dropping the F in your username?

I don't believe it's necessary for my state to expand a highway... am I therefore exempt from paying my taxes?

If you don't want to live in our society... go hop on a frickin boat and the entire Religious Right can find an island and live in Jesusland for the rest of their god damn lives.  Healthcare plans are there to cover medical needs... contraception being one of them.  

I can't believe the real meat of what Santorum was saying seems to have escaped the discussion.  It's the old standby from the conservative right... that totalitarian, authoritarianism, fascism, etc. etc.... are what you get when you apply secularism to society.   Well listen here morons, just because your empty, ignorant mind needs stupid fairy tales to teach you right from wrong doesn't mean the rest of us can't try to build a society where we do good things for each other for the sole sake of, oh I don't know, actually doing good things for people.  

Sorry if this comes off as a general rant against religion and it's followers, but I have a hard time keeping in my hostility in check when it comes to little weasels like Frothy.

Great post.

How is a prescription a medical need if it is only used for contraception? Furthermore, the most effective contraception, and the ONLY one that helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, is readily available without a prescription in any local 7/11 for a cheap price. As they say down South, that dog don't hunt. As Romney would say, who let the dogs out?

The government is not supposed to meddle in economic activity and social activity to the degree it has under the Obama Administration. Enough is enough.

It's not single payer, sir. It's an individual mandate. Everyone is required to pay for contraception.


It covers any and all church employees who are involved in these institutions. There, again are nuns that are falling under the mandate. There is significant overlap between those employed by the Church and by these institutions. Not to mention the fact that the law is outright unconstitutional in restricting religious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

The Church has already said that we are not going to comply.


Again, not so. Contraceptive use has increased the abortion rate. Abortions today are far higher than they were in the past. Contraception is not perfect, and when contraception fails, couples are far more likely to undertake Abortion.


The rate today is 10x what it was. Dr. Nathanson himself has testified before congress that doctors prior to legalization performed illegal abortions much the same as they do now. What has changed is that there is significant government support for abortion and the entire industry and legalization has opened the floodgates.

As for complications - do you really want to enter this debate? There are plenty of complications arising from legal clinics which in most states are not required to undertake inspections commenserate with their status as surgical clinics.


Then why are you forcing people who disagree with you to fund things that you believe in? Isn't that contrary to pragmatism? It squares up straight with idealism.


It kills unborn children.


Just like killing an infant is not the same as killing an adolescent.


So when does life begin? Where is this bright line between ok and not ok to kill?

Trying to make a big deal about contraception use is the dog that don't hunt.

Contraception does NOT increase the rate of abortion. I don't know where you get that idea.

Oh wait, I do know.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/dems-slam-romney-for-inconsistencies-on-birth-control-issue.php

So what you are saying is that devout Catholics have no place in American society? If you want to throw out the constitution -  be my guest. But don't be surprised when the United States don't follow along with you.

You want a society where everyone pays for contraception, and for health care - it's called Canada. I hear they are taking applications...

Yes, it does. The abortion rate now is 10x what it was in the 60s. Contraception is more common now than before.

If contraception was actually preventing abortion - we would expect to see the opposite. Like I said - contraceptives fail. When they fail, people are more likely to have an abortion. People are also more likely to engage in risky behaviour when they think there are fewer consequences. Abortion is the safety net of contraception.

You see I don't have a bright line. Abortion is a very yucky issue with no bright lines for me. In the end abortions will always continue to happen. We can either provide a safe environment for them or have them be performed in a back alley somewhere. Abortions are one of the safest procedures when performed in a proper setting, but complications can arise like in any medical procedure. I would prefer abortions be done as early as possible. And preventing implantation would be even better. And even better than that would be TO PREVENT OVULATION WHICH IS WHAT PLAN B DOES ACCORDING TO MEDICAL LITERATURE. ANY ADDITIONAL EFFECTS ARE UNKNOWN BUT MAY INCLUDE PREVENTING IMPLANTATION. And preventing implantation ain't killing something. It's not comparable to real abortions, but perhaps you aren't aware of what real abortions entail. And you think contraception leads to more abortions? LOL is the only response worthy of that statement.

This is a complicated world, my friend. Get used to the gray.

I think there are plenty of other reasons why the abortion rate has went up in the past fifty years.

And anyways, who the fock cares?  I don't.

Yeah like Roe v. f***ing Wade which legalized on-demand abortions in 1973.

Thank you Captain Obvious!!!!

Again, perhaps you should consider dropping the F in your name if you are going to post such rubbish?

You guys will say anything to get Santorum now that you know Gingrich is not a possibility. It's not going to happen.

You can lie about Romney all you like, but he is going to defeat Obama. Get used to it.

Nine pages and this is my first comment! Yeah!

Congratulations Phil.

...Yeah, I had no idea this thread would get so big. lol.

Where did I say that?  All I said is that the law of the land is above religious law.  You are free to practice any religion you want and to disregard contraception... but then society decides that contraceptives are to be covered in employee health plans, and you say we have no right to do so because of your religion.  So...our laws have to meet your religious tests?  

If you feel that you are paying for contraception and that is a sin, and that is more important to you than living in this society... leave!  The adults have sh*t to get done.  

Seriously here.  If a fundamentalist Christian wants to stone his neighbor to death for working in his yard on Sunday... what the hell should we do?  Grant him a reprieve?  Sorry guys but those are his beliefs? 

The hospital is NOT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.  The Catholic Church wants to run an institution that is not technically a church than IT HAS TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE LAND.  I hate having to go all caps on anything, but this issue is so cut and dry it's incredible that it even needs debate.  Every preceding poster than likens this to an argument out of the 1950s is spot on.   

And you're comfortable making a life or death decision here based on that uncertainty? I'm not. If we don't know then we shouldn't be doing them.


Agreed here.


They were never done in back alleys. They were done by DRs in clinics prior to legalization. Doctors like Nathanson who did plenty under both regimes testified to this fact.


Quite false. Abortion even in a 'safe' setting is riskier than the alternatives. Rather then making the mother safer - the mother is better off giving birth.


Why does that matter? Do you believe that a more developed fetus is a person, but a lesser developed one is not?

If there's not bright line - then there's nothing yucky about abortion through all nine months.

See - I think you do have a bright line. 


So what, pray tell is a real abortion? When does the child become a child that you can abort?

Of course the Church has to follow the law of the land, but the administration WROTE THE F***ING LAW on purpose to screw over the Church. Of course Catholics ought to be pissed. Is there any doubt about what the administration's intent was in writing the rules for religious exemptions so that they didn't cover Catholic hospitals? How many other institutions are there that oppose contraceptives and employ a lot of people? Sure it all may very well be legal, but geez...

<3 <3 <3. Congrats Phil!

And the name of that law of the land - the constitution.


And the law of the land says that such a requirement is unconstitutional. So the law of the land takes precedence. You are right that I am required to follow the higher law - the law that says that I have every right to practice my religion free from this constraint.


That's what the US constitution says.


No, you leave. If you want to break the constitution then you don't belong in America. Go to Canada or elsewhere. Constitution > you.  


What does the constitution say? Constitution says that this would be regarded as murder and he would be rightfully charged and arrested if proven. That same constitution says that exercise of religion shall not be infringed.

That includes requiring religious people to act against their conscience and pay for contraception. So tough noogies.


It was built by the Church, run by the Church, and they are just as free to practice their religion as anyone else in America.

Again, the constitution takes precendent over whatever laws Obama dumps on us. The constitution protects us and our natural rights.

Where is the Catholic outrage over taxpayer funded executions?

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

There is no one line, don't worry. But it's obviously better to abort a mass of cells with no neurons (so it can't feel pain), than a fetus that can feel pain. If there is any line I am willing to draw, it might be around there. But it's not as if I am completely opposed to any abortion performed after that time frame. So yeah, no line but it's preferable abortions be done as soon as possible.

A "real" abortion is actually directly killing the fetus or embryo. Plan B does not do that. It POSSIBLY could stop implantation, which would lead to the mass of cells being ejected from the body. It doesn't feel anything, and that happens all the time even without the use of that drug. It's not considered a miscarriage. But Plan B stops ovulation. That is what is accepted in medical literature and there is no reason why we should believe anything to the contrary. If you would like to rewrite it, I recommend you get a medical degree and do the appropriate research.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church doesn't have quite the same level of moral opposition to the death penalty as abortion, which I understand though don't necessarily agree with completely. It's generally a scale issue, though; there are millions more abortions than executions in the US.

You are out of your mind.

This insane victim complex that has been a staple of the right-wing since the Black Guy took office has gotten way out of hand, and Santorum basically exists to keep stoking those played out memes using tactics circa 2004. It's the type of trolling, basically, that prevents any serious discussion about the topic because it's much more sexy (try not to have any naughty thoughts) to engage in silly faux outrage to fool stupid people into getting all defensive about it.

There is no proof that this Administration has some weird axe to grind on any religious institution that exists. (Except muslims, obviously.)

A church can do whatever they like as long as they follow the rules of being a church. The second they decide to become a hospital, they must follow all the rule of being a hospital. If they became a bank, they would have to follow all the rules of being a bank. If they became a sports team, they would have to follow all the rules of being a sports team. Being religious in nature does not grant any institution carte blanche to run themselves however they decide to run themselves.

You become a hospital, you play by the rules of every other hospital. That is completely logical and fair. If someone doesn't want to actually do what every other doctor does, they shouldn't have become a doctor. I'm consistently amazed by religious people who think their religion grants them immunity from any and all rules. The career does not alter itself just for you.

Why shouldn't every hospital have exactly the same rules of business and exactly the same regulation? If it is right for one, it is right for all. All the Administration has done is force all hospitals, religious or otherwise, to comply with the same sensible medical rules that every other hospital has to abide by. Considering that nearly all women, or at the very least the vast vast majority of them, use contraception, this should not be controversial except for the usual blowhards who know that sound-bytes determine public opinion, not rational explanations.

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

Generally women tend to be infertile when they're breastfeeding.

Yes, because of the same hormonal changes caused by Plan B......let's not forget it's main mechanism of action. Stopping ovulation! :)

Yes, but it's a natural process that serves an important purpose when you're breastfeeding, not when you're taking pills. That's part of the Church's beef on the matter.

Plus, it's gross.

Wait, Santorum went to a Republican rally in Plano, Texas, and talked about the French Revolution and the guillotine?  Jeez, know your audience, Rick.

The base fully accepts that Rick is from the intellectual wing of the GOP.

If the Obama Administration really cared about people's health, they would be raising awareness about the increasing prevalence of new cases of HIV/AIDS, and promoting safer sex through using condoms, which also happen to be the most effective form of contraception and the least expensive too (on-the-shelf and no prescription required!).

But no...that might ruffle some feathers in certain corners of the Democratic Party that would like to delude themselves into believing the 1970s are back. Well, we've already seen what this is going to lead to. And then those same folks expect the rest of America to pay for their healthcare down the road when they get sick? What? And the pills they have now to treat HIV, the ones that they didn't have in the 1980s, do not work forever. HIV/AIDS is not diabetes. Even with treatment, it is still a painful, debilitating illness that will cause your body to shutdown one way or another eventually.  Fighting the drugs is eventually leading to heart attacks and liver failure, so the death certificates might say one thing when, in actuality, the cause of death is ultimately HIV/AIDS. It's beyond sickening what is happening right now, especially for those who lost loved ones in the 1980s. The fact that the HIV infection rates are increasing in America is just a complete and utter sin. I cannot believe it.

This thread is, in many ways, about health care in America, and supposedly what is happening has to do with the Obama Administration promoting responsible sex. I don't see that at all because forcing Catholic hospitals to give people the pill is a waste of time when you could be promoting REAL health safety issues. Besides, the whole thing is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will eventually rule. The federal government does not have the authority to force religious institutions to render services that are not medically necessary and run counter to their religious beliefs. It is just patently clear how the Supreme Court is going to rule here. In the meantime, there is a real public health danger out there that the Obama Administration ought to be talking about, or certainly groups affiliated with Obama ought to be talking about. Pain and suffering could be prevented if they did so. It is telling that nobody on here wants to talk about this, not to mention the silence of the Obama Administration on the issue.

I was going to respond to Kenobi... but this will do just fine.  

Hey Kenobi... the Bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday.  We will not allow that.  Are we infringing on your religious freedom by saying you may not go stone your neighbor to death?  

Your (and the Catholic Church's) "freedom" to impose your morals and standards on others is not protected, or implied, or morally just.  

You clearly know nothing about the Catholic Church or Christianity in general.

What's so sad about the religious wing of this country is that it's not enough for them to have full freedom to practice their faith in their personal lives.  The entire structure of society has to be molded and shaped in a way that suits their own interpretation of their religion.  

And I'M the fascist.  What a crock of sh*t.  

I know the Ten Commandments.  It's the same principle.

Which is what the issue is about.  Does the Catholic Church have protection against being forced to provide contraception, which it is against, under the First Amendment?  NOT WHEN IT IS RUNNING A SECULAR INSTITUTION SUCH AS A HOSPITAL.

What the hell does it matter that I know anything about Catholicism?  

Sorry, but the government does not decide what is a secular institution and what is not. If the Catholic Church owns and operates a hospital, it is by definition a religious institution. And you know what? A lot of these Catholic hospitals do some pretty charitable things. They are certainly free to choose NOT to render services that are NOT medically necessary. The pill falls under this category except for those who need to take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons. The Catholic Church fills those prescriptions. People who simply want the pill for contraception can go get it from another health service provider. Or better yet, if they're not married or at least in a committed relationship they should probably force their partner to wear a condom to help prevent the spread of STDs...

America is about freedom, not force. Or at least it used to be.

Maybe if Obama was not so disappointing (Hope? Throw that out of the window...Yes We Can What? Bankrupt the country? Promise the moon but explode at lift-off?), if he had not over-promised, they would not need to try to manufacture these "culture war" topics. For me, it has nothing to do with social issues, really. I believe in contraception. And I believe in allowing other people to have others beliefs and not trying to force my beliefs upon them. I certainly do NOT believe in the government trying to force people to follow ridiculous orders that go way beyond the line in the sand.

This is not about the "culture wars." This is really about whether you prefer America being free, whether you prefer America being the best in the world, OR whether you want to transform America into something else, perhaps something more like Europe: Stagnating and in decline.

Politico you made the statement, "Contraception is a want, not a need."  You have been shown to be completely 100% wrong.  You don't have a fundamental understanding of the basic subject matter so you really shouldn't be going around trying to dictate government policy.

Already explained why not.


First amendment to the constitution - the right to free exercise of religion shall not be infringed. Requiring people to buy contraception contradicts free exercise.   

I understand that, but the broader point is that all of us have to pay for things that we don't necessarily agree with, some of which result in massive losses in human life.  Iraq war, anyone?

I'm not the one ignoring serious health issues and falling for political ploys while simultaneously being a Big Government stooge. The only lunatics are those, both those on the left and the right, who think the government should control more and more areas of our lives. And it is pretty reckless, if not crazy, for some people to ignore the serious health threats out there.

You wouldn't understand a nuanced position if it hit you over your head. Again, show me religious institutions that are denying treatment for medical issues. Wanting the pill solely for contraceptive purposes is a want, not a need. And there is a better contraceptive out there, condoms, that can be bought for far less, requires no prescription, and actually helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

"Freedom" doesn't actually mean  "freedom" to perhaps most people.  Ask an Iraqi tribesman what freedom means. 

Even if I were to agree with you that a Catholic hospital is a religious instituion, copious Supreme Court precedent says that it doesn't matter.

Most pertinently:

Couple things here. National defense is a constitutional obligation of the government. Providing contraception? No. The government does have the power to fund the military that does not exist for many. many other things that the government does. Again, going back to the constitution.

Why must we follow the strict constructionist view of the Constitution?

Objective evidence would seem to indicate otherwise.



How in the world is this "nuanced..."


That sounds like a pretty broad absolute statement.  That is 100% wrong in many cases.

Do you engage in AIDS denialism, or do you simply believe HIV is now "sex diabetes"?


Needing a medication to live, or enjoy a healthy state of mind/body, is a need. Wanting something for the SOLE purpose of preventing pregnancy and enabling sex without procreation is a want, not a medical need. And this want is easily fulfilled via purchases of condoms at your local 7/11. No prescription required even!

Put another way, water is a need. Wine is a want. Medicine to live is a need. Contraception solely to help prevent pregnancy is a want.

Yes, the world is gray and the government is not your mother, or your big brother.

Wha...

That is the most impressive strawman I've seen in quite some time.

Because it's logical? Arguing that the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean renders the constitution meaningless.

The Constitution is deliberately vague on some things (like what constitutes "general welfare" or "commerce between the states" ... and unambiguous on what is prohibited to some extent.  Summary executions are obviously prohibited. There will be conservative interpretations and liberal interpretations. I suppose that if we ever had a fascist or Commie regime there would be fascist or Commie interpretations.

What has been done in the past and has not been shown unconstitutional by a ruling of the Supreme Court can be assumed Constitutional until prohibited. Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Section 8 housing, and other big programs can only be abolished through specific legislation in the absence of a USSC ruling.

Even the clause of "building post roads" gives authority for Federal involvement in building highways that will surely be used for purposes other than delivering the mails. 

Nonsense. Unconstitutional legislation is just as unconstitutional the day it was issued as the day it is struck down.

Do you honestly think that the "Founding Fathers" were able to account for the issues that would come up 200+ years after they wrote it?

So, I see the thread title and it's grown into 12 pages.

"Oh boy. How bad of a flame war has Phil got himself into this time?"

<Reads threads>  ??? Really? Plenty of stupid, of course, but none of it his.

Congratulations Phil! :D

The Supreme Court does not review legislation for Constitutionality until that legislation appears in a case before it. Such a review is not among the enumerated powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exists largely to counteract egregious violations of the Constitution -- like denial of human rights or unwarranted sequestration of private property. It is up to Congress to establish the wisdom of such laws as it enacts and to the People to elect appropriate legislators.

It may be your view that the common man is rightly the thrall of cartels, trusts, and landed magnates in the name of the sacredness of entrepreneurial and hereditary power. For such to become the norm you and your friends must convince the general public that it is wise to give people complete and irrevocable trust in economic elites. But until then the Constitution can generally serve an aristocratic elite or a Scandinavian-style welfare state. What it does not support is a mad executive or a legislature running amok -- not Ivan the Terrible and not Robespierre.   

The Supreme Court can establish corrective remedies. 

Do you believe that human nature has changed significantly in 200 years? They put checks and balances there for a reason.

Absolutely - which is why I go back to it, an unconstitutional law is just that, unconstitutional. Any violation gets wound back to when the law was issued.


I'm not sure why you regard me as a 'friend' of the 'economic elites'. I just happen to observe that these elites tend not to like things that constrain them, like the constitution.

Trivialities slip by. A severe non-triviality -- like a law that imposes higher taxes on people due to race or religion -- would get swift attention. Unconstitutionality is a severe blow to the validity of any part of a law, but it is generally not a mass opinion or partisan claim of unconstitutionality  of a law that makes the act unconstitutional.

I would have never given the majority ruling on Kelo or Citizens United.


OK. Those who lean Right in America now largely endorse the power of entrenched economic elites over employers and consumers. At the extreme, fascists (as opposed to mere 'conservative authoritarians') deny any constraints to the merger of corporate and State power.  The libertarians are not the dominant force on the Right.

This; that said, that's why there's a provision for amending the Constitution.  We don't do it enough, IMO.

Strict constructionists focus too much on a minarchist intent, and that's simply not what the Constitution was designed to do, it's there to espouse broad principles.  (And I'm a minarchist saying this.)