SCOTUS: another blow for freedom - Hobby Lobby and the ACA

[DJofSD]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-30/obamacare-rebuffed-by-high-court-in-contraception-ruling.html

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to President Barack Obama’s health-care law, ruling that closely held companies can claim a religious exemption from the requirement that they offer birth-control coverage in their worker health plans.

Voting 5-4, the justices today sided with family-run businesses, including the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., that say they regard some forms of contraception as immoral.

[horses4courses]

Every time we get further away from the Stone Age, we take a step back.

[BlueShoe]

Every time we get further away from the Stone Age, we take a step back.
Yes, a step back toward the principles that the Founding Fathers gave us. :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Every time we get further away from the Stone Age, we take a step back.

Why do liberals believe that a woman's right to use birth control includes her right to have her employer pay for it?

Why doesn't my right to bear arms include my right to have my employer provide me with an assault weapon? And the right to carry it around the office?

Why doesn't my right to free speech grant me the right to publish anything I want in the company news letter or on the company web site?

[tucker6]

Why do liberals believe that a woman's right to use birth control includes her right to have her employer pay for it?

Why doesn't my right to bear arms include my right to have my employer provide me with an assault weapon? And the right to carry it around the office?

Why doesn't my right to free speech grant me the right to publish anything I want in the company news letter or on the company web site?
Well for one thing, a woman's right to have her birth control paid by you is in the Constitution, whereas the right to bear muskets and freedom of speech are not. Oh wait ...

[Robert Goren]

A giant step back for women. The way drug industry works with huge discounts for insurance plans and outrageously high prices for anyone who doesn't have insurance, this ruling basically makes taking the pill a lot higher expense for people who work places like Hobby Lobby.

I wonder how the owners of Hobby Lobby feel about the sinners on the pill when they walk in the door with their credit cards or suppliers who pay for their employees "sin pills". If their religious beliefs are that firmly held, they should not be able to business with them. It seems to their religious beliefs only apply when it is going to cost them money, not when it is going to make them money.

[Tom]

Every time we get further away from the Stone Age, we take a step back.

How do you figure?
They provide many form of contraception, but they draw the line at this particular one. So you say now that people are no longer allowed to have their own beliefs? What about THEIR rights? Or aren't they hip enough for you cool libs? How many ways do you sick people need to murder babies?

[Tom]

A giant step back for women.

You have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

[DJofSD]

A giant step back for women. The way drug industry works with huge discounts for insurance plans and outrageously high prices for anyone who doesn't have insurance, this ruling basically makes taking the pill a lot higher expense for people who work places like Hobby Lobby.

I wonder how the owners of Hobby Lobby feel about the sinners on the pill when they walk in the door with their credit cards or suppliers who pay for their employees "sin pills". If their religious beliefs are that firmly held, they should not be able to business with them. It seems to their religious beliefs only apply when it is going to cost them money, not when it is going to make them money.
If sexual freedom is so important to individual women, why do I have to pay for it, in any context? As far as I'm concerning this is not any different than your freedom to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose. Some day, the idea that freedom comes with duties and obligations will sink in, even for women that want to avoid the possible consequences of having sex -- in any context.

[Clocker]

It seems to their religious beliefs only apply when it is going to cost them money, not when it is going to make them money.

You need to get a new drum. You have worn out that old greedy capitalist drum from beating it perpetually.

Under ObamaCare, a plan with birth control and a plan without birth control costs the same. The objection is paying for a plan that provides birth control.

The way drug industry works with huge discounts for insurance plans and outrageously high prices for anyone who doesn't have insurance, this ruling basically makes taking the pill a lot higher expense for people who work places like Hobby Lobby.


You know this from your purchases of birth control pills? This has also been beaten to dead in testimony about this issue. WalMart sells generic birth control pills that cost $9 a month.



Of course, some people consider "free" to be a constitutional right.


http://thelookingspoon.com/tlsimages/blog/2012/sandra_fluke_glasses.jpg

[BlueShoe]

A giant step back for women.
By what line of reasoning is the taxpayer obligated to pay for it every time some bimbo decides to spread her legs? :confused: That Sandra Fluke creature seems to be the poster child for this twisted logic, but most of us don't seem to get it.

[TJDave]

Why do liberals believe that a woman's right to use birth control includes her right to have her employer pay for it?

No employer should be required to pay for contraceptives.

Unless they are pornographers.

[Tom]

What our resident libs here fail to mention here is that the are paying for 16 of the 20 birth control methods.

But why ruin a good rant with facts.
I guess libs do not have an understanding of someone having morals and standards is all about, so they just assume a knee-jerk reaction whatever the Mothership tells them is all they know.

[Clocker]

But why ruin a good rant with facts.
I guess libs do not have an understanding of someone having morals and standards is all about, so they just assume a knee-jerk reaction whatever the Mothership tells them is all they know.

Their fall back argument is that Hobby Lobby is a corporation, and therefore cannot have morals and standards. According to the Borg, corporations are by definition greedy, immoral and unprincipled. Therefore the ruling is wrong, and SCOTUS once again finds that corporations are people.

[horses4courses]

What our resident libs here fail to mention here is that the are paying for 16 of the 20 birth control methods.

But why ruin a good rant with facts.
I guess libs do not have an understanding of someone having morals and standards is all about, so they just assume a knee-jerk reaction whatever the Mothership tells them is all they know.

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote today "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

This decision paves the way for all companies to play the "religious beliefs" card on a variety of issues.
Consequently, how can one religion be favored over another? This will get ugly fast.

This was a horrible decision, with far-reaching ramifications.

[DJofSD]

This decision paves the way for all companies to play the "religious beliefs" card on a variety of issues.
No, it doesn't.

[Clocker]

This was a horrible decision, with far-reaching ramifications.

The Court is not supposed to consider the ramifications of its decisions, it is supposed to rule on the legality. Law makers are supposed to consider the ramifications when they write the laws. It's hard to do that if you don't read the bills before passing them.

Ginsburg and the other libs on the bench are always whining about the effects of their rulings. That is not their job. That is the job of the legislative and executive branches of the government. If Congress passes crappy laws or the president signs crappy executive orders, it is not the job of SCOTUS to rewrite them correctly. It is the job of SCOTUS to slap their wrists and tell them to do it over.

[Robert Goren]

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote today

This decision paves the way for all companies to play the "religious beliefs" card on a variety of issues.
Consequently, how can one religion be favored over another? This will get ugly fast.

This was a horrible decision, with far-reaching ramifications.Does it mean that Christian Scientist owned business can refuse to pay for any insurance?

[DJofSD]

Does it mean that Christian Scientist owned business can refuse to pay for any insurance?
Do they have any basis under RFRA?

[Tom]

Does that trump your race card?

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote today

Yes she did, and 5 other Justices disagreed with her.

[DJofSD]

No, it doesn't.
Here's a part of the decision which I believe addresses the concern.

Finally, HHS contends that Congress could not have wanted RFRA to apply to for-profit corporations because it is difficult as a practical matter to ascertain the sincere “beliefs” of a corporation. HHS goes so far as to raise the specter of “divisive, polarizing proxy battles over the religious identity of large, publicly traded corporations such as IBM or General Electric.” Brief for HHS in No. 13–356, at 30.

These cases, however, do not involve publicly traded corporations, and it seems unlikely that the sort of corporate giants to which HHS refers will often assert RFRA claims. HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. For example, the idea that unrelated shareholders—
including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders—would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable. In any event, we have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA’s applicability to such companies. The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious
beliefs.

[horses4courses]

Does it mean that Christian Scientist owned business can refuse to pay for any insurance?

Stay tuned.

Here's a portion of the dissent that Ginsberg wrote:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

[Clocker]

Does that trump your race card?



Yes she did, and 5 other Justices disagreed with her.

Ginsburg is pathetic. She strongly advocates the use of foreign court precedents and international law in deciding issues involving our constitution. She has said that she would give no consideration to our constitution if she was writing a constitution today.

[ArlJim78]

It's a very narrow decision, nothing to get excited about one way or the other. A rare tiny check on government overreach.

[classhandicapper]

Ginsburg is pathetic. She strongly advocates the use of foreign court precedents and international law in deciding issues involving our constitution. She has said that she would give no consideration to our constitution if she was writing a constitution today.

She's a total loon and whackadoodle.

[JustRalph]

http://bit.ly/1ohX3GI

[Tom]

History has seen many Justices who were mentally unfit to serve ( and eat soup).

We have Ruthie.
Why, I have no idea, but we have her.

[JustRalph]

That didn't take long........what a dork!

[BlueShoe]

http://bit.ly/1ohX3GI
Just love those comments at the link. :D We could not use that kind of language here on PA. It would seem as if the FemiNazis have had their feathers ruffled and are coming out of the woodwork. There is a Hobby Lobby about 6 or 7 miles from me. Wish that they had something that I need, if they did, would go out of my way to patronize them.

[davew]

What our resident libs here fail to mention here is that the are paying for 16 of the 20 birth control methods.

But why ruin a good rant with facts.
I guess libs do not have an understanding of someone having morals and standards is all about, so they just assume a knee-jerk reaction whatever the Mothership tells them is all they know.

It was my understanding they did not want to pay for drugs that are abortifacients for use after conception.

[TJDave]

That didn't take long........what a dork!

In the decision the court said the government could pay for these services. IMO, a smart move. The women who can't afford contraceptives certainly can't afford to raise kids. It's a case of pay a little now or a lot later.

[tucker6]

In the decision the court said the government could pay for these services. IMO, a smart move. The women who can't afford contraceptives certainly can't afford to raise kids. It's a case of pay a little now or a lot later.
why should the govt be involved in either matter, contraception or raising kids????????????? The Feds need to get the hell out of the home.

[TJDave]

why should the govt be involved in either matter, contraception or raising kids?????????????

Because you can't force people to be responsible about having sex and children. When they do there are consequences. Someone has to pay for them.

[FantasticDan]

Hobby Lobby retirement plan invests in contraception manufacturers (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers)

Hobby Lobby and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the conservative group that provided Hobby Lobby with legal representation, did not respond to questions about these investments or whether Hobby Lobby has changed its retirement plan.:lol:

[tucker6]

Because you can't force people to be responsible about having sex and children. When they do there are consequences. Someone has to pay for them.
Are you a real person? Seriously?

[TJDave]

Are you a real person? Seriously?

Yeah, that's it.

Does ad hominem always work for you?

[AndyC]

Because you can't force people to be responsible about having sex and children. When they do there are consequences. Someone has to pay for them.

True, but the place to first look for payment should not be to the public.

Why is contraception even considered healthcare? Getting pregnant is not an illness.

[NJ Stinks]

The Supreme Court once again shoots the country in the foot. Here's Ginsburg at her best:

Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

* "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

* "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

* "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

* "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

* "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

* "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

* "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

Link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

[Clocker]

The Supreme Court once again shoots the country in the foot. Here's Ginsburg at her best:



* "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

How is not providing free contraceptive coverage denying such coverage?

Unfortunately, the statement "Ginsburg at her best" is accurate. That is the best legal thought she is capable of, which is truly embarrassing to this country.

[NJ Stinks]

How is not providing free contraceptive coverage denying such coverage?

Unfortunately, the statement "Ginsburg at her best" is accurate. That is the best legal thought she is capable of, which is truly embarrassing to this country.

What is embarrassing to this country is that the SupremeCourt just backed the whackos on the religious right. That you don't care because it is perceived as a slap to Obama and Obamacare is also embarrassing.

[classhandicapper]

Because you can't force people to be responsible about having sex and children. When they do there are consequences. Someone has to pay for them.

I'd be willing to concede the above if the left was willing to concede that making objective moral judgments based on statistical results and then promoting those objectively superior behaviors is acceptable.

That's a problem I have with the left.

They go all out to promote sexual education, birth control, to protect sexual freedom, protect abortion, but when 13 years olds are screwing and getting pregnant, the abortion rate hits 50% among some groups in major cities, homeless kids pile up, poverty stricken single parent households pile up, crime runs rampant, venereal and other diseases run rampant, the costs skyrocket, they go insane if someone (even if he's not religious) suggests that promiscuous sex and single mother parenthood are an inferior life choice and should be strongly discouraged.

[classhandicapper]

What is embarrassing to this country is that the SupremeCourt just backed the whackos on the religious right. That you don't care because it is perceived as a slap to Obama and Obamacare is also embarrassing.


They may have backed the religious right in this specific case, but what they really backed is one small element of property rights that IMO SHOULD BE extended.

The owners of the company (via management) get to decide what benefits they will offer to their employees (in this case birth control) and the employees get to decide whether they want to work for that company or one that offers a different set of benefits. If the owners are unhappy with management, they can get rid of them.

We all make job choices based on salary, benefits, commute, upward mobility, title, etc... They are not all identical.

If a company wants to attract the best workers, it must offer a total compensation package that attracts them. If it turns out that birth control is a critical benefit to most workers, then almost all companies will offer it regardless of what the law is. You are free to not work for anyone that does not offer birth control coverage just as you are free to reject jobs without a good 401K plan, dental plan etc... if you deem those things as critical.

[Clocker]

That you don't care because it is perceived as a slap to Obama and Obamacare is also embarrassing.

Oh good. Another lib who knows my most intimate thoughts and motives.

The Court ruled, and I agree, that the law violates the freedom of religion, and in particular conflicts with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993. I happen to believe in strict application of the Constitution, and both Obama and ObamaCare are destructive of the freedoms protected by that document.

The fact that the decision is also a slap-down to Obama is just a bonus cheap thrill.

At the risk of repeating myself, how is not providing free contraceptive coverage denying such coverage?

[NJ Stinks]

Good response, Classhandicapper.

Clocker, you tell us every day what you believe. What part of * "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." don't you understand? :rolleyes: If a worker cannot afford an IUD and it's not covered by their health insurance plan , that worker is effectively being denied an IUD.

Got it? I doubt it.

[JustRalph]

What is embarrassing to this country is that the SupremeCourt just backed the whackos on the religious right. That you don't care because it is perceived as a slap to Obama and Obamacare is also embarrassing.

They backed the founding fathers, by stopping government from meddling in and coming between a person and their religious convictions. That's what they did.

You may recall that the first Americans left Europe for a similar reasoning

[Clocker]

Clocker, you tell us every day what you believe. What part of * "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." don't you understand? :rolleyes: If a worker cannot afford an IUD and it's not covered by their health insurance plan , that worker is effectively being denied an IUD.

.

No, you are telling me that my only interest in this issue is embarrassing Obama. I care nothing about Obama personally. I just want him to take his oath of office seriously and do his job for a change.

As to this stupid IUD example, why is that the concern of a employer?

[DJofSD]

Birth control was provided as a part of medical insurance but we all know it's not so much about insurance as it is a subsidy.

"I play while you pay" about sums it up.

[Clocker]

They may have backed the religious right in this specific case

The Court did not back the religious right, it backed the law.

The rights of the employers is protected by the Constitution and by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is nothing in the ACA requiring contraception. The ACA, despite over 2000 pages, contained very few details, which were left to the administration. Mandatory provision of contraception was written into the rules and regulations by Sebelius and friends, presumably with Obama's approval. It is not a legal requirement of the ACA, it is an agency rule.

Obama and Sebelius violated the law, and the Court said you can't do that. The minority, led by Ginsburg, wanted the ACA rules and regulations to trump the law, because of the ramifications of enforcing the law, including personal responsibility to provide abortion pills, IUDs, etc. Ginsburg is not arguing the law, she is arguing the desired effect, the benefits that she finds desirable.

[Tom]

The Supreme Court once again shoots the country in the foot. Here's Ginsburg at her best:

There is no best of Ginsburg - she is a disgusting little POS anti-American who should be deported. The women is pure garbage.

And Rush was right - these women who play while we pay ---- 100% sluts.
Contraception is no way in hell health care.

[Clocker]

Ginsburg is the ultimate personification of legislating from the bench. She doesn't even try to dress it up in legal mumble jumble. She votes on issue to get the outcome she wants.

What possible bearing does the cost of an IUD have on the constitutionality of a law? Does protecting the right to keep and bear arms vary with the cost of weapons?

How can a "judge" argue against protecting this particular Christian religious principle because that might open the door to having to protect some Islamic religious principle?

She is not happy being a judge. She wants to be a queen.

[tucker6]

Let's hope all these liberal SC judges retire after 2016.

[newtothegame]

Because you can't force people to be responsible about having sex and children. When they do there are consequences. Someone has to pay for them.
So by default, from your own....if you cant force people to be responsible, why are you allowed to own a business? If I am not mistaken, I think you mentioned you own one....the government should just step in and take all you have as you are not responsible enough.

[horses4courses]

Let's hope all these liberal SC judges retire after 2016.

I'd settle for a couple of them by next year.

[fast4522]

Let's hope all these liberal SC judges retire after 2016.


This is exactly why November is so important, today was just good day that could have been very bad. Personal freedoms are at stake, now is a good time JR for your thoughts on this issue. Will November have a negative impact on personal freedoms or do you see things staying the same?

[fast4522]

There is no best of Ginsburg - she is a disgusting little POS anti-American who should be deported. The women is pure garbage.

And Rush was right - these women who play while we pay ---- 100% sluts.
Contraception is no way in hell health care.

I get your idea, but hate the word.

[FantasticDan]

I get your idea, but hate the word.Was the idea that Tom's comment was despicable, and speaks to the low regard he has for women? Cuz I got that too.. :ThmbDown:

[newtothegame]

Was the idea that Tom's comment was despicable, and speaks to the low regard he has for women? Cuz I got that too.. :ThmbDown:

You got that because didn't read his post....
He never said women in general.....he was specific to classify which women.
Not sure what you call a woman who goes out, sleeps with anyone, disregards the consequences of those actions, and then expects others to pay for it....
"these women who play while we pay ---- 100% sluts".

[FantasticDan]

You got that because didn't read his post....
He never said women in general.....he was specific to classify which women.
Not sure what you call a woman who goes out, sleeps with anyone, disregards the consequences of those actions, and then expects others to pay for it....
"these women who play while we pay ---- 100% sluts".99% of women who are sexually active have used some form of contraception. Are they all sluts? Are all these various forms of contraception unrelated to women's health?

http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2013/Contraceptive_Coverage_Essential_to_Womens_Health

[JustRalph]

Was the idea that Tom's comment was despicable, and speaks to the low regard he has for women? Cuz I got that too.. :ThmbDown:

I thought it was pretty well directed at just one woman.

On November, I'm hoping for a Repub Senate, but I think it's 50/50 at best. The Senate can sit on nominations to the court or any other appointments. It's easier if the majority holds the various reins and can delay or deny Obama appointments.

In other words, gridlock is good. After watching Hillary over the last few weeks, I for one actually think she might blow it. I still don't think a Repub can be elected Prez but maybe a more moderate sensible Dem who might decide to reach across the aisle could be a change for the better. But I think those days are over. That kind of Dem might appoint a more moderate Supreme Court candidate.

Supreme Court Justices are known to swerve from expected opinions from time to time. With no prospects for the Presidency, I'll take a more moderate Justice who might fall on the "right" side every now and then.

Stopping Obama appointees may be an issue for November, but the Repubs are so far behind the eight ball, it's embarrassing to watch. They should be moving to punish and de-fund. Then campaign on it in the fall.

Handing up slight funding cuts and screaming at people in show hearings don't get anything done. They should also vote to impeach the 2nd week of October. First Eric Holder and then Obama. I'm not sure exactly how much just making those threats behind closed doors might work, but Eric Holder would probably resign. They need to control the narrative with blunt force, not stupid hearings.

They aren't smart enough to wield a big enough hammer though. They are in the business of maintaining Washington, and that means drawing imaginary lines that neither will cross.

[newtothegame]

99% of women who are sexually active have used some form of contraception. Are they all sluts? Are all these various forms of contraception unrelated to women's health?

http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2013/Contraceptive_Coverage_Essential_to_Womens_Health

As was mentioned, tom was clear in his response and who it was directed at.
In typical lib response, lets twist, turn, deflect, re-direct whatever to make ourselves look good.
That's a tired old game that the American people are catching on to.

But keep telling yourself all of the little twist and lies you wish....maybe you will believe them. :lol:

[fast4522]

Was the idea that Tom's comment was despicable, and speaks to the low regard he has for women? Cuz I got that too.. :ThmbDown:

No I did not read into that, I just do not like the word.

[Tom]

99% of women who are sexually active have used some form of contraception. Are they all sluts? Are all these various forms of contraception unrelated to women's health?

http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2013/Contraceptive_Coverage_Essential_to_Womens_Health

RIF...try it sometime.
Those who make other people pay for their contraception, yes.

[Tom]

No I did not read into that, I just do not like the word.

Whores instead?
Play for pay....

[PaceAdvantage]

Is Viagra covered by insurance?

[DJofSD]

Is Viagra covered by insurance?
Wouldn't know. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

It shouldn't be.

[FantasticDan]

RIF...try it sometime.
Those who make other people pay for their contraception, yes.So any woman who thinks that their contraception should be covered by their insurance is a slut. Do I have it now? And contraception is in no way health care, do I have that too?

[tucker6]

So any woman who thinks that their contraception should be covered by their insurance is a slut. Do I have it now? And contraception is in no way health care, do I have that too?
No. Any woman who thinks that her contraception should be covered by health care or the taxpayers is part of the problem, and highly likely to be a democrat. Contraception is not health care. There is no health problem associated with the need for contraception. It is an elective activity (sex) which causes the need for contraception. However, how and why is that anyone else's problem? If you can't pay for the consequences of your actions, shouldn't we be teaching people that you shouldn't carry out the actions rather than enabling them?? That is the biggest problem in this country today. No one is being held accountable for their actions. Congrats on screwing this country up.

[DJofSD]

Was that pun intended?

[FantasticDan]

No. Any woman who thinks that her contraception should be covered by health care or the taxpayers is part of the problem, and highly likely to be a democrat. Contraception is not health care. There is no health problem associated with the need for contraception.Okay, so let me post this link from the ACOG for the second time, detailing how contraception is a vital part of women's healthcare.

http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2013/Contraceptive_Coverage_Essential_to_Womens_Health

But you know better than the medical authorities on the subject, right? :bang:

[Tom]

So why shouldn't we get paid tooth paste, vitamins, soap, gym memberships.
That stuff is not essential. Period. Noe of that stuff is unobtainable. $9 a month a CVS. If woman cannot afford $9 a month, does she have any business having a baby? Oh, I guess you want US to pay for that, too.

But nice smoke screen - this whole topic is ONLY about the abortion-type birth control. 16 other types are still being offered. THIS type is used AFTER conception, and that is the ONLY argument here, although dmes do three things well - lie, steal from others, and kill babies, so your response is 100% expected.

[Tom]

Must be you have paragraphs we don't see?

Contraception remains of paramount importance to women’s health for many reasons. The benefits of contraception include the following:



Allows a woman to be as healthy as possible before pregnancy, leading to healthier pregnancies and healthier babies. For example, women who take folic acid supplements before they conceive reduce the risk of serious birth defects of the brain, spine, or spinal cord (neural tube defects) by 50%. Folic Acid supplements are THIS contrception?
Lowers the risk of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. So can the woman, if she is not stupid. The choice is beingm ade by here – she can chose NOT to have sex.
Allows for adequate birth spacing, lowering the risks of low birth weight and preterm birth. In fact, a prominent medical study showed that women who became pregnant less than six months after their previous pregnancy were 70% more likely to have early rupture of membranes (breaking of the water) and a 30% higher risk of other complications. Same as above – freedom of choice issue.
Offers important noncontraceptive benefits, including lowering the risk of certain cancers, treating heavy menstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea (painful menstruation), and reducing symptoms of endometriosis. THIS contrceptive does all this?

[FantasticDan]

But nice smoke screen - this whole topic is ONLY about the abortion-type birth control.You mean the kind manufactured by companies that Hobby Lobby invests in? :blush:

[boxcar]

From Tom's most recent post:

Offers important noncontraceptive benefits, including lowering the risk of certain cancers, treating heavy menstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea (painful menstruation), and reducing symptoms of endometriosis. THIS contrceptive does all this?

:lol: :lol: :lol: Hey if this stuff is that good, it should be bottled for over-the-counter sales so that those contraceptives can be popped into the mouth and chewed like chewy gums with every meal. Maybe if we start girls on them at a really young age, they will never have to worry "heavy menstrual bleeding". :rolleyes:

Talk about inane hyperbole from the medical establishment... :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Also wondering if Planned Parenthood wrote the script.

[AndyC]

Is Viagra covered by insurance?


I think it is covered but it is prescribed for a health issue whereas it is a stretch to say that contraception is a healthcare issue.

[FantasticDan]

I think it is covered but it is prescribed for a health issue whereas it is a stretch to say that contraception is a healthcare issue.It's a stretch for know-it-all blowhards on a random internet forum, not for medical professionals. :ThmbUp:

[tucker6]

It's a stretch for know-it-all blowhards on a random internet forum, not for medical professionals. :ThmbUp:
What is the health illness/disease/etc to the female if contraception is not provided?? You can call us all the names you want, but it doesn't change the fact that contraception is an elective need, like plastic surgery in most cases. The truth is that libs like you and Obama are hot to trot on destroying this country's long-held morals to fit your own sense of morality.

[JustRalph]

What is the health illness/disease/etc to the female if contraception is not provided?? You can call us all the names you want, but it doesn't change the fact that contraception is an elective need, like plastic surgery in most cases. The truth is that libs like you and Obama are hot to trot on destroying this country's long-held morals to fit your own sense of morality.

Shhh......you're going to let the secret out.

Hobby Lobby objected to 4 of the 20 types of birth control allowed in Obamacare/forced on them. There are 16 other options available. The Dems are just trying to make political hay over the issue. It fits their anti religion bias and furthers their narrative of a war on women.

You would think Dem woman were ordered to stop having sex.

[Tom]

It's a stretch for know-it-all blowhards on a random internet forum, not for medical professionals. :ThmbUp:

Post 72, Dan - try addressing FACTS for once.
You post a bunch of BS not related to the decision and then parade around like your are King Shit - well, this ain't Turd Isle, fella!

[Tom]

I think it is covered but it is prescribed for a health issue whereas it is a stretch to say that contraception is a healthcare issue.

Please, never use "Viagra" and "Stretch" in the same sentence again! :eek:

[Tom]

What is the health illness/disease/etc to the female if contraception is not provided?? You can call us all the names you want, but it doesn't change the fact that contraception is an elective need, like plastic surgery in most cases. The truth is that libs like you and Obama are hot to trot on destroying this country's long-held morals to fit your own sense of morality.

They don't have one - remember, they kill babies and steal from workers.

[AndyC]

Please, never use "Viagra" and "Stretch" in the same sentence again! :eek:

Touche

[NJ Stinks]

The Dems are just trying to make political hay over the issue.

I think you have it all wrong. Dems don't have to try making hay over this issue. Women are going to remember who insisted on telling them what's best for them. And then the majority of women will vote for Dems again.

You apparently believe groups such as minorities and women keep voting against their best interests. Good luck with that.

[FantasticDan]

You post a bunch of BS not related to the decision and then parade around like your are King Shit - well, this ain't Turd Isle, fella!Truly an irony that these words were trumpeted by the biggest and loudest elephant, who has spent umpteen years depositing huge amounts of dung everywhere and earning the isle its nickname :blush: :ThmbUp:

[TJDave]

You would think Dem woman were ordered to stop having sex.

Ordering women around doesn't work anymore. ;)

Whether they get contraceptives or not they're gonna keep having sex. Less birth control this means more babies. More babies means more money out of our pockets to care for them.

How this logic is overlooked by all you 'curb government spending' conservatives is baffling.

[tucker6]

Ordering women around doesn't work anymore. ;)

Whether they get contraceptives or not they're gonna keep having sex. Less birth control this means more babies. More babies means more money out of our pockets to care for them.

How this logic is overlooked by all you 'curb government spending' conservatives is baffling.
Why should it mean more money out of our pockets to care for their children? It's not my kid. That the fallacy of the left. I don't want to raise someone else's kid. Not my problem. Consequences have repercussions. If you make the consequence have no repercussion, they keep making more and more babies. Thus you get a welfare mom with six kids. Use the contraceptive money in health care to forcibly tie her tubes or castrate the man. Problem solves, and they can have unlimited sex. What's the problem there?

[TJDave]

Why should it mean more money out of our pockets to care for their children? It's not my kid. That the fallacy of the left. I don't want to raise someone else's kid. Not my problem. Consequences have repercussions. If you make the consequence have no repercussion, they keep making more and more babies. Thus you get a welfare mom with six kids. Use the contraceptive money in health care to forcibly tie her tubes or castrate the man. Problem solves, and they can have unlimited sex. What's the problem there?

I agree with you in theory however the reality is that they are going to have babies and we are going to pay. There is no consensus for spaying or neutering. That's silly talk. The only weapon we have is birth control and you want to limit that? I want them to be eating that stuff for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

[AndyC]

I agree with you in theory however the reality is that they are going to have babies and we are going to pay. There is no consensus for spaying or neutering. That's silly talk. The only weapon we have is birth control and you want to limit that? I want them to be eating that stuff for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Can we expand the TJDave philosophy to drinking? I know the reality is
that thousands of people will drink today and jump back into cars and drive. We need healthcare coverage to provide for free taxi rides for all drinkers.

[AndyC]

It's a stretch for know-it-all blowhards on a random internet forum, not for medical professionals. :ThmbUp:

In the interest of this blowhard's education could you please point me to where medical professionals are writing how a woman's health will be damaged without an employer paying for contraceptives?

[FantasticDan]

But nice smoke screen - this whole topic is ONLY about the abortion-type birth control. 16 other types are still being offered. THIS type is used AFTER conception, and that is the ONLY argument here, although dmes do three things well - lie, steal from others, and kill babies, so your response is 100% expected."Abortion type"? Read this and learn something. Also addresses some of the other shit you've been shoveling:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hobby-lobby-case-myths-debunked

[TJDave]

Can we expand the TJDave philosophy to drinking? I know the reality is
that thousands of people will drink today and jump back into cars and drive. We need healthcare coverage to provide for free taxi rides for all drinkers.

No, you cannot. Sexual indiscretion produces a unique result...children. Consequently, we treat mothers differently than drunk drivers. Oddly enough, treatment for alcoholism is included in most insurance polices.

[AndyC]

No, you cannot. Sexual indiscretion produces a unique result...children. Consequently, we treat mothers differently than drunk drivers. Oddly enough, treatment for alcoholism is included in most insurance polices.

Drinking and driving can result in death. Isn't the purpose of healthcare to improve the quality of your health and in extreme cases prevent death?

[BlueShoe]

Let's hope all these liberal SC judges retire after 2016.
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 11-16 it won't matter, any retiring judge, liberal or conservative, will be replaced by a liberal. In the meantime, if a conservative judge retires before Obama leaves office, the Republic will be in great peril, they would be replaced by another Bolshevik like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, thus tilting the balance and packing the SC.

[dartman51]

What is embarrassing to this country is that the SupremeCourt just backed the whackos on the religious right. That you don't care because it is perceived as a slap to Obama and Obamacare is also embarrassing.


No, what's embarrassing to this country, is people like you, who think a company is responsible for contraception for women. Which, by the way, Hobby Lobby is fine with contraception, just not abortion. Not to mention, wasn't this what the big uproar was about last year or the year before, with Planned Parenthood? Supposedly, they are getting 500M pr year for health care for women, including abortion. So, to say that Hobby Lobby is depriving women of their contraception, is just plain bull shit, whether it comes from you or RBG. She also brought up minimum wage. I would just note that Hobby Lobby pays their workers a minimum of $14 per hour. That's almost double the minimum wage. Hell, they ought to be the lefts hero, since they are always squawking about raising the minimum wage. They even pay their part time workers $9.50 per hour. :eek:

[MONEY]

I don't understand any of this.

The simple question is,
Why should an employer be compelled to pay for any health
issues that their employees have that are not related to their jobs?

[Clocker]

No, what's embarrassing to this country, is people like you, who think a company is responsible for contraception for women. Which, by the way, Hobby Lobby is fine with contraception, just not abortion.

The irony here is that the rules that Hobby Lobby objected to were not in the ObamaCare bill, they were added during the implementation phase by the administration. And that it is highly unlikely that the bill would have passed if those requirements were in the bill. This is the kind of stuff that the "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House objected to from the beginning.

[Clocker]

I don't understand any of this.

The simple question is,
Why should an employer be compelled to pay for any health
issues that their employees have that are not related to their jobs?

The Democrats have been trying to enact "Universal Health Care", with low or no cost to the poor, for decades. When Obama was elected, along with full Democratic control of Congress, they knew that this was their last chance.

The only possible way to get the kind of Universal Health Care they wanted was to pass large tax increases to pay for it, and they knew that they didn't even have the Democratic votes for that.

So they came up with ObamaCare, which puts a lot of the funding burden on young and healthy people (via the individual mandate), and on businesses (via the employer mandate), and on making a lot of people buy a lot more insurance than that they want or need (via qualified plans requirements).

And they all lived happily ever after.

[Tom]

Truly an irony that these words were trumpeted by the biggest and loudest elephant, who has spent umpteen years depositing huge amounts of dung everywhere and earning the isle its nickname :blush: :ThmbUp:
You have nothing at all to back up your ridiculous statements. You can't defend a sinle thin fro your article that I questioned. Lame, very lame.
Goren has more than your do! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[FantasticDan]

You have nothing at all to back up your ridiculous statements. You can't defend a sinle thin fro your article that I questioned. Lame, very lame.
Riiight, keep on talking about your baby killing abortion pills, o king of facts. Your questioning of my articles has as much foundation in lucidity as the rest of your elephant-pies. :sleeping:

[kingfin66]

You have nothing at all to back up your ridiculous statements. You can't defend a sinle thin fro your article that I questioned. Lame, very lame.
Goren has more than your do! :lol: :lol: :lol:

That picture made me laugh. Thanks for posting.

[FantasticDan]

Goren certainly does have more than my do (hic), I freely (hic) admit it :blush:

I just had a flash of Tom-inspired brilliance - if we nuke all the sluts, then we wouldn't have to pay for their birth control anymore, and with the money saved we could hire lobbyists to put all the baby-killing contraception makers out of business. The only fly in the ointment is that since the non-hypocrites at Hobby Lobby invest in those companies, it might put a dent in their employees' retirement plans. Oh well, if you wanna make an omelette, you need some embryos.. :ThmbUp:

[FantasticDan]

Chris Hayes had an excellent interview tonight with two women who discuss the absurdity behind the false science related to this decision, as well as the election backlash it could have:

Chris Hayes interview (http://on.msnbc.com/1qwgaQO)

[newtothegame]

Dan, since you seemed to be so concerned about the poor, sex deprived, women....maybe you could pass along this....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/01/Birth-Control-Available-To-Women-For-As-Little-As-3-77-Per-Month

[Clocker]

Chris Hayes had an excellent interview tonight with two women who discuss the absurdity behind the false science related to this decision

False science? There is no science here, this is about constitutional rights and personal freedom. It is about freedom of religion. If you are laboring under the misconception that there is any link between science and religion (or rationality), I suggest that you go read any random dozen posts in the monstrosity known as the religious thread here.

Under the constitution, religion is protected without regard to science. It is equally irrational to assume any link between "Chris Hayes" and "excellent".

[davew]

Chris Hayes had an excellent interview tonight with two women who discuss the absurdity behind the false science related to this decision, as well as the election backlash it could have:

Chris Hayes interview (http://on.msnbc.com/1qwgaQO)

maybe they consider it false science, but it also depends on their definitions of conception, implantation,pregnancy and what constitutes an abortion to justify their actions. But definitely see the backlash coming from the Democratic spindoctors.

[Tom]

Riiight, keep on talking about your baby killing abortion pills, o king of facts. Your questioning of my articles has as much foundation in lucidity as the rest of your elephant-pies. :sleeping:

Show me one sentence in your posted article that refers to THIS form of BC under discussion. Refute ANYthing I added as comments.
Or can't you?

Posting an article 100% not related to the topic is pretty lame, Dan.

[FantasticDan]

Show me one sentence in your posted article that refers to THIS form of BC under discussion. Refute ANYthing I added as comments.
Or can't you? Posting an article 100% not related to the topic is pretty lame, Dan. :rolleyes: :sleeping: You claim that the forms of birth control at issue here have nothing to do with the Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement that I had the incredibly lameness to link. This article discussed some of the ways these physicians feel contraception is important to women's health.

But you feel these specific forms of contraception have nothing to do with that. Because using an emergency contraceptive to prevent a pregnancy for whatever reason (there can't be a good one, evidently) has nothing to do with a woman's health, or reproductive rights, or anything. This is just about sluts, Dan. Ain't no damn health involved here. Folic acid and toothpaste and whatnot.

Sorry, I do not agree.

You want lameness, here's some for ya. In addition to Hobby Lobby investing in the manufacturers of these forms of contraception (which I've mentioned several times to silence), they actually provided for them in their insurance plans as recently as 2012. That's when they were approached by a lawyer from the religious-right who pointed out to them that what they were offering was SO VERY WRONG IN THE EYES OF THE LORD, and they should really sue the govt for "making them" provide it in the new law, even tho they were already providing it anyway.. :lol: :bang:

[Tom]

Emergency contraceptives.....lame.
Sounds more like slut to me.

[DJofSD]

It's abortion, plain and simple.

[FantasticDan]

Emergency contraceptives.....lame.
Sounds more like slut to me.Half of the pregnancies in the US are unintended. Emergency contraceptives are commonly used by women who used some other form of birth control, but feared its failure.

[FantasticDan]

It's abortion, plain and simple.Right. An analogy would be - if there's some lumber, nails, and a hammer in my yard, there's a chance I could build a deck with it. But if some force prevents me from hammering any of those nails, and no deck even gets started, well then, I just killed me a deck. Deck killer! :mad:

[PaceAdvantage]

Right. An analogy would be - if there's some lumber, nails, and a hammer in my yard, there's a chance I could build a deck with it. But if some force prevents me from hammering any of those nails, and no deck even gets started, well then, I just killed me a deck. Deck killer! :mad:Your analogy would be better suited had you said the foundation of the deck had already been laid and the lumber had been sealed and the pieces were being lined up to be put together shortly...then you might be approaching a viable analogy.

[FantasticDan]

:rolleyes: The point is, for their to be an abortion, there must first be a pregnancy. The emergency contraceptives we're discussing prevent that from ever occurring. No ovulation, no fertilization, no fetus, no nothing.

No deck. :p

[LottaKash]

It's abortion, plain and simple.

And, it is murder, and I object to paying for it....:mad:

[Tom]

I'd sooner pay for the deck.

[Clocker]

:rolleyes: :sleeping: You claim that the forms of birth control at issue here have nothing to do with the Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement that I had the incredibly lameness to link. This article discussed some of the ways these physicians feel contraception is important to women's health.

None of which addresses the real issue, which is why should an employer be forced to pay for this.

In addition to Hobby Lobby investing in the manufacturers of these forms of contraception (which I've mentioned several times to silence)

Which is to say, no one bit on your nit-picking troll. Hobby Lobby's employee benefit plan invests in a couple of dozen mutual funds. Out of the hundreds of companies that those funds invest in, a handful are big pharma corporations. Out of the thousands of products those companies make, 2 or 3 are the drugs that Hobby Lobby objects to paying for. Those are legal products and Hobby Lobby does not object to their legal use. They just object to paying for them.

You act as though they purposely bought those funds knowing that they could make big bucks on those evil drugs. Those drugs are an incredibly tiny part of the investment. How many people know, or could reasonably determine, everything that every company in their mutual funds produce?

[FantasticDan]

You're right, they were blissfully ignorant of what all those pharma companies produced, along with what their own health insurance plans covered prior to Obamacare (hint: baby killing contraceptives!). Thank Jesus it was pointed out to them by God's Warriors of their religious freedoms and God's righteous path.. that's what this is all about, after all.. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Whatever it is about, you can bet is some jerk-ass liberal wanting everyone else to pay for their demented perversions. As always, libs cannot exist without some one to leech off from.

Now they even to stupid to cross their legs. 100% free, 100% effective.
We must pay for lib inability to control their savage instincts. Rutting like pigs while we go to work to pay for their weakness.
End of story.

You're right, they were blissfully ignorant of what...
....happens during sex, so they need an emergency contraceptive to make up for their stupidity. 16 other forms of BC control are offered by Hobby Lobby, but the women there are too ignorant to rely on them. Sounds like a true Democrat to me. :lol::lol::lol:

[Clocker]

100% free, 100% effective.


It turns out that the Hobby Lobby employee fund does profit from birth control. One of the big mutual funds in the plan owns stock in Bayer. Bayer makes aspirin. And everyone knows that the best form of birth control is for a girl to hold an aspirin between her knees. Free and effective.

[Clocker]

From Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-owners-can-have-a-401k-and-first-amendment-rights/):

There’s been an absurd story from Mother Jones making the rounds this week. ...the argument is that Hobby Lobby can’t have religious convictions and a regular 401(k) plan for their employees at the same time.

Why? ...the Hobby Lobby owners are religious kook hypocrites. The company 401(k) plan has investments which themselves invest in companies that make the abortion drugs. This is a ridiculous argument for several reasons...

The reasons, according to Forbes:

1. 401(k) plans are directed by employees, not by employers.

2. 401(k) plans don’t invest in company stock–they invest in mutual funds

3.401(k) plans have a limited number of choices, and that’s a good thing.

Forbes also points out that the available mutual funds are chosen by the 401(k) plan administrator, not by the owners of the company.

In short, the rabid claims of Mother Jones and others that Hobby Lobby invests in companies that make contraceptives is totally wrong. Hobby Lobby and/or its owners do not invest in the companies that produce these drugs, they do not invest their employees' money in those companies, they do not invest their money in mutual funds that invest in those companies, and they do not invest their employees' money in those funds.

And as Forbes also points out, if anyone making these claims ever ran a company, they would know that.

[PaceAdvantage]

:rolleyes: The point is, for their to be an abortion, there must first be a pregnancy. The emergency contraceptives we're discussing prevent that from ever occurring. No ovulation, no fertilization, no fetus, no nothing.

No deck. :pBut are there not emergency contraceptives that rid the female body of an already fertilized egg IF taken soon enough?

[FantasticDan]

But are there not emergency contraceptives that rid the female body of an already fertilized egg IF taken soon enough?There are (RU-486, for eg), but none of those types of contraception are included in Obamacare.

[Clocker]

On Tuesday, SCOTUS indicated that its Hobby Lobby decision has much broader application than originally assumed. It did this, without comment, by leaving intact appealed lower court rulings that gave businesses much broader discretion as to whether or not to provide contraception coverage. The Court also ordered lower courts to review any previous decisions against such businesses, taking into consideration the Hobby Lobby ruling.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.


...


Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

...


The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.



Full story here. (http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html)

[PaceAdvantage]

There are (RU-486, for eg), but none of those types of contraception are included in Obamacare.Thanks for the insight.

[TJDave]

On Tuesday, SCOTUS indicated that its Hobby Lobby decision has much broader application than originally assumed. It did this, without comment, by leaving intact appealed lower court rulings that gave businesses much broader discretion as to whether or not to provide contraception coverage. The Court also ordered lower courts to review any previous decisions against such businesses, taking into consideration the Hobby Lobby ruling.


Wouldn't mind a bit as long as these companies were held financially liable for all the 'mistakes' made by those in their employ. If they refuse to pay for contraception then make them pay for what pops out of the oven.

[Tom]

Dems have us paying for those who don't want kids and for those who have them to get more welfare. Dems can't make up their minds, are too stupid to do anything about anyways, and expect us to foot whatever bills they encounter while they stumble through life.

I owe a sincere apology to sluts everywhere.
I am sorry I called you democrats.

[Clocker]

Wouldn't mind a bit as long as these companies were held financially liable for all the 'mistakes' made by those in their employ. If they refuse to pay for contraception then make them pay for what pops out of the oven.

I agree. As long as the pregnancy occurred on the job and is the result of the employee's assigned duties.

[JustRalph]

Hobby Lobby choices

[Clocker]

The ultimate in irony:

Abortion-rights protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court building on Monday holding signs that read “Birth Control: Not My Boss’s Business.”

[Clocker]

Hobby Lobby choices

More irony. People who strongly insist that they are pro-choice are violently opposed to business owners having any choice.

[Grits]

This has been enlightening, gentlemen. Extremely so. You call women you have never met, women you know absolutely nothing about, women who you certainly aren't having sex with bimbos who spread their legs, whores, sluts, etc.

In all of this degradation neither of you has shown sense enough to say a word about the fact that you are part of the act. Therefore, are you not part of the problem of an unwanted pregnancy? Perhaps forgetful of the fact that immaculate conception has occurred only once on this earth. All these women you all are calling WHORES, you each believe, are single and doing every man they come in contact with. None of these women already have more than one child, are married to, or in a long term relationship, with a man who says, "we will.. and I ain't wearing no damn rubber." (In the 19th century, they weren't called condoms, gentleman--so I step back in time.) Each of you are there. You are living in the 19th century if you still believe that birth control is NOT as much your responsibility as it is a woman's!

My mom turned 84 years of age yesterday. The woman has a brilliant mind, still. She worked--all her life--from age 13 on. She and my dad retired at 62. She's always told me, "this country, this world is run by men, for men. However hard women continue to work, the advances they make will only help them up to a point as the mindset of the majority of men will not change." In the last 20 years, I've argued, greatly, with her on this. My mom, I've learned, by reading the comments here, is still correct, today. I was wrong. Its been difficult watching the comments piling in on this thread.

TJDAVE, you're a smart man, and your wife's lucky.

some bimbo decides to spread her legs?

"I play while you pay" about sums it up.

Not sure what you call a woman who goes out, sleeps with anyone, disregards the consequences of those actions, and then expects others to pay for it...."these women who play while we pay ---- 100% sluts".
Whores instead?
These last two, gentlemen, yes, apparently the same subsidy, as the medicare one that was paying $300 to $500 for penis pumps to those gentlemen who wanted a larger penis, along with one that would stay up.
Birth control was provided as a part of medical insurance but we all know it's not so much about insurance as it is a subsidy.
In the interest of this blowhard's education could you please point me to where medical professionals are writing how a woman's health will be damaged without an employer paying for contraceptives?

[Grits]

Your analogy would be better suited had you said the foundation of the deck had already been laid and the lumber had been sealed and the pieces were being lined up to be put together shortly...then you might be approaching a viable analogy.

And to you, let me explain something. :lol:

Decks don't have foundations. Foundations are footings dug by backhoe with concrete poured to handle the load bearing weight of the structure. Brick or concrete pillars are inside the interior of, and make up part of the foundation. Too, there's the concrete slab for residential or commercial construction. These sometimes require rerod within in the concrete.

Decks are supported by floor joists, usually 2x8s or 2x10s, 16 inches on center. These are nailed to 4x4, or if greater width and height, 6x6 or 8x8 treated posts. Sealing wolmanized or treated lumber with products like water sealant is useless as tits on a wild boar. It barely last one winter. If you're going to do anything to it, try Olympic stain. It comes in several nice colors. .... This is how general contractor's build decks.

[PaceAdvantage]

You could have stopped with your prior reply. At least I liked that one... :lol:

[Grits]

You could have stopped with your prior reply. At least I liked that one... :lol:

You stick to stocks, handicapping, and website managing because what you know about building wouldn't span the head of a pin, darlin'. :lol:

I gotta go take that dear mom of mine to dinner, so please, don't you gentlemen talk about me like a dog while I'm gone. Because I promise... no woman, EVER, EVER got pregnant by herself. You all think on this, okay. :kiss:

[JustRalph]

FOR THE RECORD I AM AGAINST ANY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY RELATED PENIS PUMPS, OR ANYTHING WITH THE WORD PENIS IN IT.

IN FACT I AM AGAINST ANY GOVERNMENT MONEY GOING TO PENNSYLVANIA BECAUSE WITHOUT PENIS YOU COULDN'T SPELL PENNSYLVANIA

[fast4522]

Tom,

Some of us have a sensitive side, because we have the good wife, a daughter etc. I have spent decades working downtown Boston and have seen and heard it all, and understand all types of language. The issue of mandatory birth control coverage is a socialist issue, that diminishes other coverage because the moneys have to be taken from another part of the policy. Alignment along those lines without putting labels on the opposite sex is just a better argument. Besides, this old bull prefers to walk down the hill.

[Tom]

These last two, gentlemen, yes, apparently the same subsidy, as the medicare one that was paying $300 to $500 for penis pumps to those gentlemen who wanted a larger penis, along with one that would stay up.

Nope. First, I posted in this thread I was against paying for men's BC.
Secondly, I would have no use for such a device unless I bought a plastic pool for the backyard!

[newtothegame]

This has been enlightening, gentlemen. Extremely so. You call women you have never met, women you know absolutely nothing about, women who you certainly aren't having sex with bimbos who spread their legs, whores, sluts, etc.

In all of this degradation neither of you has shown sense enough to say a word about the fact that you are part of the act. Therefore, are you not part of the problem of an unwanted pregnancy? Perhaps forgetful of the fact that immaculate conception has occurred only once on this earth. All these women you all are calling WHORES, you each believe, are single and doing every man they come in contact with. None of these women already have more than one child, are married to, or in a long term relationship, with a man who says, "we will.. and I ain't wearing no damn rubber." (In the 19th century, they weren't called condoms, gentleman--so I step back in time.) Each of you are there. You are living in the 19th century if you still believe that birth control is NOT as much your responsibility as it is a woman's!

My mom turned 84 years of age yesterday. The woman has a brilliant mind, still. She worked--all her life--from age 13 on. She and my dad retired at 62. She's always told me, "this country, this world is run by men, for men. However hard women continue to work, the advances they make will only help them up to a point as the mindset of the majority of men will not change." In the last 20 years, I've argued, greatly, with her on this. My mom, I've learned, by reading the comments here, is still correct, today. I was wrong. Its been difficult watching the comments piling in on this thread.

TJDAVE, you're a smart man, and your wife's lucky.







These last two, gentlemen, yes, apparently the same subsidy, as the medicare one that was paying $300 to $500 for penis pumps to those gentlemen who wanted a larger penis, along with one that would stay up.

I just want to clarify one thing as you attributed one of my quotes in here, as if to say I somehow have been derogatory. My quote, was a quote from tom, in response to Dan (to show where Tom was being selective in his use of words). I even bolded the words to show tom's selectiveness.

But, if you wish to know my views on women who do this.......

I agree that it takes two to tango. The men, who are not responsible enough should be prosecuted to the fullest! I believe the term is "deadbeat". I have no respect for them either!
Do I think "mistakes" happen? Sure!
I also am aware that when we are young (men) we almost always allow one head to speak for the other and it is not the smarter of the two. But, this does not alleviate the responsibility for our decisions.
In either case, male or female, I should not have to pay for willful decisions that result in their mistakes.

As to Tom's use of the word, or words, is does not matter if I agree or don't. What matters is that in the end, (at least in the context of this discussion), someone is paying for it. And the referenced parties are not the one's paying.

As to Hobby Lobby, for those of you who disagree, DON"T patronize them with your business. But, I would also suggest that Hobby Lobby did not make this decision alone....IT WAS BACKED UP BY THE US SUPREME COURT.
Now, lower courts have also made rulings and I believe seven other religious affiliations have also been granted the same legal status.

Bottom line is the government is already to far into many facets of our lives. There needs to be some restraint shown or handed to them.

[Tom]

As to Tom's use of the word, or words, is does not matter if I agree or don't. What matters is that in the end, (at least in the context of this discussion), someone is paying for it. And the referenced parties are not the one's paying.

I find it amusing that my choice of words gets more blowback than the act of forcing one to pay for someone else's sex and abortion. Guess there is no limit to how low some people can go because they can't take responsibility for themselves. I underestimated a few posters here.

[newtothegame]

I find it amusing that my choice of words gets more blowback than the act of forcing one to pay for someone else's sex and abortion. Guess there is no limit to how low some people can go because they can't take responsibility for themselves. I underestimated a few posters here.
I agree, and that's why I said your words don't "matter". What matters, which those on the left fail to address is the personal responsibility.
TJ said early on that people aren't responsible....So I asked him (which I got no reply), if that's the case, how was he able to start a business. Maybe the government should of stepped in and not allowed that to happen due to the fact that people aren't responsible (in his words).

This country is allowing people to NOT be responsible for their actions.

For those who think the court was wrong and these people should be allowed to be "not" responsible for their actions, Can I please send you my address and have you start forwarding checks to me?

You see, it starts as non responsible unprotected sex, leads to unintended consequences, which we all pay for through welfare programs....
Then the health of the unintended child needs to be addressed...
Then the schooling,......
Then the cycle goes on and on......

What's the guess on how much it is to raise (with all things considered) a child? I would say somewhere close to half a million?

So, who is willing to "front" me a half mill because I wish to be carefree and non responsible in my choices in life. Any takers???? I'll go one step further.....I WILL VOTE FOR YOU! :bang:

[Clocker]

A new Rasmussen Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2014/49_favor_religious_exemption_from_contraceptive_ma ndate_39_oppose) shows that 49% of Americans support the Hobby Lobby ruling, while 39% oppose it.

Liberal attacks on Rasmussen to follow here soon.

[DJofSD]

A new Rasmussen Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2014/49_favor_religious_exemption_from_contraceptive_ma ndate_39_oppose) shows that 49% of Americans support the Hobby Lobby ruling, while 39% oppose it.

Liberal attacks on Rasmussen to follow here soon.
Here's the 5 Q's which were asked: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/june_2014/questions_contraceptive_mandate_june_30_july_1_201 4

As far as I'm concerned, there's at least 1 question not asked, and, it is the most important one: have you read the actual decision?

If you haven't read it then STFU. You're doing nothing but debating opinions and you don't even have a basis to discuss the topic let alone argue the merits.

[TJDave]

What matters, which those on the left fail to address is the personal responsibility.
TJ said early on that people aren't responsible....So I asked him (which I got no reply), if that's the case, how was he able to start a business. Maybe the government should of stepped in and not allowed that to happen due to the fact that people aren't responsible (in his words).


As a businessman I have options when my employees act irresponsibly. When people behave irresponsibly with regard to sexual conduct resulting in unwanted children we, as a society, have few options.

Abortion, sterilization, forced adoption?

What would you have us do, realistically?

[tucker6]

What would you have us do, realistically?
How about nothing?? It isn't "our" problem. Just because you may believe society is obligated to enable people into bad habits like having children without the ability to support them doesn't mean the rest of us agree. Whatever happened to allowing charitable giving to assist the poor, etc? I know you'll traipse out the canard that it raises costs to society down the line if we don't help, but why should it? The only way to stop bad habits and actions is to make the penalty to those doing it meaningful. Not reward them with my money. Where's the lesson there? Maybe the lesson is that I should renounce my citizenship, and then take my money and move to a foreign country to live happily ever after.

[TJDave]

The only way to stop bad habits and actions is to make the penalty to those doing it meaningful.

Penalize who?

The children?

Good luck getting either party to support that.

You might get the Nazi party, though. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

Penalize who?

The children?

Good luck getting either party to support that.

You might get the Nazi party, though. :rolleyes:
We survived as a nation for 200 years on the principle that children where province of families and not govt. Then along comes socialists like you that believes we are all one big family and should help the children through taxation and other wealth redistribution schemes. Yes, they are schemes. Your ideas are so anti-American that what I can't figure out is why you never left for Europe and stayed there.

[Clocker]

We survived as a nation for 200 years on the principle that children where province of families and not govt.

That is so last century. You probably believe that the Constitution is still somehow relevant in this day and age too. :rolleyes:

Hillary Clinton, always on the cutting edge of progressive social thought, said that it takes a village to raise a child. This concept was further explained by MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry. She really knows about stuff. She has a PhD you know. Probably wrote some peer reviewed articles.

In an ad promoting her show on MSNBC,
...Harris-Perry, looking off camera, says the U.S. never invested properly in public education. “We’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours, and your responsibility,” she says. “We haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘These are our children.’ So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that ‘kids belong to their parents’ or ‘kids belong to their families,’ and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

"Collective notion."

Resistance is futile.

[TJDave]

We survived as a nation for 200 years on the principle that children where province of families and not govt. Then along comes socialists like you that believes we are all one big family and should help the children through taxation and other wealth redistribution schemes. Yes, they are schemes. Your ideas are so anti-American that what I can't figure out is why you never left for Europe and stayed there.

You misunderstand. I'm not a socialist.

I don't want to support these children. I want them never to be born.

[tucker6]

That is so last century. You probably believe that the Constitution is still somehow relevant in this day and age too. :rolleyes:

Hillary Clinton, always on the cutting edge of progressive social thought, said that it takes a village to raise a child. This concept was further explained by MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry. She really knows about stuff. She has a PhD you know. Probably wrote some peer reviewed articles.

In an ad promoting her show on MSNBC,


"Collective notion."

Resistance is futile.
I lost some brain cells reading that tripe. So does this mean that I can order the neighbor boy or girl to cut my grass and take out the garbage, or do I live on a one way street?

[tucker6]

You misunderstand. I'm not a socialist.

I don't want to support these children. I want them never to be born.
Sorry for misunderstanding your position. We agree on that point at least. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

In an ad promoting her show on MSNBC,


"Collective notion." Interesting. Jews were outraged (and rightfully so), when similar ideas to the above were falsely promoted about them in the "Protocols of the elders of Zion" pack of lies way back when. I believe that book of fiction tried to pass off that Jews wanted to take the parents out of the equation when it came to the education of their children as part of the "Jewish world-domination tour."

Now stuff like that is working its way into the mainstream...take the parents off the responsibility list...children are a community item....holy whackamoleee....

How long, do we as a country, allow these nutty notions to continue to flourish?

[incoming]

As a businessman I have options when my employees act irresponsibly. When people behave irresponsibly with regard to sexual conduct resulting in unwanted children we, as a society, have few options.

Abortion, sterilization, forced adoption?

What would you have us do, realistically?


I think the most civilized approach is change their names from babies to a fetus and kill them. Then 40 years down the road deal with all of the illegals you have to nationalize to prop up all of the safety nets put in place to deal with this insanity.

You want to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for all of the Mothers that have a life time to deal with that guilt. How does society deal with this guilt, heaven only knows. Problems, problems, problems :confused:

[Tom]

"Collective notion."

Resistance is futile.

Hitler youth. How'd that one work out?

[Tom]

You misunderstand. I'm not a socialist.

I don't want to support these children. I want them never to be born.

Tax pregnancies.
Any women getting preggers should have to pay to offset the babies future carbon footprint for it's entire life.

[Tom]

I think the most civilized approach is change their names from babies to a fetus and kill them.

Then the ultimate immigration reform would be to rename the illegals Soylent Green.

[Grits]

I think the most civilized approach is change their names from babies to a fetus and kill them. Then 40 years down the road deal with all of the illegals you have to nationalize to prop up all of the safety nets put in place to deal with this insanity.

You want to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for all of the Mothers that have a life time to deal with that guilt. How does society deal with this guilt, heaven only knows. Problems, problems, problems :confused:

Your illegals comment has nothing to do with this thread.

Not sure what you're implying aside from the thought that only (mothers) women are capable of feeling and carrying the guilt of an abortion? Is it, again, the assumption that a (father) men have no bearing on, or are not part of this decision? .... At what point do you understand that there are married women who have abortions everyday? This is not exclusive to single women.

Let's say a couple have two daughters and they know that as a family their household income is at its limit each month. She tells her husband that she's pregnant. They decide, "no, we cannot afford to raise another child. We'll have to terminate the pregnancy." (Not all abortions come by way of next morning medication.)

The husband is a jock--loves all things sports--football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. He had hopes, years prior, of his second child being a son. One he could teach and watch grow in all things athletic. Didn't work that way. He has daughters that he cherishes.

When the fetus (as you call it) is aborted, and he learns it was a male, do you actually believe its not going to hurt this man? Or cause him to feel guilt or loss for many years? .... If you believe, no? You may not know as much about men as you think. There are few things one wants more in his life than a son that he can teach and watch play sports. (I tell this because someone I know had four daughters. But, didn't have the son. The marriage, sadly, ended in divorce.)

Gentlemen, again, this is not all about women and their choice alone.

[Tom]

No, it is abut us having to for their choices.
This is because Obama carried the vast majority of single women - so he is catering to a rather dimwitted social group that can be bought off with a song and a dance. It is political.

[incoming]

Your illegals comment has nothing to do with this thread.

Not sure what you're implying aside from the thought that only (mothers) women are capable of feeling and carrying the guilt of an abortion? Is it, again, the assumption that a (father) men have no bearing on, or are not part of this decision? .... At what point do you understand that there are married women who have abortions everyday? This is not exclusive to single women.

Let's say a couple have two daughters and they know that as a family their household income is at its limit each month. She tells her husband that she's pregnant. They decide, "no, we cannot afford to raise another child. We'll have to terminate the pregnancy." (Not all abortions come by way of next morning medication.)

The husband is a jock--loves all things sports--football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc. He had hopes, years prior, of his second child being a son. One he could teach and watch grow in all things athletic. Didn't work that way. He has daughters that he cherishes.

When the fetus (as you call it) is aborted, and he learns it was a male, do you actually believe its not going to hurt this man? Or cause him to feel guilt or loss for many years? .... If you believe, no? You may not know as much about men as you think. There are few things one wants more in his life than a son that he can teach and watch play sports. (I tell this because someone I know had four daughters. But, didn't have the son. The marriage, sadly, ended in divorce.)

Gentlemen, again, this is not all about women and their choice alone.




Hi Grits, I agree with every last word of your post. I was being sarcastic to make my point. God only knows the unintended consequences caused when abortions were made legal. Just think about it, its now ok to kill your offspring.

God Bless You.

[tucker6]

Hi Grits, I agree with every last word of your post. I was being sarcastic to make my point. God only knows the unintended consequences caused when abortions were made legal. Just think about it, its now ok to kill your offspring.

God Bless You.
Abortions have been around since the dawn of man, and I'm pretty sure few if any people in history went to jail for it. Where you been? As far as I know, fetuses are not offspring until they scream their lungs out.

[JustRalph]

Just for the record

83% of women who have abortions are unmarried

67% have never been married

Depending on who's numbers you believe over 70% of abortions have no input from the father.

Only 7% of abortions are performed on a minor.

Startling proof that adult age unmarried women are using abortion as plain old birth control. Reckless irresponsibility on both sexes if you examine the numbers.

[FantasticDan]

This is because Obama carried the vast majority of single women - so he is catering to a rather dimwitted social group..So single women are a dimwitted social group?

You may have just climbed another step on the ladder of embarrassing yourself. The moon is nearly in reach! :jump::ThmbUp:

[incoming]

Abortions have been around since the dawn of man, and I'm pretty sure few if any people in history went to jail for it. Where you been? As far as I know, fetuses are not offspring until they scream their lungs out.

Lots of "lipstick" on that pig. Is there a reason?

[TJDave]

Just for the record

83% of women who have abortions are unmarried

67% have never been married

Depending on who's numbers you believe over 70% of abortions have no input from the father.

Only 7% of abortions are performed on a minor.

Startling proof that adult age unmarried women are using abortion as plain old birth control. Reckless irresponsibility on both sexes if you examine the numbers.

All the more reason for these women to be on birth control.

[Clocker]

All the more reason for these women to be on birth control.

But no reason for an expectation of an employer paying for it.

One of the reasons for the SCOTUS ruling was the legal principle that if the government found a compelling need for women to be provided with birth control, there were less burdensome methods of doing it than forcing the employers to pay for it in violation of religious principles.

[tucker6]

Lots of "lipstick" on that pig. Is there a reason?
so you got nothing as usual...

[newtothegame]

As a businessman I have options when my employees act irresponsibly. When people behave irresponsibly with regard to sexual conduct resulting in unwanted children we, as a society, have few options.

Abortion, sterilization, forced adoption?

What would you have us do, realistically?

Again, you failed to address my question.......
Your post inferred that people are not responsible (of which I agree that SOME are not)....
What makes YOU responsible enough to own a business??? Who is to determine who is responsible and who isn't? You see, this can be a slippery slope when we start determining who is and who isn't.

[Grits]

so you got nothing as usual...

Originally Posted by tucker6
Abortions have been around since the dawn of man, and I'm pretty sure few if any people in history went to jail for it. Where you been? As far as I know, fetuses are not offspring until they scream their lungs out.


NO, Tucker. You're the one that has nothing...

That "fetus" or that blob of chromosomal matter that hasn't screamed its lungs out yet, as you term it, is a living being monitored closely every month and every week in its final stages by a physician who went through years of medical school to help ensure its safe growth. While advances in medicine have allowed others to go through surgical residency to be able to perform invitro open heart surgery so some of them would have a better chance at life.

You nailed it, Tucker. Big time. None of those "to be screamers" are alive. Yet, they have prenatal care. Sorry, they DID NOT choose their mother or their father. Hopefully, they don't grow up stupid, refusing birth control or condoms.

As for no one going to jail? Who needs jail when you can die instead? Try the historical fact you obviously don't recall. Its worse. Countless women have died--of infections, of hemorrhaging, having abortions performed, illegally, by butchers in filthy, dark rooms on equally filthy dark side streets. Learn your history, its all there for the reading.

[tucker6]

[/i]


NO, Tucker. You're the one that has nothing...

That "fetus" or that blob of chromosomal matter that hasn't screamed its lungs out yet, as you term it, is a living being monitored closely every month and every week in its final stages by a physician who went through years of medical school to help ensure its safe growth. While advances in medicine have allowed others to go through surgical residency to be able to perform invitro open heart surgery so some of them would have a better chance at life.

You nailed it, Tucker. Big time. None of those "to be screamers" are alive. Yet, they have prenatal care. Sorry, they DID NOT choose their mother or their father. Hopefully, they don't grow up stupid, refusing birth control or condoms.

As for no one going to jail? Who needs jail when you can die instead? Try the historical fact you obviously don't recall. Its worse. Countless women have died--of infections, of hemorrhaging, having abortions performed, illegally, by butchers in filthy, dark rooms on equally filthy dark side streets. Learn your history, its all there for the reading.
Fetuses are not offspring until they are born. That's what I said. You dispute that?

[fast4522]

This has been enlightening, gentlemen. Extremely so. You call women you have never met, women you know absolutely nothing about, women who you certainly aren't having sex with bimbos who spread their legs, whores, sluts, etc.

In all of this degradation neither of you has shown sense enough to say a word about the fact that you are part of the act. Therefore, are you not part of the problem of an unwanted pregnancy? Perhaps forgetful of the fact that immaculate conception has occurred only once on this earth. All these women you all are calling WHORES, you each believe, are single and doing every man they come in contact with. None of these women already have more than one child, are married to, or in a long term relationship, with a man who says, "we will.. and I ain't wearing no damn rubber." (In the 19th century, they weren't called condoms, gentleman--so I step back in time.) Each of you are there. You are living in the 19th century if you still believe that birth control is NOT as much your responsibility as it is a woman's!

My mom turned 84 years of age yesterday. The woman has a brilliant mind, still. She worked--all her life--from age 13 on. She and my dad retired at 62. She's always told me, "this country, this world is run by men, for men. However hard women continue to work, the advances they make will only help them up to a point as the mindset of the majority of men will not change." In the last 20 years, I've argued, greatly, with her on this. My mom, I've learned, by reading the comments here, is still correct, today. I was wrong. Its been difficult watching the comments piling in on this thread.

And God bless her.

I am all for anything that keeps your dear mother alive and happy for what precious time she has left, we as a society owe you both that. The larger issue today is that we just don't owe everyone the kitchen sink, and in your heart of hearts you know damn well things are going down hill because they want to include the kitchen sink inside every single left wing idea. We are often not in alignment on everything, but at some point you can agree business is not well for medium and small company's right now. The burden should not be on business, theirs is job creation. I understand why you would not care for degrading language and am mindful to think of you and Shelby and the few others women who sometimes post here. No twenty years from now we will not change, but at the same time we all will not be the same, right?

[Tom]

So single women are a dimwitted social group?

If they are voting for him, yes, obviously.
Obama was put in office by dim wits.

[Tom]

Depending on who's numbers you believe over 70% of abortions have no input from the father.

Another example of "womens' rights.
The man has no say, but if SHE keeps it HE has to support it.
When does some put the words "womens" and "responsibility" together?

[Grits]

The larger issue today is that we just don't owe everyone the kitchen sink, and in your heart of hearts you know damn well things are going down hill because they want to include the kitchen sink inside every single left wing idea. We are often not in alignment on everything, but at some point you can agree business is not well for medium and small company's right now. The burden should not be on business, theirs is job creation. I understand why you would not care for degrading language and am mindful to think of you and Shelby and the few others women who sometimes post here. No twenty years from now we will not change, but at the same time we all will not be the same, right?

Heart of hearts? No, let's go with business operating accounts instead. I'm aware of where medium to small companies are today and the burdens that continue to be placed on them. Having been, for over two decades, one of them, there's much to be saddened and disgusted by in this climate. But laying blame and complaining online to strangers doesn't generate a dime for myself or any other business owner.

Degrading language should be something that bothers everyone. Though, I'm probably mistaken.

Incoming, thank you. I need blessing.

[TJDave]

The man has no say, but if SHE keeps it HE has to support it.


The price men pay for casual sex.

Life's not fair.

[Tom]

Wouldn't you consider the cost of BS to be the same thing for women?
I don't see where MY wallet comes in to play on this.

[BlueShoe]

This has been enlightening, gentlemen. Extremely so. You call women you have never met, women you know absolutely nothing about, women who you certainly aren't having sex with bimbos who spread their legs, whores, sluts, etc.

In all of this degradation neither of you has shown sense enough to say a word about the fact that you are part of the act.
Of course we realize and accept the fact. Our objection is the lack of responsibilty for one's actions and denial of the fact that actions have consequences.

The majority of women expressing outrage are single young women very likely with liberal political leanings. If one of these women should contract asthsma or arthritis, for example, this is a health issue that is involuntary and should be covered by health insurance. However, commiting the sex act, except of course in rape, is a voluntary decision at the discretion of the individual.

The in-your-face-attitude of the females demanding that their erotic conduct be subsidized by the employer and thus by the taxpayer would seem to have the old left wing attitude "That if it feels good do it." These women are saying to men "Every now and then we like to (bleep), and when we do, you Male Chauvinist Pigs are going to pay for it.", and we say "The hell we are." :rolleyes: My opinion of Sandra Fluke and her like minded associates remains the same and unchanged until such time as they assume responsibility for their personal lives.

For the record, am also opposed to taxpayer funding of sex related issues of men, including birth control and ED problems.

[fast4522]

An oldie worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btvSE6tVHzQ

[Ocala Mike]

I worked for a few years as an auditor for the Florida Dept. of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement. I can assure you that the "system" is rigged against the non-custodial parent (almost always the father) from the court order until the child reaches the age of majority.

I quit the job mostly because my audits showed the custodial parent (woman) having been overpaid in many cases, and my bosses didn't want to hear that. Also, I got tired of hearing the question, "where's my check?" from the gals in the system.

The standard line for NCP's (dads) was, "the screwing you got's never worth the screwing you get!"

[horses4courses]

Predictable, and stands little chance of succeeding, but at least they are trying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

Speaker John A. Boehner described the Hobby Lobby decision last week as “a victory for religious freedom.”

More like a victory for religious persecution.

[Clocker]

More like a victory for religious persecution.


Right, the 11th Commandment: Thine employer shalt provide thee with free abortifacients.



http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2014/181/253e2291-09cb-4048-9aa7-f4c968f85101.jpg

[FantasticDan]

Right, the 11th Commandment: Thine employer shalt provide thee with free abortifacients.Speaking of 11th, that's how many times I've pointed out that none of the contraceptives in this discussion are abortifacients. :bang:

[Clocker]

Speaking of 11th, that's how many times I've pointed out that none of the contraceptives in this discussion are abortifacients.

The folks at Hobby Lobby think that they are. Morality is in the mind of the beholder. If you don't believe that, try reading the Religious thread here.

Quibbling about the proper definition of "abortifacients" is not relevant. You think that they are not abortifacients. The people that run Hobby Lobby think that they are, and that for them to pay for them is immoral. Call them what you want, it doesn't change anyone's moral position.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

They are objecting to a result, not to a word that you, or even the vast majority, use differently.

[dartman51]

Speaking of 11th, that's how many times I've pointed out that none of the contraceptives in this discussion are abortifacients. :bang:


Well, Dr Dan, you might want to take a refresher course, back at Med School. According to the Supremes, you would be wrong. From the opinion:
" including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an
already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its
attachment to the uterus."

I believe that would qualify.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

[FantasticDan]

Only one of the aforementioned contraceptives can even be used to prevent implantation (not even its primary function), and even then, that doesn't fit the medical definition of an abortion. As I said earlier, for there to be an abortion, there must first be a pregnancy. None of these four types of contraceptives end pregnancies.

So yes, the SC got the science wrong. But as Clocker pointed out, that's immaterial when it comes the grand wonder of moral convictions.. :rolleyes: :faint:

[Clocker]

As I said earlier, for there to be an abortion, there must first be a pregnancy. None of these four types of contraceptives end pregnancies.

Definitions again. Many on the religious right consider a fertilized egg to be a pregnancy. A pill that prevents that egg from implantation is, to them, an abortifacient.

It's not about science, it is about religion.

[FantasticDan]

Definitions again. Many on the religious right consider a fertilized egg to be a pregnancy. A pill that prevents that egg from implantation is, to them, an abortifacient.How does that apply here then? None of these four types prevent implantation, they all simply prevent ovulation or fertilization from even taking place.

But I guess that's just semantics again. :ThmbDown:

[davew]

It sounds like Harry Reid is working in the Senate to correct this injustice and get women to vote in the midterm elections.

[Clocker]

It sounds like Harry Reid is working in the Senate to correct this injustice and get women to vote in the midterm elections.

Yeah, Harry nailed the facts, as usual.

“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determine by virtue of five white men,” Reid said.


http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/thomas-saywhat.jpg


Say what?

[GaryG]

We have reached the point in this brave new world where "white man" is a pejorative term.

[Clocker]

We have reached the point in this brave new world where "white man" is a pejorative term.

I'm surprised Harry hasn't pointed out that the Koch brothers are white men.

[Tom]

Ironic that Dingy Harry, a GRAY man said those things.
Very gray, and light gray.

[BlueShoe]

We have reached the point in this brave new world where "white man" is a pejorative term.
According to modern leftist doctrine, male, white, heterosexual, conservatives are to blame for almost all of the nation's problems and ills. What they left out is the fact that persons fitting this definition are the ones that created American Exceptionalism, but when did liberals ever bother with the truth?

[TJDave]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/thomas-saywhat.jpg


Say what?

:lol: :lol:

With the black robe he blends in.

[FantasticDan]

According to modern leftist doctrine, male, white, heterosexual, conservatives are to blame for almost all of the nation's problems and ills. What they left out is the fact that persons fitting this definition are the ones that created American ExceptionalismMy, how lovely for you to have been privy to the sexuality of all those Exceptional Americans! :ThmbUp: :D

[Tom]

George Washington bought his own rubbers!

[Clocker]

George Washington bought his own rubbers!

Until King George started requiring a tax stamp on each one. :eek:

[BlueShoe]

Heaven forbid, but now this woman is in California and actually has an outside chance of being a California state senator. Cannot recall the last time I rooted for a Democrat in an election, but go Ben Allen! :ThmbUp:
www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/07/12/3060898/sandra-fluke-seeks-wider-influence.html (http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/07/12/3060898/sandra-fluke-seeks-wider-influence.html)