Posted by Tina
The LGBT cultural community is celebrating. I don’t blame them, they continue to win victory after victory in their cultural cause. But Lady Gaga’s performance of the “Star Spangled Banner” at a Gay Pride event in New York may have taken the celebrations a bit far. A WSJ blog, Speakeasy, has the video…see what you think:
No, I’m not and agree with what Allen West had to say about it.
Allen West:
“Having served in the US Army for 22 years alongside some very brave men and women, I find Lady Gaga’s defiling of our National Anthem reprehensible. We are the land of the free because America has always been the home of the brave from Lexington and Concord to Kandahar. This young lady should be taken to Ft. McHenry and given a history lesson as to why Francis Scott Key wrote those words incredible words. In this week where we remember the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg and the 237th anniversary of our Independence is further evidence of the level of ignorance and disrespect some have for our national character. She and all those who cheered her abomination should be ashamed and apologize to every serving and retired member of our Armed Services. But perhaps I ask too much…”
As we approach the Fourth of July its a good time to reflect and take pause.
I have to say I agree with Allen West; this is reprehensible. I also found it disrespectful of the nations flag and the founders who risked everything: “Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor,” to win the independence that has become our blessed heritage of freedom and opportunity.
Lady Gaga is a performer. I don’t fault her for her views, I just think she crossed a line. Her performance is not reminiscent of George M. Cohan/James Cagney, John Phillip Sousa, Chuck Berry & Linda Ronstadt (backed up by others), Ray Charles, James Brown, Life is Hard, Neil Diamond, Kid Rock, Lee Greenwood, Lynard Skynard, and many, many more.
Some people are so PC and easily offended.
Oh that was funny Chris. Especially after every progressive liberal with a microphone and keyboard came unglued over Rush Limbaugh using the word “slut” to describe a rich woman who wanted all of us to pay for her birth control pills. And the PC police came went ballistics with Ben Carson’s remarks said just feet away from emperor Obama.
Thanks for once again proving just how pathetic the double standard is. It’s almost laughable if it wasn’t so sad to have people like Paula Deen lose their jobs while others ratings go up and the left-wingers cheer when they were able to obtain tickets to a rapper concert who uses the same word hundreds of time.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it today with this heat. You really are so predictable.
Tina: “Especially after every progressive liberal with a microphone and keyboard came unglued over Rush Limbaugh using the word “slut” to describe a rich woman who wanted all of us to pay for her birth control pills.”
1) After all this time, you still have no idea what was actually in Sandra Fluke’s testimony, do you? The hearing was about HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE. It was not about paying for contraception with tax dollars. So you are simply wrong when you state that she was asking “all of us” to pay for her birth control pills.
I can understand your confusion, since you rely on sources that make money by consistently lying to you, and many of those sources–including Rush Limbaugh–falsely reported that the testimony was about tax dollars going to pay for contraception. The solution I would suggest is to stop relying on sources that make money by constantly lying to you.
2) If you don’t understand that Rush Limbaugh spending an entire week of his show lying about Fluke’s testimony, calling her a slut, making several unwarrented inferences about her sex life that were in no way based on her actual testimony, and asking her to film herself having sex and share it with the world, is morally worse and causes more real-world harm than Lady Gaga singing a satirical pro-gay song to the tune of the Star-Spangled Banner…you are not a very intelligent person.
I’ve never met Peggy so I can’t say we resemble each other, but it’s a compliment nonetheless that you mistook her for me.
I can understand your concerns regarding the Sandra Fluke incident, Chris, after all, Sarah Palin was greeted from the start with the kindest, most considerate reception ever given a political candidate or spokesperson by her opponents in the Democrat Party…the media…late night show hosts…comedy teams…movie makers…students…book writers…feminists…progressive bloggers and pundits…and commenter’s all across the progressive blogasphere.
Yep, the left has been incredibly generous, filled with the spirit of fair and honest competition that we Americans have come to expect in our politics.
This phenomenon has to be unique in all the world and it stands as a credit to the progressive movement. In fact…as I recall, all conservative women have been treated well by progressives with this same generous, welcoming spirit.
If only Rush were as perfect the entire political process would finally be decent and peaceful….and we could all just get along. (sigh)
As I recall Ms Fluke’s testimony was full of a few, shall we say, holes (So as not to call her a liar.)
Sandra Fluke was a showcase activist for the Presidents, “war on women” theme.
Come to think of it, you are all a bunch of nasty, mean, phony, liars, freedom killers, and thieves.
Sorry about the mix-up; I knew I was responding to Peggy, but for some reason I wrote Tina.
Tina, as you know, I have condemned sexist statements toward conservative women such as Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter here many times in the past. When people use sexist language it demeans all women, not just the individuals they are targeting. I have never seen you condemn similarly sexist statements from conservatives, including Limbaugh, toward liberal women. You can’t deplore a double standard if you, yourself, are also upholding that same double standard.
“As I recall Ms Fluke’s testimony was full of a few, shall we say, holes (So as not to call her a liar.)”
Happily I have no such reservations about calling whoever you are quoting (you did not cite your source) a liar. The first paragraph states:
“Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.”
In reality, Obamacare does not mandate coverage for any “abortifacients.”
Furthermore, the portion you quoted assumes that all women can use the generic brand of birth control pills. The writer clearly does not understand the variation in how contraception works with women’s bodies. The generic brand has hormone levels that do not work with all women. Many have to get more expensive pills. While the generic brand can cost only $9 a month, some brands can cost up to $100 a month.
Before you say “Those women should just stop having sex, then!” remember that Fluke’s testimony was not just about contraception for recreational purposes. She spoke at length about women she knew who used contraception to treat ovarian cysts and other serious health conditions. Again, the generic brands don’t always work to treat these issues. This part of Fluke’s testimony was completely ignored by Limbaugh and other conservative commentators because it didn’t fit the “slut” narrative.
So no, the selective information you quoted does not show that Fluke’s testimony was misleading. Given the health problems Fluke spoke about in her testimony it is reasonable that a woman could spend up to $3000 on contraception during a 3-year stint in law school.
Fluke has actually already responded to the “birth control is really cheap, and I’m an expert because I don’t believe in birth control” argument before:
“Fluke said: “So, I’m not familiar with specific department store policies. I know that some generic forms of contraception are less expensive than others and that that has been widely reported. But what has not been widely reported is that many women cannot use those forms of contraception.”
“Women have different types of medical needs that require much more expensive forms,” she said. “One woman contacted me. She was very, very upset that that quote was being emphasized because she has a genetic condition that requires her to use contraception that costs $1,500.”
“So, this is medicine,” said Fluke. “It’s not one-size-fits-all, and while it’s great that some women can access more affordable contraception, contraception needs to be accessible and affordable for all of the women who need all of the different kinds.””
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sandra-fluke-says-she-didnt-know-target-sells-birth-control-pills-9#sthash.KlonoXux.dpuf
Hilariously, the title of that CNS article is “Sandra Fluke Says She Didn’t Know Target Sells Birth Control Pills for $9,” and not something like, “We Didn’t Know Not All Women Can Get Birth Control From Target,” which would have been more appropriate and honest.
You people are all suckers. Since when are the doings of Gaga worthy of attention, let alone comment?
This country’s gone to the dogs.
Gee Libby, if that’s true, you won!
Glad to see you back.
Chris what you are saying is that it’s important to oppress Catholic colleges, hospitals, and related organizations and destroy our health ncare industry just so a few women with unusual disorders (I’d like to know the perccentage) can have birth control covered?
Yep that’s how the progressive brain works.
Chris are you aware that most drug companies will work with hardship patients so they can get the medicines they need?
I think this issue was overblown purposely for the female vote. Feminists can never resist a chance to slam “the man” and make him pay and progressives will do any low thing for a dollar or a vote.
Chris the Catholic church allows birth control use for medical reasons. They have done so since the pill was created in the 1960s. They’re only against it’s use to prevent procreation. Sandra Fluke’s argument was in support of the pill as a birth control. So the argument that it’s a “women’s health” issue a bogus lie. It’s all about control and forcing a large portion of the population to support Obamacare.
Forcing a whole religion to violate their beliefs is wrong. What gives the government the right to force everyone to do what they want at the cost of another’s. If the government can force Catholics to pay for birth control won’t they also have the power to force Jews and Muslims to eat pork if they decide everyone should? Where does it stop? Isn’t the government trying to replace God as the supreme being in control of ones thoughts and actions? Is this really the world you want to live in, one that takes away your free will and mandates what you WILL do?
If an individual wants to go against what their religion believes that’s a personal choice they have the right to make, but no government of a free republic should force them to make it.
Here are a couple of articles validating the Catholic church’s teachings.
Question:
Is it o.k. to take birth control pills for health reasons?
Answer:
One can use birth control pills for therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases (see excerpt below). To better understand the context of this teaching, I recommend you read the Encyclical Humanae Vitae.
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=18736
Birth Control Pill for Medical Problems:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=53134
Tina: “Chris what you are saying is that it’s important to oppress Catholic colleges, hospitals, and related organizations and destroy our health ncare industry just so a few women with unusual disorders (I’d like to know the perccentage) can have birth control covered?”
No.
Our discussion so far has not even been about the mandate itself, so you are changing the subject. You and Peggy made specific claims about the mandate and Fluke’s testimony that were false and misleading. So far I have merely stuck to correcting that. Even if you believe the mandate is wrong, that does not justify posting misinformation about it. Again: the mandate is about what is required to be covered by health insurance, not taxpayer dollars, as Peggy and others have wrongly implied. It does not cover abortifacients, as your link falsely claimed. And the $9 per month argument is dishonest because not all women can use that type of birth control.
That said, I don’t believe the mandate “oppresses” anyone. Health insurance coverage is usually considered as part of an employee’s pay. Employers don’t have the right to tell their employees what they can spend their money on. Requiring institutions that do secular work and serve and employ non-believers to cover contraception protects the rights of employees and students. They should not be beholden to the religious beliefs of their employers. Churches are exempt from the mandate, as they should be.
Peggy: “Chris the Catholic church allows birth control use for medical reasons. They have done so since the pill was created in the 1960s. They’re only against it’s use to prevent procreation.”
OK, so should an employer or college administrator be able to ask an employee/student what they are taking the pill for before agreeing to cover it in the individual’s health plan? Pretty sure that’s none of the institution’s business. That would fall under doctor-patient confidentiality.
“Sandra Fluke’s argument was in support of the pill as a birth control.”
No, it was in support of both the pill as birth control AND as treatment for serious health problems. Had you read the testimony, you’d know this.
“So the argument that it’s a “women’s health” issue a bogus lie. It’s all about control…”
Um…no. Again, read the testimony.
“Forcing a whole religion to violate their beliefs is wrong.”
Yes, but this doesn’t force a whole religion to violate their beliefs. Again, churches are exempt. If a religious institution already conducts non-religious activities and serves non-members, than they have to abide by the same laws as everyone else.
What gives the government the right to force everyone to do what they want at the cost of another’s. If the government can force Catholics to pay for birth control won’t they also have the power to force Jews and Muslims to eat pork if they decide everyone should?”
Ridiculous analogy. This would only make sense if the state was forcing people to actually TAKE birth control pills. But that’s not the case. It simply requires employers and colleges to cover contraception in their health insurance plans.
Furthermore, the mandate serves a pressing public health need. It has been proven that providing contraception reduces the abortion rate by up to 70%. If Catholic institutions are so concerned about abortion, then they need to examine the evidence and change their position on contraception. Their current position is directly responsible for needlessly increasing the abortion rate.
“Isn’t the government trying to replace God as the supreme being in control of ones thoughts and actions?”
No.
Chris: “OK, so should an employer or college administrator be able to ask an employee/student what they are taking the pill for before agreeing to cover it in the individual’s health plan? Pretty sure that’s none of the institution’s business. That would fall under doctor-patient confidentiality.”
Come on Chris use you head. The employer or college administrator would not be involved. Why should they be? It would be a matter between the doctor and the insurance company. If the doctor codes it as a medical necessity it will be covered. If they coded it as birth control it won’t be and the patient will pay for it out of their own pocket. If the patient and doctor lie the employer or college administrator would never know. I would expect if they did ever find out the student’s or employee’s trust worthiness would be brought into question.
If a student or employee chooses to attend or work at a Catholic or other faith based school I would expect them to abide with the beliefs of that school. If they don’t want to they can apply to attend or work at another school.
If non-Muslim women choose to attend a Muslim owned school or work for a Muslim owned business should they be required to wear approved clothing while at work and on the campus at all times and also when they’re just out in public? If you think they should do you also agree the employer or college administrator should pay for the clothing? If not, why not?
Everyone knows if someone wants an abortion, vasectomy, IUD or their tubes tied they won’t be able to have it done at a Catholic owned hospital. If an individual wants one of these procedures done they need to go to a hospital that will allow it. So, are you saying they be required to offer them? You do realize the hospitals and schools could choose to close their doors. Is this what you want?
From comment #5
Chris: “1) “… The hearing was about HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE. It was not about paying for contraception with tax dollars. So you are simply wrong when you state that she was asking “all of us” to pay for her birth control pills.”
From comment #12
Chris: “No, it was in support of both the pill as birth control AND as treatment for serious health problems. Had you read the testimony, you’d know this.”
Chris, I’m as confused as you said you were with what Harold wrote. So, were you saying that Fluke’s testimony was ONLY about health insurance (see #5) or are you now trying to convince us that she was really talking about “BOTH?” (see #12) Which is it Chris? Please be clearer in expressing what you mean.
Chris: “After all this time, you still have no idea what was actually in Sandra Fluke’s testimony, do you?”
Yes, Chris I think I do have an idea of what Ms. Fluke was attempting to do. What is confusing is your flip-flopping interpretation of it to try and validate your unfounded argument.
Who’s confused Chris? It is NOT me I can assure you. I’ve said all along Fluke was trying to force the Catholic church to pay for birth control, which is against the church’s belief. She tried to USE the “Women’s Health” argument, but as I proved the church has NO problem with birth control pills or other contraceptive being used FOR a woman’s medical needs when prescribed by a doctor as long as the “primary” purpose is NOT a contraceptive. An example would be a woman who is advised by her doctor to not become pregnant for health reasons. A heart problem, juvenile diabetes, extreme high blood pressure, etc. could all be valid reasons.
You keep asking for proof, yet when Tina or I provide it you reject it or try to spin it to fit your narrative. Nice try, but it didn’t work this time. Don’t even waste your time trying to spin the writings by the Catholic church in the articles with references to the churches on doctrine.
Chris: “Furthermore, the mandate serves a pressing public health need. It has been proven that providing contraception reduces the abortion rate by up to 70%. If Catholic institutions are so concerned about abortion, then they need to examine the evidence and change their position on contraception. Their current position is directly responsible for needlessly increasing the abortion rate.”
Oh please God give me patients. That is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen you write. So, now it’s the Catholic churches’ fault for millions of abortions that took the lives of beautiful babies? Abortions that Democrats and Margaret Sanger have used as genocide to remove “undesirables” from our society.
Margaret Sanger, one of the founders of the 1939 “Negro Project: In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble Sanger stated, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
New York Times interview July, 2009
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
http://www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com/Margaret-Sanger-and-The-Negro-Project.html
I’m not wasting any more time on your ridicules remark except to say as a mother who spent four month confined to bed to bring my second son into this world and 31 years doing everything humanly possible to keep my first son alive, after he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, I want YOU every time you see kids on a playground or at a school to pick out half of them YOU don’t think should be there. That’s the real results of what you Democrats and Margaret Sanger have done.
End of subject. You lose!
Chris: “She was very, very upset that that quote was being emphasized because she has a genetic condition that requires her to use contraception that costs $1,500.”
A “genetic condition” that requires “contraception” costing $1500.00.
I gotta say this smells suspicious but I am willing to consider that this is a legitimate case rather than a lie perpetuated to create the Democrat campaign slogan “War on Women”, create lots of controversy to detract from the Presidents terrible record. The bonus being a smug attack on the religious views of Catholics and others.
None of us know the actual diagnosis for this friend but I did look up treatments for Polycystic ovarian syndrome.
Healthline
Ordinary birth control pills! There are other treatments but let us not forget this example was given in testimony that supposedly made the case for all women.
Other treatments include: insulin-sensitizing anti-diabetes drugs; anti-androgens; GnRH analogs; fertility therapy with ovulation-inducing drugs; surgical therapy
None of these sound like they fall under the heading “birth control”. Anti-diabetes drugs are likely covered. Fertility therapy is an unlikely treatment since cysts were given as the friends problem and besides if this was the treatment the church would not have a religious leg to stand on. If surgery, fluke would not have been talking about birth control.
Another of the above treatments is used as described here:
Hmmmm. Neither endometriosis nor menorrhagia are Polycystic ovarian syndrome.
Diet, exercise, and ordinary birth control seem to be the appropriate treatment for Polycystic ovarian syndrome.
A profile of Fluke at Discover the Networks includes the following excerpts:
I am not convinced that this (apx) 30 year old activist law student with political connections to and within the Democrat Party is being entirely truthful in her testimony about her friend and the friends condition. But as I wrote above, none of us knows the details about the friend.
“Again: the mandate is about what is required to be covered by health insurance”
…and is in conflict with the first amendment right of religious expression and personal religious conscience.
“It does not cover abortifacients, as your link falsely claimed.”
Please provide the language that would show you are accurate, otherwise please refrain from inciting valse claims. Obviously there is disagreement about what the law can mandate per the Constitution and there has been at least one judgement already regarding the final mandate:
“And the $9 per month argument is dishonest because not all women can use that type of birth control.”
Nice try. Flukes assertion was dishonest and $9 per month will cover most women’s birth control pill cost at WalMart.
“Requiring institutions that do secular work and serve and employ non-believers to cover contraception protects the rights of employees and students. They should not be beholden to the religious beliefs of their employers.”
Yeah…because it isn’t enough that they have a job with benefits. When exactly do you think people should be required to grow up and be responsible for their own particular needs?
We live in a nation of infantile brats!
“They should not be beholden to the religious beliefs of their employers.”
It’s a big country. If an employee has a problem with their employer they can look for an employer they like better. A job is not an entitlement and it is not a right. Grow up!
HHS Mandate for religious groups finalized with few changes:
Obamacare is offensive for many reasons…a real stinker that needs to be repealed.
Peggy: “Come on Chris use you head. The employer or college administrator would not be involved.”
Thank you for proving my point. If the employer or administrator is not involved, in what possible way could it be argued that theit religious freedom is being violated?
“It would be a matter between the doctor and the insurance company.”
Precisely, which is why it’s none of the institution’s business whether their employee or student is using contraception for birth control purposes or health purposes.
“If a student or employee chooses to attend or work at a Catholic or other faith based school I would expect them to abide with the beliefs of that school. If they don’t want to they can apply to attend or work at another school.
If non-Muslim women choose to attend a Muslim owned school or work for a Muslim owned business should they be required to wear approved clothing while at work and on the campus at all times and also when they’re just out in public? If you think they should do you also agree the employer or college administrator should pay for the clothing? If not, why not?”
Peggy, we are talking about schools that, as a general policy, serve non-believers and believers alike. Fluke’s school does not expect all students to follow Catholic doctrine.
“From comment #5
Chris: “1) “… The hearing was about HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE. It was not about paying for contraception with tax dollars. So you are simply wrong when you state that she was asking “all of us” to pay for her birth control pills.”
From comment #12
Chris: “No, it was in support of both the pill as birth control AND as treatment for serious health problems. Had you read the testimony, you’d know this.”
Chris, I’m as confused as you said you were with what Harold wrote.”
You are very confused; Harold has not commented once on this thread.
“So, were you saying that Fluke’s testimony was ONLY about health insurance (see #5) or are you now trying to convince us that she was really talking about “BOTH?” (see #12) Which is it Chris? Please be clearer in expressing what you mean.”
I was very clear, and there is no contradiction. Fluke’s testimony advocated that health insurance cover contraception for birth control purposes and to treat serious health problems. I was correcting your claim that Fluke wanted “all of us” to pay for her birth control, a statement that implied she was advocated for taxpayer-funded birth control (a false claim made by Limbaugh and other conservatives).
“What is confusing is your flip-flopping interpretation of it to try and validate your unfounded argument.”
I never flip-flopped. You appear to be having trouble with reading comprehension.
“I’ve said all along Fluke was trying to force the Catholic church to pay for birth control, which is against the church’s belief.”
You are wrong. She is not asking the “church” to pay for anything. Churches are exempt. Religiously affiliated institutions that do secular work, however, are not. That is fair. If you are going to serve the public, you have to actually serve the public.
“She tried to USE the “Women’s Health” argument, but as I proved the church has NO problem with birth control pills or other contraceptive being used FOR a woman’s medical needs when prescribed by a doctor as long as the “primary” purpose is NOT a contraceptive.”
Yes, but even then that doesn’t ensure that these pills would be covered by insurance. The mandate ensures that.
“Oh please God give me patients. That is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen you write. So, now it’s the Catholic churches’ fault for millions of abortions that took the lives of beautiful babies?”
Peggy, free contraception has been proven to reduce the abortion rate by 70%. If you don’t believe me, you can Google this yourself; I’m not going to find the link again, because I’ve posted it here at least a dozen times.
So, do I believe that a politically powerful institution which opposes contraception is contributing to the high rates of abortion in our country? Of course I do. That’s the only rational conclusion based on the data.
I don’t know what you intend to show with your Margaret Sanger quote; you seem to be implying, as you have before, that she secretly DID wish to exterminate the Negro population through abortion. If that’s your interpretation, I request that you read the quote you posted again, because that’s not at all what she said. She said that she wants to combat that impression; she did not say that that impression was correct.
“I want YOU every time you see kids on a playground or at a school to pick out half of them YOU don’t think should be there. That’s the real results of what you Democrats and Margaret Sanger have done.”
That’s a ridiculous argument, and here’s why:
At least some of those children were probably conceived out of wedlock during drunken one-night stands. Does that mean we should encourage people to have drunken one-night stands? If you don’t think so, then you show me which of those children YOU don’t think should be there.
The above is no more a logical argument than yours. Your argument is an emotionally manipulative appeal.
Chris ma boy, you has gots to pull yer head out of your butt to see da light Ifn’ yer a gonna spout off about what wimmens is about or wants’ best you just ague that point wit another feller its a whole lot safer. Son you do not picnic on top of a ant hill.
Tina: “Please provide the language that would show you are accurate, otherwise please refrain from inciting valse claims. Obviously there is disagreement about what the law can mandate per the Constitution and there has been at least one judgement already regarding the final mandate:”
Tina, are you really so dense that you didn’t realize that nowhere in that piece by Breitbart (truly a beacon of journalistic excellence) does it specify what “abortion drug” they are even referring to? That is dishonest. They are purposefully withholding information to fool their gullible readership (which unfortunately, includes you).
I have shown you before how some of the drugs erroneously classified by the Catholic Church as abortifacients (such as Plan B) are not classified that way by, you know, actual scientists.
This writer from the National Catholic Reporter explains that abortifacients are not covered, and makes a plea for more honesty and accuracy from her colleages:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt
“Nice try. Flukes assertion was dishonest and $9 per month will cover most women’s birth control pill cost at WalMart.”
How was it dishonest? She never said that all or even most women have to pay up to $3000 a year for contraception. But her estimate was accurate for many women. You haven’t provided any evidence for your claim that “most” women can use the cheap generic brand of birth control available at Wal-Mart.
Chris: “If the employer or administrator is not involved, in what possible way could it be argued that theit religious freedom is being violated?”
Ultimate responsibility! He is responsible for choosing the plan! And you should know by now that the accommodation will just become the table this activist mob stands on for the next demand…probably through the courts. Those of us that have watched the extremists operate for a few decades know they never stop. It’s time to take a resolute stand for our American freedoms and constitutional rights.
“we are talking about schools that, as a general policy, serve non-believers and believers alike. Fluke’s school does not expect all students to follow Catholic doctrine.”
Which shows they are not only very generous but also very reasonable people.
On the other hand it is quite unreasonable to purposely choose to work for or attend school at a religious institution and demand they pay for a personal health item/procedure that places them at odds with their religious convictions.
The left never compromises and never seems to notice its own lack of empathy, compassion, and sensitivity. Brute force with a blunt instrument…that’s the means to every progressive end.
“Tina, are you really so dense…balh, blah, blah”
The text of the mandate Chris. You have yet to produce it. Instead you go on the attack, you insult me and my sources.
Fluke is a phony activist and you are a willing dupe. We’re done.
Son, we tried to warn ya, but noooo you had to mowsy up to the manure pile and step in it corn high. you best start runnin like yer feet was afire and your arse was a catchin. It a holiday just watchn you get all lit up, Bless your heart
A late birthday gift for Chris.
http://www.wimp.com/doctorbaby/
Peggy I just watched the video, …really underscores what you said.
Tina: “The text of the mandate Chris. You have yet to produce it.”
I am sorry, I didn’t know that was what you were asking for. You could have easily Googled it yourself, but here you go anyway:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-15/html/2012-3547.htm
The portion relevant to the “abortifacient” charge is in the second paragraph under 1. Background:
“As relevant here, the HRSA Guidelines require coverage, without cost sharing, for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [(FDA)] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient
education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” as prescribed by a provider.”
Let’s take a look at those “FDA approved contraceptive mehtods.” They include:
Male condom
Female condom
Diaphragm with spermicide
Sponge with spermicide
Cervical cap with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Oral contraceptives (progestin-only) “The Minipill”
Combined oral contraceptives (extended/continuous use) (estrogen and progestin) “The Pill”
Patch (estrogen and progestin)
Vaginal contraceptive ring (estrogen and progestin)
DMPA shot/injection (progestin)
Emergency contraceptives “The Morning After Pill”
Copper IUD
IUD with Progestin
Implantable rod (progestin)
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/ucm118465.htm#barr
Not one of these methods are medically classified as abortifacients.
“Instead you go on the attack, you insult me and my sources.”
Yes, because your source not only lied, but it lied in an obvious manner (by claiming that the mandate covered “abortion-causing drugs” but not specifying what drugs it was talking about). You believed the lie because it told you what you wanted to hear. (“Only in politics do people hope for bad news,” as the saying goes.)
I am sorry that you are always so offended whenever I correctly point out that you or your sources are lying. But I have told you how you can solve that problem many times before. Breitbart.com has long since earned its reputation as a dishonest waste of bandwith where journalism and facts go to die, and anyone who still pretends that they can rely on it for accurate information is insulting themselves worse than I ever could.
It’s too bad you are often so smug, self-satisfied, inadequately informed by that leftist cheer-leading band of phonies that pretend to be journalists, and rude…but you are!
Since the religious view of conception is disregarded completely by this administration, they can spin the narrative and people like you will fall in line.
There is a difference in how people define and talk about conception. The difference is not acknowledged in political discussions.
I don’t know how this difference came about but if we use other such disputes as a guide there is a good chance that politics played a significant role. (Environmental positions for instance.)
Consistency would make discussion easier…but when votes matter more than service, truth and the Constitution…ah well, here we are.
Clearly most of those on the pro-abortion side don’t care a fig when life begins but Catholics and other religious people and pro-life proponents do care. I hope you will consider this difference, as well as the following information about terms, which are likely the crux of our problem, and then kindly refrain from calling people liars. The pro-life link below features a beginning quote from a pro-choice doctor who was discussing the drug RU-487. I use it not because this drug is part of our discussion but because of what he said about fertilization.
Life Issues:
Keeping in mind this statement, regarding RU-487 and referring to both “fertilization” and “implantation”, consider the following from the same link, by J. C. Willke, MD and Bradley Mattes, MBS:
As you can see terms can be misleading. People who favor abortion are not likely to find these differences meaningful. Unfortunately they also refuse to respect the seriousness of the terms for people/Churches with strong religious convictions.
The Obama administration has chosen to embrace the muddied scientific waters and ignore or dismiss the beliefs of religious people by adopting redefined terms. This way they satisfy constituents, appear to have taken the high road, and make pro-life/religious people look stupid and foolish (like liars) while they continue to trample on their religious convictions and First Amendment rights.
Once again Chris, the extremists in the Democrat Party demonstrate they are unwilling to debate and negotiate honestly. And, rather than seeking a solution that would satisfy a multitude of charitable organizations doing incredibly important work across the entire nation without doing excessive harm to some women, this power seeking administration chooses to administer to religious objectors the middle finger. Feminist pro-abortion votes are that important! Disgusting.
You may disagree strongly with the church’s position. You may think the position is without merit and dumb and that is your right. But our government does not have a right to impose regulations that conflict with personal convictions of religious conscience.
Taking a hard core secularist stand against charitable religious hospitals will come at a huge cost. If the churches decide they have no other option than to close facilities, jobs will be lost and services will be cut, in many cases to the less fortunate. There will also be a financial cost:
The Fiscal Times:
According to this article, religious hospitals provide superior care and are run more efficiently.
Chris, as a nation, we can ill-afford to be so stupid as to lose hospitals especially when Obamacare is already causing higher premiums and higher healthcare costs.
Sorry…this administrations lack of real accommodation for religious organizations and individuals is just the latest example of the extremism, lies, incompetence, and stupidity that’s been behind this legislation from the get go.
And now to your snarky closing remarks:
There are a good number of journalists that have proven to be distrustful and lacking in journalistic integrity…most of them are shills for the left.
We can start, since you are such a newbie, with the election of Barack Obama, which has been from the start a promotional campaign of so-called “credible” journalists. They have continued to cover for this administration through continued promotion, nuance, lies of omission, and spin. The spin on the economy alone is the most laughable in history!
There are people in key positions at the major networks who’s spouses work in the Obama administration.
Many of us will remember the infamous JournoList of corrupt journalists plotting to aid Obama and acting like children rather than professionals.
NBC has been caught numerous times altering tape for political purposes…see here and here…also the CBS Rathergate tape altering prior to the GW Bush election.
National Review reports a corrupt connection to the IRS by someone highly placed at Common Cause, a progressive (supposed 501 c3 non-profit) and the IRS…how many “journalists” and reporters in the main stream even gave this story a mention? (I’d bet NONE!)
Your won experience should tell you something is amiss.
Our economy has been worse than terrible and month after month the media diligently reports “improvement” in one string of positive sounding words after another. That same media excoriated GWB year after year for a faster growing economy, a better jobs outlook with low unemployment, and a lot fewer people designated as “the poor”.
Open your eyes Chris. You seem to like words…start using them to inform yourself instead of as a means to further the same old tired worn out progressive spin.
If you cannot see that their reporting has been crap there is absolutely zero chance that you could evaluate most journalists work, much less have a clue about the motivations, experience, honor, credentials, and capability behind the work of lesser known, grass roots, entrepreneurial journalistic efforts…like those of Breitbart’s writers.
It would be nice to give you kudos for attempting to clarify the issue. Unfortunately your attitude and obvious bias won’t allow me to go that far. I believe an appropriate retort for such behavior is, “Get bent!”
Peggy when will they ever learn…it’s a human baby, stupid!
What a wonderful doc!
“Since the religious view of conception is disregarded completely by this administration”
And rightly so. The government should not promote any religious view. Religious views are different from person to person. But scientific facts are observable to all.
Your pro-life website defines nearly all forms of hormonal birth control as potentially causing “early abortions,” even basic birth control pills, and defines a one-day-old embryo as an “unborn child.” That is absurd to me.
You’re simply wrong about media bias. Studies have shown that both McCain and Romney actually received more favorable coverage in the last two elections than Obama:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/27/nation/na-onthemedia27
http://blog.timesunion.com/politicssource/media-bias-study-finds-that-romney-has-gotten-more-favorable-coverage-than-obama-since-first-debate/1978/
Chris: “And rightly so. The government should not promote any religious view. Religious views are different from person to person. But scientific facts are observable to all.”
The government has no business restricting the practice of religion…First Amendment.
Scientific fact is that life begins at the point where the sperm enters the egg…the quickening, so to speak. It is this scientific fact that is ignored so that this administration can pretend it has included only “preventive” birth control.
“That is absurd to me.”
Goodie for you! We are not addressing you and your concerns. You don’t give a fig. This applies to religious people who do care…for whom it matters quite seriously. The law infringes on their religious freedom.
“You’re simply wrong about media bias. Studies have shown that both McCain and Romney actually received more favorable coverage in the last two elections than Obama”
Really?
The media was definitely more negative toward McCain after the conventions. Howard Kurtz writing in the Washington Post:
The real damage was done to McCain’s campaign over negative coverage of Sarah Palin which was incessant, brutal, and purposely designed to destroy her personally. A University of Wisconsin study found Palin was “treated differently by media as vice presidential candidate than Biden”. The studies authors:
You’d have to be totally brain dead to have missed the media’s all out efforts to destroy Sarah Palin.
Positive stories for Romney happened during the Republican primaries. The media favored Romney as the Republican candidate Obama could beat. Once Romney was the R candidate media promotion of Obama started up again.
The media did not do what anyone would expect to a second term president with a lousy economic record. The unemployment rate was still over 8% and there was no real recovery for main street America (still isn’t). He should have been hammered on the economy (As GWB was) and instead was given a complete pass.
Your sources, Chris, are active contributors to the promotion of progressive candidates and policies…they are a very big problem for America and the political process:
Richard E. Vatz, Baltmore Sun:
Freakonomics has a couple of charts that readers might find of interest.