thats what we need to call the republican party, the evangelicals, the Mormons, and the Catholic hierarchy... the American Taliban because that is exactly what they are. WE CAN NOT ALLOW THEM TO CONTROL OUR LIVES!

we need to do everything in our power to expose these fascist hypocrites for what they are. Nothing but a bunch of fat old white men who are scared that their power in coming to an end. They can scream God and country all they want, but the truth is they are doing it to heap upon themselves more power. Like the power to control our families, homes, even our private religious or non religious beliefs. It is their aim to one day force everyone to attend on Sunday one of their approved churches.

Can we say Christian Sharia?

The GOP is senile. Who else would try to get to power by alienating half of their already shrinking base? It's like when 90 year old grandpa pops off about those, "damn Martians," that invaded when he was young. It's pathetic.

hey Brian! wake up

"forcing employers" this is another lie...no one is forcing anyone...all the government is saying that women deserve equal medical treatment and contraceptives are a part of women's health and medical treatment, no one is forcing the employer to take it, no one is forcing women to take it, and no one is forcing conservative Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormons to take it.....this is just false a lie and a detraction from women's freedom to be treated fairly and with justice, but it seems that a bunch of fat old white men just don't see it that way. Where in the Bible or any other major religion does it say its a sin?

Brian, whenever a group (from either side) tries to pass laws indicating what you can and cannot do with your own body i would say that is them imposing themselves on you. If you don't want to have an abortion or take birth control that's fine. Just don't tell others they also cannot....

When we allow RELIGIONS to dictate how people who are not affiliated with their religion can live their lives then we are SACRIFICING personal liberty for religious oppression. Religion should ALWAYS TAKE A BACK SEAT to personal liberty. I don't want your religious beliefs to be FORCED on me through laws that are no different than Sharia Laws in muslim countries.

These republicans want to instill Christian Law in the US just like muslims are establishing Sharia Law in their countries. BOTH are immoral but the christians over here are too blind to see they are no different than muslims installing Sharia Law.

Unless everyone with a brain stays home on election day Santorum has 0% chance if being elected. Please people, are you paying attention to how few people are turning out for these primaries and caucuses?? It's only the extreme loonies who are totally drunk on Jesus and of course those that want women to regain their 2nd class status in this country! I am not a big fan of Barrack, but this election will not be close, regardless of what clown from the 3 ring circus takes center stage this summer.

Brian, When has any religious group try to control our lives? Well practically everyday they fight to eliminate abortion rights for women. Or how about denying homosexuals their equal rights under the constitution. Or do you believe this isn't religion based.

Faith is fine and its a personal thing, Not something to dictate to all. Liberals understand just fine, and they don't want to be hindered by religion.

If these idiots are going to legislate birth control, then every member of congress (notice I didn't capitalize as a form of disrespect) should file informational items that reveal the following:

1. Certify how many times a week they have sex with their spouse.
2. Certify how many times a week they have sex with their illicit lover(s) and whether the lover is of the same or opposite sex.
3. Certify which positions they use and how many times per week in each position for each of their lovers.
4. Whether, if they have a fertile partner, they use birth control and what kind of birth control.
5. Certify whether any member of their family or close associate, including female lover(s), have gotten pregnant and the disposition of the pregnancy.
6. Provide the same contraceptive benefits to themselves and federal employees that they impose or restrict by legislation for the general public.

The filings should be in the form of an affidavit so that if found untrue, the congress person can be prosecuted for perjury.

Brian , I just know that you wrote those statements to just stir up trouble , because there can't be anybody that stupid.

"gals should just put aspirin between their legs" OMG

This has nothing to do with faith you fool.

we absolutely need to throw out every republican office holder, and at least half the democrats and replace them with liberals...then once we have that, we can have a constitutional amendment stating that no religion or religious organization can impose their dogmas and doctrines on America, and if they try we have the right as a society to tax such institutions as we see fit.

Adam - Abortion is a morality issue. It's not religious. There are plenty of non-religious people that are against abortion.

Homosexuality is not normal. I don't care what you want to call it... men were built for women, and women were built for men. The parts fit. Homosexuality cannot produce offspring. That's natural law! How is that tied to religion? Homosexuals pervert the natural law... and notice nothing I said was religious in nature... natural law! Same as gravity... same as the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening... not religious. Homosexuals are not normal. What rights do they not have? If they are men, they can marry a woman, just as I can... What liberals advocate is giving them more rights... It's that simple.

Who's dictating faith to you? Do you know how to say "not interested?"

Santorum lost me with the jimmy carter sweater look. Ugly flashbacks.

brian it doesn't matter if you think its "normal", frankly gay marriage is none of your F**king business, are they forcing it on you ,is anyone forcing you to be gay?...i think rap music sucks, but do I have the right to impose my opinion on everyone else, I could say that rap music is against my religion and try and outlaw it, but that does not mean I have the right to do so.....grow up Brian we live in the 21st century, not the puritanical times you and your leaders want us to live in...quit being brainwashed by organized religion, all they will do is take your money and waste your time.

That is YOUR belief brian, and surprisingly, just because that is what boings around in your head, does not make it right or lawful.

So let me be the first to say; I am NOT INTERESTED in thinking like you.

Can't abide the narrow minded.

brianb,

no one is forcing you to have an abortion, or be gay!

are they?

You don't seem to understand the issue here....

Brian and all other "religion doesn't influence politics" people who are suffering from a severe case of MYOPIA:

The republican controlled state Congress in VA just passed a law forcing a woman seeking an abortion to undergo a transvaginal unltrasound!!! Holy F-arino!!! State forced rape by an ultrasound technician. If this isn't religion affecting freedom then you need to return your brain to GOD and have him issue a new one.

I grew up in VA and am now ASHAMED of my home state. What a travesty of justice and freedom.

WAKE UP RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS... this country is NOT a CHRISTIAN country but rather a country that is accepting of ALL religions as well as those who believe that religion is a personal cjhoice that should remain within your OWN damn household and not be foisted upon others. Go and beat your bible to death.

This guy is the perfect example of why we have separation of church and state. If these, my way or the highway religious types keep screwing with our political system then we should tax them till they bleed. I'm sick of seeing these right wing, woman hating bigots spreading their hate and division all over America. The Republican party and guys like this MUST be forced into political exile in November or this country will be in deep, deep trouble.

Brianb, it's like this: a lot of laws, in a lot of states, were put in force by people using religious "values" as their motivation. For example, laws in Virginia that prohibited liquor by the drink, or liquor being sold anywhere other than a state-owned store. Laws against interracial marriage, blue laws that forbade the sale of anything on a Sunday, and on and on. In every case, religious "values" were used as the motivator for legislatures, back then almost exclusively white, whose members were loathe to vote no lest they not get re-elected.

No, church doesn't rope you in physically as you walk by on the sidewalk. A church ropes you in psychologically and emotionally as you just sit there listening to whatever blather they produce--for example, the "Church" of Scientology. Do you get it now?

i think the other-side of the argument is that Viagra is covered under most insurance plans and it is also not a life threatening need. And if some one uses Viagra to have sex outside of marriage or cheat on there wife what then? Ban Viagra!

birth control pills are a medical treatment. pregnancy is a medical condition so is the reproductive organs-

think the church is going to pay the thousands of dollars for a normal delivery? NO>

women's health concerns include contrceptives. You dont hear women say they dont want to pay for prostate problems. and many to many women birth control is also used for regulating very serious conditions

the church pays for Viagra.

regardless, a woman has a right to her beliefs just as the church does and birth control is up to the individual-not the church.

sfcret post 1.25

You sound like the arsonist blaming the fireman for starting the fire......or maybe your just a paid Karl Rove troll.

If you are a regular church goer and this kind of cr@p p!sses you off let them know. Continue to go to church but just leave your money at home. That always gets their attention. When the offering basket is passed just drop in a note explaining your disatisfaction with their intruding into your PRIVATE life. You can stay annoymous. Just stop giving them your money and stop doing the volunteer work. Look what happened when Susan G. Komen was faced with a huge drop in donations and volunteers. IT"S YOUR BODY AND YOUR MONEY.

sfcret: you poor thing. You actually think all of this frothing at the mouth about contraceptives and abortion is nothing more than "suggestions" to women and about who will pay for it??? Seriously? Did you miss the part about no federal funds going for abortion?? (that's in the law...a little thing called the Hyde amendment...been around for a long while now.) Contraception is next, because if women have power over when they get pregnant, well, by god, anything is possible. Been there done that. (Do some reading about what life was like beofre contraceptives were legal...WAAAAY back in the 1960's and early 70's). Let's put it this way...if both contraceptives AND abortion are impossible for women to find...than one doesn't need to go through all of that trouble of trying to bully women out of their constitution rights. It's moot. They don't need them.

"When has any religious group in this country, in this century tried to control your life?"

This is precisely the sort of selective blindness and outright dishonesty that exists in the fantasy world of the far right christian lunatic fringe.

How many times has the Supreme Court or Appellate Courts had to slap down efforts by religious organizations to subvert the curricula of our schools to include the primitive myths of an ancient band of ignorant nomads? Refer to Perry's comments as to creationism being forced into Texas schools, by the way. Also, how many times have churches tried to ban books from local school libraries, including The Catcher in the Rye, the Harry Potter series, Huckleberry Finn, and many other literary works? How often have the christian groups attempted to dictate the reproductive rights of women in this country on religious grounds? Refer to Santorum's gift-of-a-rape baby comments, too. How many times have religious symbols that reflect the views of a narrow minority been taken down in government buildings and in public places by court orders?

The fact is that there is an on-going and aggressive effort on the parts of many religious organizations nation wide to impose their hateful and intolerant cultish values on an unwilling population, and to ask such a wildly disingenuous rhetorical question as Brian has is flaggergastingly shameless.

sail got to remember the current supreme court is not only conservative but Catholic

I wish the group did not collapse BrianB-99943's post. Rather than shut him up, his words should be displayed so they can be exposed for the falsehood they represent.

Brian ask, "When has any religious group in this country, in this century tried to control your life?"

As the current century is less than a dozen years old, I assume he is talking about the 20th century. If that is the case, I would ask Brian if he had ever heard of Prohibition, which evangelicals got adopted into the U.S. Constitution in 1920. I would also ask Brian if he remembers the "blue laws" requiring businesses to be closed on Sundays. Those laws were not repealed until the 1970s. Or how about the fact that contraception, itself, was illegal in many states until the Griswold v. Connecticut case of 1965? Prohibition was repealed 26 years before I was born, but the other two examples I gave happened in my lifetime (and, in case of blue laws, within a time period I can clearly remember.)

But, if Brian was looking for something from the 21st century, I would direct his attention to yesterday's legislative hearing on a bill to allow civil unions in Colorado. A priest representing the Colorado Catholic Conference testified against this bill. Now, the bill does not require the Catholic Church to marry same-sex couples. So by opposing the bill, Colorado's bishops are trying to prohibit non-Catholic gay people from entering into committed relationships.

This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly.

What an IDIOT! That was just a line to get laid. Women in those days did not have access to information as they do now.

BrianB is the perfect example of religious ignorance. It isn't interfering with people lives because it is the will of God, and that is how we are supposed to be. How can it be interfering with our life when that is how we are supposed to live according to his religious doctrine?

I am happily married for almost 10 years now. Do I care if a gay couple gets married? No, it has no bearing on my relationship with my wife AT ALL. If you allow someone else's relationship to impact yours (which is what the Conservative base says by its 'destroying the American family' motto), then you have some serious problems with hate and intolerance.

The right believes they can stop abortions by making them illegal while still preaching an abstinence only philosophy. If people want to stop abortions, then we need to stop burying our heads in the sand whenever someone mentions sex. People have sex, get over it. The availability and education on contraception will be the best way to stop them, not this continued introduction of legislation that gives no regard to a woman that has been raped or whose health is in danger.

Of course the religious don't care how many babies get produced and end up over-populating this world because 'god will provide'. The only thing I see coming from the conservative right is intolerance and hate. Listening to Rush, Hanity, or O'Reily for any amount of time will get you so full of depression and hate you wonder how we could possible survive like this much longer.

Spot on, Sailcat. Religion was the crutch of ignorant, fearful people whose life was short and brutal, and needed someone to tell them that there were 72 virgins waitning for them, or that if they were real good, they would go to 'heaven' and have wings and float on clouds. Seems to me it's still a crutch, and those right wing nutjobs who keep shtupping their first cousins want all of us to bow down to their 19th century precepts of women as property.

Ain't gonna happen. Gay marriage will become federal law as soon as SCOTUS gets the case, and trying to prevent contraception or overturning Roe vs. Wade is so last century.

And, by the way Brian, you're not only wrong , you're cretin wrong.

I would just like to add that Brinab is getting worked over on this argument. But then again, people who choose to take religion beyond their personal space and project it on others always seem to be a little foggy upstairs. Thanks for showing everyone your crazy!

Hate to break it to you Brian but homosexuality exists in nature, so it is part of the natural law. I really dont care if you despise gay people and think they are deviants that fact is two gay couples loving each other doesnt have any effect on your life what so ever. I am straight against hate and I will always side with LGBT community for equal rights.

And I have news for you society is changing it happened with interracial marriage and it will happen with gay marriage.

@Brianb: Stop confusing your side not winning once in awhile, with 'war on religion'. Nobody cares what you practice, and nobody has taken any steps to prohibit you from your right to practice your faith. You may not, however, use those beliefs to influence a secular system. End of story. I honestly don't care what you think is morally or ethically wrong. It's irrelevant. You're not being forced to do anything thus, you are free to exercise your morals and ethics as you see fit, according to the tenants of your faith.

Not all faiths believe the same thing, and America is RIFE with different faiths. To have laws enacted that respect one faith above all others, is a violation of the US Constitution. If you don't like it, Italy is a few thousand miles away. Or Ireland, birth control is illegal in Ireland also.

sfcret is one of the few people that understands what it's all about--It's who is going to PAY for contraception.

Brian. you're so full of $hit your eyes are brown. What a closed minded, lying blowhard excuse for a man.

Brian, you keep speaking of "natural law". Apparently your an expert. You base your homophobia on the notion that it breaks natural law. I guess you base this on the fact that same sex couples can't procreate. Well, there are lots of straight couples who cannot procreate either.

I submit that gay realtionships follow natural law just as much a heterosexual relationships do. How do you get around the fact that God saw fit to make approximately 10% of the population - in every culture, in every society, throughout history - gay. Far be it for me to question God's wisdom. One thing I know for sure. He didn't put them here to be persecuted by religious bigots.

Can we please, please, please get back to the real topic?! We are talking about INSURANCE coverage, folks. We are talking about INSURANCE coverage for PREVENTIVE medicine, which includes things like blood tests and colonoscopies. My insurance covers preventive things for no co-pay. This is what we are talking about. The woman still pays the premium. Businesses (including hospitals and schools) that offer insurance coverage to their employees are required to provide minimum coverage, which includes PREVENTIVE coverage.

Why oh why do any of you care what I do with my uterus. Get out of my private life, you total morons!

how about this for "natural law" brian....is it not natural for people to chose who they want to spend their life with? or how about it being natural for me to want to smoke a pack or more of cigarettes a day, but according to evangelicals that's a sin too! do you want to ban my smoking? just because some stupid evangelical thinks its immoral for me to do...and why brian do you complain about "natural law" when it comes to homosexuality or contraceptives, but have not hear one peep from you about the Catholic Churches problem with pedophilia and child sex trade?

hey smart guy Brian....so natural law eh? ok, fine....then perhaps homosexuality was evolved by nature in order to prevent overpopulation....is that too far fetched for your "natural law" views?....

Give it up Brian , the more you "write" the more you prove you don't know what you're talking about.

You prove my point fool.

And yes , there are churches on almost every corner - and that's where they should stay.

If you were actually around in the 50's and 60's , you would be old enough to remember the trouble JFK had with trying to impress the voters that he would keep HIS religion out of his politics.

Wise man that JFK , but your guy is going down.

It's bad enough to want abortion to be illegal in the case of repeated incestual rape of girls that results in a deformed fetus... But to want birth control to be illegal... And add to that the Blunt Amendment (co-sponsor Scott Brown of Massachusetts, WTF was he thinking?):

Adam Serwer has a good explanation here, pointing to the Blunt bill language that lets a provider off the hook for any "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Not to be too patronizing or anything, but the Constitution prohibits any bill establishing or restricting religious beliefs. Morals, though -- that's not in the Constitution, and that could mean anything.

No kidding. Conservatives can cling to their Bibles all they want, but that hideous thumping has got to end. This isn't just the old culture war, it's the culture war on steroids -- What is this, Iran?

The Teabagger debt ceiling debacle, the GOP/TP primary circus with so many clowns, and now another gift for Democrats. Bring it on you conservative crazies, bring it on!

Big surprise of this story: Another Republican who believes abstinence is the only reasonable form of birth control. Just say no. That always works, right?

BrianB

Homosexuals are not normal. What rights do they not have?

Well for ONE they can be fired from 29 states for no cause. There are alot more "rights" gays do not have

real: wrong. The Supreme Court isn't Catholic. Several of the members are. After Obama's second term, when at least one if not two new appointments might be made, I'm guessing the odds of ever overturning Roe v. Wade, or upholding such Sharia laws as pretending women are two people the moment a cell is fertilized, will be greatly reduced. I'd also be surprised if this one issue doesn't bring out millions MORE young women to make sure the American Taliban party gets put back in their caves.

sfcret is one of the few people that understands what it's all about--It's who is going to PAY for contraception.

?? It's NOT just that, it's religious groups, trying to push their beliefs onto others! The issue of who pays was decided last week, when Obama said, the religious institution wouldn't have to pay, the insurance company would pick up the difference. And most of us pay our portion of the premium as well!

Birth control is a women's choice in this country! And those of you saying "women should just pay for it themselves" really need to give your heads a shake! It's a medical decision, not a sexual decision, and I see a lot of men are inserting themselves into this issue, like it's THEIR business! PLEASE!!!

All these conservatives that want "less government" have no problem controlling "MY bedroom"...HYPOCRITES!

To the person going by the name "Romney = (Corporate) Welfare":

Your post is as intolerant and ignorant as the conservatives you detest. Most Catholics, like myself, supported the President's original decision to require Catholic hospitals and colleges to provide contraception to their insured employees. Many of us support gay marriage. In fact, isn't interesting that of the half-dozen states that allow gay marriage, at least three of them (New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts) are among the most Catholic states in the country?

Please learn the difference between the Catholic hierarchy (ie, the bishops) and the Catholic laity (ie, the rest of us).

hakstarr-- Coverage of Viagra is only one of the other halfs of the argument.

People, listen closely to what McConnell just said, for example. Who is dictating to the individual, the Church versus the government versus the employer? This is the same twisted reasoning about the Affordable Health Care Act, and who is coming between you and your doctor, the government or the insurance company? It's fallacious argumentation -- Use logic and it becomes clear the Teapublicans are full of sh!t.

It's the Laws of the Land -- To be specific, labor law by our government that protects individual rights against discrimination by employers or abuse by insurance companies. It has nothing to do with religion. Period.

Marty: I read in the Post this morning that the majority of Catholics polled favored mandaotry coverage even for those Catholic insitutitons now exempt. You are right. The hierarchy of the church has badly misjudged this...they are not in Rome. But they do make it very, very difficult for any Catholic politician to argue that religion is irrelevant to political service.

"Then she goes on to say that religious groups have tried to dictate the reproductive rights of women... but yet that's not really the truth either..."

Really, Brian? The catholic church is very vocal about the fact it is a crusader against women's reproductive rights and its position is firmly based upon religious grounds. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints is equally active in efforts to reverse Roe v Wade. The Southern Baptists, Eastern Orthodox Church, various Islamic factions, and some Lutheran Churches are also actively involved in anti-abortion causes. The undeniable fact is that the majority of organizations in the US that oppose women's reproductive rights are closely associated with churches and religious groups.

Brian's ravings that were intended to be a feeble riposte to my earlier post are, to be blunt, mere lies.

mary i think he does understand the difference, I love Catholics, but hate the pope and his little whores, I think most of us voted for Kerry a catholic, so we are not anti catholic laity but anti catholic hierarchy...but one question for you, why do you chose to stay Catholic? what good does belonging to that church actually do for you, and that goes for anyone going to evangelical churches, why? don't give them your time or money.

Welcome to the theocracy America! Perhaps we would have been better off under King George III.

I find it odd that the Libs here are so intent to keep religion out of government, but cannot realize recent events are exactly opposite to this. The issue is not putting religion into government but butting government into religion. The ideas that the government can tell a religious organization that they have to provide insurance coverage for proceedures which are against the tennants of their faith is wrong. These religious based organizations should have the right to make their coverage match what is their beliefs. The idea that the government should be able to mandate what they provide to their employees is BS. If your owrk for them and dont like it, find a different place to work.

But the outrage is keep religion out of government. It works both ways. Keep government out of religion.

If a religion want to believe in abstinance or not using BC then that is their right. Forcing them to provide such services and coverage for their employees is an infringement on their right, even if they dont have to pay for it. The issue is they dont want to provide or offer it, as it is wrong according to their faith.

I say dont interject religion into government, but at the same time dont inject government into religion.

ABO 2012

dsdsherm

I agree about keeping them separate. The problem is that Rick Santorum does not want them separate. He believes he should be able to force his beliefs on all of America.

Marty , you are right.

I was baptized Catholic , but stopped attending church because they started getting into the business of politics. ( that and the priest molestation thing of course)

I wholeheartedly support birth control ( duh) and gay marriage.

I also think it's about time that "churches" that want to get into politics should start being taxed accordingly. There isn't a weekly service that goes by without the local priest and bishop screaming about "the current administration". Read the local papers and there are always articles from some clergy or other , trying to influence the masses about political issues. Not that they can't have their opinions ( or tenets ) but within the church is the place to speak about them.

When they don't - as the cardinals most recently did , they should be taxed as political entities.

Fair is fair , and when it comes to money , nothing makes the Catholic Church in America pay attention quicker.

Real Michaud,

I choose to remain Catholic because I like the basic ideals that the church stands (stood) for. I was in elementary school during Vatican II and the Church seemed to really be on the right side of things at the time. When I attended Catholic school, the nuns taught us daily about how the civil rights movement was a good thing and the Vietnam War was a bad thing. They even told us to beg our parents not to buy grapes or lettuce in order to support Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers movement. Even though I am now in my fifties, the values the nuns taught have stuck with me. They made me the liberal I am now.

I am also still a Catholic because I appreciate the long history of the Church. I like being grounded in an institution that is nearly two-millenia-old. I know that the Church is currently being led by misguided men. But, then again, not every manager of the New York Yankees was a genius. Things will change. Over time, they always do.

I ask you this: Why is John Kerry still a Catholic? What did Teddy Kennedy continue to go to Mass daily right up to the week he died?

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain?

Which is something a politician does every time they associate themselves with Jesus Christ.

The reason this country is so against Christians - is because of the Christians who preach hate, intolerance, vengeance, prejudice, judgmentalism, and etc.

People don't hate Jesus - they hate Christians who use Jesus to advance their own political agendas. And when they meet a Christian who actually loves their neighbor as themselves - people recognize the difference.

Oh, and thou shalt not steal? The commandments were written for slaves, as a way of reminding them how to be free. The reference to stealing is about more than simple property theft. It's also about people who use wealth to buy up resources and create scarcity and poverty in society.

When people rail against the working class for wanting to share in the wealth they create with their labor - they are setting themselves against God's commandments.

Why does the Catholic Church ban birth control and then turn around and try to make it's members feel guilty about the millions of children in Africa that are starving to death.

For that matter , the Mormons do the same.

sick bastards

( feel free to collapse this - if you're a hypocrit )

Brian, "natural law" is the way things are, not the way we imagine things work. That's why it's called natural. For example, I don't think that it's "natural" for someone to be pathologically homophobic, but evidently there are parts of the US where it is practically the norm. Even so, this whole "natural law" gambit reeks of theology. Obviously the idea is rooted in teleology- people were "designed" to act and behave a certain way and to never, ever, do certain things in private. Then we define immorality as that which doesn't agree with "natural law." Your ideas are less secular than you think.

A secular viewpoint doesn't deal with asinine ideas like natural law and tie morals to what consenting adults choose to do in private or what one chooses to do with her body.

When has any religious group in this country, in this century tried to control your life?

Well, it was technically the LAST century ... but how about DOMA?

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

That clause goes directly AGAINST the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

And, should you think it's not religiously motivated ...

http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=12936

http://works.bepress.com/james_donovan/16/

http://www.nomblog.com/4081/?doing_wp_cron

http://usccb.org/news/2011/11-184.cfm

Now, while same-sex marriage is not something I'd want personally, I'm not here to control what others do ... especially since it harms no one. And that's the problem with various religions. I've no problem with what you believe ... but don't legislate it.

An interesting anecdote. When Mr Santorum campaigned in Minnesota, most of the places he went were churches. Which I would guess might explain the results, especially if donations were involved.

Giving a donation to a church is cheaper than advertising.

For as long as I can remember Republicans have constantly tried to involve themselves in the very private sex lives of the American People. At one time time Republicans had written a law what could and could not occur in the marital bedroom which Americans labeled as being akin to Republicans being "peeping toms" and challenged how Republicans would "confirm violations" of Republicans' "peeping tom" law.

I would also ask Brian if he remembers the "blue laws" requiring businesses to be closed on Sundays. Those laws were not repealed until the 1970s.

They still haven't been repealed in some places. I live in a county that is on the other side of the George Washington Bridge from NYC, yet we have strict blue laws still in effect. When I moved to NJ in 1988, there were still towns that closed their playgrounds on Sundays and one actually had the nerve to issue a ticket to a man who was fixing his broken car on a Sunday. Even in a liberal state like NJ, the taliban still rule.

Brianb-999431

You are mistaken. Abortion, contraception, gay rights... ALL are opposed primarily by the religious right. Call it a moral issue all you want. Deny it's a religious issue as loud as you can. But you cannot deny who the main force against these issues are... the church... specifically, the Christian Church's.

So what, everyone else cooperates and lives as a society in tolerance of other's views and rights... except the church? And THAT's okay? No. It isn't.

@brianb. only because they are reasonably well held in check by the constitution do the evangelical christians not have a more intrusive influence than they do.

because the need to save the soul of the unbeliever from everlasting damnation is a higher priority than practically any other matter, left unchecked they would endeavor to intrude into every aspect of the unsaved lives that could be accomplished. using government institutions would impact the most with maximum effect. the intrusions have been more egregious in the past and have been beaten back by good lawyers armed with the u.s. constitution.

in god we trust on the currency doesn't specificly refer to the christian god? just ask any evangelical how many gods there are to choose from. they know who it means. i know who it means. i see the mass emails decrying the absence of prayer in public school. unchecked, it would be back in a flash and in spades.

the best hope for religious liberty is the shrinking number of backsides in the pews.

Under Citizens United, isn't a corporation a "person"?

So, technically, aren't Catholic hospitals and clinics separate "people" from the church?

Ergo, requiring these "people" to abide by the laws that all other American corporate "people" do has nothing to do with the church, right?

the best hope for religious liberty is the shrinking number of backsides in the pews.

That is some real mental gymnastics. if there are less in church that means that there would be less christians to support their religious freedom cause, which means they will be eventually insignificant which making their practices as insignificant as they are in Muslim and Communist countries.

Here's a true story on separation of church and state.

During the last presidential election, our polling places were primarily in churches across our state... in the mid-west.

My polling place was a Catholic Church meeting room area. The usual "no campaigning or campaign material within 50 feet" rule was in play... signs were displayed, lines were drawn on the ground, and no one dare cross.

When I went in to vote, you had to walk right by the church's literature table that had church hand-outs and newspapers openly displayed. This table was not only in the polling place, but was within 20 feet of the voting booths themselves.

And the most prominent publication on the table was the church's newspaper. And the front page, the FULL front page, had a bright and colorful picture of Obama in face-paint... the Joker... you know the one. And under the picture was a statement of how Obama was going to destroy America as we knew it... as an enemy of the church... IN the polling place 20 feet from voting booths.

After my wife calmed me down by threatening to drag me outside, I asked the people manning the polling station why that material is allowed so close to the voting area.

I was told that church materials are allowed if they are a part of the church's normal publications. Now you and I know that is bull@!$%#, but they insisted the material was not only allowed, but appropriate... I was the one that was out of line by even insinuating the material not be there.

So they stayed there throughout that election day. So much for separation of church and state. Apparently that means the state must stay away and the church gets to do as it pleases.

So when the church gets a little sensitive and wants to venture deeper and deeper into politics, I say... never mind what I say... use your imagination.

Just for fun: When the affordable Care Act comes into full effect will the Administration (if Obama is reelected) require Catholic Hospitals to provide what the HHS determines is minimal required care?

Perhaps this is the camel's nose under the tent flap for Catholic Hospitals to provide sterilization and morning after pills?

doulos63

The reason this country is so against Christians - is because of the Christians who preach hate, intolerance, vengeance, prejudice, judgmentalism, and etc.

NO - you believe that is because the people you trust in the news media want you to see it that way. Good luck finding an anti-christian piece on fox.

Do you not understand that the only reason sports players make the money they do is because the News media promotes sports?

Of course, abitgreen - it must be the dreaded "slippery slope"!

As they said in "Ghostbusters":

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!

Brian
I was born in 1951. It was NOT common for a young woman to put an aspirin between her legs. My hat was just a saying.

Hey Brian ( where ever you're hiding )

I ran your comments past my 90 year old Roman Catholic Mother of 7 , and she told me to tell you to go to hell - and take your Cardinals with you.

and she said that kindly

As a gay guy I always find it amusing that homophobes try and attack normal gay people like us with the 'natural law' argument. While I do concede that our unions with each other cannot produce offspring, neither can sterile heterosexual couples bear offspring. I still cannot get a sensible answer from a single one of them about how all these heterosexual people are having so many gay children! Or why these guys that 'say' they are heterosexual be so obsessed with another man's sexuality. Now THAT is not natural!!

The man was telling a JOKE folks. An old joke as a matter of fact. The headline...as usual was deliberately misleading. Just relax Henny Penny's, the sky isn't falling. Sheesh....

Bad post above

I was saying that 'putting an aspirin between a young girl's legs was just a saying, not a common practice.

Wow, what a thread. I have never seen the left wing anti religious nuts go so far over board on a simple topic that started out basically as to who should and should not pay for contraceptives. That is all that this was about paying for something. There was no mention of the Churches, or politicians trying to stop the sale or use of contraceptives. There was nothing mentioned about abortions or anything else. Contraceptives I believe were approved by the FDA in 1960. No attempted to take it away or make it illegal to use. Religious institutions, hospitals or schools have never been required to pay for contraceptives if it violated their religion. Aren't condoms a form of birth control/contraceptive? Insurance companies are not required to pay for those, to my knowledge. Who has been furnishing women contraceptives since they became available in 1960?

sfcret - The church put themselves into it when they pitched a fit over having to abide by the laws that cover all American employers. And nobody's was even requiring that a church cover birth control - the rules only apply to public institutions that employ and serve both Catholics and non-Catholics.

It's the Catholic church that demanded that it be allowed to force all its employees to abide by Catholic dogma, whether they're Catholic or not.

For as long as I can remember Republicans have constantly tried to involve themselves in the very private sex lives of the American People. At one time time Republicans had written a law what could and could not occur in the marital bedroom which Americans labeled as being akin to Republicans being "peeping toms" and challenged how Republicans would "confirm violations" of Republicans' "peeping tom" law.

That's because Conservatives want everyone else to feel as guilty about enjoying sex as they do.

Brianb-999431 says "Who said anything about forcing... except the liberals who are saying that the republicans will force religion on everyone? Read the fuc**g statements above! Natural law is the topic... homosexuals go against natural law."

you're a funny guy Brianb. "natural Law"?What the heck is that? It's just your way of hiding from the fact you're making a religious argument. Please show me ONE scientific book to back your silly "natural Law BS" Here's something to wrap around your pea sized brain. Approximately 10% of the worlds population is born homosexual. So it seems like a natural thing, at least in the 10%, so how on earth is it against natural law? It just that somewhere is the complex development of a child something didn't go perfect and some "wire"got crossed. So why would condemn them for that? Sure they are not like you (maybe) but since they have been born that way why can't they enjoy their life the way that makes them happy without you and your kind claiming its against some, make believe, natural law? Would you ban prosthetic legs for people born with only one leg? (it must be against natural law also?) Would you ban eye glasses for those that weren't born with naturally 20/20 vision? Obviously your natural law BS argument is nothing more than you trying to ram your religious beliefs down other throats. Your natural law is A law that is as much make believe as your religion.

Other species have gay members as well. Seems as though "natural law" is really some of each, Brian.

Wow, what a thread. I have never seen the left wing anti religious nuts go so far over board on a simple topic that started out basically as to who should and should not pay for contraceptives. That is all that this was about paying for something. There was no mention of the Churches, or politicians trying to stop the sale or use of contraceptives. There was nothing mentioned about abortions or anything else. Contraceptives I believe were approved by the FDA in 1960. No attempted to take it away or make it illegal to use. Religious institutions, hospitals or schools have never been required to pay for contraceptives if it violated their religion. Aren't condoms a form of birth control/contraceptive? Insurance companies are not required to pay for those, to my knowledge. Who has been furnishing women contraceptives since they became available in 1960?

You're a terrible liar, but nice try.

Incidentally, sometimes condoms break, whether due to getting the wrong size or manufacturer neglect. Birth control pills are also used to treat problems that aren't directly related to preventing pregnancy.

Aspirin between the knees - I don't care who you are that's funny.

Aspirin between the knees - I don't care who you are that's funny.

Not really. It just goes to show that Republicans have a terrible imagination when it comes to sex. I can have a woman clasp her legs together as tight as she can, throw them up against my chest and still give her a good plowing.

Question?? Is Santorum a signer of the "Norquist Pledge"..?? Answer .. Please..??

I think it is important to understand what has brought the US to this point, and it is all caused by one thing. Whether you are far right or far left, there is one underlying theme that I think is hard to argue. There is always one group trying to exact their will on another. Whether it is the religious right trying to force policy of abstinence and anti gay agenda, or the far left being overly politically correct in protecting people who shouldn't be.

Trying to find a middle ground leads me to the belief that expecting the government to mandate policy based on peoples beliefs is inherently flawed and will ultimately fail. In my opinion, I believe the answer is in the Golden Rule.

Unless I want a person or a group to tell me how to live, I have absolutely no right to tell them how to live. I am not gay, but I cannot tell them they can't be, because they should have just as much right to tell me I can't be hetero.

I don't necessarily agree with abortion, but I can't anyone they have no right to decide for themselves, because if I do, they should have just as much right to tell me that all of my children should be aborted because we are over populated.

I could go on and on. My point in all this is that once you invite the government to legislate others rights, it will almost always reduce yours at some point in the future. Back to what has caused this. In an effort to find distinction between our leaders, we have allowed them to divide our entire nation, and in the process given up our rights to our own lives and relegated it to fools that have divided us in the first place.

now thats the best comment ive seen on here! go fatty!

Homosexuality is not normal. I don't care what you want to call it... men were built for women, and women were built for men. The parts fit. Homosexuality cannot produce offspring. That's natural law! How is that tied to religion? Homosexuals pervert the natural law... and notice nothing I said was religious in nature... natural law!

What you claim to be "natural law" actually isn't a law of nature, it's an old religious doctrine that pretends the "will of God" (really, the will of their religious leaders) is revealed in nature - but it isn't. Homosexuality is actually quite common in nature, and yes, "the parts fit". Here's a clue: the hand fits a banana quite neatly... If you still can't figure out how well they fit, sorry, I'm not going to enlighten you. In social species like humans, sex occurs far more often than is needed for reproduction, including during times of infertility and in ages well past possible conception. The evidence is clear - sex is NOT for "reproduction only", it also serves a social function as well.

Homosexuals are not normal. What rights do they not have? If they are men, they can marry a woman, just as I can... What liberals advocate is giving them more rights... It's that simple.

So, what's wrong with having more rights? Do you honestly think rights should be restricted for no rational reason other than "I don't like that sort of thing"? Just think, when Gay Marriage is legalized, you then gain the right to marry another man!

What, you say you don't want to marry a man? Now maybe you realize how silly and facetious your "gay men have a right to marry women" argument is. Nobody wants to marry just anyone, they want to marry someone they love and will love them back.

Who's dictating faith to you?

More a case of "who is trying to dictate their faith onto me", and the answer is: intolerant fools like you.

The evil Foster Friese, and his pet side kick Rick - My Name's Synonymous With Ass Juice - Santorum are once again trying to take over the world!!!!

Oh no, who will stop them????

Don't worry, deep in her forced underground, coat hanger, abortion clinic, is the girl wonder Contracepta. She'll defeat the evil Friese and his Ass Juice with her fully automatic, Plan B Pill, gun.

Pow!

Bang!

Clang!

"Suck it, Friese!"

I mean, seriously, it's become this ridiculous. And did anyone catch the congressional hearing on women's health today??? Because that's who I want discussing my contraception options, five old dudes.

Fatnerd, What did I lie about, don't call someone a liar unless you can point out the lie.

RealAmericansFirst, See you are blurring the issue. The church never said that women could not use birth control, it said that they, the church, should not have to pay for it. The universities and other religious schools have never before been made to pay for contraceptives. Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned no matter who is the President. Abortion is something the left tries to use every election cycle to try and get the female vote.

Shut up CM. Anything to try to prove that homosexuality is a positive instead of a negative is where liberals stand today. You liberals have bought into the homosexual lifestyle as a natural part of life when there is nothing further from the truth. Who told you homosexuality didn't go against natural law? Try to remember the first time your brain put those two things together. It didn't work then and it's not working now.

The left panders to abhorrent lifestyles... homosexuality, bestiality, sex with plants, fish and birds of the air. Whatever suits your needs without ever considering the possibilities that what you may be doing is completely wrong. We have entered back into the days of Soddam and Gomorrah just as the Bible predicted over 2000 years ago... and it's all because the liberals don't want any limitations put on their sexuality. Liberals revel in abortions and open sex... between men... and between women... Never thinking there will come a judgement day where they have to speak for their actions.

The greatest trick the Devil has done on liberals is to convince them that there is no devil, no God and that the Bible is a myth. OMG... now I've really done it.. I mentioned religion....

I was born in 1950. I remember condom vending machines in most of the men's rooms at "filling stations", bars and many restaurants. I also remember the warning labels that they were sold to prevent disease only, not to prevent pregnancy. A fairly bright teen-ager wondered how they could prevent microscopic disease cells from passing through the membrane of this sheath and still allow living sperm to impregnate a fertile female.

I remembered that a few pious religious elders had told me that masturbation was an abomination to God. That a young man "spilling his seed" for any reason, other than procreation, was a grievous sin. My young hormones prompted me to "sin" time and time again (sometimes at the most inopportune moments). I remember trembling at loud backfire from a passing automobile and especially at loud thunder or a blazing strike of lightning. God was surely coming to get me.

Somehow, I survived to reason that those labels were only placed on those vending machines to placate pious religious folk like my elders and promoted the very same lies. That's the moment I began to question the wisdom of such elders. How many young couples believed those labels, knew for certain that each of them were virgins and disease free, failed to use these condoms as birth control and became parents long before they were mature enough to become parents? Lies are very dangerous, even well-intentioned lies. Maybe that is why prohibiting lying is one of the Ten Commandments instead of prohibiting birth control.

As I look back at the sound reasoning of 16 yr. old me (so many years ago), I find it amazing that we are still having this ridiculous debate. My confidence as a very patriotic teenager would have scoffed that 2012 America would still harbor such fools.

Oh, what a hornets nest I stirred up today. Let's see... 6 collapses and zero (0) real rebuttals from the liberals. It was a very good day for me. I wish everyday could be this productive. Angering liberals is so much fun... watching them put their words down while I just know their fingers were pounding on the keyboards to call me names, and spit out their pointless meandering nonsense. Too bad I had to leave earlier... only to come back to see this thread still alive with buzzing bees. How much fun is that?

Commonsense... those pious men that told you masturbation is an abomination to God were correct. It is written in the Bible... It's better to spill your seed into the belly of a prostitute than it is to cast it on the seas. So what you need to do is hire a prostitute anytime you want to spill your seed. See, the Bible isn't so bad after all... It may be a little costly to you, but at least you won't be horny.

Brianb-999431

How exactly do you explain Catholic priests buggering boys for hundreds of years?

People don't need religion to have morals.

Many gay couples respect their vows more than heterosexuals.

If you believe in God, who the heck are you to judge anyone, in fact, I believe it is possible that you would be judged more harshly by your God for your narrow-minded beliefs.

Mr. Clark - You got it... the republican party wants to climb right in bed with you.. to make sure you aren't violating any of THEIR rules about sex. It's top on their agenda... they are that interested in making sure you aren't getting any pleasure out of it... if you do, off with your lower head.

Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? Now I want you to cite many examples of what you claim to be true about men wanting sex with boys and girls... before you do, you need to do some real research on what the democrats are doing in that line up too. Are you intelligent enough to think that maybe it's a human condition and not a condition of party? I doubt seriously you can think that far in front of your nose.

Brian B... Separation of church and state!!!! Or do you NOT believe in the Constitution? The left "panders to" bestiality... REALLY? Homosexuality activity is a choice people make who the EFF are you to say say whether it is wrong or right? Natural laws, to me, are things like gravity, electro-magnetism, nuclear interactions, physics, biology (evolution, biological classifications) and chemistry. If something occurs in nature with enough frequency then it also must be considered as part of nature's course even if YOU find it "abhorrent". Your argument concerning natural law is illogical because you impart your subjective opinion into it. In other words, if you found the fact that Jupiter consumes comets, asteroids and other matter "abhorrent" then you would not believe it to be part of the natural law that governs space.

The only hatred in my heart is towards those who impose their belief systems upon others and ignorance (inability to view the world objectively) of FACTS.
I am no longer a resident of VA. If I were you better bet your arse that I would be involved because I do not believe that state sanctioned RAPE is right. A woman should have the ability to decide what is best for HER body and not have the bass-ackwards state representatives dictate what she can and can't do.

I have held babies, changed diapers, kissed "boo-boos" seen the extraordinary abilities that children possess. I have also seen situations where parents were unable to provide for their children and it is truly heartbreaking. Yes, adoption is an option but if you have the foresight to realize that you cannot provide for a child but get pregnant (accidentally, via rape, etc.) then the couple should be able to obtain an abortion (current trimester laws are OK with me) without having to submit to a physically intrusive procedure and then have to pay for it. Simply ridiculous and a VERY slippery slope!!!

I will not stoop to your level and attempt to insult you so don't get your hopes up. My logic should be enough of an affront to your misguided notions of the world and our country's ideals.

John speaketh! Where do you get the idea that I am in favor of priests going after little boys? Do you think I can explain their actions? Do you think I am NOT in favor of degendering them? Did you ever consider that it's the action of the individuals that's at fault and not the Churches? Oh no... blame it on the religion... it's way too convenient to help you try to produce a point... BTW, what point are you trying to make?

Did I say that morals and religion are tied together? Show me the post. Quote my words. I've done my level best to separate the two since earlier this afternoon because I know liberals.. and I know what sets them off.

Are you trying to tell me that you, John, respect your homosexual vows more than I respect my vows of 35 years with my wife? I don't think so.

Speaking of me judging anyone... show me where I condemned anyone in any of my posts today. I want the post number and the quote where I judged anyone of you. Just because I can't abide by the liberal, crying, whining, pro-gay, pro-abortion chatter... I still haven't condemed anyone... show me.

Well, you judged anyone, on every post. Maybe you should re-read your hatred. I have been married, and yes to a woman longer than you, I am simply tolerant.

Instead of my listing your every offense by the number, why don't you just give me your moms number, because I would like to ask her if she wishes abortion was legal when she was pregnant with you.

Oh this is going to be fun... Notaliborcon is really a maroon... he opens himself up so I can tear this apart.

Brian B... Separation of church and state!!!! Or do you NOT believe in the Constitution? I sure do believe in the Constitution... especially the part that limits the government stopping the "free exercise thereof." Thereby stopping you from trying to get the government to stop my faith and many millions of like minded individuals in this country. So there... The left "panders to" bestiality... REALLY? Homosexuality activity is a choice people make who the EFF are to say say whether it is wrong or right? I didn't realize that you were the arbitor of what is wrong and right to even question my opinion. Might I remind you that these are opinion boards and I am free to piss you off all I like. Natural laws, to me, are things like gravity, electro-magnetism, nuclear interactions, physics, biology (evolution, biological classifications) and chemistry. If something occurs in nature with enough frequency then it also must be considered as part of nature's course even if YOU find it "abhorrent". Your argument concerning natural law is illogical because you impart your subjective opinion into it. In other words, if you found the fact that Jupiter consumes comets, asteroids and other matter "abhorrent" then you would not believe it to be part of the natural law that governs space. But here's the rub. Humans are natural creatures. We do things fitting for our environment, very similar to animals. The only difference between us and the animals is the fact that we have two cells to rub together in our cranium to allow us the ability to speak and understand speech. That's natural law... therefore since we fall subject to natural law, natural law isn't subject to emotions... Those supporting homosexuality do it for simply emotional reasons. They can't produce offspring together.. Now of course if you are gay... then you must enjoy all the stigma that comes with being gay... Tell me, how do you stand his hairy chest? I really enjoy the softness of my woman's skin... That's very natural...

The only hatred in my heart is towards those who impose their belief systems upon others and ignorance (inability to view the world objectively) of FACTS. Hate away big guy... there's a lot of people that don't consider what you possess - Facts....
I am no longer a resident of VA. If I were you better bet your arse that I would be involved because I do not believe that state sanctioned RAPE is right. A woman should have the ability to decide what is best for HER body and not have the bass-ackwards state representatives dictate what she can and can't do. If that's your interpretation of it... then you have your opinions based on what you see. Feel free to do what you need to do.

I have held babies, changed diapers, kissed "boo-boos" seen the extraordinary abilities that children possess. I have also seen situations where parents were unable to provide for their children and it is truly heartbreaking. So, in these situations, off with the babies head, correct? Yes, adoption is an option but if you have the foresight to realize that you cannot provide for a child but get pregnant (accidentally, via rape, etc.) This is a bullsh!t argument. You know damn well that the liberals always use this as an excuse for supporting abortions. Then why isn't abortion only limited to rape victims? Answer that one einstein. then the couple should be able to obtain an abortion (current trimester laws are OK with me) without having to submit to a physical intrusive procedure and then have to pay for it. Simply ridiculous and a VERY slippery slope!!!

I will not stoop to your level and attempt to insult you so don't get your hopes up. My logic should be enough of an affront to your misguided notions of the world and our countries ideals.

Ho hum... liberal is as liberals say. You've been waiting here all day just to be able to jump on me because I pissed you off earlier. My gosh... and you won't mount an affront against the Va law? What a waste.

Methinks Brian is his own worst enemy.

John said:

Well, you judged anyone, on every post. Maybe you should re-read your hatred. I have been married, and yes to a woman longer than you, I am simply tolerant.

Instead of my listing your every offense by the number, why don't you just give me your moms number, because I would like to ask her if she wishes abortion was legal when she was pregnant with you.

I judged them HOW John. Maybe you are confusing Judging with opinion. When someone is judged, there is a condemnation that goes along with it. Are you convicted?

What you deem hatred is my way of speaking out against things that should not be. If you interpret them as hatred, then it is you judging me. Got it? I am allowed my opinion... even if it pisses you off... I don't digress from any of it.. just like the liberals never step back from name calling or spreading falsehoods. I'm sorry if you felt hurt by any of what I said... but in all honesty... get over it. Grow a set. Formulate truthful arguments against mine... when you do.. I just might learn and change my opinion.. Somehow I seriously doubt it though.

"What you deem hatred is my way of speaking out against things that should not be. If you interpret them as hatred, then it is you judging me. Got it?"

I rest my case.

Brianb-999431

What exactly gives you the right to tell anyone what should not be. You are not king. You are not God. You are not a prophet.

You are simply a little man with far outdated ideas, and you have absolutely no right to tell others how they should live.

Sailcat - newsvine definition of "hatred" is disagreeing with someone.

Brianb-999431, Are you serious? Your ranting does nothing but reinforce the ideology that you profess to abhor. A 13 yr. old horny boy living in rural America could have enticed an unpopular 13 yr. old girl for a tryst behind the barn for less than a nickle. That would have been your heavenly advise to prevent him from sinning against the Holy Bible by masturbating?

I had a young uncle during those days that used shocking ideology(and shocking language) to get attention. He was 3 years my senior. I really liked him until I matured. He then became the same bore that he had long been to the adults. You and he would have been best friends.

@ Brianb: Your claims that homosexuality is unnatural would make sense...if it hadn't been observed in at least 1500 species of animal to date, and documented in 500, as reported on by Bruce Bagemihl in a 1999 study. Such studies, were used in the SCOTUS decision of Lawrence v Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) to strike down 14 Sodomy laws throughout the US.

What's great though is, you're losing this battle. Slowly but surely, State's are creating marriage equality throughout the United States, and eventually enough will have done so, to allow the issue to go to the federal level and create a constitutional amendment. It will be challenged at the SCOTUS level, and a precedent will be set forever ruining your bigoted views and those like yours, from infecting this country ever again.

And all I have to say is, Get over it. Get your nose out of other people's business. Period. Nobody's saying you have to be a homosexual, but you sure as HELL have no right to interfere with other people's sexual orientation.

"...newsvine definition of "hatred" is disagreeing with someone."

And more's the pity.

Sailcat - you have no case

John, the same reason as you telling me that I am wrong. I have that same exact right as you. My ideas are as fresh as a daisy. Your progressive ideas have been tried and tried again and each time they are, they fail. I haven't told anyone how to live. I have every right to be against something as you have for being for it.

Commonsense - What you call ranting, I call being nonchalant. As far as your uncle goes, some people like you never learn. What you call progressing, others call falling into a pit.

Bmurphy - and you feel that the homosexual laws are good for this country. They are a welcome addition to the laws of the land. To take what is natural and good and pervert it into something that is vile and unnatural has already been tried in this world. Unfortunately it didn't end up too good for those people. I guess the addition of homosexual spread aids really enhances the health condition of this land. I can just see little boys walking down the street holding hands, kissing on the corners and ducking into alleys for a quick round of action... I guess you see nothing wrong with that at all. Long gone is the innocence of a teen romance when it involves two boys, or two girls. Maybe to your warped mind, it is natural but to those of us with a little sanity left, it isn't. Who are YOU to argue my opinion is wrong. Just because it is winning in the liberal courts doesn't make it right.

Speaking of courts... Isn't it grand that California shot down the will of the people over the decision of a couple of liberal judges? I mean our country takes a vote on something and that vote is tossed out because of the will of two homosexual favoring judges. I guess you don't see anything wrong with that either. Who knows, maybe you are gay and relish the lifestyle... Hate women? Just wondering.

"Sailcat - you have no case"

It appears it is you who are making unfounded accusations and launching irrational rants, Brian. My case for your insanity rests on your mindless, blithering ravings. You, on the other hand, are merely embarrassing yourself. It's time you gave up.

Sarah:

I like you! Thank you for that post. I laughed my ass off for a long time.

"... ass juice..." I'm still giggling.

Contraception and abortion have been with us for centuries, and they will not disappear even if an old dinosaur like Friess throws all his money down a hole.

One question that nags at me: Conservatives, you don't want contraception or abortion, nor do you want to support all those children that would certainly exist if there were more restrictions on birth control. So what are you planning to do with all those extra unplanned babies?

Is that why Newt wants to start a colony on the moon???

WOW!!!! Lookey here......an extremely old and very poor joke, albeit in poor taste as well can spark the liberal side of the aisle to frenzy-like a drop of blood in the ocean with a school of hungry sharks. The man made a miserable attempt at humor....first of all, it is only newsworthy because the reporter thought so. I am sure that we all can hear much better jokes at the water cooler at work. But because somebody decides to devote a whole article to this nonsense, we are all out beating the drum to protect a woman's right to choose.....And as the majority of supporters seem to be men. Well, I find that kind of ironic as well.

kaybeetoys,

I heard Sanatarium say, sex is only for "procreation" so I guess, you can ONLY have sex, if you are actively trying to get pregnant!

If he became president, he's have us all barefoot and pregnant, at home in the kitchen! And gays, back in the closet you GO!!

@ BrianB: I feel that equality laws, are good for the country, for they remove biased arguments from the equation. And most of the arguments against homosexuality come from religious bias. You should also brush up on your history, because originally when the immunodeficiency virus was discovered, it was referred to as G.R.I.D. (Gay Related Immunodeficiency) however, after it appeared in hemophiliacs, babies of hetero-sexual women, and numerous other non-homosexual segments of the population, the name was changed to A.I.D.S. (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome).

As far as California goes, I believe numerous special interests groups used large quantities of money to run fictitious ads asserting that making marriage equality in California would lead to gay/lesbian teaching in public schools. Which was emphatically false, but is simply a tool used by people with money these days. The truth doesn't matter, it's what you can make people believe.

I'm not 'saying' your opinion is wrong, I proved your opinion is wrong. By citing resources that show homosexuality occurs in nature. Which you claimed otherwise. Ergo, you are wrong.

As far as my sexuality goes, not that it's any of your business, I'm hetero-sexual, but I don't feel threatened by gay/lesbian's, I've had several friends who are gay and/or lesbian throughout my life. They're good, decent people. Who typically have very open minds, and don't feel the need to control what everyone else in the country does...just because they may have some objections to it.

Jo-An-4354969

What really bothers me, is that when I went to caucus in Minnesota, the religious nutter women were his most staunch supporters. I weep for womens rights if this man became president.

John,

Don't worry, I will unleash a sh($% storm of epic proportions to counter the surge of Santorum, if he is elected. Hee, hee, hee...

No really, I can not even begin to grasp the mentality that the right-wing is currently exhibiting. Why the obsession with what we, as women do with our bodies. And it baffles me even more, that any female, regardless of what she PERSONALLY feels is right or wrong, would support a candidate that so clearly represents a threat to women's rights.

Dear Right Wingers,

Here is the female agenda. I suggest you study it, a lot, considering we make up over 50% of the electorate...

1. To be able to sleep with a man, if I so desire.

2. To have access to affordable/dependable BC and sexual/reproductive health services.

3. If I fall victim to rape/assault/harassment, to have access to justice that is equivalent to the crime committed against me.

4. If I fall on hard times, most likely due to being a single parent (child support is surprisingly easy to dodge), to have access to reasonable programs that will assist me in regaining my feet and protecting my children.

5. To be paid the same as a male with an equivalent work/educational history, and job. Also, to have access to recourse against employers who fail to do this.

6. If I find myself scared, alone, and pregnant, to be able to make a decision that effects my body and my life (and only MY body and MY life only) without being subjected to name calling or vitriolic, religious based hate. Or any hate for that matter. Specifically from people who have never been in my shoes. And most importantly, to have the same right to make decisions about my body and the same right to privacy as a man.

john & Sarah,

That is truly scary! I can't believe how many women are blindly falling for this BS. I think it's the religious factor! So much for separation of church and state!

I loved the Congressional hearing on women's health. This has been going on for far too long. The only people on the panel should have been women, not men.

I know right??? Like if this were about testicular cancer or prostates, we'd see a room full of old women??? Uggh, creepy and wrong.

While I don't necessarily agree with his position on abortion because he has chosen to protect the constitutional rights of the unborn over the rights of the mother, I don't understand why Dr Paul doesn't get more support from women when he wants the Federal government to keep its nose out of peoples bedrooms altogether including the right to choice, by relegating it to the states.

Maybe you fine ladies could explain.

@ John: It was the GoP who invited all men to make statements regarding the issue. The panel of congressional attendees actually had several women on it.

And contraception isn't just an issue for women, it's for both genders. Or are women the only one's capable of using contraception? I don't deny that the pill is obviously designed for women, but condoms? And there's a male contraceptive pill on the horizon soon, as well. Certainly, women have been 'expected' to be the forefront of contraception for a long time, but men have been acting more responsibly as time has gone on and sexual-education has evolved.

The 'representatives' chosen to speak on this issue were certainly a ridiculous group of theistic old idiots, but saying contraception is entirely a women's issue isn't exactly truthful.

The only real issue I have with Ron Paul, is that he's avidly pro-life, which doesn't gel with the rest of his beliefs. That, and he kinda looks like one of Santa's elves.

But, yeah, his stance on abortion is a little too extreme for me.

This is such a NON-STORY that it simply shows an intent to make a mountain out of a molehill.

When I was dating a certain young woman many years ago, she told me her mother had given her advice that an aspirin would keep her from getting pregnant. I asked her to explain and she said her mother told her to put an aspirin between her knees and to keep it there !

The young woman then laughed at the mere remembrance of her mother's advice !! Now, however, a man says the same thing about 30 years later and it is treated as something horrific. Hypocrisy is alive and well.

While I agree on many of Paul's social issues, I feel he is naive in his world views (and I am NO war monger) but that scares me. And I don't like his views on civil rights, here in Florida, if you left it up to shop owners, who they sold to....there would be "white's only" and "no gay's need apply" signs ALL over the state!

B Murphy

I agree, but the problem is that it was about women's health, not just contraception. The panel should have been female and male doctors, not politicians. When have politicians ever been able to legislate something they know nothing about. All I am saying is bring in the experts.

B,

Yeah, condoms aren't considered "preventative care". They serve no other purpose then stopping your fluid from meeting entering the woman.

Contraceptives, as in the kind covered by healthcare, are needed for an assortment of female health issues, as well as protection from pregnancy. And let's face it, it is the women who face the onus of unwanted pregnancies.

Of course you all can have an opinion and should, but your life will not change, or be threatened, dependant on this issue. Mine may. That means, to hold this hearing without a single female testifying, is not only a joke, it's a travesty.

Jo-An-4354969

As far as civil rights goes, I believe social conscience would make those businesses that put signs up go out of business. I think most people would find the racism offensive and not give them business, and the free market would rule out.

@ Sarah: In no way, did I assert this was a joking matter, and I'd kindly request that you adopt a softer tone to someone who supports pretty much everything to do with women's healthcare. You are correct though, that condoms do only have one purpose...you know, other than possibly preventing communicable disease. (FYI, I personally wrote a letter to Komen on their Planned Parenthood debacle). You also run the risk of making men indifferent to the subject, when you make such statements. Women and girls have been given the vaccine to HPV, however, it is men who are the primary cause, are they not? Shouldn't they also be included and educated in such things?

@ Jon: Good point, I didn't say women should be excluded though, simply that it's not just a women's issue. Certainly, women should be the majority of people making statements regarding the matter, but not exclusively women, either.

I think most people would find the racism offensive and not give them business, and the free market would rule out.

The free market didn't do a very good job doing that 50's and 60's, what makes you think it would work now? Do you think it was the free market that segregated schools in the first place?

Shuklack

I think we live in a very different time and I think discriminating businesses would fail in our world that has become so politically correct.

As far as segregating schools, there are black only schools and schools that teach in spanish only. Segregation has gone in the other direction if you haven't noticed, even including funding for higher education.

B,

I said men should have an opinion. Nor did I claim you were joking or thought this was a joking matter.

The onus of what will happen should contraption not be readily available, will disproportionately, fall upon women. Hands down, that is simply the truth. The issue here isn't your opinion on this, it's what is occurring amongst the Republicans in regards to this. That they would have the audacity to hold a hearing on women's health, without a single women testifying is beyond ridiculous.

BrianB... Your vitriolic reply to my comment is, how do I say this politely, ridiculous, ignorant and inane. You are entitled to your opinion, no one is disputing that. I, and liberal Americans, are not trying to encourage ANY attacks through the government on your religious beliefs so please get off the conspiracy trip. In fact it is the Christians/Catholics that are attempting to impose their belief system on a country that was established by leaving the oppressive religious environment of the European countries. Our founding father's and the documents they wrote to establish our rights as Americans specifically stated within the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the FIRST AMENDMENT that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." your clipping of the full quote is typical of the religious right aka use/understand/apply ONLY that which supports our belief system. The fact that you believe the Va Congress forcing women to undergo a vaginal ultrasound is in DIRECT conflict with people's freedom to NOT follow religious tenants and, in this case, is basically rape with a foreign object.

Unfortunately for you I am not a homosexual but rather a person who believes that people can do what ever the hell they want in their own homes/bedrooms. Homosexuality has been a part of human kind since day one... the bible would never have spoken of it if not. therefore it IS part of your "natural law". Procreation cannot happen but through homosexual sex but an impotent can't get a woman pregnant so should they be banned from having sex? "We do things fitting for our environment" Very true but man was never meant to fly so is a pilot a heretic in your "natural law" vision?

Facts are facts and are not subject to people's beliefs so if you want to live your life with your head in the proverbial sand PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep it there.

Your hypocrisy concerning what a woman can and can't do with her own body is simply astounding. You say you don't want government limiting free will but then you turn around and say that it is OK for a state legislature to force a women to undergo a procedure which violates her person.

Your throwing around the term liberal as if it is an insult is comical. Do you believe that liberals have any good ideas? It sounds as if you believe that the religious right has ALL the good ideas. How very fascist, in a theocratic manner, of you. Do you believe that the inquisition should be brought back as well?

Sorry to burst your bubble... you have not pissed me off, instead you have only confirmed that some people prefer to live in the 13th century because they are afraid of change. I hope that your "woman" (are you a caveman?) realizes what you are before you have children.

Lastly, gay marriage will be legalized within the next ten years. Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned and homosexuality will ALWAYS be a part of human nature.

notliborcon

While I totally agree and wonder whether people like Brian are worthy of our time, I can't help but wonder why the majority continually remains silent while people like him in the minority are continually allowed to infiltrate our government to determine policy for everyone.

@john,

I heard Paul say the exact same thing about civil rights, and while that may be true in many cases, it would also NOT be true in many cases. I think the majority of American's thought we had overcome our "race issues" when we voted in our first African American president, but in fact, that seems untrue. Since the day he was inaugurated a segment of our society "hates" him, and since he hadn't even implemented any policies, what could the reason for this "hatred" be??? It can only be the color of his skin....

You only need to read some of these posts and see the unadulterated hatred some American's have for the president. So, yeah, I think civil rights are important.

And women's rights!

While I don't necessarily agree with some of his policies, he is still my President as a patriot. And it has nothing to do with race, and he never could have become President if the majority of Americans felt racist.

Now, after three years there are a few very simple reasons that I can't vote for him and they have nothing to do with race. First of all, I think passing the health care bill violated my right to be able to choose for myself.

Beyond that, when he signed NDAA and put every Americans right to due process in his hands, I can't live with that. As far as I am concerned he and every member of congress that supported it, violated the Constitution and should be impeached for "abuse of authority" and "perjury of oath", both high crimes against the American people. It is his actions I can't live with, just as I have huge problems with the Patriot Act that took away so many other rights.

Also, I won't be voting for anyone in Congress that signed the bill.

John... the silent majority (OWS) is trying to stand up but they keep on stepping on each others toes. As to why people with belief systems that are anathema to the greater good... our election system favors those with vast amounts of money. Until ALL elections are publicly funded NOTHING will change. If we extended Maine's Clean Election's Act to apply to federal/state elections then WE THE PEOPLE would be represented by folks who hold OUR best interests in mind as opposed to the interests of campaign contributors and special interest groups.

@ john,

I am curious how the healthcare bill violates your right to be able to choose for yourself?

Let me state this first. There are many good things in the health care bill.

That being said, what most people may or may not know is that the health care companies and drug companies lobbied for, yes for, and helped draft the bill. That should raise a red flag as to motives. Let's look at that for a moment. Who will gain the most from mandating that I carry insurance whether or not I ever meet their deductible, which I haven't for the last 5 years? I pay $12,000 a year for insurance only in case something catastrophic happens. I am dumped into a pool where everyone is averaged out and my premiums go up when others get sick. The new laws that guarantee that a certain portion of premiums be returned based on a percentage of money that must go to health is not calculated on an individual basis, but as a group. So my rates as a healthy person will not go down, while those that don't take care of themselves reap my benefit.

Beyond that, the health insurance and drug companies opened up a whole new market. Everyone under a certain income will receive free health care and drugs on the taxpayers dime. Can you say 50 million more Americans on Lipitor? I as a taxpayer, will have no choice but to pay for them, plus myself. This violates my fourth Amendment rights of stealing the money I have earned and giving it to others without due process. (Guess why due process is gone?)

What really concerns me about the bill is that the fine businesses will be required to pay for not covering their employees is less than the insurance they are paying. So I can see that what will happen is businesses simply taking the fines, dumping their employees on the system, and the taxpayer again, having to pick up the difference.

This bill is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. I should have the right to choice, just like any woman. Mine may be based on money, but a choice has still being taken away.

John,

Hands down, and I've said this a million times, the problem with AHA is the fact that the healthcare industry is exempt from anti-trust laws and ran on a fee for service system.

It isn't mandated coverage that's the problem, it's that we're forced to buy into a monopoly. And it isn't preventative health care, it's that preventative care isn't reconcilable with fee for service.

Either way, however, the actions of Republicans towards women are inexcusable. They're playing politics with our bodies and health, and even worse, they're demonizing those who are speaking out against this game playing by somehow cloaking this as an attack on religion.

In the words of the great Jon Stewart... "You've confused a war on religion, with not getting your way."

Sarah-3043284

I don't think it is necessarily fair to lump all Republicans into the same group. The Democrats are just as bad in different ways.

I think it pretty obvious I support Ron Paul, and right now he is tearing the party apart from the inside because of their extremist views. That is what I like about him. Whether they are Democrat or Republican, he wants them all out of the business of making decisions about our lives.

Sarah-3043284

By the way, I love how John Stewert rails on Santorum.

Santorum comedy is easy. Comedians don't even need writers.

I guess he let's him taste his own shoe leather, doesn't he.

John,

Perhaps it isn't fair to lump them all together, but I don't see Ron Paul or his supporters as Republicans. I feel that they're more in line with liberals and are libertarians. I don't mind Paul on most things, although I think his foreign policy is a bit naive and as I said above I don't like how avidly pro-life he is.

I agree about him being so pro-life. The only thing I can think is that he is giving Constitutional rights to the unborn, which for me, I think the world is already over populated anyway, so I think the choice should be with the mother.

As far as his foreign policy goes, I think he is spot on. Most of the uppers in the CIA agree with Paul. The establishment simply is not listening, plus it doesn't sell news.

I guess he let's him taste his own shoe leather, doesn't he.

As long as he isn't tasting his own Santorum... God it just never gets old. I giggle like a 16 year old every time, and yes I AM older than 16.

Anyhoo, I don't think we should be nearly involved in international affairs as we are, but at the same time, no involvement at all is, in this day and age, impossible. We're too deeply rooted in the security, stability, and economy of, basically, the entire world, to simply say, "Well that's enough of that..."

We need to move towards empowerment of other nations instead of enablement (I don't know if that's actually a word, but I'm sure you get my drift).

My wife calls him "butt goo"

Here is a novel thought being the capitalists we are. Foreign policy should be pay per service. The UN endorses it and they want our help, pay for it. But no men on the ground.

Thanks for chatting people. It was nice to have a civilized exchange of ideas. Gonna go potato out for the evening. Here is the most important reason I support Ron Paul. I understand they are offering a service, but if they are right, holy crap.

http://www.crisis3.com/

Just curious # ups how many would think of this compromise between pro-life and pro-choice communities. All other birth control same as before. IUD still counts as preventative.

New emergency contraceptive category

• Plan B over the counter ($10 to $70) for parents not included
• Plan B prescription (included in coverage) for teens

If pro-life gets

• Non Prescription Plan B over the counter ($10 to $70) for adults
• Plan B Prescription
• Always covered for cases ObGyn determined rape or abuse regardless of parent or teen.
• Teen covered no cost for 2 times a year, $10 copay after that.

The key is limit number of times per year for teens for free coverage just for plan B.

Anything pro-choice like in return. Is that limit sufficient for pro life. I could move question to American's Elect if anyone wants. Women only.

takingmiddleground

Sorry, not a woman.

Instead of trying to legislate morality, wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to fully fund planned parenthood and let those who want birth control get it for free and those that don"t for whatever reason don't have to go there. It is really none of governments business.

Regardless of what the religious right puts out there, less than 3% of what planned parenthood does is abortions. And most of that 3% is education.

You know what John after talking to an Ob friend I think Plan B should be completely over the counter and I wish there were a way I could get enough money into Planned Parenthood to fund it.

It seems I was worried before about the children being watched at the store and now it seems that they will be on a list for the US government from the same idiots trying to scan for evidence thank to Virgina's personhood law.

So here is what I have so far.

The ObGyn can work out deals with drug reps to have some Plan B in the office for those women and girls who want to be discrete or can not afford afford to pay or just want to have a Plan B in pocket book just in case. Drug companies usually do this with any new drug on market anyway. The Ob concern is around education on proper use.

This is where Planned Parenthood comes in. Education is the primary mission of Planned parenthood. Neither Planned parenthood or the Pro-lifers want to see the abortions so they share a common goal. They could see how effective that campaign is by reporting on abortion rate. So we could probably convince the not so hard pro-life to call a true and if they saw that the abortion rate was dropping of to near 0%.

The only thing left would be the comptition from the Catholic institutions.

Obviously there is more than one definition of Santorum. Somebody needs to update that Google entry.

Gotta love free hot monkey love!

Seriously, won't there come a time when big pharma weighs in on the issue? They make a lot of money off those little pills! And they contribute a lot of money to campaigns! I would think money would carry a lot more influence with these folks than "conservative purity".

Whew, read that wrong. At first I thought I saw big pharma daughters, and was thinking maybe no free sex for them.

Paul,

Sex with big pharma daughters is VERY expensive. Nothing free with those folks! LOL

RWNJs, the Talibans of our time. My apology to every woman. We shall fight this inferno from the right and we shall win.

PEN: agreed, but this is the 21st century. women are not going to be sitting around hoping thinking men save their rights for them. This is game..set...match for Santorum.

Seriously, won't there come a time when big pharma weighs in on the issue?

very pertinent question...sometimes it is actually good to have a corporation or two on our side. Lets start an anti-Catholic Bishop Super PAC with big money.

AP-1414066

I hope I did not, in anyway, undermine the women strength to fight here and that's why I used "We" since I stand strongly with them. Santorum and his backers are numskulls. Reality eludes them all.

There is an easy way to put an end to this whole discussion. Women need to come together and agree to withhold sex from all these men who want to outlaw contraception. They would change their tune within a few weeks. It can be done.

Apparently, this man thinks only unmarried women use birth control. What about those of us who don't want kids and are MARRIED? Do we just let our husbands go without? What a freakin' idiot. They need to stay out of my bedroom.

They also forget about all of those women who use birth control for medical purposes like endometriosis. It's NOT just birth control. This is used for medical issues. I'm so tired of these religious idiots pretending they are being so moral. This is not an issue of morality. It's a right to privacy and medical decisions between women and their doctors and their families. I can't believe we are still having this argument in 2012. If they don't want to use birth control, FINE, then THEY don't have to use it. Stop dictating what the rest of us can or cannot do. Wish I could reach up and slap that man.

Heartlight3

Newt and Herman Cain will go bananas if they hear of your plan.

Brian - If it's about religion, then why is birth control at risk for everyone else who does not ascribe to that religion? We're not obfuscating anything. You have a right to practice your religion. I have a right to use birth control. We're not a theocracy.

More like trying to prevent religions from controlling and forcing their views on everyone.

Leave it to republicans wanting to do the christian version of the sharia two step and then crying foul when caught.

OK, have we seen enough from the right yet? Sound the alarm, we need to get the vote out in full strength at every level in 2012. The Right Wingers need to be reeled in, the Tea Party needs to go away and we need to save our country from this insanity. They may have sold out and have the most Super Pacs but we still out number them. Make sure every sane person you know votes, it's that simple.

Newt and Herman Cain will go bananas if they hear of your plan.

Well it won't bother BrianB one bit - from the sound of him, he hasn't gotten any in years...

Brian What is so very cute is how you would go to any length to hide the stupid dismissive comment by a chief backer of Santorum. ' a rape child is a gift from god and should be accepted as such' What was his comment something to the effect of make the best of it.

I get it. deflect,deflect, deflect.

But you know whats really funny is trickle down economics.... But I'm not laughing

Brian B,

The heartening thing about your comments was when you started talking about the moral codes of the 50's and 60's and I realized it meant you were not long for this world. I hope you find some comfort in the next since you can't seem to handle this one - at least if one were to judge by your constant complaints.

Brian: Oh that's rich..."liberals" are the only ones who want women to have access to birth control??? You may want to rethink that argument guy, at a time when 96% of CATHOLIC women say they do not agree with their church on that issue and have used, will use or are using birth control. Nice try neanderthal. Better huddle with the bishops to come up with something else....

Friess is ridiculous, the article is ridiculous and all too many of the posts are ridiculous.

We, if one believes in God and the bible, are endowed the unalienable right to exercise free will. Even if we don't believe in God or the bible, we are still endowed with the unalienable right to exercise free will; ergo, if you want to use contraceptives, do it. If you don't believe in the usage of contraceptives, then don't use them. No problem; however, should anyone attempt to force their particular ideological morality on one who does not accept that ideology, then we have a big problem.

This argumentation regarding conception and contraception is weird. I don't know why people feel compelled to force others to accept their particular ideology.

So, here's what I think should happen: all those who are anti-contraception should pay for all the OW mothers and their children who are collecting welfare, housing susidies and food stamps and all of us that believe in contraception should be off the hook for those expenses. Sounds fair to me!

Wow. Lots of misinformation being perpetuated. No one has proposed a ban on contraceptives. Stop arguing like that is the case. The roll of the Catholic Church in the matter of contraceptives is to point to the moral high ground and not support the lesser. It has always been up to the individual as to whether they would follow the teachings of the church. I believe the real issue is not the contraceptives, but the coverage of abortions. In the eyes of the church, contraceptives are minor compared to abortion (believed to be the taking of a life by the church). Why a laser-like focus has been placed on the contraceptives by this administration, well, you have to read in between the lines to figure that out for yourselves.

As for the comment by Friess, bad attempt at humor to say, "In my day, we relied on self-control and not a pill". Change the party affiliation to Democrat and he'd be chastised for his lack of humor more than the context of his comment, if this comment was even acknowledged.

Not your average conservative: Actually, you sound exactly like the average extreme conservative: when caught with such a lame excuse for a policy as opposition to birth control and opposition to safe, legal abortion, you claim to be...misunderstood...and 'only joking'. No one is proposing banning contraceptives? It's no joke unfortunately and you are sadly uniformed.What do you think the "personhood" amendments are about that Santorum AND Gingrich AND Romney support? Those would outlaw many types of contraceptives along WITH abortion (ok I guess you need a long talk with someone about how contraceptives work??). Banning women from being included in the US Constitution's right to privacy is "conservative"??? No one needs any conspiracy theories here to explain how your party is imploding under this extremism. When the opposition is busy destroying themselves, all Democrats need do is step out of the way.

Paul - the guy is running a super pack - Santorum has not control of that other than say he does not agree with him

In context - they guy was telling you the truth. People used all kinds of stuff for contraception - even Coke!

He was merely making the point that contraception is cheap - $20-$50 per month. It is also available at Planned Parenthood for even less to even free if the person requesting it financially qualifies. There really is no need for government to step in. When they do, that $20 - $50 expense will become $40-$100

mhemjay - well said!

What people want today is government laws approving what they want is okay. They they think that they won't feel guilty or cannot be prosecuted fro something that they do, that is probably actually wrong.

DB Akron - maybe you're too old to know this, but getting birth control requires a prescription. Which requires a trip to the doctor. Which the Catholic church would make women pay for as well, and it's not cheap.

So you can just get off your "no need for government to step in" high horse. And you can pay for your own Viagra, too.

Real Americans First

You obviously very young - because you think other people are stupid and senile. You've got a lot of hard learning to got through.

You Left Wing Tree Hugging Liberals have your brains stuck on EMPTY!

The Catholic Church isn't trying to run your lives! Although they believe the concept of artificial Birth Control is a SIN they aren't trying to force anyone, except Catholics, to not take the pill. They do allow for certain drugs that will prevent, cure or control "medical problems" to be prescribed as long as the "use" is for a medical condition and not birth control.

If you ARE a Catholic (not a smorgasbord board Catholic) you abide by the teaching of the Church, period! There are a lot of priests who will "look the other way" on the subject but they ARE going against the teachings of the church!

To the Point: The Catholic Church is merely asking for a waiver to NOT supply a product to anyone that they believe is against the will of God! They don't want to give it or pay for it. If you want Birth Control pills then find yourself another doctor, clinic or Hospital! Pretty simple! Nobody is twisting YOUR arm to go to Catholic institutions for care!

Instead of railing against this, why aren't you foaming at the mouth when the two people who helped Obama push Health Scare down our throats (also including several States, Unions and businesses) are getting Health Scare waivers in their districts. Harry Reid in Nevada and Nancy Pelosi in San Franciso! Where is the raising of voices over that? What a bunch of HYPOCRITES!!!

So we have the story straight, I quit being a practicing Catholic in the '60s when I decided that Organized Religion was not for me! I made a choice based on my own beliefs at the time and haven't changed my mind!

JFK was a devout Catholic even if he messed around, probably more than any President in History, and the POPE didn't run the country then and he won't run it now! Get a LIFE!

pappadave: you couldn't be more wrong...This is about making contraceptives unavailable and not just to Catholics...as though THAT were ok. (obviously just fine by you). Just re-read your own argument. It soon becomes a diatribe about "pushing health care down our throats" as though the very fact any woman would DARE control her body somehow is a threat to you. Pay ATTENTION. The Catholic Church does NOT have to pay for anyone's birth control. They just can't PREVENT women from getting it from their insurrers. That's why the church, Santorum, and Santorum's absurd mysoginist financier are losing this argument so badly. Soon it'll be you, the priests, Santorum, Romney and his dog (and after that car ride, I'm not so sure about the dog). Get a life. Stop trying to run everyone else's.

It is beyond incredible that every time the GOP espouse how this is a Christian Nation, they REALLY mean 'THEIR' Conservative Nation. I don't remember reading anything concerning Jesus being as selfish as this 'Conservative Nation' is. I DO remember Jesus COMMANDING that we take care of those in need, something the 'Conservative Nation' wants nothing to do with. No to contraceptives, No to abortions, No to taxes, No to education, No to medical help, No to ______(fill in the blanks, ad nauseum). But so help the GOP's 'God' if ANYONE who doesn't follow lock-step to the Conservative Nation's way of backassward mindset.

This entire debate is fruitless. Most of us have been highly entertained by the circus train called the Republican primaries. The parade of clowns leading this train continue to provide comic relief to a nation suffering great pain due to the last time these bumblers were allowed reign of our government. Santorum is the latest clown of many to put his foot down as the latest miracle candidate. I fully expect the last clown standing behind the curtains, Rand, to soon step forward as the candidate to fill the role of "the anybody except Romney" expectations from the Tea Party crowd.

We must remember that this party always nominates the royal candidate in waiting. Ike's V.P Nixon must face JFK in 1960. He lost. The party then turned to Barry Goldwater in 1964. He lost. The party then returns to the candidate in waiting, Richard M. Nixon in 1968. He wins. Nixon's disgraceful departure leads the party to support another candidate that they loath to nominate, yet is next in line. President Ford loses to a peanut farmer. A former candidate once dismissed by the party is the next nominee. They hold their noses as they nominate a former Democrat and B-rated actor as President. Ronald Reagan wins the Presidency.

Reagan chooses his closest rival from the primaries as his V.P. George H. Bush becomes the next nominee for president as the party again holds their nose in support. Bush wins, then loses to a little known Arkansas Governor. 8 years later, the Republicans embrace G.W. Bush to carry on a Bush legacy that never occurred. How does a legacy begin with one failed term? G.W. creeps across the finish line with a partisan Supreme Court ruling instead of the will of the electorate. Our first illegitimate President.

His administrative incompetence leads to erasing the greatest economic era in American history to be replaced as the second worst since the Great Depression. His successor must be his closest challenger in the 2000 primaries. John McCain rises from the ashes to defend failed policies of the worst administration in American history. He loses to President Barrack Obama.

The next in progression falls to Romney. He will be the next nominee no matter how neocons hold their breath and turn their noses up. He will lose the base of his supporters because he constantly denies his greatest accomplishments as a moderate. He will lose the support of the Tea Party and far right-wing screwballs. His flip-flopping will frighten the independents and honest Republicans. There will be a very brief respite as many voters finally tally the last ditch efforts of deceit to vote "anybody but Romney".

Anyone who thinks that the taliban wing of the republican party cares about the average American is delusional. Whether the issue is contraception, taxes, civil rights or just about anything else, these people always come down on the side of the rich and the extremists. We need to send them a very strong message in November that this kind of sanctimonious, theocratic bigotry will not be tolerated in the United States.

Creekhopper - You try to send a strong message to your liberal coharts that republicans are this evil, horrendous group of people vying to destroy our way of life

And a very true messsage it is...

Free thinkers dont live in fear

Brianb: You wish.

Dear BrianB999431,

No, I don't think all republicans are evil or horrendous. I have many friends and relatives who are both fine people and republicans. It is only the most narrow minded and extreme ones to whom I object. It seems to me that part of the American ideal is to be open to listening to the opinions of others and to come to a reasonable compromise, a view that many on the extreme right always seem to reject. When the leaders of one political party declare that their main goal is not to work for the good of the majority of the American people, but to work ceaselessly to destroy the duly elected president of the United States, I find their attitude very troubling.

If the Republican party would find a reasonable , intelligent, open minded, qualified candidate to run, I would be happy to vote for him or her. Unfortunately, the prospective republican nominees do not seem to meet these requirements.

Incidentally, it is spelled cohorts, not coharts.

If the Republican party would find a reasonable , intelligent, open minded, qualified candidate to run, I would be happy to vote for him or her.

I agree with you. But, don't hold your breath. The last one of those creatures was sighted in 2000. Unfortunately, by 2008 John McCain had been seduced by the Dark Side, as confirmed by his selection of Palin as running mate.

Rational GOP candidates are certainly an endangered species.

InPS - there are other people who are not "christian" or "religious" who believe that abortion is wrong, just not too many.

The question at hand can be either when is reproduction about a life or a viable life.

For conception to occur, there first must be a live egg cell and at least 1 live sperm that unite. Both have a limited life once they mature in each body witch can only be extended in uniting, and only if they begin dividing is this indeed a new life. Pro-Life should actually refer this to as a "new Life begins at conception" instead of "life begins at conception".

The concept of modern contraceptives is about making the uterous hormonally unexceptable or unable for the developing mass of cells to attach. Catholics have a point here of the moral question - most contraception is stopping a living organ from supporting a new living being that has begun. It's kind of like taking a feeding tube away from someone in hospice and allowing them to starve to death.

DB: what an absurd argument...Ctholics are free to make their point to CATHOLICS. You have any right you like to believe this nonsense you spout, but no right to enforce your views on women who don't need YOUR opinion to decide. Shall we charge a woman with negligent homocide for LOSING any of those fertilized eggs? This is the kind of nonsense that has no end. We do not live by sharia law and this is not a theocracy.If Santorum had not lost enough independents before this BS...he's lost them now.

The problem is, the Catholic Church has been in a 'HOLY WAR' for so long, it's like the telephone game; they've lost the ORIGINAL message, and ended up being a 'BUSINESS.'

Since Benedict XVI became the pope the Catholic religion is becoming unrecognizable. I find this funny that bishops are so concerned with contraception... maybe they are distracting people from their sex scandals.

Of course we pay for it Paul...it is called an insurance contract. Last time I checked, we were paying a pretty penny for it.

Of course, men and Viagra..okay to cover that, right Paul?

Paul, you wrote,

But you just won't pay for it.

That post is really beneath you

Dear God! That demeaning and insulting suggestion from that neanderthal should give everyone pause

NDD - I couldn't believe my ears when heard that...

Makes you wonder the nut job from NJ, Snuffy, Leona and the rest defend this kind of rhetoric?

Isn't it GBM? We pay for it every single day in insurance coverage. The right wing wants EVERY conception to come to term....but they don't want to provide services to the needy. They want to allow discrimination against women in the workplace, through lack of contraceptives, lack of family leave time, they don't want to support families.

In short...they are nuts.

Huh? Scroll up a little, Gingerbread, and you may change your mind. That post wasn't beneath me at all.

Feisty: It is so outrageous that I keep thinking it is satire. But these people are deadly serious.

newday,

- It is INCONCEIVABLE to me in 2012, that we are talking about CONTRACEPTIVES!

I could not agree more, and the dialogue is becoming increasingly tasteless.

It is indeed, Mark.

A good glue on a guys zipper works also Friess, and while he's bent over trying to undo it whack him with a bottle of aspirin ... hard.

paul: Women don't pay for birth control??? WHAT?? Have you never heard of insurance? Good grief, the ignorance is astonishing....

The frigging contraceptives are and have been available to ALL women already. The only difference here is they don't have to pay for them which is BS. Nobody wants to outlaw them, make them unavailable, they just don't think they should be free. All of you saying they want to send women back to the 50's are so full of crap it is stinking up my keyboard. NO ONE WAS (PRIOR TO THIS DEBACLE) DENYING ANY WOMAN ACCESS. JUST NOT FREE. They have been on the market since the sixties so get over it. I have to pay for my bad habits and decisions. When are they going to afford me and millions of others free access to alcohol and smokes?

And Paul, just how much do you think they should pay? Paying the insurance premium isn't enough. Remember, employers do not give employees insurance. The premiums employers pay are part of the employees compensation for work performed.

This whole discussion would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous. In the 21st century, we're still debating birth control...

I read The Handmaid's Tale in the late 70s (early 80s??) and it scared me....but then I thought, 'no; it's ok; can't possibly happen' I think I'm wrong. Elections have consequences. GET OUT THERE AND VOTE THESE NUTJOBS AS FAR AWAY FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS POSSIBLE.

Handy- "Nobody wants to outlaw them, make them unavailable, they just don't think they should be free. "

You have not been paying attention, Handy. These "personhood" amendments that have been pushed so hard by Republican State Governors and Legislatures are all about making contraceptives illegal. And the Republican candidates for President have all said they will outlaw contraceptives if they possibly can. Rick Santorum even had the nerve to claim that he knows how things are "supposed to be" for you and me.

""One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Honestly, men should never be allowed to vote for things like this as they don't have a clue. I can guarantee if men could become pregnant they would be making sure things like birth control and abortions were available to everyone and free.

Yes, there IS a problem with accessing birth control. Some of you folks don't seem to get it at all. Before I can get a prescription for birth control, I have to visit a doctor who will prescribe them. If I didn't have insurance, I might not be able to afford either the visit OR the prescription itself. I have to pay more than $800/year for bc. I have a high deductible health care plan, which includes the prescription payments. They don't kick in a dime till sometime around November. Seriously, let's talk practicality here. And with the republicans coming down hard on planned parenthood, women who don't have health insurance have an even harder time getting access to reproductive care. Where are women supposed to GET their bc from if they don't have health insurance in the first place?

You have not been paying attention, Handy. These "personhood" amendments that have been pushed so hard by Republican State Governors and Legislatures are all about making contraceptives illegal. And the Republican candidates for President have all said they will outlaw contraceptives if they possibly can.

Heartlight --- you have not been paying attention. Did you watch the Stephanopolis debate where he asked Romney 4 times if contraceptives should be made illegal? Romney laughed at him and said nobody is talking about banning contraceptives. It was the best moment of the debate. Georgie boy obviously had marching orders from the white house and abcto try and trap Romney so they could run an ad down the road. And now you have all these left wing loons blogging trying to pro-port the same lie. The audience practically booed stephie right out of the auditorium.

Yes, there IS a problem with accessing birth control. Some of you folks don't seem to get it at all. Before I can get a prescription for birth control, I have to visit a doctor who will prescribe them. If I didn't have insurance, I might not be able to afford either the visit OR the prescription itself. I have to pay more than $800/year for bc. I have a high deductible health care plan, which includes the prescription payments.

Perhaps DebbieKat, you should be more concerned about access to your anti-psychotic medication. Because unlike pregnancy mental illness happens to be an actual illness that requires treatment. Sorry but healthcare is expensive and now that we have Obamacare it will get much more expense. So get a grip. The fact that there's going to be no copay for birth control pills while there is going to be copays for life saving medications is an obscenity.

Rob: wrong...the morning after pill isn't a "baby killing" pill and it is available on one college campus, not everywhere.

Rob: You've already lost this argument. Trying to actually convince women that pregnancy isn't a medical condition, that pregnancy doesn't cost one helluva lot more than a contraceptive pill and that women aren't paying for that when they pay for their insurance?? What are you, 12?

Not only that, but January 7th Stephanopolis badgered Santorum about the issue for 20 minutes about contraception trying to get him to say he would ban it - Santorum didn't bite. At 17 1/2 minutes Stephanopolis finally asked "theoritcally could states ban contraception" Santorum - "theoretically states could ban contraception - but noone is interested in banning contraception".

The previous 17 1/2 minutes of the tape you will never see, not even a transcript will be published. You are also never going to see "but no one is interested in banning contraception" either.

The media thinks so much of you, that they feel totally at liberty to tell you only what they want you to hear, and confidently expect you accept whatever they tell you as the whole truth.

I don't know most people, but I really hate being lied to.

So, Rachel you would vote people in that put federal agents in North Carolina to open your kids lunch, take out anything that doesn't appear to fit the new federal school nutition standards?

I don't know about you, but I think that agent would do a whole lot of more good getting deadbeat parents to pay child support, get murderers, and rapists.

DB: This pretense on the far right fools no one. Santorum you say wants to keep contraceptive legal, just make it unaccessible??? That's the abortion tactic at work in states like S. Dakota. Can't overturn Roe v. Wade? Just make it impossible for women to get access to a safe, legal abortion. Here's what Santorum himself had to say about contraception, which he called, unbelievably "harmful to women's health" when he ran UNSUCCESSFULLY to hold onto his Senate seat in pennsylvania: “It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” he said. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also, but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.” He later added, “I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.”

DebbieKat:

After reading the posts up until yours, no one had mentioned the poor. Thank you for taking the poor into consideration. I was going to but you beat me to it. :]

I can't wait for the November elections. Hopefully it will be the beginning of the end of the RWNJs.

My God that aspirin joke is as old as the hills. Get over it people. At what point in ones life does the skin return to it's original thickness?

Talk to the hand: get over it??? As soon as your Taliban party gets over thinking women are going to don their burkas. Talk about needing to get some thicker skin... the heat getting too much for you ALREADY?

Talk to the Hand: was he referring to mild aspirin or regular strength? Would Tylenol work as well? Let's put him in a room with child bearing age women and see of they buy his aspirin "joke".

Get over it? This gazillionaire nutcase is spending millions shoving Santorum down America's throat, and when he makes comment like that you tell us to "get over it"? Do you think that Santorum, if elected, won't be taking "advice" (read that as "orders") from this turd Friess?

Sorry pal, but if the plutocrats in America are going to openly declare themselves kingmakers I'm not "getting over" ANYTHING they say. They're pushing their agenda on America, and comments like this are indicative of how they think, and the types of policies they want their puppets like Santorum to force on us. Kudos to Andrea Mitchell for feeding this asshat Friess enough rope to hang himself.

Bravo, DW!

They're only king makers if we buy their BS.

I bet he's not just taking aspirin for his erectile dysfunction.

newday--from what I am hearing and seeing, it is not only misogynistic old men--it is misogynistic young men as well!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Talk to The Hand, I'm guessing younger people never heard the joke. If I remember it right it was about an Irish girl who had gone to talk to her doctor and he was trying to advise her how to stop getting pregnant. Other segments of the long joke included, her boyfriend couldn't figure out why the condom had to go on his finger (use your imagination - doctor had demonstrated how to put it on), the diaphragm gave her a headache, etc.

Apparently a sense of humor is no longer standard equipment in human beings.

Voter in LA: when one party wants to overturn safe legal abortion, enact "personhood" amendments that outlaw many contraceptives, and has two front runners in the party supporting the efforts to exclude women from the most important decision of their own lives...I'd say you might be able to understand why this particular Republican "joke" isn't being met with a lot of laughs. Apparantly, treating women with any sense of common decency is no longer standard equipment in many human beings of the Republican Party.

You are correct Voter and thank you for some sensible, non attacking comments and having a sense of humor. See AP couldn't wait to jump on you too. AP there was one more decision to be made prior to the "most important decision of their own lives" and they chose wrong. It's called personal responsibility. Nope. You guys want "protect me, from me, in spite of me".

Talk: Santorum is opposed to abortion even in the cases of rape. What exactly does rape have to do with "personal responsibility?" And you clearly are not of age yet, but when you get there, you may come to understand that contraceptives are not fool proof. Personal responsibility is exactly why contraceptives are legal and why abortion is legal. (as to your supposed sense of humor? I'll bet you think you're good looking too).

Personal responsibility is exactly why contraceptives are legal and why abortion is legal

Contraception I understand (and it is minimally 99% effective) but you justify abortion as personal responsibility? I hope ONLY in the case of rape. Thanks to all of you (no matter how indignant and insulting you got) for the discussion. It has been enlightening as to the side of the issue you support. But, I must reiterate, I am not against contraception, just the new freebie status and how it represents socialized provisions going forward.

Again thanks and see you another day.

And no, I used to be good looking but time has taken its toll and yes I am of age. I was around when the "pill" was introduced.

Hand: Your definition of "personal responsibility" is when the government decides whether a woman has to carry a pregnancy to term? When the chruch decides? When YOU decide? Do you even hear yourself? At least I can understand the extremists who say NO abortion in ANY case, even to save the life of the mother is allowed, because they are consistent in their claim that the woman is always secondary. You don't even bother with consistency. There is no such thing as "FREE" status for contraceptives. You seem unable to understand the purpose of insurance. You PAY for insurance and you get the medical care you need, which for millions of women every year includes contraception. No matter how "caring" and "polite" you pretend to be, women don't need your "advice" to make these decisions. That's not respect, don't kid yourself. Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Don't need contraceptives? Don't use them. You have a nice day and try not to worry yourself sick over the decisions of all those women who might have to live their lives without your "advice".

AP - he personally opposes all abortion - but has supported abortion in the case of Rape, incest, and life of the mother.

I don't understand why people aren't reeming him for writing the partial birth abortion bill. Could it be that people kind of realize it is hypocritical to abort a 24 or week fetus, when we are also going to great effort to successfully save 24 week old fetus's?

Don't you realize that you are bending over backwards to hate this guy?

DB: Santorum supports state's rights to ban abortion and contraception. the "state's rights" argument is the last refuge of those who admit the US Constitution holds rights they can't seem to overturn. A woman who wants a safe, legal abortion in several state's today cannot get one (there are NO abortion providers in the state of S. Dakota for instance since extremist have made it impossible for clinics to operate there.) Don't you realize you're bending over backwards to make this man sound sane? As though the gender gap wasn't already 20 points against Santorum? As though Independents are running from the Rep;ublican party in droves?

You PAY for insurance and you get the medical care you need, which for millions of women every year includes contraception.

It isn't a frigging need moron except in extreme cases in which a woman should not get pregnant. It is a want and a convenience to avoid consequences down the road. There was nothing wrong with the co pay to avoid abuse of the system.

There. In terms you may understand. Name calling and all.

Talk: You are seriously going to call someone else a "moron" and argue that contraception isn't a need but a "convenience"? Are you seriously a grown man (you can't possibly be a woman) who doesn't understand the medical risks women face regularly during pregnancy? Well, at least you are consistent. No understanding of insurance. No understanding of pregnancy. All this and you claim government needs to stop "running people's lives". Oh aren't you just precious.

Are you saying that no one should get pregnant because of the risk? Hell yes I understand the risk. My wife unpredictably went blind in her left eye during pregnancy for my son due to central retinal vein oclusion. Did we or her doctor see it coming? No. Would she trade her eyesight for the boy never to have been born? Hell no.

And what I said was "a want". I can understand a doctor prescribing for a woman at risk if it is known.

Talk to the Hand:

Try this on for size: it ain't f**kin' funny. You and Voter-in-LA show your over-the-hills age not to mention your over-the-hills antiquated philosophy.

AP there was one more decision to be made prior to the "most important decision of their own lives" and they chose wrong. It's called personal responsibility. Nope. You guys want "protect me, from me, in spite of me".

Now, try this one on for size: human beings like to screw. It's human nature. Get over yourself. @!$%# happens and unwanted pregnancies happen. But you, like many other of your cohorts, seem to think it all comes down to just abstaining and keeping one's knees together? Give me a frickin' break! Maybe in a perfect world. You expect everyone to be perfect or they have to "pay the consequences". This basically boils down to RWNJs wanting people to only have sex to procreate OR only having sex if they can "pay" for it, right?

If people like you had control over the laws in this country we would be overrun with unwanted babies that would most likely be on Welfare because the mother couldn't afford the contraception in the first place. Isn't that what the Repugs really want to control? All those Welfare babies out there? And all of the Welfare mom's sucking off the system?

And that's the other hypocritical BS with these controlling Repugs: they want to tell women they can't have abortions or access to contraceptives but yet cry in their milk about supporting them through tax payer funds for things like Welfare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps(SNAP). I guess it must be some kind of Repug RWNJ conspiracy to weed out the poor from society. Hmmmm?

Only the rich/middle class can procreate, huh?

Look, I agree when people have sex they should be ready for the consequences. And I agree that those people should be in a position financially to take on that responsibility. But in the REAL world, obviously, that just IS NOT the reality. That is MORE the reason to have access to abortion and contraceptives.

People are going to f**k, and unwanted pregnancies are going to happen, and abortions are the answer to the solution. Get over it! Welcome to the 21st century.

Would you rather pay thru taxpayer and insurance money for contraceptives and abortions?

-OR-

Would you rather pay thru taxpayers money for the 18 years of raising a child?

Which do you think would be more expensive?

Here comes the barrage. Bring it on!

As I said, "protect me, from me, in spite of me". Simple as that.

AP, personally I don't agree with what this particular backer of Santorum said. To me it is about as relevant as Faux bringing up what Obama's acquaintance the Rev. Wright said several years ago. It's not like he's the guy running for the office. And let's face it, it's not like had any of these moments not been reported that you (or I) would vote any differently. It was a stupid, albeit somewhat funny, joke when told in its entirety.

But, I don't understand why people cannot see that the Press lead by Faux news and MSNBS are one of the major causes of polarization of this country's population these days. The utterings of acquaintances of candidates on both sides of aisle are to me irrelevant. They aren't the people running for office. And personally I really don't think they are reflecting the candidate's views necessarily.

FWIW, nor do I agree with the general GOP stance on abortion or this silly little issue of birth control. Yet for right or wrong, and I am sure I'll take shots about this, it is NOT going to be my swaying decision.

My personal view on abortion is that as a male I don't have a dog in the fight. There is simply no way I or any other male should be able to tell (or legislate for that matter) whether a woman should be allowed or not be allowed to have an abortion. That's their decision. Women are the ones who have to really live with the consequences. And whatever decision a woman makes, a man bears the cost associated with it whether it be paying for the procedure or paying to raise that child. Sorry that's the way it is to me. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. And as a male I am grateful I never have to make that choice about abortion. And I hate to say it but I don't think one woman's choice is any business of another woman. The choice made whether pro or con doesn't affect the other person's life in one bit. So why not just leave it for what it is: a woman's very private, very personal, very complex decision. Regardless of what decision a woman makes, everyone should be willing to support it.

As far as this stupidity about birth control is concerned, my view is that firstly it requires a doctor to get a prescription, so what the heck is the issue here with having it covered under health insurance. Secondly, looking at it from a numbers point of view, what's cheaper: pills or paying for the child to be born and the medical costs that will be incurred from there onwards? And the same applies to any business being told to pay for it. What's cheaper: paying for the pills or paying for temp labor during maternity leave etc? In all reality, if I were to be running a health insurance company, I'd be advocating including condoms as healthcare items too. Again the same logic applies and as a bonus you might even get lucky and eliminate some treatments for STD's.

And all that being said, I still think people need to lighten up and be able to understand that sometimes sarcasm or a joke is exactly that. Laugh at it, groan, whatever. File it away. It didn't change anyone's mind on the candidate. It is simply a news media way of continuing the divide between Americans.

T to the H:

You nailed it on the head: simple. That's you. End of discussion.

Love it when you liberals have no intelligent come back. "Time to pull the let's see, racist, no, bigot, not that one either, ummmm oh, here it is, stupid card". na ne na ne boo boo. Guess you showed me huh?

You reiterating:

As I said, "protect me, from me, in spite of me". Simple as that.

is an intelligent come back?

After all the points I posted that is all you can say?

I stand by my rebuttal.

.

Good one Da Noid.

Noid,

Would be nice if headache prevention was that easy!

As long as humanity insists on clinging to the obsolete concept of "god" and all the institutions that concept spawns I am sore afraid headaches will continue to abound.

A nice day being had, thanks!

Contraception wasn't widely available or legal until the 1970's...not the 30's. That's why we actually have nutjobs on here arguing that prohibiting women from contraceptives is 'no big deal'. They actually imagine this is some kind of 'academic' discussion.

No, AP not an "academic" discussion. "They" are actually brazen enough to profess the delusion that they're fighting for freedom of religion. Hah! Well, what's "good for the goose," as they say.... Let's see how they deal with the obvious, logical and equitable counterproposal.... A ban on vasectomies and viagra. No big deal, eh? (Literally)

I made it through the end of the video--and it made me want to vomit! Who do these pale stale males think they are to dictate to everyone that we should all live by the miserable tenets of their misinterpreted so-called "christian" principles? There should be many rude awakenings at their own judgment days, when Jesus and God say.."I know you not!" There is a big difference between being religious and being spiritual. Jesus was spiritual--the contrived man's church is not and many self-proclaimed "christians" are not!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

OK, here's the answer.....ladies, take the old coots sick joke to heart. There are afterall, two parts that must come together...

Second part provided by the guys: Hope all you dudes are really into self satisfaction...but if you spill or otherwise discard those little soldiers who can't complete their mission, you will be subject to penalty or even jail time!

That's a remedy!

chilled, the problem is that most of us are probably married to normal men who see this as outrageous. I'd venture to guess that anyone married to men like Friess or Santorum are falling on every word their husband says and "submitting to their will"... So, I don't think they're going to rise up and save us. LOL

chilled: honey, you are beyond ignorant...about 56% of pregnancies in the united states today are unplanned and that's WITH legal birth control. That's the point here. Read what Santorum has written about women who try and "plan" when or if they give birth. Then perhaps you'll get why the aspirin "joke" and those vying on the Republican side for the title of "preacher in chief" will have women POURING out to the voting booth to send the Taliban Party back where it came from. (and they'll be joined by Democrats as well.)

Chilled--great remedy! I am sure that most of those men willing to deny women their rights have never heard of Lysistrata!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

That aspirin comment and joke is as old as the hills. Get over it. I was telling that one when I was a teen for God's sake and I am in my fifties. You people really need to get out occasionally into the real world where everything is not a serious life or death situation concocted to help you maintain your perceived self importance.

Women make up a majority of voters in the general election (56%), and not surprisingly, they break decidedly for Obama before the Republicans decided to wage war on abortion and contraception (the gender gap is 28% so far and climbing.) The Republicans are going to be licking their wounds for a long time to come after losing this Presidential contest and you'll see many of their minions on here whining about the "sheepies" who just didn't know that life would be just so much better if we all went back to 1950. The real question---Can the Republican Party survive it's own extremists? Can the party of old angry white men remake itself in time to be relevant at all for 2017?

The day aspirin is used as a birth control method is the day crackpot Republicans will move to outlaw aspirin

This may be the most accurate line of the day, justina.

@ Talk,

You really need to do something else with that hand.

newday, you just can't make this sh8t up anymore

These people are a parody of themselves!

They certainly are, justina, and frightening in this day and age.

Justina 777,"The day aspirin is used as a birth control method is the day crackpot Republicans will move to outlaw aspirin"

Could not have put it any better. "Send me a bill and I will sign it...." Oops, wrong candidate but same government mentality

Talk to the hand
I'm 60 and you're right, the saying is as old as the hills. The meaning was 'keep your legs closed'. But since that time we women have found our freedom. The religious right-wing nut jobs have been making a quiet but concerted push to force us back to the 19th century where women's healthcare dealing with birth control and pregnancy are concerned. They have even said that they knew Roe v Wade could not be overturned so they would make small steps at the state level. And they have been doing so.

Well women are walking up. And we don't like it. So you conservatives better wake up and realize that we have NO sense of humor on this. It's not funny, it's threatening, and we're NOT laughing.

dsb:

I'm a man and I didn't find any humor in it, period. It disgusts and angers me.

Are YOU KIDDING ME! "....the rapist LET her live" What? So it is all right to rape as long as you let the victim LIVE! What in the name of all rational thought is the matter with YOU!

No one can force a woman to go through a pregnancy. Our lives, our decision.

Sounds like Talk to the Hand is giving us the "closing argument" in his trial defense of rapists.

Hmm, I just changed my view on Catholic pedophiles. They didn't kill the little boys after raping them in the Bung hole. God bless the charity they bestow.

I bet you talk to your hand quite often given your feelings about women being abused. No callouses for you Huh?

Should have said didn't harm her any further or fatally. Thanks for pointing out my insensitivity.

Don't forget this is the guy with the dying daughter who can't be bothered to spend the last months of her life with him. On the other hand, that's probably a good thing. If there is a hell Santorum has a space reserved for him.

Heaven forbid, but I'm sure that if Santorums' wife or daughter was impregnated by a rapist he would not have the same position........

"didn't harm her further or fatally" and that is your idea of being more sensitive?

Talk to the hand

Are you nuts??? Its OK to rape a women if you let her live and have a bastard child from it?? And I guess there are so many infertile couples out there waiting to adopt that there aren't any kids in foster homes, orphanages, or homeless on the streets. People with your unrealistic attitude just make me sick.

Talk to the hand: you wouldn't happen to be in some hidden forrest in Idaho with a pile of white sheets and ammunition nearby would you? you...need...help.....

Hey Talk: You can talk to Hand all you want, but it won't listen until it stops moving. So finish up, get it a tissue and let it listen to the rest of us. I understand that being over 50 is frustrating, and women really do have rights, but then again, you can always move to a country where they don't and Hand can rule.

Talk to the hand-

A rapist harms a woman just by the act! Somehow, I think your version of God would have to be pretty sick to use that particular way to "give" a woman a child!

A previous poster said it best; all of us women need to go on a national sex strike-even those lucky enough to have a good man-until this crap is stopped once and for all! All of us women also need to get to the polls to make it more than clear that we've had enough of this crap!

Oh crap - I'm still alive? Jokes on you you little twit.

Probably not until they are six feet under.

When Rush Limbaugh runs out of Viagra.

And all the left wing women are wanting free contraceptives hoping someone will want to have sex with them.

Hey Handjob, are contraceptives an aphrodisiac now?

Talk to the Hand, you are truly obnoxious.

DebbieKat - Yet oona oona gets a free pass. I get it.

smarterak - HUH?

Talk to the Hand

Considering the treatment women have gotten from men over the ages, you bet they get a free pass and it will last long after you turn to dust.

handjob: There are no free contraceptives. You pay for insurance, you get contraceptives. Get it? or still too complicated for you? (like the idea that only single women need contraceptives? Do you know a woman well enough who you can have a little talk with about how this all works? Might help your understanding....)

I pay for insurance I don't get contraceptives. Get it? I have no problem with the co pay but when it has to be free and MY group premiums go up for nothing that will ever benefit me so one class can have a want for nothing or no added investment (other than their increase which will not cover the full cost of the "bnenfit"), yes, it does bug me a bit.

I'll trade your free contraceptives for my free BP medicine with no copay and you join the increase train to cover that. Then I won't bitch. Mine is for my continued health. Birth control is to avoid a future "inconvenience of actions".

Talk: my gosh, I swear you MUST be a child! You don't understand insurance at all, do you? Ok, let's say your insurance covers cancer. You never get cancer. Now, you go to your insurance company and say, hey, you charged me too much! I still don't have cancer! Give me my benefits back!. Do you know what your insurance company will say?? Can you understand why just about ALL insurance policies now cover birth control without any prodding at all from the government?? come on, guess because now you know a little something about insurance, right? It's because it's a heck of a lot cheaper for them than the cost of a woman's pregnancy. Get it now?? Your "group premiums" didn't go up if women don't get pregnant. They go DOWN. Go find something else to worry about because you are in WAY over your head.

Man you are reaching and yes I do understand insurance. I have probably had insurance longer than you have been on this earth. I know that it is a "just in case" necessary evil we all have to have. I would never do as you say and demand the money back. I haven't had an accident in 18 years and I still pay car insurance. It is also a just in case. I realize that it may be cheaper to provide FULL coverage to women for contraceptives yet with the new mandate for free, I dare you to find an insurance company that is going to come forward and LOWER premiums betting on the come that less women are going to get pregnant. I wish you were able to have a discussion without belittling. It is typical but so unattractive in a discussion.

As in another post, thanks for the discussion and work on that belittling thing. It isn't necessary and shows only that you are the one who is holier than thou in your thinking.

Have a great night.

Hand: I'll see that dare. You've never heard of a woman losing her insurance when she became pregnant and had complications with her pregnancy? Until insurance companies were prevented from doing that under Obama, that's exactly the kind of definition of "pre-existing" condition that got people kicked out of coverage. Where the heck have you been? Insurance works in the aggragate...why the heck do you think insurers cover contraceptives and WANT to cover contraceptives. The fewer pregnant women at one time nationwide, the lower the expenses. That's the way it works. You insist women are too stupid to make these decisions for themselves and YOU whine about not being treated with respect?? If you're that delicate., perhaps you should be more careful about whose rights you think aren't necessary to respect.

The only time I EVER heard of denying coverage was indeed for a pre existing condition in which case the woman was pregnant weeks or months previous to getting the new "carrier" of insurance. Never when the woman was under coverage beyond the "waiting period". That is their privilege just like it would be your privilege should you be a restaurant or bar owner to deny service in your establishment to anyone you so choose. Obamacare and the plan you speak of (not denying coverage to anyone no matter what the circumstances) is akin to calling Allstate as you watch your house burn down and demanding coverage for fire. Plain and simple. It is wanting someone to pay for your lack of planning and HAVING that insurance prior to the "event".

And let me know when your insurance carrier actually lowers your premium without reduction in coverage/benefits and I will get you tickets to the 7 day 6 night cruise of your choice. It isn't going to happen under Obamacare. The cost has already gone up for the last two years (therefore you have already lost) because of Obamacare. It is called anticipation. Much like commodity trading. Betting on the future cost/value.

Talk: you are completely beyond reason. You just can't comprehend what pregnancy is...You actually think pregnancy is a walk in the park for all women with some rare exceptions and all babies with some rare exceptions. Gee no medical risks there. Good grief, man, get a clue. Planned Parenthood was founded by the daughter of a woman who died in childbirth after her 13th child, when contraceptives were illegal. Luckily, insurers do know what pregnancy is and that it is indeed a medical condition. The whole point to providing basic health care for women, which you amazingly for an adult can't seem to understand includes control over pregnancy for women, yes, even married women, is that it helps keep medical costs down. It is the single most common medical concern for women nationwide. That's why half the states already require that coverage for contraceptives and have been doing it long before the guy you love to hate took office. Its called common sense.

Okay to go full circle, I just object to the no co pay. That is all. In high risk situations, I could possibly see the full coverage thing. I had a co pay for my vasectomy when my wife could not risk getting pregnant again due to the loss of sight explained on the OTHER thread you keep insisting on attacking my point of view on. I now have co pay on medication for blood pressure. A big risk for all people yet we aren't insisting that we have no co pay for something we need. And I know states already require birth control coverage. But it is not the Feds mandating that they provide it at no out of pocket at the time of prescription filling in all cases. That's all.

Don't be scared of Papa Smurf. Him and his plastic surgery Barbie doll wife would be totally groovy leading our country. And since he is keen on open marriage maybe sharing Barbie with all of the bad guys in other countries might create world peace. Ya just never know.

He's actually catholic

A catholic can't be a right wing radical evangelical?

Radical catholic or radical evangelical christian doesnt matter. Same arrogant nut job.He would still want to shove his beliefs down the throats of every other American.

Obama, well I am not a fan but he keeps his nose out of my uterus.

Want to reword that?

What she said is appropriate Talk. Republicans always have either their hands or noses in every females uterus.

Talk to the Hand - you totally cracked me up. Thank you.

How do you spell JUST PLAIN MORON----SANTORUM.

I have met Foster before. He is worth MILLIONS and was a very nice man. i am sure a lot of men from middle America (Foster from TX I believe) that are religious are nice guys. His comment however, shines the light on the fact that men from that generation (even more so when they are white and rich) still see women as subservient. Since religion is such a large part of these people lives, and any beliefs to the contrary are seen as an attack on the moral fiber of this country and in turn churches get involved. Since religion in America is just code for a tax free business, EVERY church ought to start paying up and if they don't want to pay up, then they should just SHUT UP!

men who see women as subservient are not "nice"...even if they have millions to try and get others to agree with them. And there are a whole lot of people who consider themselves religious who think the church, any church, should not be running the United States of America.

It's no different than the Pharisees in Jesus' day - taking the ten commandments to the n'th degree to CONTROL the people...

Example: "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" Intent: Take a day off during the week and rest! Your body/family/spirit need it! Turned into by the Pharisee's: You can not walk more than 10 steps on the sabbath or you are breaking the law. You can not 'harvest' on the sabbath. So... if your ten steps are through the corner of a field of wheat, and you snap off a kernel and pop it in your mouth because you're hungry... then you've harvested and are breaking the law and we can now cut off your hand.

It's ridiculous! and even Jesus said it was ridiculous and to NOT be that way and THREW THEM OUT OF THE TEMPLE!(the place they governed from) - but, alas - Republicans are the Pharisee's of our day... and we have come full circle. Now all we need is someone to throw our modern day Pharisee's out of the place THEY govern from (Washington).... it's called VOTING.

Be fair, republicans only want to control our life "choices".

They want to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Dems don't care as it controls the populations growth

They want to outlaw birth control.

Dems don't care because it controls the population growth

They want to outlaw abortion.

And finally, Dems don't care because it controls the population growth

Do you not call that subversive control?

Talk to the Hand - You don't make any sense at all.

Looks like "Talk to the Hand" has the talking points nailed down. However, what's a little population control when you have Republicans looking to have people propagate like rabbits to ensure a huge harvest come the apocalypse. Don't piss off god, or you might not go on to live with the un-dead in zombie land. The notion is beyond subversive control. It's ridiculously childish.

Oh no. You mean we are not already in zombie land? I knew I took the wrong bus.

I don't get it. They want to limit your right to vote, no collective bargaining. It's all an attack on liberty and personal freedom. No Obama-care because it impinges on personal freedoms. Yet, as women, we should allow a group of men, who have taken a vow of celibacy to dictate our use of contraception? Maybe it is just me?!?! Where are the personal choices here.