Enlist in the military and grow a pair Bolog. Another con artist lawyer huh. Most GOP congresmen are such.

Scary. American? Perhaps by birth, obviously not by thought.

Many of you liberals posting on this page claim to be independently wealthy. So just go to Planned Parenthood and donate and donate often to them so they can provide the freed contraceptives you speak of.

Many of you say you are intelligent and I believe you but you don't seem to know how to apply it to everyday life.

I seriously doubt she was speaking for all women. Some people including women choose not to be promiscuous and do not require birth control. She was called to "tesify" by Nancy Pelosi purely for political reasons and as such I seriously doubt her testimony was unbiased.

Interesting. Freed contraceptives? Are they imprisoned? Aside from that, I know facts are difficult for you to deal with, but the testimony concerned getting coverage from insurance that is being PAID FOR. You have been told this time and time again, but apparently refuse to ignore facts and just continually lie about it. She didn't say "I want Rick to pay for everybody's pills!". Coverage at the same university, but for faculty and staff, does include this coverage, by the way. The university also said they support her right to make her feelings known, and they did not call her a slut or a prostitute. I guess you and Limbaugh are engaged in a war against the Catholic Church, since this is a Catholic institution.

Remember, though,if you get treatment for a disease through the use of hormones, it makes you promiscuous. Dr. Rick says so. And he is totally unbiased.

Left Wing Nut Job

ref: 725.3

Remember, though,if you get treatment for a disease through the use of hormones, it makes you promiscuous. Dr. Rick says so. And he is totally unbiased.

Where did I say that? Looks like you are once again taking something someone has said and you are spinning it until it is unrecognizable. You liberals live and die by that.

No, Rick - that would be YOU. Her testimony spoke of those that are unable to arfford contraceptives that were being used to treat medical conditions, not to fulfill fantasies of yours or of Limbaugh's. Yet you and your hero prefer to make things up and say that she spoke of all the sex she was having. Get some facts.

Why should Boehner apologize for Limbaugh?

Nobody has suggested that Boehner apologize for Limbaugh. But you knew that.

The demand was that he, and others, repudiate him. But, hey, I think it's a great idea if all the Republican leaders ignore him or even back his "right" to say whatever he wants. I think it will work out very well for the right in the upcoming elections, especially among the female voters.

Then why is Josh complaining that Boehner did not do enough?

Geez.

Rick please have someone read and explain my comment. It will help you.

You may then learn that I have no use, no respect for this tanning booth crybaby. He is third in line for the Office of President. And he is almost as incompetent as Nasty Pelosi except for the part where she was mouthy about everything.

Boehner is closeted in his office with his mournful soul and he cares not one whit about US or US of A.

Here is an excerpt from the L.A. TIMES where even republican Presidential candidates acknowledge and attack Mr. Gingrich for his role in this profitable for some collapse.

So you can place blame where ever you like, but that does not make it true or factual.

“Fannie and Freddie, as you know, have been the epicenter of the financial meltdown in this country,” Bachmann said, according to National Journal. “And whether former Speaker Gingrich made $300,000 or whether he made $2 million, the point is that he took money to influence senior Republicans to be favorable toward Fannie and Freddie. While he was taking that money I was fighting against Fannie and Freddie.”

Gingrich’s surprising jump in national polls has prompted renewed interest in work of the longtime D.C. power player since he left Congress. Along with his private consulting firm, he knitted together a web of operations, including a political advocacy group, the now defunct American Solutions, and the healthcare policy-focused Center for Health Transformation. He's also an author and a documentary filmmaker.

Alot of these far right comments and the articles they quote are from ultra conservative think tank websites, it's impossible to get a good arguement from them. All I know, is that the Republican's are not nearly as "fiscally" responsible party as they claim to be. So Rep. Paul Ryan can get on FOX and with his sheepish eyes and try to convince the American people that the debt will have to be trimmed in half with no taxes to pay for it and blame it all on entitlements, NOT IRAQ AND AFG. AND 10+ years of Bush tax cuts on a good chunk of that 15.5 trillion??!!??

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are not fiscal conservatives and have plans with increase the budget deficit and public debt by more $ the president Obama's plan. So I can sorta buy your argument.

All I know, is that the Republican's are not nearly as "fiscally" responsible party as they claim to be.

However when you start lumping in Rep. Paul Ryan you lost me. Saying Rep. Paul Ryan is not a fiscal conservative is like saying a pitt bull is not a dog. There were only 2 plans I heard about in the news which actually reduced the budget deficit to a sustainable amount. Paul Ryan's plan and Simpson-Bowles commission. I prefer the Simpson-Bowles commission because I believe it is a fairer plan and it is a bi-partisan approach.

No dummy, I never said I was holding Obama responsible for the policies of previous administrations. You are so confused that you think I am posting as a liberal.

Brooksley Born was appointed to her position by Bill Clinton so why would I not believe her. What happened is a matter of public record. But I guess I should expect a liberal toad like you to ignominiously spin ANY fact.

Newt Gingrich is not my candidate. But since you bring up taking money from Fannie Mae then ruminate on this for a while.

Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that.

The top 3 recipients of Fannie Mae contributions:

Name
Office
State
Party
Grand Total
Total from
PACs
Total from
Individuals

Dodd, Christopher J
S
CT
D
$165,400
$48,500
$116,900

Obama, Barack
S
IL
D
$126,349
$6,000
$120,349

Kerry, John
S
MA
D
$111,000
$2,000
$109,000

The above was directed at mxcape21

Your critique is as biased as you are. It is time for you to get your head out of the sand and quit drinking the mediamatters.org Koolaide.

Paul-2793107

Alot of these far right comments and the articles they quote are from ultra conservative think tank websites, it's impossible to get a good arguement from them

In response to liberals constantly blaming George Bush for the credit crisis which caused the WORLD recession I posted the links above. Several of the liberal newsvine regulars teamed up to put their spin on it. First Sailcat called me a liar without even looking at my links. Second mxcape21 tried to confuse the issue by saying I was accusing Obama of being responsible which is totally untrue. Then he accused the Bill Clinton appointed chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of just giving her opinion. Now YOU try to spin my sources from Public Broadcasting System (2), San Jose State University and Anderson Cooper360 as being conservative. There is apparently no low that is too low for liberals.

"No dummy..." Ah, raising the debate to a new level of civility. Guess we know why he backs Limbaugh.

You can't disprove my information so you change the subject. and it takes at least two of you to deal with me. Or if I include Sailcat that makes three. That way you can make assumptions based on earlier conversations that you are not privy too. Like I said, there is no low that is too low for left wing extremist like you.

Left Wing Nut Job

I was not referring to you when I said dummy but from now on I will always refer to you as "Dummy #1"

Rick appears to take a tack where one can only respond to repugnant posts if they refer to that person directly. That would infer that Rick, if he were to witness a mugging, would simply ignore it and move in, since he, himself, was not the one being mugged. Interesting.

And he has the temerity to call other people names. Figures.

Youe right it's not, Limbaugh is always making inflammatory remarks that should have taken him off the aire years ago.

This is the opposite of news. This diverts the discussion away from the real issue, which is the President of the United States attempting to take away a Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion from the Catholic Church.

This is the guy we hired in 2008 to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution. He swore an oath to do this on January 21, 2009. And quite simply, HE IS NOT DOING HIS JOB. Not only should he not be re-elected in November, he should not be allowed to complete his current term. He needs to be impeached and the sooner the better.

The Defender in Chief of the US Constitution has turned out to be its biggest threat.

Yeah, you folks run with these wacko arguments. I'm sure it will work out very well for you.

The biggest threat is not our leader - it is people that would twist the Constitution into a pretzel in an attempt to use it for some bizarre need to make ours a country of de facto rule by religion (the framers were trying to avoid that, not promote it).

How about if we forget the Catholic Church, just for argumentation purposes, and make it the Church of Christ, Scientist instead. OK? Then we won't have to worry about merely dealing with contraceptives, but with medical care in general? Hey, we wouldn't even have to worry about "Obamacare" or anything like it, since health care would be performed via prayer, which is free to everybody! Or is that somehow different? Which religion/church/etc. do you think we should use for these things? Or, how about this? Lay off the phoney Sharia law crap; it isn't a real threat, but what if it were? Wouldn't that be a violation of this religion thing according to your own apparent rules?

Give it up. It is bogus and you know it. All this is amounts to another attempted attack on the "other" that is in office right now.

Your example, not mine. The law applies to all organizations, religious or not.

As the federal plan is currently written, people who practice non-traditional types of medicine — such as members of the Church of Christ, Scientist – would be out of luck.

Such methods are not included in the health care model but for millions of Americans who shy away from conventional Western medicine, they would still be mandated to take part in what critics call “Obamacare.”

Our leader has a problem with people burning the Koran, but aside from that doesn't feel that religious freedom should be protected.

There is no Constitutional twisting necessary to make a case that the President is intruding into an area that is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

Left Wing Nut Job

How about if we forget the Catholic Church, just for argumentation purposes, and make it the Church of Christ, Scientist instead.

I would say you are the only one that wants to turn this country into a theocracy.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your refusal to accept what is going on here is in the interest of maintaining a dialog, and not, as it would seem, that you are too stupid to understand my point.

I do not want to turn the country into a theocracy. That also would be a violation of the First Amendment.

What I'm saying is that these religious institutions have a right guaranteed to them by our Constitution to practice their religion freely without interference from the Federal Government. With these health care mandates, the Federal Government is, by anybody's definition, interfering with this right.

And worse, the guy initiating the interference is the same guy whose job it is to defend these rights. Look it up, read the Presidential Oath of Office.

I literally could not care less what Catholicism says the flock should do in preparation for eternity. But I know they have the right to practice their beliefs. And if Barack Obama succeeds in taking this right away from them, then all of our rights are in jeopardy. Yours too. Think about that.

It should be obvious to you by now that the left wing conservatives don't really give a rat's arse about your rights as long as they get what they want. That will come back to haunt them eventually

This entire Sandra Fluke thing was brought about because the house hearing entitled: “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

did not include women.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/democratic-congressman-accuses-religious-leaders-of-trampling-on-freedom

What's obvious to me is that you don't know what you are talking about on this issue. Joe Biden has now conceded that the Dems screwed up when they failed to exclude religious organizations from this mandate.

I'm not sure why you refuse to see it.

jt1776-3689881

I hope you are not addressing that at me because we are on the same side here. Like I tried to say, this whole thing is a political ploy by the democrats. This was suppose to be about how the religious community felt about providing birth control and how far they would go to support their beliefs. This whole Sandra Fluke thing came about because the republicans did not want to hear from a lay person on a religious matter and Nancy Pelosi called her own meeting in an attempt to piss off a lot of people. Religious leaders are threatening to close down or seriously reduce their services if they are forced to pay for these services.

Rick, Jesus, sorry about the friendly fire. Rookie mistake by me. Luckily I missed you. I've been working on a project today and only take a quick peek here and there to see if LWNJ had anything to say for his sorry self.

What confused me was that he was starting to make sense. I didn't notice it was you. Please accept my apology. You are one of the few reasonable people our here.

Rick-312779 - left wing conservatives don't really give a rat's arse about your rights as long as they get what they want.

I am a Washington DC outsider please explain to be what it is that the left wing conservative want?

That will come back to haunt them eventually

How?

Kind of fun watching the two righties attack each other because neither appears able to comprehend. However, I am rather confused with the term "left wing conservative" - is that akin to jumbo shrimp?

And you both miss the point; you defend pushing the beliefs of one church, yet infer that isn't true for another. Hypocrite much? You CANNOT have it both ways, in spite of what you or your hero Rush thinks.

Rick-312779 and jt1776-3689881,

Is there something that prevents a Catholic church from offering a health plan, but allowing employees to get the money the Catholic institution would have paid to health plan if employee opts out of health plan to purchase a different one? Just curious.

By the way issuing threats is probably not the best way to garner support.

What you infer is on you. It's not what I said or implied. Your buddies in Washington are pushing this on everybody. And I'm opposing it for everybody. I oppose it because it is a policy that takes choices away from individuals and puts them in the hands of the government. I oppose this, unequivocally.

In the case of religious entities, I additionally oppose this mandate because these entities have protection under of the First Amendment which is supposed to prevent you do-gooders from trampling on peoples rights because you've decided your opinion should overrule everybody else's.

The unfounded arrogance of the left never ceases to amaze me.

Just admit it, you don't understand what I'm talking about. You do not understand the concept of individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and why they must prevail over the mindless lemming group-think that takes over a population sometimes.

middleground,

if you are referring to the 'threats' catholic hospitals, for example, are making when they say they may be forced to curtail services rather than comply with these mandates, what would have them do instead?

Birth control use is prohibited by their religious beliefs. These beliefs are what religious people use to guide them through life and to ensure that their place in the afterlife is a pleasant one. Do you want these people to abandon their beliefs because Barack Obama tells them to? What level of arrogance does it take to mandate to someone that they must abandon a tenant of their religion?

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers were familiar with what it was like to live under an oppressive government. They foresaw this level of arrogance as a possibility and they gave us the Bill of Rights to protect us from stuff like this.

Then, they put the President in charge of guarding these rights for us. So there can be no confusion, they require the President to take an oath, prior to assuming his duties, that he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Barack Obama took the oath. You can see it on You Tube.

And still, he issues this mandate. And even worse, there are people who support him in this. Every last one of us should be outraged.

Do we need health care reform? Probably. But if we can't do it without dismembering the Constitution, then we should just forget trying.

Nut Job,

Just answer me this:

Do you think that it is OK for the Federal Government to issue a mandate to a religious organization that requires them to act in way that is prohibited by its underlying religion?

It's a simple question. Yes or no, is this OK with you?

First of all, that is not true, but you knew that.

Further, a university is not an "organization", it is an institution of higher learning. A hospital is not an organization, it is a facility that provides health care. If a religious organization determines that they should not offer these services or coverage, either directly or through an intermediary, they should get out of those businesses. It is frightening to think, for example, that I would be admitted to a hospital and learn that, due to THEIR religious convictions, I was unable to be treated in the manner I CHOOSE; seems that would be an infringement of MY rights. But this is the problem that many face, since there are so many locales that are serviced by no other hospitals than those that are run by religious organizations. Most people that work at a church are members of that church, so that's fine if the CHURCH does not offer something they are "morally" against; the same is not necessarily true of a hospital or a university (or any other business a church wants to get involved with that is NOT the church itself).

It also appears that your argument is moot. This is not a matter of the university not choosing to offer (or allow the insurance company to offer) contraceptive coverage. Faculty and staff are covered for this, just not students (even for care not related to birth control) at this university. Your argument is a smoke screen.

jt1776-3689881 And I'm opposing it for everybody. I oppose it because it is a policy that takes choices away from individuals and puts them in the hands of the government. I oppose this, unequivocally.

Good grief. I give up the Republican cause it is a hopeless one. I am voting a third party. Go American's Elect. I think Ron Paul is on the top right now.

Why would you oppose an individual purchasing their own plan from a private insurance company instead of purchasing a plan from their employer? I do not care for a public option because I do not want the government controlling my health insurance any more than I want an employer who doesn't believe in anything but herbal medicine controlling my health insurance. It protects both the employer and the employee freedom of religion by allowing the employee to choose pay over an employer plan, but still allows the employer to negotiate a plan for the employees that chooses the lower cost plan the employer negotiated. It would however result in the employer having less money in the health insurance pool though because today the employers are not covering all their employees. Some employees opt out to avoid the current employee share of health plan.

I understand why you would want to push through an amendment which allows insurance companies to offer plans that are more flexible, but that amendment would have to be accompanied with consumer protection amendments for the individual which require health insurance companies to provided readily available material to each employee on an employee plan about all covered and non covered costs. Or it could provide some sort of a rating system that if stamped on a plan guarantees that this plan meets various minimum coverage standard. It would require health care providers to publish the cost each procedure regardless of how the individual were paying (insurance or self pay). It would also require that employers offer health insurance plans to allow employees to opt out of the employer plan without essentially being docked in pay.

Just admit it, you don't understand what I'm talking about.

No I do not understand why the Republicans would fight for the institution (be it a Catholic one or not) over the individual (be it a Catholic individual or not).

That will come back to haunt them eventually... What you infer is on you. It's not what I said or implied. Your buddies in Washington are pushing this on everybody.

Could you please tell me who my buddies are in Washington are, because as far as I know I do not have any. It would be nice if I did though maybe someone would listen for a change. Right now it seems that us lowly citizens without buddies in Washington have no voice. If we are not completely liberal we the poor lost soul who is lead astray by the fear mongering conservatives. Lets add a new hidden fee onto your paycheck, tax bill, .. to help you. Those corporations you work for are treating you unfairly we have to make they pay. However if we present an idea that is not completely conservative, we are liberal combatant enemies looking for hand outs that have to be taught a lesson.

Is this really the face the Republicans and the Democrats want to show the American people? Why not just try explaining the issues, presenting you cases and incorporating the voice of the American citizen who is voting for you for a change. Why insist on making anyone who presents their case a combatant?

I wasn't offering an argument, I was asking a question. So your position is that the University of Notre Dame is not a religious organization and therefore should not be afforded protection under the First Amendment.

Or that if the Sisters of Mercy open a hospital that the hospital is not a religious organization protected by freedom of religion. And that anybody should be able to walk in off the street and have an abortion performed there.

That's your position? I'm not arguing. I'm just asking.

jt1776-3689881 I assume post 734.19 is for LWNJ.

Middle,

I do not oppose the individual's right to purchase health care coverage. Similarly, I don't oppose an individual's right to opt out of health care coverage altogether.

What I do oppose, and this is all that I oppose, is the Federal Government telling individuals or organizations what to do when it is none of the Federal Government's business.

Nor do I support any organization's right above any individual's right. I believe religious organizations have rights that are specifically protected by the First Amendment. And so in these cases where an individual right conflicts with a religious organizations rights the individual should find an alternative place to exercise the right.

In other words, don't walk into a Catholic hospital and demand an abortion just because you have the right in this country to have an abortion.

The difference here is that individuals can chose a university or a hospital based on its affiliation. So everybody's rights can be preserved. A Catholic hospital has no such option when the FG mandates policy.

What I do oppose, and this is all that I oppose, is the Federal Government telling individuals or organizations what to do when it is none of the Federal Government's business.

Nor do I support any organization's right above any individual's right. I believe religious organizations have rights that are specifically protected by the First Amendment. And so in these cases where an individual right conflicts with a religious organizations rights the individual should find an alternative place to exercise the right.

May I assume you support fair competition of like institutions and that each institution should be treated equally by the government without favor of one over the other?

Middle,

I support fair competition, certainly but I would not expect the government to treat all like institutions equally. VA Hospitals, obviously are Federally funded. I think if the government needed to do research that had to be done in a hospital environment that they not chose one with a religious affiliation.

I wouldn't expect the FG to offer financial assistance to a hospital with a religious affiliation. Where they might feel the need to do so for an public hospital in an inner city location for example.

And obviously would not expect the FG to dictate policy of any kind to a church owned hospital.

Why do you ask? Where is this going?

LWNJ is pointing out that the reason the federal government has to force religious hospitals to do something against their believes is that in some areas ONLY the religious institutions are available. I would think in those areas another approach would be to offer some friendly competition kinda like Apple vs Microsoft so the consumers rights are protected by allowing choice and avoiding a monopoly type situation. In some cases one company will allow another company to exist without tampering with it just to avoid a monopoly situation. I am just trying to see if anything is prohibiting completion. Like tax breaks for one institution and not for another.

Middle,

I guess I don't get what you mean.

There's a Catholic Hospital which is the only health care facility within 50 miles, and Susie is a surgical nurse who can only work in a hospital, and she wants to exercise her right to birth control. And we are trying to find a way for her to get it without forcing the hospital to provide these benefits for her?

By the way, I don't think the expense is the issue for the hospital. At least I hope not. I'm hoping the church is objecting on moral grounds that they should not be forced to do something they will have to explain to you-know-who before they can enter past the pearly gates.

Is this what you mean?

LWNJ - .. If a religious organization determines that they should not offer these services or coverage, either directly or through an intermediary, they should get out of those businesses. It is frightening to think, for example, that I would be admitted to a hospital and learn that, due to THEIR religious convictions, I was unable to be treated in the manner I CHOOSE; seems that would be an infringement of MY rights. But this is the problem that many face, since there are so many locales that are serviced by no other hospitals than those that are run by religious organizations. Most people that work at a church are members of that church, so that's fine if the CHURCH does not offer something they are "morally" against; the same is not necessarily true of a hospital or a university (or any other business a church wants to get involved with that is NOT the church itself).

According to LWNJ this extends beyond health insurance coverage.

So Susie, doesn't want birth control, Susie wants an abortion. And wing nut's position is that the hospital must provide it themselves, find some other way to provide the service, or get out of the business.

Here's how I see it. Susie needs to make other arrangements, which is an inconvenience to Susie, but forcing the hospital to comply is putting their souls in danger (admittedly only according to them). Susie has a right to this service but the convenience part of that is not guaranteed. I don't see how the FG can compel somebody to do something that goes counter to their religious beliefs given the clear cut language of the First Amendment.

Isn't a Catholic hospital a private enterprise? Can the FG go to a private enterprise and compel them to offer services that they don't want to offer? Forget religious objections. I'd say they have a right to refuse to do any service for any reason, or no reason.

I mean what if some doctor opened a self funded practice to do face lifts. Can the FG order him to do appendectomies? People have a right to appendectomies. They have a right to root canals. Does he have to do those? What about hair cuts?

There are plenty of places where people can get haircuts. Why does the FG feel the need to force more people into providing these services? This is my objection with the FG and with liberals in general. It seems like their whole deal is compelling people to do things that people should be allowed to decide for themselves. I don't get it.

Isn't a Catholic hospital a private enterprise?

If both a Catholic hospital and a non religious hospital both exist are they both treated equally by the federal government. Do they BOTH pay the same in taxes?

I don't really care about which services for the sake of argument. It appears the Catholic hospital wants to pick and choose what is or what is not medicine and wants a blanket statement from the FG that they only supply services that they believe in. Rick Santorum doesn't believe in amniocentesis so I will use that as an example. If a Catholic hospital does not supply amniocentesis because they do not believe in it, and I decide to start up a hospital that includes amniocentesis would I pay the same taxes as a Catholic hospital.

Tax rates paid by hospitals are determined by whether or not they are registered as for-profit or non-profit organizations, I believe. I don't know if religious affiliation has anything to do with it. If you are for-profit then you pay just like any other corporation based on how much profit you made.

I think there are certain obligations that non-profits have to fulfill to maintain there non-profit status. Like they can't turn away indigent patients, etc.

You seem to be leaning a little left on this issue, middleground. " ... what is or what is not medicine..". Nobody argues that birth control, abortion, and amniocentesis are medicine. Some organizations prefer not to participate in those areas for whatever reason. Is that not OK with even the middle ground people?

Middle,

Catholic nuns have been running American hospitals for decades and have always confined their services to those that adhere to the teachings of their church.

But now some lay person employee of the Federal Government has decided that if the nuns truly want to be in the hospital business, then they need start performing whatever procedures are deemed appropriate by FG mandate or they must pack up their stethoscopes and go back to the convent.

2000 years of payer, scripture reading, study and debate by theologians determining the best course of action for living a religious life is being overruled by some FG bureaucrat?

Do you want the nuns to be in the abortion business? Really?

Can't we leave them be to do the good they already do? Aren't we better off with them doing what they do than without them?

Middle,

That "blanket statement" that you claim the Catholic Hospitals want? They already have it. It's called the First Amendment.

They've had it for well over 200 years and now Barack Obama wants to take it away from them. I know LWNJ supports the repeal of the First Amendment, but please tell me you do not.

jt1776-3689881 - Lets just say that I am content to allow any religion follow their believes as long as they are not trying to impose their believes on others. Until recently I was always debating colleges on how the individual mandate was crap.

Unfortunately I am not so sure that religious organizations in the US today are ready to reciprocate. I was watching the world news and have seen first hand what could happen when a male dominated religion makes the rules for its women population. I am not saying the Catholic church is doing that.

However, the squeeze plan on Planned Parenthood funding (Susan Kohman recently and in Republican led congress), the phone calls harassing doctors recently, the Shiavo case past, the changes to state laws changing the definition of abortion to include Plan B and IUDs (when I was in college the definition was partial birth abortion), the changes to state laws requiring vaginal ultrisounds, and the conversations on many of these boards have all started to paint a picture of non trust.

The only way I saw to reverse that would have been for the candidates to make it completely clear that disrespecting women was not acceptable. Having the Nuns speak at the hearing on contraceptives. Having the GOP women come out and speak on TV about it. A discussion like the one with Kennedy had where he defined that even though he had these believes he absolutely would respect the separation of church an state.

Unfortunately some Republican candidates missed every opportunity to show they respected all women views and they proceeded to make comments actually showing the opposite. WIth Rush I needed to see a Rush is a #### and he does not speak for me.

At this point on this topic, I am not sure how the Republicans regain my trust that they are not trying to rewrite laws to impose the Catholic views on me.

I tried to tell the Republicans in several posts what I was looking for and each post was ignored. Morning Joe tried to tell them what women were saying and he was ignored as well. I will not be content voting for someone who would add another environment when young girls are afraid to get the medicine they need. I do not want to see the death any other children result from lack of treatment. I have already lost my niece and nephew to this type of stupidity.

tmg,

I don't think you can judge the left or the right by what people post on these boards. It's a zoo out here. Of course it's a zoo in Congress so maybe you can. I've found very few open minded truth seekers out here. You might be the first, actually.

Believe me, I don't speak for the right, the republicans, rush limbaugh, the tea party or the Catholic church. I don't think any of them have pure motives.

I don't attend church and I rarely find someone worth voting for.

The only appeal of the Catholic Church to me is that I think Obama and company have made a major mistake by imposing this mandate on them. And I think everybody, me included, wants to make them the poster child for the cause of keeping government out of where it doesn't belong.

Good luck find any one person to trust let alone an entire political party. But keep looking. Middle ground would be a good place to find someone.

jt1776-3689881 - I don't think you can judge the left or the right by what people post on these boards

You are correct in some ways. However I find social media a little bit more of a fair playing field than TV ads, Radio ads, and TV shows, and Radio shows. For TV and Radio you have to have alot of cash but if you do it is pretty easy to carpet bomb your opponent without having a lot of followers to back you up. This is where the super pacs take over.

On social media the communities regulate themselves to favor the voice of individuals. For example you can not link unless you had an account you used to post for a while. Also the Newsvine folks look for people who attempt to spawn accounts and shut them down. Blind copy pastes can be ignored.

The only appeal of the Catholic Church to me is that I think Obama and company have made a major mistake by imposing this mandate on them. And I think everybody, me included, wants to make them the poster child for the cause of keeping government out of where it doesn't belong.

I can see the logic. However the Catholic Church like many religious organizations is a large institution. I have noticed a number of people including me who have been getting fed up with large institutions that try to manipulate rules and regulations through lobbying. When you pick a large institution trampling on the right of its employee, you are not showing keeping government out of where it doesn't belong you are showing big institution that has great power to influence the government which is invading my privacy. I actually like Catholics and have Catholic friends. We do not always agree but I know they are good friends and neighbors. Without a catalyst they generally do not want to interfere in other peoples business. So welcome in Affordable Health Care Act and poster child. I think the Republicans may want to pick a better poster child though. A poster child that does not have past histories in the US which caused the Separation of Church and state rule in the constitution. I think some Hindi's use herbal medication exclusively. I hear ginger root is a good cure for morning sickness and ginger ale was proven by Myth Busters to be effective at stopping motion sickness. I wonder if ginger root and ginger ale are included on the health insurance plan.

I want to make sure the poster child is not trying to manipulate the system to weed out competition on the medical care front. I also want to make sure that amendments such as the blunt amendment are not used for the purpose of allowing a health insurance company claim it covers all conditions and then denies a 2 year old cancer patient chemotherapy because they don't "believe" it is an acceptable treatment.

Good luck find any one person to trust let alone an entire political party.

I don't trust many people and political parties each have different factions. However I prefer a United States that chooses to include all its citizens as opposed to a few of its citizens. Since each citizen has their own opinions and causes that makes it tough to find middle ground.

Ok here is my political plug for American's Elect again. It looks like this party wants to allow the American people to have a candidate of their choice. So far Ron Paul is winning. I like Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, and Elizabeth Warren as well, but somehow the women are not getting as many votes as the men.

A lobbyist from the church showing up in the office of your congressman with a campaign contribution has way more influence over what happens in your district and in Washington than do you and 999 of your neighbors combined. Is that a violation of the separation of church and state? Not sure. But lobbyists from the church and every other industry and interest group visit our reps and Senators on a regular basis. This is an unfortunate process that has evolved and we need to find a way to get rid of this unfair influence.

But to me oppression can only come from the Government because nobody has the option to opt out. If membership in the Catholic church were mandatory, then yes, I'd find their policies and tenants very oppressive. But nobody has to be a Catholic. Not since they stopped burning people anyway.

That's why I don't see what you mean when you say the Church is trampling on your rights. They're out there with tobacco, gambling, steel, NRA, foreign governments all trying to influence the rules. They all get in line ahead of you to see your Senator. I don't blame them for that. I blame the Senator.

I will admit that you may have a point. Is it fair for the Church to peddle influence when they have the First Amendment to hide behind if the government tries to influence back? From my experience, nobody really cares what's fair. At best you can hope for them to be guided by: Is it legal.

MSNBC contacted me asking for a clarification of the sentence "I will admit that you may have a point." Apparently this sentence has never been posted before. It's under investigation.

A lobbyist from the church showing up in the office of your congressman with a campaign contribution has way more influence over what happens in your district and in Washington than do you and 999 of your neighbors combined. Is that a violation of the separation of church and state?

I am not a legal expert on constitutional law, but here we go this is the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My take is that a congress person probably has to allow the church access to speak to them. It does not say that they have to take money from them. The Supreme Court rulings set a precedent that ALL religious groups are allowed to speak equally. So if a congress person has an open door policy for Catholics but not an open door policy for Protestants I think that might be questionable.

But to me oppression can only come from the Government because nobody has the option to opt out. If membership in the Catholic church were mandatory, then yes, I'd find their policies and tenants very oppressive. But nobody has to be a Catholic. Not since they stopped burning people anyway.

Now I am going to use a pretend example. The religion lets say there is a Zooey religion that does not believe in C-Sections. They are fundamentally opposed to C-Sections because C-Sections would tamper with the birthday and ultimately corrupts the child's soul.

• Lets suppose ZEE were to put up hospitals all over the US.
• ZEE then initiated a campaign to educate women about the evils of C-Section through picketing, phone calling, and taking doctors to court who performed C-Sections.
• Part of that campaign was to shame any women or doctor that performed C-Sections on radio, tv, ...
• ZEE even started a petition campaign much like the type being used against Rush to block funding from C-Sections.

• The government sees this and makes sure that ZEE hospitals have competition so president Dixon signs into law funding for Planned Birthdays so that ZEE is allowed to not perform what is against its religion, but allow C-Sections which save many women lives each year even though it is not the cheapest form of delivery of a child.
• Now the ZEE sees this and starts lobbying candidates to oppose public funding of C-Sections claiming separation of Church and State because for ZEE C-Sections are immorally wrong.
• The ZII in retaliation now lobby other congressmen to pass a laws mandating that C-Section be funded by ALL employer health plans and hospitals so that the ZEE can not stomp out C-Section.
• The ZEE now claim fowl because they are FORCED to perform C-Sections against their religion.

Do you think this scenario could possibly affect the availability of C-Sections? Isn't removing C-Sections from existing forcing a woman to follow ZEE practices? Is the ZEE hospital acting as a church when they push a political agenda? What if the ZEE were allowed to follow the same hiding behind Church and State on bookstores?

This practice in business is called a monopoly. If this were a business the government could force business regulations that exist today to breakup the monopoly. I think this is under free trade laws.

I do not like the mandate. I think it is best for all if ALL of the mandate is removed (church and state because now religions are defining medicine as religion), but to do so the ZEE need to allow fair competition so they do not fall under monopoly anti-trust laws as a business. After all the ZEE wouldn't want their arch rivals the ZAA to do the same thing to them on bookstores. If the ZAA tried the same maneuver on bookstores the ZEE would want the ZAA to fall under anti-trust laws too.

If I knew some do good entrepreneurs that wanted to give back to the community, I would suggest there is an opportunity for new hospitals, clinics and schools. The best place to start would be the hospitals or clinics that fall under the 50 mile rule and the insurance rule. I think the Gates foundation has made some great strides in less expensive health care in foreign countries maybe these could be tried here. I do not have much money, but I could donate some if I knew their names. This way the female nurses and doctors in the area would have another option for where to work and they could include birth control in their health plan. Meanwhile I can look at my own United Way donations to make sure I target more of my donations towards hospitals which follow my religion.

If a Catholic Hospital Group, like Daughters of Charity or Sisters of Mercy or one of those groups was able to build so many hospitals in such a small area as to make it impractical for other organizations to build competing hospitals in that area, then the argument could be made that they would have established a monopoly of sorts.

If, under that scenario, they then refused to perform services which conflicted with their religious views, which I'm sure they would, then the further argument could be made that they were imposing their beliefs on the people living in that area.

I don't believe that this represents a First Amendment violation. The First Amendment only protects individuals from actions performed by Congress, ie "Congress shall make no law ... ". But it would be a problem and it could be argued that the FG would be justified in taking some kind of action to protect the rights of the affected people.

That action, could not be, at least I hope it could not be, a mandate that the hospitals violate their beliefs. That would be at textbook example of a First Amendment violation and hopefully the mandate would be tossed at the first stop on it's way to the Supreme Court.

It would be a dilemma, for sure, and one with which I would sympathize.

Instead of a mandate, I would much prefer to see the FG offer incentives to organizations to build facilities in the affected area. This puts the FG in the role of protector and provider of individual rights rather than usurper.

In Michigan, I know you can't just build a hospital where ever you want. You have to first procure a Certificate of Need (CON) from the State whereby a study is performed comparing population to the number of hospital beds available in the area to be serviced. Perhaps that process could be enhanced to include the types of procedures that are available rather than just the number of beds.

That way, despite a glut of Catholic hospital beds preventing C-Sections-Are-Us from obtaining a CON, the new service type aware formula would show a dire need for additional beds for C-Section patients.

Why couldn't we do it that way? That's positive and constructive. Instead of turning nuns into c-sectionists.

I have trouble believing that the mandate would survive the supreme court. I kinda suspect the entire law will be thrown out. I can not believe the US would require anyone to purchase health care over food.

The problem is many view incentives as way to sh-luff off the cost since there is no guarantee that the services will remain. Changing the CON rules would be necessary for the hospitals to exist though. The problem is that it would be hard to convince abuse victims that this is not another abuse cycle trick.

However, I agree that would be positive and constructive for a change. It would also maintain the privacy of the patients to keep potential lists out of the hands of those who might use them for other purposes.

Sorry I need some sleep my mind is starting to drift.

I am going to make my own judgement call here though. In general I like smaller government approaches and I have been unhappy with SOPA, PIPA, and the Patriot Acts stepping more and more on individuals privacy.

I am equally ticked with the Republican stance on women's reproductive rights. I have not see ONE candidate still say Rush Limbaugh is an .... I have not heard ONE Republican stand up an say and IUD and Plan B are considered birth control. I have heard vague well Rush is not sincere... I have heard vague I am not against general a general birth control. However I have seen attempts to redefine the abortion to be birth control and I can not trust that they will not do this again.

I have similar issues embracing the republicans. They seem to be for small government (good), but what's with this religious right crap that seems to come packaged with those guys? I guess I'm really a Libertarian if I had to put a label on it.

I should do more to support Ron Paul.

I had aspirations once to take up the law and maybe go into politics. I'm thankful every day that I was drawn in a different direction. I don't know how those guys look at themselves in the mirror.

It's been nice talking to a reasonable person. I think we've beaten this one to death. Solved it though. Good job. Now if anybody was listening.

Uh, nice try.

By the way, I know he is on NBC so he MUST be a liberal, but you might want to actually watch or listen to David Gregory before you go after him (weird idea, right?). He typically seems to be leaning pretty heavily to the right (try watching/listening to interviews with politicians from both sides...).

I would prefer that Obama not use PACs at all, but it really isn't his call (nor is it for who contributes what - you might want to check the laws on that, although it WOULD require research). However, this would also require a quid pro quo that would remove much of the PAC money from the coffers on the right.

This is a lame argument and is just another attempt at misdirection.

Left Wing Nut Job

How about John Qoinones and ABC. A couple of nights ago he had two actors pretending to be Mormons sitting in a restaurant talking about their wedding. The female admitted to the male that she was not a virgin. The plot had the male who was Mormon have a breakdown calling his girlfriend all sorts of nasty names and calling off the wedding because she was not a virgin. It made me feel like Mormons were really ugly people. But wait.......I know some Mormons personally and they are really, really nice forgiving people who would give you the shirt off their backs if they thought you needed it. Do you think that could have been political. Do you think that was a hell of a coincidence that Mitt Romney is Mormon? Maybe we all should think who the players are.

Rick cannot defend his statement, so he goes veering off in another direction. Fine.

The point of what Quinones did with the scenario with the two actors portraying Mormons was to get the responses of the people WITNESSING the exchange, but you left all that out, didn't you? How convenient. You mischaracterized the entire thing in a lame attempt to redirect peoples' attention. I can understand why you defend Limbaugh, as it appear that you employ the same kind of twisted logic and tactics. Yeah, with folks like you around, I'm sure the level of discourse in our country will continue to soar skyward.

And I'm sure that it all had to do with Romney being Mormon.

But wait.....I know some Republicans personally and some of them are able to actually process facts.

Yeah, "what if" - what if the moon were made of green cheese? What if the world really were flat (it isn't, by the way...sorry). What if Limbaugh supporters researched his inane commentary and found out what a thing called "truth" is (Problem with that? Try reading the actual testimony. Doesn't say what Limbaugh or any of you seem to think it does. Unless you think it is a good thing for people to get sick and not be able to treat it, which seems to be the case.).

Yeah, Rush tells it like it is. The show is popular because of people like you. THAT is the truth.

Well, from the looks of this Sandra, the only way she can get dates is to further her slutty reputation.

College guys will screw a snake if there is nothing better available for the weekend.

Joseph, I believe you are merely digging yourself a bigger hole.

Censor? Problems with reality much?

The definition of the verb censor from google search:

Examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.

So a great many of you liberals are contacting and posting links to Limbaugh's sponsors and bosses advocating he be removed from the airwaves and you don't call that censorship. Who has a problem with reality now?

I could not help but notice that Dummy #1 left some pretty cute replies to some of my posts but pretty much skipped over this one. I wonder why?

Rick once again proves he is unable to comprehend. Note the word "officially" in the definition he, himself, posted. Guess it eluded him, but what else is new.

Also note the pejorative he used in yet another personal attack on somebody (not clear who), also showing that, when he has not real argument, he resorts to petty, juvenile verbiage.

I suspect that Rush is no idiot. He's probably of average intelligence. But he's found an economic niche that has rewarded him and he'd be foolish to change it -- except when he goes too far for common sense or decency and must offer a hollow apology.

He doesn't seem to know, for instance, that there are dozens of medical reasons why women use contraceptive devices. The pill does, after all, reduce the likelihood of heart attacks and certain forms of cancer. There are women past menopause (ie., they can't have babies) who are on the pill.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies eliminates the need for costly abortions and stops children from being born into unstable families, not to mention deformed fetuses. It also help, coincidentally, to curb the population growth. In 1950 there were 2B people in the world. Now it's more than 6B and rising geometrically. By 2050 it will have doubled again. They're all modernizing and trading their bicycles in for cars. What do you imagine this does to the price of commodities like oil, land, and steel?

There are 43M sexually active women in America and 89% of them use contraceptives. That includes married couples (not promiscuous sluts) who cannot afford another child.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

Finally, Rush is clever in a limited way that works for him but he hasn't done any homework. He seems to think that the more gang bangs you have, the more pills you have to take or the more IUDs you have to buy. (I wonder if he knows what an IUD is and how it works.)

Most bothersome about his program is that he isn't in favor of anything. There are occasional platitudes -- low taxes, smaller government, the usual mantra -- but he doesn't offer alternatives to the policies he loathes and despises. What he's marketing is not a constructive view of American society but simply hatred of liberals and anything vaguely associated with them -- whether it's contraception or light bulbs.

I used to think that anger was an unpleasant emotion that we like to avoid. But my view of human nature is changing. I see outrage about ridiculous non-issues like Obama's birth certificate and how many rooms Michell Obama rented in a hotel in India. I half expect at any moment to hear an outburst of uncontained fury over the time Obama spends in the bathroom. A lot of people seem to get off on this sort of thing, those who are locked religiously into Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. If they don't actually enjoy their anger, why are they listening to these bat-crap irrational lunatics and con men?

But he gets points for helping to switch the frame of the issue from "abortion" to "contraception."

Robert Maxwell

Lots of great reasons for supporting usage of OC. I'm sure you and your friends will be making huge donations to Planned Parenthood and you will be making them often. I know you can do it because it was in the news about how much was donated to Planned Parenthood when the Susan G. Komen foundation announced they would be suspending their funding of Planned Parenthood. Thank God for Generous people like you and your desire to help all those poor, needy women.

I'm grateful for your appreciation. Actually I've belonged to Planned Parenthood for years and do what I can, but I can't afford to contribute more than I do because my income is less than $10K. If I could, I would. It will not help me but it will help the USA and the world in a few generations. That's what's known as a "selfless act." Look it up sometime.

And can't you do any better than ad hominem attacks?

Robert Maxwell

Have you ever had ad hominem grits?. I like them with ham and eggs in the morning.

For me and many others that I have noted this is about paying for something I don't agree with. You are the first one that has replied to my less than serious suggestion in a positive manner. So I would have to say you are the only one who is not a hypocrite on this blog. Even in the case of Sandra Fluker, I have heard there is a Planned Parenthood less than three blocks from the Georgetown University campus. Why does the government (Obama) feel the need to force this on us and those that object due to religious reasons?

If you belong to an insurance plan, you pay for a lot of services that you may never use and may have some objection with. If you don't like, don't buy into an insurance plan. You can always self fund your medical expenses.

Robert, Rick has no real basis in fact to argue with and relies mostly on half-truths and personal attacks in lame attempts at defending himself and his hero. If you attack his lies and misdirections enough, he will start calling you a dummy or worse; his schoolyard bullying tactics are pretty obvious, but he has learned from the master.

I guess he would have no problem if some nationwide broadcaster were to call his mother names on the air because of some made-up controversy...or perhaps it would be different, then.

Sometimes, in these posts, I get the impression that a brand new, but covert, belief is being born -- that women who object to contraception for religious reasons (all four of them) are having contraception "shoved down their throats." That is, sometimes it sounds as if religious women are being forced to undergo a procedure they object to. But, of course, if you don't want to use contraception, and if you don't want to have an abortion, nobody is making you do it.

The "paying for someone else's behavior when you disapprove of it" is a decrepit argument. I don't support the war in Aghanistan. Why should I be forced to pay taxes to fund it? Furthermore, I always hated school when I was a kid, and my son is no longer in school, so why should I have to pay taxes for someone else's kid to go to school?

The point is that we can't all pick and choose the taxes we pay that "promote the general welfare." Otherwise, nobody would pay taxes.