March 09, 2012
The "War on Women" Trap

The Democrats are having some success changing the subject from Obama's abysmal performance by charging Republicans with gross insensitivity concerning women's health. How did it happen?

The Trap

Back on Republican Presidential Debate number twenty something, George Stephanopulos, former Clinton aide and now unbiased TV journalist, asked Mitt Romney an off the wall question about the power of states to ban contraceptives. An incredulous Romney responded that no one has proposed that or would want to do it. There was some media comment about such an odd question but it faded quickly.

Baiting the Trap

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a policy requiring religious organizations such as a Catholic university to include coverage for contraceptives in their health care insurance plans. This sparked a huge outcry over religious freedom. In an attempt to make the new requirement more palatable, President Obama offered a bait and switch compromise. Insurance companies would have to offer the coverage for free, no charge to the insured or the institution providing health benefits. Of course it all depends on the meaning of free.

The Trap is Sprung

Congressman Issa, California Republican, held a hearing on the question of religious liberty. Two panels of speakers, one of four males and a second that included two women, were scheduled to testify. At the last minute, Democrat members of the committee, including Nancy Pelosi, demanded that a law student from Georgetown University be invited to testify. Chairman Issa rejected the request noting that the subject of the testimony was to be on the constitutionally of restricting religious freedom not a right to contraception. Snapping the trap shut, the Democrats walked out and held their own hearing where the law student expounded on the need for someone else to pay for women's contraception needs.

Conservative media, most notably Rush Limbaugh, jumped into the fray but only caused the teeth of the trap to sink further into the ensnared Republicans. The female law student became the abused little girl assaulted by those mean old white men and an instant heroine of the media left. But beyond that, most people found Rush's use of slut and prostitute over the top offensive. He did apologize but too little too late. Democrats saw the dust up as a twofer, a chance to label Republicans as anti women and bring down Rush, a major thorn in the liberals side.

You would think Republicans experienced in the ways of politics, perception and the media would have seen this one coming a mile away. They should have allowed the law student to testify, listened to what she had to say, shown sympathy for her statement that birth control prescriptions given for medical problems such as ovarian cysts should be covered and moved on.

True, the whole controversy has allowed conservatives to once again point out the hypocrisy of the left but it has also opened a potential wedge issue, true or not, that could be significant in a close race. It just was not necessary.


Posted by warrenpeterson at March 09, 2012 09:35 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I recall calling Cantwell's office about this. (to tell them how lame I thought her testimony was). They told me "the republicans wouldn't let her speak." They failed to mention that it was b/c her topic was OFF-topic. It still is. Religious freedom is the issue. Still is. Don't let Obama throw you off, Rs.

Posted by: Michele on March 9, 2012 10:18 PM
2. Perhaps it wasn't necessary.

But the fact of the matter is that unless a fellow citizen is as dialed into this stuff as we addicts are they will never know, never hear about the hypocrisy, the double standards, the disingenuous 'subject changing. Without the outrageous they may not (probably won't) pay attention to the assault on our freedoms, in this case religious freedom. I have a close pal busy with her work FOR and with a local Catholic Church and working on her PhD in Catholic theology. She had no idea about the mandate affecting our own Church.

We need 'traps' to expose the truth because as sad as it is, this reality show addicted electorate needs the controversy, the ugliness and the sensationalism of these traps to get their attention.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 9, 2012 10:23 PM
3. I need clip art of good quality on the subject of civil war women. that includes women who stayed home, nurses, spies, and women who actually fought.

Posted by: Healthe Trim on March 9, 2012 11:00 PM
4. .
Warren, I challenge you to back up your assertion
"the law student expounded on the need for someone else to pay for women's contraception needs.".


Here is the link to the one hour's worth of testimony http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304550-1 . No where in that testimony did Ms. Fluke say that anyone else should pay for women's contraception.

To the extent that there is some "trap" it is people who are trapped in hearing what they want to hear and not what people actually say.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 10, 2012 06:28 AM
5. "To the extent that there is some "trap" it is people who are trapped in hearing what they want to hear and not what people actually say."

The irony of a leftist writing something like this cannot be overstated.

Posted by: Hinton on March 10, 2012 07:14 AM
6. You are funny MBS, What id you actually say you were going to send to the Department of Revenue last April? An additional $25,000? Where is the proof of your payment? You would not have been lying to make yourself sound important or successful would you? Until you prove you sent the money in, you will always be a liar. Which means, you will always be a liar.

Posted by: Smokie on March 10, 2012 08:14 AM
7. Hey BS,

Her whole testimony was about other people paying for contraception coverage for her classmates. Are you in the same country, do you speak English? No, that's right you think Obama is a freak of nature, a God who can proclaim that INSURANCE companies are to pay for contraception and they are to pay for it with magic beans that they find while walking around and not from any other source of revenue that comes from an actual client.

Posted by: doug on March 10, 2012 08:26 AM
8. Just read her testimony and MBS is truly incapable of connecting the dots.

"I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. "We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.

Which "new regulation" would she be grateful for? Could it be the one where she gets free coverage with no co-pay? The one where the insurance companies will pay for all of those pills out of their profits and not pass the cost onto anyone else that pays premiums?

"And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.

If lack of coverage can be a financial burden, it must mean that these contraceptives are very expensive. If they are expensive enough to cause 40% of the Georgetown female students financial grief, how would they not be expensive for insurance companies to give away?

Conclusion: Contraceptives are too expensive for the end user to pay for, so they are grateful for a rule (imperial edict?) that gives them this product without having to pay insurance premiums or co-pays, i.e. "free". We know that these contraceptives are expensive and financially burdening, so having to provide them has a cost. Since the end users aren't paying, the cost must be borne by others.

In Ms. Fluke's support of The Rule, she ended up making her case that there is a desperate need for someone else to pay for women's contraception needs.".

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 10, 2012 08:49 AM
9. The whole debacle has proven yet again why the Democrats are caled the Party of Evil and the Republicans are called the Party of Stupid!

Time and again, the R leadership gets drawn into a narrative that has already been well planned and they end up looking "heartless" so they stammer for a while and then they cave. And each time, a little bit more of our freedom gets taken away from us.

For all of his negatives, Newt Gingrinch is the only one of the candidates that I can see who understands this and goes on the offense when the Democrats, and their willing lackeys in the MSM, pull this kind of stuff.

Posted by: VikingMom on March 10, 2012 10:15 AM
10. @8 SouthernRoots on March 10, 2012 08:49 AM,

Regarding that "coverage" Ms Fluke spoke aobut, who is paying for it?
The covered?
Or "someone else"?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 10, 2012 10:40 AM
11. I don't know much about the WAr on Womern, but there sure is a war against boys. Society is doing a damn find job of denigrating young boys in order to promote girl-power.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 10, 2012 10:46 AM
12. That should read "fine," not "find" in the above post.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 10, 2012 10:47 AM
13. VikingMom...Newt Gingrich is your typical inconsistent politician who has various stances and flip-flops. The reason why Newt Gingrich may look wonderful to you is because, we have so much Crap claiming to be Conservative. Mitt Romney is now the leading GOP as a presidential candidate. What a Laugh! Yeah, both Newt and Mitt are Big Government insiders who represent the Ruling Elite first and foremost and only represent the American People as little as they have to. You vote for either one especially, Mitt and you'll will get bigger and bigger Government with more poverty and less Liberty in return.

Posted by: Daniel on March 10, 2012 10:55 AM
14. Poor hapless BS - so desperate to change the subject so no one focuses on the utter failure of his Barry O'DisatrousPresident.

I'm glad Ms Fluke chose to tell the nation about her expensive sex life.
I'm glad the Democrats used her like a cheap ... paper towel.
I'm glad it came as a result of Barry O'DisatrousPresident's assault on religion, and especially, the Catholic Church.

We Catholics - a huge voting block - were not hearing this stuff from the pulpits at Mass just as certainly we were not hearing it from a secular Catholic hating media

We are now ... even in liberal social justice conclaves like Seattle.

We have a Pope that guides by 2000+ years of traditions and rules. We have a Pope who is elevating Bishops and Cardinals who think and act in those traditions. And we FINALLY have Bishops and Cardinals that speak out against this President and the lies that are 'social justice'. We finally have Bishops and Cardinals willing to say 'NO!'

How many of you know that "Catholic" (in words only) Kathleen Sebelious has been barred BY HER BISHOP from EVER receiving Communion because of her support for abortionist Tiller?

People know now.

As these sideshows illustrate the offense against the First Amendment, as these sideshows illustrate the consequences of supporting those who perpetrate/perpetuate/support them, people delve farther in to the REST of O'DisatrousPresident's offenses against a nation that trusted his words.

It's a long list.


Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 10, 2012 11:08 AM
15. @10 MikeBoyScout on March 10, 2012 10:40 AM

Unless you pay for 100% of your insurance premiums, someone else is picking up the rest. Are you unfamiliar with that concept?

When services or products are mandated by government and required to be free to the end user, someone else is actually paying for those "free" services and products - either the employers, insurance company, manufacturer, or other premium payers elsewhere..

Ms. Fluke's activism is specifically designed to force religious affiliated organizations, such as Georgetown, to go against their beliefs and give in to the government mandate.

She is lobbying Congress to make a law prohibiting the free excercise of religion - under the guise of "Women's health".

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 10, 2012 11:39 AM
16. Yes, it has been claimed and deservingly so, that Ms. Fluke is a White House operative pushing Obama's agenda in destroying our Rights and Freedoms.

Posted by: Daniel on March 10, 2012 11:48 AM
17. @15 SouthernRoots on March 10, 2012 11:39 AM,

I appreciate you telling us your opinions, but those aren't answers to easily answerable questions.

In the testimony of Ms. Fluke you claimed to read up @8, did you read that she testified that "someone else" was paying for Ms. Fluke's health insurance?

Since you won't answer I'll fill you in. No, you did not.

"the law student expounded on the need for someone else to pay for women's contraception needs" never happened except in the minds of those who wanted (and likely need) to hear just that.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 10, 2012 11:58 AM
18. Mike, Mike , Mike. If Ms. Fluke's premiums are paying for 100% of the services she receives, then why is the insurance company even involved? Do you pay one person to pay a second person -- when you could just as easily pay the second person directly yourself?

The reason she wants insurance to pay for it is so that she does not have to pay the entire cost. In other words, other people are having to foot most of the bill.

I also seem to recall something about "Obama Care." Isn't the idea that everyone is entitled to healthcare, even if they cannot afford it. Wouldn't that mean that the tax payer ends up paying for it?

If these women cannot afford these services themselves, then maybe they should not be so sexually active. Don't give me the "they have a right" argument. With rights come responsibilities. Making someone else involuntarily pay for so you can voluntarily do something is not a right.

Posted by: Matt on March 10, 2012 12:14 PM
19. The reality is Obama can't run on his piss poor record and he and his handler's know it. Thus, the distraction of a vacuous person like Fluke. Obama is a coward. period. He accepts a million dollar donation from a misogynist ass like bill maher, while out of the other side of his mouth condemning limbaugh's use of the word "slut" even invoking the name of his daughter's sasha and malia in his selective outrage. I'm certain the president wouldn't object to either of them being referred to as "c-nt", right? What a coward.

Lie with dogs and you get fleas mr. obama.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 10, 2012 12:19 PM
20. @17 MikeBoyScout on March 10, 2012 11:58 AM

How Obamaian of you.

If I support a law, and advocate for it, without ever specifically using words from the law, or talking about the specific results of implementing the law, then I never really expounded on what was in the law?

When the government forces a person or company to give something away free, someone else always pays for it.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 10, 2012 12:28 PM
21. Fluke's Medical Inaccuracies - Peter Bleyer, MD

The most irresponsible story in Sandra Fluke's presentation to a Democrat-organized panel is that of a law student who has been raped and refuses to seek medical attention. Reportedly, the student was concerned that her insurance wouldn't cover the cost of the exam since contraception is not a covered expense. It would be difficult to be more demeaning to the intelligence of a woman who has suffered a violent crime. As per the Violence Against Women Act, a forensic gynecological exam is provided at no cost to any rape victim, even if the rape goes unreported to legal authorities. Although it may be that many rape victims are afraid to let anyone know about these crimes, it is ludicrous to suggest that the Catholic Church could rectify this problem by providing contraception.

... Finally, as the basis for most liberal anti Catholic testimony, Ms. Fluke uses the ever popular "94% (any high number can be used) of the students opposed the policy." Can we expect tuition to be reimbursed if 99% of Georgetown law students are opposed to paying for their education? Since Catholic principles are anchored in the teachings of Jesus Christ, their veracity remains regardless of public opinion; to suggest otherwise is true arrogance. Unfortunately in the public opinion battle which is being waged against the Catholic Church, liberals with the aid of the MSM have the power to ignore principles and truth. Unquestioned testimony from many more Ms. Flukes can be expected before this attack on Catholicism is over.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 10, 2012 01:03 PM
22. LOVE this story!

Now just compare the awesomeness that is Mo Isom, to the entitled, whiny SNOT that is Sandra Fluke

... And I guarantee you that if she's not good enough to get a spot on the team, she's not going to do what someone like Fluke would do, which is to sue everyone and call Gloria Allred and lobby Congress for laws to change the entire game ...

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 10, 2012 01:10 PM
23. Quit the bs, BS. You know the truth and so do we:

Ms Fluke can get private insurance to cover her expensive and self proclaimed extensive, sex life. However a private insurance plan is more expensive to a student than the student plan offered through Catholic Georgetown. Her complaint and her demand is that Georgetown be FORCED to cover her expensive sex medications and prescription paraphernalia against its own tenets and teachings in their student plan.

Just about everything that pathetic, used, no-shame sham has claimed has been an outright lie or laughably easy to disprove.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 10, 2012 01:18 PM
24.
"If people get what they don't want, they are just going to trash them," said T Squalls, 30, who attends the University of the District of Columbia. "So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want?"
... No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It's that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.


Thank you Sandra Fluke, because I've gotta have it

... Studies have shown that ingesting alcoholic beverages while eating uncooked animal products helps kill bacteria and reduce the chance of food poisoning, which, like pregnancy, is a preventable medical condition.

So how am I going to have my sushi and enjoy it unless I have access to a good bottle of sake? And not the cheap kind either -- it has to be something I enjoy drinking, otherwise I may not drink enough of it.

Some will say, "Hey, it's my choice to have sushi, why should Catholic universities be forced to pay for me to be able to consume it safely?"

This is an insult. Sushi rights advocates like myself believe that anyone who has been brave enough to try raw fish can attest that it is really, really tasty.

Being denied free access to sake is also an infringement on my right to practice a sacred eating practice related to Japanese culture. I mean, it starts here, and then pretty soon Pat Robertson will be in my home taking away my Kabuki dolls. I have to draw the line.

Where's the loud (and phony) whine about the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 10, 2012 01:30 PM
25. The Dem position strikes me as ... silly.

Seeing that something is expensive, rather than look at what can be done to bring the cost down, they're insisting that someone else pay, and in a manner that breaks all existing cost controls.

The only way to get to the cost numbers Fluke cited is to use name brand drugs from the most expensive pharmacy. The same drugs are available from other pharmacies as generics for roughly a tenth of the price.

If someone is going broke or suffering other adverse consequences because they are choosing to spend the maximum possible amount of money to achieve a desired result, how is that my problem? Why should I be compelled to support their squandering money?

There's an arguement that college students are compelled to get their prescriptions filled from the college pharmacy. In other words, the college pharmacy has a captive market, from which it is extracting above-market prices. There are multiple ways to break that, including making The Pill available over the counter (or behind the counter without a prescription).

Posted by: Dishman on March 10, 2012 04:04 PM
26. The Democrat strategy is that the best defense is a good offense (truth be damned). Republicans fell right into the trap, led first by Santorum, then by Limbaugh (who is not going to be a politician).

The Repubs could have just called out Ms. Fluke as a mooch and a taker and invited her to a hearing, instead of denying it. That's why I find Chris Christie appealing - he is smart and has courage to take the offensive on the left. The genie is out of the bottle now though. The choice is clear; Republicans can also play the best offense is a good defense too, but they need to get their ducks in a row for a change. Go directly at Obama and call his bluff and even challenge him to prove he has Israel's back. He only cares if Israel bombs Iran before the election, but doesn't care after words. The Republicans should also show they support renewable energy, but not utilize until it is proven to be economically sustainable and to not let up on research and development, but will not force us to use it before it is economically viable like the Obama Admin is doing, then take a weapon out of the left's hands. Any one who trusts this President is stupid !

Posted by: KDS on March 10, 2012 04:33 PM
27. I wish people would lay off George Stephanopulos for that question to Romney. It was a legitimate question because Rick Santorum said states should have that power (though he asserted he would not be in favor of such a ban).

Blame Santorum for saying it and thus making it an issue.

Posted by: pudge on March 10, 2012 10:44 PM
28. When you play the game of thrones, you win... or you lose elections. Republicans no longer know how to play, except to their especially conservative portion of the base.

Posted by: ModernAmericanLife on March 11, 2012 04:22 AM
29. @23 RagnarDanneskold on March 10, 2012 01:18 PM

"Ms Fluke can get private insurance [...] However a private insurance plan is more expensive to a student than the student plan offered through Catholic Georgetown. Her complaint and her demand is that Georgetown be FORCED to cover her expensive sex medications and prescription paraphernalia against its own tenets and teachings in their student plan."

Yet another example of knowing nothing and hearing what you want to hear.

Georgetown University Student Health Insurance

For all students, good health is essential to achieving educational goals. Because maintaining good health requires access to health care when you need it, Georgetown University requires the students described below to have health insurance.
Most students who are charged Georgetown University tuition and registered in resident thesis research or registered for nine or more credit hours in a GU degree program (eight or more credit hours if a law or graduate student) are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University, unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements.
A charge for this Premier Plan is placed on eligible students' accounts, per their registration status referenced above, once per Academic Year.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 11, 2012 07:36 AM
30. All she has to do is buy her own insurance and provide Georgetown with proof of that insurance.

Posted by: Smokie on March 11, 2012 07:59 AM
31. .
@30 No, neither Ms. Fluke nor any other female student attending GU needs to do that or jump through waiver hoops to obtain health insurance coverage for preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services anymore.

The rules have changed effective August 1, 2012.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 11, 2012 09:36 AM
32. No, neither Ms. Fluke nor any other female student attending GU needs to do that or jump through waiver hoops to obtain health insurance coverage for preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services anymore.

No just the Catholic Church has to violate its most basic tenet.

The subjects of contraception, abortion, and sterilization are not ornamental aspects of the Catholic faith; they flow from the Church's central teachings about the dignity of the human person.

They are the teachings from which ALL ELSE flows in the Catholic Church.

But of course you knew that. This isn't about paying for a liars robust and expensive sex life. This is about taking down the Catholic Church for you all know that the ONLY thing that has stood between socialism, communism and TYRANNY through the centuries has been the Church. Read your flippin' history. It's been tried before. The Church has withstood them all and still blessed the graves of those who tried.

I just posted this on the other thread in response to Bruce but oh it so aptly applies to BS"

Have you liberals no common sense?

If the common 'good' is evil to just one, it is no longer GOOD.

Ends justify the means? Harm one for the many? Is that your rationalization?

You're hungry so no problem killing the baker for his bread?

What the hell is wrong with you selfish, myopic people?

How far are you willing to go to further your agenda, to get what YOU want? After bashing the head of the baker will it next be the child whose ice cream you crave? Will it be your grandmother for her bed?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 11, 2012 11:19 AM
33.
The Catholic Church, in upholding and defending Apostolic Tradition and the teachings that have been passed down to us since the first century IS serving her people.

If the Church ever abandoned Apostolic Tradition then She would no longer be the Catholic Church. She would just be another man-made creation that in time would dissolve into obscurity. There is a reason why She has stood for two thousand years and it is precisely because She is not an institution created by man but by Christ, and that is why the Church cannot abandon her doctrines and Traditions. She can't. It's that simple. And this is what most of those that oppose the Church's stance on abortion and contraception cannot or do not want to understand. They clamor for the Church to change, but they do not realize that if Church did change the teaching of the Truth of abortion and contraception, She would be denying Christ Himself, the founder and head of the Catholic Church.

From the earliest Church documents of the first century, abortion and contraception were always considered and taught to be mortal sins. This is not something the Church invented when Pope Paul VI gave the world Humane Vitae. He upheld and defended two thousand years of Truth. He simply could not do otherwise. It wasn't in his power to do so. Even if he had wanted to allow this evil within the Church's teachings, he could not have done it and the Holy Spirit would not have allowed it. The Holy Spirit, the protector and guide of the Church, would have not allowed any doctrinal error to enter the Church despite all the bad popes and anti-popes that occupied the Chair of Peter.

And THIS, If the Church ever abandoned Apostolic Tradition then She would no longer be the Catholic Church. She would just be another man-made creation that in time would dissolve into obscurity. is EXACTLY what liberals and tyrants want: to battle man, not God. To destroy moral authority and replace it with theirs. We aren't fighting liberal, we are fighting the sons of Satan himself.

Yes, I said it. I went there. With no regrets. Someone, even a 5 foot woman, has to have the balls to call evil what it is. And I do.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 11, 2012 11:36 AM
34. Good post Warren. Yep, this has been a great strategy for Obama. A huge distraction. Rush used the right word, wrong connotation. Fluke is definitely a prostitute. She sold herself to advance a fake Democrat narrative at a critical time. Perverse, yet a great strategy for her own success. Even in a terrible job market for lawyers with some law students trying to convince law schools to refund their tuition, Sandra Fluke will have a cushy job with a Democrat law firm or a position in a Democrat office after she graduates.

It's easy to become a star if you whore yourself for the party that puts appearances over principles.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 11, 2012 12:19 PM
35. ...prostitute...whore...

I see those Jedi mind tricks Warren spotted the Democrats using are still working on you Jeff, making you say those stupid things you really don't want to.

Please, keep it up. Warren was right. This is a losing issue for Repubs. I want to thank you, Stefan, and all the others for keeping it alive.

Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2012 01:34 PM
36. This is a losing issue for Repubs.

Not if it's framed as what it is: A war against freedom, a war against Christianity, a war against morality, a war against the Catholic Church.

This is a losing issue for Repubs.

Not when the truth is told that this a purposeful distraction by Obama and his sycophants to distract the electorate as to the complete failure he has been economically, on the foreign stage and as a leader.

This is a losing issue for Repubs.

Not in light of the great awakening of the Church, her bishops and her 77.7 million self-identified members in the US and the 1.18 Billion worldwide. (Yep, just today the Catholic Bishops in England sent out letters read at EVERY Catholic Mass regarding England's position on homosexuality and its threat to the Church.)

I wonder, have you wondered where Joe Biden is lately? Since the news came out he told Obama this was a losing issue against the Church? Is he struggling between the desire for power and his faith? Or has King Herod Obama conveniently removed him from the public ... and Catholic ... eye?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 11, 2012 02:11 PM
37. While I'm out buying (yet) more popcorn -- and thank you, Warren, for doing a far better job for your Party than Winston Smith ever did for his-- could someone please explain to me how a commenter can use the nym "RagnarDanneskold" whilst spouting pro-Catholic propaganda? Please, whomever you are, since you can fill the comment threads here with your angry citations, can you quote to us ANYTHING Ayn Rand ever wrote about organized religion, and about Christianity in particular? Because Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, &c. pale into insignificance when compared to Rand's militant atheism. (You might want to quote Rand's statements on contraception and abortion, while you're at it.)

Posted by: tensor on March 11, 2012 04:16 PM
38. tensor: what's sad is that you think you're making an intelligent point. I am not saying you're wrong about Rand, but it obviously bears no relevance to the discussion, despite your apparent belief otherwise. Ragnar Danneskjold was not a notable because of his atheism, but because of his views against government control and corruption, which is the side our own RagnarDanneskold is on in this debate.

Posted by: pudge on March 11, 2012 05:09 PM
39. It's not about making a point, intelligent or otherwise, Pudge. It's about deflection and attack.

I guess if I called myself 'Bob the Builder', he would expect complete and utter fealty to unionism.


Maybe I just need to start calling myself AntiTensor or NoMikeyBS... think that would be true and clear enough?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 11, 2012 05:50 PM
40. It's not about making a point, intelligent or otherwise, Pudge. It's about deflection and attack.

I clearly asked for an explanation; nowhere did I claim I was making any point, other than to note the entertaining absurdity of using a name from a radical atheist's novel to promote authoritarian religion. It's like calling oneself "Spartacus" or "John Brown" to argue that slavery really isn't all that bad.

As for the horrible, horrible trap the Democrats sprung on poor. helpless Mr. Limbaugh, forcing him, against his will, to spend day after day after day calling Ms. Fluke a slut from the pampered, protected confines of his broadcast booth -- like I said, my popcorn supply has been terribly diminished by this, and by this site's help in keeping this matter alive, so I must buy more before I can continue.

Posted by: tensor on March 11, 2012 06:09 PM
41. See the article from the New York Times:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/centrist-women-t
ell-of-disenchantment-with-gop.xml


It is a no win issue for Republicans but they shot themselves in the foot with the dust up over the Georgetown U. law student. The writers for the Times did hedge their bets by noting the women's comments in the article are antidotal. The New York Times would love to keep any topic harmful to Republicans on the front burner. Look forward to a nasty campaign.

Posted by: Warren Peterson on March 11, 2012 06:14 PM
42. I can see the Dems being overconfident and too cocky about this issue. Since a candidate for a political office did not make the comment that launched a thousand straw men, they could still reframe this debate. If the GOP emphasizes that they favor women and taking the Government out of women's lives, they can turn this debate around. It will take persistence by those in Congress to right this wrong. They also need to get perception of Rush Limbaugh being their leader off their back.

Posted by: KDS on March 11, 2012 07:46 PM
43. Really tensor, GET OVER IT. I like the name, I liked the story, I like old time pirates AND I like the Pittsburgh Pirates ... although not as much as the Cleveland Indians.

Holy horses, it's BLOG NAME. One I use only here. There are several others I use on other blogs depending on the audience.

I have to say I truly enjoy that it annoys you so much that you keep coming back your silly accusations/goofy theory every few months. Clearly I chose the RIGHT name for this audience. Thanks for validating that.[/snicker]

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold the ANTI-tensor on March 11, 2012 07:55 PM
44. Warren continues to give the Democrats too much credit. They didn't set a trap, they reacted to the Republicans' predictable blindness, on at least three points:

1. The GOP does not believe workers have rights. Georgetown University is Ms. Fluke's employer, and one condition of her employment required her to purchase health insurance through their plan. Her employer then told her to buy even more health insurance, to get the medical coverage she wanted. Most of us see this as extremely unfair, but to the GOP, it was just another opportunity to show how employers are, in the Party's view, unquestionable gods.

2. The GOP does not believe women have rights. We see this as a women's health issue, but the GOP was too fixated on the fictional "right" of a religious organization to impose selected values on the employees of a non-religious business that it owned. (Despite Warren's attempt to read generosity in Rep. Issa's offer of actually including a woman amongst the witnesses, the rest of us saw a bunch of powerful men abusing their privilege -- a privilege we voters can revoke in the next election.)

3. The GOP loves itself some bullying and threats. Stacking the witness list, attacking Ms. Fluke as a slut, whining about how their bullying now gets them tarred as bullies -- they showed a love of ham-fisted, abusive tactics which Americans abhor. (That they had no other plan when their intended victims successfully fought back made their come-uppance that much more delicious -- the bully whining from his seat in the mud puddle, complaining that the four-eyed kid was supposed to be face down in it, instead.)

Finally, I hadn't hoped to have this much fun with a literary reference, but this site never ceases to provide unexpected entertainment value:

I guess if I called myself 'Bob the Builder', he would expect complete and utter fealty to unionism.

No, if you called yourself, "Bob the President of Construction Workers' Local 807," we would expect you to respect the rights of workers, like Ms. Fluke. As it is, you have appropriated something you did not create, something which was the creative work of a philosopher who clearly believed the exact polar opposite of what you are using her stolen creation to advocate. That you have no moral problem with this tells us more about your morality than anything else you have ever published here.

Posted by: tensor on March 11, 2012 08:11 PM
45. Keep digging tensor - to the rest of us it proves how annoyed you are and that you are completely devoid of convincible argument.

I wonder what we could infer and conclude from your ANONYMOUS NICKNAME.

I know what I conclude.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold the ANTI-tensor on March 11, 2012 08:19 PM
46. As it is, you have appropriated something you did not create

Because of course no one ever called a small thinking idea "Mickey Mouse".

Because of course no one ever called a fool "Goofy".

Because of course no one ever accused someone with a quick grasp of the obvious "Dick Tracy"

Because of course no one ever described a mustached hunk in a bright flowed shirt Magnum PI.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold the ANTI-tensor on March 11, 2012 08:26 PM
47. @44 - Ms. Fluke is acting like a prostitute figuring the Fed Government can be her pimp. She brought it on herself and her antics were totally orchestrated by this president - more dishonesty and fascism coming from the top. Over half of the country disagrees with your false arguments. You must have been reading Media Matters to write your three points that are unadulterated dog squeeze.

Keep bringing up this phony issue if you want, anything to avoid talking about the economy in the toilet and the President's unconstitutional tendencies. Rep. Jones of North Carolina has articles of impeachment outlined against Pres. Zero, for providing military assistance to Libya without consent of Congress. Dennis Kucinich called for this last summer and now it appears like this will get some legs. Keep defending the indefensible, tensor, mike bs, dork, demo -fascist kid and other trolls.

Posted by: KDS on March 11, 2012 08:30 PM
48. As it is, you have appropriated something you did not create

Kinda sorta like that "material Girl" who performed (poorly) at the Super Bowl appropriated the name she prefers to be called. You know, the one that's an Italian title of the Virgin Mary applied to countless Renaissance paintings of a beautiful young woman (with or without an infant), representing the mother of Christ.

Let's hear some inappropriate "appropriation" outrage, tensor!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold the ANTI-tensor on March 11, 2012 08:40 PM
49. You know, the one that's an Italian title of the Virgin Mary applied to countless Renaissance paintings of a beautiful young woman (with or without an infant), representing the mother of Christ.

It's her legal name. Her parents had her Christened as "Madonna Louise" Ciccone. If their Church had a problem with that name, it could have refused at that time.

"Goofy" was conceived as a lovable screwball, so using the name to describe something silly is very appropriate. Using a character invented by an anti-religious author to promote religion is an inappropriate misuse of her creative work.

And, if you want to define yourself as the opposite of me, I am very flattered. (Please note that I do not use any upper-case letters in my nym, as it is not a proper name. My friend used that mathematical term as my nickname when we were in engineering school.)

Posted by: tensor on March 11, 2012 09:12 PM
50. tensor: other than to note the entertaining absurdity of using a name from a radical atheist's novel to promote authoritarian religion

I haven't read all of Ragnar's posts, but it seems to me the promotion is of liberty, whereas YOU are promoting authoritarianism.

Posted by: pudge on March 11, 2012 09:25 PM
51. @41 Warren Peterson on March 11, 2012 06:14 PM,

We did not need to look to far forward for nastiness on your post sir.

Look at what crawled out @47.

But, I suppose defaming a person on your post as a "prostitute" is the fault of the NYT and the liberals.

By the way, noticed you can't back up the claim in your post "the law student expounded on the need for someone else to pay for women's contraception needs".

I suppose the NYT made you do that.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 11, 2012 09:27 PM
52. I haven't read all of Ragnar's posts, but it seems to me the promotion is of liberty, whereas YOU are promoting authoritarianism.

Ayn Rand, who created the fictional character 'Ragnar Danneskold', was a militant atheist, who clearly and unambiguously advocated against organized religion, for an individual's right to use contraception, and for a woman's right to choose abortion. Appropriating her artistic creation for the exact opposite purposes is clearly an act of intellectual theft.

As far as my own words, I'm criticizing the abuse of power by elected officials of my government. If you want to read such criticism as 'promoting authoritarianism,' then I can recommend some English as A Second Language courses for you.

Posted by: tensor on March 11, 2012 09:38 PM
53. tensor: The GOP does not believe workers have rights.

You're a liar. We believe every human has rights (including those in the womb). You do not.


Georgetown University is Ms. Fluke's employer, and one condition of her employment required her to purchase health insurance through their plan.

Because you are a liar, I don't believe you. I've not seen this claim before. Indeed, I have never even heard of any employer anywhere in this country requiring any employee to purchase health insurance through the employer. I think you are lying about this, as you lie about most other things.


Her employer then told her to buy even more health insurance, to get the medical coverage she wanted.

Again, I don't believe you. Maybe they told her that should COULD purchase such coverage, but it is highly unlikely they TOLD her to do it.


The GOP does not believe women have rights.

You're a liar. We believe every human has rights (including those who sign the front of paychecks). You do not.


We see this as a women's health issue

You're a liar. It clearly, factually, is not a women's health issue. It's only about whether the government can force someone to violate their religious views in the service of "women's health" when that "health" may be served in other ways (such as the government just outright paying for it). This cannot possibly be a women's health issue because every single woman in this country who wants contraception can get it.


the GOP was too fixated on the fictional "right" of a religious organization ...

You're a liar. There's nothing fictional about it. I guarantee that if this goes to the Supreme Court, it will unanimously recognize that the Catholic universities and hospitals have a legitimate claim to religious liberty in such matters. (That doesn't mean they will rule one way or the other, because just because you have religious liberty doesn't mean government cannot override it; but you're simply lying that there's no religious rights at play here: every single legal scholar will tell you that you're wrong.)


... to impose selected values on the employees of a non-religious business that it owned.

You're a liar. No values are being imposed on anyone (except the government imposing its values on the Catholic univerisities and hospitals). This is simply a matter of fact. No such imposition exists, or is being asserted, in any way.


Despite Warren's attempt to read generosity in Rep. Issa's offer of actually including a woman amongst the witnesses, the rest of us saw a bunch of powerful men abusing their privilege -- a privilege we voters can revoke in the next election.

You're a liar. No one can "see" that except through ignorance. The Democrats had ample opportunity to include someone (whether male or female) to speak to the religious liberty issues -- which was the focus of this hearing -- and failed to do so. And, by the way, an informed and intelligent and enlightened voter doesn't give a damn if the people are male or female, by the way.


The GOP loves itself some bullying and threats.

You're a liar.


Stacking the witness list

You're a liar. That never happened.


attacking Ms. Fluke as a slut

You're a liar. The GOP never did that.


I love that you think voters are going to turn to the Democrats -- the home of the unions, of the people who bullied Limbaugh's advertisers, of MSNBC -- because they dislike "bullying." That's hilarious. (Of course, you don't really think that ... you're just lying some more.)

Posted by: pudge on March 11, 2012 09:42 PM
54. @51 - Cut the phony outrage. If anything, Warren was going too easy on the hypocrisy of leftists. The NYTimes writers are largely a bunch of prostitutes similar to Ms. Fluke.

"By the way, noticed you can't back up the claim in your post "the law student expounded on the need for someone else to pay for women's contraception needs"."

False, It's obviously true and it's on you to prove otherwise, which is impossible. Keep jousting at windmills.

Talk about nasitiness, from your previous comments you are the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: KDS on March 11, 2012 09:46 PM
55. I've not seen this claim before. Indeed, I have never even heard of any employer anywhere in this country requiring any employee to purchase health insurance through the employer.

Then you need to read MikeBoyScout's comment @29, above. (Perhaps I should recommend to you English as a Third Language?)

I've not seen this claim before. Indeed, I have never even heard of any employer anywhere in this country requiring any employee to purchase health insurance through the employer. I think you are lying about this, as you lie about most other things.

Please read the comment at #29, above. (English as a Fourth Language?)

I guarantee that if this goes to the Supreme Court, it will unanimously recognize that the Catholic universities and hospitals have a legitimate claim to religious liberty in such matters.

Thank you for implicitly admitting there is currently nothing in American jurisprudence which supports your claim. (Are you claiming that the current Catholic majority on our Supreme court will overturn centuries of our jurisprudence? Do you love religiously-based judicial activism that much?)


Posted by: tensor on March 11, 2012 09:58 PM
56. tensor: OK. I just read it. You're lying. Thanks for proving it! I don't believe you actually missed the very plainly stated "unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements."

She absolutely is not required to buy GU's coverage, by MikeBS' own quote. She is only required to have certain minimum coverages, from any insurance source she chooses.


Thank you for implicitly admitting there is currently nothing in American jurisprudence which supports your claim.

You're lying. I implied no such thing whatsoever.


Are you claiming that ... our Supreme court will overturn centuries of our jurisprudence?

No, because there is no jurisprudence whatsoever that supports YOUR claim. ALL of it supports MY claim.

Posted by: pudge on March 12, 2012 06:08 AM
57. A few points.
1) From a logical, fiscally conservative perspective, mandating contraceptive coverage just makes sense. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, which leads to lower rates of abortion, and lower cost to society for children that cannot be supported. And, technically, even for those religions that believe that life begins at conception, if there is no conception there is no life.
2) The right wingers seem to have a fundamental misconception of how the pill works. One takes it, as a regular prescription med. It has nothing to do with how much, or how little sex one might be having. Calling someone a "slut" and trying to correspond prescription cost with one's sex life is moronic and ignorant.
3) Unlike Viagra (smell the hypocracy here?) the pill actually is used to treat a wide variety of medical issues in women, beyond contraception.
4) I thought you guys were against abortion, and welfare babies. Hello????? What do you think the pill prevents?
5) From a pure fiscal arguement. The pill script ranges from $30-$60/month. A standard pregnancy costs between $3k-$15k for a standard prenatal care regimin, and uncomplicated hospital delivery.

Posted by: Proteus on March 12, 2012 08:05 AM
58. Another attempt to obfuscate. Keep bringing on the strawmen - yawn.

Posted by: KDS on March 12, 2012 09:23 AM
59. Proteus: From a logical, fiscally conservative perspective, mandating contraceptive coverage just makes sense.

False.


It prevents unwanted pregnancies, which leads to lower rates of abortion, and lower cost to society for children that cannot be supported.

That only makes the case that contraceptive coverage makes sense, not that MANDATING it makes sense.


technically, even for those religions that believe that life begins at conception, if there is no conception there is no life.

Technically, you clearly don't understand the Catholic prohibition of contraception.


The right wingers seem to have a fundamental misconception of how the pill works.

False.


One takes it, as a regular prescription med. It has nothing to do with how much, or how little sex one might be having.

No one disagreed with this.


Calling someone a "slut" and trying to correspond prescription cost with one's sex life is moronic and ignorant.

You seem to have a fundamental misconception of who is calling names. Most right-wingers are not calling anyone "slut," and asserting otherwise is moronic and ignorant.


Unlike Viagra (smell the hypocracy here?)

Not at all, because I also oppose any government mandates for insurance to cover Viagra, or any other treatment.


... the pill actually is used to treat a wide variety of medical issues in women, beyond contraception.

So? There's no Catholic prohibition of The Pill, it's a prohibition of contraception. You're not making an argument.


I thought you guys were against abortion, and welfare babies.

Yes. And?


Hello????? What do you think the pill prevents?

Again, you are making a case for contraception, not for mandates.


From a pure fiscal arguement. The pill script ranges from $30-$60/month.

False. It can be had across the country for as little as $9 a month.


A standard pregnancy costs between $3k-$15k for a standard prenatal care regimin, and uncomplicated hospital delivery.

Again, you are making a case for contraception, not for mandates.

Posted by: pudge on March 12, 2012 09:27 AM
60. So..lets address some of your points Pudge.
1) The reason coverage is mandated is because otherwise, non-religious employees working for religiously backed institutions are having their healthcare coverage dictated by that religion, instead of by their doctors.
2) Its patently obvious that #2 is true. Rush, O'Reilley and many others have made this connection publicly, implying that one's "sex life" or promiscuity has ANYTHING to do with the cost of the pill.
5) You're showing your ignorance here. There are a wide variety of different birth control pills, in different formulations and prescription strengths. Different women have different requirements which is why a prescription is mandatory, and the pill is not sold over the counter. The $9 figure was meaningless nonsense..the lowest cost someone could find for one particular product at Walmart. The $30-$60 is the correct range for most women.
The arguement is about access to contraception, is it not? Access that requires a mandate, in a case where institutions are attempting to allow their morale judgements to supercede proper medical coverage.

Posted by: Proteus on March 12, 2012 09:48 AM
61. Proteus: The reason coverage is mandated is because otherwise, non-religious employees working for religiously backed institutions are having their healthcare coverage dictated by that religion, instead of by their doctors.

You're a liar. Your doctors DO NOT dictate your healthcare coverage, only your treatment. How you pay for it is not their business.

Further, even if they did, this doesn't back up your point at all, because you're still only making the case that contraception coverage is good, not that it should be mandated. Yes, if it is not mandated, some people won't have it; but simply saying it is good, and that without a mandate some people won't have it, is not an argument ... especially when anyone can afford contraception for cheap or free ... especially if that person already has insurance.

So a woman who works for a Catholic hospital, for example, can get a checkup and prescription all covered. Then she just needs to spend $9 a month at her local Target or Wal-Mart for the pill, which is cheaper than the copay for some insurance plans! So what the hell is the problem here?


Its patently obvious that #2 is true.

You're a liar. You said "The right wingers" (which is false), and not "a select few right wingers" (which is arguable).


Rush, O'Reilley and many others have made this connection publicly, implying that one's "sex life" or promiscuity has ANYTHING to do with the cost of the pill.

I never heard that. I did hear them talk about the cost of CONTRACEPTION, but not the pill specifically. If you're spending $1000 a year on contraception, chances are it's not merely from the cost of the pill. So, again, you're a liar.


You're showing your ignorance here. There are a wide variety of different birth control pills, in different formulations and prescription strengths. Different women have different requirements which is why a prescription is mandatory, and the pill is not sold over the counter. The $9 figure was meaningless nonsense..the lowest cost someone could find for one particular product at Walmart. The $30-$60 is the correct range for most women.

You're a liar. You said $30-$60. I pointed out the fact that it can be had for $9, for most people. You said that somehow this shows ignorance, despite the fact that it is absoutely true. Most women get the same common pill, and that pill can be had in every state, within easy driving distance, for $9 (with a prescription ... I never implied anything about being OTC).


The arguement is about access to contraception, is it not?

Yes, and EVERY WOMAN HAS THAT ACCESS.


Access that requires a mandate

You're a liar. I defy you to find me ONE WOMAN in this country who does not have access to contraception without a mandate. She does not exist.

Posted by: pudge on March 12, 2012 10:12 AM
62. Pudge. Are you a woman? No? Then you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
The pill CANNOT be had, for "most people" for $9. There are MANY different prescriptions, only ONE of them costs "$9". My wife's script happens to cost $38/mo..and yes, we have good insurance. So, like so many other right wingers, your "facts" are wrong. For someone who is poor, or on a limited budget, $30-$60 is a lot. And no, condoms are a totally different thing. Birth control is not the same.
For someone who plays so fast and loose with the facts, you sure like to call people "liars" a lot. Perhaps you should look in a mirror, like all the other hypocritical wingnuts.

Posted by: Proteus on March 12, 2012 10:36 AM
63. "You're a liar. I defy you to find me ONE WOMAN in this country who does not have access to contraception without a mandate. She does not exist."

More BS. Plenty of women can't afford birth control. Remember, as a prescription drug, the cost can vary widely (from $9 all the way to $90 according to the latest press quotes). Remember it also REQUIRES at minimum an annual doctors visit. While there are organizations, like your reviled Planned Parenthood that help women who can't otherwise afford it, they aren't available everywhere, and their funding is under attack (thanks to the right-wing wackos who believe in "liberty" execept where it deals with the bedroom, or women's bodies).

Posted by: Proteus on March 12, 2012 10:45 AM
64. Real unemployment is close to 20%.

Democrats failed to "change the subject."

Posted by: Andy on March 12, 2012 11:06 AM
65. Planned Parenthood...their funding is under attack,

As well it should be. We are 15 Trillion in the dumper, Proteus. Ignorant liberals like yourself tend to not care about this fact, but I do. End all government funding of planned parenthood.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 12, 2012 11:11 AM
66. And now back to our regularly schedule programming of Democrat induced financial malaise.

Nice try Leftists with the Fluke Fake, but polls show most are still very perturbed by the President's NIMBY energy policies and spend, spend, spend solutions to domestic economic issues.

And new reports everyday from failed Wind and Solar initiatives, the high price and lack of sales of electric cars, etc. Everything Obama touches re: energy, fizzles out. Physics doesn't allow for poseurs.

WaPo / ABC Poll

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 12, 2012 11:34 AM
67. Unemployment is 8.3%. Those are the same numbers every other economy is judged by, the rest is just grasping at straws by a GOP that is seeing their worst fears, a full economic recovery, realized. The markets are up over 60% since Obama took office, making all their blathering about "Obama being tough on business", "uncertainty plaguing the economy" and other drivel shown for the BS that it is. Hard to call a President "socialist" when he presides over one of the largest recoveries in net corporate profits in recent history. So, they're trying to make a big deal out of the debt now..a debt they mostly caused with the Bush tax cuts, and unfunded wars. A debt that stood at $10.6 trillion, with a $1.45 trillion deficit the day Obama took office (sorry..facts are easy to research). But..this thread isn't about that.

Posted by: Proteus on March 12, 2012 11:35 AM
68. e 52: I happily refer you back to #43. You might want someone to read it to you S L O W L Y, and then explain it to you as you clearly are incapablee (and no doubt unwilling) grasp it.

***

Pudge, let them blather on about 'women's rights'. It perpetuates the first amendment insult/assault and allows for absurdity in the extreme and essentially demeans the women the purport to stand for - when those same women aren't demeaning themselves.

The one little thing liberals never manage to remember is COMMON SENSE and the millions of Americans that practice it and expect it. Further those millions of voting Americans care more about the high cost of gas, finding a non-existent job, and feeding their family with ever rising food prices. When they are hungry they have little empathy - or use - for a whining entitlement queen.

****

What's the Real Unemployment Number?

To understand this, let's consider a labor force of 100 people, of which 20 are unemployed. The unemployment rate is 20%. But if 10 unemployed people drop out of the labor force, that reduces the total labor force to 90, and the number of unemployed to 10. As if by magic, the unemployment rate is now only 11%, even though the number of people with jobs remains unchanged.

This is the "magic" behind last week's astonishing decline in the unemployment rate

Inconvenient to the narrative, eh?

U.S. Unemployment Up in February
Underemployment is 19.1%, up from 18.7% in January

Inconvenient to your narrative, eh?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 12, 2012 12:28 PM
69. More BS. Plenty of women can't afford birth control.

A lie. Prove it. You are a woman ?

Remember, as a prescription drug, the cost can vary widely (from $9 all the way to $90 according to the latest press quotes). Remember it also REQUIRES at minimum an annual doctors visit. While there are organizations, like your reviled Planned Parenthood that help women who can't otherwise afford it, they aren't available everywhere, and their funding is under attack (thanks to the right-wing wackos who believe in "liberty" execept where it deals with the bedroom, or women's bodies).

Posted by Proteus at March 12, 2012 10:45 AM

You have not one shred of proof the back up what you say. Your comment might suck in someone with an IQ below 80, but everyone else sees through it. The real issue is honoring the US Constitution, which clearly you don't care about. Go visit Russia and try and sell your tripe to them - you distort the facts on debt and contraception and are a bad liar.

Posted by: KDS on March 12, 2012 01:18 PM
70. Not to mention This Graph from the USBLS that shows unemployment for the past 64 years.

Recent terrible rates coincide with Obama's inauguration. Four years on, Moonbats still think that it is all Bush's fault.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 12, 2012 01:51 PM
71. Shout it from the rooftops: A PURPOSEFUL ASSAULT ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH VIA THE ASSAULT ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Why does Obama hate Catholics? Why do 'Catholics' Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, Murray, Cantwell, Sebelious hate hate their faith?

Amish, Ok. Catholics, No.

The Amish are exempt from the entire health care reform law. So are members of Medi-Share, a program of Christian Care Ministry. Yet, when the Catholic Church asks for a religious exemption from just one regulation issued under the law - the mandate that all employers, including religious institutions, must pay for sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs - the Administration balks.

The government respects the First Amendment that guarantees the right to freely exercise one's religious beliefs, but only to a point. In the health care law it picks and chooses which beliefs it respects. The Amish do not believe in insurance, and the government understands. Christian Care Ministry believes people should form a religious community and pay medical bills for one another, and the government says okay. Yet when the Catholic Church opposes being forced to pay for services that violate its beliefs, the Administration says "tough."

... Many Catholic hospitals were founded by religious orders of women, and today one out of six persons seeking hospital care in the United States goes to a Catholic hospital. Until now, religious background of the patient has not been an issue. "Where does it hurt?" is the first question, not "Where is your baptismal certificate?" This approach threatens to deny hospitals any real protection as "religious employers" under the new rule. Yet their Catholicity means many of these hospitals have an added benefit. At Providence Hospital in Washington, DC, for example, patients not only get medical care, they can get clothing too if they need it. It comes through the Ladies of Charity, an auxiliary of the Daughters of Charity who founded the hospital in 1861.

Catholic social service agencies, including adoption and foster care agencies, parish food banks, and soup kitchens, meet human concerns. Services depend on need, not creed. Church sponsorship means the services have a little extra, be they volunteers from parishes, financial donations through diocesan appeals, or the dedication that comes from working for God as well as paycheck.

A Catholic might take personally the Administration's dissing their beliefs. Lucky the Amish, who have their basic constitutional rights respected. If only we objected to health insurance generally, we might be able to enjoy the same protection. Seems odd that the Administration is more inflexible on contraception than on services that actually treat disease. Posted by Sr. Mary Ann Walsh at 10:45 AM

*Emphasis mine.

Seems odd that the Administration is more inflexible on contraception than on services that actually treat disease

Not when you consider a Chicago thug turned tyrant is 'the Administration'.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 12, 2012 02:06 PM
72. War on women, indeed.

Me @ 68: essentially demeans the women the purport to stand for - when those same women aren't demeaning themselves.


New Liberal Campaign Potrays Women as Good For One Thing: Sex

... In all seriousness, this advertising campaign is degrading to women, not empowering. The picture above implies women are good for one thing, and you all know exactly what I'm talking about. It also implies that the only reason men grace women with their presense is simply so they can use them for sexual purposes, which is just not true.

Parting thought: Access denied? Is access open whenever, wherever to anyone so long as these women have free contraception? Shouldn't access denied be the standard? Rather than implying women are "open for business" all the time, so long as others are paying for their contraception?

How sad to what the "women's equality" movement has devolved. How sad they don't even see the irony of their devolution.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 12, 2012 02:25 PM
73. MORE
... And to think, it's an unimpeachable article of faith on the Left that conservatives are reactionary. A few points:

(2) Do these ladies realize that by suggesting this sex moratorium will require men to "go back to the days when they waited for or paid for sex," they're tacitly endorsing prostitution? Weren't a lot of people ticked off at Rush's inappropriate "joke" about Sandra Fluke being...a prostitute? I'm also unclear on whether certain pockets of women actually want to be called sluts.

(3) Is the idea that men -- conservative or otherwise -- will abandon their views on anything, let alone a core Constitutional principle, after one week of no sex? Glad to know these ladies hold us in such high esteem. ...


Holy horses, you can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 12, 2012 02:32 PM
74. @70 Jeff B. at March 12, 2012 01:51 PM

Not to mention that the unemployment rate started going up right after the Democrats took over power in the House and Senate in January of 2007. When the Republicans won the House back in 2010, the unemployment rate started back down.

Correlation? Causation? Don't know, but it makes a good story.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 12, 2012 02:52 PM
75. Great piece by Medved which just nails the psychoanalysis of people like:

MikeBS, Proteus, Demo Kid, Dorky Dorkman, David Goldstein, etc. Oh wait, several of the above are the same person posting under different names, but anyway, you get the idea. Read it all the way through to the end.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 12, 2012 03:35 PM
76. @69 KDS on March 12, 2012 01:18 PM,

Proteus is correct about women who pay for their health insurance being denied access to reproductive health care coverage. It is in Ms. Fluke's testimony.

And a point that you all seem to be missing is that to get a prescription one needs to see a doctor, and that is expressly excluded from the Georgetown University plan.

READ or watch the testimony. You just may learn something. You certainly are not going to learn it from Limbaugh or Warren here.

PS. If you are a woman paying for Health Insurance at GU you are prohibited from being covered for reproductive health care, but your baby's circumcision is fully covered.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 12, 2012 03:56 PM
77. Proteus: Are you a woman?

No.


Then you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

False (as you yourself claim).


The pill CANNOT be had, for "most people" for $9.

False.


There are MANY different prescriptions, only ONE of them costs "$9".

So? MOST women use the same prescription, and that one is available for $9.


My wife's script happens to cost $38/mo..and yes, we have good insurance.

This does not disprove what I wrote. Your wife's prescription is not the most common one, and it costs more. That's not an argument against me in any way.

Further, I will now take a moment to laugh at the notion that you asserted I have to be a woman to know what I am talking about, and then you -- not a woman -- go ahead and assert that you know what you are talking about.


For someone who is poor, or on a limited budget, $30-$60 is a lot.

Show me someonw who can't get the contraception they need. No one has ever done this.


And no, condoms are a totally different thing. Birth control is not the same.

False. "Birth control" includes condoms. Condoms are the most popular form of birth control.


For someone who plays so fast and loose with the facts ...

Shrug. I was entirely accurate.


... you sure like to call people "liars" a lot.

I take no pleasure in you lying, or me calling you out on it.

Posted by: pudge on March 12, 2012 04:26 PM
78. MikeBS: Proteus is correct about women who pay for their health insurance being denied access to reproductive health care coverage.

You're a liar, as usual. No one is denied such coverage. They simply choose to purchase insurance that does not include it.


And a point that you all seem to be missing is that to get a prescription one needs to see a doctor, and that is expressly excluded from the Georgetown University plan.

You're a liar. It isn't.


If you are a woman paying for Health Insurance at GU you are prohibited from being covered for reproductive health care

You're a liar. You can buy supplemental coverage. This is not prohibited at all. You're simply lying. And, again, you can buy different coverage instead of the coverage offered through the university.

Posted by: pudge on March 12, 2012 04:30 PM
79. Mike BS - why do you believe someone as devoid of facts as Sandra Fluke ? From the hearing, Pelosi is fascistic and a lowlife liar so why would you expect Fluke to have her facts correct ? As stated above, your assumption is wrong.

The Democrats have the real war on women going, with government handouts and intrusion in their lives. They can only buy votes this way, as their policies are morally and economically bankrupt.

Posted by: KDS on March 12, 2012 08:06 PM
80. Insurance is expensive. So let's mandate that insurance cover additional things. Do you think that the cost of the insurance is going to stay the same? No, it will go up. And then people will complain that the cost of insurance went up.

Funny how that works out. Insurance companies are not the Federal government. They don't get to print more money. Also, insurance company profit margins are strictly regulated. If they make too little they are considered under capitalized. Make too much and they are penalized. Those green things you see on trees are leaves, not dollar bills.

Posted by: Matt on March 12, 2012 09:54 PM
81. Proteus: Plenty of women can't afford birth control.

Shrug. I've asked many times for ONE woman who cannot get birth control. No such woman has been provided, and considering that condoms can be had for free in many places, and the pill and condoms are cheap everywhere, I don't believe she exists.


Remember, as a prescription drug, the cost can vary widely (from $9 all the way to $90 according to the latest press quotes).

Right. For most women, it can be had for $9 a month. For some, it costs more. And all women can get condoms for free and cheap.


Remember it also REQUIRES at minimum an annual doctors visit.

... which is covered by almost all insurance plans, including the reviled Georgetown University plan.


their funding is under attack

Federal funding for them -- because they don't seriously separate funds for abortion and everything else -- is illegal, so, yeah.


thanks to the right-wing wackos who believe in "liberty" execept where it deals with the bedroom, or women's bodies

You're a liar. This is all about the left trying to get the government into the bedroom and into women's bodies. Literally. It's me and others on the right who are saying that this is none of the government's business. You're the one saying it's the government's business.

I wonder if you even realize how completely hypocritical you are.

Posted by: pudge on March 12, 2012 09:58 PM
82. Proteus: Unemployment is 8.3%.

Andy is a little bit right. The higher number is a very important number, but it is not "real unemployment" as he claims, because it includes people who are employed. And it's not 20 percent, either: I don't know where he got that, but U6 (the highest number) has been around 15-16 percent for awhile, and is 14.9% now.

That said ...


Those are the same numbers every other economy is judged by

More right than Andy, but still off. The U3 number is intended to be compared to other countries, but the surveys are done very differently from nation to nation. They are really only seriously comparable in terms of deltas (the U.S. unemployment increased 15%, Germany's declined by 5%, etc.).


the rest is just grasping at straws by a GOP that is seeing their worst fears, a full economic recovery, realized

Yawn. When Bush saw significantly increased employment in his fourth year in office (after inherting a recession from the Clinton years), the Democrats played the same U3/U6 game.

And no, our worst fears are not a full economic recovery. We just know that such a thing is literally impossible while Obama and the Democrats are massively bloating the size of government. As I've mentioned many times, since the Obama and the Democrats took control, spending has increased faster than at any time since WWII.

The Democrats were screaming bloody murder when the early 2000s recession gave us a $400+ billion deficit ... but for some reason a nearly $2 trillion deficit is -- according to many Democrats -- not big enough.


The markets are up over 60% since Obama took office

Yawn. He took office during a trough, so it's intellectually dishonest to take credit for all those gains. When we are in a recession, we will at some point recover. The damning thing is that it took way too long to come back. A tax holiday could've cost the same as the "stimulus" and would've given us much more growth much more quickly, for example.


making all their blathering about "Obama being tough on business"

Not tough, no. Unfair and unreasonable and unnecessarily burdensome, yes.


"uncertainty plaguing the economy"

Yes, that's absolutely been a factor. Everyone in business knows it.


Hard to call a President "socialist" when he presides over one of the largest recoveries in net corporate profits in recent history

Actually, it's very easy, because those two things are orthogonal. Massive government control over industry -- such as Obamacare, such as Dodd-Frank, etc. -- is socialism, for example, regardless of how well those industries do.

Besides, Obama has expressed very clear desire to massively reduce those profits, so taking credit for them -- apart from being dishonest, as I mentioned above -- is extremely distasteful.


So, they're trying to make a big deal out of the debt now

Yes, as we have for a long time.


a debt they mostly caused with the Bush tax cuts, and unfunded wars

You're a liar. First of all, when you say "they" you include the majority of Democrats who voted for the wars. Second, the tax cuts, while a factor, literally do not, and cannot, cause deficits. No tax cut has ever caused a deficit. It's a logical impossibility. SPENDING causes deficits, and yes, Bush and the GOP spent too much (as we conservative Republicans complained at the time). But here's the two problems you have to address:

1. all of the biggest spending increases -- the wars, NCLB, Medicare Part D -- that caused the deficits had majority Democratic support
2. the last GOP budget had a decreased deficit, of only $160 billion; the very next year, the first Democratic budget under Pelosi, had a deficit of nearly three times the size (due primarily to massively increased spending), and the first budget under Obama and the Democrats was nearly 10 times the size

Again, the facts:
* spending causes debt, not decreased revenues
* spending increases under Bush caused the deficits (level funding would've kept deficits nonexistent or tiny)
* the Democrats cheerleaded all the major spending increases under Bush
* the Democrats massively increased spending far above and beyond the Republicans when they took control of both houses
* the spending went up massively from that when Obama took office


A debt that stood at $10.6 trillion, with a $1.45 trillion deficit the day Obama took office (sorry..facts are easy to research)

Then why are you lying? The last deficit when Obama took office was the first Democratic budget under Bush: $458 billion. There was no budget passed by Bush for FY2009 before Obama took office, because Bush wouldn't sign it because it was so high. Obama signed the FY2009 budget. He owns that $1.4 trillion deficit for FY2009. I mean, you are literally trying to blame Bush for the failed stimulus, which was all Obama (hundreds of billions of which were included in the FY2009 deficit that you falsely say existed when Obama took office).

Yes, facts are easy to research, so we can easily uncover your lies.

Oh, and while the debt was probably around $10+ trillion when Obama took office (I don't have the numbers right here), it's $15.5 trillion now. That's an increase of $5 trillion by Obama in just over three years. The debt is growing at a much faster rate under Obama than it did under Bush.

Posted by: pudge on March 12, 2012 10:28 PM
83. As far as the deficit spending goes, it increased significantly after Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007.

Deficit spending then increased astronomically when a Democratic president was added to the mix in 2009.

If you have deficit spending, it means something was "unfunded".

Under Bush, there was about $5 trillion in unfunded spending over 8 years.

Under Obama, there has been over $5 trillion in a little over 3 years.

No wonder the Democrats would rather talk about anything other than the economy.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 13, 2012 07:17 AM
84. When tax rate are higher, the economy is less productive. When tax rates are lower, the economy is more vibrant. Consequently, government revenues have traditionally gone up when tax rates are cut. Why do Democrats ignore history?

Posted by: Matt on March 13, 2012 09:27 AM
85. @84 Matt on March 13, 2012 09:27 AM

First, they assume that the government would have gotten the additional revenue in spite of the tax rates and so then they focus ONLY on the "loss" of revenue from the lower rates.

Put another way, higher tax rates = higher revenues and lower tax rates = lower revenues. An extremely simplistic economic philosophy that fits well on bumper stickers and in 10 second sound bites.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 13, 2012 10:03 AM
86. Beam me up Scotty...there is no intelligent life down here. Its clear that you people inhabit a different plane of reality, or are victims of massive groupthink. Implying that lowering taxes doesn't lower revenues is nonsensical. The Laffer curve is just that..a parabolic curve. Lowering taxes when they are too high (as Reagan did) does indeed increase economic activity and raise revenue. Raising taxes when they are too low (as Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton did) ALSO increases economic activity (by forcing companies to invest in tax deductible activities like hiring and R&D, and naturally raises revenue. Its a fine balance point, which Clinton got right).

I'll leave you with this thought. The real test of a President is very simple. One simply has to ask themselves, are they better off now, than they were on Jan 20, 2009? For me, and one could argue, the "silent majority" the answer is a clear YES! You can try to talk this economy down, but the markets are booming, corporate profits are booming, unemployment is dropping, OBL is dead, and we've gotten out of Iraq. Yeah, gas prices are *almost* as high as they reached under Bush in 2007, but we all know that the President has little impact on that.

And now, feel free to have the last word. I'm done here.

Posted by: Proteus on March 13, 2012 12:11 PM
87. Proteus: Implying that lowering taxes doesn't lower revenues is nonsensical.

It's actually true. Indeed, in the short term, lowering taxes can increase revenue. That's been demonstrated. In the long term, it can lower them, but there's many factors involved, including time, the percent of change, other factors in the economy, etc.


Lowering taxes when they are too high (as Reagan did) does indeed increase economic activity and raise revenue.

So you admit you were wrong. Without any prodding, too.

That was very bizarre.


The real test of a President is very simple. One simply has to ask themselves, are they better off now, than they were on Jan 20, 2009? For me, and one could argue, the "silent majority" the answer is a clear YES!

Wow. No.

First of all, that is not a rational test of a President at all. Most of our lives are influenced by factors that are completely independent of who is President. That's just stupid. (And yes, both sides say it, but it's still stupid.)

Second, no, the clear answer of the majority is No. Not only are we about in the same place economically, but even more people are out of work, and our debt -- which we, the people, are responsible for -- is much, much higher.


You can try to talk this economy down

Shrug. It's just plain facts.


the markets are booming, corporate profits are booming, unemployment is dropping

They were in 2004 when Bush got re-elected, too, but you and the rest of the left said Bush was doing a terrible job.

And as to unemployment, it is not dropping fast, and it is far higher than Obama said it would be ... not to mention far higher than it would be if instead of "stimulus" we did a tax holiday for the same amount of money. Let's face it: Obama has done a completely awful job of dealing with the recession.


OBL is dead

I've asked many times what Obama did that was so unique or special in giving the order to kill Bin Laden. No one has ever told me. Can you? I maintain that anyone who was President would've given the same order. Demonstrate that I am wrong.


and we've gotten out of Iraq.

Precisely as Bush planned it. Yes, we got out on Bush's timetable, on the agreement Bush worked out with Iraq. Yes, really. Remember the shoe-throwing incident? That was at the press conference where Bush announced the agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq


Yeah, gas prices are *almost* as high as they reached under Bush in 2007, but we all know that the President has little impact on that.

Do you even understand what you're saying? You give Obama credit for corporate profits, but the biggest single factor in corporate profit increases is the high price of gas, which you say he has little impact on.

Do you think people should take you seriously when you disagree with yourself, give Obama significant credit for something anyone would have done, give him credit for things other people actually did, and hold a double standard for Obama and Bush?

Posted by: pudge on March 13, 2012 01:11 PM
88. Today is a fun news/opinion day, especially when you connect the dots from the failing presidency to the phony and losing war on women BACK the failing presidency:


What they don't want to talk about


Confirmation Of Obama's Sinking Approval Ratings- New Lows Again


~!~ Follow me here...
Barack Obama-the Traveling Salesman
... Peter Drucker, the management guru, once said that an effective CEO spends his time on an organization's priorities because "time is the scarcest resource of the manager. If it is not managed, nothing else can be managed."

Consider: Barack Obama has played over 90 rounds of golf in the past 36 months, attended over 250 fundraisers (100 of them in the past 12 months),and taken 78 days of vacation.

... During the past three years, Obama has taken about 78 days of vacation. Most American workers work, on average, about 2000 hours annually. Obama's 78 days of vacation equal approx. 1872 hours, so Obama has spent almost one year of his three years in office on vacation.

And, as always, there is the travel to get to the fundraising, golfing and vacationing.

What becomes clear is that Barack Obama is traveling around--a lot--selling himself, and trying to garner perks, privileges and a second term in office, but very little work that benefits the average American taxpayer seems to be getting done with our taxpayer dollars.

It's no surprise that President Obama rarely meets with his Cabinet--he doesn't have time--he's traveling. It's no surprise that Obama has little understanding of the complexity of current, American political issues since Obama rarely meets with the opposition. Obama doesn't have time, he's traveling.

Consider: three years is 1096 days. Even by the most modest of estimates, with over 250 fundraiser, 90 rounds of golf and 78 vacation days, Obama has spent 40% of that time pleasure-seeking and fundraising.

Is it any wonder that Obama has no understanding of the struggles of the small business owner who spends 14-hour days, six or seven days a week trying to grow a business?

... Golfing. Traveling. Fundraising. Vacation. Golfing, and then more fundraising. And, oh yes, vacation. Obama has made his priorities clear to Americans. Obama is all about re-election, pleasure and re-election--as long as it can continue to be done at the expense of the American taxpayer.



White House defends NCAA game trip


~!~ THE perfect fit for the caricature of a guy who thinks the fun and games ARE his job. Pardon my LOL:
Obama to appear on Cartoon Network


~!~ So you got that, right? President Everything is Urgent

A trio of polls released yesterday shows the harsh reality from which the embattled President Obama and the media hoped to deflect by fabricating a "War on Women."


Yep, A DEADLY War on Women


NYT Poll: Majority of Americans Say Employers Should Be Able to Opt Out of Contraception Mandate


Obama craters in polls, loses support among women
Another media fairy tale bites the dust.



~!~ Yeah, yeah I know: It's a "conservative" site, so clearly it has no value... to the koolaid swillers...
Rebutting the LIES
Lie #1: Women don't have access to birth control.
Lie #2: Contraception is prohibitively expensive
Lie #3: Without the HHS mandate, employers will drop contraceptive coverage.
Lie #4: Opponents of the mandate want to impose their religious views on others.
Lie #5: This mandate is critical for women's health.
Lie #6: Women are so helpless, we can't take care of ourselves.


Thanks President Obama, but I Need More

...There are a few more items, while we're on the subject. Have you thought about calcium supplements? Every year, more women suffer osteoporotic fractures than heart attacks, strokes and breast cancers combined. We cannot participate fully in national life with weak and broken bones. So we need free calcium supplements, along with free bone density scans and free hip replacements when the time comes. Also, weight-bearing exercise is good for bone health, so gym memberships should obviously be "covered" by insurance. And when I say "covered," I mean it the way Sebelius does: Free. No co-pays. We don't want women to be set back by decades, do we? Republicans, of course, want women to be crippled and hunchbacked. But not you.

Since it's well known that women do the majority of housework in America, it's only fair that maids and cooks be covered by insurance. It's for our health. While the maids are cleaning and the cooks are in the kitchen, we can spend time at the government-subsidized gym.



~!~ I HOPE she keeps whining, often and loudly
She won't be silenced
By an 11-point spread, Americans believe that average employers who happen to be religious should be able to "opt out" of the new federal rule, and by a 21-point margin, Americans believe that religiously-affiliated employers (hospitals, schools, universities, etc) should have an opt-out available. That is very encouraging news, and must be a gut-punch to those who have invested so heavily in this manufactured, liberty-depriving endeavor.



~!~ SO WAIT.
They got all in a tizzy when some guy suggested they hold an aspirin between their knees and keep their legs closed ... and so they are NOW threatening to keep their legs closed.
Liberals are so confusing.
PLEASE ladies, please, DO EXACTLY AS WE SUGGESTED/YOU THREATENED: KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED ... then there would be no contraception issue, no abortion issue... no new little liberals... PLEASE! ... OH! And does this mean you are suddenly supporting ABSTINENCE? Or only when it's politically expedient?
If Only It Were Longer...


Barack Obama has dragged his daughters into the kerfuffle about Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke. I just happened to come into possession of the transcript of the conversation he had with them about it.
All decent folks can agree that Rush Limbaugh's remarks don't have any place in the public discourse. We want to send a message to all our young people being part of the democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate. We want you to be engaged. And there's a way to do it that doesn't involve you being demeaned and insulted. Particularly when you're a private citizen. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are not young so it's OK to demean and insult them. They're not real people.

And don't you mind when my democrat friends call Republicans "teabagger." That's our nickname for Republicans who are members of the Tea Party. The real meaning of teabagger is someone who lowers his testicles into his partner's mouth but we democrats get such a kick out of referring to Republicans as teabaggers.

And you might have heard about Daddy's friend Richard Trumka. Mr. Trumka was talking about Republicans when he said that we have to "take those sons of bitches out" so it's not a bad thing. If Mr. Limbaugh said something like that, well that would have been bad.

You might have heard that Daddy's friend Bill Maher had some things to say about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Since they are Republicans, Daddy doesn't really consider them to be women and so Daddy doesn't mind when Mr. Maher calls them names like "c*nt", "boob" and "dumb twat." Those words aren't nearly as terrible as the word "slut." And we also have to remember that Mr. Maher gave Daddy's campaign a lot of money, so Daddy is more than willing to look the other way when someone gives me a lot of money.

So Daddy doesn't mind if someone calls a woman a bad name as long as she is a Republican and the person who said it gives Daddy a lot of money, or if he is the head of a union. Got it?



Woo ha - this guy is a laugh a minute! ...when he's not such a blatant HYPOCRITE

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 13, 2012 01:47 PM
89.
In today's CBS News poll: Compared to four years ago, is your family's financial situation better today, worse today, or about the same? The survey finds 20 percent say better today, 37 percent say worse today, and 43 percent say "about the same."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, (and Proteus) called a new CBS News and New York Times survey finding that 80 percent of Americans are not better off financially than they were four years ago "so meaningless." Reid (and Proteus) said he does not "believe in" the poll's results.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 13, 2012 01:57 PM
90. Bingo SouthernRoots!

They believe whatever fits their narrative and dismiss not only Americans but the TRUTH.

They have gone a mile too far. They ASSume Americans are idiots who don't pay attention. They think the blowhard winds coming from the NE and the West Coast are reflective of all America. The blindness in their arrogance is staggering. I'm reminded of the quote from some liberal NY socialite upon the election of Richard Nixon 'But I don't KNOW anyone who votes Republican'. That conservatism exists, that conservatives exist, that opinions opposing theirs exist is not in their realm of possibility or comprehension.

I believe it will be their downfall again, especially as Americans connect the dots between failing economy, no hope for jobs, rising gas, food and home energy prices, the ugly anger on the left and the unbridled brazen assault on our freedoms.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 13, 2012 02:08 PM
91. .
Sandra Fluke: Slurs won't silence women
By Sandra Fluke, Special to CNN

Last month, students from several Catholic universities gathered to send a message to the nation that contraception is basic health care. I was among them, and I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.
I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.
I also joined these students because now is a critical time to raise this issue in our public consciousness.
Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.
By now, many have heard the stories I wanted to share thanks to the congressional leaders and members of the media who have supported me and millions of women in speaking out.
Because we spoke so loudly, opponents of reproductive health access demonized and smeared me and others on the public airwaves. These smears are obvious attempts to distract from meaningful policy discussions and to silence women's voices regarding their own health care.
These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country -- women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.
Who are these supporters?
They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice -based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother's health and the potential child's health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.
They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.
These women know how expensive birth control pills can be, with or without insurance coverage. For a single mother with kids, a woman making minimum wage, or a student living on loans, a high monthly co-pay could be the difference between buying contraception or one week of groceries.
And imagine the financial burden of unplanned pregnancy and raising a child. For women without insurance coverage or with insurance that doesn't cover contraception, the costs create a significant financial burden.
Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception. As a result, many women, especially those 18 to 34 who have the most trouble affording contraception, simply go without. They face any number of medical risks as well as unintended pregnancy -- all of which damage their productivity and the health of their families.
Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.
But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.
I am talking about women who, despite paying their own premiums, cannot obtain coverage of contraception on their private insurance, even WHEN THEIR EMPLOYER OR UNIVERSITY CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO THAT INSURANCE.
Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment. In fact, more than 60% of Americans support this regulation and affordable access to contraception, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.
I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives -- not for ideology.

So much Warren for the false claim in your post.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 13, 2012 05:15 PM
92. .
Hey, do the (un)SP Religious FREEDOM yackers know that there are Catholic Universities in Washington State which somehow are able to provide prescription contraceptive birth control coverage in their mandatory Catholic University administered health plans and not specifically exclude it?

Seattle University
Gonzaga University

No, I didn't thinks so.

Rags, quick, call the Pope!
And while you're on the line with his 'infallible Holiness', discuss Objectivism.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 13, 2012 06:04 PM
93. A shorter MikeBS @ 91 & 92:

Ms. Fluke is not intelligent enough to do the research of schools that WOULD cover her "choice" of contraceptive if it was THAT important to her. Which proves, this gal isn't too bright. period. All this drama over $110/yr for a "choice" she made.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 13, 2012 06:59 PM
94. Re 92 - So because all don't obey, because a few sin - oh hells bells - just abandon the principles and make sinning the norm.

Glad to see you parade your values (and lack of them) so proudly. And here's the rub to your glee - you know those little unintended consequences liberals never consider: those Catholic organizations that are sinning, whether purposefully or as a result of that ephemerous and deceitful concept of social justice are now on the radar of the USCCB and the watchers at the Vatican. I suggest you dig through your memory banks and remember what happened in Boston with Catholic adoption service. Hint: Catholic Charities no longer provides adoption services.

And I believe that should Emperor Obama continue down this path of religions persecution you will see far more of it.

Actually I hope we do.

I hope the Catholic Church shuts down it's hospitals and charitable organizations. Absent that I hope they close their employment doors to non-Catholics. Problem solved - with the added benefit of screwing the tyrant in chief with unemployment numbers.

The sad thing is that liberals and their tyrants can't seem to manage to learn from history

The Church's charitable work has been seen as a threat to the power of the state as far back as the reign of Julian the Apostate. Julian was the Roman Emperor who tried to drag his subjects back to the crumbling altars of the old state gods a half a century after his uncle, Constantine I, had legitimized Christianity by converting to the new faith. Julian's project didn't go well, and he complained in a letter to one of his high priests that the effort was failing because "the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well." What's an Emperor to do with opponents whose tactics include such dirty tricks as lending aid and comfort to all who need it, including people with religious and political views that differ from their own?

And, where health care is concerned, Catholic institutions are definitely a force to be reckoned with. For example, they provide care to one in six patients treated in the United States every year. During 2010, America's more than 600 Catholic facilities treated well over 100 million patients, including 19 million emergency patients, and 5.5 million inpatients. And much of the care received by these patients was provided at a loss. Of the 5.5 million inpatients treated by these hospitals during 2010, 3.3 million were covered by Medicare or Medicaid, both of which pay less than the amount it costs to provide treatment. Of the 19 million emergency patients treated at Catholic hospitals, a large percentage paid nothing at all.

So, what happens if the Catholic hospitals simply refuse to abandon their principles and decide get out of the health care business?

What happens? Liberals get EXACTLY what they deserve.

And really, considering the news that the CBO released today, that will be a very expensive lesson without Catholic charity to the country.

Think liberals will learn anything? Nah. Hubris is the enemy of knowledge.

Guaranteed tyranny
Compulsion tries on some new euphemisms.

...Ladies and gentlemen, we have the latest euphemism for compulsive force: the "guarantee."

We're not talking about a massive, unconstitutional government program forcing private citizens to pay for other people's goodies, contrary to their economic liberty, and in defiance of their religious and moral sensibilities. Oh, no, perish the thought! We're talking about the wise and benevolent super-State "guaranteeing" wonderful things. Life is so very scary. Isn't it good to know that Uncle Barack is working hard to "guarantee" your peace of mind?

The other hot new buzz phrase for tyranny is "access."

... So if other people aren't forced to buy Sandra Fluke a car, they're "restricting her access" to automobiles. I don't know about you, but I've had it up to here with my "restricted access" to all the stuff other people are not compelled to buy for me.

Now, shouldn't we be talking about the Obama failure affecting all Americans?

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 13, 2012 07:59 PM
95. My, my, my I guess President Tyrant's ploy and puppet didn't quite pan out the way he planned:

Most Americans oppose forced contraceptive coverage

A solid majority of Americans believe that religious institutions should have the right to exclude contraceptive coverage from their health-care plans, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll.

The poll found that 57% of respondents side with the Catholic bishops in opposition to the Obama mandate. Only 36% agree with the White House that contraception should be covered in all health-care plans.

In fact, the poll found that 51% of the respondents said that all employers--not only religious institutions--should be free to exclude contraceptive coverage if they have moral objections.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 13, 2012 08:09 PM
96. Vatican Gives Deadline to Peru University
...If the university were to refuse the latest request by the Holy See it could lose its status as a pontifical university and also its title of being a Catholic institution. This could affect its ability to continue operating, as under the terms of the will through which its current property was donated, if it ceases to be a Catholic university the land reverts to the Archdiocese of Lima.



College students, professors call on university to obey Vatican

A group of professors, students and alumni of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru are urging the school to obey the Vatican and update its statutes in accord with Church teaching.

Members from the Riva Aguero University Association - named after the principal benefactor of the university - called on school officials to "fully comply with the petition made by the Holy See, as the university would not exist were it not for the effort of the Catholic Church."


Actions have consequences

This could affect its ability to continue operating, as under the terms of the will through which its current property was donated, if it ceases to be a Catholic university the land reverts to the Archdiocese

as the university would not exist were it not for the effort of the Catholic Church.

Arrogant enough to think it can't/won't happen here?

Oops, you'd be WRONG ... again.

Phoenix bishop removes hospital's Catholic status

Looking beyond the specific procedure which initially caused the dispute, Olmsted also claimed in his statement that a health insurance plan available at CHW facilities violates Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 13, 2012 08:37 PM
97. MikeBS: there are Catholic Universities in Washington State which somehow are able to provide prescription contraceptive birth control coverage in their mandatory Catholic University administered health plans and not specifically exclude it?

And? You say this as though it proves a point. What point do you think it proves?

All it demonstrates is what everyone knows and no one disputes: that not all Catholics agree with all Catholic doctrine. This is uninteresting. The First Amendment doesn't say that the free exercise of religion is protected, so long as that exercise is agreed upon by everyone in your religion.

You consistently make the worst arguments possible.

Posted by: pudge on March 14, 2012 06:57 AM
98. Prescience to reality
A hat tip to Michael Voris of "The Vortex." Three years ago, he noted that President Obama has a history of fighting against the more conservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church.
May 12, 2009


Misogynistic double standard


Liberals continue to befoul themselves on the altar of Obama lies
Free Contraception More Important Than Whole Economy

It's ok if Obama puts your kids $200,000 in debt as long as you get free sex. It's ok if you're losing your home, free contraception is more important. It's ok if you can't find a job, we get $9 of stuff FREE!

... She says women will not be able to handle the responsibility of a job and kids if they have to pay for contraception! How insulting to women everywhere.


A Fluke by any other name

This Fluke character is indicative of everything that is wrong with the Obama administration. Turning wants into needs into something that must be provided free of charge. Completely oblivious to reality in the productive sector of the economy - easy when you've never been a part of it - yet certain they know best how everyone else should manage their affairs.

Let's not forget that last point is the most important. This kerfuffle is about Obama using the power of the federal government to silence someone's religious conscience. Yeah, the idea of a 30 year old law student without the wherewithal to purchase health insurance with prescription drug coverage standing before Congress begging for free birth control is bad enough. Doing it to force the church to give you birth control is despicable.

... The first is, all Fluke wants is for the health insurance she paid for to cover birth control. Here in America we have these things called contracts. These "contracts" are legally binding agreements between two parties defining the scope of their relationship. When a person signs a "contract" they are agreeing to the terms and conditions as written. Any changes to a "contract" must be mutually agreed upon and cannot be enacted unilaterally.

No one forced her to enter into a contract with Georgetown. There are hundreds of health insurance policies from which one may choose that offer varying levels of coverage - including prescription drug coverage. She chose a plan that does not offer coverage for birth control. To expect Georgetown to offer her coverage beyond the scope of the contract to which she agreed because she wants it is unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Last, the idea that Georgetown and conservatives are trying to restrict access to contraception. I want a new stainless steel .45ACP longslide with laser sighting. I have a Constitutional right to bear arms. If someone doesn't provide me with handguns for free on demand they are restricting access to the firearms necessary to exercise my right to bear arms. I pay my taxes, I have a right to bear arms, I should be provided guns free of charge. I'll see your birth control and raise you an AK-47.

... Fluke is just deadweight on Obama's Freeshit Express as it hurtles down the tracks for the inescapable head-on collision with the Broke-as-hell Cannonball. I hope they hand out free birth control in the bread line.

Last, the idea that Georgetown and conservatives are trying to restrict access to contraception. I want a new stainless steel .45ACP longslide with laser sighting. I have a Constitutional right to bear arms. If someone doesn't provide me with handguns for free on demand they are restricting access to the firearms necessary to exercise my right to bear arms. I pay my taxes, I have a right to bear arms, I should be provided guns free of charge.

BINGO!
As a 'woman of a certain age' I have far more need to protect and ensure my physical safety than my reproductive organs. And, even if I wasn't a 'certain age', I posit that I need to protect and ensure my personal safety in order to protect the organs of my reproductive rights.

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on March 14, 2012 11:55 AM
99. I'd have to check with you here. Which is not something I usually do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

Posted by: Javier Mundschau on March 14, 2012 06:24 PM
100. I don't believe you actually missed the very plainly stated "unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements."

Believe whatever you like, pudge, but at least make a minimal effort to understand what you quote:

She is only required to have certain minimum coverages, from any insurance source she chooses.

(Boldface type probably added by pudge, to emphasize that he doesn't understand what he reads.)

Uh, no, not (boldface added for some reason) "any insurance source she chooses." That's not what the GU policy is. The GU policy says -- and I'm hoping you'll actually pay attention this time -- "coverage [which] meets specific University requirements." Now, given that the entire context of this matter, according to you, is the First Amendment "right" of the Catholic Church to deny medical coverage to the employees of any non-religious entity it happens to own, what do you think those "specific ... requirements" might be? Perhaps those "requirements" -- note, not "options" -- might require her to buy coverage which does not include contraception?

"ALL of it supports MY claim."

Well, you typed it in ALL CAPS so it MUST be TRUE!

And, for good measure, you cited every last item in American jurisprudence which supports YOUR claim. Impressive work (by your standards).

Posted by: tensor on March 15, 2012 12:52 AM
101. This whole staged kabuki theater by Ms. fluke is nonsensical from the jump. I'm sure Ms. fluke's daddy would shell out the $110 a year she , ahem, 'needs' for her "contraception method". Afterall, it's more than likely he's had to shell out a hell of a lot more than that to put his little brat through college. Talk about manufactured outrage from the leftist tools out there. Hilarious!

Posted by: Rick D. on March 15, 2012 06:54 AM
102. After days of angry exchanges between Paris and London, both sides called for a ceasefire. A senior British diplomatic source said: "I hope all this calms down soon, as it is not in anyone's interest for it to continue. That, I believe, is why the French prime minister called Nick Clegg on Friday afternoon [to build bridges]."

Posted by: http://www.cnn.com on March 15, 2012 07:25 AM
103. tensor: Uh, no, not (boldface added for some reason) "any insurance source she chooses." That's not what the GU policy is.

False.


The GU policy says -- and I'm hoping you'll actually pay attention this time -- "coverage [which] meets specific University requirements."

Right ... from any source she chooses. You said "Georgetown University is Ms. Fluke's employer, and one [sic] condition of her employment required her to purchase health insurance through their plan." You were quite clearly making that up.

I didn't say she could get any insurance she wished, I said she could get it from any source she chose, because you lied and said that she had to get it from Georgetown University.


according to you, is the First Amendment "right" of the Catholic Church to deny medical coverage to the employees of any non-religious entity it happens to own

False. I never said any such thing. In fact, I've quite clearly talked about the fact that universities and hospitals, in particular, are explicitly a part of the Catholic Church's religious mission. The First Amendment is not about churches, it's about religion, and there is simply no doubt that these institutions are, in the intent of the church -- in a tradition predating even the First Amendment itself -- explicitly religious institutions.


what do you think those "specific ... requirements" might be?

Certain minimum coverages.


Perhaps those "requirements" -- note, not "options" -- might require her to buy coverage which does not include contraception?

No, they do not. There's no evidence to support your false supposition: you're throwing it out there blindly in the vain hope it will support your position. Your dishonesty is recognized and noted.


And, for good measure, you cited every last item in American jurisprudence which supports YOUR claim.

As usual, you're lying. But I have, many times in this discussion on this site, noted that there is a long history of SCOTUS decisions that require, for free exercise cases, the government to show two things: that there is a compelling government interest that might override a First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, AND that there is no less restrictive means of achieving that interest.

I hope you don't need citations for this often-used formula.

So even if you think making sure all women have access to contraception is an overriding government interest (which isn't clear at all), quite obviously -- because there are no women in America who do not have access to contraception -- forcing religious institutions and insurers to provide contraception is not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

And even if some women didn't have contraception access, it would be far less restrictive -- indeed, and far cheaper for taxpayers -- for government to pay for it. These institutions simply will not cover contraception, so under "Obamacare" they will simply not provide insurance to their employees, which means some of them will get government-subsidized insurance, which costs far more.

There is no possibility this employer mandate of contraception coverage will stand in the Supreme Court. I think this may even get 7 to 9 votes in favor of the Catholic institutions.

Posted by: pudge on March 15, 2012 07:26 AM
105. in some points your right in others, you just got to know that the people here can say whatever they want and feel like. I understand how you feel but still comes? down to that freedom of speech point.

Posted by: quality bedding on March 15, 2012 01:32 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?