50 % of Americans are against Obamas contraceptive policy

[punked]

It isn't that bad. Check this story out.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/public-backs-obama-birth-control-fight-poll-suggests-205113637.html;_ylt=A2KLJ_LqgDxP4XcANAamWot4;_ylu=X3oDMTRzbjRwMmRiBGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTW9zdCBQb3B1bGFyBHBrZwNmMTJmZTA2OC1mZmI4LTMxNTUtOTYxYy1hMzVmN2U3ZWVhZmQEcG9zAzUEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3RNaXhlZE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0EEdmVyA2NkOWRjODIwLTU4MTYtMTFlMS1hZmVmLTA2NjNmZWUxYmVmNg--;_ylg=X3oDMTNoa3ByN3VsBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNzAwZmQwZDgtMjk5Ni0zYjhlLTkyNmEtMDNhM2RiOGExNzE5BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3xkZXN0aW5hdGlvbjIwMTIEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

[olpfan1]

Really, what 'Reformers' are in office now...

you serious? you think those politicians are conservative? rofl

name one thing thats conservative about them

[olpfan1]

It isn't that bad. Check this story out.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/public-backs-obama-birth-control-fight-poll-suggests-205113637.html;_ylt=A2KLJ_LqgDxP4XcANAamWot4;_ylu=X3oDMTRzbjRwMmRiBGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTW9zdCBQb3B1bGFyBHBrZwNmMTJmZTA2OC1mZmI4LTMxNTUtOTYxYy1hMzVmN2U3ZWVhZmQEcG9zAzUEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3RNaXhlZE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0EEdmVyA2NkOWRjODIwLTU4MTYtMTFlMS1hZmVmLTA2NjNmZWUxYmVmNg--;_ylg=X3oDMTNoa3ByN3VsBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNzAwZmQwZDgtMjk5Ni0zYjhlLTkyNmEtMDNhM2RiOGExNzE5BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3xkZXN0aW5hdGlvbjIwMTIEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

theres all kinds of polls that say different things

which one is right?

[Shady]

50% of Americans, if not more, are against Obama's contraceptive policy for a few reasons. One, it's unconstitutional. Two, it's impossible to provide contraceptive insurance for everybody at no cost to nobody. That notion defies logic. But that pretty much sums up his presidency.

The vast majority of people don't give a crap about contraception. Just don't ask a religious organization to pay for your sterilization, abortion inducing drugs and contraception. It's just common sense. Here's another helpful hint. Don't expect AA to pay for your case of beer either.

[Smallc]

The smiley at the end of your post is a fitting response to the rest of your post.

[Guest Manny]

you serious? you think those politicians are conservative? rofl

name one thing thats conservative about them

They believe in God. Doesn't that make them conservative?

[olpfan1]

They believe in God. Doesn't that make them conservative?

They are Evangelicals, much different than your garden variety Catholic

[Shady]

The smiley at the end of your post is a fitting response to the rest of your post.

Why? Because logic and reason are foreign concepts to you?

[Shady]

Obamacare now violates the constitution 3 different ways. I think this guy is going for some kind of record!

[Smallc]

Why? Because logic and reason are foreign concepts to you?

No, because it's full of it.

[Shady]

No, because it's full of it.

You're probably just ill-informed as to the contents of the American constitution.

[Smallc]

You're probably just ill-informed as to the contents of the American constitution.

There is not agreement on the constitutionality of Obamacare or the particular parts of it. Of course, you would know better, oh foreign constitutional scholar.

[Shady]

There is not agreement on the constitutionality of Obamacare or the particular parts of it. Of course, you would know better, oh foreign constitutional scholar.

It's going to be heard by the Supreme Court in May I believe, regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. However, there may be new constitutional lawsuits filed in terms of the first amendment after his ridiculous contraception decree. Notice that he's back down and offered a compromise. Why? Because he knows that he stepped in it. Unfortunately for him, his compromise isn't much better than the original decree.

Anyways, like I've said before, in my own thread. This isn't about contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs. It's about religious freedom, and who should or shouldn't be forced to pay for these things. I would suggest that anyone that thinks religious institutions should be forced to pay for abortion inducing drugs is out of the mainstream, and completely bonkers.

[Smallc]

I would suggest that anyone that thinks religious institutions should be forced to pay for abortion inducing drugs is out of the mainstream, and completely bonkers.

No one is saying that they should. This isn't about churches and you know it. Besides, the Catholic Church or America gets the bulk of their money from the US Government.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Smallc

[Shady]

No one is saying that they should.[ This isn't about churches and you know it.

It's about religious organizations, charities, schools, etc.

Besides, the Catholic Church or America gets the bulk of their money from the US Government.

Actully that's not true, and varies depending on the organiation. But regardless, than the government should take back it's funding. But you see, this is what government does. It extends its "help", and then down the road, uses that as some kind of authority to dictate to you what and how you should practice your religious beliefs.

[Guest American Woman]

Yikes... this means half the population of Americans are religious whackos

not that that is a surprise but i just thought times were changing

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/16/cnn-poll-half-oppose-obama-birth-control-insurance-plan/

This has got to be one of the most ignorant threads/opening posts; from the very article cited in the op:

Roughly eight in ten disagree with the belief that using artificial means of birth control is wrong, and nearly nine in ten American Catholics say that they don't feel the need to obey Church teachings on moral issues like abortion and birth control.

..."Polls have found widespread support for artificial means of birth control since the 1980s, and since the 1990s, polls have found that American Catholics believe that they should make up their own minds on moral issues rather than always following Church teachings on those issues.

But yeah, "half the population of Americans are religious whackos" ... even though by far the vast majority doesn't believe that they need to follow the church's stance on this issue.

[Smallc]

Actully that's not true, and varies depending on the organiation.

Actually, it is true. Still, none of us really knows whether or not this is all constitutional. If it isn't, then it isn't. If it is, then so be it. We'll find out soon enough.

[cybercoma]

i doubt anyone believes that

The sidebar argument is amusing.

It doesn't matter whether people believe the Queen is our head of state or not. It would be like someone in the US not believe the President is their head of state.

[cybercoma]

It's about religious organizations, charities, schools, etc.

If a Church chooses to run a school or a hospital, operate it as a business and hires people that have no affiliation to the religion of the ownership, nor make any other connection between their business practice and religious affiliation, then it's pretty tough to call it a "religious organization". It's an organization with religious ownership.

[Shady]

If a Church chooses to run a school or a hospital, operate it as a business and hires people that have no affiliation to the religion of the ownership, nor make any other connection between their business practice and religious affiliation, then it's pretty tough to call it a "religious organization". It's an organization with religious ownership.

Nonsense. Religious schools, hospitals, charities, etc have been in existence long before government funding, and government mandates. They began as an extension of people's religious beliefs, to help the poor, the needy, the sick, etc. Forcing them to now turn their backs on their religious beliefs is a fundamental violation of their first amendment rights. That's why the Obama administration is looking for a compromise. That's also why a similar issue was ruled in favour of the church by the Supreme Court in a 9 to nothing decision. Hear that? 9 TO NOTHING. When was the last time you heard a Supreme Court decision agreed upon by ALL JUSTICES?

[punked]

Nonsense. Religious schools, hospitals, charities, etc have been in existence long before government funding, and government mandates. They began as an extension of people's religious beliefs, to help the poor, the needy, the sick, etc. Forcing them to now turn their backs on their religious beliefs is a fundamental violation of their first amendment rights. That's why the Obama administration is looking for a compromise. That's also why a similar issue was ruled in favour of the church by the Supreme Court in a 9 to nothing decision. Hear that? 9 TO NOTHING. When was the last time you heard a Supreme Court decision agreed upon by ALL JUSTICES?

Just want to point out Romney signed a law which was identical in Mass, yet Shady supports Romney. Can anyone say hypocrite? Lol.

[kimmy]

It has been a rather quiet week on the "ZOMG Obama is trampling religious freedoms!!!" front, and I suspect that the reason for that is the savage ass-kicking that Darrell Issa took last Thursday.

Issa led the Congressional Oversight hearing last Thursday on the subject of the contraception mandate.

They figured they had a political winner. They called the hearing "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" which (aside from being the best title since the Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too) gives a pretty clear idea where they wanted to take things. After all, everybody loves freedom. Protecting religious liberty is a can't-miss angle, right? They even had staffers holding up giant posters of Gandhi and Kennedy and Martin Luther King to make the point extra-clear.

But then THIS image of Issa's panel went viral.

If you're male, you may not realize how enraging that picture is. Darrell Issa probably didn't realize at the time. He found out later on.

They did have a couple of women on the afternoon panel, but by that time the damage was already done. If Issa could have a do-over, he'd probably schedule things so that the token females were on the morning panel instead of the afternoon panel. If he could have a do-over, he probably also wouldn't have kicked Sandra Fluke off the morning panel. Sandra Fluke was the witness the Democrats signed up for the hearings; she's a Georgetown University student leader who had a story about a classmate who lost her ovaries because the treatment for ovarian cysts happens to be birth-control pills that the university wouldn't cover. Issa excluded her because she was "not qualified"... while he probably intended that to mean theological expertise, the picture that went viral gave the impression that the qualifications to be on Issa's panel are a black suit and a dick. He gained little by excluding her from the panel anyway; after the publicity the morning session raised, Sandra Fluke made a media appearance and her statement was printed by a number of media outlets and was read into testimony by the Democratic representative anyway. It's a fair bet that Miss Fluke's statement got a lot more publicity due to the controversy that it would have received if she had been allowed to participate in the panel.

When Issa got home and discovered that the picture of the all-male panel had gone viral and that #wherearethewomen had become a trending topic on Twitter, he decided to fight back by comparing his panel to Martin Luther King, which of course is always a good idea.

With Thursday turning into a day that he'd rather forget, Issa hastily departed from the contraception biz to concentrate on his OPEN Act --the new improved SOPA-- which I'm sure will be wildly popular.

-k

[Shady]

If you're male, you may not realize how enraging that picture is. Darrell Issa probably didn't realize at the time.

This is just more of the same ZOMG they're comin fo ma birth control!

The composition of the group discussing the constitutionality of the issue is irrelevent. The constitution doesn't change, and certainly the first amendment doesn't change based on the sex of the individual. The federal government's mandate that religious organiazations pay for contracepion, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs is unconstitutional. All of these products and services are widely available, at various pharmacies and clinics, many times at no cost. You wanna gulp down the pill? Go for it. I couldn't give a f**k. You wanna terminate a pregnancy? Go for it. I couldn't give a f**k. Just don't ask a religious organization to pay for it. That's beyond retarded.

Once again, this issue isn't about contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs. It's about who's required to pay for them. The federal government has no constituional grounds to force a religious organization to do so. And that constituional fact remains, despite what the composition of the people discussing it is. All male, all female, or all alien. It doesn't matter. You people need to get over it. Women don't have a special priviledge to trample over other people's constitutional rights.

[GostHacked]

nobody worships the queen, unless you are migrating here you don't even think about her

You worship her everytime you use her money.

[kimmy]

You people need to get over it.

What do you mean, "you people"?

This is just more of the same ZOMG they're comin fo ma birth control!

The composition of the group discussing the constitutionality of the issue is irrelevent. The constitution doesn't change, and certainly the first amendment doesn't change based on the sex of the individual.

There's a constitutional discussion to be had, but that's not what last Thursday's hearing was about.

If they were discussing constitutionality, they would have had legal experts instead of clergymen on the panel.

If the title of the hearing didn't explain its purpose, the dudes holding 8 foot tall posters of Martin Luther King and Gandhi should have made it pretty clear. They weren't there to examine constitutional issues, they were there to cast the clergymen as modern-day negroes, Obama as their oppressor, and Issa and his team as civil rights heroes.

The hearing wasn't about the constitutionality of the mandate, it was political theatre. And it backfired. They wanted to leave everybody with a religious freedom message, but that's not how it worked out. At the end of the day, the winning political message of the day was that picture.

They completely blew it. They lost control of the narrative. They got beat. They didn't just get beat, they got beat up. They got the shit kicked out of them. They got curb-stomped. I'm not sure if you realize quite how badly things went for Darrell Issa and his panel last week, soI've prepared this video presentation to better illustrate it for you.

And that's why this issue has been so much less prominent in the past week. Between last Thursday's debacle at the oversight committee hearing, and the Virginia abortion law, and the publicity surrounding Rick Santorum... the Republicans have come to realize that continuing to hard-sell this issue would be politically disastrous.

-k