A s a woman, the assumption I vote my womb (ie that I expect others to pay for my sexin' and am ok with killing babies) is one reason the dems rarely get my vote. It's as insulting as the assumption that people should vote their skin color. I vote my wallet.

"As a woman, the assumption I vote my womb (ie that I expect others to pay for my sexin' and am ok with killing babies) is one reason the dems rarely get my vote. It's as insulting as the assumption that people should vote their skin color. I vote my wallet."

Mind your tongue, woman. Who taught you to speak like that? Get back in the kitchen, and be thankful that your husband doesn't beat you for this insolence.

The "War on Women" is just propaganda designed to get people on board with forcing religious and other instituations to fund birth control. It's also just another way of trying to paint Democrats as good and Republicans as bad.

@:McCain: Republicans need to "get off" the issue of contraception
__________

McCain has bought the propaganda then, since Republicans as a party have no issue with contraception. It is a manufactured "issue" designed to drive women to vote for Democrats.

No one should no more expect a Catholic institution to provide birth control than they would a Muslim institution to supply pork.

Repubs need to stop blatantly pandering to the religious right to the extent that they alienate the middle of the spectrum voters. STFU about religion and talk jobs, wars and economics.

They are losing the next election already and it won't be held for months.

Amy, it seems both you and McCain have gone hook, line, and sinker for the Narrative.

That the Republicans think you shouldn't pay for Fluke's personal choices is no more a war on contraception than is the fact that you don't pay for my choice of transportation a war on cars.

Regarding Santorum's discussion of the broader aspects of birth control, his position has been distorted beyond recognition. He thinks that cheap and effective birth control has come with significant social costs.

Only a fool would suggest otherwise, regardless of religion.

Here's the thing. There are basically three factions fighting for the identity of the party. There's the country-club Republicans, as personified (fairly or not) by John Boehner and Mitt Romney. There's the social conservatives, who currently have Santorum as their flag-bearer. And then there's the libertarian Republicans, who make up the bulk of the Tea Party but aren't really represented among the current party leadership.

The country-club Republicans are not very popular with any part of the base, but they hold power via their Washington and bi-coastal networking. The social conservatives are popular with a part of the base, but they can't seem to come up with a candidate that can cross over to any other segment of the electorate, and they aren't numerous enough themselves to get a lot of their people elected. (To be fair to them, it doesn't help that it's impossible to bring up any moral issue in the face of the current mainstream media. No Republican candidate is ever going to say "I personally have a problem with abortion, but I think it should remain legal." That's a lose-lose position: you get ripped by the soc-cons for not wanting to ban abortion, and by the feminists for wanting to ban abortion, and the media will play both themes simultaneously.) The libertarians are regarded as pariahs by nearly everyone else in Washington and the bicoastal elites.

Fluke is in Europe with her current boyfriend. I am at work. This is an issue, but not the issue the media is presenting.

You want stuff? Pay for it.

I say keep it simple. If a doctor prescribes it, the insurance should pay for it. If not, they shouldn't. Why make layers and layers of rules and exceptions?

Jeff, the thing is, everyone DOES pay for your form of transportation, in the form of taxes which are used to build roads, bridges, tunnels, subsidize gasoline prices, etc.

Can anyone explain to me why a buisness should get a religious trump cared to opt out of the requierments foisted on other businesses?

If Wendys buys insurance and that insurance provides BC as part of its coverage why should a resturant owned by the catholic church get to opt out of letting the insurance company provide BC?

This isnt about religious freedom, its about religious control.

Why should your employer get to pick and choose which medical coverage you get? Were not talking about the catholic church being forced to buy BC for its nuns, were talking about the catholic church trying to use its dogma to get out of providing its secular empoployees such as it jewish doctors and protestant teachers it employs in is SECULAR BUSINESSES with the same heath care coverage the government is forcing every other company to provide.

And quite frankly, given how much tax money is given to the hospitals and schools I dont see a problem.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/poor-sandra-fluke-she-wants-you-to-pay-for-her-9month-birth-control-as-she-frolics-in-spain-pompeii/

That was from last summer, via her or her boyfriend's Facebook page.

Why does it matter if she in in Europe or not?

There's the country-club Republicans, as personified (fairly or not) by John Boehner and Mitt Romney. There's the social conservatives, who currently have Santorum as their flag-bearer. And then there's the libertarian Republicans, who make up the bulk of the Tea Party but aren't really represented among the current party leadership.

Cousin Dave, I take it you are not a Ron Paul fan? He seems to me like the closest thing to representing the libertarians. (Aside from Gary Johnson.) That is probably why RP is trailing in the Republican caucuses and primaries, because I think most Republicans are not libertarian, but fall into the country club camp or the Bible-thumping camp. Not to mention, that's where all the warmongers hang out, so naturally they're not going to get behind RP's noninterventionist theme.

There aren't a lot of libertarians participating in the Republican race. They are typically independents, and a few of them might even vote for Democrats. If Ron Paul drops out entirely and doesn't end up running on a separate ticket, Gary Johnson will get my vote. It will feel just like old times, since I've voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in every election so far. (For all the good it's done ...)

So she went to Europe last year and doesn't have the money for her birth control now. That's obviously different. I'll send her a check.

Maybe I can deduct it from what I still owe the Feds. Is she a registered charity?

"This isnt about religious freedom, its about religious control."

Luj, do you recognize you just backed the Affordable Health Care Act's "one size fits all" feature to the fullest?

Different employers DO have different workforce requirements.

"Cousin Dave, I take it you are not a Ron Paul fan?"

I'm a fan of half of Ron Paul. The domestic policy half is great. The foreign policy half is terrible.

No Rad I didnt. I asked why a secular business should get a religious waiver simply beacuse their largest share holder happens to be a church

You want to argue the merits of the Act itself or the notion that employers are required to provide heathcare, those are different aguments entierly.

But if an atheist who owns a private school cant get out of buying a heathcare plan for his employees that provides BC why should a catholic be able to?

But if an atheist who owns a private school cant get out of buying a heathcare plan for his employees that provides BC why should a catholic be able to?

Because the government should not be able to dictate matters of conscience ... to anyone ... ever.

With some exceptions ... of the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" variety.

Medical benefits are not a gift an employer gives you out of the kindness of his/her/its heart. It is part of your compensation package which is EARNED by you.

You would object to your boss dictating what you are permitted to spend your paycheck on, right? Then why is it OK for your boss to dictate how you use your EARNED medical benefits?

"Then why is it OK for your boss to dictate how you use your EARNED medical benefits?"

Because an old socialist geezer named FDR, to keep price and wage controls active during the depression/ww2, tossed in healthcare as part of your wage/earnings run by your employer.

Government creates a problem called wage/price controls, solves it with more government/business control over citizen's healthcare and then creates a problem that has grown and grown for the last 80 years. And now a bunch of statist jackboots want to complete the change over to a single payer, government controls all system and the circle is complete. I fear the time for talking and debating will soon be over, we'll either all be slaves letting the TSA fondle us and the government control us or fighting for our liberties by force.

I say keep it simple. If a doctor prescribes it, the insurance should pay for it. If not, they shouldn't. Why make layers and layers of rules and exceptions?

Posted by: NicoleK at March 19, 2012 6:03 AM

And besides, aren't there far more important issues to consider than whether or not something is a disease? Like the fact that babies are more expensive to cover than birth control? (If anyone can think of non-diseases that get covered for reasons like this, please do tell.)

Would married men get no sympathy from people like Rush if they argued that their wives couldn't use most female methods and they needed to use the male pill? (Or better yet, RISUG, which you can't forget to take?)

And finally, why, as I've heard, do problems NOT get covered in order of seriousness? (That is, I heard that mammograms don't always get covered - and for all I know, Viagra is more likely to get covered.)

Thanks to anyone who answers these questions.

Sio, as I've already said decoupling healcare from employment is a sperate argument.

What I am asking is why a catholic gets to opt out of of what is required of non catholics?

Why cant a methodist the claim that as the owner of a tire manufacturing plant he finds it immoral to provide ANY heathcare?