are you gonna watch the you know what tonight?

[jstarfireb]

But, despite these cases not faring well in court, states have begun to pass legislation "protecting" the right (or non-right, as the courts see it) of health care providers to refuse to provide birth control information/services: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
This article spells it out pretty clearly, ladies. So if this this is the direction you want this country to go in, you know who to vote for. I'm post-menopausal, thank the good Lord, so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

*State* issue.

It should not be. In my opinion, this is something that needs to be federally protected. Otherwise, as I've been arguing through all my posts, there is an inherent inequality that varies based on where you live.

 

[Lula]

That's a chilling read Lula. What's even more chilling is where is the outrage? We're letting religious organizations get away with imposing their principles on non-followers? IN AMERICA? I guess we only get riled up when it's the threat of Sharia Law.

No. We are allowing religious institutions to assert their Constitutional rights. If you need BC, go down the street to CVS, not to the Catholic hospital. If you want an abortion, go to PP, not the Catholic hospital.

And if I WORK for the Catholic hospital, and have to get my insurance through my employer, because this country didn't pass a universal health care plan administered by the government, I would not have my birth control that I buy at CVS covered, would I?

So the Catholic hospital should be allowed to discriminate against non-Catholic employees by infringing on freedom of THEIR beliefs? And yet still get tax-exempt status? What a racket.

It is a racket, Maria. Church-owned hospitals keep buying up more and more hospitals and clinics. In the future, it may be impossible to receive health care from a non-religious health care provider in many parts of the country. The are exempt from paying taxes. And, yes, I do believe it is legal for them to refuse to cover birth control and abortion for their employees, under their health insurance plans.

 

[beebrisk]

That's a chilling read Lula. What's even more chilling is where is the outrage? We're letting religious organizations get away with imposing their principles on non-followers? IN AMERICA? I guess we only get riled up when it's the threat of Sharia Law.

No. We are allowing religious institutions to assert their Constitutional rights. If you need BC, go down the street to CVS, not to the Catholic hospital. If you want an abortion, go to PP, not the Catholic hospital.

And if I WORK for the Catholic hospital, and have to get my insurance through my employer, because this country didn't pass a universal health care plan administered by the government, I would not have my birth control that I buy at CVS covered, would I?

So the Catholic hospital should be allowed to discriminate against non-Catholic employees by infringing on freedom of THEIR beliefs? And yet still get tax-exempt status? What a racket.

So now NOT covering BC is....discrimination? If they didn't hire you BECAUSE you use BC you have a case there. There's no law that says they have to cover you at all. Well, now there is. Sort of.

 

[hlmr]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.[/quote]




And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

 

[beebrisk]

But, despite these cases not faring well in court, states have begun to pass legislation "protecting" the right (or non-right, as the courts see it) of health care providers to refuse to provide birth control information/services: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
This article spells it out pretty clearly, ladies. So if this this is the direction you want this country to go in, you know who to vote for. I'm post-menopausal, thank the good Lord, so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

*State* issue.

Yes, Roe v. Wade took the abortion issue away from the states. This has been a bone of contention with the federalists for 40 years.

It wasn't a question. I'm well aware that R v W took the issue away from the states. A rightful bone of contention.

 

[Lula]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Under state licensure laws, professions, such as pharmacists, are allowed a great deal of self-governence. The professional organizations see this "individual objection" business as unethical and unprofessional. The states take the opinions of the professional organizations into consideration. That's a big reason why these cases have not fared well in court. Professional organizations tend to recommend that people who have strong religious objections to a major part of the job find another line of work. In other words, in the view of the professional organizations, the states, and the courts, part of being a professional, licensed pharmacist is filling prescriptions for birth control. As an aside, I've yet to hear of a case where a pharmacist objects to filling a Viagra prescription.

 

[beebrisk]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?[/quote]

Who's dictating? Abortion is legal in all 50 states. So is BC.

If you want the government to dictate how religious institutions govern themselves, then you are advocating for the abolition of church and state. Is that really what you want?

 

[Lula]

But, despite these cases not faring well in court, states have begun to pass legislation "protecting" the right (or non-right, as the courts see it) of health care providers to refuse to provide birth control information/services: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
This article spells it out pretty clearly, ladies. So if this this is the direction you want this country to go in, you know who to vote for. I'm post-menopausal, thank the good Lord, so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

*State* issue.

Yes, Roe v. Wade took the abortion issue away from the states. This has been a bone of contention with the federalists for 40 years.

It wasn't a question. I'm well aware that R v W took the issue away from the states. A rightful bone of contention.

Yes, I agree. But after 40 years, it is unlikely that it will be overturned. Even by a conservative court. Unless -- and this is a very possible unless -- the "right" type of case is brought before the Supremes.

 

[hlmr]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

hlmr wrote: And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Under state licensure laws, professions, such as pharmacists, are allowed a great deal of self-governence. The professional organizations see this "individual objection" business as unethical and unprofessional. The states take the opinions of the professional organizations into consideration. That's a big reason why these cases have not fared well in court. Professional organizations tend to recommend that people who have strong religious objections to a major part of the job find another line of work. In other words, in the view of the professional organizations, the states, and the courts, part of being a professional, licensed pharmacist is filling prescriptions for birth control. As an aside, I've yet to hear of a case where a pharmacist objects to filling a Viagra prescription.
[/quote

hlmr wrote: Yes, I can certainly see how much more important viagra is than birth control, and women's healthcare in general. Makes me ill, just thinking about it.

 

[Maria D]

So now NOT covering BC is....discrimination? If they didn't hire you BECAUSE you use BC you have a case there. There's no law that says they have to cover you at all. Well, now there is. Sort of.

hahaha -- yeah! Now there is! love it

 

[Lula]

So now NOT covering BC is....discrimination? If they didn't hire you BECAUSE you use BC you have a case there. There's no law that says they have to cover you at all. Well, now there is. Sort of.

hahaha -- yeah! Now there is! love it

 

[hlmr]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Who's dictating? Abortion is legal in all 50 states. So is BC.

If you want the government to dictate how religious institutions govern themselves, then you are advocating for the abolition of church and state. Is that really what you want?[/quote]

Is that what I wrote? Not dictating individual health does not equal abolition.

 

[beebrisk]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Under state licensure laws, professions, such as pharmacists, are allowed a great deal of self-governence. The professional organizations see this "individual objection" business as unethical and unprofessional. The states take the opinions of the professional organizations into consideration. That's a big reason why these cases have not fared well in court. Professional organizations tend to recommend that people who have strong religious objections to a major part of the job find another line of work. In other words, in the view of the professional organizations, the states, and the courts, part of being a professional, licensed pharmacist is filling prescriptions for birth control. As an aside, I've yet to hear of a case where a pharmacist objects to filling a Viagra prescription.

As it should be. "Find another line of work".
I suspect you haven't heard of a case where a pharm objects to Viagra because there's no religion that I can think of that prohibits sexual activity-- besides the pre-marital stuff. The objection within the church is sexual activity for "reasons other than procreation". That's why BC is the issue, not Viagra. I am not Catholic, it has no effect on me, but they are entitled to their views and to govern themselves accordingly.

 

[Maria D]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Under state licensure laws, professions, such as pharmacists, are allowed a great deal of self-governence. The professional organizations see this "individual objection" business as unethical and unprofessional. The states take the opinions of the professional organizations into consideration. That's a big reason why these cases have not fared well in court. Professional organizations tend to recommend that people who have strong religious objections to a major part of the job find another line of work. In other words, in the view of the professional organizations, the states, and the courts, part of being a professional, licensed pharmacist is filling prescriptions for birth control. As an aside, I've yet to hear of a case where a pharmacist objects to filling a Viagra prescription.

As it should be. "Find another line of work".
I suspect you haven't heard of a case where a pharm objects to Viagra because there's no religion that I can think of that prohibits sexual activity-- besides the pre-marital stuff. The objection within the church is sexual activity for "reasons other than procreation". That's why BC is the issue, not Viagra. I am not Catholic, it has no effect on me, but they are entitled to their views and to govern themselves accordingly.

As a former Catholic with plenty of family members who still are I can tell you they are all using birth control. This has nothing to do with Catholics in general but with crazy conservative politicians (as opposed to the sane ones). The church objection is bunk because they are against hormonal BC even when it is used for reasons other than preventing birth (it is) but are OK with Viagara even when it is used for recreation, not procreation.

It's just plain nutty! I never thought in my lifetime there would be a backlash against birth control.

 

[beebrisk]

So now NOT covering BC is....discrimination? If they didn't hire you BECAUSE you use BC you have a case there. There's no law that says they have to cover you at all. Well, now there is. Sort of.

hahaha -- yeah! Now there is! love it

Will you still love it when it becomes more cost efficient for your employer to pay the penalty...I mean the tax... to NOT cover you? Are you aware of the tax that YOU will pay if you can't afford to cover yourself and your family after the fact?

 

[hlmr]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Under state licensure laws, professions, such as pharmacists, are allowed a great deal of self-governence. The professional organizations see this "individual objection" business as unethical and unprofessional. The states take the opinions of the professional organizations into consideration. That's a big reason why these cases have not fared well in court. Professional organizations tend to recommend that people who have strong religious objections to a major part of the job find another line of work. In other words, in the view of the professional organizations, the states, and the courts, part of being a professional, licensed pharmacist is filling prescriptions for birth control. As an aside, I've yet to hear of a case where a pharmacist objects to filling a Viagra prescription.

As it should be. "Find another line of work".
That's why BC is the issue, not Viagra. I am not Catholic, it has no effect on me, but they are entitled to their views and to govern I suspect you haven't heard of a case where a pharm objects to Viagra because there's no religion that I can think of that prohibits sexual activity-- besides the pre-marital stuff. The objection within the church is sexual activity for "reasons other than procreation". themselves accordingly.

Yes, of course, I forgot, it is those young(ish) men looking to procreate, that are flocking to Walgreens to fill their viagra scripts!

 

[beebrisk]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Under state licensure laws, professions, such as pharmacists, are allowed a great deal of self-governence. The professional organizations see this "individual objection" business as unethical and unprofessional. The states take the opinions of the professional organizations into consideration. That's a big reason why these cases have not fared well in court. Professional organizations tend to recommend that people who have strong religious objections to a major part of the job find another line of work. In other words, in the view of the professional organizations, the states, and the courts, part of being a professional, licensed pharmacist is filling prescriptions for birth control. As an aside, I've yet to hear of a case where a pharmacist objects to filling a Viagra prescription.

As it should be. "Find another line of work".
I suspect you haven't heard of a case where a pharm objects to Viagra because there's no religion that I can think of that prohibits sexual activity-- besides the pre-marital stuff. The objection within the church is sexual activity for "reasons other than procreation". That's why BC is the issue, not Viagra. I am not Catholic, it has no effect on me, but they are entitled to their views and to govern themselves accordingly.

As a former Catholic with plenty of family members who still are I can tell you they are all using birth control. This has nothing to do with Catholics in general but with crazy conservative politicians (as opposed to the sane ones). The church objection is bunk because they are against hormonal BC even when it is used for reasons other than preventing birth (it is) but are OK with Viagara even when it is used for recreation, not procreation.

It's just plain nutty! I never thought in my lifetime there would be a backlash against birth control.

Every Catholic I know uses BC too. You're right..it has nothing to do with Catholics in general. It has to do with the church. The institution. I don't know what the "official" take on Viagra is, and frankly I don't care. I just know it's up to them, hypocritical as it may be. I also don't know a single conservative politician that's dictating BC policy to the church. Do you?

 

[beebrisk]

beebrisk wrote: I was responding to this statement: There is nothing in the Constitution of the sort. Nothing. Really, you have a right to your opinions, but you need to support your opinions with facts. Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that religious freedoms were not covered under the Constitution. If it is a person's belief that BC is wrong and they do not want to dispense it, then perhaps they shouldn't work at Walgreens.. However, no religious institution, Catholic hospitals for example, should be forced by the state to perform abortions or dispense BC under any circumstances.

And what if Walgreens is the only place said individual can get a job?

Shouldn't choices such BC, or abortion be made by each individual body? And not be dictated to by the state, or any religious affiliation of a hospital where treatment is available. Shouldn't everyone be able to choose for themselves, what's right for them physiologically and psychologically, and not feel the need to concede this right, and succumb to what may be the "right" choice of 'others'?

Under state licensure laws, professions, such as pharmacists, are allowed a great deal of self-governence. The professional organizations see this "individual objection" business as unethical and unprofessional. The states take the opinions of the professional organizations into consideration. That's a big reason why these cases have not fared well in court. Professional organizations tend to recommend that people who have strong religious objections to a major part of the job find another line of work. In other words, in the view of the professional organizations, the states, and the courts, part of being a professional, licensed pharmacist is filling prescriptions for birth control. As an aside, I've yet to hear of a case where a pharmacist objects to filling a Viagra prescription.

As it should be. "Find another line of work".
That's why BC is the issue, not Viagra. I am not Catholic, it has no effect on me, but they are entitled to their views and to govern I suspect you haven't heard of a case where a pharm objects to Viagra because there's no religion that I can think of that prohibits sexual activity-- besides the pre-marital stuff. The objection within the church is sexual activity for "reasons other than procreation". themselves accordingly.

Yes, of course, I forgot, it is those young(ish) men looking to procreate, that are flocking to Walgreens to fill their viagra scripts!

Ladies....Ladies! You are missing a very important point in all this mess! Have you considered how YOU can possibly benefit from your man's free Viagra scrip??

Aaaand with that, I'm out!

 

[FrekeChild]

Obviously, I'm a woman. In no way do I feel my rights are being "chipped away". I have ALL the same rights, privileges AND responsibilities as as FI and every other man. Sure, my plumbing is different so some issues are separate, but I'm NOT unequal.

Romney legislated from the center in MA and I don't expect anything different from him if he becomes president. I will not be subjugated by voting for him. Despite the propaganda from the press and Sandra Fluke, I don't fear turning into a handmaiden, a Stepford Wife or a 2nd class citizen.

Perhaps if I could come up with one right bestowed on men that I don't have as a woman I'd feel differently about that. Perhaps if I didn't feel as if I was just as smart or strong as any man and able to stand up for myself I'd feel differently. But then, that would just be admitting I'm weak. That would just be admitting I am a victim--simply because I'm a woman. After all, isn't that what the women's movement has tried to teach us for the last 4 decades or so??

Speaking of the women's movement, they really ought to get on Obama about paying his female staff about 18% less than the men who work for him.

Abortion has survived 5 Republican presidents. It's still the law of the land. It's not going anywhere. Neither is access to birth control. Every Target and Walmart in America dispenses it for about $9/month. There's help available if that's not affordable. Thanks to Title X, low income and uninsured women have much greater access to free or low cost BC than they ever did before the law was signed. That law by the way, was conceived and signed by.....a Republican president.

Despite the current administration's politics of fear, I don't expect to be vacuuming the house in my dress and pearls, while preparing dinner and tending to my man's every last need. No one I know will be dying in a back ally abortion in this country.

This administration has been masterful at playing to the emotions of women with scare tactics and lies but pandering and patronizing does not equality make.

You have to pay more for health insurance because you're a woman. Men pay less because they cannot become pregnant. Pregnancy is expensive for insurance companies.

He had no other choice. If you were a Democrat in a red state, you'd play the centrist model too. I mentioned this up thread- if he wanted anything to get done, he had to be moderate and he had to play the bi-partisan card.

Sure you're as smart and as strong as any man, but women around you (I can't speak for you) are making 77 cents on the dollar that men are making. And the government is made up almost entirely of white men. It makes national news when a woman, or a man of color is elected to public office. Do you not see a problem there?

The tea-partiers want abortion gone. They consider BC to be preventing a baby from being created, or as an abortion - killing an unborn fetus. So they want BC gone too. They want any and all babies that are conceived to be born - yet after they are born, they want nothing to do with supporting said babies after birth.

I don't consider this take back to the 1950s to be the current administration's making. And I think that if you consider men and women to be at the same level here in the USA at this time...well I'm afraid I think that's wishful thinking, but that's my opinion. As you have pointed out.

 

[AGBF]

But, despite these cases not faring well in court, states have begun to pass legislation "protecting" the right (or non-right, as the courts see it) of health care providers to refuse to provide birth control information/services: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080310.html
This article spells it out pretty clearly, ladies. So if this this is the direction you want this country to go in, you know who to vote for. I'm post-menopausal, thank the good Lord, so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

*State* issue.

Yes, Roe v. Wade took the abortion issue away from the states. This has been a bone of contention with the federalists for 40 years.

When I was growing up there were no abortions-at least legal ones-in the continental United States. I was a sheltered kid, but I heard about people going overseas (actually I think I remember Puerto Rico, although that may just be a weird childhood memory, I will have to look it up) for abortions.

By the time I was in my late teens some states had legal abortions and others didn't. My best friend (who was Catholic) and a minor went into New York State for an abortion since it wasn't legal to have one in Connecticut. I accompanied her. I think she may have been 18, but not yet 21 or something because she wasn't allowed to have general anesthesia since she didn't have parental permission. (There was no way on earth she was going to tell her southern Italian immigrant parents she wasn't a virgin!) She really suffered physically through the abortion. I wasn't present during it, but I remember her telling me about it later. I think I was still a virgin at the time, too, and it really wasn't what I needed to hear! She never had any guilt about the abortion which was very, very early term. I was very glad when Roe V Wade was passed, however.

I think it is unconscionable that any state (like Texas) allows the state to penetrate women vaginally against their will with mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds now that Roe v. Wade has been passed. That is rape.

AGBF

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="beebrisk|


Every Catholic I know uses BC too. You're right..it has nothing to do with Catholics in general. It has to do with the church. The institution. I don't know what the "official" take on Viagra is, and frankly I don't care. I just know it's up to them, hypocritical as it may be. I also don't know a single conservative politician that's dictating BC policy to the church. Do you?[/quote]



take two and call me in the morning... In the rare case an erection lasts for more than four hours, seek immediate medical attention.

 

[zoebartlett]

About the flip-flopping, I (and I think most democrats) see Obama's changing stances, particularly with regard to same-sex marriage, as an evolution of his true beliefs over time rather than a bait-and-switch move. Romney's flip-flopping seems much less sincere considering he made such huge shifts in such a short time.

Yes.I believe the President's views on gay marriage shifted once he saw and got to know his daughters' friends' (gay) parents.

It's interesting how Romney says something and then his advisers swoop in right afterward, telling us that he didn't really mean what he had just said. It's hard to keep up with him.

 

[beebrisk]

About the flip-flopping, I (and I think most democrats) see Obama's changing stances, particularly with regard to same-sex marriage, as an evolution of his true beliefs over time rather than a bait-and-switch move. Romney's flip-flopping seems much less sincere considering he made such huge shifts in such a short time.

Yes.I believe the President's views on gay marriage shifted once he saw and got to know his daughters' friends' (gay) parents.

It's interesting how Romney says something and then his advisers swoop in right afterward, telling us that he didn't really mean what he had just said. It's hard to keep up with him.

"Shifted" and "evolved"...and so conveniently during the election cycle!

 

[Lady_Disdain]

As an outsider looking in, I find it very amusing when Americans complain about gas costs for the simple reason that gas prices in the US are a lot lower than most of the world (it is comparable to the cost in major oil exporting countries - http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/1/ *) The thirst for cheap oil leads to all sorts of international policy problems for the country. I would be very scared of anyone promising cheaper prices. How is that going to be achieved in a free market?

* Most of the data presented comes from official sources and were correct (I checked around 8 countries)

 

[Dancing Fire]

As an outsider looking in, I find it very amusing when Americans complain about gas costs for the simple reason that gas prices in the US are a lot lower than most of the world (it is comparable to the cost in major oil exporting countries - http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/1/ *) The thirst for cheap oil leads to all sorts of international policy problems for the country. I would be very scared of anyone promising cheaper prices. How is that going to be achieved in a free market?

* Most of the data presented comes from official sources and were correct (I checked around 8 countries)

true,but people in other parts of the world don't drive 20k-25K miles per yr.

 

[Dancing Fire]

i can understand women voting on social issues but i will vote on economic issues.

 

[ksinger]

As an outsider looking in, I find it very amusing when Americans complain about gas costs for the simple reason that gas prices in the US are a lot lower than most of the world (it is comparable to the cost in major oil exporting countries - http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/1/ *) The thirst for cheap oil leads to all sorts of international policy problems for the country. I would be very scared of anyone promising cheaper prices. How is that going to be achieved in a free market?

* Most of the data presented comes from official sources and were correct (I checked around 8 countries)

But but...if I don't have the cheap gas I deserve for being Amurcun, how can I affort to run my PE* Eddie Bauer Edition club-cab long bed dually that I use to haul myself 30+ miles each way on my daily work commute??

* penile enhancement

 

[Lula]

I just read this today:

"Mike White, the chairman and owner of Rite-Hite, a major Milwaukee manufacturer of industrial equipment, told employees in an email this week that all employees "should understand the personal consequences to them of having our tax rates increase dramatically if President Obama is re-elected, forcing taxpayers to fund President Obama's future deficits and social programs (including Obamacare), which require bigger government."
The email stunned some employees. One employee said he felt threatened by the email. "It's a good company, but for this to come out, it's absurd," the employee said.
The employee said even supervisors were surprised by the tone of the email.
White did not return several calls requesting comment. He is a trustee for the Village of River Hills, and serves on the Summerfest board and the Concordia University Wisconsin Foundation board, among others. The firm employs an estimated 1,400 people worldwide.
In his email, White said neither he nor the company wanted to “prejudice any employee for their political views and totally respect your right to vote as you choose. I am simply trying to present the facts as I know them and to protect the business you have helped build! Please think carefully about your vote on Nov. 6.”
White wrote that his company is an S corporation for tax purposes. An S corporation is a company that elects to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes.
In his email, White said the firm's retirement savings program contributions were based on after-tax profits.
"The tax rate we pay is not 17%, as Warren Buffett would have you believe; with state taxes it is roughly 45%. President Obama has announced that our planned tax rate would increase to roughly 65%, reducing our after tax income by 36% and dramatically reducing, if not eliminating, your and my RSP contributions."
As a result, White said the company's profits would not be reinvested. Instead, he wrote, "the money will be sent into the abyss that is Washington, D.C. So, on top of the burden of having your personal taxes increase dramatically, which they will, your RSP contributions and healthy retirement are also at risk, all for the sake of maintaining an over-sized government that borrows 42% of every dollar it spends."
White also wrote that Obama's re-election means there is a "good chance of losing Rite-Hite insurance and being put into Obamacare."
White explained that employers can continue their existing insurance plans or “pay a penalty and have employees go into the Government Plan. Our plan costs much more per family than the penalty and hence the possible competitive need to drop the Rite-Hite Health Plan. Every opportunity to make up for lost profits to taxes will have to be re-evaluated.”
We'll post the company's reaction once we receive a response."



This is just wrong on so many levels. But this is legal under the Citizens United ruling that has basically corrupted politics at every level. Corporations are people now.

What really burns me is that this CEO did not compose this missive of his own volition. The Romney campaign went on the record in June encouraging businesses to do this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-employees-voting_n_1975636.html

This is the work of the big GOP funders like the Koch brothers. In essence you are electing this bunch of rich, white men who will hold the puppet candidate's strings for the next four years. The owner of this company is a sheep, beholden to the same big money interests.

I long for the day when we realize that the 1% are not heroes. Let the worship of the Atlas Shrugged types end before they inflict more suffering. And DF, if you honestly think that this crew of 1-percenters has your financial best interests at heart, you are kidding yourself.

 

[beebrisk]

As an outsider looking in, I find it very amusing when Americans complain about gas costs for the simple reason that gas prices in the US are a lot lower than most of the world (it is comparable to the cost in major oil exporting countries - http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/1/ *) The thirst for cheap oil leads to all sorts of international policy problems for the country. I would be very scared of anyone promising cheaper prices. How is that going to be achieved in a free market?

* Most of the data presented comes from official sources and were correct (I checked around 8 countries)

But but...if I don't have the cheap gas I deserve for being Amurcun, how can I affort to run my PE* Eddie Bauer Edition club-cab long bed dually that I use to haul myself 30+ miles each way on my daily work commute??

* penile enhancement

High gas prices were an outrage...OUTRAGE!...during the GWB administration. Now that they've doubled under the current administration, they are either the sign of a growing economy (per Obama) or a blessed event used to discourage the apparently shameful "hauling" of our own arses to work. Funny. I thought that was what a productive, tax paying citizen looks like. Too bad he's not "contributing" his "fair share" the RIGHT way!

 

[iheartscience]

I just read this today: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/175797801.html
This is just wrong on so many levels. But this is legal under the Citizens United ruling that has basically corrupted politics at every level. Corporations are people now.

What really burns me is that this CEO did not compose this missive of his own volition. The Romney campaign went on the record in June encouraging businesses to do this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-employees-voting_n_1975636.html

This is the work of the big GOP funders like the Koch brothers. In essence you are electing this bunch of rich, white men who will hold the puppet candidate's strings for the next four years. The owner of this company is a sheep, beholden to the same big money interests.

I long for the day when we realize that the 1% are not heroes. Let the worship of the Atlas Shrugged types end before they inflict more suffering. And DF, if you honestly think that this crew of 1-percenters has your financial best interests at heart, you are kidding yourself.

You're just jealous you're not a job creator. Maybe you should have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps a little harder, just like that unconnected self-starter Mitt Romney did.