By Chris Moody | The Ticket

From the Republican presidential candidates to top GOP lawmakers in Washington, party leaders are engaging in a full-court press against the Obama Administration's decision to force employers affiliated with religious groups to offer health care insurance plans to workers that cover birth control free of charge, even if the action contradicts the employer's religious beliefs.

In a rare move for someone in his office, House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, took to the floor of the chamber on Wednesday to discuss a legislative plan to overturn the decision. Calling the rule "an unambiguous attack" on faith-based groups, Boehner said the House would begin work on a bill immediately.

"If the president does not reverse the department's attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people, and the Constitution that we're sworn to uphold and defend, must," Boehner, a Catholic, said. "The House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately through regular order and appropriate legislative channels."

Boehner said that the chamber's Energy and Commerce committee will take the lead in drafting the legislation to overturn the decision.

Last month, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that certain faith-based groups would have one year to comply with the requirement, enacted when Congress passed a federal health care overhaul in 2010. "Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law," Sebelius said in the statement.

The rule still exempts houses of worship from having to provide insurance that offers free contraceptives, but it applies to non-profit organizations funded by churches, including universities, hospitals and charities. The decision not to exempt those groups has resulted in an uproar from religious groups--particularly the Catholic Church--who say the federal mandate to pay for birth control infringes on their religious beliefs.

LOL. Catholics.

They majority of them don't even follow the churches beliefs in regard to birth control.

What a tool that Boehner is.

That's what I was thinking when I read this in the paper. American Catholics routinely use contraception. More religious BS that makes it hard to take it seriously.

I don't get the problem. I anyone saying anyone must take a BCP. Or will they still have the option to do as they like?

They'll probably drop the "with no co-pay" part of the mandate, and the Church will all of a sudden find that it is no longer the "one paying" for the birth control (birth control that 99% of all women have used, and 90% of Catholic women have used, too)...and all this will go away.

Have no fear, though...Sanitorium, Hank, and Hannity will find something else outrageous to yell about and get all red in the face over...and if they run out of useless schit to get all pissed off about, they can always fall back on being birthers...that one never runs out of steam.

Fish on...

Todd

Let's see......


Hank



Todd



Pick which one yells the most.

I don't yell...I point and laugh at guys like you.

Fish on...

Todd

classic

So you vote yourself as the calm, cool one, do you?

If you'd ever met me in person, you'd see it firsthand yourself

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Among my many superpowers, pointing and laughing is right up there at the top.

There already are, and will continue to be waivers for the Churches and those who work there...this mandate only covers secular activities (universities and hospitals) that are affilliated with the Church...but like I said, they are both looking for a compromise, and they'll find one soon, and what it will be is that the "without copay" requirement will go away, and everyone can go home.

Now the women are "paying" for their own care, and everyone can pretend that the 90% of the women in the Church who use birth control really don't, and that the Church really isn't paying for their insurance to do so.

It will be a non-issue in a week.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. No need to use "big words" to make it sound like Dr. Mengele will be handling the procedures...we're talking about IUD's, morning after pills, and tubal ligation when the woman has decided she's done having babies.

Here ya go, Toddler. A little gift from the net.

What does Penn State's locker room and a confessional have in common?

uh......uh......dunno

This is different, FP...we're not talking about little stuff like widespread and systematic abuse of little boys, and then covering it up for decades...this is important stuff, women gettin' all uppity and schit, don't want to be perpetually pregnant, being ordered around by a bunch of very old and nominally "celibate and poor" men.

Fish on...

Todd

Republicans are really missing the boat on this one: They should be giving birth control pills out like candy. Buy 6 gallons of gas and get free birth control pills. Receive your assistance check with free birth control pills. In the bag with the government cheese and rice, free BC pills. Register to vote, free BC pills. Do all of this and you will shrink the Democratic party by 50% in 30 years.

Absophuckinglutely....and it should be mandatory if you're on public assistance.

If it saves the world from just one stlhd or other idiots like her it will be a huge success.

Tempest -Teapot

Because they, like the Blues Brothers, are on a Mission from God.

We, on the other hand, are all going to hell.

Fish on...

Todd

Sweet. At least I'll be going somewhere warm.

No co pay

DBA is right on target. It may shrink the D voting pool, but I'm hard pressed to oppose something that is good for society. Now if only there were a way to reduce the birth rate of the redneck conservatives who also suck up social services - - hmmm, might just work in this sector too.

Estrogen is in the water supply but we must be uphill of SF.

The two of you together make half a joke.

When you team up with Hank, no matter the subject, it makes you look like a f'n goat.

Hope this helps.

Having been a foster parent for a few years now, I can describe for all of you the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. Additionally, the documentary "Freakanomics" has a mind blowing segment on birth control. Of course, you must have a mind first

Lobbyists cannot be prevented, they are satan's spawn

So, the Obama administration just offered a compromise...women who work at hospitals or universities affiliated with the Church can still get contraception as part of their insurance package, but the Church won't have to pay for any of it.

Just like I said...and it's now even more of a non-issue as it was before...but I still am planning on seeing a few veins popping out of Sanitorium's forehead today at some point when he expresses some more outrage to rally the idiots among his supporters.

Fish on...

Todd

When do these religious based hospitals get to treat patients based upon religious beliefs and not the freedom supressing AMA or FDA?

The Archdiocese says it's cool with the offer, Planned Parenthood is cool with the offer, and most people were good with it before the compromise was even offered...so, I fully expect Sanitorium and Grinchrich to be the only ones outraged anymore, and they will be outraged on behalf of the rest of the world who is not outraged, and will speak for the 1% of right wing fruitcakes who will continue to be outraged, to make sure they pander to that 1%.

Fish on...

Todd

Best buy in town, Hank.

Watching Newt flapping his jaws as CPAC right now...he just referred to getting rid of Obama's "religious bigotry"...so he, at least, is right on track with being outraged on behalf of virtunally no one but himself and a small handful of fruitcakes.

Fish on...

Todd

Santorum has joined Newt in seeing who can be the most outraged...him or Rick. The people, the Church, the Catholic Health Association...they're fine.

It's just Rick, Newton, and their drooling followers.

They should be careful...this is another opportunity for both of them to appeal to a very small base of mouth breathing window lickers, and to alienate large portions of the electorate that they'll need in a national election to have any chance whatsoever.

As usual, however, in their race to be the most idiotic, they're ditching the electorate they need to get the idiots on their side...I don't know why they bother, they've already wrapped up the idiot vote.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't get pandering to the extreme idiot sector of the electorate. The idiots aren't going to vote D anyway.

For candidates with little money and weak campaign organizations like Gingrich and Santorum, the free press they get by feigning outrage and indignance keeps them at the top of the news cycle.

They still have to "out conservative" one another to win the Republican nomination... so I don't think appealing to moderates is high on their priority list right now anyway.

Whichever of the clowns gets the R nomination, there's no doubt that the lunatic outraged fringe will be their "base", and they will get the votes...but right now they have to all "out idiot" each other, since they're all in competition for the nomination at this point.

So far as I can tell it's still pretty much neck and neck and neck as Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney all try to race each other to the very bottom of the idiot barrel.

The most embarrassing part is that even though whomever wins that race to the bottom and gets the R nomination, no matter how ridiculous that person is, they're still going to get damn near half the voters, including a bunch of dudes that are right here on this website.

Fish on...

Todd

Maybe women should pay for their own prevention along with men, instead of increasing the cost of insurance to everyone. Washington has mental heatlh requirements now, which drives up the cost of insurance to those who dont need it. The cost of the service goes up, when the market forces are absent. Whats next, plastic surgery?

I know a drug addict that is on social security disability. Early 50's weighs 400 pounds, because he wont stop eating. He was going to get his stomach reduced. Paid by the government the cost of said surgery was going to be 25,000 dollars. When will bleeding hearts demand personal responsibility from anyone? Remember the outrage on here regarding mandatory drug testing for those on the public dole. This wonderful human being has cost the taxpayers in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical care over the last few years, all due to his behavior that he will not change. That money cannot be appropriated to veterans or other services. Instead of saying buck up, they just borrow more money.

I like your quote " the race to the bottom"

I called it at the beginning of this whole fiasco and said it would be a clown show and I have not been disappointed yet, I am sure there will be more surprises in store for us, now who's got the popcorn?

Fishy

Everyone except the GOP candidates that are going to lose to him.

That's what makes me chuckle.

The chuckle will be when what appears to be a reasonable smart guy, Hankster, will vote for whomever that clown ends up being for the GOP, just because he's got an "R" after his name...because no matter what he says about Obama, even he knows that any one of those dipshits running on the "R" ticket will be ten times worse...but he'll still do it, because that's what partisan hacks do.

Right, Hank? You'll vote for the insane Man on Dog Boy, or Mitt, who's flipped more times than a sous chef at IHOP, or even the most worthless person in DC, the Newtster, who besides being worthless as a human being was run out of town on a rail by his own party the last time he was a politico, before he sold out to the very agencies he is now railing against...right, Hank?

Don't bother with denying it, or changing the subject...you, a smart man, will vote for one of those clows because of the "R".

Fish on...

Todd

Hell I'll vote for the guy with the R behind his name or an L or a D or
whatever, but I won't vote for the O guy. Where's Schwarzkopf when you need him?
Don't do much praying but I pray Obama joins the unemployed come
20 January 2013. Holder too, but sooner.

Todd, incase you forgot, a third party run does not have much effect on the machine politics. I guess I could root for Ralph Nader to run again, cause the left doesnt care either. For some on the left, BO is not liberal enough. Youll vote for BO on the same basis. D" because you are a democrat. If democrats were true fiscal conservatives, I might even switch, but since they are not and have proven that, election after election, I will vote for the side with the best chance of balancing the budget. Some of the R are going to be in primary challenges, due to their spending habits.

If your business is making a profit yet, which I hope it is, the surest way to make it less profitable to heap more debt on the public and take more money away from those who will invest it. Inflation eats away at everyone, which increases your costs and attacks the buying power of your customer. Heddon lures didnt go away. They increased their minimum purchase and now a lot of small stores and some larger stores cant buy them. Profit on each lure is eaten up by overhead and lost purchasing power. They essentially cannot charge whatever they want for their product.

I'm not a "Democrat", I'm a progressive...and not all Democrats are progressive...though Democrats tend to support the same things I do more often than any other party does.

Fish on...

Todd

You might want to check that one again. The '72 election was the first national election in which 18 year olds could vote. I was 19 at the time and campaigned and voted for McGovern.

I, too, consider myself a progressive rather than a strict Democrat. In the '80 presidential election I voted for Barry Commoner (Citizen's Party) and in '96 I voted for Nader.

Todd said, " I'm not a "Democrat", I'm a progressive..." , I say that is a distinction without a difference. You are an attorney, and we all know which party carries your water.

I haven't practiced as an attorney for almost 13 years...and if you think "Democrat" and "progressive" are the same thing, then you probably think "Republican" and "conservative" are the same, too...right?

Fish on...

Todd

Wrong, and I will amend carries to carried.

BTW not long ago the pope was all for universal health coverage.

More importantly the right is once again out of step with the American people who back Obama on this by a big majority.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/publi...-205113637.html

Contraception devices are free at any public health department. Take one, two, a handful.......no charge.

just sayin'

They are Slab?

Where exactly would one find these "public health departments" that are givin' out birth control pills, IUD's and various other methods of birth control by the handful for free?

Not to worry our president has issued an edict, he proclaimed that Women's birth control would be "free".

He has spoken!

submit

Seriously?

There's a reason why Republicans don't like birth control, and favor the least effective form of birth control ever contrived..."abstinence only education"...the more babies the better.

If they're born into a redneck family, it's a built in Republican...God knows no one as an adult ever converts to being a Republican, you're indoctrinated as a youngster. They need all the redneck babies they can get.

If'n they're born into a poor black family, then you can use cool terms like "Foodstamp President" and "Welfare State" to make yourself sound smart...to other people like you.

See, blackmouth and Sol Duc, it's a win-win for you. Get with the program.

Fish on...

Todd

You're wrong again, I grew up with Parents that were educators and pretty much Blue Dogs Dems. They're now pretty moderate R's.

I would hope that an educated man like yourself could understand that it is not about birth control. It is in fact -------about about government encroachment.

A Republican talking about "government encroachment" is like Rosie O'Donnell talking about weight loss.

Fish on...

Todd

Late to respond to your question.......wasn't following this.....kinda surprised that anyone would question this. Last time I went to the Public Health Department for a flu shot, contraceptives were sitting on the counter in a basket.....multiple teen girls came and went with a variety of number of them while I was there.
I could have sworn that I saw KK following the one with the biggest handful out the door.

There's a bit more to contraception than a box of rubbers sitting on the counter at the Health Department...like about ten thousand times more...and I'm pretty sure people are not too worried about their insurance covering rubbers or not.

Fish on...

Todd

Keerist, the implication that KK is fertile is scary. I would have thought he was sterilized years ago.

Probably mule kicked sneaking up on a goat.

I think it's awesome that old rich white men are the "experts" on birth control...

The reason there were no women there is that they only invited those who oppose the President's plan, and when you say "conservative" religions, that means the women are at home having babies, not making decisions or setting policies...stuff like that would disturb their womanly sensitivities.

Fish on...

Todd

I think this version makes more sense.

Cliff: Wait a minute.. if these chicks were so interested, why didn't they just come back with you, man?

Yortuk Festrunk: Oh, we gave them the address to our bachelor pad. They had to go to the Statue of Liberty to pick up their birth control devices.

Cliff: Uh, what..? The Statue of Liberty..?

Georg Festrunk: They told us that in America, many American park rangers distribute birth control devices.

Yortuk Festrunk: Poor foxes. Every time they are having sex, they must go to the closest national monument.

I've always been in favor of free BC but until we stop allowing "anchor babies" none of this means chit.

Bringing "anchor babies" into the conversation is why there should be more than just redneck men in the conversation...because that is fuckin retarded and has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation.

Next you'll be saying that a woman using birth control violates your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms because she is effectively making you shoot blanks against your will.

Fish on...

Todd

Poor baby...keep cryin'. It has as much to do with population control as your insessant ranting about rednecks. But you having a phvckin' clue about anything other than your own delusions of grandeur is a tall order.

Blaming catholics and religion for the anti-BC policy is fine but remember those mexicans and their anchor babies are catholic and they vote (even if they've no right to) and sway policy.

Carry on sunshine...and don't let work get in the way of your post count.

Nice try, tough guy.

Are you really trying to say that the anti-birth control movement is controlled by illegal aliens that want to have babies here so they can stay in the USA?

Wherever you're developing your..."logic"...must be the same place Hank is blaming chicken nuggets in Carolina on Obama.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. That place is referred to as "outer space" for the reality-based community.

P.S. Watch TV and all the old white guys busting veins out of their foreheads at the thought of birth control sure don't look like Mexicans that just swam across the Rio Grande and walked to DC.

Keeping dem wimmin barefoot and prego as thier God wills. Some may have a God that wants them to have several barefoot and preggers wimmin.

We can all agree that politicians are in the main bought and paid for by somebody...but anyone who thinks that the illegal Mexicans have their own bought and paid for politicians, and that they happen to be old, white Republican guys, and that they have ordered those old, white Republican guys to oppose access to birth control, so that they can have anchor babies, or the Peso Train will dry up...

Is fuckin insane. Like Rick Sanitorium insane. Like "Obama is a Nigerian Kenayan Socialist Atheist Muslim" insane.

Maybe more insane than that.

Fish on...

Todd

Hey 2 how bout sending me some of those pix you took the other day?

Non sequitor. Ever read "Something of Value" by Robert Ruark?

Problem solved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/f...B6JR_story.html

This guy is a 100% certified asswipe.



Fish on...

Todd

Before their time terrorists. I bet Kenyatta could get a luncheon date
at the White House. If he was still around that is.
Hell Clinton had Arafat, maybe O b can get Assad.

Just ogling the current SI Swimsuit issue. Now that is a serious argument for BC. Can't imagine messing up those lines. But then,
mommas to be are usually beautiful.

I will not bore you with a C&P but if you do some work with Google you can find scores of Rs who supported similar and much more draconian BC requirements in the past - now since Obama proposes freedom for women to choose BC or not the Rs hate it. Can you spell hypocrites?

Which is exactly the opposite of what is really happening.

I wonder how we even got to THIS point..?

Under the new plan, religious employers such as charities, universities and hospitals will not have to offer contraception and will not have to refer their employees to places that provide it. If an employer opts out of the requirement, its insurance company must provide birth control for free in a separate arrangement with workers who want it.

"You're wrong"


Now that's a compelling, well thought out, logical position. Almost Socratic.

What's next? May I suggest Na na boo boo?

Maybe Goharley can counter with – “Am not!”

"its insurance company must provide birth control for free in a separate arrangement with workers who want it."

And you guys don't have a problem with the government telling an industry that they must provide a product for free. Amazing. Forget the religious issue, this is the real problem. I'm not against birth control, matter of fact many people prove that it should be much more widely used. I have a big problem with the government telling industry what they must provide and that it must be free.

This is far from a new issue.


Unsettled Christianity

FEBRUARY 13TH, 2012 BY JOEL
MORE HYPOCRISY FROM THE GOP ON THE BIRTH CONTROL ISSUE
The New Hampshire Republicans aren’t exactly known for their sanity… But now they, like others, are being known for their hypocrisy

“This is about ensuring we do not mandate things contrary to people’s moral and religious views,” Bettencourt said.

Nevertheless, New Hampshire has had a law on the books for more than a decade that requires insurance coverage for contraceptive devices and services — and the law has no religious exemptions. It passed with strong bipartisan support, and religious organizations in the state have been complying for years without complaint. The only major difference between the state law and Obama’s rule is that in New Hampshire, women are still responsible for an insurance co-pay.

via New Hampshire Republicans Slam President Obama Birth Control Rule, Ignoring Their Own.

Oh, and I don’t buy the exclusionary clause of the “moral obligations.” That can be near about anything.

Related articles
the Progress Report – Attention Ladies: Republican s Are Coming For Your Birth Control (ynative77.wordpress.com)
Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins break GOP ranks over birth control coverage (dailykos.com)
Collins, Snowe break with GOP over Obama contraceptive insurance rule (americablog.com)
John Holbo: Republicans Going All-in Against Contraception Watch (delong.typepad.com)

Dave, contrary to many people's assumptions, my question wasn't political. I don't care who is in office. How did we get to this point in the first place?

SlOwbama sure didn't start it. But, we argue about it as if it really matters what we think.

Had to fix that.

When you hear a RWWJ quote a Democrat, followed by "in other words", prepare to hear what Rush or Hannity made up about it the day before, and prepare for it to have little to nothing to do with reality.

Fish on...

Todd

Cut and paste to hiss off the libtards:

Overreach: Obamacare vs. the Constitution

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: February 16

Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups — Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold — to hail the alleged compromise and hand Obama a major political victory.

Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia governor Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would rather go to jail than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.

A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

First, the assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, the assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?

Will vasectomies be free or is birth contoll an entirely female responsibility?

the problem with this whole argument is that birth control is not only about stopping pregnancy. many women are prescribed birth control pills as medications for other issues. to not allow medical treatments that only impact women is clearly discriminatory. when you take federal funds you cannot discriminate. you don't want to provide birth control, stop sucking the government's teat!

the republicans will change why they're opposed to this again and again. it was religious freedom. it's now about how contraceptives are bad. it might soon be about mandates. soon it will just be a slow whisper coming out of their drooling zombie mouths.....

"obaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmaaaaaaaaaa"

That is precisely why it is not a First Amendment issue.

It's certainly true that the present bunch in DC are not very discriminating how they spend our money.

Therein lies the problem and reason for my earlier question. Seems a growing majority are very happy getting their milk from the Gov. And the more people who rely on it, the more people you can count on as a voting base.

That is and interesting view, coming from someone who said this to me. Right?

"and if you think "Democrat" and "progressive" are the same thing, then you probably think "Republican" and "conservative" are the same, too...right?

Fish on...

Todd"