Archive for Friday, March 2, 2012

GOP senators fail to reverse contraceptives rule

March 2, 2012


— In an election year battle mixing birth control, religion and politics, Democrats narrowly blocked an effort by Senate Republicans to overturn President Barack Obama’s order that most employers or their insurers cover the cost of contraceptives.

The 51-48 vote on Thursday killed a measure that would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president’s health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law’s requirement to cover the costs of birth control.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, who this week dropped her re-election bid and cited frustration with the polarized Congress, cast the lone Republican vote to block the measure. Two Democrats up for re-election and one who is retiring voted against Obama’s requirement.

Majority Democrats said the legislation would have allowed employers and insurers to avoid virtually any medical treatment with the mere mention of a moral or religious objection.

“We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. Insurers, she said, don’t need an invitation to deny coverage for medical treatment. “A lot of them don’t have any consciences. They’ll take it.”

Republicans argued that the requirement under the health care overhaul violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom by forcing insurers and employers to pay for contraception for workers even if the employers’ faith forbids its use. Roman Catholic leaders have strongly opposed the requirement.

The Senate vote aside, the debate “won’t be over until the administration figures out how to accommodate people’s religious views as it relates to these mandates,” said the measure’s sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. “This is a debate that might be settled at that building across the street,” he said, referring to the Supreme Court.

Such cultural issues have been prominent in this presidential election year, with Republican presidential candidates casting Obama’s health care law as government overreach into the most personal types of medical decisions. The contraception policy in particular touches on religious and women’s rights important to the activists at the core of each party.

A majority of Americans support the use of contraceptives. The public is generally in favor of requiring birth control coverage for employees of religiously affiliated employers, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll Feb. 8-13. The survey found that 61 percent favor the mandate, while 31 percent oppose it. Catholics support the requirement at about the same rate as all Americans.

The legislative fight came after the controversy had already forced the White House to budge somewhat. The administration initially ruled that religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities must include free birth control coverage in their employee health plans. As protests mounted from Catholic leaders and many Republicans, Obama announced an adjustment: Religious employers could opt out, but insurance companies must then pay for the birth control coverage.


Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

Some Republicans of today are confused or phoney. On the one hand they claim to be against abortion yet in the same breath they vote against abortion prevention.

If some women did not want contraceptives based on some moral grounds they would not seek contraceptives thereby situation solved.

stanchaz 6 years, 3 months ago

Republi-cant's....what a circus. They LOVE to tell you what you can’t do. Republicans condemn condoms! Republicans praise children of rape as a gift from God. Republicans legislate forced trans-vaginal probes. Republicans hate women (and men) who simply want to plan their families. What’s next? Republicans mandate missionary-position only? Procreation... not recreation! What a campaign slogan! I really hate to admit it, but Newt was right. ‘Cause Newt and all his Republican friends SHOULD set up a moon colony.... AND GO THERE! Then, they could tell each other what to do, and how to live, and who to love.... and who to hate...while leaving the REST of us alone, in peace, back here on Earth. Newt, I always KNEW that you were a problem-solver. Unfortunately, you and your Republican friends ARE the problem...

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 3 months ago

And they could call the new colony "Smaller government", since they proclaim to want that so badly.

Michael LoBurgio 6 years, 3 months ago

Ladies Sen Roberts and Moran both voted to make health care decisions for you!

Republicans don’t want to pay for your birth control, but they want you to pay for their Viagra.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

Republicans are working hard to make sure that a large majority of women vote against them.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

You rank up there with Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "s**t" and a "prostitute" because she's unmarried and takes contraception medication.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

With the possible exception of some sports topics, you've never posted anything remotely complimentary about anybody.

Hint-- cynical mocking (i.e. trolling) is not complimentary.

Sunny Parker 6 years, 3 months ago

This is just another welfare program! Nothing is 'free'! Insurance company's will raise their rates again and employers will pass this off to their employees!

This has nothing to do with womens healthcare. It has to do with Obumba needing womens votes. He's promising something 'free' again! The women that should be taking birth control and who are popping out babies for tax payers to support, are not working, they are just having babies!

When will enough hand outs be enough?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"This has nothing to do with womens healthcare.

You're just as ignorant as you are misogynistic.

JackMcKee 6 years, 3 months ago

Give us the public option. Problem solved.

verity 6 years, 3 months ago

Could not have said it better myself.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

I remember a year ago, when the last round of anti-abortion legislation was rubber stamped through the state house straight to Brownback's desk, someone on this very board cried, "What's next, contraception?" And I replied "Yes". I knew even then that this was coming down the highway. You see, I know these people. The vast majority of them are fat, greedy, old, white men who are no more "pro-life" than Genghis Khan was a "humanitarian".
If you want proof of this, start with the photo of the Issa committee and work your way to the committee that's deciding the current state legislation; HB 2598: There are links there, with pictures, of every member of the committee. These people are anti-abortion, pro-forced birthing and anti-woman, but they are NOT "pro-life". The proof of this is in the fact that they are more than eager to limit the very thing that would actually prevent abortions; contraception. I still maintain that these people have awakened a force that's going to take them totally by surprise. It amazes me how they can forget that the hand that rocks the cradle can also rock the world. The next couple of years are going to be highly interesting, because the times they are a changin'.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

I might buy that, if I can choose which weapons I like in the military arsenal and which BS wars I do or do not want to pay for. Might work for the Interstate too. I can't see why I have for anything more than I-70 across Kansas. This is not about choices; it's more bless the zygotes magical Republican thinking.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

Sorry, I'm not really concerned about your "purity" concerns. I'm sure you would be SO much more comfortable in Gilead. Too bad (for you) it doesn't exist. (For women, it's a relief.)

08Champs 6 years, 3 months ago

Your seem to imply that only "singles" use contraception? Sorry, but plenty of 2 parent households want to control the size of their family.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

So, would you be willing for insurance plans to cut Viagra out of their formularies? After all, I think it's gross that middle aged and old men want to get a...well, you know, just to have sex for pleasure and not for procreation.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

Well to quote Sophie Tucker, "20 goes into 60 a whole lot easier than 60 goes into 20."

JayhawkFan1985 6 years, 3 months ago

insurance companies actually prefer to pay for birth control pills because pregnancies and childbirths cost them one heck of a lot more money. Your argument is fox news propoganda and doesn't hold water, just hot air.

Sunny Parker 6 years, 3 months ago

Pay for your own birth control! It is not a 'health issue'!

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

You really don't know, do you? Hormonal therapy (i.e. "birth control) is used for much more than just contraception. It's used to treat premenstrual dysphoria, PCOS, regulate cycles that are wonky and even, believe it or not, to treat INfertility. It has multiple treatment uses, unlike the "little blue pill" that has one use and one use alone. Viagra isn't used to really treat "health issues" at all. Makes a whole lot more sense for insurance companies to cut it rather than hormonal regulators.

notaubermime 6 years, 3 months ago

It stops being a choice when sex stops being consensual. Religious organizations object? Fine. Don't use it, but at least have the decency to not foist your views on others.

notaubermime 6 years, 3 months ago

Rape isn't a social life. Neither is the ability of married couples to plan on when to have a family.

notaubermime 6 years, 3 months ago

The problem is that so few of your posts are actually worth reading. Take this one as a case in point, where you are bringing up abortions and Planned Parenthood on a topic which is about insurance coverage of contraceptives.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

You know, watching all of the pages and websites and news items that flash across my screen these days (sometimes so fast it's hard to keep up), I'm getting the feeling that many of these legislators haven't the foggiest idea of the size of the juggernaut that's heading their way. An avalanche starts out as a handful of snow and when it's done it can (and does) bury entire towns.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

You're so blinded by ideology (and religious superstition) that you have absolutely no idea what women's healthcare entails.

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

58% of women take the Pill for reasons other than birth control, to treat medical conditions.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"Having said that I have to wonder about the source of this number. "

Of course you do. Your superstition-based misogyny demands it.

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

Which has nothing to do with anything. 58% of women use The Pill primarily for non-birth control reasons. It is used as medicine to treat conditions.

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

I wouldn't touch your chain if it was the last one on earth and the survival of the human species depended on it.. What are some other alternate treatments for severe dysmenorrhea, ovarian cysts, or polymenorrhea that are at least as effective? I would assume doctors would have a better idea of the most effective and appropriate treatment for a given condition

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

What about all of the health care issues that result from lifestyle choices, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, strokes, heart attacks, etc.?

Why should I, as part of an insurance pool, have to pay for those treatments when they could easily be prevented by lifestyle changes?

And, are you really saying that women who use contraception aren't acting "responsibly"? It seems to me that's exactly what they're doing, in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies/abortions.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

I think information about these diseases and lifestyles has been around for a bit longer than 2 decades - when did the Surgeon General first start putting warnings on cigarettes?

Glad to hear that you're paying attention, and changing your lifestyle accordingly - everybody should do the same, but unfortunately many people don't.

If they should pay for their own social life, then everybody should pay for their own choices, in my view. But that's not the way insurance works, generally.

Social life includes drinking/smoking/etc. doesn't it?

The problem, in my view, lies more in the nature of insurance and how it pools together premiums for coverage, than with specific issues like birth control.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

I would suggest tiered charges for differing lifestyles, with those who engage in harmful behavior like smoking paying more than those who don't do so.

pace 6 years, 3 months ago

Baa, to take you reasoning (?) one would have to leave it to the government to choose your wife, wouldn't want any social decision made on a personal level effecting the genetics of your neighbor's children. Screen them all and make their choices by government committee. Keep those random costs down.
The health care act is a very good beginning at creating a larger pool of insurance payers. You should know that.

pace 6 years, 3 months ago

Of course you don't understand, I rephrase your nonsensical argument and even you agree it make little sense. You suggest just dismissing all sociail decisions so as to not affect the pool of insured while that is not practical. You then say the health care act would increase the pool of those who can not pay insurance, while the health care bill WOULD increases the number of people who could afford to pay for insurance as well as keeping the costs down for all. You can make false statements but, no, the health care actually will help a larger number of people be able to buy health insurance.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

In 1965, warnings on cigarette packages were mandated.

That means it's been 47 years, much closer to 5 decades than 2.

Anybody who started smoking after 1965 did so with the knowledge that it was bad for them.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Yes they can, but it's also been shown that quitting is good, and increases your chances of living a long, healthy life.

Why on earth somebody would believe a cigarette company, which makes a fortune from keeping somebody addicted to cigarettes, instead of doctors who are looking out for the public health is beyond me.

But I understand that addiction distorts one's thinking in a variety of ways.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

You know what makes your comments about lifestyle issues or social lives so pointless?

The fact that neither you, not the women's employer nor the Church would have any idea that 1) a woman was using contraceptives and; 2) the purpose behind her use of contraceptives.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

HIPAA says you are wrong. There is no way an employer would know the purpose of contraception that a woman is using.

The employer would be making assumptions (much as you do about most things) that higher premiums were a result of providing contraception for pregnancy prevention. There are many reasons insurance costs could go up.

And never-mind that health insurance is part of an employee's compensation and not something that an employer is paying directly out of their own pocket. Additionally, any increase in health insurance premiums are borne by the employee as the employer tends to pass along those costs.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

Oh, you are the clever one! Implying that I am not employed is such a zinger. Where did you get such an unusual & unique debate tactic?

HIPAA is regarding medical privacy. Your employer does not have access to your medical records as a result of that unless you have specifically given them permission to do so. Your employer would have no idea even if you were on contraception or not.

Actually, all the employer knows is that the cost of the benefit they offer to employees has risen. They do not know why unless that particular insurance company specifically tells them.

Additionally, health insurance is part of the employee's compensation package. The employer is not bearing the cost of the insurance. The employee is.

For example, company x believes that position y is worth $50,000/year. They have the option to pay the full $50,000 to the employee and not offer health insurance or they have the option to pay the employee $40,000 and offer a $10,000/yea health insurance policy. The health insurance amount is taken out of the employee's total compensation that the company has decided that position y is worth. If premiums go above the amount the employer has decided is the total compensation, then the extra cost gets passed on to the employee to pay, usually in the form of paycheck deductions.

And your reasoning that premiums are going to increase because contraception as birth control will make it so when actually the insurance companies costs decrease as a result of offering birth control for pregnancy prevention.

You do understand that paying the costs of prenatal care, birth & postnatal care is way more expensive than covering the costs of birth control pills?

Since it is rare that premiums decrease when an insurance company saves money, it is more likely that premiums will remain the same as they were before.

COBRA? Really? That's your argument? You do understand that when you leave a job (whether it is voluntary or involuntary) that you no longer are compensated by that employer? And so, with COBRA, you are paying the cost of that directly rather than part of your total compensation package.

Weak sauce, BornAgainAmerican, weak sauce.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

If you offered your accountants health insurance as a part of their total compensation package and you failed to deliver, then, yes, clearly they are due a refund of what you denied them. That would be a breach of contract.

It is clear that you have no understanding on how employee compensation works.

Insurance premiums can increase for a variety of reasons and unless they specifically tell you the reasons, you will not know why. All you can do is speculate. I know this is difficult for you to understand but correlation ≠ causation.

Employers paid for benefits are part of the total compensation. They do this to attract employees. An employer can offer $50,000 as compensation for your services and choose not to offer health insurance. Or they can offer $40,000 and $10,000 worth of premiums so the total compensation = $50,000.

However, an employer cannot dictate to an employee what they can do with their compensation.

HIPAA means that your employer has no way of knowing how you choose to use the part of compensation that is health insurance.

I don't think you fully understand that your employer ≠ your insurance company and therefore has no access to your medical records nor any say on how you utilize your health insurance compensation.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

Further, employers don't have to pay for things like employee benefits. They can chose not to.

Of course, it may mean that the quality of employee they attract may not be the quality they desire to have but it is their business decision.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

My intent is to present you with facts. Obviously it is lost on you. You aren't interested in facts. You are only interested in misleading people so as to get support for your dishonest views.

You clearly don't understand employee compensation or how it works. The employer does not get to dictate to the employee how the compensation utilized. The only relationship the employer has to the health insurance is as part of the employee compensation. They are not involved (and should not) be involved in the relationship between the insurer and the employee. To do so would violate HIPAA.

And you clearly are moving the goalposts in your arguments. Your claim was that providing birth control would increase premiums and I've explained to you why that is an untrue statement & now you are changing it to the new health care mandates.

I don't care what your emotional state is or will be. I only care that you are posting incorrect information. If it makes you angry that you are being corrected, so be it.

pace 6 years, 3 months ago

This is why we should not tie our access to health insurance to our jobs. While it is offered as a benefit, it is seen as something like a gift. I just want to be judged at work by how I do my job, not by how many children I plan to have or how I plan to do any of my medical care. It puts the boss and the employee in inappropriate discussions. I only want to discuss my medicine or health care with my doctor, not my supervisor on the line. If it doesn't effect my work, they should not have a say if a woman takes the pill.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

Uninformed people view it as a gift. It is not.

It is part of the compensation one receives in exchanges for the services/or goods one provides. It is no different than if your employer just paid you the money that benefit is worth directly. Your employer cannot dictate to you how you should utilize your compensation.

Think of it this way. Vacation time is a benefit. It is part of the compensation package your employer offers you in exchange for the job you do. Your employer cannot tell you what you can do on your vacation time nor can your employer tell you where you can & cannot go on your vacation time. Health insurance as a benefit is no different.

Your boss cannot have any discussions about your medicine or health care with you. The only time it is permissible is when you are requesting accommodations to your job for a medical condition or perhaps some form of medical leave. Even then the discussion is only limited to that specific request and your employer may not attempt to get any medical info that is not necessary to your request.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago


You didn't have a point to miss or ignore.

It is clear that you lack a basic understanding on how employee compensation works. It is clear you don't understand HIPPA. It is clear you don't understand how employer provided health insurance works.

In general, you just lack a basic understanding of anything that doesn't fit your myopic world view.

pace 6 years, 3 months ago

It should not be decided by you, by the governor, or by her supervisor on the line. It is a decision that should be made by the woman and her doctor. Letting a boss decide or the legislature quirk the access to health insurance in such details is stupid and wrong. Florida has started legislating what discussion a doctor and patient can have about child care, home safety, medical care. My god, talk about death by committee. Hello GOP.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

It's not identical.

If you get $10,000 in wages, you can spend that however you like.

If you get $10,000 in health insurance benefits, that money is only available for health care that is covered under your policy.

That means that the employer is in fact limiting how that money is used, based on their contract with the insurance company.

And, your employer can certainly tell you how much vacation time you get.

In the same way, an employer can tell you how much and what kind of health insurance benefits they're offering.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago


It is part of employee compensation. Once that compensation is agreed upon, the employer does not get to tell you how to use it.

For example, if you have cancer, your employer cannot dictate how you treat it.

And you misunderstood the vacation example. I suggest you re-read it.

I don't think you understand employee compensation either.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

"It is no different than if your employer just paid you the money".

It most certainly is different, as I've mentioned.

Money given as salaries can be spent on whatever the employee wishes to spend it on, health insurance benefits cannot.

And, I understood your example - I just think it's flawed. An employer who wishes to determine what sort of health benefits are offered is more analogous to determining how much vacation time is offered, in my view.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Yes, but the employer can also simply choose to pay $40,000 with no benefits, if they can get someone to work for that amount.

When unemployment is high, and jobs are scarce, people will work for less money and fewer benefits - when the situation is reversed (if ever), then employers will have to compete for employees.

Health insurance benefits aren't really identical to wages.

And, it's clear that the cost of insurance to an employer depends partly on the coverage offered - more and better coverage costs more.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

They certainly can. I've already said that but then benefits are something an employer offers to attract employees.

Health insurance is a benefit which is part of the employee compensation package. Wages are also part of the employee compensation package.

Pastor_Bedtime 6 years, 3 months ago

Yep, to these radical bible-thumpers, every sperm is sacred. Sex is merely and solely for procreation, and even the enjoyment of it is unholy. They even have suggestions on the correct biblical way to perform. They are committed to removing any free will in the bedroom. Next will be the lockstep forced attendence to their Sunday services. The churchies keep pushing and pushing their radical agendas on others. They don't know their proper place in this country, and this particular Agnostic Republican - who was born correct the first time - think's it's high time to put them back in their place.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"Secular Progressives such as yourself fear and loath Christians."

No, we fear your Taliban-like ignorance, and your desire to impose it on the rest of us.

Pastor_Bedtime 6 years, 3 months ago

I'll wager dollars to donuts I'm just as business-friendly, capitalism-loving and flag-waving as yourself. Just not drinking the Christian kool-aid. Socialist? No way. Moderate? Definitely. Republican? Absolutely. And the more the Republican party tries to portray itself as a solely Christian monolith, the more they assure four more years of Obama. It's not that hard to figure out.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago


Are you suggesting that all Republicans should believe as you do and should only parrot Party line?

Man, no wonder the Republican party is bleeding out now.

hujiko 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Kate Rogge 6 years, 3 months ago

The Wall Street Journal has been running a poll for some weeks now with the question "How Religious Are You?" with, to me, very surprising results:

58.9% of those who responded (including me) answered "No faith." I wouldn't have described the WSJ readers as secular progressives, but I'd guess that's what they are if a majority of them do not self-identify as religious at all, let alone Christian. Who knew, huh?

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

Wow, now BAA is saying who does and who doesn't have religion? Is he channeling Rick Santorum now?

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

Constance Johnson of Oklahoma is my heroine.

Joe Hyde 6 years, 3 months ago

The Republican party's religious right is so eager to keep "government intrusion" out of the activities of churches and insurance carriers, all for the sake of denying women many forms of useful medical coverage. Okay, so they want every woman to pay her own way in the most "pure" independent fashion? Well, this might be a good time to begin a serious political discussion about forcing churches to "walk the walk".

Why don't we just change the tax laws and take away all -- repeat, all -- tax exempt status for churches, church employees, church-owned properties regardless of their religious denomination. Let them talk all the women-bashing BS they want from the pulpit, let them propose their drastic medical restrictions in legislative discussions and House and Senate bills...but make these organizations and employees pay their fair share of taxes annually. Make them stop freeloading off the various necessary public services and amenities the rest of us contribute annually to build and maintain? This change would be about tax fairness for all, and to better benefit the public good. Correct?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

Taking tax-exempt status from churches should have happened long ago.

The most egregious abusers of this loophole would be the Phelpses and their WBC, but they are small players in this widespread fraud.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Women are a larger percentage of the population than men, and they also vote.

Regardless, not all issues should be solved by majority vote, in my view.

usnsnp 6 years, 3 months ago

If you are against tax money or insurance money paying for birth control pills, you should ask the people in Congress and our State legislators how many of their wives are using the pill because our tax money is paying for the bigest portion of their health insurance. It is easy for people that have gold plated health care to complain about surh things. It is the old saying do as I tell you not as I do.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

BAA, you mistake your opinion with conservative opinion.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

It was a statement about your posts in general, which routinely express a position that places party over country rather than just a conservative position.

I look forward to reading your strong support of Mitt Romney once he wins the Republican nomination.

pace 6 years, 3 months ago

Baa,You wouldn't know a conservative opinion if someone did waste the time spelling it out to you. The haters have beaten the conservative voice down. The lost conservative voice, the demonized liberals voice both offer reason. It is the radical haters who hurt the country the most, Bea is correct "BAA, you mistake your opinion with conservative opinion. "

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 3 months ago

My previous post recommending that you just ignore BAA was removed (I can't imagine who might have requested that).

He has every right to post here, and we all have every right to simply ignore him.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

And that's why it would be awesome if the LJW forum offered a ignore feature.

Most forums have this. It is not a difficult feature to program.

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

Yes, an ignore button would be useful. Since the moderator now refuses to eliminate known zombies, just imagine being able to do so on our own -- that would be sweet.

pace 6 years, 3 months ago

You have a naive understanding of rights. No, one doesn't have "every" right to post here. "Here" is private property. Also when we register here we agreed to a code of conduct. " Here" is actually private property. Like in your home, if they wish they can escort you to the door.
No, one doesn't have every right to ignore him, that is a choice. you have a right to choose to ignore, to engage, to express opinion of his argument. A lot of choices. Too many people think rights and freedom are synonyms. We have civil rights, we have choices, We can also choose to say in chorus, here is a loud mouth troll who inhibits conversation that may be useful to the community, You have a right to disagree. You might find his voice sound and of value. Good hope to your present company if that is so.

Freedom of speech is one right, but as the oppression of those freedom of expression rights of peaceful protest show, there are various logical and tactical restrictions on those rights. While it is odd you defend the "right of someone to post anything on private property, you have indicated that people do not have the same rights on public land.
Many rights are tied to property rights, which have restriction as well. And if you do not own property the civil right of free expression can be even more problematic. This may be a complex way of looking at it , but it combines the real rights with the practical and real process of accessing those rights. The forum is private property with a public responsibility.

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

You just labeled yourself a right wing terrorist.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

BAA: You should not make fun of my religious beliefs. That's just intolerant and hateful. Agnostick: But. you attack me all of the time and claim that my lack of belief makes me evil and immoral! BAA: That's different. Calling you evil and immoral is a PART of my religious beliefs, so it's protected.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

OMG, are you SERIOUS???? You really DON'T know netspeak, do you? Somebody call 911. I don't think I can get off the floor. Go read a few cat macros, BAA. They've only been around about 5 years and you might even get a few chuckles and a warm fuzzy or two.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

LOL This is the only answer you can come up with BAA? Weak. Weak as usual.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 3 months ago

This was a close vote. The senate came very close to passing this bill, which would have allowed any excuse to not pay for employee health care as long as it was based upon a "religious belief".

The unintended consequences alone that might have resulted are stunning.

The modern GOP are not conservatives. They are right wing liberals.

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

With the continued attacks on birth control and abortion, it is likely the throat cancer rate will continue to rise.

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

If religious organizations don't want to offer reproductive health services under their insurance, rather than stirring up this juicy political theater distraction-fest, why didn't they just stop offering insurance to their employees? Then they've protected themselves from their perceived persecution without attempting to force their beliefs on everyone else. It's the economy, stupid. All this stirring up of the social issue pot in an election year is smoke and mirrors to distract from the reality that the government has been sold to the highest bidder. The financial foxes are not only running the hen house, they own it. George Carlin said it best: "Its a big club...and you're not in it."

Katara 6 years, 3 months ago

Yes, they had a solution to their dilemma and their choice is to instead make a big fuss about it.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 3 months ago

Get used to it, BAA. Women are p***ed and there's no going back.

deec 6 years, 3 months ago

Well, submissives don't tend to express their true feelings.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.