Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed

[zinfamous]

I am excited by the way that the protectors of child rapists are trying to lecture Obama on morality. It's pretty fantastic.

it's really quite precious, isn't it?

:wub:

 

[sandorski]

I am excited by the way that the protectors of child rapists are trying to lecture Obama on morality. It's pretty fantastic.

***NSFW Pope Troll Offensive somewhat OT***

Yup

 

[pcgeek11]

Why the hell is any priest in any way qualified to comment on contraception?

Because he isn't there to discuss contraception. They are there to represent and discuss the religious viewpoint against it. There are two sides to the coin.

 

[Riparian]

Because he isn't there to discuss contraception. They are there to represent and discuss the religious viewpoint against it. There are two sides to the coin.

Like any issue of this nature, it's a balancing of various interests. It's not just about political freedom and it's not just about women's health. Hence the outrage towards panels that only represent one end of the spectrum. Even under a strict scrutiny analysis of this issue, you would still need to balance multiple interests.

 

[sandorski]

That crazy lady never foresaw the Birth Control Panels.

 

[zinfamous]

so when are the Feds going to start asking the Church for their roughly $5 Trillion in unpaid back taxes?

:hmm:

 

[pcgeek11]

Not entirely sure why she was deemed unqualified. From other news reports, her testimony was meant to relay her experience with her friend while attending Georgetown Law School (Catholic affiliation) where her friend lost an ovary because she Georgetown's insurance would not cover contraceptives and the use of the pill in this case would not have even been for the purpose of contraception but for saving an ovary. Here's the article I'm getting this information from:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/5705/

The particular quote of relevance:

So instead of her friend paying for it herself, Her friend Chose to not save her own ovary.

How does that make her qualified? She has a friend that was effected and was too stupid to pay for whatever it took to prevent her from losing an ovary. Why didn't her friend testify?

She isn't qualified.

 

[spidey07]

Like any issue of this nature, it's a balancing of various interests. It's not just about political freedom and it's not just about women's health. Hence the outrage towards panels that only represent one end of the spectrum. Even under a strict scrutiny analysis of this issue, you would still need to balance multiple interests.

Negative. The first amendment is first amendment. Obama is clearly breaking the constitution. This is a very simple fact. He can't force a company or institution to go against one of thru core religious principles.

Thread title is still blatant lie.

 

[theeedude]

So instead of her friend paying for it herself, Her friend Chose to not save her own ovary.

How does that make her qualified? She has a friend that was effected and was too stupid to pay for whatever it took to prevent her from losing an ovary. Why didn't her friend testify?

She isn't qualified.

Maybe her friend wanted to retain her privacy and have an advocate testify on her behalf. Of course Republicans don't believe women should have a right to privacy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Negative. The first amendment is first amendment. Obama is clearly breaking the constitution. This is a very simple fact. He can't force a company or institution to go against one of thru core religious principles.

Thread title is still blatant lie.

Well, except that the Catholic Church isn't being "forced" to do anything. They've chosen to broaden their argument back to their standard song & dance- opposition to all forms of birth control, other than Vatican Roulette.

They can divest themselves of all of their non-Church businesses if they so choose, practice their religion w/o interference at all. When they choose to enter into realms other than the practice of their faith, like running hospitals, they need to abide by the rules of whatever country they're working in.

Nobody has shown that they'll be paying for contraception coverage, anyway- certainly not if there are monthly insurance co-pays by people who work for them... It seems highly unlikely that their employees enjoy 100% coverage for health insurance.

 

[a777pilot]

The only thing women need for birth control is good judgment, self control and a free will.

LOL!~

Ya, like that will happen any time soon.

 

[Darwin333]

Negative. The first amendment is first amendment. Obama is clearly breaking the constitution. This is a very simple fact. He can't force a company or institution to go against one of thru core religious principles.

Thread title is still blatant lie.

That isn't entirely correct. I could make a religion tomorrow and per the first amendment if my religion said that it was a sin for any member to pay taxes I would have the largest following in all of America. Somehow I doubt the IRS would go along though but you would agree that they should right?

 

[spidey07]

That isn't entirely correct. I could make a religion tomorrow and per the first amendment if my religion said that it was a sin for any member to pay taxes I would have the largest following in all of America. Somehow I doubt the IRS would go along though but you would agree that they should right?

Bullshit. 16th, as terrible as it is.

Obama is going against the constitution. That much is clear. Why Do liberals hate the first and second is beyond me.

Oh. That's right. The liberal wants complete contol.

May the most holy fuck be upon Obama. Fuck that fucker.

 

[CitizenKain]

Bullshit. 16th, as terrible as it is.

Obama is going against the constitution. That much is clear. Why Do liberals hate the first and second is beyond me.

Oh. That's right. The liberal wants complete contol.

May the most holy fuck be upon Obama. Fuck that fucker.

Look, the village drunk is posting again.

 

[MovingTarget]

The only thing women need for birth control is good judgment, self control and a free will.

LOL!~

Ya, like that will happen any time soon.

Wow, thats some misogynist bullshit. :thumbsdown:

...or is my sarcasm meter broken?

 

[pcgeek11]

Maybe her friend wanted to retain her privacy and have an advocate testify on her behalf. Of course Republicans don't believe women should have a right to privacy.

Maybe she isn't qualified.

Anything she would have said for her friend would be hearsay.

hear·say/ˈhi(&#601😉rˌsā/
Noun:

1. Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.

2. The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

 

[Riparian]

So instead of her friend paying for it herself, Her friend Chose to not save her own ovary.

How does that make her qualified? She has a friend that was effected and was too stupid to pay for whatever it took to prevent her from losing an ovary. Why didn't her friend testify?

She isn't qualified.

Look, we have no idea why the friend was unable to pay for it herself. It could have been unduly costly to pay out of pocket or she could have been completely out of money. She was, after all, a student at Georgetown. The funny thing is, those are questions that could have been asked if they had let this girl testify on the panel clarifying the issue you just brought up.

Anyways, if allowing people directly affected by a particular policy does not qualify as valuable insight into the positives and negatives of that policy, then I don't know what is. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[Riparian]

Negative. The first amendment is first amendment. Obama is clearly breaking the constitution. This is a very simple fact. He can't force a company or institution to go against one of thru core religious principles.

Thread title is still blatant lie.

Can the government prevent a religious entity from practicing polygamy? Can the government prevent a religious entity from practicing anything? If you answer yes to either one of these questions, then you are balancing society's interests with those of the First Amendment. While it is the burden of the government to show that the policy is narrowly tailored for a compelling government interest, it is still a balancing test.

Anyways, there's rarely anything in politics that is just "simple fact."

 

[Darwin333]

Bullshit. 16th, as terrible as it is.

Obama is going against the constitution. That much is clear. Why Do liberals hate the first and second is beyond me.

Oh. That's right. The liberal wants complete contol.

May the most holy fuck be upon Obama. Fuck that fucker.

Sigh, I was trying to make a rather simple point but you want to get technical so how about a real world example.

Do you or do you not agree with Muslims "right" to practice Sharia law in the US amongst themselves assuming all parties are Muslim and agree? Is that their right per the 1st?

 

[a777pilot]

Wow, thats some misogynist bullshit. :thumbsdown:

...or is my sarcasm meter broken?

LOL!

Broken? More like missing.


The serious part of all of that is that there are consequences to person actions. Also, it is not, repeat, NOT, the function of government to pay for poor choices in all human behavior.

 

[Zorba]

Do you or do you not agree with Muslims "right" to practice Sharia law in the US amongst themselves assuming all parties are Muslim and agree? Is that their right per the 1st?

More like do you believe that Muslim organizations should be allowed to use Sharia law on their employees, regardless of their employees religion?

Also how do all of you republicans feel about polygamy and child "marriage"/rape? I guess as long as you are Mormon its okay?

 

[JohnnyGage]

Look, we have no idea why the friend was unable to pay for it herself. It could have been unduly costly to pay out of pocket or she could have been completely out of money. She was, after all, a student at Georgetown. The funny thing is, those are questions that could have been asked if they had let this girl testify on the panel clarifying the issue you just brought up.

Anyways, if allowing people directly affected by a particular policy does not qualify as valuable insight into the positives and negatives of that policy, then I don't know what is. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

If she couldn't afford it, couldn't she have gone to Planned Parenthood? There has got to be one around the Georgetown area, right?

 

[a777pilot]

More like do you believe that Muslim organizations should be allowed to use Sharia law on their employees, regardless of their employees religion?

Also how do all of you republicans feel about polygamy and child "marriage"/rape? I guess as long as you are Mormon its okay?

I see you have a great grasp of the real world.





Sarcasism....OFF.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

 

[actuarial]

Negative. The first amendment is first amendment. Obama is clearly breaking the constitution. This is a very simple fact. He can't force a company or institution to go against one of thru core religious principles.

So you agree or disagree with applying sharia law in the US? As long as it's a core religious principle right?

No one answered my previous question. There are already limits on freedom of religion the moment you employ someone (with clergy exemptions). Explain to me how this is different.