Ann Coulter gives Sandra Fluke and her supporters a reality check.

[thereisnospoon]

Churches are exempt from the requirement.

Sort of - at least, Obama has given lip service, for the moment.

Your war with the 1st Amendment doesn't exist.

True, but Obama's war to end the 1st Amendment is all too real.

Obama seeks to end religious liberty by forcing Catholic institutions, schools and hospitals, to provide contraception and abortion. Little doubt Catholic hospitals will be coerced to offer abortion on demand under fascist care.

No he is not trying to force Catholic institutions to provide shit. Requiring insurance coverage to help pay for these type of needs does not end religious liberty. The Church is still free to preach the perils of eternal damnation for acting against its will.......sheesh.

They are needs. They are WANTS. Remember that. Sexual activity is a choice. Sexual activity without being responsible is also a choice.
Sensible people are loathe to pay for the irresponsibility of others.
This debate is over. Personal responsibility wins out.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Churches are exempt from the requirement.

Sort of - at least, Obama has given lip service, for the moment.

Your war with the 1st Amendment doesn't exist.

True, but Obama's war to end the 1st Amendment is all too real.

Obama seeks to end religious liberty by forcing Catholic institutions, schools and hospitals, to provide contraception and abortion. Little doubt Catholic hospitals will be coerced to offer abortion on demand under fascist care.

No he is not trying to force Catholic institutions to provide shit. Requiring insurance coverage to help pay for these type of needs does not end religious liberty. The Church is still free to preach the perils of eternal damnation for acting against its will.......sheesh.

No, he's heeding the advice of an independent council of experts that contraception does fall into the preventive medicine column, and ought to be a baseline service.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Churches are exempt from the requirement.

Sort of - at least, Obama has given lip service, for the moment.

Your war with the 1st Amendment doesn't exist.

True, but Obama's war to end the 1st Amendment is all too real.

Obama seeks to end religious liberty by forcing Catholic institutions, schools and hospitals, to provide contraception and abortion. Little doubt Catholic hospitals will be coerced to offer abortion on demand under fascist care.

No he is not trying to force Catholic institutions to provide shit. Requiring insurance coverage to help pay for these type of needs does not end religious liberty. The Church is still free to preach the perils of eternal damnation for acting against its will.......sheesh.

He's not forcing Catholic institutions to provide shit. He's forcing insurance providers to provide contraceptives. Where is the coercion?

 

[koshergrl]

Do the churches have to provide insurance?

Yes, they do.

That's the coercion.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yet they are NOT allowed to practice their faith in schools and hospitals they founded and run.

Congress created law prohibiting the free exercise, at behest of our ruler.



The attempt to revoke the 1st Amendment cannot be characterized as anything but an assault on the bill of rights.



Obama's war on the 1st Amendment will not succeed. Too many have died defending civil liberties to allow you to end them without resistance.

Myans and Aztex are not allow to have religious human sacrifices. Rastifarians cannot use their most sacred herb, and now Catholics can't force theri religious doctrine on employees at their schools or hospitals.

There is no war on the 1st amendment.

Boo Boo...I am calling bullshit on your post because you make a claim yet provide no proof as to it's veracity.
BTW,....Those people are called AZTECS....Dummy.
And yes, Religious institutions STILL have the First Amendment right to operate as they see fit according to their religious doctrine.
You appear to believe this battle has been won by the socialists in the Obama admin. Forget it. Christianity and Christians have had it up to their eyeballs with the Left's attacks.
You people are over.

Ah I'm firmly rebuked by a Spelling Nazti.Thanks.

Okay spelling aside what do you think the Myians/azzzztechies can perform human sacrifices because it's part of their religious doctrine? Or was it about the Rastis?

It's never going to be over because secularist have had it up to their earslobes with religious doctrine of all kinds.

 

[koshergrl]

And it's "Mayans".

Honestly, if you expect to be taken seriously at least make an effort to correctly spell those words you have only heard on tv and never actually read about...

 

[UpAndAbout]

What kind of sick bastard EVER thinks of a baby as "unwanted"? "Unplanned", maybe, but "unwanted"?

Guess you've never heard then of the gals who have babies and then dump them in the dumpster? If we had given these women free BCPs, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. What about the boyfriend/father/husband who kills a newborn? Babies ARE unwanted sometimes, sad but true, ESPECIALLY if they were unplanned. I still say give these people all the birth control they need to keep from reproducing! If their employer or church forbids it, too bad. But I do think they can get this at Planned Parenthood, can't they. Don't they operate on a sliding fee scale? Preventing liberals from reproducing should be one of our top priorities. I have written my congressman about it as well.

You idiot, those women have access to free birth control already. THEY ALREADY HAVE IT AND YET THIS STILL HAPPENS, and with more frequency.

Hey weird tidbit I picked up today...something like 2/3 (or maybe 1/3, I can't remember which, I didn't have time to really absorb) of babies born in the Victorian era were illegitimate.

Apparently there was some sort of social upheaval...I think probably it was the industrial age and the women's movement in its infancy...women were having an awakening of sorts. This is also the era that spawned Sanger and others....

With great promiscuity goes great birthing, I suppose...

You totally miss my point. Yes babies have been born out of wedlock forever. And yes they CAN get free BCPs from Planned Parenthood. Then why in the hell don't they get them then. What I'm saying is that the liberals want this, but they haven't stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, we want it for them. If they WANT the birth control, and they will take it. BUT if we give it to them and they still continue to get pregnant willy nilly, then obviously they aren't using it? What I was trying to point out is anything to KEEP them reproducing. i'm 62, long past the childbearing age. But what I'm suggesting is okay, let the guvmint pay for their BCPs, but of course with them paying for they can control the users, Sooooo, say we will pay for them, but you MUST NOT get pregnant for five years (or some arbitrary agreed upon number of years).

What I really want to know though do they REALLY want the birth control or is this just another issue for the Democrats to throw out there to show how big and bad the Republicans are. I'm just saying call their bluff, give it to them, all the while thinking that it will mean less liberals being born. I don't know, just a thought.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm all for never giving them what they want, particularly when what they want results in eroding the Constitution, and going further down the path of State Oversight in our personal lives.

 

[UpAndAbout]

A very cheap preventative care solution. Much better than your insurance pool having to treat STDs, especially HIV.

"very cheap"....Therefore BUY THEM YOURSELF.

People who have to rely on the gubmint to wipe their asses for them will never willingly purchase their own rubbers. That's the gubmint's job. They haven't a clue how the gubmint pays for them and they don't care as long as they get "free" stuff.

I fully expect them to start asking the government to provide their toilet paper. I am really surprised we already don't have a "Toilet Paper Administration" or some such. Maybe Michelle could take that cause up -- she could try to outlaw any TP that "left pieces behind." She could launch the "wipe front to back" campaign or something for women.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you guys call Ms. Cleo again?

Is that who you call to have the 1st Amendment explained to you?



Demand a refund.

 

[KevinWestern]

They are needs. They are WANTS. Remember that. Sexual activity is a choice. Sexual activity without being responsible is also a choice.
Sensible people are loathe to pay for the irresponsibility of others.
This debate is over. Personal responsibility wins out.

Why do I just have to sit there and suffer for the poor choices of others, specifically when they end up getting themselves pregnant - unintentionally - and driving up my insurance costs because my insurance will have to pay for the pregnancy? This whole debate would be different if unplanned pregnancies were paid in full by those who got unintentionally pregnant. But that's not the case. I'm always going to be affected by the choices of others in my insurance pool.

I suggested that the insurance pool cover BC pills to help protect itself from the risk of unplanned pregnancy, but people seem to disagree feverishly with that idea.

Does anyone else have any suggestions on how to protect oneself from these high costs of unplanned pregnancies within your insurance pool?

You can call BC pills a need, a luxury all you want, but when they're the mechanism that saves my insurance pool from costly, unintentional pregnancies, I think the topic remains worthy of debate.




.
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do we just have to sit there and suffer for the poor choices of others, specifically when they end up getting themselves pregnant - unintentionally - and driving up my insurance costs because my insurance will have to pay for the pregnancy? This whole debate would be different if unplanned pregnancies were paid in full by those who got unintentionally pregnant. But that's not the case. I'm always going to be affected by the choices of others in my insurance pool.

Good news Kevin, you don't.

You can resign your post as janitor at the Catholic Church and get a job where they offer contraceptives as part of the health plan.

Freedom, it baffles the left....

 

[KevinWestern]

Bullshit.

Fascist care mandates that birth control be supplied by all plans. Dear Leader said he would exempt churches, but then - that isn't what the unconstitutional law says, just a promise by our Ruler.


It violates the 1st Amendment. If we allow the sanctity of the 1st to be violated, then it is meaningless. Obama seeks to change the fundamental nature of our government and has expressed his contempt for the constitution. This open assault on the bill of rights is no surprise, but must not be allowed to succeed.



Will you grant them zones within their churches where they are allowed to speak words not approved of by our Ruler?

How progressive of you.

I don't believe it violate the 1st as the Catholic Church is still free to preach it's message, un-zoned.

Mischaracterizing this as an assault on the Bill of Rights is what is no suprise, as that is all the right has in it's favor, mischaracterizations. That behavior is in everything they say and do.

Gotta love it. "We're not violating your rights just because we're making you do things you disagree with; we're still generously allowing you to SAY whatever you want." Hey, dumbass, why don't you force people to perform abortions and tell them how their rights aren't violated because they still get to SAY that abortion is wrong and evil?

It would help a lot if stupid, fascistic pieces of shit like you would bother to READ the First Amendment before making your braindead pronouncements on what does and doesn't violate it. Sadly, that still won't make you any less of a moron in general.

Cecilie - By the way, I'm still waiting for an apology, for when you insulted me and called me a liar after claiming that the religious right "never outlawed gay marriage", which is clearly a completely false statement when you consider what happened in California, with prop 8.

Admitting that you were wrong would be the courageous thing to do, and a apology would demonstrate that you have some class.

Cheers.

 

[koshergrl]

You can get married in California if you're gay.
Just not by the state.

 

[KevinWestern]

You can get married in California if you're gay.
Just not by the state.

Prop 8 was overturned this year, I believe, so I think you're incorrect.

 

[koshergrl]

My point is, people could get married...just not by the state. Gay marriage isn't against the law, it's not OUTLAWED, you won't go to jail for having a parson or anyone else marry you.

You just couldn't force the state to do it.

 

[KevinWestern]

Why do we just have to sit there and suffer for the poor choices of others, specifically when they end up getting themselves pregnant - unintentionally - and driving up my insurance costs because my insurance will have to pay for the pregnancy? This whole debate would be different if unplanned pregnancies were paid in full by those who got unintentionally pregnant. But that's not the case. I'm always going to be affected by the choices of others in my insurance pool.

Good news Kevin, you don't.

You can resign your post as janitor at the Catholic Church and get a job where they offer contraceptives as part of the health plan.

Freedom, it baffles the left....

God damn the day I chose to pursue my passion for cleaning toilets over a promising career as a talented stock broker.
.
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

God damn the day I chose to pursue my passion for cleaning toilets over a promising career as a talented stock broker.
.
.

If you are a stock broker, then the decision of Catholic institutions to not purchase contraceptives and abortificants as part of their health care package has zero impact on you.

So this loops right back to infringing the 1st Amendment simply because you want to impose your will on others.

 

[The T]

My point is, people could get married...just not by the state. Gay marriage isn't against the law, it's not OUTLAWED, you won't go to jail for having a parson or anyone else marry you.

You just couldn't force the state to do it.

Nor can you force the State to recognize it.

 

[KevinWestern]

My point is, people could get married...just not by the state. Gay marriage isn't against the law, it's not OUTLAWED, you won't go to jail for having a parson or anyone else marry you.

You just couldn't force the state to do it.

Kosher, in the context of the discussion I had with Cecilie, "outlaw" specifically meant taking away one's pre-existing legal right to be married by the state.

Cecilie: "...with this disingenuous horseshit about "outlawing" it, as though we were all going along happily, everyone getting state-sanctioned marriage certificates to whomever they wanted, until BAM! those bastard Republicans suddenly decided out of the blue to pass laws against it."