HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No, you can't deny women ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:23 AM

No, you can't deny women their basic rights and pretend it's about your 'religious freedom'.

114 replies, 5388 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply No, you can't deny women their basic rights and pretend it's about your 'religious freedom'. (Original post)
Playinghardball Dec 2013 OP
MsPithy Dec 2013 #1
Half-Century Man Dec 2013 #2
daleanime Dec 2013 #4
MsPithy Dec 2013 #17
mazzarro Dec 2013 #91
Enthusiast Dec 2013 #108
Half-Century Man Dec 2013 #32
daleanime Dec 2013 #93
Wounded Bear Dec 2013 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #5
FreeState Dec 2013 #8
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #16
hfojvt Dec 2013 #19
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #22
kcr Dec 2013 #35
JDPriestly Dec 2013 #89
laundry_queen Dec 2013 #114
ZRT2209 Dec 2013 #10
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #13
ZRT2209 Dec 2013 #14
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #18
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2013 #85
JDPriestly Dec 2013 #90
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #15
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #20
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #25
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #27
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #36
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #39
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #41
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #42
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #43
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #51
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #55
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #61
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #62
kcr Dec 2013 #63
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #68
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #71
kcr Dec 2013 #74
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #77
kcr Dec 2013 #72
Half-Century Man Dec 2013 #113
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #69
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #75
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #78
MountainLaurel Dec 2013 #23
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #30
kcr Dec 2013 #26
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #28
kcr Dec 2013 #33
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #37
kcr Dec 2013 #40
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #48
kcr Dec 2013 #52
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #44
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #49
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #53
kcr Dec 2013 #54
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #57
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #64
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #65
kcr Dec 2013 #67
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #70
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #50
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2013 #56
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #58
kcr Dec 2013 #59
JoePhilly Dec 2013 #60
NYC Liberal Dec 2013 #6
pintobean Dec 2013 #7
FiveGoodMen Dec 2013 #9
BodieTown Dec 2013 #11
Half-Century Man Dec 2013 #34
merrily Dec 2013 #98
Half-Century Man Dec 2013 #111
perdita9 Dec 2013 #12
el_bryanto Dec 2013 #21
jwirr Dec 2013 #24
calimary Dec 2013 #29
bullwinkle428 Dec 2013 #31
2naSalit Dec 2013 #38
Playinghardball Dec 2013 #45
grantcart Dec 2013 #66
Playinghardball Dec 2013 #73
grantcart Dec 2013 #79
pintobean Dec 2013 #87
grantcart Dec 2013 #88
JEFF9K Dec 2013 #46
kcr Dec 2013 #47
Playinghardball Dec 2013 #80
merrily Dec 2013 #97
merrily Dec 2013 #99
kcr Dec 2013 #109
Skittles Dec 2013 #76
indepat Dec 2013 #81
merrily Dec 2013 #96
blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #82
merrily Dec 2013 #100
TroglodyteScholar Dec 2013 #83
merrily Dec 2013 #101
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2013 #84
merrily Dec 2013 #94
Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #86
avaistheone1 Dec 2013 #92
merrily Dec 2013 #95
merrily Dec 2013 #102
B Calm Dec 2013 #103
merrily Dec 2013 #104
B Calm Dec 2013 #105
merrily Dec 2013 #106
B Calm Dec 2013 #107
TroglodyteScholar Dec 2013 #112
egduj Dec 2013 #110

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:47 AM

1. Is this actually a direct quote?

Is there a citation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsPithy (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:56 AM

2. If he didn't say it

He should have. The point made is still valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:01 PM

4. It had better be a quote....

if not there shouldn't be any quotation marks used. Besides which, this is how a Democratic President should talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:06 PM

17. I would bet real cashmoney Obama never said this.

It is way too forceful. The only people he doesn't mind offending are progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsPithy (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:37 AM

91. You are absolutely correct -- n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsPithy (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 07:01 AM

108. I have to say, it doesn't ring true...................nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:17 PM

32. Damn Skippy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 03:27 AM

93. Unholy peanut butter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MsPithy (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:58 AM

3. I hope it's real...It's long past time it was said in those terms...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:02 PM

5. Prior to the mandate this was never an issue. The mandate created this mess.

My birth control should never have 3rd parties attached to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:14 PM

8. Hate of Obama caused it - not the mandate

Companies like Hobby Lobby have been required to provide birth control and healthcare to their employees in CA since the late 1990's. 26 states require it - all before ObamaCare. There is no logical explanation other than political pandering and hate of the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:05 PM

16. Not everyone with a potential conscience exception does business in CA.

Nor is the government in a position to judge what is or is not a genuine expression of faith. It was a strategically short-sighted political goal to tie freedom of access to birth control to an employer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:13 PM

19. What freedom of access?

People act like "not being able to have other people pay for my birth control" is the same thing as "denying me birth control". For fuck's sake, it is certainly no more of a basic right than food or water and you have to buy those with your own tanjed money. What makes birth control so precious?

And yeah, forcing people to pay for stuff they don't want to pay for - IS taking away their freedom. That's true even if California did it before Obama did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:16 PM

22. We agree 142.85%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:22 PM

35. So, I take it you're against SNAP? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 01:57 AM

89. Actually, including birth control as a part of health insurance is, for many women, a health issue.

In addition, the women pay for their own health insurance. Your employer may buy it in your name, but getting the insurance is part of your pay package. You earn it. And if you are not insured by your employer as part of your pay packet, you buy it yourself. So no one pays for a woman's birth control. She pays for it herself. Your employer does not give you insurance as a gift. It is something you earn.

Why should I pay for a football player's knee injury and physical therapy? After all, I don't play football. Why should I pay for a man's treatments for prostate cancer. I don't have a prostate gland. Same for testicular vcancer treatments.

Women do not take birth control pills solely in order to avoid pregnancy. They also sometimes take them to, for example, diminish the pain and discomfort of menstruation. Would you like me to go into more of the ugly and miserable details about the physical aspects of being female?

Because most men really like the more attractive, satisfying aspects of females. Of course, maybe you are not like most men. Remember, it takes two to tango. It isn't just women who benefit from birth control. In fact, the whole human race, wait, the whole planet, benefits when women control the number of children they give birth to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 10:05 AM

114. Exactly, it's a health issue.

I take birth control pills because I have hormone induced migraines. I also have polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) which means very erratic cycles so it helps with that as well. I'm on a continuous dose pill (6 months on, one week off) to temper the migraines. Without the pill, I get multiple migraine auras per week and it's incapacitating. It's absolutely a health issue for many, many women. I actually know more women who went on the pill for health reasons than for birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:38 PM

10. Um, duh. The mandate is for the purpose of keeping third parties out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:48 PM

13. Then it has obviously failed spectacularly to achieve its stated objective. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:49 PM

14. because right wing assholes are fighting it? what's your solution - roll over and take it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZRT2209 (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:10 PM

18. I want employers out of the business of influencing whether or not I have access to BC.

If you demand they provide it for me then they have standing to challenge it in court where they have an opportunity to prevail. If they prevail then access to BC becomes coupled to the conscience of the employer. There has always been access to low cost/free BC via PPFA and other services. This was a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:55 PM

85. PPFA clinics have been and continue to be shut down

In red states and districts. This is the repuke strategy. State's Rights.

If you are forced to travel 400 miles to get service....or even 70miles--you don't have service.

In this country, healthcare is mostly employer dependent. With the advent of "religious" repuke wars on women, claiming "moral, religious objection" became a growing strategy for CONservative control freaks to force their belief system on women.

They began finding ways to work around the laws. Regulations are now clearly necessary.


The End.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:02 AM

90. Then let's prohibit employers from providing insurance at all.

Let's have everyone buy their insurance for themselves on the exchanges. Why in the world do people object to birth control? It is probably the only thing that keeps many women sane and healthy. Do you really hate sex that much? Or do you think that we should simply populate the earth with humans until nothing that isn't human can grow or breathe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:53 PM

15. If you have ever worked for a company that provided health insurance ...

they were already "attached" to your birth control.

Did you know that starting in the 1990s, and all the way up until Obama became President, the GOP sponsored health insurance plan actually covered elective abortion?

They could have easily dropped such coverage or never even included it in the first place. But there it was for 20 years.

It was only in their zeal to obstruct Obama did the finally decide to drop such coverage.

This is a political game they are playing and it has nothing to do with a mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:14 PM

20. You claim --

If you have ever worked for a company that provided health insurance they were already "attached" to your birth control.


Methinks you're talking out both sides of your mouth. If all insurance everywhere always covered BC then the employer mandate was moot. But the mandate did change things because you're fighting to preserve what the mandate created.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:55 PM

25. Did I say ALL BC everywhere is always covered?

The jumps you make using false assumptions and claims no one has made, are really astounding.

Look, if you want to repeal the ACA, you should give John Boehner a call, he'd love to hear from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:10 PM

27. Based on your previously unqualified declaration my response was on the mark.

If you have changed your assertion to state not all insurance policies carried BC then you would have to allow for the fact that those who have conscience objections to BC would be able to purchase one of those policies. If they were able to purchase one of those policies and then the employer mandate interfered with that fact then the employer mandate is to blame for the current state of affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:23 PM

36. Again, John Boehner awaits your call on this very important distinction.

And with your help, maybe he can return us to a far better time in American history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:37 PM

39. In other words

you've run out of lame arguments and have nothing but ad hominem grousing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:45 PM

41. I think you don't have an actual argument in the first place.

For some reason, you want to blame the ACA for a situation that is totally and completely manufactured by the GOP.

I've yet to hear you suggest any approach for improving the situation ... unless internet tantrums (your word) count.

If you don;t want to fight the RW nuts who are creating this situation, and you offer no other ideas, I'm left to conclude that repeal is your only alternative.

Or you could propose another.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:52 PM

42. The situation never happened prior to the HHS mandate.

And matters of conscience aren't determined by whether or not the opposition believes in the sincerity of the complaining party. There are plenty of Progressive causes where the GOP questions our sincerity and assume we're just being rabble-rousing malcontents. Let's not set another bad precedent to our own detriment.

I've yet to hear you suggest any approach for improving the situation


De-couple birth control from any third party influence. It's MY life, not some other person's moral issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:56 PM

43. How do you propose for this "decoupling" to occur?

Pay as you go ... no insurance of any kind?

Or, do you want Single Payer, in which the government is totally and completely involved in your every medical decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:10 PM

51. The coupling of 3rd parties to BC is an HHS construct.

It can just as easily be undone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:15 PM

55. its clear your access to BC doesn't change regardless of

the final outcome here.

BC is cheap and easy to obtain for everyone, or so you claim.

So why do you care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:23 PM

61. "So why do you care?"

Apparently the only reason you care is to hand out metaphorical nose-punchings to the unfavored Other using the force of law. You aren't doing it for access of affordability because you concede it's already accessible and affordable. You appear to have become Nietzsche's monster hunter.

I care because -- as I have stated repeatedly -- it's an ill-considered policy to make my BC subject to influence from 3rd parties. My BC is none of my employer's business. For the record, my last employer treated me like a daughter and I very much appreciated him but I would never want him attached, even indirectly, to this personal of a part of my life. That's why I care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:25 PM

62. No, I did not agree it was accessible or affordable.

You made that claim. I disagree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:27 PM

63. Your employer won't know

They provide the insurance. That doesn't mean they become privy to every single detail of your healthcare. There's this little thing called HIPPA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:31 PM

68. The government has decreed that all employers are responsible for BC.

if the conscience objection is sustained, then what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:35 PM

71. Then BC falls freely from the sky like rain I guess.

The ACA does not decree that all employers are responsible for BC, only that the insurance they offer include coverage for it.

It also requires maternity coverage ... but of course that's cheap and easy for all who need it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:40 PM

74. Exactly. They're no more paying for birth control then they are paying for colonoscopies.

It's like claiming my employee is buying me dinner every time I go out to eat because they sign my paycheck. Their conscience is clear. The motivation for this fight is purely political.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:51 PM

77. yup ... two words ... "total compensation"

... or "Benefits Package".

Employers started to offer health coverage as a way to lure prospective employees with something other than salary. Insurance coverage made sense because it was more expensive on the individual market.

Which leads to another path on the legal front ... allow this guy to opt out of BC coverage, but require him to increase the salaries of his employees, because after all ... insurance is part of total compensation.

Of course he can always opt out of the entire thing, and pay the tax that he would have avoided if that keeps him square with God

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:36 PM

72. Then it's a battle lost

Certainly for women with little to no access to effective birth control. Religious people who want to dictate to others have won. But, we live to fight another day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #68)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:58 AM

113. No, the insurance companies declare birth control to be a part of health care.

Hobby Lobby claims to want to limit the available coverage for their employees exclusively, to ones which do include BC; or get it removed as an part of health care from established policies for their employees. Or.....attack the law itself as a way to open a backdoor to nullify it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:31 PM

69. HIPPA ... but, but ... that's another LAW ... ARGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:47 PM

75. Since I've previously refuted your past effort to employ this straw man argument

you obviously lack the integrity for honest debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:56 PM

78. You argue that (a) you don't want your employer to control your access

to BC ... and then proclaim (b) that BC is so low cost and easy to obtain that no one is blocked from getting it anyway, which if true, makes the entire discussion moot.

And you don't see the logically disconnect in your arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:20 PM

23. Horseshit

Speaking from personal experience as an employee of a place that wouldn't cover contraception, this was a problem before, which is why the mandate was created to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainLaurel (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:14 PM

30. Horse poo to your horse poo

Birth control was still accessible. I had BC when I didn't have insurance and I had BC when my insurance didn't cover it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:10 PM

26. This was never an issue?

Wow, I'd love to live in Nuclear Unicorn World. It must be an amazing place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:11 PM

28. Please show me the pre-mandate court cases where an employer could interefere

with my access to birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:20 PM

33. Wow. In Nuclear Unicorn World, everyone could afford effective birth control, too.

Amazing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:36 PM

37. You obviously don't know much about birth control.

No/low cost birth control has been available for decades. Ever hear of family planning clinics? I used them in the past, they're there. (By the way, does this employer mandate make funding those clinics obsolete?)

And before the employer mandate I paid for my own, out-of-pocket, twenty dollars a month.

Even assuming your complaint wasn't just so much drummed up outrage you are still not faithful to your stated goal. You aren't increasing access for women, you're making access subject to a legally recognized conscience exemption. You're putting third parties into a position to interfere with personal choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:41 PM

40. Ever hear about what's happening to family planning clinics?

Oh, but I'm the one that doesn't know much.

Drummed up outrage? No, i wouldn't call disagreeing with the argument that the fact that some companies object is a reason not to make them comply drummed up outrage. I'd call it a sound argument. There has to be more than that. Otherwise, we'd still have child labor, with little bodies working in the coal mines. And what does personal choice have to do with it? No one is saying birth control has to be mandatory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:06 PM

48. "Otherwise, we'd still have child labor, with little bodies working in the coal mines."

Oh man, the excuses just get more absurd. I can't even conjure a scenario as to how that even applies.

And what does personal choice have to do with it? No one is saying birth control has to be mandatory.


Why not? If you can demand Catholics pay for BC in spite of their conscience objections what's to keep some other "mandate" from cropping up? What's the line that cannot be crossed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:10 PM

52. How does it not apply?

You're the one supporting these companies that want to say no to the mandate. Your argument seems to be that it's the mandate's fault. Gee, telling a corporatiuon what to do. That's just apparently so wrong. It's putting them in the position to fight it. Well, so what? That's not a reason not to take action. Sorry.

The line that cannot be crossed is easy. They don't get to dictate how we live. And telling them they don't have to "pay" for BC certainly crosses that line. We don't get to have safe and effective birth control covered for everyone because they object? No, I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:58 PM

44. So, we should let the guy in this lawsuit WIN ... cause low cost BC exists.

Makes total sense!!!

In crazy land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:08 PM

49. Yes.

If low/no cost BC exists then what is the reason for an employer mandate? You can't say access, because access is already there.

You need a reason other than legalized bullying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:13 PM

53. Because its not low cost and easy access for everyone.

And as I read your posts, it seems clear that this entire discussion has no effect on you.

You don't need insurance coverage for BC because for you, its cheap and easy to obtain anyway.

So why do you care at all about women who need such coverage?

I'm starting to think you don't care about them. You got yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:14 PM

54. Bingo on your last sentence

So what if some religious people want to use their beliefs to bully others by effecting policy? She doesn't care. She can get it for 20 bucks a month!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:16 PM

57. exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:28 PM

64. Ah yes, the "(s)he does't care enough" legal precedent.

The underpinning of all civil law.

Because its not low cost and easy access for everyone.


Got links? Family planning services are privately and publically funded. Where are these hinterlands you speak of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:30 PM

65. Try Texas. Here ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to kcr (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:33 PM

70. Ding ding ding!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:09 PM

50. They didn't need the courts before, they could just exclude BC

if they wanted to. And if so, too bad for the women who worked for them.

Of course most of these Religious folks didn't exclude BC because there was no political gain to be obtained.

Its a political fight, not a fight of conscience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:16 PM

56. "They didn't need the courts before, they could just exclude BC if they wanted to."

BC is accessible without the beneficence of others. What society is this that nobody seems capable of anything unless someone else provides it. I don't understand how this empowers people. It doesn't, it makes them hostage to the whims of the provider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:17 PM

58. Rand, is that you???

Next, I expect that you'll compare BC coverage to slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:19 PM

59. That was my first thought!

Post 56 explains it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:23 PM

60. YUP ... after all the back and forth ...

... post #56 makes everything clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:06 PM

6. He never said it, though he's said similar things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:10 PM

7. Fake quote

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/104649/amy-sullivan-anatomy-wishful-viral-rumor

February 10, 2012. Obama appears in the White House press room to announce some proposed changes to the HHS mandate that requires employer-based insurance to include free coverage of contraception after fielding complaints from a diverse group of religious individuals who felt the exception for “religious employers” was too narrow.

February 15, 2012. On a forum discussing Rick Santorum at Topix, someone posts this observation: “You can’t deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your ‘religious freedom’. If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your beliefs.”

February 16, 2012. The above statement, now attributed to Obama and plastered over an image of Obama forcefully making a point, is posted on a tumblr called Atheist Stardust. It’s unclear if this was the first site to link Obama with the quote about religious freedom, but the post was either “liked” or re-blogged by more than 28,000 other sites, which makes it a likely suspect.

From there, the image and quote took off, becoming particularly popular with Pinterest and Tumblr users. While it was eventually picked up some conservative sites as evidence of Obama’s “war on religion,” the vast majority of those posting the quote seem to be liberals who express relief and pride at Obama’s supposed willingness to stick it to religious conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:18 PM

9. That's certainly what he should say

But if it's not a real quote (and it may not be; see rest of this thread) then it does no one any good to convince them that this is what he actually said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:45 PM

11. If It's Fake, Take It Down

All you're doing is spreading disinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BodieTown (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:21 PM

34. Just change it slightly

Remove the quotation marks and set the text to the bottom of the page, add other democratic figures to make it a montage print.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:06 AM

98. So that we have many fake speakers portrayed instead of only one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #98)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:42 AM

111. Okay. Get a signed release from all persons portrayed.

Proving they agree with the statement. Put an on-line petition out and we can sign it to express our support of the sentiment. Whatever.

The message is good, the linking of any particular person to it is wrong, but the message is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:46 PM

12. If I work for a Muslim company, will I have to follow Sharia law?

Someone needs to ask the Supreme Court that question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to perdita9 (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:15 PM

21. What do you mean by Sharia law?

Because, like Jihad, it's a term that has a lot of different meanings and interpretations.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:30 PM

24. It is about time someone said that. The rethugs continue to try to establish their theocracy while

we set by and watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:13 PM

29. Amen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:16 PM

31. Wish I could rec, but won't do it if the quote isn't genuine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:37 PM

38. Whether it's a direct quote or not...

It IS what every free thinking citizen should be saying to every RWNJ and/or religious zealot they encounter!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:59 PM

45. Just returned to my office and saw all of the comments concerning this post...

I considered removing it, but feel that it's such a great quote that I've decided to leave it....

Too bad it wasn't President Obama's quote...

I'll try to be a little more careful...

Sorry about that...

Play

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:30 PM

66. Why don't you edit it to state that while the quote certainly expresses the President's opinion


it doesn't appear to be a direct quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:38 PM

73. Don't you think that folks on this board already know that it expresses the President's opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:57 PM

79. The issue is that it is presented as a direct quote which appears to be a misattribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:00 PM

87. Recs trump honesty

for some?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:26 PM

88. Recs trump sanity for some.


If we get enough recs we can prove that George Bush was the driver for the shooters on the grassy knoll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:59 PM

46. This isn't a conservative website - it's fact-based! If this isn't an exact quote the thread ...

... should be removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEFF9K (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:02 PM

47. That's ridiculous

Number one, few quotes are exact, and often aren't attributed to the person who said them. Number two, the sentiment behind it fits perfectly for this website. Absolutely no need to remove. I served on the jury for this OP and was proud to vote to leave it. I'm glad I was able to. It would have been crazy if this had been hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 04:06 PM

80. The trouble with quotes posted on the internet...



Isn't the person pictured here Mark Twain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:05 AM

97. Not true. If you are careful you can and this is bogus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:07 AM

99. Sorry, you voted for deception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #99)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 07:18 AM

109. You mean, someone might think the president thinks women should have access to birth control?

Oh, no!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 03:51 PM

76. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

yes INDEED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 04:13 PM

81. Wow, surely our President's statement on basis rights will be received as heretical and pure heresy

by those who wear Jesus on their sleeves while eschewing all his teaching in their own greed-driven lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:03 AM

96. Didn't find anything on the internet to suggest that he said this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 09:54 PM

82. Nice speech.

Let's get some REAL ACTION behind it, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:07 AM

100. It would be, if Obama had actually said it.

I cannot find anything that indicates that he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:18 PM

83. You should pull this bogus post down

It was poor judgment to post a "quote" without checking it out in the first place, and it's doubly poor judgment to see proof that it's bogus and still let it stand.

Fake. Ass. Quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroglodyteScholar (Reply #83)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:08 AM

101. I could not agree more. I cannot believe a jury voted to let deception stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:42 PM

84. YES! HELL. Fucking. YES!

I love this human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 04:58 AM

94. Search of the Internet gives no indication that Obama ever said this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:58 PM

86. You can't deny people basic rights PERIOD and

pretend to advocate "freedom".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:53 AM

92. I like this Obama quote.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 04:59 AM

95. It's not an obama quote.

read the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:09 AM

102. I cannot believe a jury voted to let this deceptive OP stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:07 AM

103. I can't believe how many people come here and alert just to see

how many posts they can get deleted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #103)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:11 AM

104. You prefer to have a bogus post to stand to confuse people?.

FYI: I did not alert on it, nor would I have. A juror posted upthread.

So, I have no idea why your post about alerting is addressed to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #104)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:17 AM

105. uhhh, maybe because of your comment in post 102?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:21 AM

106. Which does not say that I am the one who alerted, nor was I the one. Why would you

prefer a deceptive post to stand, though?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:29 AM

107. Nor did I say you were the one who alerted. I

personally don't see the deception just because the OP didn't use Obama's word for word comments!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #103)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:51 AM

112. False attributions are not cool.

We are better than that, and should be better than the personal attacks, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:35 AM

110. Great quote!

I think I might use this as my sig line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread