Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fear Mongering?We get it. This is why Stephanopolus peppered Romney with the "can states ban birth control."
This is why Obama is trying to force free birth control on Catholic Hospitals and how to force insurance companies to pay for it.
You want to convince people with the fictitious fear that Republicans want to ban birth control.
So, here's the thing.
Give me ONE EXAMPLE of a Republican Gov, President, Congressman, etc, EVER banning birth control and you will have your argument.
Until then, this is all just BS fear mongering by a desperate president who can't run on his own record, because his own record SUCKS.
So, bring it. Give us the examples.
My guess is, there will stuipid quotes of Santorum from six years ago. There will be NO EXAMPLES OF Republicans trying to ban birth control. There will be total silence. OR there will be just the usual sputtering from outraged liberals because no one should ever dare pin them down on their total preposterous lies.
Bring it libs. I'm waiting. I know I won't get a straight answer.
PS, ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL. That's infanticide. There are plenty of methods of birth control that prevents conception.
You know why you libs have changed the subject to birth control. You have lost the argument on abortion. Most people are against it now.
You started the subject, so don't change it, because someone's pinned you down on it. BIRTH CONTROL. Give us the examples.
I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breathe.
from liberals?
nah, can't be. remember their brain is busted and don't have a fear response.
This is hate mongering.
Fear Mongering?We get it. This is why Stephanopolus peppered Romney with the "can states ban birth control."
This is why Obama is trying to force free birth control on Catholic Hospitals and how to force insurance companies to pay for it.
You want to convince people with the fictitious fear that Republicans want to ban birth control.
So, here's the thing.
Give me ONE EXAMPLE of a Republican Gov, President, Congressman, etc, EVER banning birth control and you will have your argument.
Until then, this is all just BS fear mongering by a desperate president who can't run on his own record, because his own record SUCKS.
So, bring it. Give us the examples.
My guess is, there will stuipid quotes of Santorum from six years ago. There will be NO EXAMPLES OF Republicans trying to ban birth control. There will be total silence. OR there will be just the usual sputtering from outraged liberals because no one should ever dare pin them down on their total preposterous lies.
Bring it libs. I'm waiting. I know I won't get a straight answer.
PS, ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL. That's infanticide. There are plenty of methods of birth control that prevents conception.
You know why you libs have changed the subject to birth control. You have lost the argument on abortion. Most people are against it now.
You started the subject, so don't change it, because someone's pinned you down on it. BIRTH CONTROL. Give us the examples.
I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breathe.
from liberals?
nah, can't be. remember their brain is busted and don't have a fear response.
This is hate mongering.
They fear monger. Republicans want you to have "dirty air, dirty water." They want to take away your Social Security.
Now, it's birth control???????
This is all they have is fear mongering. They sure can't run on Obama's record.
Lets re-cap.
According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.
You guys should run on that. Really.
That's a slippery slope bud!
Ban my Boulevard Wheat and we got a problem.
Your being a hack Bro
True story
I see you still haven't watched the above video--so here's another for the BRAIN DEAD--
Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, SodomyRepublican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.
In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Courts 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.
The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."
No--the U.S. Supreme court is for protecting the citizens from social freak nut-cases like Rick Santorum. He is all for the STATE getting involved between the intimacy between a man and woman--husband and wife--on their personal decision of how many children they want. He does not understand BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS--because of his religion--that he wants to shove down everyone else's throat.
He obviously doesn't understand the constitution. He must believe a state could ban gun ownership, too.
UNBELIEVABLE.I see you still haven't watched the above video--so here's another for the BRAIN DEAD--
Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy
No--the U.S. Supreme court is for protecting the citizens from social freak nut-cases like Rick Santorum. He is all for the STATE getting involved between the intimacy between a man and woman--husband and wife--on their personal decision of how many children they want. He does not understand BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS--because of his religion--that he wants to shove down everyone else's throat.
He obviously doesn't understand the constitution. He must believe a state could ban gun ownership, too.
Yeah--some of these social right wing nut cases, don't seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution was provided to the citizens of this country so it could protect us from freak social nut-cases like Rick Santorum--that needs to be kicked back into the 17th century.
The HYPOCRISY on this--is that while everyone is furious over the government over-reach of Obamacare--they appear to be perfectly O.K with Santorum stating that States have the right to intervene in the individual rights of a husband and wife to be able to choose how many children they have--
I still see that we have 14 on this board that feel State can BAN birth control contraceptives--LOL
The issue was already decided in a 1965 U.S. Supreme court case--Griswold v Connecticut in a 7 to 2 ruling--stating the State does NOT have the RIGHT to intervene in the PRIVATE intimate matters that go on between a man and woman or husband and wife.
Only Rick Santorum believes that.
Griswold v. Connecticut
The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so called "right of privacy" could not be found anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution or its amendments, the majority argued that it is "implied" by the words and phrases of other constitutional amendments.
When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
of course not
what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?
of course not
It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---
Griswold v. Connecticut
States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.
The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.
of course not
It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---
Griswold v. Connecticut
States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.
The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.
Excellent point!!!! He is calling those two programs an over-reach by the government yet is okay with banning contraceptives. Pretty crazy guy.
It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---
Griswold v. Connecticut
States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.
The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.
Excellent point!!!! He is calling those two programs an over-reach by the government yet is okay with banning contraceptives. Pretty crazy guy.
I wonder if he thinks the women voters will warm up to him over this?? What I get a kick out of, is he wears that christianity, Catholic stuff all over his sweater vest and gave a WHOPPING 2.4% to charity out of his million dollar income. Hey, Rick, you are that good of a Catholic, I think it's more like 10% you should tithe. I give more of a percentage of my income than he does. Hypocrisy in full view for all to see.
It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---
Griswold v. Connecticut
States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.
The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT of that, he insists that it's O.K. for STATES to be able to BAN birth control pills, condoms and all other devices that prevent pregnancy--thereby interfering in the PERSONAL--PRIVATE intimate relationships between a man and woman and their PERSONAL--PRIVATE decision on birth control and their personal--private decision on how many children they have--LOL
Excellent point!!!! He is calling those two programs an over-reach by the government yet is okay with banning contraceptives. Pretty crazy guy.
I wonder if he thinks the women voters will warm up to him over this?? What I get a kick out of, is he wears that christianity, Catholic stuff all over his sweater vest and gave a WHOPPING 2.4% to charity out of his million dollar income. Hey, Rick, you are that good of a Catholic, I think it's more like 10% you should tithe. I give more of a percentage of my income than he does. Hypocrisy in full view for all to see.
Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, SodomyRepublican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.
In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.
“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."
I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.
No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.
Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube
of course not
It looks like right now we have 16 idiots that don't realize that this question was already resolved in 1965 by the U.S. Supreme court in Griswold v Connecticut---
Griswold v. Connecticut
States do not have the right to interfere in the PRIVATE matters of individuals--including those between the intimate relationship between man and wife and their personal decision on birth control devices.
The SANTORUM hypocrisy is--that while he is out there on the campaign trail railing against Obamcare/Romneycare--and the GOVERNMENT overreach of that--he is completely O.K. with insisting that States can BAN birth control devices if they so choose.
He obviously doesn't understand the constitution. He must believe a state could ban gun ownership, too.
Yeah--some of these social right wing nut cases, don't seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution was provided to the citizens of this country so it could protect us from freak social nut-cases like Rick Santorum--that needs to be kicked back into the 17th century.
The HYPOCRISY on this--is that while everyone is furious over the government over-reach of Obamacare--they appear to be perfectly O.K with Santorum stating that States have the right to intervene in the individual rights of a husband and wife to be able to choose how many children they have--
I find it funny that you make that claim. The Constitution was created for no such purpose. If that is what you believe then show me your sources, or is that just what you "think" or "feel" it was created for?
Go read the books written by the founders and then come back and show me where you get your ideas.
Otherwise you are just providing fodder for a useless discussion.
Mike
Griswold v. Connecticut involved a statute adopted by the state of Connecticut in 1879 which made it illegal for any person to use, or assist in using, any "drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception", even among married couples. The statute was first challenged in 1943 in Tileston v. Ullman where the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff "lacked standing." The statute was later challenged in 1961, in Poe v. Ullman. The Court decided in that case that the controversy was not "ripe" because the plaintiff had not actually been prosecuted for breaking the statute. Then in 1965, suit was initiated by two members of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Their Executive Director, Estelle Griswold, had been convicted of providing contraceptive information, instruction, and medical advice to a married couple. Her conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Connecticut law and Mrs. Griswold's conviction were ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 7-2, and Connecticut’s law was found to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new “right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so called "right of privacy" could not be found anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution or its amendments, the majority argued that it is "implied" by the words and phrases of other constitutional amendments.
This is why we have Supreme court justices to "interpret" the Constitution as our forefathers would have intended.
I still see that we have 14 on this board that feel State can BAN birth control contraceptives--LOL
The issue was already decided in a 1965 U.S. Supreme court case--Griswold v Connecticut in a 7 to 2 ruling--stating the State does NOT have the RIGHT to intervene in the PRIVATE intimate matters that go on between a man and woman or husband and wife.
Only Rick Santorum believes that.
Griswold v. Connecticut
From your link:
The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so can.
Again--Mike--the right of privacy is INHERENT in the way we live our daily lives-[/B]-and the U.S. Supreme court found for that RIGHT in their decision in 1965 in Roswold v Connecticut--stating that NO STATE has the RIGHT to intervene in the private matters between Husband and Wife on their PERSONAL decision to how many children they have.
Now--just because the WORD (privacy) does not exist in the constitution as our fore-fathers wrote it--the U.S. Supreme court (after review) stated that PRIVACY was IMPLIED in the constitution. That's why we have Supreme court justices--whom know a lot more about the constitution than you do. And in a RARE 7-2 decision tells me that they saw something with the Connecticut statute--that prohibited our LIBERTY and FREEDOM to make personal--private choices--in the manner in which we choose or use birth control contraceptives.
what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?
It's not a basic human right, but a state has absolutely NO right to step all over my individual rights to tell me that I can't use contraceptives, none what-so-ever.
Santo Panto is a complete DINOSAUR.....whom ever would vote for some cretin with views like that.....I'mI found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.
No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.
Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube
and so is the majority of folk in the modern world,methinks he suffers from TALIBANITIS.......crazy man.tl
I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.
No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.
Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube
Its total bullshit Oreo....
This is what Santorum said about it on Jan 6th
I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, No, Im a Catholic, and I dont. I dont want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but thats different than wanting to ban it; the idea Im coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I wont impose them on anyone else in this case. I dont think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.
Someone didn't WATCH the above video--he most certainly did say it--it's right there. He states that STATES have the right to BAN birth control devices.
