House GOPers War On Birth Control

[goldcatt]

so basically what you are saying is the OP is in FACT wrong

Yes....and no.

To state unequivocally there is a full out "war on contraception" I'd have to see evidence of a movement to include contraception services in State conscience provisions. I don't have that information, nor even if I did do I have evidence the House GOP is working in collusion with them.

BUT....what they state as a possible outcome is indeed possible.

So are a lot of other non-reproductive worst case scenarios. Personally I see it as a back door way to shelter the issuers from the costs of end of life care by allowing those provisions to be exempted as a matter of "conscience". That's actually worse in my opinion.

so, instead of outright lying and claiming it is, why dont they work with them to close a suspected loop hole?

partisan political CRAP

It's a special interest legal advocacy group, you expected no hyperbole?

That said, their analysis of the law itself is correct IMO. It is possible.

Do you honestly think the GOP House will work with this group? That's like saying the Dem House would seriously entertain suggestions from the Cato Institute.

They're trying to get attention drawn to a loophole that concerns them in a different way. That's their job, just like every other advocacy group's job. Of course they're going to be alarmist about it. Fear sells more than sex, I think.

But that doesn't make them totally wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes....and no.

To state unequivocally there is a full out "war on contraception" I'd have to see evidence of a movement to include contraception services in State conscience provisions. I don't have that information, nor even if I did do I have evidence the House GOP is working in collusion with them.

BUT....what they state as a possible outcome is indeed possible.

So are a lot of other non-reproductive worst case scenarios. Personally I see it as a back door way to shelter the issuers from the costs of end of life care by allowing those provisions to be exempted as a matter of "conscience". That's actually worse in my opinion.

so, instead of outright lying and claiming it is, why dont they work with them to close a suspected loop hole?

partisan political CRAP

It's a special interest legal advocacy group, you expected no hyperbole?

That said, their analysis of the law itself is correct IMO. It is possible.

Do you honestly think the GOP House will work with this group? That's like saying the Dem House would seriously entertain suggestions from the Cato Institute.

They're trying to get attention drawn to a loophole that concerns them in a different way. That's their job, just like every other advocacy group's job. Of course they're going to be alarmist about it. Fear sells more than sex, I think.

But that doesn't make them totally wrong.

i guess, if you enjoy the WND approach

 

[goldcatt]

so, instead of outright lying and claiming it is, why dont they work with them to close a suspected loop hole?

partisan political CRAP

It's a special interest legal advocacy group, you expected no hyperbole?

That said, their analysis of the law itself is correct IMO. It is possible.

Do you honestly think the GOP House will work with this group? That's like saying the Dem House would seriously entertain suggestions from the Cato Institute.

They're trying to get attention drawn to a loophole that concerns them in a different way. That's their job, just like every other advocacy group's job. Of course they're going to be alarmist about it. Fear sells more than sex, I think.

But that doesn't make them totally wrong.

i guess, if you enjoy the WND approach

 

[DiveCon]

It's a special interest legal advocacy group, you expected no hyperbole?

That said, their analysis of the law itself is correct IMO. It is possible.

Do you honestly think the GOP House will work with this group? That's like saying the Dem House would seriously entertain suggestions from the Cato Institute.

They're trying to get attention drawn to a loophole that concerns them in a different way. That's their job, just like every other advocacy group's job. Of course they're going to be alarmist about it. Fear sells more than sex, I think.

But that doesn't make them totally wrong.

i guess, if you enjoy the WND approach

well, isnt that what they have done?
they saw a possible loop hole and ran wild eyed fear mongering

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

Supporting a bad habit is the same as encouraging a bad habit.
Maybe if those "poor people" didn't have some gov't agencies handing them food, shelter and "birth control", they would be "encouraged" to work more and screw less.

Thankies for posting, logical4U. So, you'd support a "screw tax"? How much income should someone have before they'd have your blessing to be sexually active, logical4U? Do you think we should issue chastity belts to those with too little income?

you claimed to have an occupation in the legal profession, correct?...In my opinion, to achieve this, some higher level of education is required, also correct?
Assuming the answers to both question are in the affirmative, how in God's Green Earth could you be so dumb?...No one. No one stated nor implied that people of little means should not engage in sex. The recurring themes throughout has been "do not produce children for which on cannot be responsible". "If one is going to have sex, take the necessary precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancies"..
To these themes you react with base vapidity with comment like "how Victorian of you"....
Not once have you reacted intelligently nor have you agreed that a certain level of personal responsibility is required.
In your opinion, sex is a primal instinct...IMO all that means "if it feels good , do it and let someone else worry about the consequences".
What horse shit...

 

[goldcatt]

i guess, if you enjoy the WND approach

well, isnt that what they have done?
they saw a possible loop hole and ran wild eyed fear mongering

What WND does is make shit up and run wild eyed fear mongering.

They took a solid legal opinion with a strong logical basis in traditional statutory construction and THEN added hyperbole concerning the motivation behind building said actual loophole into an actual proposed law.

Derp is for the WND freaks. Nuance is your friend.

 

[DiveCon]

well, isnt that what they have done?
they saw a possible loop hole and ran wild eyed fear mongering

What WND does is make shit up and run wild eyed fear mongering.

They took a solid legal opinion with a strong logical basis in traditional statutory construction and THEN added hyperbole concerning the motivation behind building said actual loophole into an actual proposed law.

Derp is for the WND freaks. Nuance is your friend.

nope, WND doesnt make thing up, they just take some small piece of actual data and expand on it
same thing this group did

 

[DiveCon]

dont get me wrong, i dont trust WND, nor do i trust this group

 

[goldcatt]

well, isnt that what they have done?
they saw a possible loop hole and ran wild eyed fear mongering

What WND does is make shit up and run wild eyed fear mongering.

They took a solid legal opinion with a strong logical basis in traditional statutory construction and THEN added hyperbole concerning the motivation behind building said actual loophole into an actual proposed law.

Derp is for the WND freaks. Nuance is your friend.

nope, WND doesnt make thing up, they just take some small piece of actual data and expand on it
same thing this group did

Suuure WND never makes things up. Lizard men and the Illuminati.

So you can't attack the fact that the loophole exists and will allow the States to exempt far more than abortion as long as it's a matter of "conscience", so we're attacking the source rather than focusing on the issue and cutting out the hyperbole? Sure, the source is full of spin and sell. But their underlying analysis is good.

I'd rather hear what you think of the law.

 

[DiveCon]

What WND does is make shit up and run wild eyed fear mongering.

They took a solid legal opinion with a strong logical basis in traditional statutory construction and THEN added hyperbole concerning the motivation behind building said actual loophole into an actual proposed law.

Derp is for the WND freaks. Nuance is your friend.

nope, WND doesnt make thing up, they just take some small piece of actual data and expand on it
same thing this group did

Suuure WND never makes things up. Lizard men and the Illuminati.

So you can't attack the fact that the loophole exists and will allow the States to exempt far more than abortion as long as it's a matter of "conscience", so we're attacking the source rather than focusing on the issue and cutting out the hyperbole? Sure, the source is full of spin and sell. But their underlying analysis is good.

I'd rather hear what you think of the law.

again, WND takes some small fragment of truth
then what they do to that is about what this group did

 

[Cecilie1200]

please point out where this is in the actual bill

Please read the anaylsis in the OP's linked article -- in full. That answers your question. As I pointed out to Newby, some laws are more obscure than others.

no, that is a dishonest analysis
please point out exactly where this is in the proposed legislation

What?! You mean read the actual source document? Why would Mad EVER bother to do that, when she has an analysis from the National Bitches' Lie Center TELLING her it's there?

It's like you're suggesting that some people can't be trusted, or something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please read the anaylsis in the OP's linked article -- in full. That answers your question. As I pointed out to Newby, some laws are more obscure than others.

no, that is a dishonest analysis
please point out exactly where this is in the proposed legislation

If you have not read the bill, how do you know the analysis is dishonest? What is your beef with the National Women's Law Center?

Go to the Op, Divey, and click on the linked article. There is a hotlink there to the text of the bill. Look for the phrase "conscience rights". This is the center's analysis, based on their reading of the bill and an interview with the Committee's counsel:

The Affordable Care Act included, as part of the compromise on abortion, a provision that made clear that nothing in the health care law would preempt state laws on abortion. H.R. 358 expands this provision, preventing the new health care law from preempting any state law - now or in the future - that has to do with "conscience rights." The Energy and Commerce Committee counsel admitted today that this provision goes WAY beyond abortion. In fact, it gives states carte blanche to undo, in the name of “conscience,” almost any federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act.

This loophole means that, under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."

If you continue to disagree, fine...but I'd like to hear a substantive reply, please.

I love it. "If you have not read the bill, how do you know it's dishonest?" Somehow, she just can't get it through her head that that IS how you know it's dishonest: because you, unlike her, actually read the bill. She never asks herself, "If I haven't read the bill, how do I know the analysis is honest?" Or if she DOES ask herself that, she somehow believes that, "Because the National Women's Law Center says so" is a valid answer.

And then she wonders why her posts cause people to express the opinion that setting women back might not be a bad idea.

I keep praying that one day, Mad will become bright enough to understand that "Quote the bill, not the analysis" IS a substantive reply to her blindly parroting the analysis over and over. Miracles do still happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the link you gave is dishonest

You'll notice she hasn't bothered to try or comment on MY link at all.

She probably has you on "fake" ignore.

She might have me on real ignore. After all, Mad is a parody of all the worst stereotypes of women, and refusing to listen to anyone who says something she doesn't want to hear is one of those stereotypes, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is my belief that abortions are an effective means of population control and an affordable alternative to supporting an excess population, which will consume a finite number of resources, land, food, and oxygen supply. We should encourage the public, especially those birthing excess children, to use all forms of birth control available to them. And as for funding abortions with taxpayer dollars, I believe a cost-benefit analysis will indicate the money spent oh abortions will be less than the cost for the expansion of infrastructure and resources to accommodate the excess.

Well, I tell you what, Sparky. If you think killing people to curb the population is a spiffy, moral idea, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and off yourself? I'm thinking YOU consume a fuckload more resources, land, food, and oxygen than a baby does, so what the hell are you still doing here? Why is it that you sanctimonious population-control fuckers always want someone ELSE to die for you? You remind me of Muslim leaders who think dying for Allah is always a wonderful idea . . . for someone else to do.

If it's REALLY a good idea, you go first, you hypocrite.

 

[kaz]

So, in brief, it is complicated but it is possible the NWLC's analysis is correct.

I am unbowed!

I owe you deeply, mah more articulate sista.

If you consider spin, lies and distortion to be "correct" then yes, it is correct

 

[Cecilie1200]

Madeline. Why do demonRats insist on using abortion as a form of birth control? Rubbers and the pill works better. And, We The People shouldn't have to pay for abortions as birth control.. either. ever. never... amen.

Ever been raped? Oh, that's right, unless it "forcible" it's not rape. Sorry. Forgot.

I guess that means "Abortions are FUN, FUN, FUN".

I do so love hearing a man preaching to a woman about not having the proper attitude concerning rape. When's the last time YOU were raped, or even had to worry about the possibility, asshat?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you have not read the bill, how do you know the analysis is dishonest? What is your beef with the National Women's Law Center?

Go to the Op, Divey, and click on the linked article. There is a hotlink there to the text of the bill. Look for the phrase "conscience rights". This is the center's analysis, based on their reading of the bill and an interview with the Committee's counsel:



If you continue to disagree, fine...but I'd like to hear a substantive reply, please.

do you notice they dont actually cite the bill where it says what they claim, right?

Well, hell's bells. I cannot find the phrase "conscience rights" anywhere in the bill, Divey.

Here's a link to the text of H.R. 358, if you want it:

Read The Bill: H.R. 358 - GovTrack.us

I must be tired; I can't follow the Center's reasoning myself. I sent them an email, asking them to clarify and I will PM goldcatt and ask her to have a look-see. As for now, it appears -- ugh, it will just kill me if I have to admit this -- you may be right.

Please wait a day before doing the happy dance; I usually find the Center to be pretty reliable.

Please, everyone, just because Mad is too big a ditz to tell the difference between posting a link to the bill and posting the section of the bill that substantiates her claims, PLEASE don't think all women are that ignorant. Just because she's such a gullible twit that her determination to believe those who lie to her overwhelms the evidence of her own eyes, PLEASE don't assume she represents all women.

It embarrasses the hell out of me to be stuck in the same gender as someone who makes us all look that bad.

 

[Cecilie1200]

do you notice they dont actually cite the bill where it says what they claim, right?

Well, hell's bells. I cannot find the phrase "conscience rights" anywhere in the bill, Divey.

Here's a link to the text of H.R. 358, if you want it:

Read The Bill: H.R. 358 - GovTrack.us

I must be tired; I can't follow the Center's reasoning myself. I sent them an email, asking them to clarify and I will PM goldcatt and ask her to have a look-see. As for now, it appears -- ugh, it will just kill me if I have to admit this -- you may be right.

Please wait a day before doing the happy dance; I usually find the Center to be pretty reliable.

i had already found that, and read the summary

that'swhy i was asking for where this was in the actual bill because i couldn't find it

That's what I've been saying right from the OP. You can't find it, and Mad can't find it after FINALLY reading the actual bill multiple pages into her fucking rant, because IT ISN'T THERE. Mad's been lied to and manipulated yet again. This is what happens when one is a caricature.

 

[McDowell's]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."

Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.

How is that okay with you?

Vote Democrat, we'll pay for your IUD by taking money from people that used to be able to buy it until we took all their money to pay for shit for other people.

If you can't afford to have a baby, don't have sex... If you can't pay for BC don't have sex. If you're to fucking dumb to not have protected sex then why should others pay for your abortion?

Do liberals say no to ANY spending????? Oh, sure they do, as long as a Republican is doing it.

Neocons, everywhere wtf...

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

No, stupid. We don't want to control when they have sex. We want THEM to to control when they have sex, or at least don't come running to us to pick up the slack when they don't.

And if YOU think humans are just glands on legs, then YOU don't understand human nature. Humans are different from lower animals, and some of us pride ourselves on that difference, while others of us work very hard at erasing it entirely. If you really have so little self-control and higher thinking ability, I suggest you get some sort of professional help.