Is The Left Waging A Clandestine War Against Large Families?

[Full-Auto]

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

No one is trying to stop women from 'protecting themselves', we are just not going to pay for it. It's about 'choice'... which I thought liberals valued.

It's just insurance. No one is expecting anyone to do anything against their religion, but the employer shouldn't be able to insert themselves in a private matter.

They arent.

The employer offers a benefit package. They control what is in that package. If that package doesnt fit your needs you take a job or schooling elsewhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many of you are limiting the size of your own families by using contraception?

 

[konradv]

No one is trying to stop women from 'protecting themselves', we are just not going to pay for it. It's about 'choice'... which I thought liberals valued.

It's just insurance. No one is expecting anyone to do anything against their religion, but the employer shouldn't be able to insert themselves in a private matter.

They arent.

The employer offers a benefit package. They control what is in that package. If that package doesnt fit your needs you take a job or schooling elsewhere.

That does sound like a first amendment issue. Religious officials shouldn't be able to abridge my rights. It's right in there. If the government cooperates, they're creating a "de facto" recognition of a particular religion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one is trying to stop women from 'protecting themselves', we are just not going to pay for it. It's about 'choice'... which I thought liberals valued.

It's just insurance. No one is expecting anyone to do anything against their religion, but the employer shouldn't be able to insert themselves in a private matter.

They arent.

The employer offers a benefit package. They control what is in that package. If that package doesnt fit your needs you take a job or schooling elsewhere.

Wrong. There are laws that regulate employer provided insurance coverage.

 

[Unkotare]

Not just large families, the left is ideologically atangonistic to ALL families.

 

[Unkotare]

uh oh who offended the breeders? i am an only child...and have an only child....i opted out of the whole breeding for anyone movement. if someone elects to be a breeder that is up to them..

oddly no one seems to address the morality or ethics of breeding when you know you have genetic flaws...when it comes to santorum

Hmmmm....you seem to be using the term "breeders" as a negative. Is that just because you express yourself poorly, or are you trying to say something?

 

[WillowTree]

Is the left secretly waging a war against large families?

This issue is beginning to boil to the surface with this birth control debate. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a decrease in human beings will cover the costs of the contraception mandate. Lisa Miller, a Washington Post journalist says that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum's families are too large. Romney has 5 children and Santorum has 7. She has a problem with Michelle Bachmann foster parenting dozens of children. Not just giving birth to, but fostering them. Seems liberals are offended by big families. Deeply offended it seems.

Lisa Miller Washington Post- There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants.
Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility - The Washington Post

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

I figure it this way; If you can afford to have a large family liberals need to butt-out.

WTF???

Is this China or is this America??

Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty."

“The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.

Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.

Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.

“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.

Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

Murphy again sought clarification.

“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.

Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.

“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money,” Guthrie added.

Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.
Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

Link

Washington Post’s Lisa Miller: Romney and Santorum Families Hurt Women | RedState

She is one ugly wench.

 

[WillowTree]

...or they're just trying to give people a choice. That's what this is about, NOT eugenics. I think independent women and their husbands will see through this.

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

You're so stupid. viagra is used to treat an illness in men. pregnancy is not a fucking illness asswipe. buy your own damn contraception or keep your zipper closed

 

[konradv]

She is one ugly wench.

Put up your own picture lately? Just sayin'.

 

[konradv]

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

You're so stupid. viagra is used to treat an illness in men. pregnancy is not a fucking illness asswipe. buy your own damn contraception or keep your zipper closed

Illness? Or party favors? What do you think the ratio is? Pregnancy can be an illness for some women, hence the need for ready access to contraceptives.

 

[Old Rocks]

...or they're just trying to give people a choice. That's what this is about, NOT eugenics. I think independent women and their husbands will see through this.

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

Goddamned right they do. Have 6 to 12 kids, and welfare does the rest. Ol' Mud really likes that setup.

 

[Full-Auto]

It's just insurance. No one is expecting anyone to do anything against their religion, but the employer shouldn't be able to insert themselves in a private matter.

They arent.

The employer offers a benefit package. They control what is in that package. If that package doesnt fit your needs you take a job or schooling elsewhere.

That does sound like a first amendment issue. Religious officials shouldn't be able to abridge my rights. It's right in there. If the government cooperates, they're creating a "de facto" recognition of a particular religion.

The government shouldnt be involved at all in benefit packages. They are the ones that created the insurance nightmare with the public wage freeze back in the day.

 

[WillowTree]

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

You're so stupid. viagra is used to treat an illness in men. pregnancy is not a fucking illness asswipe. buy your own damn contraception or keep your zipper closed

Illness? Or party favors? What do you think the ratio is? Pregnancy can be an illness for some women, hence the need for ready access to contraceptives.

pregnancy isn't an illness just cause you want to win an argument on a message board. dumbass. oh,, and they already have access to contraceptives dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is the left secretly waging a war against large families?

This issue is beginning to boil to the surface with this birth control debate. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a decrease in human beings will cover the costs of the contraception mandate. Lisa Miller, a Washington Post journalist says that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum's families are too large. Romney has 5 children and Santorum has 7. She has a problem with Michelle Bachmann foster parenting dozens of children. Not just giving birth to, but fostering them. Seems liberals are offended by big families. Deeply offended it seems.

Lisa Miller Washington Post- There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants.
Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility - The Washington Post

I figure it this way; If you can afford to have a large family liberals need to butt-out.

WTF???

Is this China or is this America??

Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty."

“The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.

Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.

Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.

“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.

Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

Murphy again sought clarification.

“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.

Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.

“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money,” Guthrie added.

Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.
Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

Link

Washington Post’s Lisa Miller: Romney and Santorum Families Hurt Women | RedState

She is one ugly wench.

Post your picture you fat cow.

 

[Full-Auto]

Is the left secretly waging a war against large families?

This issue is beginning to boil to the surface with this birth control debate. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a decrease in human beings will cover the costs of the contraception mandate. Lisa Miller, a Washington Post journalist says that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum's families are too large. Romney has 5 children and Santorum has 7. She has a problem with Michelle Bachmann foster parenting dozens of children. Not just giving birth to, but fostering them. Seems liberals are offended by big families. Deeply offended it seems.





I figure it this way; If you can afford to have a large family liberals need to butt-out.

WTF???

Is this China or is this America??



Link

Washington Post’s Lisa Miller: Romney and Santorum Families Hurt Women | RedState

She is one ugly wench.

Post your picture you fat cow.

If its that important you start!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

She is one ugly wench.

Put up your own picture lately? Just sayin'.

Be forewarned...

...if it doesn't have a moustache, it was photoshopped...

 

[Katzndogz]

The left has plenty to say about the Duggars. The left hates this family to the point where the family should fear for its safety.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She is one ugly wench.

Post your picture you fat cow.

If its that important you start!!!!

I'll post my picture once I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no rightwing sociopaths here who would track me down and kill me.

 

[konradv]

You're so stupid. viagra is used to treat an illness in men. pregnancy is not a fucking illness asswipe. buy your own damn contraception or keep your zipper closed

Illness? Or party favors? What do you think the ratio is? Pregnancy can be an illness for some women, hence the need for ready access to contraceptives.

pregnancy isn't an illness just cause you want to win an argument on a message board. dumbass. oh,, and they already have access to contraceptives dumbass.

I didn't say it was an illness, I said it could be an illness. Who is the "they" you're talking about? Isn't the RCC trying to restrict the choice of their employees based on a religious principle that they're extending to a non-religious vehicle, i.e. insurance? If we allow it, wouldn't that amount to the individual's subordination to a religious principle in oposition to the first amendment? It's supposed to protect them, NOT aid in a religious institution's attempt to impose their values on others.

 

[konradv]

She is one ugly wench.

Put up your own picture lately? Just sayin'.

Be forewarned...

...if it doesn't have a moustache, it was photoshopped...

Hence the . I didn't really want to see it.