Is The Left Waging A Clandestine War Against Large Families?

[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.





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.

post your's first and show up how stupid you are you fat pig.

 

[regent]

The large farm family of yesterday was a decision made by yesterday's family, the smaller family of today is the choice of today's family. It was inevitable for the Repubican party to now include the family decision in their political campaigns. Thirty years ago the biggies were communism and socialism, and they have found nothing with the impact of those two words. I still think the big-ear thing of Obama had the most promise.

 

[Dragon]

No, it's not a "clandestine" war, jackass. It's a purely open war. Environmentalists have been advocating lower birthrates and smaller families for a long time. Where have you been?

 

[strollingbones]

No, it's not a "clandestine" war, jackass. It's a purely open war. Environmentalists have been advocating lower birthrates and smaller families for a long time. Where have you been?

there is a difference between advocating and mandating

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

LOL Deflection

I have known of a few instances where posters have interfered with a posters private life.

In each instance it was the left that was unhinged.

My current Avatar is me, and my grand daughter. The Pic is just over a year old.

Dont be afraid.

 

[Katzndogz]

No, it's not a "clandestine" war, jackass. It's a purely open war. Environmentalists have been advocating lower birthrates and smaller families for a long time. Where have you been?

Yes, right along with a need for increased immigration to compensate for our low birth rate.

 

[bodecea]

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

No, we're not. Just like there's no war on christmas.

 

[Dragon]

No, it's not a "clandestine" war, jackass. It's a purely open war. Environmentalists have been advocating lower birthrates and smaller families for a long time. Where have you been?

Yes, right along with a need for increased immigration to compensate for our low birth rate.

That war's been waged by the right, not the left. It's a way to maintain a supply of cheap, exploitable labor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She is one ugly wench.

Post your picture you fat cow.

post your's first and show up how stupid you are you fat pig.

My girlfriend won't let me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's with the Right nowadays trying to pretend that they haven't always been telling poor people not to have so many kids?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Actually we're trying to give Catholics a choice and Obama wants to take it away. That's what mandate means.

Nothing we're doing now is changing the law or making it harder to get birth control. Obama is just stomping all over the Catholic Church's religious freedoms.

You're playing with words. The Bill of Rights should protect the rights of individuals, NOT an organization.

I'm just focusing on the reality, not the spin.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

No, we're not. Just like there's no war on christmas.

I hope you're being sarcastic because nobody can be that dumb.

 

[bodecea]

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.

This, of course, is the most important comment on the issue.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's with the Right nowadays trying to pretend that they haven't always been telling poor people not to have so many kids?

We haven't.

We just don't want to have to pay for them.

The Democrats want to decrease the excess population. This is the underlying reason for their support for abortion and birth control. Not because they care any more for women than the GOP, but because they intend on making everyone dependent on government, and less babies means less money the government has to fork out on health care. They forget that if less are dependent on government the less the government has to spend. But then they can't tell independent folks what to do.

 

[bodecea]

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

No, we're not. Just like there's no war on christmas.

I hope you're being sarcastic because nobody can be that dumb.

Wow...great response. Proving my reply wrong with all that evidence you provided and all.......

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

This, of course, is the most important comment on the issue.

Only if you can't win with your ideas.

 

[bodecea]

She is one ugly wench.

This, of course, is the most important comment on the issue.

Only if you can't win with your ideas.

Exactly.

 

[mudwhistle]

This, of course, is the most important comment on the issue.

Only if you can't win with your ideas.

Exactly.

Glad you agree oh quipster.