obama caves again

[Dr.House]

You havin' a 'gasm over this WiltedTurnip?

You mean llike whenever you see a picture of 0bama, dot dumbfuck?

 

[PredFan]

Nah, I just don't like seeing women treated as second class citizens. If you are covering all other types of preventative care then so should birth control be covered.

How are they being treated as second class citizens? By having to buy their own contraceptives?

Birth control is not preventive CARE, it's preventive PREGNANCY.

But I understand your reasoning, you like most liberals view pregnancy as a disease.

The medical community classifies birth control as preventative health care. I have no idea why you are stupid enough to not understand why this is, but there you have it.

If you are going to cover all the other procedures and medications deemed preventative by the medical community but not this one then you are indeed treating women as second class citizens.

Garbage. What disease does the pill prevent? What disease does the diaphram prevent. What disease does contraceptive foam prevent?

 

[G.T.]

How are they being treated as second class citizens? By having to buy their own contraceptives?

Birth control is not preventive CARE, it's preventive PREGNANCY.

But I understand your reasoning, you like most liberals view pregnancy as a disease.

Maybe you should look up what actual medical professionals classify birth control as, and not just take the caveman "cuz I said so" approach. Just a thought, not everyone likes being wrong.

I'm a medical professional and you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Your colleagues disagree with you. I do have a clue, I actually did research. You should try the same.

 

[peach174]

I noticed that the Liberals are not telling the full information again.
They keep quoting that birth control costs 600.00 a year.
They don't say it costs 160.00 to 600.00 a year.
Now our monthly insurance cost is going to go up to cover this and contraception will go up too.

 

[PredFan]

So no one seems concerned that obamas so called compromise will force ins companies to cover these services FOR FREE.

How does he have this power? Where is the outrage?

IMO if all the rest of what is considered preventative care is free then birth control should be as well. Where is your outrage over free prostrate exams?

Does your religion forbid cancer screening? This is not about preventative care, not about diagnosis, not even about birth control. It's about that pesky phrase in the first amendment: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Liberals cannot understand the concept of liberty and freedom if it isn't lined up according to their dogma.

 

[PredFan]

How are they being treated as second class citizens? By having to buy their own contraceptives?

Birth control is not preventive CARE, it's preventive PREGNANCY.

But I understand your reasoning, you like most liberals view pregnancy as a disease.

The medical community classifies birth control as preventative health care. I have no idea why you are stupid enough to not understand why this is, but there you have it.

If you are going to cover all the other procedures and medications deemed preventative by the medical community but not this one then you are indeed treating women as second class citizens.

No... Planned Parenthood does, as does Obamacare. I am unaware of anything stating that the medical community as a whole classifies it as such.

We do not.

 

[PredFan]

It's being purposefully obtuse to not see the flip side of the coin.

The 1st Amendment does not make Religious doctrine trump U.S. Law.

US business law became that employers offer this coverage. (this law can be argued, it's nothing to do with the 1st or the church).

The church was even offered exemption, even though that running a business is - for all legal purposes - supposed to be seperate from running a Church or said Religion.



To not be able to see both sides of it, or to assume people who do are dumb or whatever, is just being argumentative for the sake of being so.

Actually, no matter what "business law says, the phrase you would like to conveniently leave out of any 1st amendment discussion, (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;") does take precedence.

No it doesn't.

Can Muslims in the U.S. stone their women?

Alright then.

Idiot. That's murder.

 

[WillowTree]

Well, it could have.... if that's what he had done. But, for the past year, the Church and members of congress, and Catholics around the country, have asked him to please compromise with us... and we were told 'no'. The messiah of the left, said we had a year to 'come to terms with it'... his words, not mine.... how does one 'come to terms' with violating our faith?

There was no 'working with the other side', GT. That's why the Church went public with this, that's why other faiths joined our fight, that's why those of no faith joined our fight... because that bastard would not compromise until he was forced to.

Don't give me any crap about 'compromise' from that man. He doesn't know the meaning of it.

He caved. We win. Unlucky.

No, you really didn't "win" Now you just get to pay more for your Insurance. Here in America. The church won. Americans lose again.

You cannot be blaming the church.

You are correct. I am not blaming the Church.

 

[PredFan]

No it doesn't.

Can Muslims in the U.S. stone their women?

Alright then.

Is forcing churches to violate their tennants on birth control the same as forcing muslims to not stone their women in your mind?

no, a US Law trumping what the 1st Amendment says is a US Law trumping what the first amendment says, in my mind. Meaning - Religious Law obviously doesn't take (as Ernie suggested) precedent or else we'd have all kinds of crazy fucked up Religions popping up to skirt existing US Law.

And yet Mormons can marry more than one person!

Honestly, I don't know how you live in a brain that small.

 

[G.T.]

Actually, no matter what "business law says, the phrase you would like to conveniently leave out of any 1st amendment discussion, (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;") does take precedence.

No it doesn't.

Can Muslims in the U.S. stone their women?

Alright then.

Idiot. That's murder.

which is against US law, but not against Religious Law for Muslims. Way to miss the point, dipshit.

 

[California Girl]

IMO if all the rest of what is considered preventative care is free then birth control should be as well. Where is your outrage over free prostrate exams?

Does your religion forbid cancer screening? This is not about preventative care, not about diagnosis, not even about birth control. It's about that pesky phrase in the first amendment: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Liberals cannot understand the concept of liberty and freedom if it isn't lined up according to their dogma.

Yep.... the liberal interpretation of the word 'freedom' is 'freedom for me, but not for thee'.

 

[G.T.]

Is forcing churches to violate their tennants on birth control the same as forcing muslims to not stone their women in your mind?

no, a US Law trumping what the 1st Amendment says is a US Law trumping what the first amendment says, in my mind. Meaning - Religious Law obviously doesn't take (as Ernie suggested) precedent or else we'd have all kinds of crazy fucked up Religions popping up to skirt existing US Law.

And yet Mormons can marry more than one person!

Honestly, I don't know how you live in a brain that small.

Umm, no polygamy is not Legal.

 

[PredFan]

Maybe you should look up what actual medical professionals classify birth control as, and not just take the caveman "cuz I said so" approach. Just a thought, not everyone likes being wrong.

I'm a medical professional and you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Your colleagues disagree with you. I do have a clue, I actually did research. You should try the same.

Bull shit. Show the research.

What disease does the pill prevent?

 

[NYcarbineer]

IMO if all the rest of what is considered preventative care is free then birth control should be as well. Where is your outrage over free prostrate exams?

Does your religion forbid cancer screening? This is not about preventative care, not about diagnosis, not even about birth control. It's about that pesky phrase in the first amendment: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Liberals cannot understand the concept of liberty and freedom if it isn't lined up according to their dogma.

It's always amusing when anti-abortionists pontificate about freedom in a conversation about sex and reproduction.

 

[PredFan]

No it doesn't.

Can Muslims in the U.S. stone their women?

Alright then.

Idiot. That's murder.

which is against US law, but not against Religious Law for Muslims. Way to miss the point, dipshit.

Getting pregnant is not agianst US law. I didn't miss the point you are quite simply wrong.

 

[PredFan]

Does your religion forbid cancer screening? This is not about preventative care, not about diagnosis, not even about birth control. It's about that pesky phrase in the first amendment: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Liberals cannot understand the concept of liberty and freedom if it isn't lined up according to their dogma.

It's always amusing when anti-abortionists pontificate about freedom in a conversation about sex and reproduction.

I see you continue your grand tradition of being wrong. I'm pro-choice.

 

[G.T.]

Idiot. That's murder.

which is against US law, but not against Religious Law for Muslims. Way to miss the point, dipshit.

Getting pregnant is not agianst US law. I didn't miss the point you are quite simply wrong.

Ignorance is bliss with you, I see. Keep fpoaming at the mouth, doggy.

 

[California Girl]

No it doesn't.

Can Muslims in the U.S. stone their women?

Alright then.

Idiot. That's murder.

which is against US law, but not against Religious Law for Muslims. Way to miss the point, dipshit.

Actually, a more logical example is.... suppose in 5 years time, pork is found to be very healthy and helps prevent certain forms of cancer.... and the government decides - for our own good - that we should all eat pork once a week. As such, insurance companies must provide pork as part of the AHA.

That sounds fine in theory - its good for you, right? But what about Muslims... and Jews? Can we force them to participate in something that is against their faith? No. And Catholics would get out and fight for their First Amendment Rights.... just like Muslims came out and fought for ours.

 

[PredFan]

no, a US Law trumping what the 1st Amendment says is a US Law trumping what the first amendment says, in my mind. Meaning - Religious Law obviously doesn't take (as Ernie suggested) precedent or else we'd have all kinds of crazy fucked up Religions popping up to skirt existing US Law.

And yet Mormons can marry more than one person!

Honestly, I don't know how you live in a brain that small.

Umm, no polygamy is not Legal.

Are you claiming that there are no mormons married to more than one woman?

 

[PredFan]

which is against US law, but not against Religious Law for Muslims. Way to miss the point, dipshit.

Getting pregnant is not agianst US law. I didn't miss the point you are quite simply wrong.

Ignorance is bliss with you, I see. Keep fpoaming at the mouth, doggy.

Yeah, you got nothing.