obama caves again

[percysunshine]

shocker, i know

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/u...n-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/u...th-control-coverage-rule.html?pagewanted=2&hp

The NYTimes is the source?

Yeah...right.

 

[kwc57]

This would have been a good time to get the government out of the "Faith Based Initiative" Biz.

Uh-huh......because the government has such a stellar record of providing these kind of services themself.

 

[Liability]

I hate to couch it like this, but I maintain that the President (and his team) are not getting forced to "cave in" at all.

For the MOMENT -- and for all it's worth, it is JUST for the moment -- he seems to have taken a step backward on the matter of compelling religious objectors to be compelled to DO as he commands.

But since he is fashioning these rules and regs out of whole fucking cloth, there is no way to insure that he won't RE-CHANGE his mind later -- as in his second term if he can get re-elected.

Meanwhile, although we called Bubba "slick willie," the truth SEEMS to be that President Obama is the one being slick.

While he has framed the argument as to whether or not he can compel a religious objector to do thus and so, we are passing on the bigger issue. He maintains that he can compel insurance companies to do thus and so.

He is accruing power by edict and THAT portion of it isn't getting noted or attacked.

The dictatorial style bastard is smarter than I realized and slicker than slick willie.

 

[G.T.]

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?

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/med/2007-0103-200416/vandenbroucke_82_oral.pdf

Oral Contraceptive Use for the Primary Prevention of Ovarian Cancer: Review Protocol

Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk: Q & A - National Cancer Institute


there's more. ass hole.

 

[G.T.]

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?

I'm claiming that polygamy is illegal in the united states, i thought that was obvious.

 

[California Girl]

I hate to couch it like this, but I maintain that the President (and his team) are not getting forced to "cave in" at all.

For the MOMENT -- and for all it's worth, it is JUST for the moment -- he seems to have taken a step backward on the matter of compelling religious objectors to be compelled to DO as he commands.

But since he is fashioning these rules and regs out of whole fucking cloth, there is no way to insure that he won't RE-CHANGE his mind later -- as in his second term if he can get re-elected.

Meanwhile, although we called Bubba "slick willie," the truth SEEMS to be that President Obama is the one being slick.

While he has framed the argument as to whether or not he can compel a religious objector to do thus and so, we are passing on the bigger issue. He maintains that he can compel insurance companies to do thus and so.

He is accruing power by edict and THAT portion of it isn't getting noted or attacked.

The dictatorial style bastard is smarter than I realized and slicker than slick willie.

I agree. And, I don't think that the Catholics are gonna trust his ass as far as they can (hopefully) throw it come November.

 

[WillowTree]

I hate to couch it like this, but I maintain that the President (and his team) are not getting forced to "cave in" at all.

For the MOMENT -- and for all it's worth, it is JUST for the moment -- he seems to have taken a step backward on the matter of compelling religious objectors to be compelled to DO as he commands.

But since he is fashioning these rules and regs out of whole fucking cloth, there is no way to insure that he won't RE-CHANGE his mind later -- as in his second term if he can get re-elected.

Meanwhile, although we called Bubba "slick willie," the truth SEEMS to be that President Obama is the one being slick.

While he has framed the argument as to whether or not he can compel a religious objector to do thus and so, we are passing on the bigger issue. He maintains that he can compel insurance companies to do thus and so.

He is accruing power by edict and THAT portion of it isn't getting noted or attacked.

The dictatorial style bastard is smarter than I realized and slicker than slick willie.

down here in the south we say "slicker n owl shit"

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Sure you can. 98% of sexually active Catholic women use birth control, even though it's against church teachings. The church needs a Third Vatican Council to bring it into, at least, the 20th century.

 

[IndependntLogic]

shocker, i know

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/u...n-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/u...th-control-coverage-rule.html?pagewanted=2&hp

This was a big mistake from the get go. Like ObamaCare. A couple huge mistakes, one of which he has now tried to do some damage control on.

The polls show that somewhere between 50 - 70% of Catholics agree with the concept of having contraception paid for - and of course, that percentage rises with women.

Obama has still left a huge mistake open here: The Morning After pill. While most women have no problem with paying for the pill (duh, big surprise Catholic men support insurance cos being required to pay for Viagra but not BC), the number skyrockets when you include what they percieve as chemically-induced abortion.

Still, Obama screwed up and addressed his mistake quickly. In a few weeks the only people still talking about this at all, will be drudge, americanthinker, evnagelicals and maybe FOX viewers - people who Obama had no chance with anyway.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It doesn't 'take precedence'. It restricts congress from passing certain laws - that restrict religious freedom.

People get far too hung up on the wrong topic of this. It was never about birth control, it was always about the Church's freedom to practice it's religion. You may see the charities as separate to the religious beliefs but Catholics do not. Charity is a part of our religion. Like tithing is to other faiths.... we are required by our church to be charitable - and that requirement comes directly from our interpretation of Christ's teachings. You may not understand that, but that does not make it any less valid.

Once the charities are established as businesses - business laws take precedent. And even so - the exemptions were there as a sign of respect.

Apparently not. Obama says so.

The exemptions were there not out of 'respect' but out of the First Amendment. Got jack shit to do with 'respect'. It's Constitutional Law.
The next time this Administration shows 'respect', let me know -because it will be the first.

Just wanted to see that stated again

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

So wait G.T......are you telling me all muslims are just like the description of sharia muslims (you know the danbury baptists of muslims) we all hear from people (kill gays, stone wives, women are property, ect)?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Not legally. Kinda fucks up your argument.

 

[California Girl]

shocker, i know

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/u...n-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/u...th-control-coverage-rule.html?pagewanted=2&hp

This was a big mistake from the get go. Like ObamaCare. A couple huge mistakes, one of which he has now tried to do some damage control on.

The polls show that somewhere between 50 - 70% of Catholics agree with the concept of having contraception paid for - and of course, that percentage rises with women.

Obama has still left a huge mistake open here: The Morning After pill. While most women have no problem with paying for the pill (duh, big surprise Catholic men support insurance cos being required to pay for Viagra but not BC), the number skyrockets when you include what they percieve as chemically-induced abortion.

Still, Obama screwed up and addressed his mistake quickly. In a few weeks the only people still talking about this at all, will be drudge, americanthinker, evnagelicals and maybe FOX viewers - people who Obama had no chance with anyway.

Actually, the polls also showed that support collapsed when it came to religious organizations being forced to provide 'benefits' that were in direct opposition to its doctrine.

While you may have a point about who will still be talking about it - from a media perspective... those who fought Obama on this - of which I am one - will remember it. And Churches will talk about it. Not just Catholic Churches. There was a combined effort from a vast number of faiths on this... not just Christians... we were joined by both Jews and Muslims.... and agnostics, and even atheists.

 

[G.T.]

Idiot. That's murder.

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

So wait G.T......are you telling me all muslims are just like the description of sharia muslims (you know the danbury baptists of muslims) we all hear from people (kill gays, stone wives, women are property, ect)?

Only an ass would say that, one who just wantsa to argue.

No, I'm telling you that if anyone here happens to think that the 1st doesnt come with restrictions, then they dont know what theyre talking about. That was my point. The other shit you read into that? Cynacism. Lighten up.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yep. It is the key. And even the little messiah in the Oval can't do a run around on that.

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.

No one claims that the First Amendment trumps US law. The argument was - and always will be about whether the Government can bring in a law that forces a Church to violate its Doctrine. If that doctrine is not criminal, there is no justifiable reason for the Government to have that power.

I kind of hope that Cardinal Designate Dolan stands firm and insists that they require insurance companies to be able to provide policies that do not cover birth control, but I doubt that he will. I don't want him to do that just to piss off Obama, but because I believe insurance companies should be able to offer flexible policies to suit a variety of organizations and religions. That's liberty, right?

Where is the liberty in government forcing people to purchase insurance that contains provisions that go against their faith or needs?

The provisions of an insurance plan cannot violate a persons faith nor does it force the Church to violate its doctrine. Only a person can violate that.

Where is the liberty in government forcing people to purchase insurance period.

 

[jillian]

Emulating Hawaii, where the rule is in effect, would mean that employees at religious institutions that do not offer free contraception in the health insurance plan can get birth control through side benefits, which the employees nominally pay for but which often end up being free.

Difficult to call how the Church will see this. 'Nominally pay' could be a sticking point for the left.

But.... yea.... he's caving.

As predicted by anyone with the intellect to look at the voting history of Catholics.

this is why rightwingnuts are nuts....

you moan, you cry, you misrepresent what's going on.

and then you moan, you cry, you misrepresent what's going on and say "he caved".

that;s why i always said he should just tell y'all to go f**k yourselves.

*shrug*

 

[IndependntLogic]

shocker, i know

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/u...n-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/u...th-control-coverage-rule.html?pagewanted=2&hp

This was a big mistake from the get go. Like ObamaCare. A couple huge mistakes, one of which he has now tried to do some damage control on.

The polls show that somewhere between 50 - 70% of Catholics agree with the concept of having contraception paid for - and of course, that percentage rises with women.

Obama has still left a huge mistake open here: The Morning After pill. While most women have no problem with paying for the pill (duh, big surprise Catholic men support insurance cos being required to pay for Viagra but not BC), the number skyrockets when you include what they percieve as chemically-induced abortion.

Still, Obama screwed up and addressed his mistake quickly. In a few weeks the only people still talking about this at all, will be drudge, americanthinker, evnagelicals and maybe FOX viewers - people who Obama had no chance with anyway.

Actually, the polls also showed that support collapsed when it came to religious organizations being forced to provide 'benefits' that were in direct opposition to its doctrine.

While you may have a point about who will still be talking about it - from a media perspective... those who fought Obama on this - of which I am one - will remember it. And Churches will talk about it. Not just Catholic Churches. There was a combined effort from a vast number of faiths on this... not just Christians... we were joined by both Jews and Muslims.... and agnostics, and even atheists.

That may be. But politically he's done what he needs to do. The loss in votes will be minimal.
He'll still win in 2012. Not because he's a good president but because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly. Seriously, these idiots are the best they could do? WTF???
Kay Bailey Hutchinson for president! Put Susana Martinez on as VP and you secure every vote on the planet!

Oh well, in my dreams...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

So wait G.T......are you telling me all muslims are just like the description of sharia muslims (you know the danbury baptists of muslims) we all hear from people (kill gays, stone wives, women are property, ect)?

Only an ass would say that, one who just wantsa to argue.

No, I'm telling you that if anyone here happens to think that the 1st doesnt come with restrictions, then they dont know what theyre talking about. That was my point. The other shit you read into that? Cynacism. Lighten up.

Good. I just wanted to make sure you were clear about what you were intending to say. It sounded to me like you were saying that the muslim faith teaches to stone your women.

 

[Liability]

Emulating Hawaii, where the rule is in effect, would mean that employees at religious institutions that do not offer free contraception in the health insurance plan can get birth control through side benefits, which the employees nominally pay for but which often end up being free.

Difficult to call how the Church will see this. 'Nominally pay' could be a sticking point for the left.

But.... yea.... he's caving.

As predicted by anyone with the intellect to look at the voting history of Catholics.

this is why rightwingnuts are nuts....

you moan, you cry, you misrepresent what's going on.

and then you moan, you cry, you misrepresent what's going on and say "he caved".

that;s why i always said he should just tell y'all to go f**k yourselves.

*shrug*

The point dear lady (hyperventilating dear lady) is that his "cave in" was all for show and isn't a cave in at all.

We aren't misrepresenting what he's doing, either.

We are commenting ACCURATELY on what he's doing.

And with his latest move, he DID kind of tell everyone to go fuck themselves.

 

[grunt11b]

Emulating Hawaii, where the rule is in effect, would mean that employees at religious institutions that do not offer free contraception in the health insurance plan can get birth control through side benefits, which the employees nominally pay for but which often end up being free.

Difficult to call how the Church will see this. 'Nominally pay' could be a sticking point for the left.

But.... yea.... he's caving.

As predicted by anyone with the intellect to look at the voting history of Catholics.

The mere fact that he was serious about pushing this through should still scare the hell out of anyone in this country who has faith, I say keep pushing to your congregations for them to vote him out in 2012. I see not much difference in Obama and Hitler when it comes to legislation and tactics. And it's scary as hell. This country will not survive another 4 years of this man.