Reply With Quote
Hey Chump, what part of Austin do you live in?
TBH this whole argument you guys are having is sort of weak.
Hey Chump, what part of Austin do you live in?
Believing in polygamy doesn't make you a polygamist.
Weak sauce my ass...
I'll agree with that. Typical Chump ankle biting.
Do you live on a north facing flag lot?...
I guess i'm going to have to plead ignorant on this one because I don't get it?
Arboretum.
It makes you believe in polygamy. That belief is legal.
it was a shot at wild cobra.
I made the move up here about a year ago now.....I ing love this city....It reminds me of Denver a bit......plus, it's not San Antonio, and that's a good thing.
Thank you.
sorry, but I believe that the Catholic Church would rather get the public focusing on Obama than on their own sex scandals with young boys.
So then basically Catholic hospitals can do whatever they want despite the AMA, FDA or whatever if they pass it off as a religious belief?
I have a solution: get out of health care if you don't want to play by the rules.
With consumer confidence and employment figures up the GOP has to talk about something.
Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception
After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.
That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.
My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ut_punch_.html
Actually I think this is far from over. You can declare victory if you want to but IMHO it's a little early. The religious organizations still have to pay the premiums to buy the insurance the insurance companies are required to provide. Unlike you, Boutons, most intelligent people can clearly see that.
Since you businessmen commonly fire women for getting pregnant or sick while underpaying them 20% less for the same job as a man, the objective was provide contraception for women as preventative health measure.
Mission ing Accomplished.
ing loser.
The only female that works for me makes $52,000 a year and gets full insurance provided for her and her family on my dime.
GFY
Hey CC cut him some slack, he hasn't worked in so long he doesn't
remember the rules. His moma just points him at the computer and
he stays out her hair until it's time for his warm milk and beddy.
Only problem she has that he keeps sucking on that thumb and screwing
the keyboard up with all his slobber.
Besides he will report you to Media Matters and Moveon.org and
Big Sis.
Contraception included?
Obama??......fight???Obama and his fight against religion/Catholics.
Yeah, John Edwards was the fighter. God knows how much product he used on that cowlick he had that one time.
GOP Continues To Oppose Contraception Coverage Plan Now Supported By Large Catholic Ins utions
Peterson Beadle on Feb 12, 2012 at 11:50 am
The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops almost immediately rejected a compromise on requiring contraception coverage that the Obama administration announced on Friday, and Republicans have continued to attack the accommodation. Under the compromise, religious ins utions will not be required to provide contraceptive coverage because insurers will provide contraception directly to employees at no cost, completely removing religious ins utions from the equation. But this deal was not enough to satisfy conservative opposition.
On ABC’s This Week, Rep. Paul Ryan echoed the Republican objection of contraception coverage. Ryan told host George Stephanopolous the compromise is nothing more than a “fig leaf” and an “accounting trick”:
RYAN: To paraphrase the bishops’ letter, this thing, it’s a distinction without a difference. It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise. The president’s doubled down. [...] If this is what the president’s willing to do in a tough election year, imagine what he’s going to do to implement the rest of his health care law after an election.
STEPHANOPOLOUS: You heard Jack Lew right there, this is not going to force the ins utions to pay for the coverage. [...]
RYAN: It’s a distinction without a difference. This is an accounting trick.
Watch his interview:
Ryan’s own heavily-Catholic home state of Wisconsin currently mandates contraception coverage without any exclusion for religious ins utions. As ThinkProgress reported, Marquette University, a Jesuit ins ution located in Milwaukee, even decided to offer contraception coverage prior to the state’s mandate.
And Ryan and his Republican colleagues are arguing against a policy that a majority of Catholic voters support and that major Catholic organizations favor, including the Catholic Health Association, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities and Catholic Charities USA. The Rev. John Jenkins, president of the Catholic-affiliated University of Notre Dame, supported President Obama’s compromise, calling it a “a welcome step toward recognizing the freedom of religious ins utions to abide by the principles that define their respective missions.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...-ins utions/
=========
Repugs inflaming battles everywhere in their America-polarizing culture wars, Guns, Gays, God, Muslim n!gg@ foreigner in the WH, misogynistic war on women's vaginas, abortion, contraception, etc, etc.
Can you not see the distinction between an employer CHOOSING to offer it as a benefit and being FORCED to offer it by the Federal Government?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
