For the ladies, why is Santorum TOO conservative?

You claimed Catholics take women to abortion clinics. The only example you have posted to support your claim tells a story about how women (some who are Catholic) are transported to Planned Parenthood clinics. You cannot repudiate that fact, so that makes you the liar.



the article proved that by referencing lobby groups and an interview with a church worker .. I simply repeated their findings, I didnt lie.


the catholics you supprot transport people to abortion clinics with taxpayer funding, and cry their constitutional rights were infringed upon besauce healthcare laws force them to indirectly pay for birthcontrol

and Im a hypocrite?

riiiiiiiiiiight.

carry on

LMTAO

You claimed Catholics take women to abortion clinics. The only example you have posted to support your claim tells a story about how women (some who are Catholic) are transported to Planned Parenthood clinics. You cannot repudiate that fact, so that makes you the liar.



the article proved that by referencing lobby groups and an interview with a church worker .. I simply repeated their findings, I didnt lie.


the catholics you supprot transport people to abortion clinics with taxpayer funding, and cry their constitutional rights were infringed upon besauce healthcare laws force them to indirectly pay for birthcontrol

and Im a hypocrite?

riiiiiiiiiiight.

carry on

LMTAO Originally Posted by CJ7

The article you posted says women were transported to Planned Parenthood clinics. You claimed, and continue to claim, these clinics are ipso facto 'abortion clinics'. Ergo your present and continued denial about what you said makes you a liar.

Let me be blunt. People like you want a free ride; you want others to pay for free stuff for you, regadless of legitmate religious objections. You are a self centered free loader who professes some idea of enlightenment but stripped away you are just another hustle looking for a hand out.

Well, the good news (bad news for you) is that the First Ammendment protects those of us who don't want to pay for your free shit. You want it, pay for it yourself. And I have no doubt that that is how the SCOTUS will decide, if and when it gets the case. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

People like me? No. Actually you’re wrong. I have private medical insurance for catastrophic care and a concierge doctor for everyday healthcare. I, not the State, pay for my medical care. I have never been on any form of welfare. For women that are less fortunate than many others and myself yes, the State pays for their pre-natal health care and contraception.

So to be clear, I do care about yours or anybody else’s First Amendment right to worship whatever God(s) you want to. But I don’t give a fuck about your religious objections, hopes or fears. The SCOTUS will NEVER, EVER, EVER deny women access to pre-natal health care or contraceptive, and they will never over turn RvW. And there is no congress or senate stupid enough to try to take free contraception and pre-natal care from women unfortunate to not have access to private health insurance.

If the government did it, it would open the doors for insurance companies to deny, and they would, pre-natal and contraceptive care to women. Child bearing women are among the worst risk for insurance companies. It’s just utterly ridiculous for ALL women to be subject to YOUR idea of what God’s(s’) plan or desires are with regard to advanced health care.

You do know where you are posting don’t you. How do you reconcile all that with your religious objections?

So, I’m going to go back to my earlier promise to drop this dumb discussion with you. Good bye.

A short post for Olivia;

"Well ok, tell me where your right to limit pre-natal health care to women is in the Constitution. It isn’t there either. They didn’t have advanced medical health care in the eighteenth century. The Necessary and Proper Clause is what we have to tie the advanced world to the world of our Founding Fathers."

In 1803 James Madison, current Congressman, primary writer of the US Constutition, and future president, was speaking of a bill in front of Congress. This bill would have authorized Congress to spend money on homeless sailors from the Revolutionaly War. Madison said that charity was fine and this cause was noble but he could not find any place in the Constitution where they were allowed to spend the money.

The point Olivia is that the man who wrote the Constitution stood on the fact that something not specifically forbidden in the Constitution does not allow it to happen. The Constitution is proactive. It says what is allowable and no further. That is why people argue against Roe v Wade, but not necessarily abortion, as bad, unconsitutional law. Those justices read something into the Constitution that was not there. Madison would have rolled over in his grave. The same thing applies to forcing people to pay for something because the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit it (your stance).
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

It is hard to debate when the opposing side keeps redefining the issue.

You are aware that Obamacare is redefining the concept of insurance. Mandating ALL insurance policies have required coverage plans. So the fact that your current insurance is blah blah blah something is irrelevant.

You support Obamacare mandating to religious groups that they offer/particpate in/ and pay for health services that religious organizaitons object to i presume. If you don't, then we have no beef.

Otherwise, your demands are for free shit from the rest of us!

My religious beliefs are none of your business; for all you know I may be agnostic but also believe in the First Ammendment and don't appreciate assaults on it. I also don't believe in free loaders, or people who want others to pay for their shit; particularly when many have legitmate religious objections. But you already said you don't care what religious people think on this issue. You just want your own way and others to foot the bill - the First Ammendment be damned if it gets in my way of free shit paid for by others against their religous objections!

People like me? No. Actually you’re wrong. I have private medical insurance for catastrophic care and a concierge doctor for everyday healthcare. I, not the State, pay for my medical care. I have never been on any form of welfare. For women that are less fortunate than many others and myself yes, the State pays for their pre-natal health care and contraception.

So to be clear, I do care about yours or anybody else’s First Amendment right to worship whatever God(s) you want to. But I don’t give a fuck about your religious objections, hopes or fears. The SCOTUS will NEVER, EVER, EVER deny women access to pre-natal health care or contraceptive, and they will never over turn RvW. And there is no congress or senate stupid enough to try to take free contraception and pre-natal care from women unfortunate to not have access to private health insurance.

If the government did it, it would open the doors for insurance companies to deny, and they would, pre-natal and contraceptive care to women. Child bearing women are among the worst risk for insurance companies. It’s just utterly ridiculous for ALL women to be subject to YOUR idea of what God’s(s’) plan or desires are with regard to advanced health care.

You do know where you are posting don’t you. How do you reconcile all that with your religious objections?

So, I’m going to go back to my earlier promise to drop this dumb discussion with you. Good bye. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

JD, James Madison helped write some other states, I can’t remember, Constitution that served as the framework for the US Constitution. He was one of may men that gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution, and thereby set forth a form of government that influenced the rest of the world then and now. His thoughts were germane at the time of writing the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment, which was, as you know, after the ratification of the Constitution, is true. However, your analysis doesn’t agree with the Ninth Amendment. And please don’t condescend to me. I’m not one of the Dewey-eyed co-eds you teach.

Whether you like it or not, and whether you approve it of it or not, the SCOTUS has decided that reproductive rights like abortion are Constitutionally protected. That’s just the way it is. Women have the right to reproductive health just as much as men do. Why aren’t you all up in arms about Viagra and vasectomies?

I don’t care what Obamacare or any other iteration of federal law that governs issuance has to say. It’s a private matter between an individual and their doctor and spouse. Insurance has no choice but to pay for it. I think we will find that insurance companies are all for insuring contraceptives and pre-natal care. Like I said earlier, women of childbearing age are one of their biggest risks. The fewer high-risk pregnancies, premies and complications that come from both the happier insurance companies will be I suspect.

Your religion has nothing to do with childbirth, pregnancies or getting pregnant. Little Stevie was right. Y’all think life begins with an erection. If religious organizations’ hospitals don’t want to fund contraceptives, pre-natal care or whatever, then that is their prerogative especially if they take no federal funding. You fanatics can vote with your dollars. Don’t go to Level One trauma units like Herman Hospital when you are injured almost beyond repair, county hospitals if you can’t afford insurance or a hospital that services women’s reproductive care if you are bleeding out in the middle of nowhere and that hospital is the only one for a hundred miles. Just tell the ambulance to pass that by for one that serves the “right” kind of health care. Maybe your God(s) will save you.

People like you will never put the Jennie back in the bottle. Women have our rights now, and you can’t have them back. You asked a question. I think it’s been thoroughly answered by several people. You just don’t agree with your students or the answers.

Nothing you have here written delegitimizes the government's constitutional obligation to provide for the defense of this nation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well if you can argue that starting wars falls under ''common defence''. I suppose that Olivia can argue that birth control falls under ''Domestic Tranquility'". LOL

You support Obamacare mandating to religious groups that they offer/particpate in/ and pay for health services that religious organizaitons object to i presume. If you don't, then we have no beef.

! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That is not exactly how it is. I have not read up on this issue fully but it is my understanding that Church's do not have to do so but Church sponsered institutions like hospitials that take federal money do so. Not all their employee's are one denomination.

I'm not saying that is correct but that is how I understand it. Plus they figured out some way where it actually cost no more. Some trick accounting but that trick accounting was working at a state level.

Look, I am not for any form of free shit but right now there is all kind of
subsidized health care, until it is all fixed than you can not cry about women trying to get their fair share.

Olivia, it sounds very odd to equate abortion with reproduction don't you think?
As for vasectomies, did you know that in some states a married man can't have a vasectomy without written permission from his wife? That wife can have an abortion any time she wants. Where is the equality?
No, I don't think life begins with an erection. Teenage boys have too many unrequited erections to use that definition. So when do you think life begins? Before you answer I can cite circumstances about premature babies surviving outside the womb without heroic measures. As I said earlier, up here near Kansas City (Skidmore, MO) a woman murdered another woman and cut out her 8 month old fetus. The murderer was captured and the baby survived after three days. A sickening thing did happen though, an Amber Alert was not issued for several hours because a regional manager said the baby wasn't born so it wasn't a baby. So go ahead and tell when life begins. Also talk to me about euthanasia of the elderly or infirm. Especially if they need 24 hour care just to survive. I can smell the brautwurst cooking now or is that just an oven somewhere?

By definition abortion is a reproduction right. It’s a right just the same as contraception, vasectomies, Viagra, gynecological care, urological care, fertility care, sex education, and so on. You just don’t like abortion so you have trouble looking at objectively.

So, to answer your question, and again don’t condescend – I don’t need time to think. I was kidding when I said life began with an erection; it’s called humor. Life begins when a fetus can survive outside the host without heroic measures. I mean as in can survive without advanced medical care.

First term abortions are legal as they should be. They should be unfettered. No holier than thou law requiring a girl to look at the sonogram should interfere with it. If it was my daughter, she wouldn’t have to. I would take her to a state or country that doesn’t require it. Anything after the first trimester should be based on health of the woman. If it is a threat to her life, and she chooses to abort to save her life, that’s fine too. If I already had children that depended on me, I’d do the same.

Regarding vasectomies, please name the states that require a wife’s consent. I couldn’t find any. Besides, even if there were any laws on the books they would be superceded by the federal HIPPA. So please support your claim, and please address both the list of states and HIPPA.

Assisted suicide for the elderly, terminally ill or infirmed should be a right that that individual has. However, I do not believe in laws that require insurance agencies or the government to use heroic care to save an 85-year-old man’s life. It takes money away from young parents, children and others that aren’t dieing in a matter of months or weeks. I think they should be comfortable and have access to health care, just not transplants or open-heart surgery when the clock is ticking. Just because we have the ability doesn’t mean we have the resources.

We don’t think alike. I think you are wrong and you think I am. I am satisfied that I answered your original question and any subsequent questions about reproductive rights and now end of life care. Have at it. Post away, but unless you bring something to the table other than fables about the inequality between mens’ and womens’ reproductive rights and antidotal evidence on why I’m wrong and you’re right, I’m going to exit the conversation.

I think if a consumer wants to buy into a premium insurance plan that offers extraordinary coverage for end of life situations, go ahead. It isn't any business of the government's to interfer with those kinds of decisions. Just don't ask me to pay for it.

Likewise. If a consumer wants to participate in a healthcare/insurance plan that pays for abortions, contraception, etc., go ahead. Be my guest. Just don't ask those who don't agree and don't participate to pay for it.

If you buy into the notion of Obamacare; then of course you will lobby to have all your pet medical projects paid for by the rest of us; and lobby to de-fund those you disagree with. Obamacare is a hugh take over of the doctor patient relation and will be over turned.

Real reform of the healthcare system will embrace the free markets to drive down costs, give consumers choice, and expand access for more.

Whbirlaway wtf do you think the medicare debate is about? Why do you think sara palin cried death panels? We pay for elderly care in this country. I know it is morecoszt effective to pay for birth control than end of life care. What makes your religious beliefs supersede my conserative cost saving beliefs?

I don't know WTF your arguing with me about?

Frame your arguement intelligently so I can respond.

[quote=WTF;2207443]Whbirlaway wtf do you think the medicare debate is about? Why do you think sara palin cried death panels? We pay for elderly care in this country. I know it is morecoszt effective to pay for birth control than end of life care. What makes your religious beliefs supersede my conserative cost saving beliefs? The First Ammendment you dumb ass.[/quote]

More like simplistic. We pay for the elderly already. They take way more out of the system than they paid in. How is that different than Olivia's point. I do not want to pay for the care of folks about to die. It is aganist my conserative religion. Yet we do. How is that different that people crying about paying for birth control? I am using my phone btw so take that into consideration

One side has a religious and conscientious freedom objection which is protected under the Frist Ammendment. The other has no such protection.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

(I understand the phone typing problem; alot of my typos are becasue of the same.)