Page 4 of 13 First 12345678 ... Last
  1. #34
    janelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    20,772
    Thanks
    1,737
    Thanked 2,527 Times in 1,527 Posts
    They don't read the bills so what did they expect? 2,000 pages and anything could have been in there hidden among that number of pages. Pass it before we know what is in it? It could have given our country to Russia for all they knew. Idiots.

    I'm just thankful this was revealed before the election it would have been to late after. I hope they revoke the bill from the floor of congress but don't expect it with all the cowards up there.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Obama Administration: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #35
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Dolan: Obama says he's not anti-religious, but he's getting harder to believe
    Published February 14, 2012 | Associated Press



    The top U.S. Catholic bishop vowed legislative and court challenges Tuesday to a compromise by President Barack Obama to his healthcare mandate that now exempts religiously affiliated institutions from paying directly for birth control for their workers, instead making insurance companies responsible.

    Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview with The Associated Press that he trusted Obama wasn't anti-religious and intended to make good on his pledge to work with religious groups to fine-tune the mandate.

    "I want to take him at his word," Dolan said in Rome, where he will be made a cardinal Saturday. But he stressed: "I do have to say it's getting harder and harder," to believe Obama's claim to prioritize religious freedom issues given the latest controversy.

    Obama sought to quell fierce election-year outrage on Friday by abandoning his stand that religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities must pay for birth control. Instead, he said insurance would step in to provide the coverage.

    The administration's initial position had outraged evangelicals and Catholic bishops and emboldened many Republicans who charged that it amounted to an assault on religion by forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception, sterilization and the morning-after pill against their consciences.

    The mandate also raised greater philosophical questions about which institutions would qualify as religious and could therefore be exempt.

    "Does the federal government have the right to tell a religious individual or a religious entity how to define yourself?" Dolan asked. "This is what gives us greater chill."

    Initially, Dolan had termed Obama's compromise as "a first step in the right direction" after hearing about it Friday morning. But later that day, Dolan's USCCB issued a statement rejecting it, saying the arrangement was unacceptable and raised "serious moral concerns."

    Dolan, the archbishop of New York, said the main concern is that the so-called "choking mandates" remain. In addition many Catholic entities are self-insured. It remains unclear how they would get around the mandate to provide services that they consider morally illicit.

    "Was what was intended to be a concession, and what gave us a glimmer of hope at the beginning ... really just amount to a hill of beans? And it seems as if it does," Dolan said.

    He vowed to support legislation under way in Congress that would allow any employer to deny birth control coverage if it runs counter to their religious or moral beliefs. The White House on Monday termed the proposed legislation "dangerous and wrong."

    Dolan said the U.S. bishops will now work hard to support passage of the new legislation. "I couldn't see why the president would have any consternation, because he said to me that religious freedom remains sacrosanct. Well, let's legislatively guarantee it," Dolan said.

    Separately, he said, the bishops will back court challenges to the mandate being undertaken by others. He said he didn't think the USCCB itself, however, would sue the government over the issue.

    Dolan spoke at the North American College, the U.S. seminary in Rome, where he was a student in the 1970s and served as rector starting in 1994.

    On Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI will make Dolan and 20 other bishops cardinals, the red-capped princes of the church who will elect the next pope.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1mOfV48yX
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #36
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #37
    janelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    20,772
    Thanks
    1,737
    Thanked 2,527 Times in 1,527 Posts
    That would be funny if it wasnt' true. Wonder what other freedoms will be taken away? Get in line to do as our "rulers" tell us.

    Heard there will be drones in the sky soon over all our country. They will be able to watch us all the time. Liberty being taken away. Scary in the tech age.

  6. #38
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The arrogance of Obama's 'accommodation'
    By Edward Morrissey | The Week – 11 hrs ago


    No one elected Barack Obama to be Pope. So why on Earth is he forcing Catholics to violate their religious doctrines?

    President Barack Obama went a long way this month to proving conservative critics correct when they paint the president as aloof and arrogant. In a long-anticipated decision, Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius mandated that employers provide coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients at no charge — not even copays — as part of the ObamaCare regulation of health insurance. That mandate exempts "places of worship," but not religiously affiliated organizations such as schools, charities, and hospitals. When an eruption of outrage followed the announcement of this new rule, Obama announced an "accommodation" — without once bothering to consult the religious organizations impacted by the rule, nor changing the impact of the rule one whit through the supposed "compromise."

    Obama's diktat to Catholics demonstrates just how arrogant the president can be.

    First, let's take a look at the differences between the original rule published in late January and the supposed accommodation offered last Friday, as economist Greg Mankiw helpfull explains it. The original rule (A) required employers to buy health insurance that covers contraception and abortifacients for its employees. The compromise (B) requires employers to buy health insurance for its employees, and have the health insurer communicate its coverage for contraception and abortifacients to the employees. As Mankiw notes, the employer still bears the cost of the health insurance which will cover the costs of those products and services, so it's impossible to support B but not A, or A but not B. There is no substantive difference between the two positions.

    Employers still have to provide coverage — at no cost, not even copays — for contraception and abortifacients such as "ella" and Plan B, as well as IUDs. Here's a question few are asking: Why? Obama and his administration insist that women need better access to contraception and abortifacients, but few women have problems accessing them. The CDC reported in 2009 that contraception use wasn't exactly lacking: "Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 99 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method in their lifetime." Of all the reasons for non-use of contraception in cases of unwanted pregnancy, lack of access doesn't even make the CDC's list; almost half of women assumed they couldn't get pregnant (44 percent), didn't mind getting pregnant (23 percent), didn't plan to have sex (14 percent), or worried about the side effects of birth control (16 percent). In fact, the word access appears only once in this study of contraceptive use, and only in the context of health insurance, not contraception.

    The mandate for no-cost insurance coverage makes no business sense, either. Insurers operate risk pools, and the more risks one group creates, the more they are expected to contribute to balance the risk for the other participants. For instance, when a driver buys insurance, his rates depend on a number of factors, including age, vehicle type, area of residence, driving record, and the number of miles driven in a year. If a driver chooses to drive more than 7,500 miles in a year, the risk increases, and so do premiums for that driver. If the insurer spread the cost of this one driver's increased risk across the whole pool of drivers, it would disincentivize risk minimization. Adults can choose to be sexually active. They might require contraception. But if the government mandates coverage of those products, shouldn't the people choosing that riskier behavior be expected to contribute more rather than less, to keep the rest of the risk pool from paying for their increased access?

    The White House and HHS insist that this is immaterial, because it's cheaper to provide the contraceptive coverage than to exclude it. This is based on a cost-benefit analysis that claims that the use of contraception and abortifacients lower health-care costs for women. If that's true, however, health insurers wouldn't need a mandate to add such coverage to existing plans. The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that insurers have to cover the up-front cost of such products and services, while any possible savings (by preventing more expensive pregnancy and childbirth costs) would occur over a much longer period of time. Those up-front costs will be borne by those paying the premiums — in this case, the employers (and sometimes, partially, by employees.)

    The insistence on enforcing a mandate on private employers to cover contraception use at no additional cost to the employee is arrogant. When has the U.S. ever mandated to private employers that they had to give away products and services for free? But in relation to religious organizations, it's more than arrogant. It flies in the face of religious freedom, and not just for Catholics (although we provide a clear example for the purposes of this debate).

    The Catholic Church has opposed artificial birth control and abortion for two millennia. That opposition springs from the same core doctrine that animates the church's efforts in charitable outreach, education, and health care: The sanctity of human life and the meaning of sexual relations between men and women. The Obama mandate and its subsequent "accommodation" attempt to divorce the Church from the schools, hospitals, clinics, and charities it runs by declaring that only houses of worship deserve the protection of the First Amendment ban on government interference with the practice of religion. However, those hospitals, schools, and charities are the way in which the Catholic Church puts their religious principles into action, and the same is true for any number of other religious denominations. Those organizations are indeed the "free exercise thereof" in a very real sense, the very activity that the First Amendment protects.

    Now the Obama administration wants to force these organizations to violate the very doctrine that motivates their outreach to the communities they serve. By being forced to carry insurance that funds contraceptive and abortifacients, the U.S. would force religious organizations to facilitate activities that they see as immoral or evil, and which contradicts their faith.

    Some may well disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception and abortion, including more than a few Catholics. Those who disagree have no compulsion to attend Mass or to work for Catholic organizations. Opponents of Catholic doctrine can work to get the church to change its position, however unlikely that might be. However, no one elected Barack Obama to be Pope, and his diktat to Catholics and other Christians to accept his doctrine at the expense of their own violates our cherished freedom of religion — and demonstrates better than any of his critics might have done otherwise just how arrogant Obama can be.

    http://news.yahoo.com/arrogance-obam...160900646.html

    Here's the deal. Nothing in the world is free. Even if they say the contraception will be free, someone is footing the bill. If insurance companies are footing the bill, then everyone's premiums will go up. If an orginization is forced to pay, then the workers' salaries will go down. My brother works for a rather large Catholic hospital, and he says it'll cost the hospital around $500,000-$600,000 to cover everyone to the new standards, from doctors, nurses, janitors, administration, etc.

    ...


    Women are entitled to purchase contraception, but are not entitled to FREE contraception. No one is entitled to anything, but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and even then, those rights are have been slipping away...

    ...

    Let me ask a more fundamental question. Why is the federal govermnment meddling in the private medical affairs of its citizens? This whole flap about the freedom of religion issue would be moot if it weren't for the feds governing by fiat.

    ..

    it is like focusing on the un-cut grass in front of a house that's on fire. wow...
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #39
    janelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    20,772
    Thanks
    1,737
    Thanked 2,527 Times in 1,527 Posts

    I wondered what that was---

    Diktat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiktatCached
    You +1'd this publicly. Undo
    A diktat is a harsh penalty or settlement imposed upon a defeated party by the victor, or a dogmatic decree. Historically, it was particularly used in Germany to ...

  8. #40
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Senate Defeats Bill to Reverse Birth Control Rule
    By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press WASHINGTON March 1, 2012 (AP)


    The Senate on Thursday defeated a GOP effort to roll back President Barack Obama's policy on contraception insurance coverage in the first vote on an issue that raised questions of religious and women's rights and riled Americans in this volatile election year.

    The 51-48 vote killed an amendment that would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of portions of the president's health care law they found morally objectionable. That would have included the law's requirement that insurers cover the costs of birth control. Democrats said the measure would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of virtually any medical treatment with the mere mention of a moral or religious objection.

    "We have never had a conscience clause for insurance companies," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The measure would have given insurers more opportunities to deny coverage for certain treatments, she added. "A lot of them don't have any consciences. They'll take it," Boxer said.

    Republicans argued that the law needs to be reversed because it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom by forcing insurers and employers to pay for contraception even if their faith forbids its use. Democrats said the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo, was an assault on women's rights and could be used to cancel virtually any part of the law.

    The Senate is debating Republican legislation aimed at taking a bite out of President Barack Obama’s health care law. The measure, sponsored by Blunt, would allow insurers and employers to opt out of any requirements to which they object on moral or religious grounds. That includes the recently rewritten policy that shifts the cost of contraceptive coverage to insurers.

    Both parties were using the issue to rally their bases; Republicans sought to hold together conservatives and others in the midst of an unsettled battle for the presidential nomination. And for Obama, there is no constituency more crucial to his re-election chances than women.

    In the end, the vote hung on a handful of centrists as Democrats chose a parliamentary maneuver that required only 50 votes to kill the amendment. Only three Democrats and one Republican defied their parties.

    Voting with Republicans in favor of the amendment were Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, both up for re-election, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is retiring. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who only this week abandoned her re-election bid out of frustration with the polarized Congress, was the lone Republican to vote to defeat the amendment.

    Democrats pounced on the symbolism of Snowe's decisions. "If Republicans keep this up, they're going to drive away independent voters, women and men, just as they are driving moderates out of their caucuses," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

    But Republicans kept one such senator in the fold on the vote, Snowe's fellow senator from Maine. Sen. Susan Collins kept all sides on edge until minutes before the vote, saying on the Senate floor that she was troubled that the administration could not assure her that faith-based self-insured organizations would be protected from the mandate to cover contraception.

    "I feel that I have to vote for Sen. Blunt's amendment," she said.

    Both sides protested strenuously that an issue affecting millions of Americans was being used for political gain, but the debate was steeped in election-year strategy. The presidency and the congressional majorities are at stake, and Obama's contraception coverage policy is one of several cultural issues that have become prominent in the nation's political discourse this year.

    On the presidential campaign trail, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney apparently stumbled over a question of whether he supports the amendment, in the end saying that he does support it, "of course." His main challenger, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, has said that contraception conflicts with this Roman Catholic beliefs.

    Blunt, Romney's liaison to Congress, predicted the issue won't go away.

    It "won't be over until the administration figures out how to accommodate people's religious views at it relates to these mandates," he told reporters after the vote. "This is a debate that might be settled at that building across the street," referring to ethe Supreme Court.

    The Obama administration and congressional Democrats said Blunt's measure was so broad it could allow employers to opt out of virtually any kind of medical treatment.

    "This proposal isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to," said Secretary of Health and Human Resources Kathleen Sebelius. "The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss."

    A majority of Americans support the use of contraceptives. The public is generally in favor of requiring birth control coverage for employees of religiously affiliated employers, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll Feb. 8-13. The survey found that 61 percent favor the mandate, while 31 percent oppose it. Even Catholics, whose church strongly opposed the recent government mandate, support the requirement at about the same rate as all Americans

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...olicy-15822772

    comments

    Separation of church and state, Republicans, remember it!

    ...


    Separation of church and state, Republicans, remember it??
    The Republicans apparently do remember it. They were trying to stop the Democrats from forcing people of faith to violate religious beliefs.

    ...

    This is a classic exampble of what is called "The dictatorship of relativism". It's sad when a bunch of lay people get together and start telling a church what its tenant are or should be. What's the cost of a condom versus the cost to the church?
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #41
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    March 2, 2012
    What's to stop HHS from adding abortion to "preventive services" list?



    By the pricking of my thumbs . . . it's Kathleen Sebelius, explaining the apparent cost-effectiveness of societal suicide: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebe...eption-mandate

    [IMG]“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.”[/IMG]


    As Mark Steyn wrote a couple of weeks ago, http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ion-mark-steyn
    "This is a very curious priority for a dying republic."

    Steve Ertelt argues that they're just getting started (emphasis added): http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/01/s...th-care-costs/

    At a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius confirmed the fears of many pro-life advocates who worry that the recent HHS mandate requiring all insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization, regardless of an employer’s moral objection, is just the beginning.

    The same statutory authority of the Administration to mandate contraception could just as easily mandate abortion on demand. The Administration believes in essence that employers are not really paying for contraceptives or abortion since they would be cheaper than providing for prenatal care, childbirth or child care.

    In an exchange with pro-life Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA), Sebelius claimed, “The reduction in a number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.” To which Murphy responded, “So you’re saying by not having babies born, we’re going to save money on healthcare?” The exchange becomes just another example of the Obama Administration’s willingness to trample on basic rights of conscience in order to pay for the massive 2010 federal healthcare law and expand abortion.

    As a means of cutting costs under Obamacare, the Secretary of HHS has the authority to mandate coverage of anything he or she adds to a “preventive services” list. The recent HHS edict was the result of contraception being added to that list. Because the list is fluid and left solely to the whim of the Administration, there is no statute preventing an abortion mandate.

    Certainly abortion coverage is the next logical step. Even in its initial passage in 2010, Obamacare contained new streams of federal funding for abortion. The Obama Administration fought against pro-life amendments like the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to gut abortion funding from the bill. It has continued to fight against efforts to limit federal funds for abortion. The Obama Administration was willing to allow a government shutdown unless full federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, was in place. It’s clear; the Administration would have no qualms about mandating coverage for abortion.

    I wish I could believe this was impossible. But we know for sure that the Obama administration isn't hindered by a respect for conscience or religious liberty or a belief in the intrinsic value of infant life (or "however way you want to describe it" http://www.punditandpundette.com/201...-obama-on.html ). What's added to the "preventive services" category will be determined by political calculations, the factors of which will change drastically for the worse if Obama is re-elected in November.

    And in case you've forgotten, the HHS mandate has been finalized. There may or may not be adjustments made down the road. From Hannah C. Smith, Senior Counsel to The Becket Fund: http://www.becketfund.org/

    The legal rule that the Administration finalized on Feb. 10, 2012 was the exact same rule announced in August 2011. There were no changes whatsoever to that initial mandate or its extremely narrow exemption that set off the firestorm of opposition from religious groups. The only additions were two promises. First, the Administration issued a "guidance" document (that can be revoked at any time) that promised not to enforce the rule for one year, and second, a promise from the President to create a new and separate rule--this so-called "insurer mandate" that he described on Feb. 10th. That new rule--the insurer mandate-- has not been issued and will not be issued for some time.

    http://www.punditandpundette.com/201....html?tw_p=twt
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #42
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Is Sandra Fluke a fake victim used by Democrats to push free birth control?
    March 4, 2012 Joe Newby Spokane Conservative Examiner



    Is Sandra Fluke, the 30-year-old Georgetown law student who testified before a Congressional panel in late February, a fake victim used by the Democrats to push free contraceptives?

    Several posts in the conservative blogosphere seem to suggest just that.

    A post at Jammie Wearing Fools notes: http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-...e-is-no-fluke/

    For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.

    During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

    The Washington Post spoke to Ms. Fluke after Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) refused to let her testify in a hearing regarding religious freedom.

    Democrats invited her to speak at that hearing, hoping that she would tell Republicans how much birth control meant to her. As the Post notes, the topic was so important to Fluke, she actually researched the school's policy before enrolling : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...57HR_blog.html

    Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

    The Daily Caller reported that Fluke has a long history of activism: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/me...-sandra-fluke/

    Fluke attended Cornell University from 1999-2003, where she received a B.S. in Policy Analysis & Management and Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.

    While at Cornell, Fluke’s organized activities centered on the far-left feminist and gender equity movements. Fluke participated in rallies supporting abortion, protests against war in Iraq and efforts to recruit other womens’ rights activists to campus.

    During that period, she gained experience engaging in disputes concerning abortion with religious organizations.

    An article at The Blaze also found holes in her narrative: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sand...ontraceptives/

    Though there aren’t links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that it’s all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women‘s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.

    First, there‘s the matter of Fluke’s age. In a segment on Fluke’s battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman... http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view...file_name_link
    That profile also reveals a woman with a long history of feminist activism.

    The idea that she is an unwitting victim of a religious school is patently absurd. Yet that is the narrative Democrats are presenting to the American public.

    It would seem that Fluke intentionally attended Georgetown for the sole purpose of agitating for her cause - contraception.

    Her testimony caused a firestorm of controversy, especially after talk radio host Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut." Limbaugh issued an apology on Saturday, and added: http://www.examiner.com/conservative...ing-her-a-slut

    I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
    Democrats want us to believe that Ms. Fluke is a victim of mean, cruel religious organizations, but the reality is something quite different.

    Instead of being a poor, downtrodden waif suffering under male oppression, she is a long-time agitator for feminist causes who allowed herself to be used as a propaganda tool by the Democratic Party.

    As the post at Jammie Wearing Fools notes, Americans "are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her."

    At the very least, Democrats owe Americans an apology for this dog-and-pony show. Ultimately, they should be voted out of office for perpetrating this fraud on the public.

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Is Sandra Fluke a fake victim used by Democrats to push free birth control? - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative...#ixzz1oB7DI1rS

    comments

    “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,”
    Because georgetown is the single university in the entire country that offers a law degree ??

    ...


    Rush apoligised for calling her a slut ... ( as he should - was inappropriate regardless) does she now apoligise for misrepresenting herself ?

    ...

    While his comments were not “gentlemanly”, they were accurate. I can only assume he is caving to financial pressures from his wimpy advertisers and partners.

    So when can we expect the same pressure and demands for an apology from the people who have called Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, and other conservative woman the same name or worse?

    ....

    I think an apology was in order, since Ms. Fluke’s classification is just a sideshow. Rush’s attack on her behavior (rather than her demand that we subsidize her choices) took the attention off the target.

    Here’s my view: If taxpayers are expected to pay for her contraception so that she can have sex, will they also buy me cases of tequila and margarita mix, so that I can have some sex, too??

    ...

    Has any Conservative or even RINO been on the MSMs to document all the outrageous, unseemly, even hysterical rants by mainstream talking heads – delivered on a REGULAR basis?

    If not, why not? Double standard in spades. We have to behave as adults, the Left gets to say and do as they please and get cover from the MSM.

    No one on the Left sees the double standard and feels the need to acknowledge it? Sorry – just a rhetorical question.

    ...

    She has said that she applied to Georgetown with the specific goal of challenging their/the church’s policy on contraception... so she is hardly an "innocent victim" in any sense of the term.

    ...

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#disqus_thread

    The current last comment by Maddox says it best IMO.

    "Maddox
    Defeating the evil that exists in our media and government will require strong tactics. Apologizing for fighting hard against those with no moral compass every time they pretend to be victimized is retreat. How long are conservatives going to back down for popularity? I am disappointed...again."

    IMO, the biggest mistake conservatives make is believing they are dealing with some kind of media. Actually, they are only dealing with leftist propaganda promoters.

    ...

    Does anyone know yet who's funding Sandra Fluke's "public interest scholarship"? Is it Georgetown directly?

    (That link is to her statement to Congress, btw, under her Law Students for Reproductive Justice logo.)

    I think Rush is going to be on her tomorrow. He'll re-apologize for the prostitute comment, but then explain to the listeners a few more details on who this lady really is.

    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #43
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The America of Obama, or of Liberty Lost
    Even in the homeland of law and democracy, freedom of conscience is in danger. This is the unprecedented accusation that the bishops are hurling against the president of the United States. Here is the confidential letter in which they explain why

    by Sandro Magister ROME, March 5, 2012

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it.../1350189?eng=y

    Vatican Radio and "L'Osservatore Romano" have covered the news. But on the website of the United States Catholic bishops' conference, USCCB, the letter does not appear.

    The letter bears the signatures of Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the USCCB, and of the bishop of Bridgeport, William E. Lori, president of the committee for religious liberty.

    The two sent it last February 22 to all the bishops of the United States. They sent it confidentially, but with the prayer that the contents be shared with all the faithful.

    The complete text is reproduced further below.

    The letter was occasioned by the directives issued in January by the Department of Health and Human Services, which oblige all institutions, including Catholic ones, to provide their employees with insurance coverage extending to abortifacient pharmaceuticals, sterilization, and contraception.

    This is not the first time that the bishops have clashed with the Obama administration over decisions concerning the health ministry, headed by the "liberal" Catholic Kathleen Sebelius.

    But this time, the scope of the clash is much greater. In the judgment of the bishops, what is in danger in the United States today is nothing less than religious freedom.

    To speak of religious freedom in the United States is to touch on the nation's very foundations. The United States was born precisely in the name of the comprehensive defense of the religious freedom of individuals and communities against any earthly power, beginning with the state.

    The letter could therefore be astonishing for European readers, who live in countries that have instead constituted themselves to defend their "secularism" from the "interference" of the Churches, which are constantly suspected and accused of overstepping their bounds.

    This leads to the caution with which the European Catholic hierarchy generally deals with the civil authorities. A caution that is all the more evident if it is compared with the frankness with which religious communities in American society express themselves in the public sphere and criticize the political powers.

    Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Lori – not coincidentally the one in charge of questions of religious freedom at the USCCB – clearly explain in the letter how dramatic they consider the stakes that are in play.

    And they give guidelines on how to proceed in order to defend concretely the freedom of conscience that is under threat. On the website of the USCCB, there is a section with the action lines of the campaign:

    > Conscience Protection

    "We will not rest until the protection of conscience rights is restored," Bishop Lori said after the senate rejected, with a vote of 51 to 48, an amendment called the "for Rights of Conscience Act," sponsored by Roy Blunt, a Republican senator from Missouri.

    Traditionally, in the various countries, it is the apostolic nuncios who take confidential steps with the political authorities in order to resolve disputes.

    But in the United States, more than elsewhere, it is the bishops who intervene directly, and in public.

    And this is all the more true of the highly "affirmative" bishops who are today the driving force of the American episcopate, beginning with the archbishop of New York.

    Dolan is a cardinal in whom Benedict XVI himself places a great deal of trust. It is to him that he assigned the task of introducing, on February 17, the day "of reflection and prayer" with all the cardinals gathered around the pope, on the eve of the last consistory.

    It is enough to read that talk in order to grasp his temperament:

    > "We gather as missionaries, as evangelizers"

    February 22, 2012

    Dear Brother Bishops,

    Since we last wrote to you concerning the critical efforts we are undertaking together to protect religious freedom in our beloved country, many of you have requested that we write once more to update you on the situation and to again request the assistance of all the faithful in this important work. We are happy to do so now.

    First, we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to you, and to all our sisters and brothers in Christ, for the remarkable witness of our unity in faith and strength of conviction during this past month. We have made our voices heard, and we will not cease from doing so until religious freedom is restored.

    As we know, on January 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a decision to issue final regulations that would force practically all employers, including many religious institutions, to pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraception. The regulations would provide no protections for our great institutions—such as Catholic charities, hospitals, and universities—or for the individual faithful in the marketplace. The regulations struck at the heart of our fundamental right to religious liberty, which affects our ability to serve those outside our faith community.

    Since January 20, the reaction was immediate and sustained. We came together, joined by people of every creed and political persuasion, to make one thing resoundingly clear: we stand united against any attempt to deny or weaken the right to religious liberty upon which our country was founded.

    On Friday, February 10, the Administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed “without change.” The mandate to provide the illicit services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite the outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain.

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any government’s decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations.

    Recent actions by the Administration have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a “privilege” arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an allencompassing, extreme form of secularism. The exemption is too narrowly defined, because it does not exempt most non-profit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the selfinsured employer, the for-profit religious employer, or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily.

    In the United States, religious liberty does not depend on the benevolence of who is regulating us. It is our “first freedom” and respect for it must be broad and inclusive—not narrow and exclusive. Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second class citizens. And it is not for the government to decide which of our ministries is “religious enough” to warrant religious freedom protection.

    This is not just about contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilization—although all should recognize the injustices involved in making them part of a universal mandated health care program. It is not about Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. It is about people of faith. This is first and foremost a matter of religious liberty for all. If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end? This violates the constitutional limits on our government, and the basic rights upon which our country was founded.

    Much remains to be done. We cannot rest when faced with so grave a threat to the religious liberty for which our parents and grandparents fought. In this moment in history we must work diligently to preserve religious liberty and to remove all threats to the practice of our faith in the public square. This is our heritage as Americans. President Obama should rescind the mandate, or at the very least, provide full and effective measures to protect religious liberty and conscience.

    Above all, dear brothers, we rely on the help of the Lord in this important struggle. We all need to act now by contacting our legislators in support of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which can be done through our action alert on http://www.usccb.org/conscience

    We invite you to share the contents of this letter with the faithful of your diocese in whatever form, or by whatever means, you consider most suitable. Let us continue to pray for a quick and complete resolution to this and all threats to religious liberty and the exercise of our faith in our great country.

    Timothy Cardinal Dolan
    Archbishop of New York
    President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

    Most Reverend William E. Lori
    Bishop of Bridgeport
    Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 03-05-2012 at 10:22 AM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #44
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    Fluke was on the View today. Wasn't it nice of Mr. Obama to personally call her and make sure she was okay? (aka campaigning) Never waste a good disaster.....I believe her appearances (all of them) were orchestrated.

    Rush took the bait. I will say it was wrong for him to use those terms, but I think the thought behind them is valid. His apology was appropriate. He didn't apologize for his view but apologized for his language.

    Fluke is no victim here, this was all in her intentions. I caught that her "contraception" costs $3,000 per year. Why is it so expensive? Even a condom at $1 a pop for a daily event (pop) would only cost $365

    She also made it "clear" that this was not "tax dollars"...hmmmm.....if one is employed by any government branch, this is "tax dollars" and the general public who do have health care is paying for this in their higher premiums. Just because it's covered under "insurance" doesn't mean that we aren't ALL paying for this.
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in