world

Top Republican wants vote on birth control mandate

42 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

42 Comments
Login to comment

This is a mistake. Studies show young women do not, in aggregate, get too fired up over abortion issues - much to the dismay of pro-choice groups. However, mess with their access to contraception, and it's a totally different story. (Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to be much cooler on contraception than they are on abortion. Even Catholics don't particularly care about it, despite what the Church says.) Obama, by my estimation, has deftly out-maneuvered the right on this one - stirring up the issue, and then circumventing religious freedom arguments with a sort of technical slight of hand, all while ensuring women get the access to contraceptives they want. Now McConnell is going to go back an kick the hornet's nest again? What happened to all that stuff about Obama losing because the youth vote and the liberal base was suffering from disappointment and fatigue? Every time I look at the news it seems like the Republicans are trying their damnedest to antagonize and re-energize the lefties. How does McConnell expect to profit from this maneuver? With opponents like these...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Nice post, Triumvere. One can imagine the high-fives being exchanged in the Oval Office at this idiocy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

While Republicans continue to struggle day and night to curtail abortion, gay marriage and rights to contraception for ordinary Americans - amazingly - attacking a large chunk of their own voters, sane Americans and the world look on in amazement at how a once powerful party is now calling in the heavy machinery to dig it's own grave.

Insanity at it's very best - that's the conservative way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama, by my estimation, has deftly out-maneuvered the right on this one - stirring up the issue, and then circumventing religious freedom arguments with a sort of technical slight of hand, all while ensuring women get the access to contraceptives they want.

Yes, deftly out-maneuvered him by ensuring America's number concern was put on the "back-burner" by putting this Government intrusion in peoples lifes front and center.

Americans’ fear of big government - partly fueled by a sharp spike among Democrats since President Barack Obama took office - almost reached a record high this year and is far greater than people’s concerns about big business and big labor, a new Gallup poll Monday shows.

An overwhelming 64 percent of people surveyed said big government was the biggest threat to the country, compared to just 26 percent who said big business is their gravest concern and 8 percent who picked big labor.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70318.html#ixzz1mDuZYNh9

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Sailwind - 'Yes, deftly out-maneuvered him by ensuring America's number concern was put on the "back-burner" ..."

Sail, are you saying birth control is America's top concern at the moment??

I would have thought it was jobs and the economy - areas the GOP is simply refusing to do anything constructive about while simultaneously holding middle America hostage while they prolong the nation's economic pain.

Us idiot foreigners never did have much of a clue.....only Americans know what is truly going on in U.S. politics, even when they don't, but I for one thank them for the laughs. :-)

(Sail, I am not referring to you, only certain others.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would have thought it was jobs and the economy

Concern: A matter that relates to or affects one.

Issue: An important topic or problem for debate or discussion

American's number one concern is Big Government ever increasing intrusion into their daily lives.

American's number one issue that they are debating and discussing is the economy and jobs.

There is a difference Sushi.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "American's number one concern is Big Government ever increasing intrusion into their daily lives. American's number one issue that they are debating and discussing is the economy and jobs."

I don't doubt you.

However, it seems the GOP and conservatives' number one concern is to do absolutely nothing about the number one issue.

The GOP's not even debating jobs.

Wouldn't you think that at this point, this should be Americans' number one concern?

Really, in a sensible America, how does "Big Government's ever increasing intrusion into their daily lives" trump jobs and the economy?

Obama and the Dems have tabled one jobs initiative after another only to have the GOP refuse to even hold a debate to discuss them.

If I was American, this would be my number one concern.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conservative Americans need to be asking their elected officials and representatives: what the hell are you doing talking about birth control?

Why are you not engaging with the Democrafs and discussing how to create jobs?

It would be too easy to think the GOP appears to be temporarily sidetracking from discussing jobs and the economy, but let's face it: the GOP doesn't give a toss how many Americans livelihoods get thrown onto the scrap heap.

The GOP's primary motivator is to protect the rich at all costs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conservatives have really been taken for a ride - the GOP elite have had conservative voters parroting for months now about how critical it is to protect the 'job creators.'

Let's face facts:

1/ Bush cut taxes. Unemployment went up, not down.

2/ in most economies, small businesses make up usually around 95% of all businesses and employment. 

The GOP elite has - so far - succeeded in stifling any serious debate among conservatives about raising taxes on the rich, who - let's face it - earn most of their profits from the middle class.

GOP & 1% Elite: 1 Conservatives: 0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All Obama needs to do to make Republicans flip-flop is to advocate a position they hold. Look at the Libyan intervention: Republicans were "severely" for that type of thing until they were suddenly equally severely against it. Or the insurance mandate: Republicans for years portrayed this as a tenant of individual responsibility until Obama agreed; now they portray it as an attack on personal liberty.

In 2001, six Republican senators proposed a bill requiring that health insurance plans not “exclude or restrict benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.” While that bill was ultimately not adopted, in the same year, the GOP-led Congress passed appropriations bill which included a mandate that federal employee health insurance plans include contraception and birth control coverage by a vote of 334-94, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor; this bill was enacted by Bush, who is apparently not Obama, as Cantor then certainly would have been against it very, very severely.

It's gotten so bad that some Republicans are even staking out positions contrary to their own state laws; twenty-eight states have for years required birth control be covered by health insurance with few or no exceptions, including New Hampshire, but this did not prevent one of the Granite State's senators from claiming, “It violates our First Amendment to the constitution. This is not a women’s rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue.” Sen. Ayotte, you might want to check in with your state legislature first.

Hey, I have two teenage children (and I was once a teenager myself), so I am no stranger to rejection as mindless rebellion; I just do not trust a political party that acts in such a way.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SushiSake3FEB. 13, 2012 - 12:31PM JST: Really, in a sensible America, how does "Big Government's ever increasing intrusion into their daily lives" trump jobs and the economy?

Jobs creation and the economy is very important. Would you rather have a job and let the government take over your life? The American Revolution happened and people wanted liberty and freedom from the British Empire. The country was founded on The Constitution. The Constitution protects the rights of the people. It is the foundation of how government should operate and the role of politicians representing their state.

The people were able to unite and let the President and Congress knows they didn't approve of SOPA and PIPA. The people can't even united to defend The Constitution. People have different interpretations of The Constitution and how it should apply to issues.

Didn't know contraceptives was consider an entitlement and preventive care by Obama's health care reform.

SushiSake3FEB. 13, 2012 - 01:00PM JST: Conservative Americans need to be asking their elected officials and representatives: what the hell are you doing talking about birth control?

SushiSake the contraceptives issue may not be important to you, but it is important to a lot of Americans. The 1st Amendment is being violated by Obama's health care reform. Women feels their contraceptives entitlement is being discriminated. Obama's quick fix wasn't a fix at all. He wasn't upfront about the fix. The contraceptives will be free. Who is going to foot the bill for the "free contraceptives." The insurance company will probably have the employers pay for the contraceptives some other way by paying a higher premium. The tax payers might pay for it or maybe a tax on condoms to offset the free contraceptives.

Why are you not engaging with the Democrafs and discussing how to create jobs?

It's election year and both the Democrats and Republicans are not business owners so they can't create jobs. Their main job is passing laws, allocating spending, and applying taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna,

You left out this part out of your TPM (Talking Points Memo) article.

Federal employee health plans requirements are, of course, a different animal than mandates for religiously affiliated entities

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Federal employee health plans requirements are, of course, a different animal than mandates for religiously affiliated entities

Not in the minds of many Republicans, which is why federal law prohibits spending on abortions even though the procedure is entirely legal.

Requiring all Americans regardless of political belief to pay for birth control for federal employees was overwhelmingly okey-dokey for them because the rabid right had not yet made that their focus; now, requiring the same benefits for a janitor cleaning floors or nurse attending patients at some Catholic-affiliated megahospital is suddenly a veritable attack on religious freedom and the Constitution itself.

It's the sheer transparency of their hypocrisy that is galling, Sail. This is the crisis du jour, a moral tempest in a teacup that will be as forgotten as February's snow in August once something new comes along for them to seize.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

LagunaFEB. 13, 2012 - 01:34PM JST: the GOP-led Congress passed appropriations bill which included a mandate that federal employee health insurance plans include contraception and birth control coverage by a vote of 334-94, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor; this bill was enacted by Bush, who is apparently not Obama, as Cantor then certainly would have been against it very, very severely.

Your example is about federal employees who works for the government who voted to have their employees be covered and not for Catholic institution. Any businesses along with their chosen health insurance company can decides to offer contraceptives for free or for co-pay.

All Obama needs to do to make Republicans flip-flop is to advocate a position they hold. Look at the Libyan intervention: Republicans were "severely" for that type of thing until they were suddenly equally severely against it. Or the insurance mandate: Republicans for years portrayed this as a tenant of individual responsibility until Obama agreed; now they portray it as an attack on personal liberty.

Obama didn't let the Republican and Democrats have a say about Libya.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are suppose to represent their constituents. When Congress and Obama pass laws that they believed they know what is best for their constituents and get their hand caught in the cookie jar then they take the sides of the constituents that elected them like the contraceptives.Some Republicans and Democrats backtracked on the contraceptives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Requiring all Americans regardless of political belief to pay for birth control for federal employees was overwhelmingly okey-dokey for them because the rabid right had not yet made that their focus;

I believe it was the Catholic church that made it their focus and I hardly call the Catholic Church the rabid right. This crisis du jour is part of that famous Nancy Pelosi quote in regards to Obama's health care law when she said "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"......So far Catholics are the first one to find out what is in it and I don't think they were to pleased. The rest of us will just have to wait our turn to find out what other "goodies" awaits us.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

American's number one concern is Big Government ever increasing intrusion into their daily lives.

I'm not really buying that, nor your concern/issue distinction. To quote Carville, it's the economy.

I will happily believe that a majority are against the nebulous concept of "big government" - a term which can mean whatever you want it to - but the problem is, and has always been, that when you start specifying "Big Government" into things like "Medicare" or "Public Schools" or "Pollution Controls" people start to think some of those programs are good things to have around.

In this particular case, young women are not going to be swayed against Obama by telling them that "big government" is " increasingly intruding into their daily lives" by forcing their employers to give them insurance which covers contraceptives.

Not to mention the fact that those most likely to be angered by McConnell's position are the lefties, who are intrinsically the least likely to be worries about "big government." This is kind of my point: liberals and young women, key components of Obama's base, feel much more strongly about this issue than their conservative counterparts do. What does the GOP have to gain from turning this into a showdown? Obama has essentially already won and, thanks to his tricky maneuvering, any attempt to fight him on this will paint the GOP as anti-contraception. That's a losing proposition. It's basically handing Obama a bunch of votes in November.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Skipbeat - "Would you rather have a job and let the government take over your life?"

"Take over my life."?

Sorry, were you joking when you wrote that?

It's very much in the same vein as one of the funnier GOP talking points last year, which had GOP people almost everywhere claiming Obama was "ramming [healthcare] down our throats."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake4 - "Why are you not engaging with the Democrats and discussing how to create jobs?"

Skipbeat - "It's election year and both the Democrats and Republicans are not business owners so they can't create jobs. Their main job is passing laws, allocating spending, and applying taxes."

Are you serious?? Obama and the Democrats have fronted up with jobs bill after jobs bill.

The GOP has shot every single one of them down.

It is one of the government's roles to stimulate the economy through creating and passing business-friendly jobs bills.

You didn't honestly think you were going to get away with such a cheap brush off of a critically important election year issue, did you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has essentially already won and, thanks to his tricky maneuvering, any attempt to fight him on this will paint the GOP as anti-contraception. That's a losing proposition. It's basically handing Obama a bunch of votes in November.

In my opinion he needs to get tricky with these numbers instead if he actually thinks the youth and young women vote are going to flock to him this time around.

Nonetheless, since 2010, the share of young adults ages 18 to 24 currently employed (54%) has been its lowest since the government began collecting these data in 1948. And the gap in employment between the young and all working-age adults—roughly 15 percentage points—is the widest in recorded history.1 In addition, young adults employed full time have experienced a greater drop in weekly earnings (down 6%) than any other age group over the past four years.

One-in-four (24%) say they have moved back in with their parents after living on their own.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/09/young-underemployed-and-optimistic/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Catholic bishops said it continued the attack on religious freedoms

Never understood why guys who have taken a vow of chasity are so concerned with everyone else's sex lives.

I am a religious person, and lean towards the right on a lot of issues, but I don't think that this should be a major focus for the GOP. It is good to stand for a morality, but this comes down to an individual choice, just like if you are going to accept a particular religion. I do understand the church's point on this issue however. Why should they have to go against their tenants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape - thanks for your interesting perspective.

"I am a religious person, and lean towards the right on a lot of issues, but I don't think that this should be a major focus for the GOP. It is good to stand for a morality, but this comes down to an individual choice, just like if you are going to accept a particular religion. I do understand the church's point on this issue however. Why should they have to go against their tenants."

I am a former religious person. Re: the church going against their own tenets, I now see it like this (illustration only):

I start my own religion, however, I cannot prove the deity or any of the concepts, etc. are actually real. I then start making some laws, for argument's sake: My (imagined and unproveable) deity says wearing shoes is "bad." Many serial shoe wearers then begin to claim they have a problem with me and my deity's law. I subsequently become 'concerned," claim that my "religious freedoms are being attacked" by shoe wearers, and when I am in a situatiion where it is a good idea to wear shoes, I protest loudly that I am being forced to go against my religious tenets and subsequenly invoke my constitutional rights.

In a situation like this, if I were of wise mind and relatively unbiased, I would admit that MY tenets were unreasonable.

However, if I were religious, there would probably be smoke coming out of my ears.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sailwind

Yes, deftly out-maneuvered him by ensuring America's number concern was put on the "back-burner" by putting this Government intrusion in peoples lifes front and center

Sailwind, which will end up with more government intrusiveness: even more illegitimate kids on the welfare/medicare teat, or including contraception in healthcare? I agree that government intrusion is a legitimate concern, but framing it as intrusion on the input end ignores the intrusion down the road on the ouput end, if you follow me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans are too busy nosing around in people's bedroom. Yet, they claim to be for less government. And the argument is more government on the back side to take care of welfare recipients who cannot take care of their children, such as Nessie put it. If the republicans want welfare reform, do that.

Republicans have turned into pure facists supported by the religious right, who hate the Republican candidates but cannot find anyone to support their views and not be instantly labelled a crack-pot, tin hat wearing nut ball.

Then there is the question of religious freedom and the rights of employees to necessary medical care. In the US, we still have the EEOC, which guarantees work unbiased by race, gender, religion, etc. If a religion says no medicine, is that ok? Give employees free prayers and no medical care? It seems the line is being drawn by churches and the Republicans is based solely on religious precepts rather than the right to care for the employee. I feel it should be based on the needs of the employee. The result, legalized discrimination, as long as it supports religious/Republican views.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Conservatives" have become the tail wagging the dog in America, very unfortunate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm not sure where the idea that "contraception is a right" comes from. Not in any constitution I have ever seen. I have nothing against insurance companies offering plans that cover birth control, it isn't my business. But the government forcing it on people? A step too far. Plus, why are birth control pills covered, but condoms are not?

Those who want birth control and can afford it should pay for it themselves, or be part of a plan that offers it. For the poor, there are myriad sources of free/low cost contraception.

Again, the whole mess could by stopped by NOT tying health care to employment. Come to think of it the whole issue is a bit of a waste of time. Most Americans were happy with their health care when Obama took office,With the economy in tatters, it was a mistake to waste time and political capital solving a problem that wasn't a priority.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's official: Obama is finished. Voters like me, who have been in the center and on the fence thus far, have now been forced to stand on the side of freedom. If nothing else, America was founded on religious freedom. That's why the Pilgrims left England. But now we have a President (with a suspicious religious background) who is taking away religious freedom.

That's it. Obama has to go. Anyone but Obama in 2012. If the Democrats are smart they'll pull him and run someone else against Romney.

-6 ( +0 / -7 )

Sailwind, which will end up with more government intrusiveness: even more illegitimate kids on the welfare/medicare teat, or including contraception in healthcare?

Nessie,

I give individuals much more credit than you do. If they don't want children even if their religion does not condone contraceptives they are going to have sex regardless and work around the tenets of their religious peer group or beliefs and use them no matter the case that is reality.

This is not about what human beings will do, this is what Government forces as the law and disregards things that are most sacred.......Faith, Family and how they work things out among themselves when it comes to sex, healthcare and their values. Some parents wish not to condone sex before their children are able to accept the responsibility and it helps them and their parenting if their spiritual faith supports that view. This intrusion undermines that if you get my drift.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reading some of these comments, it appears some believe government thugs will storm defenseless Christians' houses and force birth control down their throats.

A bill put forward by some Republican bandwagon-jumper would allow any entity, whether religious-affiliated or not, to opt out of the birth control mandate if it offends their religious sensibilities. Really, the next logical step would be to allow for any entity to opt out of any medical mandate if it offends any religious sensibility.

Go ahead and foam at the mouth while you can on this issue, though - it'll be buried and forgotten two or three fourtnight, mark my words.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Some parents wish not to condone sex before their children are able to accept the responsibility and it helps them and their parenting if their spiritual faith supports that view.

And those parents are quite welcome to opt out of what is an option. What you seem to be advocating is for the religious to have the ability to extend their prohibitions to those who do not share their beliefs.

Middle an upper class people are able to afford birth control out of their own pocketbook, but the underclass, for whom even regular doctor visits are rare, are the ones who will be most affected by this. It really has nothing to do with religion at all but with seamless regulation. Creating an exemption is akin to hacking off a hydra head: This group now, this procedure next, and soon the intent of the law is gutted.

Legality implies definition, and you would be thankful for this when it comes to things like "health insurance." Imagine a world in which your employer offers health insurance that covers everything but anything requiring a blood transfusion because of his religious beliefs. That is the slippery slope that the Republicans are pushing us towards.

Options do not require that subscribers utilize them. Organizations which oppose certain medical practices are welcome to educate their employees about these issues and to council against them, but as long as these practices remain legal in society, organizations are not entitled to withhold what society through its government has deemed is a citizen's due.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Middle an upper class people are able to afford birth control out of their own pocketbook, but the underclass, for whom even regular doctor visits are rare, are the ones who will be most affected by this. It really has nothing to do with religion at all but with seamless regulation

It boils down to personal responsibility in my book. If youi can't afford to see a doctor, then you shouldn't be doing things that can lead you to having to see one, i.e. having sex without any contraception. Condoms are still cheaper than cigarettes and most of the bad snack foods that many people like to say that is causing the rapidly rising obesity rates among the poor in America. Also, if you can't afford to get pregnant, then don't have sex. It is not my responsiblity to assist someone in gaining contraceptive devices if they can't afford them.

Funny how many people say that conservatives are concerned with what goes on in the bedrooms. To some extent that is true. Yet some of the very same liberals who decry that, will push to have the snack foods taken out of school cafeterias, and zoning laws so that fast food places will not be put up in poor neighborhoods, as well as pushing the no smoking mantra, yet it is okay to smoke weed.

I think both sides should stay out of other people's business in regards to some of these matters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is very hard to be "personally responsible" when the private sector continuously raises the prices on seeing a doctor and receiving healthcare even if you are DYING!

Other first world countries do not charge people ridiculous prices to receive the healthcare they need!

The government should assist people who cannot afford it, to receive healthcare.

I cannot believe that you are one who is claiming that someone should not receive healthcare due to inability to pay....That is inhumane!

Contraceptives prevents unwanted pregnancies and reduces abortions!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Birth control pills are cheap and readily available to those who want them. Free, in fact, in many places. There are myriad charities and groups to help. If you can't afford 10-15 bucks a month, you should keep your legs shut.

I dont mind public medical care, much like public education, fire/police service. Everyone should get a basic level of service. However, above and beyond that level let people decide for themselves whether or not they want more care.

This is an obvious political tactic by Obama, and is disappointing. I expected more from a candidate who advocated 'hope and change'. Does he really want the Catholic church to get out of the health care field. Do you? That would mean the closure of 500 hospitals, plus other services like adoption agencies. All to force a political agenda that nobody wanted in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is not about what human beings will do, this is what Government forces as the law and disregards things that are most sacred

I would rather force people to have access to contraception than be forced to support unwanted children. No-one is forcing any behavior on religious people or defiling anything sacred. If you don't want to use contraception, you don't have to.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How about neither Nessie? It shouldnt be the government's business whether or not I have kids, use birth control, or fart in the bathtub. If people want to use contraception, they can. If their health plan pays for it, great. If not, it's available for cheap or for free anyway. Access is not an issue at all.

Also, one thing I still don' get is the discrimination aspect. Why are women's forms of contraception and abortoficients (sp) covered, but male contraception is not? Rubbers are expensive, but not covered. Gender based discrimination at its worst!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I cannot believe that you are one who is claiming that someone should not receive healthcare due to inability to pay....That is inhumane!

@FruitsBasketFan: I am not saying that. What I am saying that if a person wants to have sex, then they need to be responsible for all aspects of it. If they can't afford contraception, then they obviously can't afford to take care of a child if one is born or the prenatal care until it is born.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would rather force people to have access to contraception than be forced to support unwanted children.

Nessie,

I have a young lady in my household that is on the threshold of becoming of age where I'm going to have a very important discussion with her and provide what I consider the best guidance and advice that I can based on my life experiences in regards to all of this. Despite your opinion, I will refuse to force her to have access to contraception. I wish to encourage in her good choices in her life decisions not to encourage or facilitate bad ones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Despite your opinion, I will refuse to force her to have access to contraception.

What does this even mean? How do you "force access"? Shove pills at her? The only one being "forced" in this situation is the insurance company, to provide coverage.

it's available for cheap or for free anyway. Access is not an issue at all.

Not necessarily true. For most people, yes, but there are medical conditions and drug interactions that can render the cheaper forms of birth control unusable. Then there are the working poor, for which every penny counts. It's nice that a lot of these people can get contraceptives through organizations like planned parenthood, but women shouldn't have to rely on charity in these sorts of situations.

If you can't afford to see a doctor, then you shouldn't be doing things that can lead you to having to see one, i.e. having sex without any contraception.

Good in principle, but not terribly practical from a social perspective. People are going to have sex whether they "should" or not. Isn't it better for society to try to ensure that people have access to contraceptives so that fewer of them will end up with unplanned pregnancies?

I wish to encourage in her good choices in her life decisions not to encourage or facilitate bad ones.

This is your right as a parent/guardian, though frankly I'm not convinced that the methods many social conservatives use in this situation are at all conducive to their goals. Strict abstinence, pulling kids out of sex-ed classes, limiting access to contraceptives, and declining the HPV vaccine are all strategies that have enormous potential to backfire. It's like Russian Roulette; if your kid stays on the straight and narrow you'll be fine, but a single slip could have disastrous consequences.

This is somewhat tangential, though, as if you are old enough to have employer health insurance, then you are old enough to make your own decisions about sex and contraception. All Obama's plan does is to ensure that the decision is yours and not your employers'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

. This was about Obama testing the waters. How much of the liberal agenda can they force on the widest amount of the population via the ever-expanding commerce clause. They plan to make the American public finance their screwtape illiberal utopia.Marxists and neo-Marxists have always had it out for the Catholic Church and Christianity in general.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

16 trillion in debt at present, amountof our total unfunded entitlements greater than the world GDP ,and the malignant narcissist in the White House "feels" we need to talk about the "right" a woman has to free contraception and abortion? Insane.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

“They are forcing religious organizations, either directly or indirectly, to pay for something that they find is a deeply, morally, you know, wrong thing. And this is not what the government should be doing.”

Yeah, instead they should be forcing nut-job religious 'laws' like Santorum things they should.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, deftly out-maneuvered him by ensuring America's number concern was put on the "back-burner" by putting this Government intrusion in peoples lifes front and center.

Americans’ fear of big government - partly fueled by a sharp spike among Democrats since President Barack Obama took office - almost reached a record high this year and is far greater than people’s concerns about big business and big labor, a new Gallup poll Monday shows.

An overwhelming 64 percent of people surveyed said big government was the biggest threat to the country, compared to just 26 percent who said big business is their gravest concern and 8 percent who picked big labor.

Let me get this straight. You are worried about big government so you are siding with guys who want to control whether a woman can have access to contraceptives and have legal abortions. Noted.

You know, sometimes you just make me laugh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This was about Obama testing the waters. How much of the liberal agenda can they force on the widest amount of the population via the ever-expanding commerce clause. They plan to make the American public finance their screwtape illiberal utopia.Marxists and neo-Marxists have always had it out for the Catholic Church and Christianity in general.

He's coming for your guns next. Bwahahahahaha. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Obama Derangement Syndrome in full tilt.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites