Ron Paul says Rush's apology was about $

[Damocles]

No, the school does not pay for coverage for anyone. It offers insurance to its students as a plan sponsor. It doesn't want to sponsor a plan that covers birth control. You're claim that the school objects to paying for coverage (like your argument that people want some thing for "free") is baseless.

Ah, so you are upset that their portfolio doesn't include insurance that you want but can obtain from other means?

That too does not curtail your right to obtain the commodity. You argue the absurd. The current argument is whether anybody should be forced to pay for this particular commodity other than the recipient. People actually are arguing that a substance that is easily obtainable is being refused to them because somebody else doesn't give it to them for "free".

My argument is, people can choose to go to a different school, that she was driven to attend this one doesn't change that reality. That contraception is available by myriad means puts false the argument that there is a compelling reason to force any entity to offer a commodity that they find morally and religiously objectionable.

She could obtain this, and did, by an expensive choice. Or she could use the sliding scale offered by Planned Parenthood, or she could purchase insurance from other than the schools offers, or...

Well, there are many choices she could have made rather than attempt to force others to give her something.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

So, you mean you don't like others claiming you said something that you didn't? Yet you continue to do so to others? Why so hostile Darla?

My stance on this issue is not 'hostile towards women'. Your stance however IS hostile towards the religious groups. If the Catholics own and run a hospital and don't want to perform abortions or have birth control covered under their insurance etc... they have that right. You do not have to work for them. You can still get birth control elsewhere should you choose to work for them.

The government should not be mandating what is and is not covered under PRIVATE companies plans. Why do you want the government coming between you and your doctor?

I am laughing at you because you continue to pretend that those who support religious freedom in this country are somehow 'hostile towards women'.

It is a fucking retarded position to take. You again, DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THEM TO COVER IT. You do have the right to say you won't work for anyone who doesn't cover it. As a business owner, do you have a plan for your employees? If so, then you are the one deciding what the group coverage will entail. Most companies are going to look at insurance from a cost analysis basis. As you stated, birth control lowers costs... so guess what most companies are going to do Darla? Yes, you might have a religious person decide not to cover birth control (you pretend that it would only be religious men). But they are going to be the minority and again... not covering birth control doesn't stop ANYONE from buying the birth control on their own. So pretending they are attacking women is nonsense.

So, in plain ole english, you knew that churches were always exempt, and you were just playing dumb???

 

[Phantasmal]

Really? Do you think that this is utter non-sense to Rana? Christiefan? Darla? Annie? IceDancer? LadyT?

Isn't the Catholic Church engaged in Pulbic business? By not paying for contraceptive coverage are they not economically denying female employees access to health care? Isn't that discrimination? Besides, a compromise had been made so that the insurance companies pay for contraceptive coverage, and not the Church but they and the right wing politicians are fighting even that compromise as a "war on religion". If the Catholic Church is soooooo principled about this, they why don't they just simply pull out of public business and stick to religion?

You also keep evading my question. What are womens thoughts about this Damo? Have you asked them? Are you as concerned about their freedoms as you are the Churches? Do their thoughts about their reproductive rights matter or does a mans religious freedoms trump hers?

Also, how comes it's an issue now? For years now about half the States have required no religious descrimination against women where contraception has been concerned. Why is it an issue now when it become part of reform at the federal level but not at the State level? Why the lack of consistency here?

Women's issues are one of the reason I ran from the Catholic Church. I am a second class citizen in their eyes. They are backwards on many issues.

Just think how many people wnt to hell for eating meat on Fridays, wink, wink!

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Iam laughing at you because you continue to pretend that those who support religious freedom in this country are somehow 'hostile towards women'.

It is a fucking retarded position to take. You again, DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THEM TO COVER IT. You do have the right to say you won't work for anyone who doesn't cover it. As a business owner, do you have a plan for your employees? If so, then you are the one deciding what the group coverage will entail. Most companies are going to look at insurance from a cost analysis basis. As you stated, birth control lowers costs... so guess what most companies are going to do Darla? Yes, you might have a religious person decide not to cover birth control (you pretend that it would only be religious men). But they are going to be the minority and again... not covering birth control doesn't stop ANYONE from buying the birth control on their own. So pretending they are attacking women is nonsense.

I'm not sure who you are talking about here - if you're talking about churches, they were always exempt. If you are talking about all employers, why yes, yes I do have that right.

You lost. Period.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Women's issues are one of the reason I ran from the Catholic Church. I am a second class citizen in their eyes. They are backwards on many issues.

Just think how many people wnt to hell for eating meat on Fridays, wink, wink!

But we MUST privilege their 'morals" which include widespread, institutionalized pedophilia, and the subsequent coverup, over women's health.

And that position is not hostile to women.

But of course, it is.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Ah, so you are upset that their portfolio doesn't include insurance that you want but can obtain from other means?

That too does not curtail your right to obtain the commodity. You argue the absurd. The current argument is whether anybody should be forced to pay for this particular commodity other than the recipient. People actually are arguing that a substance that is easily obtainable is being refused to them because somebody else doesn't give it to them for "free".

My argument is, people can choose to go to a different school, that she was driven to attend this one doesn't change that reality. That contraception is available by myriad means puts false the argument that there is a compelling reason to force any entity to offer a commodity that they find morally and religiously objectionable.

She could obtain this, and did, by an expensive choice. Or she could use the sliding scale offered by Planned Parenthood, or she could purchase insurance from other than the schools offers, or...

Well, there are many choices she could have made rather than attempt to force others to give her something.

No one gives it to them for free, and no matter how many times you tell this lie in an attempt to ghettoize women, still wont be true.

And in fact, when birth control is not covered by health insurance, women do go without. These are just facts. Your mansplainin will never change them. They are facts.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

LMAO... so tell us Darla, if the Churches were 'always exempt' and the religious hospitals were 'always exempt'... then do tell us what it was the religious organizations were upset about???

Please, explain it to us helmet wearing retards... what were they upset about?

SF, so clear this up, when you made this post, you were just trying to show me what it feels like to be you? But you already knew that churches were originally exempt from this?

LOL

Awesome.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

LMAO... whatever. Again, your war on women is noted. No one is allowed to believe anything unless a man approves it.



I think women have had enough of being kicked by the likes of you. It has better stop!



Apparently you are.

Yea, as long as men like you get to approve how it's financed their free to choose all they want.

That's a straw man. No one is forcing anyone to accept any views. If Churches are going to engage in civil business then they are required to adhere to the law. I mean we don't exactly hear you going out their and defending Muslims and Mormon's rights to polygomy, do we?

Exactly Mott, great post!

 

[Phantasmal]

Unfortunately, institutionalized, cultural misogyny works best with female collaborators. And there are always female collaborators. The problem for the Republican party is that they already underperform with women. The women who will be, and who are, turned off by this assault on women are suburban independent women. They can swing elections. This is why the R's are running scared. These women are not ideologues. The minute Rush's assault on a college woman went viral and was played on the network nightly news, they were in big trouble. These women don't like being called whores by a big fat pig. Whereas some female collaborators enjoy that, especially since they think it's about "other women". You know, slutty liberal women. Independent suburban women don't think like that. And now, no matter how busy they are, it's seeped in that in the year 2012, there's a battle over birth control.

I can bang my head against the wall here all day long. You see that damo is still yammering about the Catholic church even though the Blunt amendment had nothing to do with the Catholic church. It's a fools game. But what SF and Damo and Bravo etc, say here, doesn't matter.

They're not independent suburban women. It's those women who are going to kick their balls in come November.

But I'll still kick them for fun here. Even though it's irrelevant...

You are so right, the book I am reading confirms that institutions who deny women's right need female collaborators. The Sufferagettes found many women who did not support a women's right to vote or hold property. It just blows my mind! But I have found many people vote against their own best interest.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ah, so you are upset that their portfolio doesn't include insurance that you want but can obtain from other means?

That too does not curtail your right to obtain the commodity. You argue the absurd. The current argument is whether anybody should be forced to pay for this particular commodity other than the recipient. People actually are arguing that a substance that is easily obtainable is being refused to them because somebody else doesn't give it to them for "free".

No, that isn't the argument. That's a fictitious argument that you created. I'm not sure why. Maybe you just like writing the word free in quotation marks. What people are actually arguing is that health plan sponsors should be required to provide coverage for preventive care, including birth control. The whole "pay for it" angle is something you created because otherwise you just have an argument religious businesses don't want to sponsor comprehensive health insurance to their students and employees, which is quite a bit less tenable position than "the church shouldn't be forced to pay for birth control."

My argument is, people can choose to go to a different school, that she was driven to attend this one doesn't change that reality. That contraception is available by myriad means puts false the argument that there is a compelling reason to force any entity to offer a commodity that they find morally and religiously objectionable.

She could obtain this, and did, by an expensive choice. Or she could use the sliding scale offered by Planned Parenthood, or she could purchase insurance from other than the schools offers, or...

Well, there are many choices she could have made rather than attempt to force others to give her something.

Your argument is that businesses owned by religious organizations that sponsor health insurance plans should be exempted from the requirement that the insurance plan provide comprehensive preventive health services. I get it. I think its a stupid argument and not one that comports with First Amendment jurisprudence, but I get it. For some reason, though, you keep throwing in falsehoods in support of your argument.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

But that's a strawman as has been demonstrated umpteen times. The government made an acceptable compromise so that religous organizations don't have to pay but they are still opposing womens access to contraception via employer provided health insurance.

Because they want, they demand, the two inch clause be writ large to empower every single employer in the United States.

But only over women...

 

[Phantasmal]

As far as the Catholic Church goes, since Damo insists on talking about them, of course they are against birth control! Did you know that medical plans in most Catholic institutions cover viagra? Do you know why?

cause when you are fucking little boys in the butt, you don't need birth control... but viagra comes in handy.

Bazingah!

 

[Phantasmal]

Just ours, not his Mott! Menz earns theirs. Bitches are getting it for free!

Kick em! Go ahead!

Seriously, I'm done banging my head against the wall here today. It's very interesting to me though, I really see how certain men are just impervious to facts on this and other women's issues. Also right wing religious whacked out women. But with the men, it's very interesting to note, most of them are NOT religious or not christian. SF is an agnostic, Grind is an atheist, and Damo is a Buddhist. Or fat Buddha as Top likes to call him, lol. I have noticed that a large number of so-called "Libertarian" men, even secular ones, are very hostile to women's rights when it comes to the sex. Thus my signature, and I believe, thus the sausage fest at Ron Paul gatherings. News flash; women make up half the population. And the right wing religious whacked out ones are too busy salivating over the Jesus preachers. Which leaves the Libertarian movement shit out of luck and chock-full of sausages. Get em while they're hot!

Don't women vote more than men, also?

 

[Damocles]

So, in plain ole english, you knew that churches were always exempt, and you were just playing dumb???

Was the church the owner of the private entities in question?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Was the church the owner of the private entities in question?

How do I know I am not the one asking the question? You and SF keep repeating Catholic church over and over, so I assumed you were talking about the Catholic Church and not the Jewish Boys Club, but what do I know?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Women's issues are one of the reason I ran from the Catholic Church. I am a second class citizen in their eyes. They are backwards on many issues.

Just think how many people wnt to hell for eating meat on Fridays, wink, wink!

What would you expect from a patriarchical clique of conservative old celibates who wear dresses?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Don't women vote more than men, also?

I've read that, but I don't know how recently so I'm not sure. Unlike SF I like to know what I am talking about before I open my mouth and not find out afterwards!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Don't women vote more than men, also?

Only in Florida!

 

[Damocles]

How do I know I am not the one asking the question? You and SF keep repeating Catholic church over and over, so I assumed you were talking about the Catholic Church and not the Jewish Boys Club, but what do I know?

I think it is mostly because it was the church objecting as the owner of the private institution.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I think it is mostly because it was the church objecting as the owner of the private institution.

As I said, churches were exempt from the start, and the religious institutions that weren't, like hospitals and universities, were later dealt with under a compromise based on what is known as the hawaii solution.

The Blunt Amendment was about all employers.

I do not know what is difficult about this.

If Bishops still aren't happy it's because the Catholic Church is and always has been hostile to women, and to their sexuality. I don't give a flying fuck who doesn't like the facts. You can't say that because SF or you are going to have a hissy fit? FUCK YOU.

God forbid Planned Parenthood had 1 tiny little half of a percent of the crime that the catholic church had. You sick bastards put Acorn out of business because of one employee and one highly edited video tape. Yet you march on here and shrilly scream that I must respect the Catholic Church! The Catholic Church should be indicted, and you want them having veto power over my health care...but not yours.

All of that high hypocrisy aside: Churches were always exempt. Bishops cried anyway. A compromise based on the Hawaii solution was reached.

Are we done here yet? Or do I have to deal with every two-incher in this country (outside of the church head cases who, as stated above, and ONE HUNDRED OTHER TIMES, were already either exempt from the get-go, or fall under the hawaii compromise) who discovers a "moral objection" to one of his employees fucking someone who isn't him?