The week in Doonesbury...

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't think they chose the issue or the time. I think it was deliberately brought up by Obama and the democrats in congress as a wedge issue and the republicans foolishly fell for it.

It would be better for them, IMHO, to let the catholic church fight the battle against legislation that requires them to "sin" than it would be to take up the drive against it. Not every problem has a solution in government, nor should be argued during a campaign.

Much like Santorum's newest addition of "porn" into his "important" issues. It's idiocy. We have larger issues to contend with that we need to drive as a priority during the campaign. Promising to stop internet porn is just losing the important message for static.

Funny....it sure wasn't the Democrats here in the Ohio legislature that came up with the heartbeat bill. It wasn't Democrats who introduced a bill preventing abortion from being covered by health insurance. Last I heard Obama works in DC and not Ohio. It wasn't Democrats who required raping and humiliating women in Virginia and Texas before they can have an abortion there. Last I heard Obama wasn't the Governor of Virginia.

Where do you come up with this non-sense Damo?

 

[Damocles]

Funny....it sure wasn't the Democrats here in the Ohio legislature that came up with the heartbeat bill. It wasn't Democrats who introduced a bill preventing abortion from being covered by health insurance. Last I heard Obama works in DC and not Ohio. It wasn't Democrats who required raping and humiliating women in Virginia and Texas before they can have an abortion there. Last I heard Obama wasn't the Governor of Virginia.

Where do you come up with this non-sense Damo?

However, the testimony that drove this to the front page wasn't from conservatives, nor was the insistence that the Catholic Church must "sin" in order to be lawful. Those two actions drove this into the forefront, not legislation that will be decided in state courts.

The choice to bring this to the national level and drive it into the newspapers wasn't the choice of the republicans. Well, other than the stupidity of "slut" that assisted its entry into the papers. That was a choice, but not by the republican party...

 

[Bonestorm]

However, the testimony that drove this to the front page wasn't from conservatives, nor was the insistence that the Catholic Church must "sin" in order to be lawful. Those two actions drove this into the forefront, not legislation that will be decided in state courts.

The choice to bring this to the national level and drive it into the newspapers wasn't the choice of the republicans. Well, other than the stupidity of "slut" that assisted its entry into the papers. That was a choice, but not by the republican party...

You seem to be forgetting about the Blunt Amendment that the Senate Republicans insisted that Reid hold a vote on and the House Judiciary Committee hearings where a bunch of guys talked about birth control and the like. Those were the choices of the Republicans which drove the issue into the newspapers that have nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Damocles]

You seem to be forgetting about the Blunt Amendment that the Senate Republicans insisted that Reid hold a vote on and the House Judiciary Committee hearings where a bunch of guys talked about birth control and the like. Those were the choices of the Republicans which drove the issue into the newspapers that have nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh.

Which, again, was directly in response to (as I said earlier they should have let the Catholic Church fight its own battles, it is huge and rich and can hire great attorneys) the requirement in the law that forced them to "sin" in order to be lawful.

You seem to forget the where and why and assume that the amendment came out of the blue. It didn't. That it went "too far" in your opinion in allowing people who aren't a church to decide what constitutes a "sin" for them and decide not to offer things against their beliefs doesn't change that the amendment was offered due to the insistence of the Obama Administration that they do something that was morally reprehensible to them.

I, personally, believe that the Catholic Church will win against such an insistence without the "help" of any party.

 

[Bonestorm]

Which, again, was directly in response to (as I said earlier they should have let the Catholic Church fight its own battles, it is huge and rich and can hire great attorneys) the requirement in the law that forced them to "sin" in order to be lawful.

You seem to forget the where and why and assume that the amendment came out of the blue. It didn't. That it went "too far" in your opinion in allowing people who aren't a church to decide what constitutes a "sin" for them and decide not to offer things against their beliefs doesn't change that the amendment was offered due to the insistence of the Obama Administration that they do something that was morally reprehensible to them.

You said what drove it to the forefront. You think that if the Republicans declared victory once Obama revised the policy that this would have blown up into a huge issue? I very seriously doubt it.

I, personally, believe that the Catholic Church will win against such an insistence without the "help" of any party.

I personally believe that the Catholic Church has exactly no chance of winning.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

He used a Waffle for Clinton. I think he's said it is "too hard" to come up with an icon for him. I would use one of those change dispensers you hang on your belt...

Plus you have to watch what icon you use, seeing as now just about everything would "mean" that you're a racist.

 

[Damocles]

You said what drove it to the forefront. You think that if the Republicans declared victory once Obama revised the policy that this would have blown up into a huge issue? I very seriously doubt it.

Yes, it was exactly what drove it to the forefront. What created the head on the pimple so to speak. And the revision to the policy was not the compromise that people think it was. It still requires them to do something that they understand to be sinful in order to follow the law.

I personally believe that the Catholic Church has exactly no chance of winning.

Some think they already have won, but I personally think that they'll do fine. The "separation" knife can cut both ways. Regardless, I personally think that the GOP should have let them fight their own battle.

 

[Phantasmal]

Yes, it was exactly what drove it to the forefront. What created the head on the pimple so to speak. And the revision to the policy was not the compromise that people think it was. It still requires them to do something that they understand to be sinful in order to follow the law.





Some think they already have won, but I personally think that they'll do fine. The "separation" knife can cut both ways. Regardless, I personally think that the GOP should have let them fight their own battle.

Interesting, Catholic women don't agree with you.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishops-losing-birth-control-religious-liberty-issue

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, it was exactly what drove it to the forefront. What created the head on the pimple so to speak. And the revision to the policy was not the compromise that people think it was. It still requires them to do something that they understand to be sinful in order to follow the law.

I disagree.

Some think they already have won, but I personally think that they'll do fine. The "separation" knife can cut both ways. Regardless, I personally think that the GOP should have let them fight their own battle.

What people? Won what, exactly? If challenged in court, the regulations will be upheld.

 

[Damocles]

Interesting, Catholic women don't agree with you.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishops-losing-birth-control-religious-liberty-issue

That some laypersons disagree with the church doesn't change one iota of what I have said.

 

[Damocles]

I disagree.





What people? Won what, exactly? If challenged in court, the regulations will be upheld.

People who say that they "won" a compromise. And I think that it will wind up in the SCOTUS and don't know if they will uphold enforced violation of religious beliefs as a reasonable extension of government powers for the Federal Government.

 

[Bonestorm]

People who say that they "won" a compromise. And I think that it will wind up in the SCOTUS and don't know if they will uphold enforced violation of religious beliefs as a reasonable extension of government powers for the Federal Government.

Any decision would be at least 6-3. Scalia and Kennedy have previously held the neutral laws of general applicability have to be observed notwithstanding that such laws may be counter to religious doctrine. And that applied to actual core religious practices, not to a religious owned entity engaged in business. It won't even be a close case. Of course, I assume integrity and judicial consistency on the part of Scalia and Kennedy, which may not be warranted, but that's the likely result.

 

[Damocles]

Any decision would be at least 6-3. Scalia and Kennedy have previously held the neutral laws of general applicability have to be observed notwithstanding that such laws may be counter to religious doctrine. And that applied to actual core religious practices, not to a religious owned entity engaged in business. It won't even be a close case. Of course, I assume integrity and judicial consistency on the part of Scalia and Kennedy, which may not be warranted, but that's the likely result.

I personally do not know. A large part of it will be the upcoming rulings (three different ones) regarding the ACA as a whole. It will take at least a year for rulings for or against the Catholic Church to reach SCOTUS level, if they are even necessary at that point. If the law is struck down a huge chunk of this will be moot.

 

[Phantasmal]

Interesting, Catholic women don't agree with you.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishops-losing-birth-control-religious-liberty-issue

Ah, but it will eventually change the position of the church, like eating meat on Friday. The voice of the Layity will be heard, especially since it is mostly women packing the pews.

 

[Damocles]

Ah, but it will eventually change the position of the church like eating meat on Friday. The voice of the Layity will be heard, especially since it is mostly woen packing the pews.

The problem with that is the laity include people from around the world, many of which do not agree with women from the US and hold more closely to church rulings.

 

[Bonestorm]

I personally do not know. A large part of it will be the upcoming rulings (three different ones) regarding the ACA as a whole. It will take at least a year for rulings for or against the Catholic Church to reach SCOTUS level, if they are even necessary at that point. If the law is struck down a huge chunk of this will be moot.

Given that you couched your statement in terms of religious freedom, I was addressing whether the regulation violates the first amendment, not whether the entire ACA gets struck down.

In any event, it is extremely unlikely that the entire ACA will be struck down. At best, the individual mandate gets struck down but the insurance exchanges and other regulations with respect to what qualified plans must cover, including whether such plans must include comprehensive preventive health services, will remain.

 

[Phantasmal]

The problem with that is the laity include people from around the world, many of which do not agree with women from the US and hold more closely to church rulings.

I disagree, the more women in other countries are being educated, the more they agree and birth control is one issue women all over the world are embracing. The church is really losing ground on this one, overpopulation in some countries is having a huge impact on women and birth control.

 

[Damocles]

Given that you couched your statement in terms of religious freedom, I was addressing whether the regulation violates the first amendment, not whether the entire ACA gets struck down.

In any event, it is extremely unlikely that the entire ACA will be struck down. At best, the individual mandate gets struck down but the insurance exchanges and other regulations with respect to what qualified plans must cover, including whether such plans must include comprehensive preventive health services, will remain.

That will depend on whether the SCOTUS review ignores that the portions of the legislation that would allow it to be apportioned simply do not exist in this legislation and what rulings on the other objections exist. It is entirely possible, if they rule against the Administration on the first of the three subjects (one per day), for the entire law to go.

 

[Don Quixote]

People who say that they "won" a compromise. And I think that it will wind up in the SCOTUS and don't know if they will uphold enforced violation of religious beliefs as a reasonable extension of government powers for the Federal Government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

please note that the phrase regarding the establishment of religion comes first and recognizing one religion's beliefs would be a violation

 

[christiefan915]

Saturday