Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Republicans War on Women

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
AuthorMessage
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/24/2012, 10:19 am

NRSC chief Cornyn defends Mourdock after abortion comments
Quote :
The NRSC Chairman called Democratic attacks on Mourdock's controversial comments "irresponsible and ridiculous."

National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) is standing by Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) after his Tuesday night comments that pregnancy resulting from rape can be "something God intended."

In a statement released Wednesday, Cornyn points out that Mourdock's Senate opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), is also against abortion rights and calls Democratic attempts to attack Mourdock on the issue "irresponsible and ridiculous."

"Richard and I, along with millions of Americans — including even Joe Donnelly — believe that life is a gift from God. To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous," Cornyn said in a statement. "In fact, rather than condemning him for his position, as some in his party have when it's comes to Republicans, I commend Congressman Donnelly for his support of life."

Mourdock is struggling to pull ahead of Donnelly in the heavily Republican state, and if Donnelly can win it would be a major blow to the GOP's chances of retaking control of the Senate.

Cornyn also attacks Donnelly for backing "ObamaCare, government bailouts, reckless spending and higher taxes" and calls Mourdock the "candidate to help get our country back on track."

Mourdock's comments came during a debate with Donnelly, as the GOP candidate sought to explain his opposition to abortion rights except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

"I struggled with it myself a long time but I came to realize that life is a gift from God, that I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.

After the debate Donnelly put out a statement attacking Mourdock on the issue.

"I think rape is a heinous and violent crime in every instance," Donnelly said in the statement. "The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in does not intend for rape to happen — ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape."

Other Democrats pounced as well, calling for Mitt Romney to rescind his recent endorsement of the Tea Party favorite and ask him to pull a new ad that touts his support.

Many compared the comments to Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) remarks from August stating that "legitimate rape" rarely leads to pregnancy, which resulted in the NRSC abandoning his campaign against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Mourdock supporters, though, respond that the candidate meant only that he believes all life is a gift from God and the comment wasn't comparable to Akin's scientifically dubious remark.

Supporters also point out that Donnelly supported an Akin-backed bill that would have barred federal funding of abortions in cases of statutory rape.

But while Cornyn and the NRSC have moved to back Mourdock, GOP support has not been unanimous. On Tuesday night a spokeswoman for Romney sought to distance the nominee from the remarks.

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement.

Romney's recent ad in support of Mourdock means it is likely he will continue to face questions about whether he still backs his campaign.
Good to see wingnut repubs supporting this clown. I suggest Sen Cornball immediately introduce a resolution in the Senate stating that pregnancies due to rape are a gift from god. Laughing

Now the big question that remains is will Mittens Rombot still be endorsing this cave dweller.
Pass the popcorn please Laughing
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/24/2012, 2:00 pm

cheers
Romney disagrees with Mourdock, but still supports him
Quote :
Romney disagrees with Mourdock, but still supports him
By Greg Sargent

As you’ve no doubt heard, Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is generating a little attention with this claim about God and rape:

“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock is trying to clean this up at a presser this morning. Dems, obviously, are piling on the comment, demanding that Romney rescind his support for Mourdock and insist that Mourdock take down an ad that features Romney.

But Romney will not be pulling his support for Mourdock, though he disagrees with his comments and his position. Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul emails:

Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock’s comments do not reflect Gov. Romney’s views. We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him.

Emphasis mine. I’m also told the Romney campaign will not ask the ad to be pulled.

This is only going to snowball from here on out. Dems and women’s groups are launching an all out attack on Mourdock’s comments, arguing that they illustrate a deeper problem within the GOP. This comes even as the battle for the female vote is intensifying, with Obama and Dems hammering Romney daily for his positions on abortion, contraception, women’s health, and pay equity, in an effort to paint the candidate and his party as hidebound, reactionary, and fundamentally untrustworthy on the issues that matter to women.

More soon.
And the award for best October Surprise goes to.......Tea Party Wingnut Kook,Richard Mourdock! cheers The gift for Democrats that will keep on giving! santa
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/24/2012, 4:40 pm

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/24/2012, 4:41 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
. . . their legitimate religious objections.

They're not.


It is not within the purview of either the court or any other branch of the government to decide on the legitimacy of a person's religious beliefs.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/24/2012, 8:05 pm

Please cite specificaly where the court decided on the legitimacy of a person's religious beliefs.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/24/2012, 8:52 pm

happy jack wrote:
It is not within the purview of either the court or any other branch of the government to decide on the legitimacy of a person's religious beliefs.

Well, common sense should it first. A paid employee is using company funds to buy contraception regardless of insurance, no "government fiat" necessary, making their argument completely and laughably false on its face.

But when common sense fails, as it so often does to such hypocritical believers, the courts do determine legitimacy, insofar as those beliefs translate to behavior. It's why people can't sacrifice children, bigots aren't allowed to kill homosexuals on sight, rapists can't force their victims to marry, and why we're allowed to have religions other than Christianity, etc., all contrary to biblical law.

And it's why Catholics can't withhold access to affordable healthcare from their female employees, regardless of the all the slut shaming they think their god commands them to do.

Oh, the horrors of reducing abortions and deaths due to cervical cancer... May God forgive us.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/24/2012, 10:42 pm

Heretic wrote:
A paid employee is using company funds to buy contraception regardless of insurance, no "government fiat" necessary, making their argument completely and laughably false on its face.

How is a “…. paid employee …. using company funds to buy contraception regardless of insurance ….”?
What does that even mean?








Heretic wrote:
.... the courts do determine legitimacy, insofar as those beliefs translate to behavior. It's why people can't sacrifice children, bigots aren't allowed to kill homosexuals on sight, rapists can't force their victims to marry ....


You equate those actions with not wanting to pay for someone’s diaphragm?
Really?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/25/2012, 9:18 am


http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/25/fox-gave-indiana-senate-candidates-rape-comment/190914
Not one word about it on Drudge either Evil or Very Mad
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/25/2012, 9:22 am

happy jack wrote:
How is a “…. paid employee …. using company funds to buy contraception regardless of insurance ….”? What does that even mean?

It's very simple. If company x pays an insurance company money to offer contraception to its employees, or the employee uses their paycheck from company x to buy contraceptives (albeit at full price), company x is still underwriting the purchase; they're still funding it.

happy jack wrote:
You equate those actions with not wanting to pay for someone’s diaphragm? Really?

Yes, like it or not, it's all bullshit religious doctrine. Don't blame me; I didn't write it. While it's not quite as obvious as my examples (and certainly far more petty), I do think relegating women to their cervical cancer counts (as did the recent court ruling); I can't tell if you're denying that it happens or simply don't care... Perhaps you'd feel differently if it had happened to your wife.

But if you'd rather a more granny smith to granny smith comparison - can a Catholic organization refuse to cover a homosexual's healthcare? Or even more specifically, their spouse? Clearly we both agree that there's a line to be drawn, we only disagree on where.

Seriously, what ridiculous fucking bullshit. You have to love watching conservatives cheer for religious interference into the free market - the insurance companies want to offer contraception and the clients obviously need it, due to the obvious health benefits and since it will save money all around. But nope... some Catholic is gonna feel squeamish...

But only now that Obama did it... Twenty six states had similar legislation in place forcing employers whose insurance plans cover prescriptions to cover birth control too, and have for a while, and nobody gave a flying fuck. But Obama does it... and Sandra Fluke tries to explain to a panel full of men why it matters (never mentioning her own sex life, had you bothered to watch it), and holy hell, the conservative ODS goes into life-threatening overdrive, with shouts of "he's taking away our freedom!" echoing across the peaks of Bullshit Mountain, yelled from religious hypocrites sporting Viagra-fueled rage boners, paid for by their insurance in stark violation of the very same doctrine.

Honestly... why can't we agree that this is just petty, partisan bullshit?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/25/2012, 10:25 am

edge540 wrote:
It's great to see Indiana has it's own version of the Taliban and Todd Akin.

Mourdock, Rape as a Gift of God, and Islamic Sharia

Quote :
Mourdock’s position is also taken by some Muslim religious scholars who interpret Islamic law or sharia:

Quote :
I believe that the value of life is the same whether this embryo is the result of fornication with relatives or non-relatives or valid marriage. In Sharia life has the same value in all cases.
-Sheikh M. A. Al-Salami, Third Symposium on Medical Jurisprudence

The problem with Mourdock’s position, which is shared by some advocates of Islamic sharia, is that it is a theological one. That this is so is obvious in Sheikh Al-Salama’s fatwa, just as it is obvious in Mourdock’s diction. Ironically, US evangelicals who have attempted to pass laws in state legislatures forbidding the use of sharia or Islamic law in the American system would in this case be disallowing Sheikh Al-Salami’s position, which is identical to that of Mourdock.

But apparently it is all right with them if Christian sharia is imposed on us all.

Mourdock’s and Al-Salami’s belief that an impregnated egg in a human is immediately a full human being with full legal rights is a modern fundamentalist belief uncommon in the history of Christian or Muslim theology. (To be fair, many Muslim authorities differ with Al-Salami on this position).

No purely secular philosophy holds this position, since it is rationally absurd. It would require that we view all early miscarriages as tragic deaths of human beings and give funerals to all the eggs that become detached from the uterus three days after conception and flow away in the toilet. Out of 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies a year in the United States, about a million end in miscarriage. Those miscarriages that occur in the third trimester are tragedies and I don’t mean in any way to detract from them. But those that occur in the first trimester are obviously not deaths of human persons. Should we name these deceased eggs? Have memorials for them? All you have to do is think about it a little bit to see how ridiculous Murdock’s and Al-Salami’s position is.

There is no conceivable secular purpose that could be accomplished by requiring raped women to bear to term the eggs impregnated by force by their attackers. All laws in the US have to have a secular purpose. Mourdock wants to impose on all Americans a ban on all abortions because of his peculiar theology, which is a violation of our first amendment rights. There is no difference between Mourdock aspiring to legislate for us all based on his theology and Muslim fundamentalists’ attempt to impose sharia on their societies.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/25/2012, 4:42 pm

Tina Fey rips ‘grey-faced men with $2 haircuts’ defining rape
Quote :
Actress Tiny Fey was seething on Wednesday as she try to express her outrage at recent comments by several Republican politicians about rape.

“I wish we could have an honest and respectful dialogue about these complicated issues,” the comedienne told the Center for Reproductive Rights Inaugural Gala. “But it seems like we can’t right now. And if I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I’m gonna lose my mind!”

Last month, Republican Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin had asserted that women could not get pregnant through “legitimate rape.” And then Republican Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock claimed on Tuesday that pregnancy from rape “is something that God intended to happen.”

“I watch these guys and I’m like, what is happening? Am I secretary on Mad Men?” Fey said on Wednesday. “What is happening?”

“Todd Akin. Oof. This guy,” she continued. “Todd Akin claims that women can’t really get pregnant from a legitimate rape because the body secretes hormones. Now I can’t even finish this sentence without getting dumber; it’s making me dumber when I say it—but it’s something about the body not being able to get pregnant when it’s under physical stress.”

“Mr. Akin, I think you are confusing the phrase ‘legitimate rape’ with the phrase ‘competitive gymnastics.’”
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/25/2012, 4:47 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
How is a “…. paid employee …. using company funds to buy contraception regardless of insurance ….”? What does that even mean?

It's very simple. If company x pays an insurance company money to offer contraception to its employees, or the employee uses their paycheck from company x to buy contraceptives (albeit at full price), company x is still underwriting the purchase; they're still funding it.

What a steaming load of bullshit.
If Company X gives its employee a paycheck, then that money belongs to the employee, and the employee is free to use it as he sees fit. The money no longer belongs to Company X and can in no way, shape, or form be considered “company funds”.
If that employee cashed his paycheck, went out and bought a gun, and mowed down a few dozen people in a movie theater, would you be claiming that Company X should be held legally responsible as an accessory to murder?
I’m not trying to insult you, but that sounds like an argument Artie would make.





Heretic wrote:


happy jack wrote:
You equate those actions with not wanting to pay for someone’s diaphragm? Really?

Yes, like it or not, it's all bullshit religious doctrine. Don't blame me; I didn't write it. While it's not quite as obvious as my examples (and certainly far more petty), I do think relegating women to their cervical cancer counts (as did the recent court ruling); I can't tell if you're denying that it happens or simply don't care... Perhaps you'd feel differently if it had happened to your wife.

But if you'd rather a more granny smith to granny smith comparison - can a Catholic organization refuse to cover a homosexual's healthcare? Or even more specifically, their spouse? Clearly we both agree that there's a line to be drawn, we only disagree on where.
Seriously, what ridiculous fucking bullshit. You have to love watching conservatives cheer for religious interference into the free market - the insurance companies want to offer contraception and the clients obviously need it, due to the obvious health benefits and since it will save money all around. But nope... some Catholic is gonna feel squeamish...
But only now that Obama did it... Twenty six states had similar legislation in place forcing employers whose insurance plans cover prescriptions to cover birth control too, and have for a while, and nobody gave a flying fuck. But Obama does it... and Sandra Fluke tries to explain to a panel full of men why it matters (never mentioning her own sex life, had you bothered to watch it), and holy hell, the conservative ODS goes into life-threatening overdrive, with shouts of "he's taking away our freedom!" echoing across the peaks of Bullshit Mountain, yelled from religious hypocrites sporting Viagra-fueled rage boners, paid for by their insurance in stark violation of the very same doctrine.

Honestly... why can't we agree that this is just petty, partisan bullshit?

We probably could agree that this is petty partisan bullshit if it involved only politics, but it doesn’t. It involves the government taking an active role in attempting to force adherents of a particular faith to throw their beliefs by the wayside in the name of the all-powerful state. The Catholic Church, however, is playing only a passive role in this drama. The Church is not asserting that no one in the country may use contraceptives. The church is simply asserting its right to have the all-powerful state stop meddling with its internal belief system.
Whether you agree or not (I personally think contraceptives are a good idea), it is neither your place, my place, nor the place of the government to dictate to the Church how it should feel about this. If the Church was attempting to prevent its employees from obtaining contraceptives, that would be a different story, but that is not the case. The employees are quite free to obtain contraceptives, and the Church should be free to not be forced to subsidize those contraceptives.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/26/2012, 9:45 am

happy jack wrote:
It involves the government taking an active role in attempting to force adherents of a particular faith to throw their beliefs by the wayside in the name of the all-powerful state....
Whether you agree or not (I personally think contraceptives are a good idea), it is neither your place, my place, nor the place of the government to dictate to the Church how it should feel about this.
Ah, well using your reasoning and logic then, it is also neither your place, the GOP 's place, Paul Ryan's place, Richard Mourdock's place, my place, nor the place of the government to dictate to women whether they have abortion rights, yes?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/26/2012, 3:41 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
It involves the government taking an active role in attempting to force adherents of a particular faith to throw their beliefs by the wayside in the name of the all-powerful state....
Whether you agree or not (I personally think contraceptives are a good idea), it is neither your place, my place, nor the place of the government to dictate to the Church how it should feel about this.
Ah, well using your reasoning and logic then, it is also neither your place, the GOP 's place, Paul Ryan's place, Richard Mourdock's place, my place, nor the place of the government to dictate to women whether they have abortion rights, yes?




The right to practice the free exercise of religion is expressed within the Constitution in very clear and unambiguous language in the 1st amendment:


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.






The right to practice the free exercise of abortion is expressed within the Constitution in very clear and unambiguous language in the 14th amendment:


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.




Well, it’s in there somewhere.
All the really smart people say so.
Just sayin'.


Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/26/2012, 6:09 pm

Could you please help me out here?
Is there any reason why you are refusung to answer this very simple question with a simple yes or no?

Using your reasoning and logic then, it is also neither your place, the GOP 's place, Paul Ryan's place, Richard Mourdock's place, my place, nor the place of the government to dictate to women whether they have abortion rights, yes? or no?

Anything there that is overwhelming or too complicated for you?
Are you confused or having a hard time comprehending a women's right to privacy?
Perhaps this can help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/27/2012, 11:35 am

edge540 wrote:
Are you confused or having a hard time comprehending a women's right to privacy?

I comprehend that women, and all people, have the right to privacy.
The decision to have an abortion is a private matter, and affects only the woman.
The actual abortion procedure, however, is not a private matter, as it affects someone other than the woman.
Just ask the baby.
Or what's left of it.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/27/2012, 6:27 pm

Fortunately most sane, rational people do not think that a fertilized egg is a "someone" or a baby.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/anti-abortion-personhood-amendment-fails-in-mississippi/2011/11/08/gIQASRPd3M_blog.html

Quote :
Is there any reason why you are refusung to answer this very simple question with a simple yes or no?
I guess we'll never know.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/28/2012, 1:13 pm

edge540 wrote:
Fortunately most sane, rational people do not think that a fertilized egg is a "someone" or a baby.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/anti-abortion-personhood-amendment-fails-in-mississippi/2011/11/08/gIQASRPd3M_blog.html




Here are photos of some scrambled "eggs."
Caution: graphic.



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_mss=graphic+abortion+i&pq=graphic+abortion+photos&cp=23&gs_id=o&xhr=t&q=graphic+abortion+images&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bpcl=35466521&biw=1254&bih=820&wrapid=tljp1351447710737010&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=snSNUJjlNYWzygGbt4H4DA
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   10/29/2012, 8:33 am

Now we know why jack, a conservative like Richard Mourdock, Paul Ryan and Todd Akin, thinks a fertilized egg is a person:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/29/study-conservatives-trust-of-science-hits-all-time-low-

Quote :
Here are photos of some scrambled "eggs."

right

If there is one thing conservatives are really good at, it's lying and insulting the intelligence of people.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   11/5/2012, 11:15 am

happy jack wrote:
I’m not trying to insult you, but that sounds like an argument Artie would make.

Really? 'Cause it was you, actually, arguing against the funding of Planned Parenthood because the government "subsidizes" abortion with taxpayer money (even though it doesn't). Forgot already, huh?

happy jack wrote:
If that employee cashed his paycheck, went out and bought a gun, and mowed down a few dozen people in a movie theater, would you be claiming that Company X should be held legally responsible as an accessory to murder?

I'm not claiming dick, and I certainly never said anything about "responsibility". I'm simply trying to understand these outraged old men who are trying to appease their magic invisible sky wizard, people who can (apparently) simultaneously believe that giving money to an organization to merely offer a service at a discount is "subsidizing" it and therefore angering their god, yet giving money directly to people who will spend it on said services and therefore enabling their immoral behavior isn't, and all the while ignoring a whole slew of other biblical tenets they violate daily which not-so-mysteriously don't have a political edge to them (read: Viagra, pedophilia).

It's all archaic, unnecessary bullshit to me. We outgrew using the Old Testament as our legal system. I see no moral conflict in doing the same with healthcare, especially if the immediate effect is saving lives.

happy jack wrote:
It involves the government taking an active role in attempting to force adherents of a particular faith to throw their beliefs by the wayside in the name of the all-powerful state.

No, it doesn't, as explained by the court decision you apparently still haven't read.

happy jack wrote:
The church is simply asserting its right to have the all-powerful state stop meddling with its internal belief system.

No, it isn't, which was also explained in that court decision you apparently still haven't read. But let's be clear, you are arguing for religious interference into the free market, right?

happy jack wrote:
it is neither your place, my place, nor the place of the government to dictate to the Church how it should feel about this.

No one is telling the Church how to feel about it. It's telling them what they can and can't do based on those beliefs, as it has many, many, many, many, many, many times before Obama, as even you acknowledged.

Specifically like it did in all those states that already had such legislation in place, with nary a peep out of you or any of the other oh so religiously persecuted douche-nozzles. I would think that the immutable word of God wouldn't hinge upon recent or upcoming elections.

Which is... again... explained in the court decision you still haven't read.

happy jack wrote:
The employees are quite free to obtain contraceptives...

Like I said, I can't tell if you're denying that it happens or simply don't care... It's remarkably callous, especially coming from someone so adamantly "pro-life".
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   11/5/2012, 11:42 am

happy jack wrote:
Just ask the baby.
Or what's left of it.

Remind me. Against IVF, right?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   11/26/2012, 10:43 pm

happy jack wrote:
http://michellemalkin.com/
The war on conservative women
[i]I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.”
It’s Monday, So Ben Shapiro Is Outraged About Sandra Fluke Again
Quote :
Tonight, Breitbart.com cub reporter Ben Shapiro is outraged and flabbergasted that TIME Magazine plans to honor women’s rights advocate Sandra Fluke: TIME HONORS SANDRA FLUKE AS ‘PERSON OF THE YEAR’ FINALIST!

After calling Ms Fluke a “contraception advocate extraordinaire” and a “condom rights advocate,” Shapiro pretends to be completely innocent of any “war on women” type stuff.

Fluke, of course, is the condom rights advocate turned Georgetown Law School martyr who testified before Congress about the hardships encountered by young female law school students who couldn’t afford to pay for their own birth control pills. Rush Limbaugh ripped her, prompting faux outcry from the left, all the way up to President Obama, who seized on the incident as proof that the right was waging some sort of war on women, as opposed to a battle against pathetic dependency on government.

A “faux outcry from the left?” Yeah, what would ever give anyone the impression that the right has a GIGANTIC problem with women’s rights?

Well, for starters, Sandra Fluke is a perfect example — she testified about a women’s health issue and was promptly demonized in the most graphic and vulgar terms by the right, starting with Rush Limbaugh repeatedly calling her a slut on air, and now continued by sleazy hacks like Ben Shapiro.

Quote :
The caveman commenters of Breitbart.com then proceed to make it even clearer that there’s something deeply wrong with the right, making a mockery of Shapiro’s disingenuous disavowal and jumping right into that good ol’ slut-shaming.

The V stands for an obvious body part that she likes to push. No wonder this country is in the shape it is in. These folks are paraded in Barak Husein’s world.



Good grief! This is exactly something that Time would do. For the rest of us, she’s just Floozie of the Year.



Just spread your legs and ask for free contraception and you too can get nominated for “Person of the year”…..How about “Slut of the year” ?



I’m going to be near Georgetown campus next week. Does anyone know how much Fluke charges for a hand job?



Nothing. Covered under Obamacare.



I think they meant to say whore of the year……….What next, aborted fetus of the year? These people are sick!



I think she rather hot.



Maybe Playboy will ask her to do a spread?



The foldout probably isn’t wide enough for that!!!!!!!!!



They could do it in installments, one acre at a time.



They must have a catagory of HARLOT OF THE YEAR, huh?????



You’re thinking of Jane Fonda, Fluke is nominated in either “tramp” or “slut” I think, she’s called herself both though so she could be after both categories.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the American conservative movement.



Limbaugh's big fat head is exploding right about now. Let's see how many more sponsors he can tick off in the nect few days.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   11/28/2012, 8:11 pm

Meet your new Republican House committee chairmen. All male...all white
The nineteen new Republican House committee chairmen are all white males
Quote :
It didn't take Jennifer Bendery long to figure out what 100% of the new GOP House committee chairmen have in common, as she reports in House Committee Chairs Will All Be White Men In Next Congress.

Quote :
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced who will chair all of the major House committees in the next Congress. And it turns out they all have something in common besides party affiliation: they're all white men.

There isn't a single woman or minority included in the mix of 19 House committee chairs announced Tuesday -- a stark reality for a party desperate to appeal to women and minorities after both groups overwhelmingly rejected Republicans just weeks ago in the presidential election. The one female committee chair that House Republicans currently have, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), is stepping down because her term is up. While there are still two lower-tier House committees awaiting a chair assignment -- the Ethics Committee and House Administration -- neither committee has any women or minority members. ...

"Disappointed to see House committee chairmanships in the 113th Congress will not include a single woman. -PM," tweeted Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who included a link to Boehner's press release announcing the chair posts.
Remember all the discussions about the Republican Party learning valuable lessons about the need to reach out and broaden their appeal to women and minorities? It doesn't look like they are getting off to a very good start.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   1/25/2013, 11:37 am

Woo Hoo! Republicans think up a new way to punish rape victims.....
New Mexico bill would send rape victims to prison for having abortions because it's lifey!
Quote :
It's time for another "pro-life" pop quiz, boys and girls, so sharpen those No. 2 pencils.

One of the biggest talking points of your anti-woman movement is that it's actually to protect women from, um, themselves. That is why women must be forced to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds, listen to hypothetical descriptions of what their fetus might look like in a few months, read about imaginary risks of one of the safest procedures there is—all so women, poor dumb little dears that they are, will understand that terminating a pregnancy means, you know, terminating a pregnancy. It's all about compassion for the ladies, you see.

Do you prove just how much you really care about women by:
(a) Ensuring that all women have safe, affordable access to health care for themselves and their children; or

(b) Forcing rape victims who are impregnated by their rapists to carry their pregnancies to term or go to prison for up to three years.

If you guessed (a), congratulations, you're correct! If you guessed (b), you're state Rep. Cathrynn Brown of New Mexico—a Republican, of course—with a super duper pro-lifey, pro-womany plan to criminalize rape victims. Laura Bassett at Huffington Post reports:

Quote :
A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

Brown's proposed bill, House Bill 206 is just brimming with concern for women's well-being. That's why it defines an abortion as "tampering with evidence":

Quote :
Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.

The "pro-lifers" will often insist they're not interested in criminalizing mothers. That's why they've started giving Orwellian names to their twisted legislation, like the Women's Health Protection Act, the Women's Health Defense Act, and the Women's Ultrasound Right to Know Act. Because it's all about protecting women. And obviously, the very best way to protect women who've been raped—the very best way to prove just how concerned about women's rights and health these anti-woman extremists really are—is to turn them into criminals, put them on trial, and toss them in prison for, quite possibly, longer sentences than their rapists would serve.

And gosh. Republican women wonder why no one takes them seriously when they insist they care about women too.

12:34 PM PT: Via Dan Amira, now we get the "that's not what I meant to say" explanation. Uh huh.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   1/25/2013, 11:45 am

Suck it, 12 yr old rape victims! Here's to hoping your pregnancy doesn't kill you or bankrupt your family. Enjoy God's gift!
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   

Back to top Go down
 
Republicans War on Women
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 15 of 18Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: