Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Morgan Sheridan
227 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
Christopher Wick
1055 Followers
swift2Feb 17, 2012
As a former Catholic, I looked at the collection of bishops as something I didn't even see back in the '50s and '60s'. Remember when JFK made that speech to the protestant group? The very idea of their paranoia about Rome taking over our policy seemed so utterly foolish. But now, Benedict has named a bunch of crazy people, who are indistinguishable from the craziest born-agains, and equally insistent on the theocratic views of the worst of the right-wing nut balls. Nobody seems to be attacking the very idea that this is a religious rights question. What right? A clear line of Supreme Court decisions says that, when a religious group runs an institution for the general public, it must also be governed by the fact that they have work contracts with people who may or may not be of their group. Work contracts. With Americans. Tell me, when you think of "rights," don't you think of individuals first, not the bishops who feel empowered to stifle them?
icwydFeb 17, 2012
Recovering Catholic here too. Was around Bishops during the 60's and 70's. Talk about out of touch. Some of the language you would hear from them was just insanity. No wonder most Catholics pick and choose from the teachings
To this day I still don't understand how they can protect child rapists (pedophiles) and have the gall to push their "values" on anyone else.
The church is all about obtaining power and control through sex. This is just another example of using this for a political advantage. Let's hope it doesn't end well for them.
bcarl314Feb 17, 2012
Yet, they don't want to go back to the 50s economic policies and tax policies. Weird.
concusionFeb 17, 2012
I think they are just too stupid to realize what the 50s tax policies were.
upnorthgirlFeb 17, 2012
Until Issa can give birth, I think he should shut up on the topic of women's health
auditortuxFeb 17, 2012
Honestly, though, I think the first thing the government should have done is made a "male" and "female" policy. Women don't need prostate exam coverage, just like I don't need coverage for getting pregnant. It'd be great for single people.
But to say "you're a man, you can't talk about women's health" is stupid. Shall we restrict that logic to the military and defense spending? Unless you've served, shut up?
atomheartmotherFeb 17, 2012
So you're all about equality and gender neutrality, but not really.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
Until women can serve in combat, you can't talk about war maybe.
How do you like that upnorthgirl?
Oh wait, is that not how the world works?
At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure you're happy that you're allowed to talk about things that you've never done, or may never do... or may never even be able to do.
I'm pretty sure that your opinion on how billionaires should spend their money isn't one you hold because you're one of them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-02-08/war-women-pentagon/53017764/1
(citation for the women in combat rolls thing)
anomaly100Feb 17, 2012
FTA:
"On Capitol Hill, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) held hearings on contraception and religious freedom that produced the now-famous picture of a table full of men called to weigh in on access to contraceptives. Democrats wanted a woman — a Georgetown law student with a friend who lost an ovary because the university doesn’t cover birth control — to say her piece at the hearing, but Issa wouldn’t let her on the panel. He said she wasn’t “appropriate or qualified” to discuss the topic at hand."
They just lost soooo many supporters in one New York minute.
TaliscatFeb 17, 2012
Including their own party, who are pissed at the horse and pony show they put on.
Especially those already living in states with the mandate that the GOP and clergy were happy to see passed... with no exemptions in many of them
dsmeek36Feb 17, 2012
Men make all kinds of decisions about women's productive health and related issues in the world. Check out Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, even India (where they burn girls to death). This isn't about "freedom" or "liberty"; or rather it is. It's about removing freedoms and liberties that American women have fought for and won for themselves. So, my question is: are the Republican/Conservative women actually on the side of denying their gender rights? Is this yet another anti-Civil Rights movement?
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
Do you think a law requiring that insurance companies give out birth control for free is a Civil Right?
dsmeek36Feb 17, 2012
By definition, is it as soon as it's a law.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
No it's not lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
"Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression."
Birth control ensures one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression?
Because I know of groups whos constitutional rights are being oppressed based on this thing you claim is a "civil right".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 17, 2012
Employer forcing their beliefs onto employees?
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
at will employment?
dsmeek36Feb 17, 2012
Well then maybe birth control is not a "civil right". Who cares? How does this affect the conversation? It doesn't.
Does it contribute to the health and welfare of the individual and society? My answer is yes. Could it improve the society as a whole? Yes. Will it prevent abortions, or at least reduce the number of abortions if utilized and made more-readily available? Yes. So, what's the problem? I'm missing the point here.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
The problem for me is freedom.
I cannot find myself for very many laws that limit anyone's freedom, and telling a group of people (in this case in the form of a business) "you must, by law, offer this product at no cost" offends my sense of freedom.
Combining that with the low cost and free (from charity! :) ) birth control options that are already available makes me feel like we're giving up too much freedom for too little benefit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dsmeek36Feb 17, 2012
We give up little freedoms all the time in order to manage a society. We have speed limits and parking laws and laws to prevent theft and fraud and peeing in our soup at a restaurant. All those limit freedom for individuals or businesses. We should be concerned about losing our freedoms, but this, I don't think, is one of those times.
If charities and private organizations could/would cover what the government does, the government wouldn't need to step in and do it. As I always say, the government must do what people won't, and this is one of those times.
jpurdyFeb 17, 2012
@quis - You're free not to use insurance or not to see a doctor.
Your freedom to practice whatever religion you choose and the right to freedom from persecution due to religious beliefs are guaranteed by our Constitution.
Laws to limit access to healthcare and privacy are clearly unconstitutional, and whatever dissembling they do, those who oppose women's rights are doing so out of religious beliefs.
However, I certainly doubt if anyone can provide references from the New Testament that justify or encourage the political activism of the extreme religious (/s) right.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
jpurdy, you're wrong.
And insulting.
The false equivalence you've made is to conflate birth control with "women's rights"
Last I checked, condoms were birth control too, and they have not a damn thing to do with a woman.
Thanks for trying to manipulate the argument in order to demonize your opponent.
mortventFeb 17, 2012
Bill of rights: Life (health care), Liberty (freedom from having a religion set rules that you must abide regardless of your own beliefs), and the pursuit of happiness (wild sex without worrying about babies)
So yep civil right.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
The necessities of life include more than healthcare.
In fact, they include things more basic than healthcare like food water and shelter. Why aren't these things being pushed as things that should be given away for free?
Additionally, we're not talking about healthcare in general. We're talking about a specific medication. Let me give you an allegorical tale:
Let's pretend I get off from cutting myself.
Should I get band aids from the healthcare industry for free?
If so, why and if not, why not?
1) It's clearly cheaper over the entire population to give them away for free to people who need them. If you don't, someone might get an infection and that would cost more than all the band aids combined.
2) It's clearly healthcare... you have to interact with the medical community if you don't use the band aid and things also go wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xwhyFeb 18, 2012
You realize that you quoted the Declaration of Independence and not the Bill of Rights., right?
So when did the right to life movement become the right to health care movement? Or is life still only the right o the post-natal?
concusionFeb 17, 2012
do you think a law requiring insurance companies to give out insurance is a civil right?
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
No, I don't...
Obviously.
jphrFeb 17, 2012
In modern western nations it is indeed.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
Sigh... this is the second time I've had to quote this in these comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
"Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression."
So no, in modern western nations it indeed is not.
jpurdyFeb 17, 2012
Santorum wants to take our country back to the 16th century.
jphrFeb 17, 2012
Let's see that starts at 1500. If I remember well Columbus ran into America around 1492. So yes it would remove all that Christian fundamentalism from the map. Seems that Santorum found his solution.
jpurdyFeb 17, 2012
Martin Luther's Reformation began in 1517 - "He became convinced that the church was corrupt in its ways and had lost sight of what he saw as several of the central truths of Christianity." - Wikipedia
Seems appropriate for today as well.
The Spanish Inquisition was at it's height during the 1500's. They didn't have sonograms, so they had to settle for simpler torture and execution.
morgansherrFeb 17, 2012Submitter
Men, if you love the women in your lives vote against the GOP's antiwoman agenda - if you don't give a s**t, better buy heavy duty life insurance policies on those women because they will be dying sooner than you think.
bossm4nFeb 17, 2012
Hyperbole much?
rockyoumonkeysFeb 18, 2012
Hyperbole? Oh, the GOP is NEVER guilty of THAT! No, they've never said that allowing gay marriage would lead to men marrying horses!
bossm4nFeb 18, 2012
See if you can stay on message. What does your comment have to do with the comment I replied to? Morgan just pulled some hateful strawman s**t out of thin air. Like I said, hyperbole. And for the record, and this applies to both of you idiots, one or two people who make some ridiculous statement does not equate to the stance of an entire party, group or association. Keep f**kin' that chicken.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
/spit
That's what you get for that hateful rhetoric.
morgansherrFeb 17, 2012Submitter
There's nothing hateful about it. Look at women in the Congo, in Afghanistan and other places in the world where their health means nothing. You will be burying your daughters and granddaughters while they're young and it will not be pretty.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
Yes there is. No girls will be dying in "sooner than you think" because of the GOP.
Hateful (towards the GOP) rhetoric.
morgansherrFeb 17, 2012Submitter
The GOP rhetoric toward women IS hateful of all women regardless of political belief.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
No it's not, and you're deliberately avoiding the points the GOP is actually making regarding any argument that brings up women in order to be able to still hold that viewpoint.
I really don't care anymore one way or another (most of the liberals on digg are like this; it's like an echo chamber for you guys), but if you do happen to care and want to actually know where a conservative is coming from on some of this, feel free to ask any questions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Feb 17, 2012
@quisquis, You don't get to profess your opinion and say that it represents the true conservative agenda. The conservative agenda is dictated by the policies and positions of elected conservatives leaders.
It's a cop out to say "I don't believe that, it's just the guy I elected who does." Either take responsibility for the decisions of your party or stop identifying yourself as a conservative.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
@mjm6783:
"Either take responsibility for the decisions of your party or stop identifying yourself as a conservative."
I've actually been considering that lately. It may be easier to make democrats fiscally conservative than to make republicans socially liberal.
bossm4nFeb 18, 2012
Liberals actions are hateful and harmful to all Americans regardless of political belief.
See, I can do that too.
concusionFeb 17, 2012
if the GOP is not being hateful they are definitely being stupid. You act like the government is making people take contraceptives, they aren't. They are merely making the insurance company make it available if they want it. Its not free either, people pay a pretty f**king penny for health insurance.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
Right.
Party A proposes an agreement
Party B agrees to it
Party C decides it's their business to change that agreement.
Who the f**k is C you ask? You are.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 18, 2012
"if the GOP is not being hateful they are definitely being stupid. "
That pretty much boils down my opinion of the GOP and everyone in it: they are either colossally stupid, or downright evil.
They have to be one or the other. They either believe all that horses**t they spout, or they don't believe it but they push it anyway because it gives them power.
CaptainobliviousFeb 17, 2012
Why didnt I think of that! we should just spit on people we disagree with! Fantastic way to elevate the discussion.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
I'll argue points... I'll spit on hate.
EDIT: You like hate and think I should have given' it a /hug instead?
mortventFeb 17, 2012
What would Jesus have done?
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
I don't much care.
concusionFeb 17, 2012
better than dropping bombs and taking over their country
tpartyanimalFeb 17, 2012
"lost an ovary because the university doesn’t cover birth control"
That's like saying he died because the university didn't give him a free motorcycle helmet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Dr_RightFeb 19, 2012
This is pure hyperbole from the left. Nobody has denied any womans' rights, nor have they even suggested it. ..... This is about FUNDING of contraceptives and abortions.
This has nothing to do with womens' rights..... and the writers of this garbage know it. This is an issue of who is going to pay for contraceptives.
.... As usual, those on the left think the taxpayers should shield them from the consequences of their behaviors.
Now, why are we not outraged over the rights of the taxpayers , who are being forced to fund the progessives' social experiments?
vbdonFeb 18, 2012
Obama and the Democrats are so intent on turning the United States into another European country with their own National Church of the Holy Community Organizer that they now are trying to tear up the Bill of Rights. Pope Barack I is doing everything he can to ensure the support of Planned Parenthood, which could make $ Billions from insurance companies for their abortion clinics and the National Organization for lesbian Women.
Hearing the shrill cries that, somehow, religious organizations are trying to outlaw contraceptives tells us how pathetic the Obama administration's supporters have become.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to trash his plot before the elections.
kyravonFeb 17, 2012
The GOP has been trying to live in a fictious version of the '50's every since we left that decade.
tomyclikFeb 17, 2012
Wow !!! ... three to one.... I have this Dream..;)
davidnivenFeb 17, 2012
If the GOP went back to the '50s, then they'd be Southern Democrats in the KKK.
inajeepFeb 17, 2012
They'd have a hell of a lot of company from modern day GOP and TP members.
concusionFeb 17, 2012
they'd all be meeting at Grand Puba Nivens house
treehugger87Feb 17, 2012
Dude, they ARE the Southern Democrats and the KKK. Ever heard of Lee A****er? When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law he gave up the politics of pandering to racist scum. Too bad the Republicans only saw it as an opportunity...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Feb 17, 2012
Yes, because challenging legislation signed by President Obama in 2010 somehow turns the legal clock back to the 1950s.
treehugger87Feb 17, 2012
During the hearing
- A Catholic Bishop compared the requirement that insurers provide contraception to a law requiring Kosher delis to serve pork.
- Issa denied the request by a Georgetown Law School student to testify at a hearing about access to contraception on the grounds that the hearing was not about access to contraception, but about religious liberty
- Issa only invited people who agreed that the rule violates religious liberty to be on the panel. No dissenting voices were allowed
- Ignoring the opinion of Justice Scalia that the government not including religious exemptions in laws is Constitutional and does not threaten religious freedom. I guess that was too 20th century for Issa
- The panel ignored the fact that 50 years ago the all male Supreme Court ruled that use of contraception is a fundamental right protected by at least five provisions of the United States Constitution.
The hearing was a political campaign to achieve Republican's goal of defeating President Obama in 2012, nothing less. I'm enjoying watching it completely backfire.