February 10, 2012

Obama relents on contraceptives.

"Seeking to allay the concerns of Catholic leaders,President Obama on Friday announced an adjustment to its health-care rule requiring religiously affiliated employers to provide contraceptive coverage to women."

312 comments:

1 – 200 of 312   Newer›   Newest»
Alex said...

Rush said it's smoke and mirrors.

MayBee said...

So now he is compelling insurance companies to fund the free birth control pills? I don't really get it.

MadisonMan said...

Good.

edutcher said...

This will be like drilling in the ANWR in '08.

Pelosi & Co granted it before the election. and then rescinded it after the election.

Alex said...

Rush said it's smoke and mirrors.

More like bait and switch.

garage mahal said...

Your move, GOP.

Andy R. said...

Since for me this issue is about women having access to contraception, I don't care who provides it or how so I am happy with this result.

My guess is that people who don't think women should have access to contraception will be unhappy with this result.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zrimsek said...

So now he is compelling insurance companies to fund the free birth control pills?

No, the religious organizations will still be paying for it. Luckily for Obama, they seem to be pretty easy to fool.

Methadras said...

We have to pass so we can know what's in it. This is to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi. Now, Urkel is doing his redistribution shuffle again from the faith based organizations to insurance companies that will most likely drop such coverage to save costs anyway. To call this man a moron is to truly insult the moronic.

rhhardin said...

No priest actually handles a condom under the new plan.

Alex said...

garage - is there nothing the government shouldn't get involved in? The problem is you think the government should be passing laws all day long and I think it should be rolling them back.

Dead Julius said...

Damn! Liberals are upset! They don't really care about the policy, but this was an excellent opportunity for them to rub the fact that they RULE in the face of social conservatives.

Now that compromise is offered, there is no more chance for Liberals to relish their power...

Larry J said...

What's next on the polical pandering list of "free stuff" to force insurance companies to provide? Gasoline and car maintenance are expensive. Why shouldn't auto insurance cover the costs of filling your tank, changing your oil, replacing your tires and other maintenance expenses? After all, if a person can't afford to repair their car, they may be driving an unsafe vehicle which is dangerous to children and other creatures. Insurance companies are big, rich, evil corporations so why shouldn't they pay for these things? It's for the children!

Chip S. said...

for me this issue is about women having access to contraception

It takes a special kind of failure of imagination to think that women are denied access to contraception unless they are forced to pay for it through a prepayment plan that is part of their employment compensation.

Hoosier Daddy said...

".. My guess is that people who don't think women should have access to contraception will be unhappy with this result..."

Did you ever provide an example of where woman cannot get contraception or is this just one of your drive by lies?

Andy R. said...

Damn! Liberals are upset!

Which liberals are upset?

rhhardin said...

There's always the aspirin-between-the-knees method.

Jay said...

I'm just so happy that the President of the United States, is deciding what is going to be covered by a Private Insuarance contract.

Really, is there anything Barry can't do!?!?

Dave said...

There's no real change. Catholic institutions still have to buy coverage with contraceptives in it. I can't see the bishops relenting this easily.

garage mahal said...

Damn! Liberals are upset!

No they're not. Why would they be? Over what?

Scott M said...

The best you could possibly say is that it was a calculated piece of political maneuvering to give POTUS some "compromise" chops going into the general.

More likely, though, the administration "acted stupidly".

Andy R. said...

Did you ever provide an example of where woman cannot get contraception or is this just one of your drive by lies?

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?

Michael said...

Out of curiosity, I wonder why the smartest President we have ever had did not figure this out at the beginning? The Bishops will now have to decide if there is anything really new about this approach vis a vis their relationship with their insurance companies. Money being fungible I am not sure this is any different from what was there before, political optics aside.

And Garage, the GOP is not the Catholic Church.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Since for me this issue is about women having access to contraception,


Hysterical.

Right, because we all know women can't go to the doctor and get a birth control prescription!

The lies you must tell yourself in order to be a lefitst are endless.

Andy R. said...

I think some conservatives are walking a very fine line in trying to make this about religious freedom and not about their general opposition to contraception.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?


Comical.

Provide examples please.

Seriously, you are such an embarrassment I should feel sorry for you.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... It takes a special kind of failure of imagination to think that women are denied access to contraception unless they are forced to pay for it through a prepayment plan that is part of their employment compensation..."

I know I was glad when my college girlfriend got on the pill so I didn't have to wear the Mr. Happy Raincoat anymore. They were always too tight and hard to apply. But that was before Trojan came out with the Magnum.

As you were.

Andy R. said...

Right, because we all know women can't go to the doctor and get a birth control prescription!

Do you understand that some women can't afford to do this?

Seeing Red said...

Unless it's the law that's changed, I agree with Rush.

Darrell said...

So Hitler announced that he won't be invading Poland after all. He will be building aircraft and submarines for the time being. He will just wait for a better moment when everything else is in place. Now it's not like he said that he won't ever invade Poland. He never said that he now believes that invading Poland is wrong and unconscionable. So the world goes on as if nothing ever was said, right? Right?

Jay said...

ndy R. said...

Do you understand that some women can't afford to do this?



Idiot:

There are no women who can't afford to do this.

None.

Prove me wrong.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

My guess is that people who don't think women should have access to contraception will be unhappy with this result.

The government has said that you can no longer guess in America in 2012.

Dave said...

It's a false compromise - a fig leaf. Just like the executive order that Stupak bought into. It's no real change in policy and it will not prevent the lawsuits. A law prof at Notre Dame has already dismissed it as inadequate.

Seeing Red said...

Since for me this issue is about women having access to contraception, I don't care who provides it or how so I am happy with this result


How do these women not have access to contraception?


What you're actually saying is that wherever there is a Catholic institution, it's located in a vast, desolate wasteland and only that institution has a supply.

Scott M said...

I think some conservatives are walking a very fine line in trying to make this about religious freedom and not about their general opposition to contraception.

The government has said that you can no longer think in America in 2012.

purplepenquin said...

Just curious...if a group says that their religious beleifs state that inter-racial marriages are immoral then does that mean they can deny insurance coverage to such couples?

Michael said...

Andy R: "Do you understand that some women can't afford to do this?"

And they can get contraception free from Medicaid or from Planned Parenthood. In dire dire circumstances they could insist that their partners wear protection.

You would be OK with means testing who gets free contraceptives?

Andy R. said...

"Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic health group and a key White House ally in Obama’s health-care overhaul, said her organization was “very pleased” with the announcement."

Sounds like at leas some Catholic organizations are on board.

Jay said...

Do you understand that some women can't afford to do this?


Birth control pills at walmart cost $10 per month.

By the way, I guess women can't "afford" the birth control pill but somehow can magically afford the employee contribution of the insurance premium that is going to increase because of this "free" stuff.

Seriously, you have no understanding of the real world. Stop commenting, you're a joke.

Chip S. said...

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?

Just for the sake of comity I'll treat this as if it were any kind of actual social problem. Given that huge counterfactual, do you not understand why an insurance mandate is an idiotic way to address the problem?

Instead of forcing the 99% of women who can afford it buy it though a third-party payer--thereby adding nothing but an extra layer of administrative costs to a simple transaction--you could just give the 1% the money to buy the stuff themselves.

And anybody who's getting insurance through her employer is clearly able to afford the pill. Cuz, y'know, she's got a job.

edutcher said...

Michael said...

Out of curiosity, I wonder why the smartest President we have ever had did not figure this out at the beginning?

Maybe because he's an unthinking ideologue?

It would be fun to compare his academic transcripts to Milton's, but then we might find out Fen's right and he is less POTUS than DHOTUS.

Andy R. said...

Did you ever provide an example of where woman cannot get contraception or is this just one of your drive by lies?

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?


So everybody else should pay for it?

TosaGuy said...

"Do you understand that some women can't afford to do this?"

How many of the women who could not afford to do this are EMPLOYED by religious institutions?


An aside...in this entire discussion I have not seen anybody mention the monthly cost of BC. A quick google search indicates Walmart has BC for $9 a month. So this whole kerfuffle was about $9 a month???????

Rick said...

Obama is a disgusting outrage. Perhaps our country has a chance of surviving if he is defeated in November.

Seeing Red said...

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?

Then go to PP. What about Medicaid?

Have their daughters get it from school.

There is a wider world out there, maybe your hat is blocking your view?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?.."

Well actually, no, I don't because even in our Dickensian society, birth control just isn't that expensive, Andy. If they have a job, with insurance, I'm certain they can scrape up a few bucks to enjoy the ecstasy of recreational sex.

Dave said...

"I think some conservatives are walking a very fine line in trying to make this about religious freedom and not about their general opposition to contraception."

It is about freedom this rule forces people to provide a service that believe is wrong. It's really very simple. It's coercion.

Darrell said...

Sounds like at leas some Catholic organizations are on board.

Until we get them out. Now that the people serving Marx and Christ have been exposed, real Catholics will force them to make a choice. No man can serve two masters.

Seeing Red said...

...An aside...in this entire discussion I have not seen anybody mention the monthly cost of BC. A quick google search indicates Walmart has BC for $9 a month. So this whole kerfuffle was about $9 a month???????...


No it about bringing the Catholic hospitals to their knees by requiring them to perform abortions.

MayBee said...

Katherine Sebilius was just on Fox. She is full of doubletalk. She says free contraception is actually cheaper than not providing free contraception and so insurance companies will be happy to provide pills for free. Then she says millions of women currently don't have free birth control coverage.
Why would that be? Because insurance companies and employers have, to this point, been happy to lose money?

Michael said...

Purplepenguin: No, but can the government compel Muslims and Jews to eat pork because it is healthy and the dietary laws are outdated? Because Jews and Muslims alike often eat pork even though it is forbidden. And many, if not most, like the taste. So why shouldn't Muslim and Jewish kids be fed pork at lunch. The USDA thinks pork very very healthy.

PatCA said...

"Since for me this issue is about women having access to contraception."

Women actually DO have access to contraception, Andy. Their Catholic employer's insurance plan is only one way. Planned Parenthood offers it gratis. So that heavily outweighs the serious power grab against religious institutions Obama wants (to excite his base).

shiloh said...

Reposting my recent post in the 400+ Catholic much ado about nothing thread:

Twice as nice! :)

"it will be forgotten in a couple of months."

Probably a couple weeks, so I admit, ;) I was probably wrong.

btw, the president just gave a cool, calm and collected press conference in which he characterized his conservative opposition re: this issue, in so many words, as raving lunatics.

The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority.

So now, conservative Bishops, who weren't gonna vote for Obama anyways, will have to invent a new wedge issue on which to rail against Obama.

So it shall be written, so it shall be done ...

Go in peace and sin no more! my children.

>

btw, let's try for 500+ posts in this thread, who's w/me? :D

Mike Bruner said...

One interesting detail about this -- if you believe the Obama admin, an insurance company covering contraceptives always SAVES the insurance company money. That is, if the insurance company is for-profit, it would always want the insured to have "free" contraceptives. Is this really the case?

traditionalguy said...

One step back and two steps forward says Comrade Obama, reading from V I Lenin's advice book for Communist Revolutionaries in a transition stage.

Obama is determined to rule like the Red Chinese Party rules by telling the officially permitted religions what they must believe, or else.

Comrade Obama is putting the mask back on as fast as his little forked tongue can fly.

MayBee said...

No it about bringing the Catholic hospitals to their knees by requiring them to perform abortions.

It's about that, but it's about telling women that this administration cares.
The whole "women's health" as a special interest issue full of give-aways geared toward women and not men is a big fundraiser for Democrats.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

"Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic health group and a key White House ally in Obama’s health-care overhaul, said her organization was “very pleased” with the announcement."

Sounds like at leas some Catholic organizations are on board.


She's a hard core Lefty and in the Administration's hip pocket.

Hatman ought to do a little research on who gives endorsements.

Dave said...

Sister Keehan is the extreme left wing of the Catholic tent and already an Obama ally, her buying into his lie is really no surprise. it's the bishops who count here Andy.

Fr Martin Fox said...

It may prove to be a great victory, but...it's his opening gambit; I doubt it's that great an offer.

1) No one should be compelled to fund what s/he deems immoral via paying for health insurance or participating in a health-insurance pool.

We're not talking about a compelling case: there is no reasonable argument for anyone needing contraception as a life-or-death matter. If it is truly a life or death matter, then there's no controversy; the Church has no objection to using hormone treatments for other medical purposes.

So the Church should not walk away, leaving others to be coerced; the Church should keep fighting so everyone wins, not just the Church.

2) Don't accept the President's gracious word. We want it written into law.

3) We see now what mischief the President can make--and will, if he can get away with it. The legislation we want will take that away.

I don't know what the bishops are going to do, but that's my advice. Fight on!

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Just curious...if a group says that their religious beleifs state that inter-racial marriages are immoral then does that mean they can deny insurance coverage to such couples?.."

Do you have a real life example

Jay said...

it will be forgotten in a couple of months."


Keep telling yourself that.

btw, the president just gave a cool, calm and collected press conference

It is beyond funny you actually believe you have credibility.

MayBee said...

having access to contraception

This "having access" as a euphemism for "free" has worked its way into the conversation at a record pace.

NYTNewYorker said...

"Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?"

Well these woman can just get on their free cell phone and make an appointment at Planned Parenthood and get what they need for free there, can't they?

And don't forget your free voucher for the cab ride over and back.

Seeing Red said...

....Then she says millions of women currently don't have free birth control coverage.....


What has that got to do with the Catholic Church?


I can't wait for the study showing that even if it was free, not as many people would use it as they thought.

Hagar said...

"Obama relents on contraceptives."

The Professor succumbing to the notion of Barack Obama as Barack I?

And shall Jewish hospitals next require a "waiver" to be exempt from a requirement to serve clam chowder in the cafeteria?

Muns said...

That what it is Aunt Bee. It mandates the Church must pay for insurance policies that provide "free" contraceptives.

Coketown said...

So far, every single provision of Obamacare that has gone into effect has either caused widespread outrage/panic, been found insolvent and canceled (CLASS Act), seen enrollment numbers at only a small fraction of projections despite still having cost overruns (high risk pools), or required vouchers and exemptions for business and unions because the rules were too costly, convoluted, idiotic, or contradictory to possibly comply with.

Some reform!

Jay said...

It's going away!!!

“This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the President’s re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience,” says Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for The Becket Fund. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of religious institutions are still left out in the cold and will be forced to violate their religious convictions.”


It will all be forgotten!

Mike Bruner said...

Dear Mr. President, I "have access" to beer, but strangely it usually isn't free. Could you work on that next?

Seeing Red said...

Andy, make a difference, if you know of some woman who can't afford it, do something about it, drive her to where she can go, pay for it yourself.

Jay said...

Obama solved the problem!

President Obama’s proposed adjustments to the new Health & Human Services rule requiring Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, to provide health care plans covering contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs continue to violate religious liberty, according to O. Carter Snead, professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.

Today’s ‘compromise accommodation’ is nothing of the sort.


It will all be forgotten in 2 weeks!

The Drill SGT said...

Obama is on the run.

My advice to the Bishops would be to pass on the first offer...

NYTNewYorker said...

"Reposting my recent post..."

Didn't read it the first time so no way for the second time either.

Curious George said...

"Andy R. said...
Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?"

And these women are employed and insured by Catholic hospitals?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Dear Mr. President, I "have access" to beer, but strangely it usually isn't free. Could you work on that next?.."

Beer Summit II

Jay said...

"Andy R. said...
Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?"


And here I thought you were like all supportive of Planned Parenthood.

Obviously you don't know what Planned Parenthood is or does.

You've beclowned yourself here to a degree that even garage couldn't match.

David R. Graham said...

"Your move, GOP."

Yup, less deceitful than usual there, garbage. Good girl.

It' a lie. Everything that liar says is a lie. And it's a trap, as garbage uncharacteristically demonstrates in the clear. Bhoener took similar bait. So will the bishops, because they have no grounds to stand on: they voted for the liar and approved his nationalization of the medical profession and insurance business. They believed the lies up front. They can't not believe just one now without demolishing their stochastic structure. They will eat the pill and call it breakfast.

Darrell said...

I bet condoms cost less than bomb quantities of glitter.

shiloh said...

"Reposting my recent post..."

"Didn't read it the first time so no way for the second time either."

But thanx for the inane shout-out anyways lol.

TosaGuy said...

"...An aside...in this entire discussion I have not seen anybody mention the monthly cost of BC. A quick google search indicates Walmart has BC for $9 a month. So this whole kerfuffle was about $9 a month???????...


No it about bringing the Catholic hospitals to their knees by requiring them to perform abortions."

I know that...but that point isn't held up by the hatman's of the world as the reason.

Andy R. said...

Obviously you don't know what Planned Parenthood is or does.

Is there a Planned Parenthood in every single city in America?

Rob said...

What scares me about this is how the debate has been limited to the question of whether or not 1st Amendment rights have been violated. That is, it is framed as a question of religious liberty. I still can't accept the idea that the Federal Government can and should require a private employer to provide any particular compensation to an employee. We are a nation of sheep.

MayBee said...



What has that got to do with the Catholic Church?


It has to do with why, apparently, it is vital that birth control and breast pumps now be covered fully by insurance. Because some women don't have that coverage, this administration made the noble mistake.

Now, why that's more vital than the little kid who needs a free asthma inhaler, I do not know.

Michael said...

Shiloh/AndyR: You think this is a political issue when it is not. As a reformed liberal I can tell you that your attitudes toward the government usurping freedom are what we used to imagine conservatives having. You have very reactionary attitudes toward this matter because you don't care about organized religion and believe the state will restrict its interference to churches. Rest assured that government, whether led by Republicans or Democrats, will use its power in ways that you will not like. You think this matter is trivial but you are wrong.

Darrell said...

Where is all the taxpayer money going on the Federal, State, and local level already earmarked for free condoms? Maybe the third graders can bring home a few from the barrel by the exit. Name brands, though. Not those generic ones that have no street value.

Hoosier Daddy said...

As has been pointed out, birth control for the vast vast majority is easily affordable so the fact President Shortpants is still pushing this as if its the social issue of the century certainly is proof there is more to it than just making sure women can free birth control.

SBVOR said...

Relents? My ASS!

The moron simply said the cost of the so-called "free" service would be born by the insurance company, not the entity which purchases the insurance from the insurance company.

That's the level of economic illiteracy coming out of the freaking White House these days!

Seeing Red said...

And people wonder why our fish stocks decline - more females from these hormones in things.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

Sorry, inhalers have been banned as of December 31th of last year in order to save the ozone layer, notwithstanding the fact that all that BS was debunked years ago.

Bru said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?



Because, g*d knows, fucking is a right.

Chip S. said...

Is there a Planned Parenthood in every single city in America?

850 or so clinics so, yeah, pretty much.

AndyR, why aren't you focusing on the real problem here? Most pharmacies require ID to verify that the buyer is the person for whom the Rx was written.

We all know that poor people don't have access to photo IDs.

sydney said...

Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

Churches remain exempt from the birth-control coverage requirement. And their workers will not have the option of obtaining separate contraceptive coverage under the new arrangement.


So, the actual parish church that only hires Catholics and only preaches to Catholics is still exempt, as before. The Catholic organizations - schools, hospitals, etc - are not. They can purchase insurance that does not explicitly state they cover contraception and abortion pills, but their employees can choose coverage that does cover those at no cost to the employee. Silly Catholics. The insurance company is still going to charge you the premium amount to cover those "free" contraceptive policies. It is the same as before. Will the bishops really fall for this? Probably.

Seeing Red said...

Obviously you don't know what Planned Parenthood is or does.

Is there a Planned Parenthood in every single city in America?


Is there medicaid? Are there condoms? Spermacides?

Mail? People get pills in the mail every day.

Ohhh, let's add on to this, the Angry Pharmacist is in Cali - they just got clipped 10% - they're going to have to sell some meds under cost. LOLOLOLOL

Bru said...

So let me get this straight, the compromise requires health insurers of religious organizations to provide contraceptive services free of charge. I'm no constitutional scholar like the President, but I am pretty sure any government mandate that a company provide a product without the ability to recover its costs (and perhaps a reasonable rate of return) amounts to a regulatory taking that violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

MayBee said...

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?"

You can buy a box of 24 condoms for about $12. It will also protect both partners against STDs and AIDs.

Darrell said...

Garage says, what makes you think that Hitler even wants to invade Poland?

Move along. You saw and heard nothing.

Joe said...

Women still will be guaranteed coverage for contraceptive services without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds.

I don't see the compromise.

All this says is that you will buy insurance that doesn't include a line about contraceptives, but wink-wink, you get them anyway.

Regardless of the politics of contraceptives, this is just plain deceitful.

garage mahal said...

Out of curiosity, I wonder why the smartest President we have ever had did not figure this out at the beginning?

He more than likely knew the bishops would raise a stink. Now they are out of the equation, what's left? I think it's a rare case where Obama made the perfect play. He steps in and looks all compromising and sensitive to religion, and still gets 100% of what he wanted.

He seems to be learning. Feeling schooled?

Rusty said...

The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority.



Somewhere a kitten just got sucked into the black hole stupid.

Seeing Red said...

Andy is arguing like it's 1900 not 2012. Access to birth control - since is the stuff not found in drug and food stores not birth control?

wv: comalat?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

MayBee said...

Mike Bruner said...

One interesting detail about this -- if you believe the Obama admin, an insurance company covering contraceptives always SAVES the insurance company money. That is, if the insurance company is for-profit, it would always want the insured to have "free" contraceptives. Is this really the case?


Yeah, that's my question too. And if it does, why would any good business not be already providing free birth control pills/devices?

Seeing Red said...

Wat he wanted - Catholic religion underground.

Chip S. said...

This entire discussion is totally off-point.

What we really need to do is to require all bars, clubs, restaurants, and florists to provide free contraceptives, stat. Valentine's Day is right around the corner.

ricpic said...

Pregnancy is a disease!

machine said...

"Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees."

but since Obama did it...

Original Mike said...

"Since for me this issue is about women having access to contraception..."

What a pathetic world view. If taxpayers don't pay for it, women don't have "access".

Seeing Red said...

Not any more - it's an infection.

Darrell said...

Since all that taxpayer money is going to unions, shouln't poor people be able to flag down a union member and get free condoms?
It's only right and just.

MadisonMan said...

Sorry, inhalers have been banned as of December 31th of last year in order to save the ozone layer, notwithstanding the fact that all that BS was debunked years ago.

So the person I saw using an inhaler yesterday was breaking the law?

This just in: Smoking doesn't cause cancer!

Scott M said...

He seems to be learning. Feeling schooled?

If this were the Clinton White House, I would stick with my original take that this was a pre-planned, calculated move to give the POTUS compromise chops prior to the election. Going back over the years of this team, though, I'm leaning more toward, "they didn't think this through".

This is the shovel-ready/Shirley Sherrod crowd, you know.

purplepenquin said...

This form of birth control doesn't cost a thing....

http://tinyurl.com/8ygps4q

....but isn't that illegal in some states?

edutcher said...

Jay said...

Obama solved the problem!

President Obama’s proposed adjustments to the new Health & Human Services rule requiring Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, to provide health care plans covering contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs continue to violate religious liberty, according to O. Carter Snead, professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.

Today’s ‘compromise accommodation’ is nothing of the sort.


It will all be forgotten in 2 weeks!


Apparently this is flying with no one, according to Drudge.

(couldn't get his link to work...)

Chuck66 said...

Obama apoligists have said Barry had no choice, but he did this to comply with the Obamacare law.

If that is true, then most likely some activist will sue to get their free birth control.

Darrell said...

So the person I saw using an inhaler yesterday was breaking the law?

Sale and manufacture, not possession. Yet.

machine said...

"Bet if altar boys could get pregnant, the Catholic Church would be all for contraception."

Chip S. said...

Obama's next brilliant policy: a lifetime supply of free contraceptives with every Chevy Volt.

Original Mike said...

I'm disappointed that Obama caved (if that is, in fact, what has happened). He met someone as strong as he, and he bought them off. The rest of us will be left to the steamroller that is ObamaCare.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Now they are out of the equation, what's left? I think it's a rare case where Obama made the perfect play.


How, exactly are they "out of the equation" when they're still pissed and Republicans are moving forward with legislation on this?

Oh, you're a silly, self-deluded liar.

That's how.

Darrell said...

Obama's next brilliant policy: a lifetime supply of free contraceptives with every Chevy Volt.

No necessary. The fire does more than you'd guess.

Jay said...

machine said...
"Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception


How many of those states mandate the Catholic church and other religious organizations do it?

Bonus question: since a majority of the states already do this, why does the federal government need to be involved?

purplepenquin said...

Not all inhalers are banned, but rather one specific type was removed from the marketplace about 6 months ago and all others were required to be prescription-only rather than over-the-counter.

Chuck66 said...

"However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge."

I must be stupid. I don't see how this is any kind of a compromise. Its like when I had a retail job. We said it will cost you $25 for delivery. They demanded free delivery, so I said "fine, but then I need to add $25 to the cost of the product". That is what is happening here. The insurance companies will just ad this to what the religious organzations pay for insurance.

This is no compromise.

David R. Graham said...

"We see now what mischief the President can make--and will, if he can get away with it. The legislation we want will take that away."

A nation elects and allows herself to be coerced into electing a mischief maker, someone whom wants to hurt her, tie her in knots, deprive her of rest, and says so/does so openly and happily.

Like the nation for whom they too bear responsibility, the bishops lack moral courage sufficient to protect the nation or the church. They will swallow the pill of lies and declare it medicament. Church and nation support the anti-humanist cause.

Browndog said...

Good call, Mr. President.

Instead of forcing religious institutions to provide contraceptives/abortion pills to their employees via their insurance companies...free of charge..

The Great Uniter instead opted for forcing religious institutions to provide contraceptives/abortion pills to their employees via their insurance companies....free of charge.

Compromise..

Bru said...

Machine, regarding your claim that 28 states already have that requirement, you may want to check with Chris Matthews. As he pointed out last night, that is a false, administration talking point. There are ways around all of the State mandates that are not available here. For example, the state mandates do not apply to medical plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I don't say it often, but I think Garage is right; this was a clever play by Obama; although it may not work, it likely will help.

It's what I've predicting: he would step in with a concession in hopes of dividing the opposition.

Unfortunately, the bishops--if they prepared for it--weren't able to keep Sister Keehan from selling them out...again. She'd much rather do what President Obama says is right; not what the successors to the Apostles say.

But I haven't seen a response from any of the bishops. Again, I wonder if they saw it coming. I was hoping to warn my own bishop about this soon, but I haven't talked to him yet.

gerry said...

does that mean they can deny insurance coverage to such couples?

Can the commerce clause force others to pay for their marriage?

Get the prog fog out of your head!

gerry said...

And shall Jewish hospitals next require a "waiver" to be exempt from a requirement to serve clam chowder in the cafeteria?

And shall Jewish hospitals next require a "waiver" to be exempt from a requirement to serve baked ham in the cafeteria?

Peano said...

Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?

Do you not understand that the Catholic Church has no moral obligation to pay for it?

Major Kong said...

Obama will manage to split the Church on this issue if the bishops are foolish enough to fall into his trap. They have finally found their collective voice and led on this issue. I pray that they are not deluded by Obama's deliberate obfuscation on the issue of mandated contraception and abortion. This "accommodation" is nothing less than the camel's nose under the tent. Furthermore, we who occupy the pews, have no protection from having our consciences violated. Please do not sell us out.

Original Mike said...

"Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge."

[jaw drops]

What the hell does this mean?

Chuck66 said...

"The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority."

40% of all African-American babies die through abortion. 60% of them do in NYC. So I think we should have a special fund just to abort Black babies. Does that logic work for you? Mayor Bloomberg can administer it.

Bender said...

The insurance company is still going to charge you the premium amount to cover those "free" contraceptive policies. It is the same as before.

You have to give the Serpent credit. What he says always seems so very reasonable. It seems like it is a good thing. It seems like truth. (Gen. 3:1-5)

But then, upon closer inspection, you see that it is illusory. It is a lie. It is a trap.

Some will be fooled. For a while. But the truth will out.

Darrell said...

Any inhaler containing a CFC propellant (the vast majority, because people with brains know that the total quantity involved is 1/1000000 a spit in the ocean) was banned as to manufacture and sale. Not possession or use, though. Keep your lies straight.

Original Mike said...

"Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?"

We were told yesterday that a 90-day supply costs $10. Is this incorrect?

David R. Graham said...

"Then they can't afford to have sex."

Concur. That's the root of it. Can't rear the child, go celibate. Very simple.

Bob Ellison said...

What SBVOR said. But I would stress that Obama may mean well here. If you assume, as SBVOR suggests and I suspect, that Obama really doesn't understand economics at all, in the slightest, to the tiniest degree, then you can conclude that he actually thinks this new policy is morally, ethically, and economically sound, and everyone should smile on it.

On the other hand, if you think Obama isn't quite that dumb, then you'd have to conclude that he thinks the electorate is.

He's either an idiot or a jerk.

edutcher said...

Chuck66 said...

"However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge."

I must be stupid. I don't see how this is any kind of a compromise.


You aren't and it isn't.

Chuck66 said...

A psychologist would be good to analyze this. If Obama really thinks this will work, then he must think the religous organizations really don't care about their beliefs, but only the appearence. Does Obama think that most people only care about appearences, and not reality?

They are still paying for these things.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Chuck:

Not sure who you quoted there, so this question may go to him or her...

Do I read that quote right: the President, in his address today, actually cited the percentage of Catholic women he claims use contraceptives? Did that actually happen?

Levi Starks said...

As best as I can tell sexual intercourse provides 2 opportunities, 1)reproduction. 2) pleasure. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, but if both are involved then birth control is not needed.
If you need birth control then by definition you are having sexual intercourse for only 1 reason- pleasure.
So the government is now in the position making insurance companies insure the pleasure of it's subscribers? Suppose the woman is unable to attract a willing partner? clearly she's being denied a pleasure guaranteed by the constitution. What benefit do we need to require the insurance company give her to insure her pleasure then?
I could make a much stronger argument that a heath insurance provider provide toothpaste and toothbrush. If I'm forced to go without sex for a month I've suffered no lasting harm, but if I go without brushing my teeth for a month.... Insurance was never intended to meet our daily needs, it was intended to cover unexpected needs. And there is no such thing as "free"
although after 3+ years of creating 1.3 billion dollars out of thin air, it can be supposed that Obama doesn't grasp this concept.

Chuck66 said...

Shiloh said that at 11:46 AM on this thread.

Jay said...

if you believe the Obama admin, an insurance company covering contraceptives always SAVES the insurance company money.

Yeah!

Just like Obamacare "bends the cost curve" down!

What would anyone in the Obama Administration know about insurance?

Christopher in MA said...

"I think it's a rare case where Obama made the perfect play."

Not if the bishops tell him to fuck off. And even I don't think Dolan is as big a fool as to believe Little Black Jesus now after having been sandbagged.

"Bet if altar boys could get pregnant. . ."

Machine, you're slipping. It used to take much less than an hour for you bigots to haul out the old "sex abuse" taunt. Why don't you go check the percentage of sex abuse by priests opposed to government school teachers? I'll be waiting breathlessly for your screams of outrage.

And Hat, Sister Carol is about as "Catholic" as you are. She's a lefty, a liar and a dupe, one of the post-Vatican II 'social justice' clowns.

Chip S. said...

Shiloh said that at 11:46 AM on this thread.

Somebody here actually reads his comments? That's some serious devotion to completeness.

Jay said...

Fr Martin Fox said...

Do I read that quote right: the President, in his address today, actually cited the percentage of Catholic women he claims use contraceptives? Did that actually happen?


Mr. Fox,
Stephanie Cutter, President Obama‘s deputy campaign manager put out that left wing talking point the other day.

Jane said...

I just don't get it. For employers who insure their employees, what's changed? If they want to provide health insurance to their employees, they have no other choice but to buy a plan with contraception coverage. I don't see any difference in this new wording -- none whatsoever.

(The exception is for self-insured plans and the "Face Sheet" is mute on those -- does the ASO provider have to provide contraception coverage and, in theory, not pass those costs on to the employer?)

James said...

You bitter clingers don't know what's good for you...

Original Mike said...

"Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge."

The more I read this, the funnier it gets.

MayBee said...

I could make a much stronger argument that a heath insurance provider provide toothpaste and toothbrush.

I'm sorry, but that wouldn't make women feel special.

Shana said...

" 'Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic health group and a key White House ally in Obama’s health-care overhaul, said her organization was “very pleased” with the announcement.'

Sounds like at leas some Catholic organizations are on board."

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don't be a tool, Sister Carol.

ic said...

The king giveth, the king taketh away.

What right does Obama have to "mandate" us to do things against our conscience?

Wonder if he would back down if the election was not coming up?
If the Catholics are stupid to vote for him, they deserve what they'll get in Obama's second term.

traditionalguy said...

Sorry Garage. The smell lingers even after the latest FOS lies have risen like clouds of incense boldly proclaiming that The Mandated Health Insurance policy will now state in bold type that in exchange for the premiums paid by Catholics, this insurance policy will give totally free abortificant Rx and totally free birth control Rx and totally free doctors that prescribe them.

See, now no one pays for the Free Rx and Free Doctors. So shut up and go back to your Red Chinese new world order, or else.

Matthew said...

So they can offer plans that don't include X, but the plans are required by law to make X available to those whose plans don't include X.

Compromise!

Levi Starks said...

I've thought about my previous post, and decided it needs an addition. if an insurance company providers contraception as a benefit not all subscribers will take advantage of it, and thats where they will make their profit.
Those subscribers who don't have sex will be subsidizing those who do.
How fair is that?

Original Mike said...

"I think some conservatives are walking a very fine line in trying to make this about religious freedom and not about their general opposition to contraception."

I am pro-contraceptives.

Chuck66 said...

Orig Mike...same here. This is what Obama said (paraphrasing here)....

"Okay, we won't make religious owned institutions pay for free birth control, sterilizations, etc, but instead we will make them pay for their insurance companies to pay for them."

It will be interesting to see if anyone falls for this.

Unlike Clinton, Obama really is a true believer in his leftest ideology. Clinton would have truley caved and came out a hero. Obama has plans for this country so will not cave.

Michael said...

Jane: Nothing has changed. The Bishops will fall for this, however, just as they fell for ObamaCare to begin with.

This isn't even good slight of hand.

The Catholic hospitals will be providing free contraceptives to their employees just as they were ordered to do.

Jay said...

Unlike Clinton, Obama really is a true believer in his leftest ideology. Clinton would have truley caved and came out a hero.

Think about it. Clinton, the last 2-term Democratic President and the only one since Truman, accomplished:

-Ending Welfare as we know it
-Cut capital gains taxes
-Signed DOMA
-Publicly stated Iraq had WMD's and bombed Iraq for having them.
-Called for and signed a balanced budget by cutting medicare costs
-Publicly stated abortions should be safe, legal, and rare
-Abadoned plans for a national health care bill.

Read that list and think about how much more radical Obama is.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If contraceptives are now to be covered is there any reason why breast augmentation or penile enlargement should not be covered free of charge or at least after meeting the deductible?

Because those have about the same medical necessity as using birth control.

Levi Starks said...

I'm currently watching the a yale video lecture series
"The American Revolution" and it's stunning to see the parallels between the way the England tried to manage it's colonies, and the mistakes they made, and the way the Obama administration tries to manage the 1/2 of the US population that hates his guts. The patronizing, and contempt one holds for the 50% is remarkable

BarrySanders20 said...

This is reason #127 why employer-based health coverage makes little sense.

Also, that 98% number has to false. 98% of Catholic women are not even having sex. To get antywhere close to 98%, you would have to use an exceedingly broad definition of "contraceptive," and must be based on something like "have you ever had sex without the intent of getting pregnant?"

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Chuck66 said...

Jay, yes.

Clinton went hard left in his 1st 2 years, and got his ass kicked. So he moved to the center and was very popular for the rest of his term. If Algore wasn't such a dofus, we probably would have had 8 more years of Democrat presidents.

Obama isn't a shrewd politician and he really is a hardcore Bill Ayres style leftist. He may not be slick, but he will continue to push his agenda even if said agenda isn't popular.

James said...

Which cancers do contraceptives prevent? And if its so simple to prevent cancers by using contraception what's with all the pink ribbons, etc?

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Since for me this issue is about women having access to contraception


For me, this issue is about the fact that both employers and the government want women to be infertile while employed.

Why is that?

Rob said...

Andy R., assuming he is serious, is everything I hate about the left. We think something is good so either 1. The Government should provide it; or 2. The Government should mandate YOU to provide it. In addition, if something is not good for you the Government should ban it.

A consensus is not necessary, and cost is irrelevant. There is no limit to government power, so long as it serves the greater good as that good exists in the mind of the leftist. Andy R. thinks more contraception is good. Therefore, ANYTHING the government does to make contraception more readily available is good. Isn't it a simple world?

rcocean said...

I'm sure Michelle will be glad to hear that.

edutcher said...

FWIW, the bishops don't seem to be going for it.

By way of Malkin.

Shana said...

" 'Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic health group and a key White House ally in Obama’s health-care overhaul, said her organization was “very pleased” with the announcement.'

Sounds like at leas some Catholic organizations are on board."


Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don't be a tool, Sister Carol.


There were priests and nuns that fought the Axis in WWII. There were those that helped them.

John Cunningham said...

Comrade Urkel's "Compromise" is totally bogus. Insurance companies will survey the demographics of the workforce, estimate how much the company will pay for "free" contraceptives, and then add that to the premium cost of the employer.
How about the individual buying their own damn birth control pills and rubbers?

David R. Graham said...

"Unlike Clinton, Obama really is a true believer in his leftest ideology. Clinton would have truley caved and came out a hero. Obama has plans for this country so will not cave."

Yes, a true anti-humanist, the one straight fiber of his being. And able to hide behind race. An invaluable operator, and knows it, says it.

The church failed to dissolve the humanist cause (educate everyone and have world peace) despite its evident impossibility and nonsense. When the anti-humanist reaction to humanism set in in force following WWII (since the students won't take the education, eliminate/cauterize the students and as many others as possible, excepting ourselves, and have world peace), the church did not see it and got flummoxed by her own internal anti-humanist operators (at Vatcan II and at WCC and NCC for Protestants and Greeks).

Browndog said...

Hoosier Daddy said...

Keep going-

This "one size fits all" Central Planning mandates that even men and infertile women have "free" birth control in their healthcare plans.

wait-it gets worse...

Andy R. said...

Wait, are people arguing that the government shouldn't take actions to help provide birth control because although it is part of health care/health insurance, the government shouldn't be doing anything to provide health care to people?

Because
-"the federal government shouldn't take steps to help provide people with healthcare"
AND
-"the federal government should take steps to help provide people with healthcare but exclude birth control"
are two entirely separate arguments and I thought we were talking about the second one but maybe some of you are arguing for the first one.

Shana said...

@edutcher

"FWIW, the bishops don't seem to be going for it."

Good for them. I'm not Catholic (I'm a conservative Protestant), but I know a camel's nose under the tent when I see it. Don't throw the Catholics to the alligator, people. It'll eat you next.

Alex said...

purple - I love the way you accept every single government intrusion with such equanimity and aplomb. You positively beam with radiance with every new regulation.

Chuck66 said...

The left and right will agree that Obama has a huge God complexe. Quite the ego. "We are the ones we've been waiting for".

I think he has zero respect for his opponents in this issue. I think he really believes that if he can give them a way to save face, they will cave. This "compromise" is no compromise, but he thinks the religous leaders are dumbasses who will fall for this and give up.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Levi

That is an excellent series. It would be nice if liberals would watch it and learn something about their country.

Chip S. said...

AndyR--Why are you unable to admit that your initial position made no sense?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Andy:

There are lots of issues here, they intersect sometimes.

So let's tease them out--with my personal answers:

Should government be in charge of everyone's health care? I.e., deciding what you buy, where, how, and whether you buy?

Nope.

Should government be mandating contraception, sterilization and any sort of abortion, including early, drug-induced abortions, as part of health care?

Nope, subsumed in first item.

Should contraception be tax-subsidized?

No.

Should you have to buy your own pills and condoms?

Yes.

Should employers and employees have choices so they don't have to participate in health plans that include services they find morally objectionable?

Yes.

Should government seek ways to ensure those who don't have health care are able to get it? And those who are truly in need certainly have access?

Yes.

How?

Back to the drawing board. Just don't make government master of all. Present situation shows why.

MayBee said...

Andy- you are gay, right? Why aren't you bothered that Obama doesn't want you to have access to devices that protect your sexual health?

Alex said...

Red Tape Rising in Obama era

More than 50 agencies have a hand in federal regulatory policy, ranging from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Together, these agencies enforce more than 150,000 pages of rules, with purposes and impacts as varied as the agencies themselves.

Really, do we need 150,000 pages of regulations to run this society? Somehow I get through every single day without enforcing a single local, stage or federal regulation and I survive. About the only law I follow is the speed limit.

Alex said...

What does religious freedom mean anymore? One can't even pray in public.

Chip S. said...

Rob said--Isn't it a simple world?

It's a simpleton's world. And Obama's just the guy to run it.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Wait, are people arguing that the government shouldn't take actions to help provide birth control because although it is part of health care/health insurance,


You see, when there is no logic or reason to your beliefs suddenly you start changing the commonly accepted definition of words.

"Birth control" is now "health care"

Which disease is treated by birth control again?

OH hells, bells that doesn't matter!

You and your ilk are so dumb it is scary.

Fr Martin Fox said...

FYI, a statement from the U.S. bishops is due shortly...

LakeLevel said...

When the Catholic Bishops reject this, Obama will counter come back with a new fake compromise: OK, then those companies insuring the Catholic Hospitals etc. give a refund equal to the cost of those contraceptives and abortion pills provided. Now The Church isn't paying see. But of course anyone with any intelligence will see they still would be paying.

Ann? you can see it now can't you? The insurance company has to make a profit in order to stay in existence. All the money comes from the insured. Its basic economics.

Chuck66 said...

Lakelevel....many of us believe that the goal is to force out private insurance companies for a state run program.

Fr Fox...I hope the church leaders see through this. Not just the the money is flowing through a middle man (with the institutions still paying), but this is just the beginning. These efforts will come back again and again and again.

This is why we opposed Obamacare in the first place (one of the reasons).....now the gov't controls our health care and the problem will never end.

Rob said...

For what it is worth, I think I came pretty close (or got to) a personal attack on Andy R. I think there is far too much of that. I think Andy R.'s position is wrong. I hate the left's ideas. However, I don't see what is gained by calling my opponents names or questioning their intelligence. I hate that from the left and right alike. Calling your opponent stupid is just a way to massage your own ego, that is, you are complimenting yourself for greater intelligence. The smartest person can be wrong and the dumbest can be right. Why not focus on ideas?

kimsch said...

MayBee said...

Mike Bruner said...

One interesting detail about this -- if you believe the Obama admin, an insurance company covering contraceptives always SAVES the insurance company money. That is, if the insurance company is for-profit, it would always want the insured to have "free" contraceptives. Is this really the case?

Yeah, that's my question too. And if it does, why would any good business not be already providing free birth control pills/devices?
2/10/12 12:10 PM


The logic is that it's cheaper because it prevents pregnancy in the first place. So there's no need to spend the money on an abortion or G*d forbid, an actual pregnancy: pre-natal visits, ultrasounds, amniocentises, delivery and hospitalization (more for a Cesarian section) and add in 26 years of "pre-paid" health care costs for the resulting child.

I am amazed that they allow us to have children at all.

Alex said...

In the end, does it really matter? Anyone woman wants an abortion pill or abortion can get it. As a single man, I could care less about the whole fucking thing.

Browndog said...

Progressives have always treated reproduction as a disease.

I hope more people can now see--in the plain language that they use-- that the miracle of conception is a disease, and baby in the womb is a growing cancer that must be surgically removed before it contaminates the utopian world they are try to engineer.

Alex said...

Browndog - is conception a miracle if it turns out to be a horribly disfigured or retarded child?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Here's the statement:

New opportunity to dialogue with executive branch
Too soon to tell whether and how much improvement on core concerns
Commitment to religious liberty for all means legislation still necessary


WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

Christopher in MA said...

LakeLevel, I think you almost have it. As I understand the SCOAMF's "compromise," - insurance companies will be required to provide abortifacients for free, so the Church isn't paying for it - he's forcing the Church to lie.

The insurance company jacks up their baseline coverage and says, "hey, the pill is free," but all they've done is ADD the price of the pill INTO the baseline, thus allowing the Church to say she isn't paying for birth control.

But of course, she is. But the insurer and the Church are supposed to accept the situation with a wink and a nod.

It astonishes and infuriates me to consider just how stupid Obama thinks we are. I hope the bishops slam his lying ass over this.

Chuck66 said...

Rob, one reason this is a good blog is that we have both left, right, and misc view points. So yes, I agree with you. Lefties should be welcome here to express their views.

I doubt AA wants a conservative echo chamber (when she herself seems bit liberal) and I don't want a bunch of like minded people just telling us how right we all are. You don't get good debate skills doing that.

Browndog said...

@Alex

Despite being wrong a lot, I think Garage turned out just fine-

(just kidding, Garage--how's the pup?)

All kidding aside, do you have some kind of chart that shows what conditions a human being has that deems them acceptable/unacceptable?

Seeing Red said...

---Browndog - is conception a miracle if it turns out to be a horribly disfigured or retarded child?---


Yes because in your world it would be a miracle the child is born.


Aren't you for diversity?

Alex said...

Seeing Red - I'm for minimizing suffering. That means aborting fetuses with Downs syndrome and other maladies. Why condemn them and their families to a lifetime of suffering? For what?

Seeing Red said...

I still don't get where people think because you have insurance you will get good healthcare.

Canada left a fist-sized hole in a guy's brain for almost a year. And let him go home.

Windsor wasn't getting angioplasty until 2008.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 312   Newer› Newest»