Obama Compromises on Abortion / Santorum against Women in Combat

[S.V. Airlie]

No I only need one to deal with the duo here. Oh Glenn was right, kind of. I expected him to post under his alias: Hardy and not GLENNY..

[Glen Longino]

No I only need one to deal with the duo here. Oh Glenn was right, kind of. I expected him to post under his alias: Hardy and not GLENNY..

You know what's going to happen if you continue to call me "Glenn", "Hardy", and "GLENNY", don't you?
Yep, I'll start calling you "Airhead", "Jaymee", and "Jaimie", and you'll run to Scot and try to get me banned for being rude, won't you?
Be honest now, Won't You?

[S.V. Airlie]

If I had any respect for you, even a little. I might be upset. Until I find a reason to have any respect for you, I still won't. You are and the reason I call you,Laurel and Hardy.. Actually three reasons: you think you are extremely funny which you ain't by a long shot.2) I enjoy envisioning you bopping Laurel's head with the bowler all the time and three, you are so full of your own self importance and worth, you remind me of Hardy as the original Hardy seemed to be on the screen.. and I don't run to Scot. I don't even know where the button is. Running to Scot is more up your line.

[Glen Longino]

Thanks for being honest for once, even if I did have to drag it out of you!

[S.V. Airlie]

I forgot one..you seem to need to work in teams

[Waddie]

That might work thanks. I feel that this machine is like a new chart. Easy to chart a boat and easy to figure out a new/old computer as well. I still feel though that it is up to a poster, or any poster to link what he has written. It is not the responsibility for me or any other person to do that.It would be expected of me to give a link for a thread or post I wrote. In fact it has been more than a suggestion. I could have replied in the manner you did as well and tell the person just to look it up himself.

A link is considered net etiquette. Commonly expected, especially on topics that may have many possible links. A courtesy to your reader. Jamie should just learn that bad manners are de rigueur in the Bilge.

regards,
Waddie

[Nicholas Scheuer]

"Net etiquette"? What a laugh! Oh, excuse me: make that ROTFLMAO!

[wardd]

If I had any respect for you, even a little. I might be upset. Until I find a reason to have any respect for you, I still won't. You are and the reason I call you,Laurel and Hardy.. Actually three reasons: you think you are extremely funny which you ain't by a long shot.2) I enjoy envisioning you bopping Laurel's head with the bowler all the time and three, you are so full of your own self importance and worth, you remind me of Hardy as the original Hardy seemed to be on the screen.. and I don't run to Scot. I don't even know where the button is. Running to Scot is more up your line.

see, see, conservatives have no sense of humor

[wardd]

A link is considered net etiquette. Commonly expected, especially on topics that may have many possible links. A courtesy to your reader. Jamie should just learn that bad manners are de rigueur in the Bilge.

regards,
Waddie

in that case they aren't bad manners

[ljb5]

Has jamie ever posted a link to back up his wild claims, or does he just sit around demanding that other people spoon feed him?

He gives trust fund babies a bad name.

[Glen Longino]

see, see, conservatives have no sense of humor

I don't think Jamie wrote that post!
Notice all the words are spelled correctly...first time I've seen that.
I suspect pefjr wrote it for him.

[wardd]

I don't think Jamie wrote that post!
Notice all the words are spelled correctly...first time I've seen that.
I suspect pefjr wrote it for him.

you're right, it's almost readable, almost

[Ian McColgin]

The reason the "compromise" of "free" service works is actuarial. Health plans that deny contraceptive services face greater medical costs and thus should cost the employers more. But, if all the plans simply price their plans at the same lower rate and just plain include contraceptive services for all the plans those services are "free" because they are not paid directly but rather by expense avoidance.

In a deep and profound way, it's not a compromise because it's the same thing under different terms. But these terms are more accurate than the Roman Catholic Church's term that they were being forced to "pay" for contraceptive services when in fact they were avoiding the higher cost of denying those services.

Clear as mud?

[Donn]

Clear as mud?

"Mud" isn't the word I'd use, but it's the same color.

[Waddie]

in that case they aren't bad manners

Bad manners are bad manners wherever you find them. The Bilge may be infamous for bad manners but that's not an excuse, just an explanation.

regards,
Waddie

[bobbys]

Has jamie ever posted a link to back up his wild claims, or does he just sit around demanding that other people spoon feed him?

He gives trust fund babies a bad name.

.

Dishing on Jamie is not going to earn you a feather in your cap here...

[bobbys]

Beating up on Jamie is like slapping around a 3 year old. It might make uyo feel god for a minute but in the end it just makes more noise. The difference is the 3 year old learns the lesson after a while.

.

We had warrd, then glenn now lbj5 now you circling jamie like a pack of wolves trying and cut out the weak, The truth is your all desperate to "get" someone but in reality its pathetic and you all look small and petty.

You have not done anything except jump up and down and rant yet somehow you believe your a Mental Giant..

I can only speak for myself here but when you start laying out well thought out arguments without name calling is when i take you serious .

So far you have not earned your bones and are resorting to piling on

If Warrd and Jamie go at it I say nothing as they egg each other on. The rest of you are Pathetic.

By the way WTF are you talking about slapping around a 3 year old and feeling good about it? Is that how you teach 3 year olds?

[S.V. Airlie]

see, see, conservatives have no sense of humor

Hey I'll mention one who knows me and who is liberal enough to pass muster with you. Why don't you ask him Laurel? Try Ian first, you should note we many not agree with everything on every subject but that doesn't mean we are not friends and that I have no sense of humor.Actually renaming you Laurel is pretty funny. Firstly. it more than fits you.

[S.V. Airlie]

Bobbys I do not consider me a three year old..How else could I have a squad such as you mentioned in groups or by 2s to go after me? I think I hold my own against them quite well.

[ljb5]

It was a simple question: Does Jamie ever provide links for any of the stuff he says?

He demands that other people provide links for him.

He gets upset if people don't provide the links that he demands.

But how often does he provide links?

[Keith Wilson]

When is a compromise not a compromise. When you can tell an employer that they are no longer required to include birth control in their health plan, but their health plan must still offer it for free. Isn't this effectively the same, we are just playing with the words a little. Maybe they are just trying to insulate themselves from an easy Supreme Court Challenge, but I don't really see a "compromise" in this. Can someone please explain to me how this is a compromise?

I'll explain. It works like this: Obama announces that heath insurance will have to cover birth control, with exceptions for churches. The Catholic bishops go ballistic, and call down the curses on heaven on the vile heretic. Now understand that the bishops are to the right of most other Catholic organizations on this issue, and far, far to the right of almost all Catholic women who are young enough to get pregnant. A considerable majority of the country approves of Obama's decision - about 65-35 depending on the poll, including a sizable majority of Catholics. The only major group that doesn't approve is white evangelicals, who mostly think Obama's the Antichrist anyway and would never vote for him.

It being an election year in the middle of a hard-fought Republican contest for the nomination, and the Republicans engaged in a "more-reactionary-than-thou" race to the far right, the predictable thing happens; they all pick this up as a convenient stick to beat Obama. Santorum, the truest of the True Believers, who doesn't support birth control at all and has a singular talent for putting things in the most divisive way possible, says this could lead to the guillotine (yes, he really did). Gingrich, who's desperate to revive his campaign, bloviates even harder. Romney, who thought he would have the nomination sewn up and be starting his pivot back to the center about now, rolls his eyes at the idiots on the far right, figures kissing one more toad is a small price to pay for a shot at the presidency, and rants about how this is the death of religious freedom.

By now people are beginning to take notice. It's all over the news. Young women (and some not so young) are saying "WTH!?" The Republicans want to take away birth control coverage? " And the Catholic Bishops and Marco Rubio oblige them by claiming that the religious exemption should cover any employer who has any moral objection, even a Taco Bell (yes, they said that), or that birth control shouldn't ever be covered . Obama waits. The rhetoric escalates. Obama waits some more. Almost all young women, and quite a few young men, start to wonder about the sanity of Republicans.

So yesterday Obama announces a compromise which won't force any religious institution to pay for birth control coverage - but in its effect on real women wanting birth control, is exactly the same as the previous policy. Insurance companies love it, because covering contraception saves them money. (Birth control is much cheaper than abortions or babies.) The halfway reasonable Catholic Organizations - Catholics United, the Catholic Heath Association, and well as NARAL and Planned Parenthood, all think it's fine. The Catholic Bishops fulminate (I think they must have several courses on fulminating in seminary). Anyone who's really only concerned about religious organizations having to pay for birth control can applaud it - and those who object are now exposed as really wanting to restrict access to birth control, a highly unpopular position.

And the end result is access to birth control for just about everybody, and a big political win for Obama. The Republicans have made themselves look like troglodytes. You'd think that somebody would have realized that opposing birth control, in 2012 fer chrissake, is not a winning issue. Every woman under 50 in the US will remember in November that the Republicans want to take away her birth control coverage. If the right wing had any sense at all, they'd realize they've been completely outmaneuvered and change the subject - but of course, they won't. It's another example of Republcan suicide by ever-increasing extremism.

[ccmanuals]

well said Keith. Sums it right up.

[George Jung]

Politics is every bit a game of chess. Amazing to me how often 'the players' don't realize you have to know what you're going to do at least five plays out (and how your opponent is going to move, as well). Big disappointment; we need to elect more chess players!

[George Jung]

Judge, it wouldn't surprise me at all if President Obama just finished up his own 'five play' game to Checkmate.

[S.V. Airlie]

lj, my good man, it is the responsibility of the original poster to supply a link. just everyone has to do his work for him right? I don't think so. My responsibility is to my linking what I post. I know that taking responsibility is a new concept for you but..

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Nice piece, Keith. Only in this day and age I would submit that instead of "WTH", women said "WTF".

[ljb5]

And by what Constitutional authority does he think Washington can dictate the terms of an insurance policy?

I don't see it as being very different than the federal minimum wage.

The argument is that it's in the national interest to have certain minimum standards in employment and compensation.

You might not agree with the concept, but it seems to be generally accepted law.

[Keith Wilson]

I would submit that instead of "WTH" . . .

That's precisely what my daughter said, in fact.

[S.V. Airlie]

First there was one, then two, now three and people call me a three year old. Fine I must be a smart one at only three, considering the opposition..

[ljb5]

Providing a link is a courtesy.

Being able to think and find information for yourself is a virtue.

Just because you have grown accustomed to other people spoon feeding information to you does not mean they are obligated to serve you.

It is still your responsibility to make sure you are well informed.

[John Smith]

How hard is it to find MSN by yourself, SV Airlie. You ought to realize by now that I almost NEVER provide links; I really don't much care whether anyone here believes me or not.

This is an area where no link is necessary. Anyone not aware of the solution is either not paying attention, or playing dumb.

[ljb5]

This is your answer to the question, "by what Constitutional authority?"? I take it, then, that you can find no such authority. You're not alone!

I'd say: Article 1, Section 8: 'To provide for the general welfare....'

The Necessary and Proper clause speaks, rather vaguely, of powers vested in any "Department or Officer."

There is an implicit acknowledgment that there are functions and duties not fully specified in the Constitution, but rather left to Congress and the president to flesh out.

I believe the vagueness of the powers of Congress is deliberate. (Only about 18 are actually stated). The intent of the constitution was never to make all of our laws upfront, but rather to create a system for the centuries in which new laws could be created as needed.

The framers gave Congress broad (but not unlimited) power to create nearly any law that they wanted. Why? Because Congress represents the People... and the framers of the constitution believed that the people should have power. To limit Congress would be to limit the power of the people.

Restricting the power of the nation to just the things mentioned by a few men in 1787 would be like appointing themselves Kings for Eternity. They didn't want that, but rather wanted the people (through their representatives) to have that authority.

[John Smith]

Rick Santorum never served in the military, but I heard him on TV belittling the professionalism of the troops.

He suggested that men in the military would not be able to follow orders or complete the mission if there were women around.

I've never been in the military either, but I understand that combat troops are extremely disciplined and take their duty and professionalism quite seriously.

Only Republican presidential candidates get to say they can't do their jobs.

Among the things I get tired of from the right is their high praise for the job the military did in the two wars Bush got us into while complaining that Clinton had so dimished it that it couldn't function. That and the "Government can't create jobs" connected to, "elect me and I'll create jobs."

And people take them seriously?

[John Smith]

It will be interesting to learn if the President contacted the Catholic church to work out a compromise. I'm doubting that is the case. If so a Catholic representative probably would have been available to make comments.

Overall imagine with the current idea the President will remain appearing as a bully and unconcerned about religious teachings and freedom.

Thought this was a nice article I read this morning on the current event.

"Insuring the Freedom of Conscience"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...of-conscience/

Has anyone considered this is exactly where he wanted to be, and he gave the right "bait" which they took?

It's certainly shown the extemist views of the Republican candidates.

[John Smith]

1. Birth controll pills are also used for other medical issues besides as a contraceptive.

2. Catholics as well as other doctrines that encourage large families were not out of any religious issue, but as a means to increase the church's population, to increase their numbers in society.

3. I did not see or hear any compromise whatsoever. Women will have access to health care regardless of who the employer is. We have a large religious publishing "company" here in town, everything that the Assemblies Of God publishes for their world wide "stuff" is printed here. They hire non-AGer's. Those employees should have every right to health services.

4. The "compromise" is the most reasonable alternative. Foremost it ensures services will be provided and it gives the religious righties the preception that they are not paying for it. I say that because if you have any idea of how insurances premiums are devised, all costs will be considered when providing any coverage. Specifically, they will not have a payment for the specific coverage, but it will be considered as a group when establishing premiums. Since each industry and each group is individually underwritten, the underwriters will be factoring in such services when presenting a bid to a religious based entity and probably won't when a bid is designed for Bass Pro for example (not that Bass Pro has great benefits, LOL).


As to the abortion issues, which was not part of this matter, I think that any rapist shoud only select victims based on their pro-life position, rape them and let their peers tell them that they need to carry a baby to term, adopt it out or keep it for the constant reminder of that day of creation. I think we men have really no business in this issue, we will never have our health, life or mental state put in such a circumstance, so why should we dictate the direction of such an issue?

Very nice post.

I'd like to add to it the question of when is a business of any kind a person. The constitution gives each of us, as individual people, the right to practice our religion. Someone said, "I'll believe a corporation is a purpose when one gets locked up." I think that applies to churches. The consitution gives the right of freedom of religion to the people, not the church. Any business that employs people should follow all the same labor laws any other business is required to follow.

The Church has every right to preach that birth control is wrong, but denying access goes far beyond preaching. It is denying the individual the very "free will" the Church says God gives us.

[John Smith]

But the church isn't isn't withholding contraceptives - their employees are free to purchase them privately, but they do not want to sponsor a health plan that provides it for their employee's. How would that be any be any different than them deciding not to cover injuries do to various high-risk sports? The employer decides to offer health insurance and what type of plan to offer. The employee decides to work there based on the job requirements, salary and fringe including the presence and type of insurance.

The employee is not compelled to work there and if they choose to work there, they are not forbidden form obtaining an abortion or using birth control, they just cannot use their insurance to pay for it.

Total nonsense. The employee chooses to work there because he needs a job. All employers should be required to comply with all labor law, which this is. Birth control is expensive, but it's cheaper than pregnancy, which will result from lack of birth control.

More birth control leads to fewer abortions and fewer kids raised at taxpayer expense.

Why is a church any more a "person" than is GE?

[John Smith]

Might be true. However, when a poster bring of a thread like this, one usually posts a link..I assume that he doesn't have to here anymore I was thinking about the Dem gov. (NC) who, during a talk the other day stated that Congress should not have to run during the next election cycle in order to assist in breaking the road block in congress. Her aids just said that she was just joking though.As I have a new, well old. computer, I have not learned how to post links yet. I'm not familiar with the program as I had an old Mac before As I couldn't do so, I didn't post it then when I first saw it.
ps. How many formites either ask for proof if not a link on practically every thread.Just start counting up the ones that do or that have in the past.

I think it depends. I've asked for links at times. If someone posted about Donald Trump demanding obama produce his birth certificate, would a link be necessary?

[wardd]

.

We had warrd, then glenn now lbj5 now you circling jamie like a pack of wolves trying and cut out the weak, The truth is your all desperate to "get" someone but in reality its pathetic and you all look small and petty.

You have not done anything except jump up and down and rant yet somehow you believe your a Mental Giant..

I can only speak for myself here but when you start laying out well thought out arguments without name calling is when i take you serious .

So far you have not earned your bones and are resorting to piling on

If Warrd and Jamie go at it I say nothing as they egg each other on. The rest of you are Pathetic.

By the way WTF are you talking about slapping around a 3 year old and feeling good about it? Is that how you teach 3 year olds?

i'll speak for myself

jamie started in on me and i responded to his condescending and dismissive attacks, he has passive aggression down to a science

as far as his being ganged up on, it's more a case of his attacks on those individually and collectively, ie the laural and hardy attack

first look to jamie for the root of the problem

[ljb5]

Ah yes, the statist's fantasy catch-all phrase that empowers them to do absolutely anything! Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

I think I've found our fundamental difference.

You think the Constitution is "statist," but the Founding Fathers intended it to empower the people.

The core idea of the Constitution is to give people the power (through their elected representatives) to make laws.

The real "statist" argument would be if we said the people's representatives were powerless.

[S.V. Airlie]

This is an area where no link is necessary. Anyone not aware of the solution is either not paying attention, or playing dumb.

Even Norman posts a link usually when most of what he posts is from Huffypoop and most people know that this is usually his source. But spin away, find your excuses for not putting in links. It's okay if you are too lazy to do so or excpect others to do that themselves. It's actually a courtesy but no matter. Have a good day cheers.

[wardd]

I've had several major health insurance policies in my life, some group policies, some individual. I''ve NEVER had a policy that covered birth control. We paid for it ourselves. It's not expensive....whoopee. Why does the President want to make a big deal of this all of a sudden? And by what Constitutional authority does he think Washington can dictate the terms of an insurance policy?

The Supremes are going to blow this whole turkey back to where it belongs.

when you're poor everything is a big deal

in a perverse way i hope you are right and the court blows it away

be careful for what you wish for

[John Smith]

I don't know with certainty, but I doubt the plan would prevent a pre-menopausal woman from taking birth control pills to treat her symptoms, I think they just did not want to fund a health plan that paid for birth control. I have not yet seen an inalienable right to private health insurance that pays for the expense of birth control. It is an employer/employee matter.

That's what you would like it to be. The concept here is actually between the insurance company and the insured. The right of freedom of religion in the constitution is a right of the people. The people can choose what religion to belong to and the extent to which they choose to practice its dictates.

What laws that our society has in place would you allow churches or their affiliates to ignore. Minimum wage? If birth control is available via your health insurance, you still have the perfect right NOT to use it based on YOUR religious convictions. You cannot, however, force YOUR religious convictions on your employees or your church members.

This issue is not as complex as many would have you believe. It has been resolved by doing what I believe Obama always intended to do. The health insurance carrier actually prefers, I'd think, to cover birth control as, long term, it saves them money. In the meanwhile it has shown the women of America where the right stands on their health issues; shown a very bright light on a subject that might have stayed in the shadows. And the republicans are on the wrong side of this issue.

Someone made a comment yesterday that Santorum woulod be a perfect president; in the 13th century. I think that makes the point perfectly.

The right is simply against individual rights: they would reinstate DADT. They still oppose same sex marriage. They oppose contraception. They oppose the right to abort a pregnancy. They also oppose help for the single mom. They oppose Social Security and Medicare. They want to retroactively change the requirements for registering to vote.

In spite of the widely announced fear, Obama has not come after anyone's guns. Or any other right I can think of. The "smaller, less intrusive" government the Republicans keep touting sounds like a real nightmare to me.

[wardd]

First there was one, then two, now three and people call me a three year old. Fine I must be a smart one at only three, considering the opposition..

names or links please

[John Smith]

Helpful hint: The simple way to posta link to to jot down the link appearing at the top of the page you are viewing, then simply retyping that line of characters in the text you write here. The line of characters turns blue in the text automatically. From there is is a simple progression to copy and paste the link.

You don't just click on it so it highlights, then hit control "C" come here and hit control V?

[Keith Wilson]

Well, "Judge", the real judges have disagreed with you for the better part of a century. Like it or not, your very narrow interpretation of the powers of the federal government is not the one we operate under.

However, the point here is not the power of the federal government; that's merely a distracting tactic, quickly abandoned with the governmental is doing something that those on the right approve of. The point is that there are religious groups which want to restrict access to birth control.

[John Smith]

Yes they do, however, the separation of church and state would make it a little sticky for them to mandate that a church provide coverage that is morally objectionable to their beliefs. There are several precedents that would support this. Though no-one can be completely certain of the outcome of a Supreme Court case, the church is more likely to win on this matter.

Complying with the law does not make it a constitutionally legitimate law. It simply means that they don't want to spend the money and time to challenge it or possibly that they do not believe they are legally entitled to challenge it. You are laso saying that a little more than half the states require it which means that a little less than half allow it to be excluded from a health plan.

Depends how you interprest separation of church and state. If the state allows a religion to be exempt from a law, then the state is supporting that religion, and I would see that as unconstitutional.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Sure! But I'm starting with the basics. Let him work up to that. Personally, I use "copy" and "paste" on my right-click button. I hav e an aversion to too much "control".

[John Smith]

That might work thanks. I feel that this machine is like a new chart. Easy to chart a boat and easy to figure out a new/old computer as well. I still feel though that it is up to a poster, or any poster to link what he has written. It is not the responsibility for me or any other person to do that.It would be expected of me to give a link for a thread or post I wrote. In fact it has been more than a suggestion. I could have replied in the manner you did as well and tell the person just to look it up himself.

I just posted this, but I'll do it again directly to you to improve your chance of reading it.

If you have something on screen, be it an article or a video, you can click on the link that is open, that is the article or video, and it will highlight itself. Then hit control and "c" at the same time. When you come back to post here, hit control and "v" at the same time and the link will post. If it is a youtube video, you can first click on the little film strip (two to the left of the ABC check mark at the extreme right) and it will let you put your link into an imbed form.

I hope that is clear.

[John Smith]

So if a school is Religiously sponsored, and accepts federal money, are you saying the CAN withhold birth control from their health plans? Obviously, the acceptance of federal dollars is often predicated on certain requirements, and acceptance of that money is volitional and conditional on the terms.


Breaking of the law for religious reasons, and the creation of a law which violates religious beliefs are two different issues.

for example:

That's a different issue. Any company can fire anyone for any reason, generally speaking, unless there is a contract that requires cause.

If someone isn't doing the job adequately any employer can fire that employee.

This case is different.

[John Smith]

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to who said this (just fill in the blank)?

I seem to recall many people saying this, or very similar, over the years, and many were republicans. I'd not be surprised if Reagan was among them, but I'd be guessing if I put a name to that specific quote.