Obama Compromises on Abortion / Santorum against Women in Combat

[John Smith]

What's amazing is that Obama even fell into this public controversy trap in the first place. It was so easily avoided from the get-go. Just another example of political ineptitude.

I'm not so sure that he didn't set the trap and the right took the bait.

Once again he looks like the adult willing to find a compromise.

[John Smith]

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.

"expensive" is subjective.

[John Smith]

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

The powers of the Federal government are specifically enumerated. Further, the tenth amendment reminds us that any powers not so enumerated are denied to the Fed and reserved to the states and the people. Can you show us the language in the Constitution that authorizes the Fed to dictate employee benefits? If no such language can be found (which is the case), then those issues are left to the states within the confines of the various state Constitutions. (John Smith, take note)

That dog hunts very well. It is why the government can build roads. Promoting the general welfare is one of the very specific reasons the consitution was written.

[wardd]

If this were a discussion about a program for the poor, your comment might be relevant. This is a discussion about EMPLOYEE benefits.

and there are no working poor in your country?

[John Smith]

You are correct that strict adherence to the Constitution was abandoned long ago. The vast majority of what the Fed does these days cannot be justified within the bounds of the Constitution. Most of it relies on the "general welfare" fantasy. If that language meant what you think it means, the rest of the document would have been unnecessary.

Religious groups have every right to refuse to provide birth control to their employees. My secular employer does. All of my secular employers in the past have. 'tis a clear violation of the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion to believe otherwise. But, as you said, adherence to the Constitution has become a distant memory. I'm sure the Fed will continue to use its power to do as it damn well pleases.

I don't follow. The rights given by the constitution are given to the people, not the church. YOU have the right to attend church and practice your religion; up to a point. We don't allow animal sacrifice as a religious practice, do we?

When the church employees people it is now an employer as well as a church, and as an employer is subject to the same labor laws all other employers are. Is it your opinion that one employed by a church cannot complain to the labor board or call in OSHA?

What labor laws would you let a church violate?

[John Smith]

Insurance premiums are a lot more expensive than pills. The more you expect your insurance policy to provide, the more profit and administrative costs you'll add on to the basic costs of those items. There ain't no free lunch. You wanna pay more for breakfast every day? Have an insurance company "pay for it".

If you're the insurance companies, birth control pills are a lot cheaper than pregancies and the medical needs of a child for 20 plus years.

[ljb5]

Insurance premiums are a lot more expensive than pills. The more you expect your insurance policy to provide, the more profit and administrative costs you'll add on to the basic costs of those items. There ain't no free lunch. You wanna pay more for breakfast every day? Have an insurance company "pay for it".

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

A monthly magazine subscription is cheaper than buying off the newsstand every month.

Sometimes, you really do save money by buying in bulk and paying upfront.

Insurance companies are generally happy to pay for preventative medicine and early diagnosis. The save a lot of money that way.

[Keith Wilson]

Generally, policies which cover birth control are cheaper than those that don't. Guess why.

This is not a federal powers issue at all, unless one subscribes to the "The Judge's" idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution, which the best legal minds of the past 80 years or so have rejected. It's an attempt by certain religious groups to restrict access to birth control; the fuss around the issue has made this perfectly clear. This is not a very popular position, particularly among women of childbearing age, and it certainly will not help the Republicans in November.

[Sam F]

Nick, are women exempt from the military draft?
If so - why?

[Sam F]

Hogwash. If I fail to buy your lunch, am I restricting your access to lunch? The idea that access to birth control has been restricted in any way, shape, or form in the United States of America is absurd. The issue is about whether or not the Fed has the Constitutional authority to force a church, or anyone else for that matter, to provide it.

Darn right! Birth prevention is restricted! It's restricted if I never go to a Walmart - which devotes about 6 feet of shelf space to OTC contraceptives. Or if I don't use a gas station or restaurant bathroom which have condom vending machines, or... well never mind going to a doctor. Sheesh who does that anymore?
Well see? That's how restricted contraception is in the US.
Shame Shame Shame.
WE DEMAND FREE home delivery of contraceptives without even asking for them!!!!

[wardd]

Hogwash. If I fail to buy your lunch, am I restricting your access to lunch? The idea that access to birth control has been restricted in any way, shape, or form in the United States of America is absurd. The issue is about whether or not the Fed has the Constitutional authority to force a church, or anyone else for that matter, to provide it.

don't follow the news much do you

ever hear of personhood bills?

[S.V. Airlie]

Sam F, you keep forgetting that the packages that are mailed, have to be unmarked and wrapped in heavy brown paper. Privacy issues you know...

[Wavewacker]

Let's say some church decides to build apartments for the poor, providing affordable housing. Should they be required to follow building codes? If government funds will subsidize the project, does the government have the right to require certain standards, amenities, energy standards? What if the government required double pain glass, insulated doors and fire alarms? Will those hired to build the apartment be covered under OSHA regulations?

While that church may make the argument that they are fulfilling a religious doctrine, it isn't exactly sitting and praying in church, they have entered into the construction business, in competition with non-church builders.

So, you think that all other contractors should follow the law and allow the church to do the same thing and have an economic and regulatory advantage? Is that really freedom of religion or is it using religion to circumvent what society has accepted as being best for the whole of society?

All other hospitals and universities have to follow the rules, but a church affiliated entitty should be exempt?

That is nothing but envoking church doctrine in any area they wish to participate in, health, education, wlefare activities, construction, even manufacturing various items. And, by such activities in related or affiliated endevors they would then be extending church doctrine in other areas of society.

The problem I see is that the GD fundies have decided that everyone needs to believe in what they do and are willing to force their views on society. Frankly, if I wanted to live under religious rule, I'd move to Iran.

I'm sure that if including contraceptives was an issue to cover nuns working and living in the church, exceptions would be made, but that is not the case.

We have a religious publishing company here for the AG church and they employee non-church members. So should they do without health care due to the religious views of the employer? How would that be freedom of religion?

Holy rollers need to understand that they can't dictate their beliefs on others when they walk out the doors of their church, Christ never suggested the vindictive tactics used by these modern day evangilistic power seeking idiots.

Pay unto Ceasar what is Ceaser's! Follow the laws of man, if it is the law, abide by it!

[ljb5]

The issue is about whether or not the Fed has the Constitutional authority to force a church, or anyone else for that matter, to provide it.

Well said.

This has nothing to do with morality or religion.

The only relevant question is: 'Does the government have the authority to create minimum standards for workplace compensation and benefits?'

The answer to that, quite obviously, is "Yes."

Case closed.

[Wavewacker]

Santorum is only stating what most military guys already know. Having women in harm's way has not been acceptable for centuries as women have been required to populate the society. Men have always, instinctively protected women.

I was agains having women in support elements as they would end up as targets as much as combat arms types. Nurses in Viet Nam were shot at more than someof the men. Killing a woman is more demoralizing to the unit.

Then, I met some women in uniform that I would much rather have gone to a fire fight with than many of the guys.

Women have already been wounded and killed in "support" activities. While many of them are a pain in the tail to put up with in a military environment, they are there and should be able to serve as they may be fit. It's the guys who need to change attitudes, seeing them as peers in all respects, but I do understand how hard that can be, especially if there is any type of attraction, which is just human nature.

I'm kinda surprised Santorum even knew of that point of view having never served a day in the military. BTW, if we had a draft and everyone served at least a couple years, we'd be alot better off, IMO.

[Durnik]

BTW, if we had a draft and everyone served at least a couple years, we'd be alot better off, IMO.

It might be best if everyone were to serve their country for some term. But, the military should not be the only, or even the best, option. Service can wear many coats. The problem has been the same which eventually prevented the Army Corp of Engineers from working on bridges etc.. "Business", in their greed, saw them as 'competition', to be eliminated. This will change when Business no longer makes decisions for people.. Oh, that's right - Citizens United.. Never mind..

enjoy
bobby

[ljb5]

It might be best if everyone were to serve their country for some term. But, the military should not be the only, or even the best, option. Service can wear many coats. The problem has been the same which eventually prevented the Army Corp of Engineers from working on bridges etc.. "Business", in their greed, saw them as 'competition', to be eliminated. This will change when Business no longer makes decisions for people.. Oh, that's right - Citizens United.. Never mind..

enjoy
bobby

When I was in grad school, a lot of my coworkers were from Korea where national service is mandatory. Naturally, most Koreans serve in the army, but my coworkers' service was in research and education.

So basically, they got to come to the United States, do cutting-edge research, earn PhDs, then go back to Korea and get jobs in national research labs or major universities helping to develop new technologies for industry to use.

It was a pretty sweet deal for them and also works out very well for the students and industry of Korea.

Sadly, in this country, a lot of people belittle higher education.

It's so bad, in this country, that most universities and high-tech companies struggle to find enough Americans to fill their positions.

[wardd]

Wavewacker;3303425]Santorum is only stating what most military guys already know. Having women in harm's way has not been acceptable for centuries as women have been required to populate the society. Men have always, instinctively protected women.[/B]

I was agains having women in support elements as they would end up as targets as much as combat arms types. Nurses in Viet Nam were shot at more than someof the men. Killing a woman is more demoralizing to the unit.

Then, I met some women in uniform that I would much rather have gone to a fire fight with than many of the guys.

Women have already been wounded and killed in "support" activities. While many of them are a pain in the tail to put up with in a military environment, they are there and should be able to serve as they may be fit. It's the guys who need to change attitudes, seeing them as peers in all respects, but I do understand how hard that can be, especially if there is any type of attraction, which is just human nature.

I'm kinda surprised Santorum even knew of that point of view having never served a day in the military. BTW, if we had a draft and everyone served at least a couple years, we'd be alot better off, IMO.

many societies when in great peril have had women in combat, even in recent times

[Wavewacker]

I doubt that any society today would be in peril if they allowed women to fight.

Agreed, I really don't like seeing a Commander-In-Chief that never served a day of active duty, while you can be advised as to tradition, you may not really get it. But I'd have to say Obama gets it based on his record so far with his activities.

And absolutely, not everyone can serve in a military role, we have other organizations and plenty of government agencies that would give citizens an opportunity to serve and better yet, understand how government works.

Service could equate to an educational window, especially if service would include teachers. It's sad to see how Americans value higher education compared to other countries. Seems we define higher education as testing out of the 12th grade, especially in prisons. There are only so many seats in any classroom and if they can not be filled with our kids, they should be sold at a very high premium instead of given away.

[Durnik]

When I was in grad school, a lot of my coworkers were from Korea where national service is mandatory. Naturally, most Koreans serve in the army, but my coworkers' service was in research and education.

So basically, they got to come to the United States, do cutting-edge research, earn PhDs, then go back to Korea and get jobs in national research labs or major universities helping to develop new technologies for industry to use.

It was a pretty sweet deal for them and also works out very well for the students and industry of Korea.

Sadly, in this country, a lot of people belittle higher education.

It's so bad, in this country, that most universities and high-tech companies struggle to find enough Americans to fill their positions.

Indeed! Also, sadly, they belittle helping others & the general concept of cooperation. Our business' have an adversarial relationship with their 'backbone', as it were.. namely, the employees.. & even employees are 'setup' to be adversarial towards each other. This is something our educational system could change by the simple expedient of encouraging cooperative class work.. with a part of every students grade being on cooperation. Instead of a 'be better & help' attitude, we encourage one of 'beat the other guy down'. So damn stupid! Penney wise & dollar foolish.. Like burning the walls to stay warm or eating your fingers to stay alive..

Meanwhile, conservative, rural America continues to yell "we're the best", as their 'leaders' suck them dry & sends their livelihood to other shores..

I was introduced to a new song yesterday (here on the forum)..
"(Living in the) Wasteland of the free".. So true.. So sad..

and to think the song is 6 years old! Where the he77 have I been! ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Nicholas Scheuer]

What "draft"?

[Sam F]

Nick, are women exempt from the military draft?
If so - why?

Yes
Tradition which is generally a stupid reason to do anything in the first place and a stupider reason to keep on Doing it.

Great! I'll be sure to tell my daughters how stupid they are to expect not to be drafted.
Yeah, that'll go over real well.

[Sam F]

What "draft"?

Hummm... never heard of the legal requirement to sign up for Selective Service System, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

[Sam F]

Nick, are women exempt from the military draft?
If so - why?

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Hello? The USA doesn't HAVE a military draft!

[John Smith]

It might be best if everyone were to serve their country for some term. But, the military should not be the only, or even the best, option. Service can wear many coats. The problem has been the same which eventually prevented the Army Corp of Engineers from working on bridges etc.. "Business", in their greed, saw them as 'competition', to be eliminated. This will change when Business no longer makes decisions for people.. Oh, that's right - Citizens United.. Never mind..

enjoy
bobby

I can't picture Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney not finding ways to not get drafted. One of the other lines we blur is between the two groups of people who got deferments: those who supported the war and those who didn't.

[Sam F]

Hello? The USA doesn't HAVE a military draft!

Hello! What's the Selective Service System for?
You mean to tell me that the entire bureaucracy is just for fun?

[Hollingsworth]

Women in Combat is a mouthful. So I've shortened it to Wombat.

[Durnik]

I can't picture Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney not finding ways to not get drafted. One of the other lines we blur is between the two groups of people who got deferments: those who supported the war and those who didn't.

Aye, the 'fortunate son'.. The trick is to eliminate deferments.. Either a hitch in the military or a term on a social project. _Everyone_ should serve.. Even the spoiled rich kids. Not that this is likely in the present age of 'entitlements', meaning 'entitlements of the rich'..

enjoy
bobby

[Durnik]

Nick, are women exempt from the military draft?
If so - why?

Originally Posted by Blowtorch

Yes
Tradition which is generally a stupid reason to do anything in the first place and a stupider reason to keep on Doing it.

Great! I'll be sure to tell my daughters how stupid they are to expect not to be drafted.
Yeah, that'll go over real well.

As usual, you are being obtuse.. or are you really so ig'nrent as to not know he was referring to societies stupidity in using tradition as an over riding reason?

bobby

[SMARTINSEN]

Nick, are women exempt from the military draft?
If so - why?

For the same reason that they are precluded from the priesthood?

[Durnik]

>For the same reason that they are precluded from the priesthood?

Ba - da - Bing! ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Durnik]

Of course, the _real_ reason women are not in combat is the men are (rightfully so) afraid of them

Mr. Kipling said it best

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Look at that sweet, innocent face..



pay no attention to the rifle in her hands..

enjoy
bobby