Michelle and i are also women. We don't count?
What is taking place now is part of the political process. The process will change once we have a nominee. Clinton and Obama went after each other as well. Obama will go after who ever is nominated but by then the attacks will be old news. When we have a nominee the narrative will be Obama's policies and record.
Johnw: Every woman I have talked to takes this as a woman's rights issue .... they don't perceive it as a threat to our constitutional rights and frankly I don't think we can make them care.
You really should expand your universe of women. (I take it you don't count written discussion as "talking" to? Because I don't believe that, and neither does MacKenzie Andersen [who is not related to me]).
Perhaps find a few who have read and appreciate the freedoms our founders fought for and that our children fight for today.
Frankly, it is up to you -- and to each of us -- to educate women like the ones you know about the dangers of allowing progressives to frame false questions as the debate.
As a postscript, and apropos of nothing in this discussion, it seems to have turned out that it was not the middle eastern terrorists who hate us because of our freedom. It's a large percentage of our elected officials, their czars, flunkies, and blind followers.
There's some scary stuff on this thread. Let's all just walk away...there's nothing so see here.
For the reasons so ably explained by TJC, I try to use the phrase "medical care financing" rather than health insurance.
Mid-coast Mainer asks about vasectomies. The obvious answer is, in my world "who pays for it" would be a question left to the willing parties to whatever agreement exists: the cunsumer; the financing party; the employer if it's a workplace benefit.
As a woman, am I empowered by legislation that implies I need Daddy or Mommy to force my boss to give me free stuff that might save me - at most - the cost of my daily morning coffee?
This is not about empowering women. It's about shaking down the boss so politicians can get votes. It's about holding a gun to the Bishop's head so Laura law student can have the pill without giving up her Iphone.
Michelle.... I know and work with plenty of women from all walks of life ...lawyers, doctors, business women , teachers, nurses, church goers, crafts people,... and just good old everyday people who have good old mundane jobs....
I'm just saying that I haven't heard one speak of this as a freedom of religion issue.... I'm sure that there are women who frame it as you and Mackenzie do and I'm NOT saying that is I wrong . And when you bring the freedom of religion angle into the conversation..... they may acknowledge it ,BUT the women's health &rights issue take precedence.
Let me ask you a question ,because I'm sure that you know women who see this as a women's rights ,women's health issue. How much luck have you had changing their minds? Enough to undo the damage that has been done.... by rush?
Would it be a good thing if they saw it as a threat to our constitutional rights , absolutely.Will they ever or soon enough to make obama change direction ? Doubtful.
The democrats smoke an mirror machine is in perfect working order." What? There's something wrong with the economy, borders, fuel prices......No look at this ........"
Win the war then we can change the rules......just like obama has done....
Good Lord, John, if you can't approach these women on the basis of their knowledge of the United States constitution, then how about approaching it as a national deficit issue. We have all heard Sibelius materialistic rational that she is programing into the national mind set, but for heaven's sake ask these unthinking lemmings why they cannot afford to buy their own contraceptives and why they think it is a "right" that the federal government cover the cost? Have you asked them to speculate on how this federal mandate might affect the health insurance premiums- or is thinking about the affect on anything else except their own Man given "rights" beyond their mental capacities?
I forgot- It's not the federal government paying for the free contraceptives - its just the federal government mandating that private enterprise give a product away for free. That's probably too complex an issue for these women to understand until it is they who are the ones that the federal government orders to give their products or services away for free.
For someone who is advocating that we maintain silence on this issue, you seem to be talking to an lot of people about it.
And then there is the issue of where these free contraceptives are manufactured. A quick search found this article about a recall of contraceptives manufactured in India. Since the product is to be given away for free it would be consistent with its sales price to have it manufactured in countries with virtual slave labor, such as China, a country where the government institutes a one child per family policy.
With free contraceptives being distributed in the United States but manufactured else where- here again we have a security vulnerability, especially when we also have The Muslim Brotherhood who sees Israel as the little Satan and the USA as the big Satan You would not even need to conduct an overt war to eliminate the infidel culture- just swap the free birth control pills being distributed by mandate of the US government with sterility pills. It could be our government- or it could be an other organization. A pill is a pill. hey all look alike . No need to resort to genocide. Mass cultural sterilization is also effective.
Mass sterilization of western women might be seen as an ideal solution for those cultures that believe that the entire world should be ruled by Shariah Law, which is notorious for its abusive treatment of women. A United States government organizing the mass distribution of "contraceptives". given away for free and justified as necessary for "women's rights", not only represents the rhetoric diametrically opposed to Shariah Law, but it also offers a venue for mass distribution for a more diabolical freebie.
I imagine most Christians would refuse to follow a federal mandate to kneel down and worship Satan each morning. (It is unfortunate that it is only "most Christians," but it is. Another topic, I suppose, for another time.)
Perhaps many non- and anti-Christians would even undertand that most Christians would not follow such a law.
But how about a federal mandate to allow people into their living rooms each morning to worship Satan?
Surely, the government might say, this is an American rights issue. All people should be allowed to worship as they choose. So it would be unAmerican to deny them the right to do so in your living room.
Of course, many people don't understand that the word "worship" is not a word which is confined to Sunday mornings. Worship is an all-day, every day act. It is not just praying, but living the Word. That means, of course, not participating in sin. Not yours, and not anyone else's.
Yes, yes, I know that you might point out the failings of humans in that regard, but it does not lessen the matter one bit. We all fall short, of course, but that is the goal.
In any event, although I know that some of you won't see anything wrong with a mandate forcing people to allow Satan to be worshiped in their homes, most of you probably will.
That being the case, you likely understand that allowing people into your home to worship Satan is a sin in God's eyes in the consciences of most Christians.
Given that many Christians feel that way about contraception, how can you agree that forcing them to participate in the one sin is wrong, but forcing them to participate in the other is okay?
Johnw: And when you bring the freedom of religion angle into the conversation..... they may acknowledge it ,BUT the women's health &rights issue take precedence.
And that statement is scary in itself!
First of all, in this country, NOTHING takes precedence over the rights of the people, given to them by God. Nothing.
Secondly, even on its surface, this NOT about "women's health & rights," and I don't understand how it is that people can posibly think it is. Obama and his minions -- who clearly think that women are mindless, ovine dainties -- have not proposed anything whatsoever to do with women's health.
They have proposed the issue in such a way to make it about women paying for contraceptives.
Even the most doltish of women understand that this legislation does not impact their ability to get contraceptives in the least.
It has been DECADES since women have been unable to obtain free contraceptives. As far back as I can remember, Planned Parenthood has delivered contraception -- as well as medical examinations and abortions -- free of charge, as have just about any of the federally subsidized medical clinics in practically every city and town in the nation, and even most private doctors.
TJC and Mainemom have framed the real argument quite well.
Taken at his word, Obama is mandating socialized contraception. He has stated that he wants all women to have insurance which gives them, with no copay or deductible, free contraceptives.
That's a money issue, not a health issue.
However, that's just the surface. That's what every woman you know hears and believes to be the true motive of Obama.
I suggest someone needs to mention at least that much to them. I would ask them how having to pay a copay impacts their ability to avail themselves of what you call "reproductive rights"?
I might ask them if they are concerned about having to pay a copay for insulin or other medication for diabetes, or blood pressure, or statins for cholesterol.
Thirdly, the "smoke and mirrors machine" works so effectively because otherwise intelligent Americans have either bought into the madness, are afraid to hurt people's feelings by challenging silliness, or simply decided that the appropriate response to the realization that there is "some some scary stuff" involved, is "Let's all just walk away.."
Fortunately, our forefathers felt differently about scary stuff, enabling us to enjoy a little more than 200 years of liberty. Hopefully, this craziness will soon be put to an end, because the man was right when he said, “If we lose freedom here, there is nowhere else to run.”
Ladies look how fired up you are over the issue , people on the other side are just as fired up and convinced that their view is right, Everyone has the right to an opinion and a vote......... It's great thing about America.
I noticed that rush has apologized...... but the damage is done.
Johnw: ...how much luck have you had changing their minds?
I don't keep count of such things, nor would I have any way of knowing for the most part.
Most of the women in my life understand the principles of liberty, women's rights, personal responsibility and/or how to get on a bus and get to a free clinic, so few of them believe that this is about rights at all.
If indeed the premise were that Americans are entitled to the implements of their rights free of charge, then the federal government would be giving us all guns so we could engage in our Second Amendment rights.
And I suppose it would be buying us houses so that we could avail ourselves of our Third Amendment rights.
Johnw: Enough to undo the damage that has been done.... by rush?
As for Rush Limbaugh: Who cares? His ideology and ideas affect only those who choose to allow them to affect them. Obama, on the other hand, affects even those of us who realize that they are in direct opposition to the guarantee of our God-given rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
I can easily understand the controversy regarding whether Obama or Congress has the right to mandate that any employer provide insurance to employees. Hopefully the Supreme Court will decide the issue. At the state level, at least, government does have the right to determine what coverages must be included in any insurance policy sold in the state. I don't see how this is a religious issue at all. Don't believe in birth control? Fine, don't use it. Religious freedom is the right to practice (or not) any religion. It doesn't give religious institutions, as employers, the right to chose which laws or rules they will obey. Many insurance policies in Maine cover vasectomies. It would be interesting to see what policies Maine's religious institutions provide their employees.
David Allen: I don't see how this is a religious issue at all. Don't believe in birth control? Fine, don't use it. Religious freedom is the right to practice (or not) any religion.
The "don't believe in it, don't use it" argument simply does not apply when the issue is not use.
The issue isn't whether or not people should be allowed to use birth control.
The issue is that government is forcing people of conscience to provide what they believe to be sinful to others.
If it's a sin for me to use contraceptives, then surely you can see that it's a sin for me to provide it for someone.
You really don't get that?
There is a simple reason why this is a federal issue, not a state issue.
It's the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which beings with the words, "Congress shall make no law."
Now Congress has made a law with administrative rule-making that prohibits the free exercise of religion on the part of employers like Catholic institutions by forcing them to be partners in what they believe is sin.
It was an artful move by Obama, who knew (because his advisers told him) the bishops couldn't ignore this and the conservatives would have to fight it, thus focusing the country on a social or cultural issue instead of his sabotage of the economy.
This isn't a state issue, David- it is a federal issue. It is ObamaCare that is attempting to enforce he Catholic church to distribute contraceptives at Catholic hospitals that go against the churches teachings, it is a clear case of the administration claiming that they have authority over religions- and why- because it is about money- materialism !. The United States political philosophy is a spiritual political philosophy. Our inalienable rights are God-given- or if you prefer are derived from nature. Socialism, Marxism, Communism are a materialistic political philosophy founded on the distribution of material wealth. Those that believe in Marxism ( from which socialism and communism are derived) are occluded from grasping the spiritual foundations of the American political philosophy- and contrary to popular misconceptions- to believe in God is philosophical- not religious. Religions are interpretations of God's meaning, whether organized or individual.
If you want to use materialism to transgress the right to pursue individual spiritual, religious,or philosophical beliefs, there is then no end to it. In theory sterilization can be justified on the basis of "saving money", especially once a culture decides that birth control is a "right". Think of the money mass sterilizations would save over the ongoing distribution of contraceptives. You only need to sterilize once but contraceptives must be kept up for years on end. Government never ends in its grasp for power and there are those in the Obama regime who have publicly stated a belief in mass sterilization- putting it in the drinking water was suggested - and so we are inches away from a government that will justify such actions as a way of "saving money" - that as they spend the public's money relentlessly.
Where do we draw the line with government interfering in our personal lives and personal decisons?
It seems to me that the issue can be framed in this way. The government should and does prohibit certain religious practices as it should. For example, animal sacrifice (except, perhaps in Portland), human sacrifice, stoning women to death or killing a person because the converted to another religion and all manner of grotesque religious fanatical acts of evil. Government certainly is correct in telling religions what they may NOT do. This issue is government telling religions what they MUST do. A horse of a different color.
As to the "pill" issue. It is a made-up controversy by the Left and they are masters at this. In an article on Newsbusters, they note that Wal-Mart and Target have been selling birth control pills for $9 per month since 2007. I suggest that Ms Fluke and others like her skip a cup of coffee a day and buy their own. Why isn't this in the news?
And then, there's this.... http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur
It's just a fluke. Incidentally, evidently the PC pronunciation rhymes with "luck". Be very careful if you're composing a limerick. Here are a few items from The Peoples' Cube:
Rush Limbaugh apologizes for criticizing Sandra Fluke's reproductive hobbies, sends her complimentary condoms and a video camera.
Fluke to Congress: drill, baby, drill!
Supportive Americans send Sandra Fluke thousands of contraceptives in hopes she'll never reproduce.
Georgetown Law School students set to receive scholarships from Crate'O'Condoms manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.
Obama regrets the US government didn't provide his mother with free contraceptives when she was in college.
I especially like
Supportive Americans send Sandra Fluke thousands of contraceptives in hopes she'll never reproduce.
Obama regrets the US government didn't provide his mother with free contraceptives when she was in college.
Again, the government isn't telling religion what it must do. The government is telling employers what they must do re: their employees. The government isn't supposed to cater to each religion's particular beliefs. That would be a slippery slope. It should treat all employers equally. Whether the federal government has any jurisdiction in this area is an entirely different subject.
The latest comments in this thread are pretty sick. So much for the commenters' credibility.
Those who refuse to understand the issue of government mandating people of conscience to violate their consciences -- not agree with, but simply understand the concept -- are at best, tories.
Again, the government isn't telling religion what it must do. The government is telling employers what they must do re: their employees. The government isn't supposed to cater to each religion's particular beliefs. They already do. Schools have been forced to provide prayer rooms for muslim students.That would be a slippery slope. It should treat all employers equally. Whether the federal government has any jurisdiction in this area is an entirely different subject.
The latest comments in this thread are pretty sick. I noticed that in yours.So much for the commenters' credibility.As previously noted.
In fairness to all people; Mainers MUST pay for tornado insurance.
People who live on hilltops must have flood insurance.
Auto policies must cover teenage drivers even if there are no teenage drivers for your car.
Now do you understand? < sigh > liberal Fluke.
Watcher Mon, 03/05/2012 #46: "It seems to me that the issue can be framed in this way. The government should and does prohibit certain religious practices as it should. For example, animal sacrifice (except, perhaps in Portland), human sacrifice, stoning women to death or killing a person because the converted to another religion and all manner of grotesque religious fanatical acts of evil. Government certainly is correct in telling religions what they may NOT do. This issue is government telling religions what they MUST do. A horse of a different color."
The relation to religion of restrictions against human sacrifices, stoning, etc. is incidental to the matter of the laws and their constitutionality. That such atrocities are central to certain religions is irrelevant to civilization and how it deals with them: Those laws are not intended for or directed at "religious practices" as such, they pertain to anyone committing the crimes you describe. They are crimes because they violate the rights of the victims to be free from such use of physical force against them, not because they are unapproved religious practices.
There is no right to "religious practices" that violate the rights of individuals, and calling them "religion" does not change that. If that is understood then there is no confusion over alleged violations of "freedom of religion".
Freedom of religion pertains to freedom of thought and speech, and the right to put ideas into action provided it does not violate the rights of others. That freedom is itself much broader than religion and pertains to ideas and principles in general, and should have been formulated as such in the Constitution.
Individuals have rights; governments do not: Individuals have the right to think and act in freedom for their own lives; constitutionally limited government does not act by "right", it can only do what it must do in accordance with constitutional powers that must be exercised in accordance with its proper purpose.
In a free society, government as a general principle can only tell people what they can't do, and then only because it would violate someone's rights -- not tell people what they can do by government permission, let alone must do. That is true in general and pertains to everyone; it is not restricted to telling only religions what they can't do as opposed to what they can or must do.
That is why the government has no right, either morally or politically under the Constitution, to impose mandates on anyone for health care or free dissemination of contraceptives. When government attempts to impose entitlements (to contraceptives or anything else) in the name of "rights" it is contradicting the rights of those forced to provide them, financially or in action, and makes the government the violator of rights.
When one understands that government "entitlements" are not "rights", there is no conflict in understanding this. Neither church organizations nor insurance companies are violating anyone's rights by not providing them with contraceptives. (But government bans on contraception on behalf of the injunctions of the Catholic church until the bans were overthrown by the reform of the 1970s was a violation of rights mixing church and state.)
David Allen Mon, 03/05/2012 #50: "Again, the government isn't telling religion what it must do. The government is telling employers what they must do re: their employees. The government isn't supposed to cater to each religion's particular beliefs. That would be a slippery slope. It should treat all employers equally. Whether the federal government has any jurisdiction in this area is an entirely different subject."
The government in a free society is limited to protecting our rights. Treating everyone (or every employer) "equally" under the scope of the laws is not enough of a restriction on government and leaves open all kinds of injustices from government violation of rights. On this principle, as elaborated above, the question of "catering" to each religion's particular beliefs is irrelevant and doesn't come up.
In the controversy over Obama's contraceptive entitlement mandates, he did start by demanding that religious organizations provide them. He then partially backed off with the variation mandating that the insurance companies have to provide them, pretending that he had avoided the controversy.
There are objections over who is paying the insurance companies for the additional costs, what happens to organizations that are self-insured and only use an insurance company to handle the paper work, and who -- including church groups -- has to provide the logistics of handling the giving away of the "free entitlement" they don't want to provide at all. But fundamentally this is a frontal assault on the freedom of all of us not to be dictated to by the government at all. That is the principle underlying the issue of "jurisdiction", which is thoroughly intertwined with the the First Amendment violations, as elaborated above.
If Obama had started with his current public position of mandates on "insurance companies" it would have been obvious what he was doing and that would have been the center of the controversy, but he has created a diversion by offering it as a "solution" to supposedly maintain freedom of religion to quell the controversy over a side show. The first amendment can't survive unless 'freedom of religion' is conceived as broadened to freedom of thought and actions motivated by it for everyone -- religious or not and employer or not -- grounded in man's necessity and right to think and act on behalf of his own life, as it should have been to begin with in the Constitution instead of narrowing it to religion.
Michelle..... here's why we should care about loose cannons like rush ..... who in my humble estimation has a pressure plate that is gone on his internal clutch.... maybe just possibly there were a significant number of women who were teetering on the edge of who to vote for in the next election...... or might have been pretty sure that they were going to vote for someone beside obama..... rush managed to undo that...with his gift to obama.Whether we like it or not rush has been strongly associated to the R party in the public eye. Win the war then change the rules.......
David Allen in #50, (sigh), if that's what you think, and ewv's great explanation doesn't persuade you otherwise, I can't hope to do better.
The Constitution is the law that governs the US government.
In 200 years we have allowed the US government to expand its powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, while trying to at least respect the Bill of Rights.
All these laws dealing with employment - what employers can and can't do - are examples of Congress exceeding the enumerated powers. What makes it tricky for them is when they add new ones that are objectionable on religious grounds, when the employer is in fact a religious institution, because now they're in blatant conflict with part of the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law..."
No matter how he attempts to get around it, the Obama mandate forces certain religious institutions to be partners in what their faith considers a mortal sin. There is simply no denying that such an act of coercion is an example of Congress passing a law that impedes the free exercise of religion on the part of these religious institutions.
It was a brilliant political move by Obama, and we are seeing it play out just as he wanted. People who care about the Constitution are faced with a couple of choices: fight the battle, knowing Obama has chosen his ground well, or let it go, knowing our inaction is tantamount to elevating the whim of politicians and bureaucrats above the First Amendment and effectively neutering the law that governs government.
Johnw: Michelle..... here's why we should care about loose cannons like rush .....
I think you give him much more power than he has. He's not that important of a guy to most people.
Last November, after a flap about something he said about Michelle Obama, I decided to conduct an unscientific experiment.
Now you may say that those people are not attuned to what's going on. That may be -- though I would dispute the fact -- but I know I am attuned, and I would also say 1.
I listen to him if I'm trapped in the car and there is no Christian station and no oldies station. He's funny sometimes, but a little puffed up for my taste.
But the thing that really stands out to me is that anyone stupid enough to insist that someone apologize for something he believes and is satisfied once that apology is given is a pretty dim bulb, and would fall for whatever any dictatorially-minded leader had to feed them anyway.
And anyone who believes that something one blowhard has to say somehow represents what all conservatives, that one "loose cannon" speaks for an entire group of people is an idiot anyway.
Well said, ewv! Thank you.
But let me emphasize something you mentioned when you said, "Individuals have rights; governments do not..."
I would like to add that organizations and institutions do not have rights either. The Kiwanis Club, the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church: none of these entities have rights.
The individuals who make up those organizations have rights.
And by allowing the government to negotiate with the organization -- in this case, the Catholic Church -- to come to an agreement about getting waivers for their other organizations -- charities, schools, hospitals -- the American people are about to shift the focus of whose rights are being violated.
Much the same as changing the phrase "due process" to mean something other than what it has meant for more than a quarter of a century is designed to take rights away from Americans, pretending that individuals of conscience have no First Amendment rights is a setup to "give" rights to a thing and take them away from the people in "WE THE PEOPLE."
FREE---DOM (s) Obama Style. Hope they work and Change often.
Johnw: Win then war then change the rules
Fortunately, the final and deciding vote on this issue will not come from the secular activists, the leftist media, the establishment eletists, the radical feminists, the airwave chattering classes, the polling organizations, the internet bloggers, the Democratic party, or even the cowardly US Congress, or President.
It will come from the US Supreme Court.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, therefore, the Court which will likely remain as is, and with Sotomayer having to abstain because of previous involvement in the development of "Obama Care'. the mandate will eventually be ruled unconstitutional 5 to 3. Unless, of course, that ancient relic, Ginsberg retires. In which case it may even be be 6 to 2.
Interesting thread... I missed this stuff...
So riddle me this. Do these hospitals who do not want to have their insurance cover the pill....
Also employ doctors who prescribe the pill?
And if so, is this not a little odd?