White House to announce ‘accommodation’ for religious organizations on Contraception Rule. A non-accomodating accomodation, so to speak. Even ABC says “The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders…” We hope Barry sticks to his guns. He’s finally shining a light on all the Marx scribbled on the blank slate the country elected.
View Comments (19)
Interesting take....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
The anger of the Left about Obama's cave tells you the truth. They are really about pressing down upon the Church and curtailing its power through persecution. The women will still get their free contraceptives but they wanted faith-based institutions to pay for it. I hope the mobilization and joining together of people of faith across various denominations and religions doesn't stop now. They need to keep complaining about the encroachment of the state upon the Church. Faith-based insitutions which have to obey state versions of this mandate should sue. The Republicans should keep saying: What other stunts do you think he will try if he doesn't have to seek re-election again?
Fool me once, fool me twice.....are there those that truely believe that this is a change of heart? Stupid is as stupid does.
"Dear Leader" sure backpedaled in a hurry on this one after he found out that he was going to lose the Latino vote. As with the regular liberal / progressive Modus Operandi, he thought he could buy more votes with other people's money by supplying free birth control. Looks like that one didn't work for the smartest guy in the room.
Every move a politician makes is going to lose him some votes, and gain him some votes. It's a tight rope act, deciding which moves will buy more than they lose, then backpedaling when you find out you guessed wrong. These guys are good. At least some of us are able to see it.
I'm following a thread at another website dealing with this exact same issue. I'm loving every single second of it. The site is politically neutral (slightly left of center actually) and the discussion is being held in a catch all forum area. The left wing members are all up in arms about the decision to accomodate the church. They even have made some realistic and valid complaints against the admin and dickboy. I'm waiting for the opportunity to drop the hammer and ask how they feel being sold out by the party to "accomodate" the hispanic vote! Beautiful! Love watching the "tolerant" lefties get all up in arms when religion upstages their agendas! Because dickboy and the party know they can rely on the left vote no matter how mad they make them on one issue. Fuck em and feed em fish heads....
I heard Rush talking about how instead of forcing the Church to pay for this, he has turned it around and is now forcing insurance companies to pay for it instead. Everything is still the same, someone else is paying for something that should be a personal responsibility, and they are marketing it as "women's rights."
That got me thinking back to the Obamacare debate. Everyone knows that Obama wants a single-payer system, but it couldn't happen at the time, and that Obamacare is just a stepping stone to that single-payer system. Well to get to a single-payer system you need to have as many people as possible already receiving free benefits from the government. This whole "women's rights" b.s. is just a way to add to the number of people who are getting something "free" thanks to the government. If they get this, then some other group will be next, probably of the "minority" variety. Once a significant amount of the old, young, poor, rich, middle class, black, white, Asian, Latino, male, female, and so forth are receiving free medical "rights" due to the government, the transition to a single-payer system is all down hill after that. Gravity does all the work and weight of the great government medical bureaucracy will push us into that system.
The moral of this story, Obamacare needs to be repealed, asap.
is there anyone that actually thinks that the cost of birth control isn't going to be reflected in the final negotiated price? The church will be paying for this "FREE" coverage.
church has contacted whitehouse for which sermon is to be preached religion for the gov. by the gov.
Poor little barry obummer.
He thinks that the Bishops are as dumb as Chicago school system graduates.
The media is tauting this as Obama "giving way" or "bowing to" the Catholic Church. Somehow this is about the CC or religious nuts not wanting women to have appropriate "medical care". This is not about that, this is about rights and freedoms. I don't give a crap if women want to use contraception because they cannot live celibates lives or else because they do not want to have more children than they already have. I would prefer a woman using her contraceptives if it means that she is not bringing unwanted children in the world that she will not take care of, but I don't have to pay for that and no one should me MADE to pay for it. That is the crux of the problem and the media is not spinning this right.
That has been my point from the beginning. Why is birth control an insurance-covered product? That is like saying the preventative maintenance on your car should be insured. What's next? Should Slim-Fast be covered since losing weight is a good idea? Should toothpaste be covered because good oral health is important?
Listening to Obama the other day mandating that bc be provided at no charge (in other words, paid by me and every other insured or tax paying individual) makes my skin crawl.
We are all Greeks now.
Overall I heard that children are a blessing. If that is true treating children as potential diseases upon a female body is wrong. That is a big problem with me.
I can understand about the unwanted and unplanned part of it all, but the child, in of himself, is not a disease to prevent. That attitude bugs me. It is one thing to say that condoms are good to subsidize because it can help prevent much more than pregnancies (STD's, etc.). However, I wouldn't want to pay for those either, but the argument behind subsidizing condoms can be better defended for what I said earlier.
STD's are indeed diseases that can and should be avoided and prevented. However birth control (not condoms) do not protect from diseases only prevent pregnancies. So what they are saying is that children are diseases. That in my opinion is wrong. Now, I don't advocate women having kids willy nilly either, women should be responsible, however I am not responsible for their behavior. If a woman does not want a child, she has options: Not to have sex, pay for her own contraceptives, if something bad happens to her she can choose to give birth and put the child up for adoption or allow a childless pair (or a pair that wants another child) within her family to adopt the child.
With all of that said, it is true what you say; even if there is something appropriate that we should do like brushing our teeth and losing weight to prevent true diseases, those are things that should not be paid for by THE COLLECTIVE.
'One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” '
Hawaii-plus double-plus good! Newthinker bellyfeel SockPuppet!