Is there a citation?

He should have. The point made is still valid.

if not there shouldn't be any quotation marks used. Besides which, this is how a Democratic President should talk.

It is way too forceful. The only people he doesn't mind offending are progressives.

My birth control should never have 3rd parties attached to it.

Companies like Hobby Lobby have been required to provide birth control and healthcare to their employees in CA since the late 1990's. 26 states require it - all before ObamaCare. There is no logical explanation other than political pandering and hate of the President.

Nor is the government in a position to judge what is or is not a genuine expression of faith. It was a strategically short-sighted political goal to tie freedom of access to birth control to an employer.

People act like "not being able to have other people pay for my birth control" is the same thing as "denying me birth control". For fuck's sake, it is certainly no more of a basic right than food or water and you have to buy those with your own tanjed money. What makes birth control so precious?

And yeah, forcing people to pay for stuff they don't want to pay for - IS taking away their freedom. That's true even if California did it before Obama did.

In addition, the women pay for their own health insurance. Your employer may buy it in your name, but getting the insurance is part of your pay package. You earn it. And if you are not insured by your employer as part of your pay packet, you buy it yourself. So no one pays for a woman's birth control. She pays for it herself. Your employer does not give you insurance as a gift. It is something you earn.

Why should I pay for a football player's knee injury and physical therapy? After all, I don't play football. Why should I pay for a man's treatments for prostate cancer. I don't have a prostate gland. Same for testicular vcancer treatments.

Women do not take birth control pills solely in order to avoid pregnancy. They also sometimes take them to, for example, diminish the pain and discomfort of menstruation. Would you like me to go into more of the ugly and miserable details about the physical aspects of being female?

Because most men really like the more attractive, satisfying aspects of females. Of course, maybe you are not like most men. Remember, it takes two to tango. It isn't just women who benefit from birth control. In fact, the whole human race, wait, the whole planet, benefits when women control the number of children they give birth to.

I take birth control pills because I have hormone induced migraines. I also have polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) which means very erratic cycles so it helps with that as well. I'm on a continuous dose pill (6 months on, one week off) to temper the migraines. Without the pill, I get multiple migraine auras per week and it's incapacitating. It's absolutely a health issue for many, many women. I actually know more women who went on the pill for health reasons than for birth control.

If you demand they provide it for me then they have standing to challenge it in court where they have an opportunity to prevail. If they prevail then access to BC becomes coupled to the conscience of the employer. There has always been access to low cost/free BC via PPFA and other services. This was a bad idea.

In red states and districts. This is the repuke strategy. State's Rights.

If you are forced to travel 400 miles to get service....or even 70miles--you don't have service.

In this country, healthcare is mostly employer dependent. With the advent of "religious" repuke wars on women, claiming "moral, religious objection" became a growing strategy for CONservative control freaks to force their belief system on women.

They began finding ways to work around the laws. Regulations are now clearly necessary.


The End.

Let's have everyone buy their insurance for themselves on the exchanges. Why in the world do people object to birth control? It is probably the only thing that keeps many women sane and healthy. Do you really hate sex that much? Or do you think that we should simply populate the earth with humans until nothing that isn't human can grow or breathe?

they were already "attached" to your birth control.

Did you know that starting in the 1990s, and all the way up until Obama became President, the GOP sponsored health insurance plan actually covered elective abortion?

They could have easily dropped such coverage or never even included it in the first place. But there it was for 20 years.

It was only in their zeal to obstruct Obama did the finally decide to drop such coverage.

This is a political game they are playing and it has nothing to do with a mandate.

The jumps you make using false assumptions and claims no one has made, are really astounding.

Look, if you want to repeal the ACA, you should give John Boehner a call, he'd love to hear from you.

If you have changed your assertion to state not all insurance policies carried BC then you would have to allow for the fact that those who have conscience objections to BC would be able to purchase one of those policies. If they were able to purchase one of those policies and then the employer mandate interfered with that fact then the employer mandate is to blame for the current state of affairs.

And with your help, maybe he can return us to a far better time in American history.

you've run out of lame arguments and have nothing but ad hominem grousing.

For some reason, you want to blame the ACA for a situation that is totally and completely manufactured by the GOP.

I've yet to hear you suggest any approach for improving the situation ... unless internet tantrums (your word) count.

If you don;t want to fight the RW nuts who are creating this situation, and you offer no other ideas, I'm left to conclude that repeal is your only alternative.

Or you could propose another.

And matters of conscience aren't determined by whether or not the opposition believes in the sincerity of the complaining party. There are plenty of Progressive causes where the GOP questions our sincerity and assume we're just being rabble-rousing malcontents. Let's not set another bad precedent to our own detriment.

Pay as you go ... no insurance of any kind?

Or, do you want Single Payer, in which the government is totally and completely involved in your every medical decision?

It can just as easily be undone.

the final outcome here.

BC is cheap and easy to obtain for everyone, or so you claim.

So why do you care?

Apparently the only reason you care is to hand out metaphorical nose-punchings to the unfavored Other using the force of law. You aren't doing it for access of affordability because you concede it's already accessible and affordable. You appear to have become Nietzsche's monster hunter.

I care because -- as I have stated repeatedly -- it's an ill-considered policy to make my BC subject to influence from 3rd parties. My BC is none of my employer's business. For the record, my last employer treated me like a daughter and I very much appreciated him but I would never want him attached, even indirectly, to this personal of a part of my life. That's why I care.

You made that claim. I disagree with it.

They provide the insurance. That doesn't mean they become privy to every single detail of your healthcare. There's this little thing called HIPPA.

if the conscience objection is sustained, then what?

The ACA does not decree that all employers are responsible for BC, only that the insurance they offer include coverage for it.

It also requires maternity coverage ... but of course that's cheap and easy for all who need it too.

It's like claiming my employee is buying me dinner every time I go out to eat because they sign my paycheck. Their conscience is clear. The motivation for this fight is purely political.

... or "Benefits Package".

Employers started to offer health coverage as a way to lure prospective employees with something other than salary. Insurance coverage made sense because it was more expensive on the individual market.

Which leads to another path on the legal front ... allow this guy to opt out of BC coverage, but require him to increase the salaries of his employees, because after all ... insurance is part of total compensation.

Of course he can always opt out of the entire thing, and pay the tax that he would have avoided if that keeps him square with God

Certainly for women with little to no access to effective birth control. Religious people who want to dictate to others have won. But, we live to fight another day.

Hobby Lobby claims to want to limit the available coverage for their employees exclusively, to ones which do include BC; or get it removed as an part of health care from established policies for their employees. Or.....attack the law itself as a way to open a backdoor to nullify it.

you obviously lack the integrity for honest debate.

to BC ... and then proclaim (b) that BC is so low cost and easy to obtain that no one is blocked from getting it anyway, which if true, makes the entire discussion moot.

And you don't see the logically disconnect in your arguments.

Speaking from personal experience as an employee of a place that wouldn't cover contraception, this was a problem before, which is why the mandate was created to begin with.

Birth control was still accessible. I had BC when I didn't have insurance and I had BC when my insurance didn't cover it.

Wow, I'd love to live in Nuclear Unicorn World. It must be an amazing place.

with my access to birth control.

Amazing!

No/low cost birth control has been available for decades. Ever hear of family planning clinics? I used them in the past, they're there. (By the way, does this employer mandate make funding those clinics obsolete?)

And before the employer mandate I paid for my own, out-of-pocket, twenty dollars a month.

Even assuming your complaint wasn't just so much drummed up outrage you are still not faithful to your stated goal. You aren't increasing access for women, you're making access subject to a legally recognized conscience exemption. You're putting third parties into a position to interfere with personal choices.

Oh, but I'm the one that doesn't know much.

Drummed up outrage? No, i wouldn't call disagreeing with the argument that the fact that some companies object is a reason not to make them comply drummed up outrage. I'd call it a sound argument. There has to be more than that. Otherwise, we'd still have child labor, with little bodies working in the coal mines. And what does personal choice have to do with it? No one is saying birth control has to be mandatory.

Oh man, the excuses just get more absurd. I can't even conjure a scenario as to how that even applies.

You're the one supporting these companies that want to say no to the mandate. Your argument seems to be that it's the mandate's fault. Gee, telling a corporatiuon what to do. That's just apparently so wrong. It's putting them in the position to fight it. Well, so what? That's not a reason not to take action. Sorry.

The line that cannot be crossed is easy. They don't get to dictate how we live. And telling them they don't have to "pay" for BC certainly crosses that line. We don't get to have safe and effective birth control covered for everyone because they object? No, I don't think so.

Makes total sense!!!

In crazy land.

If low/no cost BC exists then what is the reason for an employer mandate? You can't say access, because access is already there.

You need a reason other than legalized bullying.

And as I read your posts, it seems clear that this entire discussion has no effect on you.

You don't need insurance coverage for BC because for you, its cheap and easy to obtain anyway.

So why do you care at all about women who need such coverage?

I'm starting to think you don't care about them. You got yours.

So what if some religious people want to use their beliefs to bully others by effecting policy? She doesn't care. She can get it for 20 bucks a month!

The underpinning of all civil law.

if they wanted to. And if so, too bad for the women who worked for them.

Of course most of these Religious folks didn't exclude BC because there was no political gain to be obtained.

Its a political fight, not a fight of conscience.

BC is accessible without the beneficence of others. What society is this that nobody seems capable of anything unless someone else provides it. I don't understand how this empowers people. It doesn't, it makes them hostage to the whims of the provider.

Next, I expect that you'll compare BC coverage to slavery.

Post 56 explains it all.

... post #56 makes everything clear.

But if it's not a real quote (and it may not be; see rest of this thread) then it does no one any good to convince them that this is what he actually said.

All you're doing is spreading disinformation.

Remove the quotation marks and set the text to the bottom of the page, add other democratic figures to make it a montage print.

Proving they agree with the statement. Put an on-line petition out and we can sign it to express our support of the sentiment. Whatever.

The message is good, the linking of any particular person to it is wrong, but the message is right.

Someone needs to ask the Supreme Court that question

Because, like Jihad, it's a term that has a lot of different meanings and interpretations.

Bryant

we set by and watch.

It IS what every free thinking citizen should be saying to every RWNJ and/or religious zealot they encounter!

I considered removing it, but feel that it's such a great quote that I've decided to leave it....

Too bad it wasn't President Obama's quote...

I'll try to be a little more careful...

Sorry about that...

Play

for some?

... should be removed.

Number one, few quotes are exact, and often aren't attributed to the person who said them. Number two, the sentiment behind it fits perfectly for this website. Absolutely no need to remove. I served on the jury for this OP and was proud to vote to leave it. I'm glad I was able to. It would have been crazy if this had been hidden.

Oh, no!

yes INDEED

by those who wear Jesus on their sleeves while eschewing all his teaching in their own greed-driven lives.

Let's get some REAL ACTION behind it, though.

I cannot find anything that indicates that he did.

It was poor judgment to post a "quote" without checking it out in the first place, and it's doubly poor judgment to see proof that it's bogus and still let it stand.

Fake. Ass. Quote.

I love this human being.

pretend to advocate "freedom".

K&R

read the thread.

how many posts they can get deleted.

FYI: I did not alert on it, nor would I have. A juror posted upthread.

So, I have no idea why your post about alerting is addressed to me.

prefer a deceptive post to stand, though?

personally don't see the deception just because the OP didn't use Obama's word for word comments!

We are better than that, and should be better than the personal attacks, too.

I think I might use this as my sig line.