Why don't we get David Duke to issue a warning to the Democrats? It would be as valid as anything chuck Todd has to say to Republicans.
Exactly. For the longest time I figured that this hard core cheerleader of all things Dem Party in nature was a MSNBC reporter and then I got curious, looked him up, and discovered that he was the actual Political Director of all of NBC News. Holy crud! This guy who always acted as if he wanted to bear Barack Obama's love child is actually the head of the political news division of what once was touted as a politically neutral broadcast network?! But then again NBC DID give birth to MSNBC and kept it alive out of pocket for over a decade as it bled profit into the mud. Aside from being sort of mousy about it there's really no difference between the subdued message thrust of a Chuck Todd and the over-the-top political propagandizing of an MSNBC Chris Mathews. Different company names but same uber-company pay check source.
what everyone on the right here conveniently forgets is that, in American politics, the devil is in the details and the sheeple don't really care about details. Therefore, if you want to impact the way people vote, it is all about OPTICS. How can you make something LOOK to blocs of voters. The other side of that coin is that, knowing that is the case, wise politicians and jurists need to examine their actions and decisions from the perspective of sheeple who DON'T look into details. Also, it doesn't make much sense to use spin and optics to frame an opponent's decisions and weaknesses and then, get all righteous and hissy when your opponents turn around and do the same thing back at you. It is how politics is played in America, and the side that stops playing that way first is the side that loses. When that basic dynamic ever changes - and it might - then maybe spin and optics will have less importance than they do today. As of right now, however, democrats see a window of opportunity here. Five Male republicans are allowing other Bible thumping men to away health care birth control options from women, but still allowing men to get their hard on drugs paid for by insurance. You are can whine and say that ED has NOTHING to do with preventing or stopping pregnancy, and, on a simply academic level, that may be right, but the linkage is easy to see... and the optics of the USSC decision for the GOP may be damaging, if they cannot figure out a way to quickly spin the decision so that women SEE it in a different, less damaging light.
The women who are weak minded enough to vote for dems now were the same women voting for the party of free stuff before.
Seriously? The government not paying for your condoms is severe deprivation? Surely you jest! To get laid or not get laid is your business and choice. Forcing me, as a taxpayer, to pay for your choice is my business. Damme, but I believe most liberals would bytch if hung with a new rope.
So you agree that all contraception can be denied if a closely help corp so chooses? - - - Updated - - - So you also don't think boner pills should be covered? - - - Updated - - - It's not if righties keep saying they are paying for people to get laid.
That is a weak argument. One far left liberal doesn't speak for all liberals and independents. There is a difference in far left media and liberal media in general. Radditz doesn't speak for all liberal media outlets.
You must not get out much. She is but an example of what's all around you, including on this forum. Liberals are dumb. They hear a snippet and run with it. And I neither know nor care if ol' Martha is far left. I just know she's a liar and her network is promoting the lie by allowing her to say what she said unchallenged. For the counting challenged, that's more that just one so-called far left liberal.
because their issue was abortion, not preventing pregnancy - - - Updated - - - Vasectomies don't induce abortions. At least use something relevant to the case please
I suggest reading the ruling carefully. Actually all companies were and HL still is required to cover the ones that do not induce abortion. ACA made it the law. Male and female employees. BTW a male insurance plan will not have these 4 BC methods covered either. Everyone talks like only women are affected and only women health plans. The ruling is not gender specific, but people want to turn it into some gender war. There is no war on women, but there is a huge war on freedom. 7 times in two weeks, or something like that...that's how many times this administration has been struck down by the courts, and not all were 5-4. One was 9-0. It is unprecedented how many times this admin has been smacked down for breaking the law and going against the constitution. That is what people should be concerned and outraged by. Not people being able to exercise their constitutional rights.
Name one BC that HL is opposed to that is used for anything other then getting rid of a fertilized egg. You are aware 16/20 forms of bc are covered under HL health plans right? to include the ones that have multiple uses
Depends on your definition of birth control. The morning after pill, the IUD, even abortion, are forms of birth control. So you can stand down of the "lies" nonsense. It's unbecoming of all but the most toothless **********.
Can you give me some examples of where Obama's actions were struck down by the SCOTUS for being unconstitutional?
One is the emergency morning after pill, which would prevent rape victims from having to carry a baby full term when it wasn't their plan to do so in the first place. A woman has the right to protect her health in these cases. This is where the constitutional rights of people owning a company clash with the constitutional rights of the individuals working for these companies.
Sure they voted 9-0 that he overstepped his constitutional authority when he made recess appointments.
I said name one that does something other then get rid of a fertilized egg. Also no one is preventing her from exercising her rights. You are aware insurance companies still have to cover the morning after pill correct? Just means the insurance company pays for the pill rather then hobby lobby. What si the big stink over again? Religious rights, or free pills? Hmmm my rights are more important then your pocket book for one. Two you are still covered, just HL and other religious corps wont pay for certain contraceptives, but your insurance company will. A little research goes a long way to better understanding what is really going on.
Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for 4 types of Birth Control (out of 20). The two "morning after" pills are fairly new on the market--one from 1999, the other from 2010. The first one is available at Wal-Mart as an OTC drug. - - - Updated - - - No, he's a partisan Democrat trying to scold the other side.
What a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*). There is nothing in the ruling that requires a company to pay for Viagra. I don't know of a health insurance company that provides Viagra without a deductible. The real shame is that insulin, which is a necessity for life for most Type I diabetics, can have a deductible in insurance plans, while birth control is free. Is that really what you want? To say that birth control is more important than insulin. Talk about pandering to women vs. treating them as equals.
Please show me a health insurance plan that specifically gives no deductible (free) Viagra but has a deductible for birth control. That is the only way your point is anything but hyperbole.
Somehow not paying for something has become the same thing as a ban? Man, how language has changed. Well, yes, they are birth control, but they are also abortion. HL has no problem with birth control that isn't also abortion.
Employees aren't being prevented from having birth control or abortion. The woman does have that right under current law. The morning after pill can be bought OTC at Wal-Mart (locally, they can buy it 24/7). Women are not being prevented by mean ole Hobby Lobby from getting the morning after pill.
