GOP shuts down Sandra Fluke (again)

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Cigar, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. Cigar

    Cigar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,229
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last week, the House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), held a one-sided hearing on contraception access, featuring an opening panel of five conservative men -- and no one else. Democrats on the committee had invited a witness, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, but Issa refused to allow her to participate.

    House Dems aren't taking "no" for an answer.

    There was, however, an unexpected twist yesterday afternoon. The Democratic Steering & Policy Committee's hearing will be held in the House Recording Studio, in order to help broadcast the event, except in this case, it won't be seen by anyone outside the room. According to House Dems, the Republican-controlled Committee on House Administration has refused to allow the hearing to be televised.

    In other words, the House GOP blocked Sandra Fluke from testifying at a hearing last week, and now they're apparently blocking Sandra Fluke from testifying at another hearing this week.

    And what is it, exactly, about Fluke's perspective that has Republicans so concerned? The law student wants to share the story of a classmate who lost an ovary due to an ailment that could have been treated with birth control.

    Here's a video of Fluke, sharing a perspective the House GOP apparently doesn't want you to see:

    http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10476406-gop-shuts-down-sandra-fluke-again




    I wonder what they are afraid of … and guesses?
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    62,279
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The dems desperately want to make this about contraception instead of the separation of Church and State. I can see why since they are the champions of the separation.
     
  3. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They always twist things to suit their agenda. Remember the master of semantics was a dem...Clinton. Right...a "bj" isn't sex.
     
  4. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    21,744
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The party that once fought for a woman's right to privacy has now used their own government run health care system to take away a woman's right to privacy (as well as every man's right to privacy btw) and at the same time is using it to destroy an enumerated right in the First Amendment, religious freedom.

    The point the democrats and their lacky Sandra Fluke are trying to make here is mute. If her girlfriend wanted to take birth control, she could have taken birth control. Just because a law allows an exception for religious organizations on religious grounds to not provide a service does not mean that person cannot go and obtain that service on their own. Isn't that why the government funds Planned Parenthood?
     
  5. BTeamBomber

    BTeamBomber New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,732
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is ridiculous. How is it that in a population where women outnumber men, not ONE woman is involved in this debate as part of this committee? Are you serious? This is a PRIME example of how disconnected from reality Congress is.

    I hope this becomes a main issue for the election this year, as we'd see disconnected, idiot GOP do-nothing Congressmen thrown out in droves from the House.
     
  6. Cigar

    Cigar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,229
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It already has ... I personally know some women who are not political at all, are NOW Anti-Conservative.

    Brilliant ... Republicans ... just Brilliant.

    All Minorities, Gays, Poor ... now Women.

    Soon their Tent will be nothing more than a Trailer in Trailer Park.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    33,951
    Likes Received:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Republicans will pay for this, for a few generations. Of course, they'll complain that the "jury" (which is this NATION) has no right to hold them in contempt.
     
  8. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is ironic that we have one this thread where the libs are trying to force requirements onto a religious organization that is against that organization's beliefs and the cons are fighting it under "Separation of Church and State".

    And we also have a thread where cons what the word "God" left in the Pledge of Allegiance and the libs want the word remove....under "Separation of Church and State".

    Go figure.
     
  9. Cigar

    Cigar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,229
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Majority Rules ... is this Democracy thing new to you or are you somehow not feeling special anymore.

    Go Figure !
     
  10. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ummm, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy......or is this something new to you?

    Mob rule is not the rule of the land.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    62,279
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still not a woman's issue but a citizen's issue. This is about the constitution, not women's rights.

    Still not a contraception hearing but a hearing on the right's of Religion.
     
  12. Cigar

    Cigar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,229
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow ... Just Wow. :roll:
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    62,279
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was a hearing on the separation of Church and State, but I guess you never caught on to anything other than the flapping lips of the Dems that want to change the subject.
     
  14. Cigar

    Cigar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,229
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So Women are not allowed to talk about separation of Church and State?

    What are they afraid of that she will say?
     
  15. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,501
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I wonder if the Republicans will change the locks like the Democrats did and then refuse to give them keys like the Democrats did.

    I would suggest that if liberals want separation of church and state they should pass a law to that effect the next time they're in the majority or, absent ever being in the majority again, they could go for a Constitutional emendment. That's how the system works.
     
  16. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Churches are the only strictly "religious" organization in this nation, and they have an exemption. There is no argument here; no church is being forced to do anything against its will.
     
  17. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure, they can talk about it, but end the end, this is clearly an issue of the Government imposing their will on a religious organization that is in conflict with that organization's beliefs.

    If the religious organization was receiving federal dollars for operations, then YES, I agree with the law. However, if the organization was completely self supporting, then NO, the law is wrong.

    This law will set a dangerous precedent. What is next? Removing all crucifixes from Catholic hospitals or telling Muslims that they can not pray on city streets?
     
  18. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The religious organizations enjoy tax-exempt statuses; I'd saying having to pay no taxes to the federal government is the equivalent of receiving federal subsidies.
     
  19. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, so we should tell Native Americans that they can no longer use peyote in their religious ceremonies?
     
  20. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ..........that's your argument?
     

Share This Page