Look who is making a “double standard” argument about this;
Kirsten Powers:** ‘Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist’**
.
Fluke testifies, "Birth Control Is a Medicine... Religious Schools Schools Should Pay
This comes down to a fundamental difference in viewpoint, and now that I’ve read some opinions here it brings to mind similarities to the embryonic stem cells funding issue.
Remeber that in the media, the issue was framed as Bush banning stem cell research. Christopher Reeves would never walk because Bush wouldn’t allow stem cell research. Except that leaves out details which completely change the context.
- Bush didn’t oppose all stem cell research, only that which involved the destruction of fertilized human embryos.
- Bush didn’t ban embryonic stem cell research, he banned Federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines (and increased funding for existing lines)
- Never mentioned by the MSM was the fact that embryonic stem cell research had not yielded any treatments, but non-embryonic stem cell research did.
So similarly, we’re seeing MSM mischaracterization of a debate about mandating that insurance provide coverage for contraception.
- Policies already cover medically necessary birth control pills, even at Sandra Fluke’s Georgetown.
- Although this is about mandatory coverage by insurance, it is being framed as if it was about access to birth control.
So as I said, there’s a common thread between these two and it goes to a core difference between liberal and conservative philosophy. In both issues, liberals view the world as all things flowing from government. If the government does not fund stem cell research, there will be no stem cell research. If the government does not madate coverage for contraception, there will be no contraception. That is how the liberal mind sees the issues.
Of course, since we conservatives do not see this differently we point out what to us is an obvious absurdity, it’s absurd that someone should be forced to pay for something that is for someone else with no interest to us… And to the lib, we aren’t just objecting to the mandate - we’re objecting to the central concept (stem cell research or contraception)
If we adopt the demented left wing way of thinking, that would mean no guns would exist if they aren’t being funded by taxpayer money. There would be no freedom of religion if religious institutions aren’t getting federal funding.
The Left wing speaks out;
John McCain: Limbaugh Comments Totally Unacceptable
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, March 5, 2012, 9:38 AM
Then there is this;
Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK?**
Posted on** | March 4, 2012
from The Other McCain
Sandra Fluke Argued for Mandatory Coverage for Sex-Change Surgery : The Other McCain
In the above post there is a lnk to an article that was taken down by the subject at hand whose NEXT insurance issue is;
gender reassignment
Yeah now she wants gender reassignment to be covered.
.
Fluke just provides more evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Sickening Cruelty: Libtalker Mocks Tornado Victims - YouTube
The same media pundits upset over Rush Limbaugh’s comments haven’t been condemning this guy’s hateful comments.
This woman is just a wacko bomb thrower who likes to make waves by being outrageous.
Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance | MRCTV
It has also been noted that she can get birth control pills for far less than what she is claiming for cost.
Sandra Fluke said: Birth Control Pills are needed for Seizures???
I would say that the Catholic Church should look at the huge number of women in their church who admittedly USE birth control and make a rational decision. I never heard ANYONE say that they are forcing Catholics to USE birth control.
Seriously though, what moral stand does a church who KNOWINGLY let priests molest children have? Seriously?
BTW, my wife is one of those women who are on the pill due to an ovarian cyst.
More liberal garbage.
Idiot goes to ignore list.
.
.
- This is NOT about the Catholic Church…it is about government intrusion into religious belief and using the force of law to make churches violate their beliefs.
- MEDICALLY necessary birth control is a HEALTH matter…not a recreation or religious matter…and even Georgetown has THAT covered.
- Criticisms of the Catholic Church however valid on their own to not affect the VALIDITY of this argument. I would note in passing that actions by church leaders in the molestation cases are reprehensible and should be subject to the force of law…criminal and civil. Those actions however are not FAITH or BELIEF based and have nothing to do with the 1st amendment matters at hand any more that Jimmy Swaggarts proclivities define Protestant beliefs.
So because of a failure of the morality of a small minority and the failure to handle it right by a larger percentage is grounds to throw out the baby with the bathwater?
If you post nonsense like this again, I’ll report you for violating the don’t-be-stupid rule.
Yes. That is exactly what I’m saying. Such a MONUMENTAL failure of morality in the sex abuse cases by “a large percentage” of church leaders is undoubtedly a reason to question their feaux outrage over having to offer birth control to NON church members working for them.
Freedom OF religion also applies to the flipside of freedom FROM religion.
You people have no idea how much of a hole you are digging for yourselves by trying to pass your Sharia-like law on people who aren’t believers, and moderate believers.
Good luck with that.
Why does everyone care about what one liberal says? What makes her so important?
So that means the church has to provide birth control pills just b/c of some non-believers working for them, Centered1?
I didn’t know that the Catholic Church was trying to make birth control illegal. I thought they only didn’t want to not be forced to provide birth control against their will.
(Please refrain from name-calling and personal insults. - PeteS in CA)
I leave the discussion at this:
#1 I consider pinko a derogatory term. Especially to a former US military member. I’m pretty sure openly insulting someone like that is against forum rules. Apology? :vomit-smi
#2 No one said they have to provide birth control. They have to provide ACCESS to it through their healthcare program. I pay into my healthcare and have a reasonable expectation about what kind of care I recieve. Much like you don’t want liberals telling you what to do, I don’t want you telling me what MY healthcare priorities are. No one is saying that there need to be barrels of condoms and pills next to the holy water at mass.
#3 The REAL issue to people on the other side here is legal prescident. If one employer can deny you healthcare due to moral objections, its not long before some other employer can be morally objected to some procedure that YOU think is important.
Lets say you happen to work for a Christian Scientist. Are you saying that they should be allowed to decide what kind of medical care you get by their religious beliefs?
If you can’t see that danger in this, then you are willfully denying reality.
- You’re full of it. Failure to deal with a serious problem within their own ranks while expressing outrage at what the government is trying to impose on them does not equal hypocrisy.
- Not when a consenting adult chooses to be involved with a religious institution, which is the case here.
- “You people?” Broad-brush much? And “Sharia-like law” my posterior. This is all about not forcing the church to provide an “entitlement” that is contrary to their beliefs.
That the Obama is making her the poster child for oppression against promiscuous socialists…
There were plenty of pinkos in the military.
#2 No one said they have to provide birth control. They have to provide ACCESS to it through their healthcare program. I pay into my healthcare and have a reasonable expectation about what kind of care I recieve. Much like you don’t want liberals telling you what to do, I don’t want you telling me what MY healthcare priorities are. No one is saying that there need to be barrels of condoms and pills next to the holy water at mass.
Then don’t have your employer pay for your health care. And you Marxists are already trying to tell the Catholic Church what to do.
#3 The REAL issue to people on the other side here is legal prescident. If one employer can deny you healthcare due to moral objections, its not long before some other employer can be morally objected to some procedure that YOU think is important.
Then don’t ask your employer to PAY for your health care.
Lets say you happen to work for a Christian Scientist. Are you saying that they should be allowed to decide what kind of medical care you get by their religious beliefs?
If you can’t see that danger in this, then you are willfully denying reality.
Then go buy another policy.
Good luck finding an affordable policy!
Me not asking my employer for healthcare has NOTHING to do with legal prescident and doesn’t address the problem at all. But thanks for noth thinking too deeply about what you propose, nothing bad ever happens from unintended consequences.
And you supporting to force employers to go against their religious beliefs aren’t precedent for unintended consequences?
Please refrain from personal insults and name-calling, folks.