You know we have entered the silly season when a major national debate gets underway over whether people should be given something for free that they could easily pay for out-of-pocket. Take the decision of the Obama administration to force Catholic universities, hospitals and charities to provide health insurance that includes free contraceptives. The reaction was poignant and hyperbolic, but (what can I say?) completely deserved:
- “An edict delivered with a sneer,” wrote Michael Gerson in The Washington Post.
- “An attack on Christianity so severe that every single church in Florida had a letter read from the bishops,” said Newt Gingrich.
- “We can’t just lie down and die and let religious freedom go,” said a spokeswoman for the Conference of Catholic Bishops.
- “We do not happen to think pregnancy is a disease,” said the president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
- People who postpone conception with “chemicals and latex” are part of the “culture of death,” said Archbishop Timothy Dolan.
What makes this so amazing is that it is déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra might say. Do you remember the death knell for HillaryCare? I bet you can’t.
Mammograms and Pap smears. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
[Yes, I know. There were many things that helped derail HillaryCare. The biggest mistake was the White House’s failure to throw everything aside and endorse the Senate Republican health plan, which was about as close to HillaryCare as RomneyCare is to ObamaCare. Hillary would have ended up with about 90% of everything she wanted. More about that, perhaps, in a future Alert.]
But what really killed the whole thing in the public’s mind were mammograms and Pap smears. Fifteen years ago the “experts” didn’t agree on how frequently women should have them any more than they agree today. I’m sure that when various women asked various doctors they got various answers. And, by the way, there is nothing wrong with that. Whenever there is risk and uncertainty, opinions will differ. That’s not the end of the world.
What was the end of HillaryCare, however, was the notion that the White House should decide these questions for every woman in America! When you stop to think about it, that takes a certain amount of chutzpah. It also reflects a degree of meddlesomeness that’s really hard for me to understand. But in both the Clinton White House and in the Obama White House there were folks who just could not abide the idea of your having a health plan different from the one they think you should have — down to the tiniest detail!
For Hillary and her advisers it came down to this: They decided that sexually active women should have a cervical cancer test every three years, instead of every two. For women in their fifties, they called for a mammogram every other year, instead of every year. And these decisions, unfortunately for Clinton, were different from what most doctors were recommending.
[The technical folks, by the way had fun with all of this. Cost-effectiveness numbers at the time suggested that Hillary’s cut-off number was about $100,000 for each year of life saved. If the projection comes in below that number, do the test. Above that number avoid it. Interested readers may consult my discussion of this issue here. I don’t think this facet of the problem ever got on anyone’s radar screen outside of the number crunching community; however, and I doubt that Hillary was even aware of it.]
Now the right way to think about all this is very simple. How much does a mammogram cost? $100? If you want one, take the money out of your Health Savings Account and go buy it. How often should you do that? Probably as often as it gives you peace of mind. Is not having the test keeping you awake at night? Then spend $100 and get the test. The same principle applies to contraceptives. You want them? Go buy them.
And what about the tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the population that really can’t afford these services? Go to a community health center or to Planned Parenthood and ask for them for free! This isn’t rocket science.
It is truly amazing how much consternation is caused for no other reason than the desire on the part of some people to tell everybody else how to live their lives.
John C. Goodman, PhD, is president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis. He is also the Kellye Wright Fellow in health care. His Health Policy Blog is considered among the top conservative health care blogs where health care problems are discussed by top health policy experts from all sides of the political spectrum.
“As well how do you accuse the “media” of not reporting Democratic wrongs and only Republican wrongs”
Go back to school and learn to read Peter.
“You see this all the time when the media fails to report someone that did something wrong was a democrat but when a republican does the same thing party affiliation is in the headline. “
But that’s just you talking Nate. Show me examples of this as a wide spread effort. Even better show me hidden crimes of Democrats that the “media” won’t report.
Well I Goggled Fox News reporting on priest sex abuse and school sex abuse, not much difference between the two in numbers of pages – and Fox is on your side.
As for the publishing of the story about the government report on educational sex abuse I don’t know how many times you can run the same story on the same report to equal what the Catholic Register considers fairness when reporting about multiple priest/church abuse stories. Certainly these things are reported as they happen in schools – and it was the LA Times that reveled their front page investigation in 2009.
As well how do you accuse the “media” of not reporting Democratic wrongs and only Republican wrongs – if they’re not reported. Do you have secret a knowledge file that the press is suppressing? Certainly Fox News would be all over this. As for Republicans, especially the holy crusade kind, I think it’s fair game as they and the story would be more news worthy because they are always standing up for “family values”. Usually those who throw stones in glass houses are more newsy, and that would apply to Democrats as well.
So, is Fox News and the rest of Rupert Mudock’s media biased? Is Rush Limbaugh biased? 700 Club?, Wall Street Journal, and all the other right wing news media? I think your point of view has lots of soap boxes.
No Peter I blast them for bias, there is a huge difference. They might have some argument or reason they don’t run sex abuse stories, there is no excuse for the disparity in reporting. You see this all the time when the media fails to report someone that did something wrong was a democrat but when a republican does the same thing party affiliation is in the headline.
My problem is not the “media” supposed journalist, self proclaimed report one thing or another, its when they report as a weapon or agent of propoganda.
Reread this figure;
Tom Hoopes, then National Catholic Register executive editor, observed: “during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.”
This is clear cut bias, this is people advancing a political agenda pretending to be news. The effectivness of this displays in the ignorance the majority of liberals have about the facts, i.e. sexual abuse in our schools is a far bigger problem then in churchs.
If liberals projected a fraction of the hate and vitiral at our schools as they do the church far more kids would be saved from this nightmare.
I certainly won’t defend any school system for ignoring and not taking action on child sex abuse, but leave it to the Catholic Register to claim a conspiracy of news organizations to hide educational sex abuse in schools while running a witch hunt against the Catholic Church. The Church has used some pretty despicable tactics when victims came forward such as blaming the parents and lawyer-ing up, so they’re always looking for scapegoats and deflection issues. That’s been one of the complaints by victims, the Church has not reached out to them.
I do think that institutions ( or parts of them) can and do tend to hide their own wrong doing, Penn State is a recent example, but I can’t say if or why the LA Times or other news media has attempted to cover this up, I do know that given the “right’s” hate for teachers and teacher unions it’s own witch hunt propaganda will be full throttle.
The LA Times is not the only news organization and for sure everyone is jumping on the band wagon now to hopefully sort this out. Where was FOX
news before the LA Times supposedly “caught up” with what was going on, is Fox one of your hated “media”?
You lambast the LA Times and the “media” for covering this up but then quote the LA Times from 2009;
“An explosive, front-page investigation on Sunday (5/10/09) in the Los Angeles Times reported that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)”
In all of 2010, there were eight credible accusations against Catholic clergy for contemporaneous abuse of a minor. In 2009, the number was six.
Tom Hoopes, then National Catholic Register executive editor, observed: “during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.”
n US schools, according to the United States Department of Education, “nearly 9.6% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.” In studies of student sex abuse by male and female educators, male students were reported as targets in ranges from 23% to 44%. In U.S. school settings same-sex (female and male) sexual misconduct against students by educators “ranges from 18–28% of reported cases, depending on the study”
As mentioned here this is why I have such disdain for the media and liberals
For several years, we have reported on the disparate coverage by the Times and other mainstream outlets when reporting the awful crime of child abuse. While the Times and others seem to trumpet each-and-every decades-old allegation against a Catholic priest, they have either downplayed or ignored current-day scandals in our nation’s schools. As we’ve written before, “When it comes to the abuse of children, it sure seems like the national media doesn’t get too worked up unless the words ‘Cardinal,’ ‘bishop,’ or ‘priest’ is in someone’s job title.” (For a catalog of this disparity, see “Los Angeles Times: Clergy Abuse and School Abuse” at TheMediaReport.com.)
A couple questions remain, however:
Will the Times follow up on this report and continue to uncover other egregious cases? Remember how the Boston Globe handles the Catholic Church abuse scandal in 2002: It wasn’t just one article. The Globe alone ran a mind-blowing 989 articles related to the scandal in the 2002 calendar year alone! (Yes – that’s an average of almost three a day! See for yourself.) On McIntyre’s show this morning (5/11/09, 9 am hour), Song told the audience that, “Since the Rooney incident, the number of teachers ‘housed’ – that’s the term they use for being placed on administrative leave while charges against the employee are being investigated – has almost tripled in number.”
As the rest of the national media tracked the Church scandals in Boston several years ago and expanded on it, will mainstream outlets give this outrageous scandal the wide attention it deserves?
An explosive, front-page investigation on Sunday (5/10/09) in the Los Angeles Times reported that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) “repeatedly” returned teachers and aides credibly accused of child molestation back to classrooms, and these individuals then molested children again. The jaw-dropping story, by Times staffer Jason Song, is incredibly angering, and the tales of abuse are stomach-turning. (An accompanying audio slideshow at the Times web site is quite sad and maddening.)
In the last several years, media outlets have endlessly ripped and tarred the Catholic Church for mishandling episodes from decades ago. Meanwhile, these episodes in LAUSD date back are all quite recent. One documented case dates back to just last year! From Song’s story:
The first complaint against [Ricardo] Guevara came in 1995 … Guevara, who denied the allegation, was never charged with a crime. He was cleared to return to work at the same school … Several years later, he was hired full time at the Miramonte Early Education Center … District administrators knew of the 1995 accusation, but no one informed school leaders … In 2002, a 6-year-old accused “Mr. Ricardo” of repeatedly touching her groin during class one day … But with no witnesses besides the child, who over time mixed up details of what had occurred, prosecutors declined to pursue the case. Guevara returned to Miramonte to work with children.
In 2002, a student reported that Michael McMurray, a fourth-grade teacher at Plainview Avenue Elementary School in Tujunga, had on several occasions forced a girl to sit on his lap and pose for a camera … Two years later, during class, McMurray wrote a note to a fourth-grader on a Post-it, according to police documents. “Are you comfortable with me putting my hand on your knee?” he asked … McMurray, who molested her on at least two occasions, later pleaded no contest to sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Ten other girls stepped forward, complaining that they too had been touched inappropriately by McMurray, but the charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. At least three girls have sued the district.
James Marlo Duffin, a fourth-grade teacher at Middleton Elementary School in Huntington Park, had been investigated in May 2001 for allegedly touching a girl’s buttocks … Duffin returned to the classroom. Almost two years later, while teaching at Gulf Avenue Elementary School in Wilmington, he was accused of touching a girl’s buttocks and molesting two other students … It is not clear whether Duffin’s new principal had been told of the prior allegation.
Even as he was applying to be a trainee at the district in 2001, the aide, Paul Thompson, was under investigation by police for allegedly raping a 10-year-old boy at a group home where he had worked … A district background check failed to pick up on the complaint … Between July 2002 and March 2003, Thompson repeatedly forced the boy to perform sexual acts, according to amended criminal charges in 2005 alleging eight counts of lewd acts with a child. After a jury acquitted Thompson on five counts and could not agree on the other three, a mistrial was declared. In a second trial that ended in November 2005, the jury acquitted him of all remaining charges. Within a week, Thompson was reassigned to Blythe Street Elementary School in Reseda to be a special education aide to a female second-grader, according to his later testimony. It is unclear whether his new principal was told of the prior allegations.
[In 2007], before he was transferred to Markham Middle School as assistant principal, [Steve] Rooney had been arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. He allegedly brandished a handgun at the stepfather of a student who attended Foshay Learning Center … Police told senior district officials that they had found evidence in Rooney’s home of a possible sexual relationship between Rooney and the student, police later told The Times. But the student, 17, did not cooperate with the LAPD investigation, police said. No charges were filed. Without conducting their own investigation, L.A. Unified officials reassigned Rooney to Markham after a few months. In 2008, Rooney was arrested for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 13-year old female student from Markham at his home. Since then, he has been charged with various sexual crimes involving four girls, two former students at Foshay and two at Markham.
Isn’t this exactly what you “claim” your problem with the church is?
A major child sex abuse scandal has erupted in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Where’s the national media?
Steve Thomas Rooney faces 13 felony sex-related counts, including charges that he had unlawful sex with two female students, ages 13 and 14, during the time he was an assistant principal at a middle school. And here’s the kicker: In August 2007 LAUSD assigned Rooney to his job even though it knew that police had investigated him about an alleged sexual relationship with a student at his previous job at a high school. The former high school girl has since testified that Rooney impregnated her.
Don’t have them arrested, reassign them, cover up. Schools do this far more often then the church did, yet you and the media turn a blind eye. Why are you ok with the schools abusing kids but want the church shut down?
I think all sexual abuse is bad and all abusers should be arrested. Your only interested when its commited by the church or conservatives.
Timothy your story yesterday was right on and John and Ken you should be proud. But, you need the rest of the ugly story the district and the administration of South Gate Police Department is trying to keep secret. I am a police officer with LAUSD. LAUSD Officer Barajas was just transfered (when Angulo returned to work) far away from Southeast high school to keep him quiet and as punishment for standing up and doing the right thing. He is a hero and should be vindicated. This is what really happened at Southeast HS that you dont know about.
In February of this year the girl who was molested by the teacher in 2007 came directly to Officer Barajas and told him that in 2007 when she reported her rape Angulo and Sotomeyer beat her down in an interogation for three hours and intimidated her into changing her story when she was really in fact molested. She told Officer Barajas that she wanted something done but they refused. Knowing Angulo would try and cover it up like they did last year he did the right thing and reported this conversation not to Angulo but first directly to South Gate Police Department. The detective handling the case for SGPD interviewed the girl and knew immediately this should have been reported in 2007 and filed a criminal case not just with the local court but with the DA’s public integrity unit. That is how Mr Demurgen got involved and indicted the teacher as well as Angulo and Sotomeyer.
Now the cover up and the real reason Angulo is back to work. Members of the administration of the South Gate Police Department (Chief and Captains) are very, very close personal friends with Angulo. Fortunately for the kids at SEHS these police administrators were not aware that their own hard working detectives and the DA’s office did this investigation and got the indictments for these crimes until it was in the news or there may have been no investigation. Angulo’s friends at the SGPD’s administration after finding out about the indictments immediately wrote a secret letter on City of South Gate Chief of Police letterhead to the LAUSD administration supporting Angulo and attempting to counteract the indictments and stop Angulo’s suspension. It worked and he’s now back at SEHS where he can further protect molesters.
How do police administrators get off supporting a defendant in an active case that has not even gone to trial? I think the public integrity unit should investigate the Chief and Captains at South Gate PD and the involved administrators should be indicted and fired. Some of us think some members of the South Gate police administration may have known about the original molestation in 2007 from Angulo and didnt follow the law and investigate it as required. This may be another reason for them writing the letter and trying to derail this case. Mr. Angulo is now telling staff members who are shocked and dismayed that he is back to work that the police department would never have written this letter if he had done something wrong. These school staff members know better and are dishartened that he is back. What kind of message is this sending to other kids who may be molested and are afraid to report it.
It’s common knowledge that SEHS is refered to by many staff members as molestation high. Mr. Angulo and the SGPD administration should be ashamed of themself.
You make it so easy Peter;
“The reason the Catholic Church is such a target is because the abuse was institutionalized and with a wide spread cover up. It would be like the LA School District (your example) acting as an institution to hide, move and cover up pedophile teachers.”
You mean you don’t know LA Unified School District is far worse then the catholic church? Compared by number of employees a LAUSD employee is far more likly to sexually abuse a child then a catholic priest or nun.
Los Angeles Unified School District says a total of 21 teachers and administrators have been yanked from schools in the past year because of allegations of inappropriate sexual contact with kids. The District only provided that figure after a week of repeated questions from KNX 1070.
Los Angeles city councilman Bernard Parks is putting forward a motion today calling on the District to disclose all information relating to alleged sex crimes by a former assistant principal at two schools in the South LA area.
The council’s request came on the same day that LAUSD officials said that more than 20 employees have been removed from school in the past year because of inappropriate sexual conduct accusations that involved children. School officials said 25 teachers and employees were removed from schools during the past year.
“This is not out of the ordinary for school districts all over the nation,” said LAUSD Deputy Superintendent Ray Cortines. “These things happen.
45 in two years. Why do you ignore liberal instutions that molest far more kids then the church to attack the church? If you cared at all about kids you would stop worring about the church and focus on the schools. But you don’t care about kids you just want to push your politics, no matter how many kids suffer, typical liberal.
“I haven’t defended them once, you can’t cut and paste one comment where I said what they did was right, enough, or acceptable.”
No, but you seem to by trying to insinuate I support pedophiles everywhere but the Catholic Church. And you seem to be attempting to disperse the church’s crimes by pointing out other peoples crimes that were not part of the original discussion.
“I have argued your an idiot for some how equating failing to excommunicate to doing nothing.”
No, I did not equate that at all. The excommunication issue came up only when I posted how easily the nun was excommunicated, and no pedophile priests were, even serial child molesters. Removing priests from access to children AND reporting them to the police is the way it should have been handled – not transfer to unsuspecting diocese and more victims. Excommunication would not have been my first thought, neither would exoneration in the confessional. Frankly excommunication would have been too good for them.
“I have also argued your a hipocrit for only caring about the church abuse of children and not the rampant abuse at the hands of liberals in elected positions, education, hollywood, and fashion.”
We were not discussing how those groups were trying to deny women access to birth control. When have I ever defended pedophiles, anywhere? Can YOU cut and paste? There is a difference between what consenting adults do that is immoral (Democrats and Republicans) and what adults do to children (or defenseless women) – which is a crime.
You keep including “liberals” as one big group to hate, a tactic honed by “conservatives”. I’ll use your own words, would that be 50%+1, all, some, many? You take great satisfaction is prefacing your arguments with the word “liberal” as if that word alone makes what comes afterward factual.
“The point being you don’t care if kids are abused you just want to attack the church and conservatives.”
Really! You think I could care less about abused kids outside the Catholic Church – you really are an idiot, and one so filled with hate I bet it keeps you up at night. The reason the Catholic Church is such a target is because the abuse was institutionalized and with a wide spread cover up. It would be like the LA School District (your example) acting as an institution to hide, move and cover up pedophile teachers.
I suspect some of them might be smoking on the court the way they are playing. It would explain some of the defence
They use to offer free Taco Bell Chaluppas if they scored 100, I thought it was for the fans, it was probably more for the team to motivate them. 17,000 chaluppas would sound like heaven if you have the munchies
Wonder why Obama doesn’t show an interest in the Pro game? Probably because most players don’t really care nor worship him, they don’t care about him or politics. Too busy smokin’ them doobies when not on the court.
typing and yelling at the basketball game at same time doesn’t work
dang Bucks just wont lay down and die
“Do you support insurers being required to provide free birth control”
“Generic birth control cost $10 per month, do you support requiring insurers to pay $15 per month to provide it thus driving up premiums and the number of uninsured?”
Number two is more factual then number one. Its not free birth control, it increases premiums by the cost plus 10% or 15% plus what ever pharma marks it up since they are not price sensitive any more.
The jump in prices when a drug goes from private pay to insured is huge.
I thought we had an uninsured problem, why are liberals further increasing the cost of insurance?
This is so laughable. Maybe the Catholic Church should be mandated to pay 100% of pregnancy costs – that may turn them around.
it’s hard to think self funded plans will be let off the hook. I’d think they’d want to provide this coverage since pregnancy is expensive.
“Fox’s own national poll finds top-heavy public support for offering birth control coverage in health plans.
By a 61-34 percent margin, those surveyed this week approve of the Obama administration requiring all employee health plans to provide birth control coverage as part of health care for women.
Sixty-seven percent of women surveyed, and 65 percent of Catholic women, supported the contraception/birth control requirement. Fifty-three percent of men surveyed endorsed birth control coverage.
The Catholic hierarchy has relentlessly opposed the birth control requirement. Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain has addressed the issue in a March for Life sermon, a statement earlier this week and an article. All warned about threats to religious liberties.
But the flock isn’t buying it. The Fox poll 58 percent of Catholics endorsing birth control coverage. It tracks almost exactly with a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute released earlier this week. It, too, found that 58 percent of Catholics were in approval.”
what was the pool question? Slant it the right way you can get a majority to say anything. I could ask the question and get 80% to disapprove.
“Slant it the right way you can get a majority to say anything.”
Nate, that’s part of what makes it funny, IT”S A FOX POLL. How do you think they would slant it – toward Obama? Of course I would have thought the “flock” would have been smart enough and Catholic enough to oppose this no matter the question – guess not.
Would you be happy if the church paid the pedofile priest to go away?
The Los Angeles Unified School District paid Mark Berndt, the teacher at the center of the Miramonte Elementary child abuse scandal, $40,000 to drop the challenge to his dismissal last year.
The payout consisted of four months of back salary plus reimbursement for the cost of health benefits. Berndt was fired by the Board of Education in February 2011 after officials learned that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was investigating him for alleged lewd acts against students. He was arrested last week.
The firing took Berndt off the district payroll. But he fought to keep his job through an appeal process that lasted until he settled with the school system and resigned in June.
“Would you be happy if the church paid the pedofile priest to go away?”
Nate, why do you defend the Catholic Church’s handling of it’s decades old pedophile scandal by insinuating I support how a school district handles their pedophiles? Do you think I want protection for teachers while lambasting the church?
By the way the teacher has only been charged, he has not gone to trial yet and been convicted. He certainly should have been taken out of reach of children immediately.
“the district didn’t have evidence to justify the firing because the Sheriff’s Department investigation was ongoing.”
Not sure how you feel about a person’s legal rights and the assumption of innocence, but they are protected in the (U.S.) Constitution.
All the school district had to do was suspend him with pay. I’d certainly have supported the Church if they had done half as much to protect children as they had to protect priests and their own misguided image.
I haven’t defended them once, you can’t cut and paste one comment where I said what they did was right, enough, or acceptable.
I have argued your an idiot for some how equating failing to excommunicate to doing nothing.
I have also argued your a hipocrit for only caring about the church abuse of children and not the rampant abuse at the hands of liberals in elected positions, education, hollywood, and fashion. The point being you don’t care if kids are abused you just want to attack the church and conservatives.
Thanks for once again displaying your rank dishonesty.
This will be interesting. Apparently Obama and his administration are unaware that 60% of those with employer insurance don’t have an insurance company. 85%+ of large employers, i.e. college, hospital, etc are self funded and don’t have insurers.
If there is no Insurer then does that mean there is no benefit?
Was he lying and all these employers are still going to have to pay for controspectives. In which case he bought himself a month or two then not only are they going to be just as pissed but he is going to look like an idiot for now knowing most people aren’t covered by Insurance companies.
“Controspectives”? A freudian slip of the keys there Nate?
What an arrogant jerk Obama is. His solution after screwing up with the Catholic vote? Dump it on the Insurance industry without consulting them first how they would feel and respond.
Did this guy really get an American education? I really think it is ingrained in his soul and DNA he is a f—ing King from Kenya, even if he was born in Hawaii.
We are stuck with him only because the Republicans are completely clueless in trying to nominate a moderate spokesman/woman for the party, as well as the one party system of Repugnacrats won’t allow a third party or independent candidate could be placed in state ballots.
I guess we have to devolve to another civil war to learn and change, eh?
“When talking to someone and you say our it implies a shared possesion or commonality.”
Thanks for the grammar lesson. Actually it was in the same paragraph (the Middle) as my discussion on changing “our” state constitution – thought you might be smart enough to grasp that.
In future I’ll also have to correct your many spelling mistakes.
“The NC State Constitution (it was in my discussion about NC constitution):”
So your constitution in which case you should have said my. When talking to someone and you say our it implies a shared possesion or commonality.
“the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor,”, “all persons are created equal”
Depending upon your filing status and your taxable income, the North Carolina tax rate ranges from 6 to 7.75 percent.
Appears some people enjoy the fruits of their labor at an unequal rate…..so much for “all persons are created equal”
“Really, 50%+1 have done that? And you know this how?”
The correct statement would have been too many. I’ll settle for that.
Maye I’m as misinformed about polygamists as religious people are about gay marriage.
““Right now our constitution espouses equality of all citizens,””
“Not in 40 years it hasn’t.”
The NC State Constitution (it was in my discussion about NC constitution):
“Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.
We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.”
“If Catholics where half as scared of excommincation as you maybe there would be no sin.”
Yea, no sin by righteous Catholics. I guess pedophile priests weren’t scared of it either, or being turned in, or being stopped.
Just one report of many:
“So when are you liberals going to start kicking out your pediophiles?”
Sure, “liberals” protect and support pedophiles. If we find them I hope we criminally charge them and jail them, and not ship them to another diocese.
” If you believe that could happen then you’d also believe that people with multiple personalities could marry a dozen people – just wacky right wing ranting.”
It’s the left and liberals pushing for the right of multiple partners in bisexual/threeway relationships your moron. Ya wacky right wing, keep telling yourself that.
“Haven’t seen many Catholics repenting on birth control”
How much time do you spend in confessionals? How would you see or know how many repeant?
“Course Catholics have always made it easy to be a Catholic and live a sinful life.”
Unlike the non belivers who live such honest and riteous lives. Denegrate people who are considerly more honest and charitable then you for not being 100% honest and charitable. If you spent half as much time worrying about your own life as you did that of catholics maybe it wouldn’t be so sad?
“Is that why no pedophile priests have been excommunicated ”
You keep making this ignorant argument, why would a priest be excommunicated? You keep arguing this bogus and meaningless standard. Why do you have such a hard on for excommunication, for a non believer you sure believe in it. If Catholics where half as scared of excommincation as you maybe there would be no sin.
So when are you liberals going to start kicking out your pediophiles?
” is that the reason the anti-gay marriage faction works against equal access for gays, taxes!”
Some of them, there are millions so you better get to asking each one if you want to know.
“I think not.”
Your telling me I don’t know what I think?
“Right now our constitution espouses equality of all citizens,”
Not in 40 years it hasn’t. Affirmative Action is a direct contradiction to equality.
” It does however present some problems as to property rights and benefits offered through employment, etc.”
Now your trying to use marriage for social engineering, why would marriage have any effect on employement or property rights? The issues should be 100% seperate. Why as an employer should I care or be involved in my employees home life.
Becuase government started using marriage to provide unequal benefits they then made marriage a political issue in regards to who can and can not do it.
“Most of the polygamists though have used their “beliefs” to have sex with children”
Really, 50%+1 have done that? And you know this how? Your turning out to be one of the most bigoted people I have ever argued with.
“Your statement about a bi-sexual being able to have two partners is just plain goofy.”
You sheltered idiot.
“Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.”
Why do I waste my time arguing with such uneducated shutins?
“I do have a problem with marriage entitling people to lower taxes or special benefits not afforded those who are not married.”
I agree, so is that the reason the anti-gay marriage faction works against equal access for gays, taxes! – I think not. Here is NC there is an up coming vote on changing the state constitution to ban gay marriage. No where is equal taxation come up as an argument, only biblical reasons, even though those wanting equal marriage opportunity may not believe in the any particular bible and don’t want to be married in a church that doesn’t want them. Right now our constitution espouses equality of all citizens, I guess some will be more equal than others. In fact the ONLY reason this Republican (new government) effort to change the constitution is being put forward is to cement support from black churches who traditionally vote Democrat. It is pure politics, not principle.
“You still don’t answer how marriage can be a right then denied to people that want multiple marriage partners”
I support any marriage arrangement that is legally afforded heterosexual partners. Marriage with multiple partners may or may not work, with consenting adults why would you oppose it? It does however present some problems as to property rights and benefits offered through employment, etc. and paying for that. But those are financial questions not marriage questions. Most of the polygamists though have used their “beliefs” to have sex with children through prearranged marriages – that is a crime.
Your statement about a bi-sexual being able to have two partners is just plain goofy. If you believe that could happen then you’d also believe that people with multiple personalities could marry a dozen people – just wacky right wing ranting.
“Don’t require the church to recognize the marriage you wont have them fighting back.”
No where does this require any church to recognize any marriage they would not perform in their own church. Marriage is as much a civil/legal function as a religious one, for both you need a civil marriage license and people don’t need churches to get married. This is just scare warfare by narrow mined “liberal” haters and religious bigots. I think gays would be happy with a civil union called “marriage” if it gives them all the legal benefits of traditional marriage. Why don’t you agree with that? Why do you want complete exclusivity of the word – it’s just a word?
Why isn’t the Catholic church waging a crusade to make divorce illegal, if marriage if so sacrosanct? Does the church recognize divorce?
“you only get excommunicated for failing to confess and repeant.”
Haven’t seen many Catholics repenting on birth control – unless they do it in the confessional then go right back to using birth control, I guess they figure Gods not watching. Course Catholics have always made it easy to be a Catholic and live a sinful life. Just do as you wish, confess, and all is forgiven, you’ll still get into heaven. Is that why no pedophile priests have been excommunicated – they just repent in the secrecy of the confessional and the crime goes unpunished, unreported, and is forgiven?
No I don’t work to make marriage illegal, I have no problem with people spending their lives with who ever they feel like. I do have a problem with marriage entitling people to lower taxes or special benefits not afforded those who are not married. You speak of equal protection, where is it for the non married person? Our tax code and laws should not be used for social engineering.
You have no clue what excomminication and christianity is do you? You wouldn’t sound like such an idiot if you had a clue what you were running your mouth about. The purpose of christianity is not to judge and punish people, you only get excommunicated for failing to confess and repeant. The goal of the church is to improve the person not lock them out. If they excommunicated everyone that sin what would be the purpose?
Maybe half witted bigots should stop running around demanding excommunications?
You still don’t answer how marriage can be a right then denied to people that want multiple marriage partners, that is why we shouldn’t leave it to the supreme court to find rights, the legislature should do their job if needed. But again there is no reason for this to even be a federal consideration.
“What right do Catholics have in determining who can be married by civil ceremony – more church indoctrination into other peoples lives.
Don’t require the church to recognize the marriage you wont have them fighting back. The issue isn’t the church trying to keep people from getting married its people trying to force their lives on the church which they disagree with. Again remove the unequal benefits of marriage no one would care. Why aren’t they happy with civil unions, why does it need to be a marriage?
“the buying of birth control, is not commerace”
the ACA is not controlling who buys birth control, they’re controlling what is offered, buying it is still up to the religious or otherwise conscience of the buyer. Maybe the Catholic church should excommunicate all those Catholics who are buying and using birth control – cause there’s a lot.
By the way, marriage is/will being addressed by the constitution, under the equal protection clause. If it gets approved by the Supreme Court will you/Cathoilc Church accept it? As to state law, do you work at making gay marriage constitutionally illegal in your state?
What right do Catholics have in determining who can be married by civil ceremony – more church indoctrination into other peoples lives.
“throw the Constitution out when it suits you.”
When have I done this, cite any example, even one.
“changing/interpreting the Constitution to deny gay people the right to marry”
Where is that in the constitution? Marriage is not addressed anywhere in the constitution nor should it be, the federal government has no business in this matter as it was not a power granted to it. This is a State power that should be addressed at the State level. If a State says gay people can marry then they should be allowed to marry. If a State says they can’t then it should be illegal. The federal government has no business telling a State how to handle this sitution.
To further mock your argument and beliefs why is a bi-sexual person not allowed to marry both a man and women? They should have all the same rights afforded strait or gay couples, no?
Murder is a crime at both the federal and state level, anti abortion laws are not counter to the constitution. If someone hits a pregant women and kills the baby they are charged with a crime for what they did to the baby, if the mother or her chosen doctor kills the baby its ok though?
“A wave of new state fetal homicide laws recognizing a fetus “of any gestational age” as a person and potential crime victim has abortion rights advocates worried the statutes could undermine a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.
This year, Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia passed new fetal homicide statutes making it a separate offense to kill a fetus when a pregnant woman is murdered or assaulted. All five new laws apply to fetuses starting at conception.
Among the 37 states with laws making death of a fetus a separate crime, language giving legal status to a fetus at the earliest stages of pregnancy is proliferating. While often enacted in response to a high-profile crime such as the 2002 Modesto, Calif., murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Connor, these laws are increasingly being drawn into the abortion debate.”
In 37 states its ok for a mother to murder her baby but not someone else, how do you square that? Unless you consider a fetus property and thus a property crime, which you liberals would be just discussing enough to do.
“The Constitution says the federal government has the right to regulate commerce, why doesn’t the Catholic Church abide by that”
When does the church not? Refusing to engage in commerace, the buying of birth control, is not commerace, well it was until Obama walked all over the constitution.
I recall reading about national defence in the constitution, can you please point out birth control?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“Blessings of Liberty”, that would be counter to ObamaCare on all sorts of levels.
“Churches ARE EXEMPT!!!”
Not according to the way the law is written, only those employees directly involved in the spreading or teraching of religion, they are already arguing janitors for example would not be covered by the exemption. Oh Huffington didn’t share that with you?
Yes Nate, throw the Constitution out when it suits you. Tell me which law the Catholic Church holds higher, man’s law or their God’s law? Seems you right wing nut jobs don’t have much aversion to changing/interpreting the Constitution to deny gay people the right to marry or to ban abortion.
The Constitution says the federal government has the right to regulate commerce, why doesn’t the Catholic Church abide by that – because maybe it goes against their conscience?
“they are already arguing janitors for example”
They? Who they? Where? Janitors where? An affiliate or in a actual church? But you know if the janitor does not want to use birth control no one is making him.
“and force them to pay for services they don’t believe in and doing it all with the power of government?”
Well Nate, we’re all required to pay for stuff we don’t believe in. Quakers are required to pay for the military through their taxes, they can’t opt out. We’re all required to pay for the salaries and office expense allowances for people we did not vote for. We’re all required to pay for government giveaways to corporations we may not agree with. As for health plans we’re all required to pay for a number of things we might not need or want.
That’s the continuing discussion. Again, no one is required to use birth control if they don’t believe in it – why is that so hard to grasp.
As for Muslims and Jews, they’re required to pay for the FDA which inspects pork farms and processors – do you want them to be able to opt-out of paying for the FDA? Muslims would like to have their own family law courts based on their religion, do you favor giving them that under freedom of religion?
“This mandate has nothing to do with access for women, its pure politics and trying to insult the church and reduce their constitutionly guaranteed freedoms.”
Churches ARE EXEMPT!!!
So you are ok telling Catholitics what they believe is stupid and force them to pay for services they don’t believe in and doing it all with the power of government?
And all the time blame conservatives for infringing on civil rights and freedoms. The more people see how anti-american you are the sooner we can get rid of people like you.
The church and religious organizations not paying for contraceptives is in no way a hinderous to women receiving them. They are cheap enough and given away free at enough places women working for those organization still have plenty of access. This mandate has nothing to do with access for women, its pure politics and trying to insult the church and reduce their constitutionly guaranteed freedoms.
Great to know Liberals think the biggest problem in this country right now is women having access to birth control.
Face it, this is finally one of the tangible examples of why mandated services are a loser for an alleged free society. You cannot tell people what to do on an issue that is not black and white. This is not about murder, theft, deceit, or destruction of property. This is about health care choice, and people have the right to say they do or do not want it. And it is completely fair to see that letting mandated care go unchallenged will metastasize into uglier intrusions.
Defenders and apologists have no idea how they are being screwed by the leadership they scream so loud to support. And it is still lame, pathetic, and clueless how it goes on.
The next group to come forward and bend over, please!
“This is about health care choice, and people have the right to say they do or do not want it.”
Determined, on this issue the “people” have the right to use birth control or not, the use of it is not mandated. What inhibits choice is an institution determining what is offered and what is not.
I can debate the merits or lack of for who pays and how much, but I will not support stupid religious doctrine telling everyone how to live their lives.
To research the background study on why this was adopted it can be found here:
” I will not support stupid religious doctrine telling everyone how to live their lives.”
When we protest muslims inflicting their religion on everyone else you will stand up for that as well right? i.e. if someone wants to take their guide dog in a cab?
Muslim taxi drivers refusing to allow the guide dogs into their cars is a recurring theme. In July 1997, for example, a New Orleans taxi driver, Mahmoud Awad, got so incensed at his passenger, Sandi Dewdney, trying to bring a dog into the cab that he physically yanked her out of it by the arm while yelling “No dog, No dog, Get out, get out.” He harmed her broken wrist.
Another instance arose in Cincinnati in February 1999, when Annie McEachrin, blind since birth, tried to get into Hassan Taher’s cab but he refused her dog entry. When McEachrin complained to the city, Taher noted that Islam holds dogs to be impure and CAIR came again to his defense, noting that “People from the Middle East especially, we have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs. The driver has a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. He’s acted in accordance with his religious beliefs.”
Why is it unamerican disgusting people like you claim your for freedom then turn a blind eye to every abuse of freedom unless its against catholics or some other group you dislike? There are thousands of abuses of freedom far worse then catholics saying they don’t want to pay for birth control and hipocrits like you support most of them. Then first chance you get to bash catholics you supposedly ” I will not support stupid religious doctrine telling everyone how to live their lives.”
BS Peter, your idelogy imbraces stupid religious doctrine to its core.
Where does this end? Under the new healthcare law if some politician belives eating pork is good for you, its is, are they going to require muslims and some jews to start eating pork?
Long hair can spread lice if there is an outbreak, should we require, under healthcare law, orthodox muslims to cut theirs?
This latest action is the exact reason why the Supreme Court needs to declare the law unconstitutional, ObamaCare opens the door to government intrusion into every part of our lives.
On the bright side if it does stand they can use ObamaCare to force Occupy Wall Street to take a bath.
He’s also a serial liar.
“so that means that the “affair” was between consenting ADULTS,”
Actually it would be workplace sexual harrasement, if that was the CEO of a private corporation caught doing that to an intern the left would riot till they were fired.
“Newt Gingrich, a serial adulterer and who divorced his first wife while she was fighting cancer?”
This is what makes people like you so disgusting, before you say something like that about someone maybe you should get your facts straight? According to both the wife and daughter that is a complete lie, the agreed to divorce before the cancer. Maybe your life is so bad becuase the way you live it?
I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.
Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.
Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.
“How many times were you able to choke down your disgust and vote for Clinton?”
Well Nate, as I remember Ms. Lewinsky was 22 years old, so that means that the “affair” was between consenting ADULTS, not between a church priest in a position of power and an underage juvenile who was helpless.
So, which one is a crime and which one is not a crime?
So, how do you feel about Newt Gingrich, a serial adulterer and who divorced his first wife while she was fighting cancer?
Since we’re we’re seeing who can out mud sling maybe you’d be interested about this from Wikipedia on the Clinton affair.
“During the scandal, supporters of President Clinton alleged that the matter was private and “about sex”, and they claimed hypocrisy by at least some of those who advocated for his removal. For example, during the House investigation it was revealed that Henry Hyde, Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee and lead House manager, also had an affair while in office, as a state legislator. Hyde, aged 70 during the Lewinsky hearings, dismissed it as a “youthful indiscretion” when he was 41.
A highly-publicized investigation campaign actively sought information which might embarrass politicians who supported impeachment. According to the British newspaper The Guardian,
Larry Flynt…the publisher of Hustler magazine, offered a $1 million reward… Flynt was a sworn enemy of the Republican party [and] sought to dig up dirt on the Republican members of Congress who were leading the impeachment campaign against President Clinton. […Although] Flynt claimed at the time to have the goods on up to a dozen prominent Republicans, the ad campaign helped to bring down only one. Robert Livingston – a congressman from Louisiana…abruptly retired after learning that Mr Flynt was about to reveal that he had also had an affair.
Republican congressman Livingston had been widely expected to become Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in the next Congressional session, then just weeks away, until Flynt revealed the affair. Livingston resigned and challenged Clinton to do the same.
Flynt’s investigation also claimed that Congressman Bob Barr, another Republican House manager, had an affair while married; Barr had been the first lawmaker in either chamber to call for Clinton’s resignation due to the Lewinsky affair. Barr lost a primary challenge less than three years after the impeachment proceedings.
Dan Burton, Republican Representative from Indiana, had stated “No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties ….” In 1998, Burton was forced[by whom?] to admit that he himself had an affair in 1983 that produced a child.
Newt Gingrich, Representative (R-GA) and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994, resigned from the House after admitting in 1998 to having had an affair with his intern while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky.
Republican Helen Chenoweth-Hage from Idaho aggressively called for the resignation of Bill Clinton, and admitted to her own six-year affair with a married rancher during the 1980s”
So Peter what are your thoughts on the propensity of elected Democrats to sexually abuse women and children? How many times were you able to choke down your disgust and vote for Clinton?
“But you don’t have a problem with the Presidents you elect that sexually take advantage of teenage interns?”
Well gee Nate how would you know, we weren’t discussing how Democratic Presidents were claiming their religious beliefs were violated by being mandated to cover birth control in their health plans.
But if the topic does come up I’ll be sure to voice my own opinion having you assume how I would think on the issue.
“I have a problem with the Catholic Church that has done everything it can to trample womens rights while claiming “moral” high ground.”
But you don’t have a problem with the Presidents you elect that sexually take advantage of teenage interns?
“My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath, to set out in sometimes graphic detail how she spent days and occasionally nights with the notoriously sex-addicted president.
She tells how he refused to kiss her on the lips, and once instructed her to perform a sex act on one of his friends, which she did. On another occasion, he asked her to similarly “look after” his younger brother Teddy, but she refused.”
I think I am beginning to peace together your liberal thinking. You want women on birth control and able to get abortios so all the women you sexually molest won’t get pregant. And if they do you can quitely take care of it without causing you any problems. Your entire idelogy is built around molesting underage and barely legal women.
Not a more depraived and disgusting group of people have lived.
“Alford also wrote that at one point she mistakenly thought she was pregnant. Kennedy set up an appointment with an abortion doctor, even though abortion was illegal at the time.”
“But she says the intimacy didn’t stop with him. Kennedy coerced her into taking care of a friend who looked “tense” during a swim.
This was a challenge to give Dave Powers oral sex.
“I don’t think the president thought I’d do it, but I’m ashamed to say that I did. The president silently watched.”
Ya you really care about women
That’s right Nate use other sex scandals to justify the abuses in the Catholic Church while claiming I support pedophiles in other institutions.
As for you stupid statement asking, has anyone ever lost their citizenship for abusing children, well has anyone ever lost their citizenship for doing abortions?
Yea I have a problem with the Catholic Church that has done everything it can to trample womens rights while claiming “moral” high ground. But you know, even Catholic women have got it figured out – they have sex, just for the sex – AND use birth control – even the Pope can’t grasp that one.
And religious affiliate institutions don’t hire just their own believers, so maybe the non-believers want access to the same coverage as other people.
But in the end the ACA doesn’t force anyone to use birth control, so don’t sweat it. Don’t believe in it, don’t use it, that’s choice. Want to believe the Catholic Church which says even if you’re poor keep having kids, then keep having kids, and turn their support increasingly over to the taxpayer.
Seems it’s always the Catholic Church who roadblocks progress.
” and NO priest has been excommunicated for pedophilia or for covering up pedophilia?”
Why would they be excommunicated? That is one of the dumbest arguments I have heard. Does the US revoke citizenship when someone abuses children? Numerous priest have been defroked which makes sense, to ask why none have been excommunicated just shows your irnorance.
I don’t think you have a problem at all with pedophila Peter you just hate the church. If you really cared about kids you would also complain about the unions that protect pedophile teachers, but being the good liberal sheep you are you would never do that.
On June 26, 1997, New York teacher Roland Pierre was was arrested on felony sex-abuse charges after allegedly calling one of his PS 138 sixth-grade students into an empty classroom, closed the door and molested her. Pierre was permanently removed from the classroom, but like many tenured teachers accused of wrongdoing, he wasn’t fired. Instead, he joined other disgraced educators in the so-called “rubber room” — the “purgatory of teachers yanked for the classroom for alleged wrongdoing” — where he’d wait out the union-guided appeals process.
But, as the NY Post notes, 13 years later, Pierre is still receiving full pay and fringe benefits from his old teaching job, including health benefits, pension and vacation time. In all, the 75-year-old continues to pull down $97,101 a year for a job he hasn’t done in 13 years.
Another teacher accused of serious wrongdoing — including impregnating a 16-year-old student and allegedly molesting a string of other girls — finally retired this month after spending seven years in his own “rubber room”:
A teacher charged with 23 counts of lewd conduct in his classroom successfully thwarted attempts by the Los Angeles Unified School District to fire him. In the process, the teacher, who is accused of spoon-feeding his semen to blindfolded children, managed to retain lifetime health-benefits provided by the nation’s second-largest school system.
Former Miramonte Elementary School teacher Mark Berndt also automatically receives nearly $4,000 a month in pension from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.
Boy, has THIS shit ever gone off the rails.
Agreed. Cant believe I got sucked into this. Always try to avoid this asinine stuff. Sigh. Mea culpa.
Actually Nate, I support most supported health care issues, including treatment of Ed (even though it’s just sex after all). Pregnancy is a health care issue and a life changing issue especially for women who bear the blunt end of child care. One argument against artificial pregnancy prevention is just stay abstinent, why isn’t that argument used to deny ED treatment?
But you object to the feds mandating pregnancy prevention and Catholics are being used to fan the flames of a crusade against Obama, yet many states already require birth control to be covered.
“At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
An additional two states—Michigan± and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion.
Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans.
Some laws prohibit insurance plans from excluding contraceptive services or supplies.”
In addition I don’t look to the Catholic Church for any moral high ground as most of that has been abandoned in it’s history. Explain how a nun in Arizona was excommunicated for allowing a very justifiable pregnancy to be aborted, and NO priest has been excommunicated for pedophilia or for covering up pedophilia?
I can’t find a single pedophile kicked out of the Democrat Party, why is that Peter?
Worse yet you liberals seem to really love your Pediophiles as elected officials;
REP. FRED RICHMOND (D-N.Y.):
Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he “made bad judgments involving my private life.” In spite of a Democratic primary opponent’s attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection.
REP. GERRY STUDDS (D-Mass.):
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages — Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane’s conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds’s more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.
REP MEL REYNOLDS (D-Ill.):
Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1.
Neil Edward Goldschmidt (born June 16, 1940) is an American businessman and former Democratic politician from Oregon who held local, state, and federal offices over three decades. After serving as the governor of Oregon, Goldschmidt is widely considered the most influential figure in the state’s politics, both as an elected public official and as a lobbyist and policy consultant. His legacy and career were severely damaged by revelations that he had a sexual relationship with a minor during his first term as Mayor of Portland
I could go on all day posting all the sick disgusting things Democrats do.
LOL why don’t you cite your neighbors’ sister’s friend’s bartender, they would be more reliable then this.
Forty Deuce is not a strip club, if they can’t get simple facts like that strait.
“uses a strip club named Forty Deuce in Las Vegas”
Not to mention it starts with this;
“some lack sources, and some are rumors. Mark individually those that do, mark as a rumor if there’s been no source provided for a long time, or add a source if you know it to be true and have a link or other verifiable outside reference from a reliable source.”
If this is the best you have it proves my point how sleazy liberals are. Democrats get caught molesting kids, you respond with rumors and made up stories. Just what we ewxpect from liberals.
Cant say I really care. It takes a real partisan ideologue to claim that his side is devoid of sexual scandals. I know of no serious writer on either side of the political spectrum who claims that one side dominates on the issue of sex scandals. TBH, I dont really care enough to spend more than 10 seconds searching, which is what I did. This seems to be important to you, so feel free to look.
“It takes a real partisan ideologue to claim that his side is devoid of sexual scandals.”
Please cut and paste where I said anything close to that.
Ya exactly, so what does that make you killing straw men like this? What’s lower then a partisan ideologue?
Democrats by far are more forgiving of scandal. Republicans vote out their perverts and criminals. Those people have a lifelong place in the Democrat party.
and all the pediophiles I listed that got reelected
Ok, sex then for males is like a broken arm that the rest of us should pay for? Can’t they just suck it up and deal with it, like a man?
“Birth Control Pills – If you have a functional cyst, your doctor may prescribe birth control pills to help make it smaller. If you get ovarian cyst often, birth control pills decrease the chance of new ones forming.”
Would a Catholic Hospital prescribe the pill for this type of cyst?
The treatment for cysts is not usually to make the women incapable of having children. It may be a result of the surgery to treat a severe cyst, but it is not the treatment.
yes almost all plans, I have not seen one that doesn’t, allows birth control when treating a medical condition that requires it.
“Ok, sex then for males is like a broken arm that the rest of us should pay for? Can’t they just suck it up and deal with it, like a man?”
You really have no grasp of law and common sense do you? If an insurance plan covers diagnosis and treatment of illnesses why would it exclude ED? Following your lack of thought I can only assume when a women has a mastectomy due to breast cancer you don’t think she should get cosmetic surgery to repair the cosmetic consiquences of the cancer? Why should women get cosmetic surgery, that’s your thinking on this right?
I also don’t see you making any distinction when viagra et al is used post prostate surgery, or do you object to that as well?
I wonder if Catholic Hospitals and institutions cover male reproductive problems?
Basis of Health Insurance going back 40+ years, what does Insurance cover;
• Medically unnecessary. That are not medically necessary for the care and treatment of an injury or illness, except where otherwise specified, or are not accepted as standard practice by the American Medical Association or the Food and Drug Administration.
Birth Control when Medically necessary is covered. Equating birth control and the treatment of a medical condition, ED, in any other manner is dishonest and a sign of ignorance.
Insurance was for the diagnosis and treatment of illness and injury, preventing birth is neither. Something ABC and most liberals aren’t smart enough to understand.
“Birth Control when Medically necessary is covered. Equating birth control and the treatment of a medical condition, ED, in any other manner is dishonest and a sign of ignorance.”
When would birth control be medically necessary, especially in the eyes of the Catholic Church?
In case you didn’t notice an erection is just for sex, not a life threatening medically necessary function – unless you’re a male of course also deciding when birth control is covered. If a male can get ED coverage could his wife get birth control covered just for balance?
“In case you didn’t notice an erection is just for sex, not a life threatening medically necessary function”
You just can’t stop the stupid once it starts can you? Ingrown nail is that life threatening? Heck broken arm wont kill you 99% of the time. Very very few illness or injury are life threatening, where did this new car you set come from? Your argument falls apart so now you only want to treat life threatening illness and injury?
An eye is just for seeing should we stop treating those?
“When would birth control be medically necessary, especially in the eyes of the Catholic Church?”
When it is used to treat a medical condition. Cyst are a common reason as are some conditions that cause excessive bleeding I believe.
If the test has value, I would prefer it be covered by insurance rather than paid for out of pocket. We know that when people pay for things out of pocket, like with high deductibles, they often skip tests or treatments that lead to much higher costs in the future. I think the costs of any individual test are important, but total costs are even more important.
” If you want everyone to have free birthcontrol then just give it away, pick 2-3 generic versions, buy couple hundred million and hand them out, far cheaper then insuring it.”
This would be ok with me.
if covering all these test and routine services drives up the cost of insurance to the point people can’t afford it what have you accomplished?
“nsurance was for the diagnosis and treatment of illness and injury, preventing birth is neither. ”
Your insurance does not pay for tubals?
“Never before in U.S. history has the federal government forced citizens to purchase directly what violates their beliefs.”
“Administration officials stressed that individual decisions about whether or not to use birth control, and what kind, remain in the hands of women and their doctors.”
Guess what, it’s still up to the individual to decide whether they want to use birth control, free or not. We know Nate how the Catholic Church has always fought for freedom of thought and religion, and been a champion of social justice.
Here is a broader discussion with less “Crusader” mentality.
“Sebelius agreed, issuing a new federal regulation last summer.
That rule, however, exempted houses of worship and their employees, as well as other institutions whose primary purpose is to promote religious belief. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places would not be required to cover contraceptives, it specified.
It was a different story for religious-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies.
Although many of those employers had not traditionally covered birth control, the new regulation required them to do so. Catholic hospitals, which at a critical moment had defied the bishops to back Obama’s health care law in Congress, immediately sought a broader exemption. On Friday they were denied.
Representing some 600 hospitals, the Catholic Health Association expressed disappointment.”
“”The challenge that these regulations posed for many groups remains unresolved,” said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the group. “This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic society, which has always respected the role of religions.””
The exemption is still there for houses of worship, just not “affiliates”, which has to go through an approval process, otherwise anyone who just wanted to avoid the coverage could claim the exemption no matter how loose the religious connection.
you wouldn’t be so clueless as to use the amendment from 2011 that is overridden by the new rule would you? You know this is 2012 right?
I think you should worry less about “Fair & Balanced” and worry more about “Illiterate & Dumb”
Nate, what new rule? Your link reaffirms the religious opt-out, although opposed by the level headed thinkers at Catholics for Choice. Have you got a link to a new opt-out of the opt-out?
As for Fox, I’ve been watching it ramp up this religious crusade against Obama for a week now. God is a Republican after all.
The regulation includes a religious exemption if an organization qualifies. Under that provision, an employer generally will be considered religious if its main purpose is spreading religious beliefs, and if it largely employs and serves people of the same faith. That means a Catholic parish likely would qualify for a religious exemption; a large church-run soup kitchen probably would not.
Employers that fail to provide health-insurance coverage under the federal law could be fined $2,000 per employee per year. The bishops’ domestic anti-poverty agency, Catholic Charities, says it employs 70,000 people nationwide. The fine for the University of Notre Dame, the most prominent Catholic school in the country, could be in the millions of dollars.
HHS says employers can appeal a decision on whether they qualify for an exemption. But Hannah Smith, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said: “The mandate vests too much unbridled discretion in the hands of government bureaucrats.”
Mandates for birth-control coverage are not entirely new for religious groups. Twenty-eight states, including Washington, require contraceptive coverage in prescription-drug plans. Of those states, 17 offer a range of religious exemptions, while two others provide opt-outs of other kinds. However, opponents of the HHS regulation say there is no state mandate as broad as the new federal rule combined with a religious exemption that is so narrow.
Now the federal government will decide if someone is religious or not and organizations such as Noter Dome, Cathoilic Hospitals, etc etc must cover it as they don’t meet the requirement. It’s not even certain a perish would qualify for an exemption.
Talk about fair and balance how did you manage to leave all of that out of your cut and paste?
WASHINGTON—Many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, the Obama administration announced Friday in an election-year move that outraged religious groups, fueling a national debate about the reach of government.
The new rule announced Friday Jan 20, 2012
Anyone read this amongst all the screaming;
“The administration released an amendment that allows religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services.”
I guess Fox News figures “Fair & Balanced” doesn’t include telling the whole story.
where is the link to this Hypocrite?
Cialis, 30 days supply, 20 mg, $677.00
Pay out-of-pocket, or Shut The …. ..
” If you want one, take the money out of your Health Savings Account and go buy it. How often should you do that? Probably as often as it gives you peace of mind. ”
John almost has this right. We should follow best evidence for how frequently we prescribe these tests. Best evidence could allow for some variation if there is real disagreement. We, insurance coverage, should pay for tests of that frequency. If people want the peace of mind that would come from extra tests, they should pay fro them out of pocket, just like John suggests. (i cannot remember John’s stance on taxes and HSAs, but I suspect his plan would have us all contributing towards paying for those who want mammograms every month.)
do the math then explain where there is any logic in that suggestion. To cover anything with insurance cost more then if it was paid out of pocket. Why would you pay $x+ to an insurance company when you could pay $x direct?
I know liberals are terrible at Math but I would think eventually it would sink in. If you want everyone to have free birthcontrol then just give it away, pick 2-3 generic versions, buy couple hundred million and hand them out, far cheaper then insuring it.
Start with this simple question; What risk am I insuring, and paying a risk premium for, if I know I have to have this test every X years? If there is no risk there should be no insurance, period
The Catholic Church has always forbidden contraception not because they are for “life”, but because they are for more Catholics contributing to church coffers.
Yes, lets use government money used to support Catholic Hospitals to espouse Catholic doctrine that helps poor people make more kids they (and taxpayers) can’t support. Of course this is being pumped up to make defeating Obama a religious crusade.
Easy way around this is to not accept ANY government money, then do as you please.
For those equally at clueless as Peter1 and lacking all common knowledge;
Hospitals are required to stablize and treat anyone that comes in their doors.
If you refused to accept Medicaid/Medicare payment for these services it would take 2-3 months for everyone to figure out they could go to your hospital and get 100% free care, just claim your covered by government insurance.
The government has so intruded into healthcare its impossible to not take government money, pretty easy huh?
“Hospitals are required to stablize and treat anyone that comes in their doors.”
Do Catholic Hospitals need the government to tell them the right thing to do? Wouldn’t that fall under “charity” care for a church so crusading about it’s “moral” duty?
Perhaps the best way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid men…. jesus who the heck needs them anyway.
So essentially by not providing birth control to the lowest economic class you enable them to have more kids, not wanted, that the rest of us get to pay for. Great plan….
They can afford the cell phone to set it up
The can afford the beer to get in the mood
They can afford the pack of cigs for after
But how dare we ask them to come up with the $20 per month for birth control, they might be able to only afford sex 20 times per month instead of 23 and that is unacceptable.
Planned parenthood does not give birth control to anyone for free…..