A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Obama Stands Up to Bishops and Protects Birth Control Coverage


Posted: Jan 22, 2012

reat news! Despite months of fierce lobbying by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Obama administration announced today that it would not exempt Catholic hospitals from the Affordable Care Act requirement for insurance plans to cover employees’ birth control. The news, which comes on the first day of Trust Women Week, is a welcome victory for feminists.

Back in November, feminists were concerned that President Obama might cave in to the Bishops’ pressure to exempt religious institutions. If the Bishops had their way, it would have meant that organizations that aren’t actual churches–such as colleges, universities and hospitals–would get out of covering birth control in insurance plans for their students and employees, despite an HHS ruling last August that birth control constitutes preventive care and should be covered with no copay. Feminists–including Feminist Majority President (andMs. publisher) Eleanor Smeal–have loudly urged the administration not to let Catholic Bishops deny no-cost birth control coverage to millions. Here is Smeal’s response to today’s announcement:

At last—concern for women’s health trumps pressure from the Catholic Bishops. Millions of women who may have been denied access to birth control with no co-pays or deductibles will now have full access. I am especially pleased that college students at religiously affiliated institutions will now have coverage for birth control without co-pays or deductibles under their school health plans beginning in August 2012.
Birth control is the number one prescription drug for women ages 18 to 44 years. Right now, the average woman has to pay $50 per month for 30 years for birth control. No wonder many low-income women have had to forgo regular use of birth control and half of US pregnancies are unplanned. This decision will help millions of women and their families.

Some religious institutions will be given a one-year extension–from August 2012 to August 2013–to implement the no-fee coverage. Here are the details of the ruling:

  • Non-profit religious institutions that do not currently cover contraception have until August 2013 to do so with no co-pays or deductibles
  • However, religious institutions’ insurance plans that already cover birth control must do so with no co-pays or deductibles starting August 2012
  • All student insurance plans at religiously affiliated universities must cover contraception with no co-pays or deductibles beginning August 2012
  • Only women who work directly for a house of worship, such as for a church, synagogue, or mosque itself, are exempted from this required coverage

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012...trol-coverage/
;

Obama supports abortion - So much for freedom of religon

[ In Reply To ..]
So much for anyone believing in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of their faith. Obama cannot strip our freedoms fast enough to please himself.

It's the opposite that's true. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Obama isn't allowing one particular Christian religion to make the laws in this country. At least, if I wanted to use birth control pills, I'd still have my freedom to do so, so we're headed in the wrong direction. As far as abortions, birth control, etc., at least we're not being ruled by someone's church, etc.

And I cannot understand which "freedoms" are being stripped. Care to elaborate?

Opposite true - You are so wrong

[ In Reply To ..]
Through Obamacare, I am personally being forced to abortions, which I do not believe in. That is 1 example of my freedom being ignored. What till it hits homel..maybe then you'll understand. Clearly, you have not read Obamacare and all that it FORCES US TO DO - suggest you get a copy.
your freedom being ignored? - oh dear
[ In Reply To ..]
Do you really believe that if you don't get your way your freedom is being ignored? What a shocking statement.

Mr. Obama is not forcing you to pay for abortions. The Supreme Court made abortion legal; thus, it is part and parcel of our healthcare system in the United States. You have every right, as an American, to try to change this constitutional amendment.
thank you - SM
[ In Reply To ..]
for having the patience to explain this glaringly obvious fact to the members of the Church of Perpetually Offended. I for one do not have the patience to explain what someone should have learned in middle school. I really think there should be a civics test before allowing someone to vote. If you cant take the time to learn the basics of our government, you should not be allowed to vote.
Please see message. - Marlene
[ In Reply To ..]
And some of these people should learn that throwing two-year-old tantrums shouldn't count when they don't get their way.
Again - You are wrong
[ In Reply To ..]
The choice as to whether or not to pay for abortion has been stripped under Obamacare. Before, I could eliminate the murder of a child from insurance policy; cannot do so under Obamacare. OMG - you just don't get it. Sending your money ot the Cayman's is legal, too, but look at the outrage on this board by those that want to control that. I am talking about human life and MY DESIRE TO PROTECT IT, NOT DESTROY IT.
I have a flash for you - old and burned out
[ In Reply To ..]
All you right wingers are so worried about fetuses but you consistently refuse to pay for infrastructure in this country. So when the next bridge collapses and a few thousand people die, whose fault will that be. Why is the life of a fetus more important than the mothers, fathers, brothers and children who will die the next time this happens?
really interesting question - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
Excellent post. Thank you. (nm) - Marlene
[ In Reply To ..]
aghast - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
forced to perform or forced to have? thats truly bad news.
Aghast - Obamacare covers abortions
[ In Reply To ..]
I do not believe in abortion, but would be forced to pay for them for and any all wanting one through Obamacare. It is in the bill.
I did not believe - old and burned out
[ In Reply To ..]
in the Iraq war yet I was forced to pay far more to support that devastating and outrageous oil grab.
That is nonsense - old and burned out
[ In Reply To ..]
I don't know where you are getting your information. Perhaps you've been reading literature from the Chinese government.
Obamacare forces all of us to pay - for abortions
[ In Reply To ..]
Obviously poster missed a word. Oh if we could all be so perfect as some people on this board. Obamacare forces those that do not believe in abortion to now fund abortions. Would give you the page number, but pretty sure you would not believe Obama's written word or bother to read it. And yeah, we are looking more like China daily. Pretty clear your informational source is not up to snuff.
Hey - old and burned out
[ In Reply To ..]
I've been forced for ten years to pay for two wars I don't believe in.
Nobody is being forced to have abortions. (sm) - Marlene
[ In Reply To ..]
It's yet another outright lie intended to bring down this president.

I'd bet you think Glenn Beck is just peachy.
Marlene - You need to read
[ In Reply To ..]
No one said everyone was forced to have abortions. Poster made it very clear they were referring to Obamacare that forces EVERYONE TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS FOR THOSE WANTING ABORTIONS regardless of someone's belief in pro life and not supporting the killing of a fetus. Keep spinning. It causes dizziness and the spinner to fall over.
YOU need to read and - watch your tone
[ In Reply To ..]
The post Marlene replied to said QUOTE:

"Through Obamacare, I am personally being forced to abortions" blah, blah, blah.

For you to insinuate that Marlene's reading comprehension skills are lacking is out of line. The poster obviously did NOT make themselves very clear, and with all of the nuttiness posted on this forum, who knows what they meant.
I can assure you I'm not dizzy (sorry) so I must (sm) - Marlene
[ In Reply To ..]
not be spinning anything.

Now, you, on the other hand...

Ever hear of the NDAA? - OMG

[ In Reply To ..]
There's this little bitty law called the "National 'Defense' Authorization Act" that explicitly grants the feds the power to round up Americans and detain them indefinitely, without benefit of legal counsel, formal charges, a trial by their peers, habeus corpus, etc. That language was inserted BECAUSE OBAMA SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED IT. After signing it, he tried to spin it by insisting that even though the language allows "him" (the feds) to do so, that he would not do it. Yeah, right!

Now there is another one, currently in the Senate, that allows them to STRIP YOU OF YOUR CITIZENSHIP!

BOTH are worded incredibly vaguely. Basically, all they have to do is DECLARE you a "terrorist" or "not supportive of the administration" and you are TOAST.

If you are unaware of this draconian new law, you must have been living under a bridge for the last few months.

As an Obamabot, no doubt you will try to spin this. Knock yourself out! Even Democrats who know what is going on are VERY upset about what is happening.
it is for our PROTECTION - Sm
[ In Reply To ..]
If you love the terrorists so well and want them to live in the middle of us so they can use our credit cards and marry our children you are UNamerican. Thank goodness Mr President loves us enough to protect us from killers and bombers and tricky people who dont love us let alone like us.
FOR OUR PROTECTION? - Onlyhuman
[ In Reply To ..]
W Bush kept us safe from terrorists the entire 8 years he was president. But this NDAA sounds good on the outside but incideous on the inside. Your president is sneaky and clever. He counts on people like you to fool. He announced his intention to run for President from the home of an ex-terrorist, a bomber named Bill Ayers by the way....who served his time and was a big influence on Barack Obama, and friendly enough with him to have him over his house and announce his presidency in 2008.
This is a joke, right? - mbmt
[ In Reply To ..]
nm
NDAA - Onlyhuman
[ In Reply To ..]
Obama signed this NDAA bill when nobody was looking or there would have been outrage over it. He signed it on New Year's Eve. Yes he can have anyone arrested, any American citizen if they are suspected of being a threat to the government. And because it's worded so vaguely or ambiguously, they can throw you in detention camps indefinitely. The ground work is being put into place. He just doesn't stop laying groundwork for his agenda. Nobody really pays attention but if you listen to the right people on the radio mostly, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, etc., they will fill you in on the shocking details. You can go on Rush Limbaugh's website and read the transcripts if you can't listen.
Have to be paranoid to believe this - mbmt
[ In Reply To ..]
Certainly would not believe a word that Rush or Beck have to say.
You should do some fact checking/research - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
The more proper term would be you'd have to be ignorant to call others paranoid if they believe it.

I don't listen to Beck, Rush, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or any other the other main stream outlets. So I didn't hear this through them. I read independent sites and believe me its there.

Ya might want to do a little fact checking before you start blabbing away about something you don't know. For anyone to call people paranoid for something you don't want to believe is true is just plain ignorant.
to mbmt - onlyhuman
[ In Reply To ..]
That's why this country is in such bad shape now because you refuse to listen to the truth. There is no paranoia going on with the conservatives, only willingness to listen to the truth. You libs are brainwashed to mock people who tell the truth. Remember when the Debate people asked Newt Gingrich if he thought Obama was a Socialist? He said "Yes, of course he is". You are the ones (you libs) who are being lied to. Here is a formula to go by: A liberal state (such as Chicago) is pretty much a welfare state. A republican state, such as Texas is flourishing and thriving and growing. Same with democrat/liberal cities. Why? Because libs want to keep America poor and stupid and separate the rich from the poor and then blame it all on Bush. The president in the white house is extremely dangerous to us all, why can't you see that?
President Obama dangerous??? - mbmt
[ In Reply To ..]
Surely you must be kidding. Do you really believe that? If so, I would suggest finding a good psychiatrist as it sounds like paranoia.

Really! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
If you don't want to use the pill, DON'T. Some of you folks will come up with anything to knock Obama. The exact opposite is true, he would be "stripping away your rights" if he went along with it.

it's discouraging to hear this point of view - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
It is not within the purview of any religion to limit healthcare to females. I hope you realize that.

Allowing religious groups to legislate healthcare is not freedom of religion. It appears you are not aware of this.

We live in a secular nation. You are free to move to a country where religious law prevails. Our country is based on pluralism and freedom of belief. Everyone here is allowed to practice their faith - or lack thereof - without fear of oppression, subjugation, or disenfranchisement.

I am not Catholic, but I still respect that as - a private business

[ In Reply To ..]
they should have some rights. It's not like they are trying to make laws. It is their own business. If you go to a private Catholic university, chances are pretty good that you are going to be taught by nuns, and in my experience, you are going to be required to take religious courses to get your diploma. It's pretty simple, if you don't like it, you just pick another school. What next, the nuns are offending kids that aren't Catholic, so take them out to. Just as a hospital. If you don't want to work for a Catholic hospital, don't. The point is this is not a government thing and shouldn't be, they are private businesses. I don't like the government stepping into things like this. What's next, tell physicians and hospitals what procedures they are going to perform and not perform.

If you believe your last 2 sentences, then why do you believe it is okay to tell a religion-based business that they are not allowed to practice their faith.
religion-based business - we differ
[ In Reply To ..]
I don't agree that attending a faith-based university is analogous to living in a community served by a faith-based hospital.

Further, I do not agree that a faith-based hospital is a "religion-based business". A hospital is in the business of delivering healthcare - not religion.

As for my last two sentences - of course I believe them. Freedom to practice one's religion is not curtailed by the healthcare delivery system, nor does the healthcare delivery system oppress the religious.
That is a leap you made, not I.
Private business - Agree
[ In Reply To ..]
That is exactly what Obamacare does. For anyone that actually bothered to read the bill, it SPECIFICALLY STATES WHAT procedure, services, medicines the government will dictated, which can be changed at any time, without notice or approval by the public. People that keep sticking their heads in the sand with Obamacare will not understand what is happening until it denies them or someone they love care, because the government decided it was not worthwhile. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Certainly no example of it here.
All private insurance companies already do this - old and burned out
[ In Reply To ..]
And not only do they do this, they can rescind your policy completely for trivialities. Not only can that happen to you, it is happening every day to private insurance policy holders all over this country.
Private insurances - Can always change coverage/insurance company
[ In Reply To ..]
Not free to do that under Obamacare. You HAVE NO CHOICE; that is the point.
You missed the word all - old and burned out
[ In Reply To ..]
ALL private insurance companies limit your choices and can rescind policies faster that you can say it's an emergency. And, under the Affordable Care Act, you can keep your private insurance.

Freedom to choose - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
You don't want an abortion, don't get one but don't stop me from getting one. In other words, mind your own business.

I know that abortions are legal, and I realize - you can have as many

[ In Reply To ..]
as you like. I won't even try to stop you. I know the laws are not going to change. I just want you to have pay out of your pocket for it. I do not want to see a healthcare plan that is funded with my tax dollars paying for it. It should fall in with elective procedures.
you want them to pay...hmm... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
It's interesting that your personal beliefs cause you to want to punish the the individual seeking abortion. As you said - you WANT them to have to pay out of their own pocket.

No one should be penalized because you don't happen to approve of a legal medical procedure they choose to obtain, and which is none of your business. These are points of law, and that's just the point.

Administering public health is about making sure no one is disenfranchised from services due to opinion, religion, bias, etc.

You mention that abortion should fall within "elective procedures". Please note that "elective" does not mean "unnecessary" or "frivilous". All medical procedures are elective unless they are emergent - that includes hip replacement, penile implants, and even most CABG surgeries, to name a few.
Then let me rephrase that, "unnecessary". - Not that it makes any
[ In Reply To ..]
difference, but I really don't agree with a public health policy such as Medicare or Medicaid covering a penile implant either. Hip replacements and CABGs may be elective but must be medically necessary if you want your insurance to pay. I do not consider elective abortions to be a medical necessity regardless of my religious beliefs.

How in the world did you get Obama supports - abortion from that post? SM

[ In Reply To ..]
Unless you are one of those people who believe that life begins at the joining of an egg and a sperm before that zygote even attaches to the uterine wall, your post makes no sense. Supporting birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, which prevents abortion.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the government - has any right to tell any business

[ In Reply To ..]
what medications have to be covered with absolutely no copays. How have we let our country come to this? If you feel you need to be on the pill, go to university that is not affiliated with any religion, or just go to your local health department for that matter. As for the hospitals, these are things that the employees know before they accept a job there.

Govt telling us what to do - Obamacare on steroids

[ In Reply To ..]
This is only the beginning of this nightmare. If anyone thinks it is going to end here with the govt., with this directive, they're kidding themselves. Entire Obamacare uses the terms "as deemed", "at the discretion of", "as ordered" throughout the entire bill. Obamacare can adjust care or the lack thereof, for whatever services they choose, without public approval or knowledge. You will not find that as a definition of "health" care in any dictionary. The firestorm of them dictating every ounce of your life is on its way and it starts with this and Obamacare. Libs on this board supporting Obamacare, cannot tolerate anyone disagreeing with them...would like to see what melt down they have when Obamacare tells them what they can and cannot do (and not just with health, as bill also has directives for your bank, what you pay, how you pay and whom you pay), all for their social engineering.

It is more of a shame - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
that a business could tell a person that they can't use birth control.

Do they tell them they can't, or because of the - businesses religious convictions

[ In Reply To ..]
that they are not going to pay for it. Very big difference. I have no problem with birth control myself, what I have a problem with is the government forcing for-profit businesses telling them what they are required to pay for.
busineess/religious convictions - that is the point
[ In Reply To ..]
For those on here that keep stating, they "don't have to take pills", they don't have to use birth control". Masters of the obvious all. Using their constant repetition, no one has to work at a religiously affiliated employer either. If they hate what the religion teaches or provides, go elsewhere. Can use their same argument, but then they would loose total control; something Obama-ites protect to the end. Government needs to get out of all aspects of our lives. If someone wants say-so over birth control, check out China's plan...fits the total control group. Or Cuba, Venezula...those are good choices for total government control. Live there 5 years, immerse yourself in their government control, including health, then come back. We'll see if you embrace that same ideas; I doubt it.
You could also go live in Somalia - old and burned out
[ In Reply To ..]
where there is no government. I doubt you would like that either.
Living in Somalia - No govt. seems to be the desire of several here
[ In Reply To ..]
Forge the Constitution. Live anyway you want...after all it is the Saul Alinsky way.
Can someone explain to me why religious - organizations are against SM
[ In Reply To ..]
including birth control in their insurance policy? If you are against abortion, why are you against birth control which prevents unwanted pregnancy.
A lot of Catholics do not believe in using birth - control. There are a lot of
[ In Reply To ..]
Catholic-affiliated hospitals as well as universities. They are against abortion as well as birth control. I'm assuming they do not believe in unwanted pregnancy. They use other natural methods, which if you know many Catholics, are pretty effective.

more of the shame - Wrontg

[ In Reply To ..]
Business did not of that. A pro-life business stated they would not PAY for birth control and abortions. Anyone going to work for that company knew well in advance what the church's position was. Why is it okay to force this on a church...no different than Obamacare forcing many other things on many of us that we do not want as individuals. The self-righteous will not get it until THEY are forced, by the government, to do something that goes against their believes/desires/wishes.

there are differences between private enterprise and public health - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

I thought the catholic religion had progressed - past the rhythm method SM

[ In Reply To ..]
for birth control. Am I wrong about that? If not, why are catholics against providing birth control in an insurance policy? It makes no sense to me. Against abortion yet also against preventing pregnancy with birth control? How do you feel about insurance covering Viagra so more men can have more sex with women who you don't want to provide birth control? Does that make sense? Now you have more unwanted pregnancies and possibly more abortions, which is the main thing you are against. This is just not logical thinking in my opinion.

Tax Code--Get rid of tax exempt churches - who dictate personal and political policy

[ In Reply To ..]
Now there is a start!

Good one - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Heartily agree.

Similar Messages:


He's On A Roll---Obama Protects Bristol BayDec 16, 2014
Preserving the environment one ban at a time.   Thank you President Obama. ...

GOP Against Abortion, Against Birth Control, AgainstMar 05, 2012
equal pay.  They just want to keep women where they belong...barefoot and pregnant.  ...

People Take Birth ControlMar 04, 2012
Not just to prevent pregnancy - To regulate menstrual cycles, as treatment for other female problems, menopause issues etc. These are many medical reasons for taking birth control, not just to prevent pregnancy. Am I missing something? Because I think that birth control should be looked at as another method of treatment for female problems not just a means of preventing pregnancy. i.e. a woman who has ovarian cancer gets a hysterectomy and afterwards needs hormone replacement so her phys ...

I Think The Cost Of Birth Control Is A Problem For Jul 01, 2014
I know when I was young and needed it most people actually had some money left over to pay for stuff like that after your essentials came out - can any of us MTs honestly say we could afford birth control today if we had to use it? And we are not the only ones who have been victims of corporations lowering and lowering your pay while prices in the real world went up and up. I do think free contraception is a good thing. Contraception stops unwanted pregnancy = prevents abortion. I think this ...

Ricky Clarifies Birth Control IssueFeb 20, 2012
Well, are we not glad he is "clarifying" this for us. Seems he votes for it but is against it. And in the same sentence takes a shot at poor women. What a guy! ============= Santorum clarifies birth control stancePosted byCNN Political Unit (CNN) – Rick Santorum sought to bring some clarity to his birth control position on Friday, which he said has been misconstrued by opponents which have put him on both sides of the issue. "My position is birth control can and should be ...

An Intelligent Woman Talks To Jon Stewart About Birth ControlMar 08, 2012
Truth and Fact Alert! Extremist Republicans should probaby wear protective padding before clicking on this link. Jon Stewart interviews the lady from Planned Parenthood. ...

Expert Compares Free Birth Control To Forced AbortionsAug 02, 2011
Making access to birth control easier for American women is akin to “unrestricted, unlimited sex anytime,” and China’s policy of only allowing one child per couple, according to an abortion “expert” featured on Fox News on Tuesday. Family-PAC Vice President Sandy Rios was invited on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom” to discuss the Obama administration’s order that insurance providers cover birth control at no extra cost. Opposite he ...

Planned Parenthood Paid $3 For Birth Control But Billed MedicaidNov 12, 2015
A little-known whistleblower lawsuit accuses Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa of wrongly siphoning millions of American taxpayer dollars with a series of complicated billing schemes aimed at increasing profits. Among other dishonest practices, a former manager of the clinics alleges, Planned Parenthood staffers routinely purchased birth control pills for just under $3, billed Medicaid $35 for the same package of pills, and got reimbursed for $26. The lawsuit, brought by Sue Thayer, a 17 ...

Obama Stands Alone: Even The Media Are Baffled By His Deepening IsolationAug 22, 2014
Article by Howard Kurtz at FOX News. Yes, I typed FOX News! ...

Obama Show Us Your Birth CertificateOct 29, 2012
...

President Obama Releases Birth Certificate!Apr 27, 2011
What will the birthers say now?  President Obama to brief press at 9:45 am.  ...

Obama Campaign Selling Birth CertificateMay 22, 2011
President Obama's reelection campaign is turning a conspiracy theory that had long dogged the president into a snarky fundraising tool, selling merchandise depicting Obama and his complete long form birth certificate. For a $25 donation, you can get a t-shirt that shows a smiling Obama above the phrase, "Made in the U.S.A" on the front, and the president's long-form birth certificate on the back. The campaign is also giving away coffee mugs with the same design scheme to sup ...

Stewart: GOP Protects Halliburton's 'it's Okay If You Get Raped' Oct 16, 2009
Stewart does it again!  See video at: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/gop-supports-rape-arbitration/   ...

Obama Birth Certificate 'Raises Questions' Says Court JusticeApr 18, 2012
State Supreme Court Justice Declares "Serious Questions" About Obama's Birth Certificate -- Now Tell EVERY Secretary of State AND Attorney General to REMOVE Obama From their Ballot:https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_eligibility/?a=7578 ALERT: A Supreme Court Justice in Alabama has declared that, thanks to recent investigations into Barack Hussein Obama's alleged Constitutional ineligibility to be President of the United States, a filing that seeks to require an original c ...

Sarah Palin Goes 'Birther':Obama Birth Certificate 'A Fair Question'Dec 04, 2009
Well then, she should be asked to disclose all info about Trig's birth too Sarah Palin declared on Thursday that the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate is "rightfully" an issue with the American public, and that it is "fair game" for politicians to question Obama's citizenship. The comments came during an interview with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries, who asked Palin whether she planned to "make the birth certificate an issue" if she runs for ...

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Obama Birth Certificate ChallengeJun 11, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit.The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers alleg ...

NY, Obama On Gun ControlJan 15, 2013
1st link:  Cuomo introduces the "toughest gun control package in the nation." http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169385630/n-y-poised-to-be-1st-to-pass-post-massacre-gun-bill And Obama link is below; he is predicted to pass 19 executive actions on gun control.  Official announcement could come out Wednesday. "Actions the president could take on his own," the Times adds, "are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to imp ...

Another Executive Order And More Control By Obama (s/l)Sep 09, 2012
link ...

Sure Enough - Obama Turns Orlando Into Gun ControlJun 12, 2016
My disdain for this so-called president is simply inexpressible.  ...

Obama's Gun Control Contains Other Stuff He Never MentionedJan 06, 2016
Better not have any family members take care of your finances/bill paying, etc. because you just don’t want to do it anymore or you’ll be labeled mentally ill. What’s next?  Obama’s Gun-Control Plan Includes Gun-Ban For Some Social Security Beneficiaries The Los Angeles Times reported that a ban was being put together “outside of public view,” so all the details were not known. But the Times did  know that the ban would ...

Obama's Attempt At Damage Control Laughable. (sm)May 16, 2013
says the Boston Herald, another fan of the Prez.  LOL Link ...

Tea Party Leader: Obama Hides Birth Cert. To Make Us ‘nuts’Apr 29, 2010
By Andrew McLemoreWednesday, April 28th, 2010 -- 9:42 pm During an appearance on the radio show of Fox News’ Alan Colmes, prominent tea party leader Tom Tancredo made it clear he believes President Obama may not be an American citizen, Think Progress reported. The former GOP congressman responded to questions about a statement he gave to a group of tea partiers: “If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don’t we just send him back?” Tancredo was referring to a speec ...

Know What Stands Out Like A Sore Thumb? SmSep 04, 2012
At the RNC the audience was predominantly white (as in I only saw like 3 black folks the whole time), very uptight, filled with suits, speeches had angry undertones, and of course there was the nut throwing incident as well as the physical assault. Now I know it's early, but thus far at the DNC I see a completely diverse group of folks who seem to be happy and excited. I detect no tension. On top of this is the involvement and inclusion of REGULAR PEOPLE in this event including local eve ...

Where Congress Stands - LinkSep 03, 2013
link ...

True US Unemployment Rate Stands At 17.5%Nov 07, 2009
I first heard this on Hardball last night, when Chris Matthews mentioned it.  Knew I couldn't use MSNBC here as a source (though wondered whether MSNBC would be newly acceptable in view of the message he presented). http://rawstory.com/2009/11/real-unemployment-rate-stands-175/   ...

Where The NRA Really Stands On Prosecuting Violent Criminals...Jan 17, 2013
Given the NRA's call to prosecute violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, it's important to look at their history with respect to keeping guns out of violent hands. The following article illuminates the organization's duplicitous stance when it comes to violent crime. "...the NRA doesn’t help the government prosecute accused criminals. It defends them. The NRA is a civil liberties organization, like the ACLU. It focuses not on protecting the public, but on the ri ...

It Doesn't Matter If Even Romney Knows Where He Stands On Any PositionOct 10, 2012
It doesn't matter to Republicans, as Grover Norquist, leader of the Republican party has stated:  "Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States."   Same method as the Bush presidency.  ...

Brown Stands By Supporting A Tax-subsidized Golf Course Over 9/11 Rescue Workers. Jan 19, 2010
State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election on Tuesday, voted on Oct. 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure. As ThinkProgress reported on Saturday, at the same time Brown was voting against the 9/11 rescue workers bill, he sponsored House Bill 4 ...

Those Who Are Against BCP CoverageMar 16, 2012
Do you believe insurance should not cover maternity costs also.  It is a lady's choice to become pregnant, so is that the same category of covering birth control pills.  How about should employers be allowed to deny coverage of pregnancy if mother is not married.  That might violate some employers religious beliefs to pay for illegitimate children. Interested in where people draw the line.     ...

Where Is The News Coverage On This?Sep 05, 2011
600,000 uninsured people now have health insurance under Obamacare. I can't believe super-conservative Forbes magazine covered this. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/05/23/more-solid-proof-that-obamacare-is-working/ ...