WP Fact Checker slams Dem Dumb Politicians for Hobby Lobby Rhetoric

These agenda driven politicians will say anything to gain a few brownie points, they are shameless liars grandstanding to their low information voting block. Or maybe they really are that stupid.....

“Democrats on Hobby Lobby: ‘Misspeaks,’ ‘opinion’ and overheated rhetoric”

“Really, we should be afraid of this court. The five guys who start determining what contraceptions are legal. Let’s not even go there.”
— House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), at her weekly news conference, on July 10

[SCOTUS did not make anything "illegal"

“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we are going to do something about it.”
— Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), remarks to reporters, on July 8

[Dirty Harry believes Clarence Thomas is now white!]


More at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/14/democrats-on-hobby-lobby-misspeaks-opinion-and-overheated-rhetoric/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z11

nochain wrote:

These agenda driven politicians will say anything to gain a few brownie points, they are shameless liars grandstanding to their low information voting block. Or maybe they really are that stupid.....

“Democrats on Hobby Lobby: ‘Misspeaks,’ ‘opinion’ and overheated rhetoric”

“Really, we should be afraid of this court.  The five guys who start determining what contraceptions are legal. Let’s not even go there.”
— House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), at her weekly news conference, on July 10

[SCOTUS did not make anything "illegal"

“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men. This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we are going to do something about it.”
— Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), remarks to reporters, on July 8

[Dirty Harry believes Clarence Thomas is now white!]





More at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/14/democrats-on-hobby-lobby-misspeaks-opinion-and-overheated-rhetoric/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z11

These two were made for a future sitcom...too bad voters haven't cancelled their political circus....

Grab an audience, a microphone and alert the press.. there are plenty of gullible people that will believe everything these politicians say......right or wrong.

It seemed like a compromise to me

People used to praise that. Now it's my way or the highway idealogy

One thing I find interesting is the hypocrisy of the liberals - when the SCOTUS affirmed OblamerCare they were high-fiving. But now the SCOTUS returns what is in effect a very small issue in favor of H/L and they are OUTRAGED! It's apparent the liberals don't even understand what the ruling meant based on some news releases yet they screech and rend their clothes because they didn't get their way. Ah yes, political theater.

No dems were surprised by the Hobby Lobby decision. No, Clarence Thomas isn't white, nor is he engaged during court sessions and doesn't even bother to write out the reasons for his decisions most of the time.
He doesn't have to because he knows he  is assumed he's a tool of the Republican party anyway so no explanation is needed.  The five members of the court who voted for the Hobby Lobby decision were not just men, they were Catholic men. No one expected them to decide the law on anything but on  the basis of their religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby decision is very limited and isn't a great victory for the right, so I'm not sure what all the celebration is about.  Obamacare is here to stay, a lot of people are using it and a lot of people now are finding they like it.

Evidently, even a lot of Republicans love it:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1344660/republicans-love-obamacare-polling-shows/


And most Americans do not want it repealed:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/11/cnn-poll-should-obamacare-be-kept-or-repealed/

Otter wrote:

No dems were surprised by the Hobby Lobby decision. No, Clarence Thomas isn't white, nor is he engaged during court sessions and doesn't even bother to write out the reasons for his decisions most of the time.
He doesn't have to because he knows he  is assumed he's a tool of the Republican party anyway so no explanation is needed.  The five members of the court who voted for the Hobby Lobby decision were not just men, they were Catholic men. No one expected them to decide the law on anything but on  the basis of their religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby decision is very limited and isn't a great victory for the right, so I'm not sure what all the celebration is about.  Obamacare is here to stay, a lot of people are using it and a lot of people now are finding they like it.

Evidently, even a lot of Republicans love it:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1344660/republicans-love-obamacare-polling-shows/

And yet this now prejudiced, biased, and religious court was cheered by the left when they approved [name] cowh healthcare?...

[quote="mediawatcher"]

Otter wrote:

No dems were surprised by the Hobby Lobby decision. No, Clarence Thomas isn't white, nor is he engaged during court sessions and doesn't even bother to write out the reasons for his decisions most of the time.
He doesn't have to because he knows he  is assumed he's a tool of the Republican party anyway so no explanation is needed.  The five members of the court who voted for the Hobby Lobby decision were not just men, they were Catholic men. No one expected them to decide the law on anything but on  the basis of their religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby decision is very limited and isn't a great victory for the right, so I'm not sure what all the celebration is about.  Obamacare is here to stay, a lot of people are using it and a lot of people now are finding they like it.

Evidently, even a lot of Republicans love it:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1344660/republicans-love-obamacare-polling-shows/

I didn't call them those names, you just did. Here's the point. Jimmy Carter governed as a Christian and actually believed in the things he did and said, but he did not have an effective presidency. The Supreme Court, the 5 Catholic gentlemen, ruled in a way that their consciences ordered, whether it was Constitutional or not or whether it would cause problems with the law in the future. I don't particularly like the fact that the Supreme Court is a majority of Catholic believers, but that's the way it is. And I don't fault anyone for injecting their religious views into the decisions they make in life. I think that if you are really a Christian you will almost be forced to  do that. I simply would like for the Supreme Court to be made up of a more diverse group of people. I don't see Republicans as sending diversity to the court, so I'll vote for Democratic leaders who I think will be more likely to appoint justices with more diverse opinions.  I prefer justices   who will be more likely to interpret the Constitution without regard to their personal feelings. That's not always easy for a Christian to do, but the job description should require it. In fact, I think it does.
The presidency also requires decisions that might be antithetical to the beliefs of a True Christian, and Carter was not able to make those decisions. That's one reason I don't pay much attention to any of the religious pronouncements of politicians. It's not a job I think a deeply religious person SHOULD pursue, so I just wish they would leave their religions out of it.

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

No dems were surprised by the Hobby Lobby decision. No, Clarence Thomas isn't white, nor is he engaged during court sessions and doesn't even bother to write out the reasons for his decisions most of the time.
He doesn't have to because he knows he  is assumed he's a tool of the Republican party anyway so no explanation is needed.  The five members of the court who voted for the Hobby Lobby decision were not just men, they were Catholic men. No one expected them to decide the law on anything but on  the basis of their religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby decision is very limited and isn't a great victory for the right, so I'm not sure what all the celebration is about.  Obamacare is here to stay, a lot of people are using it and a lot of people now are finding they like it.

Evidently, even a lot of Republicans love it:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1344660/republicans-love-obamacare-polling-shows/

I didn't call them those names, you just did. Here's the point. Jimmy Carter governed as a Christian and actually believed in the things he did and said, but he did not have an effective presidency. The Supreme Court, the 5 Catholic gentlemen, ruled in a way that their consciences ordered, whether it was Constitutional or not or whether it would cause problems with the law in the future. I don't particularly like the fact that the Supreme Court is a majority of Catholic believers, but that's the way it is. And I don't fault anyone for injecting their religious views into the decisions they make in life. I think that if you are really a Christian you will almost be forced to  do that. I simply would like for the Supreme Court to be made up of a more diverse group of people. I don't see Republicans as sending diversity to the court, so I'll vote for Democratic leaders who I think will be more likely to appoint justices with more diverse opinions.  I prefer justices   who will be more likely to interpret the Constitution without regard to their personal feelings. That's not always easy for a Christian to do, but the job description should require it. In fact, I think it does.

     And yet this now prejudiced, biased, and  religious court was cheered  by the left when they approved [name] cowh healthcare?...

So it was all religion and nothing to do with something being 'mandated'?...Was it the Catholic influence that made them rule against the Unions?...Or could it have been an outdated policy that forced workers to pony up to the unions which in turn may support political parties and agendas that the rank and file may not support?...Perhaps it could be that rights are being trampled and the pendulum went too far and now there is some correction taking place...

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Otter wrote:

I don't see Republicans as sending diversity to the court, so I'll vote for Democratic leaders who I think will be more likely to appoint justices with more diverse opinions.

You can't honestly believe Dems don't have an agenda with the courts do you? Why do you think the Dems have been scrambling to appoint as many federal judges as possible. GEEEEEEEZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!

I'm Catholic, but I just don't understand how birth control can be called health care in the first place.

Before y'all bring up the argument of the costs of prenatal care, childbirth and the costs associated with the health of a child, I will agree that, without birth control, those costs will occur with a pregnancy.

But eating a high fat diet, living near a power plant and breathing the air, and a million other things can affect peoples' health and healthcare costs, but you don't see the gubment paying for licensed dietitians and healthy food and paying for scrubbers on smoke stacks and calling it health care.  

I think of health care as prevention and treatment of ailments, much of which are unforeseen.  You have to draw the line somewhere.

The Hobby Lobby decision will have a negligible financial effect on Obamacare anyway.  I think the Administration just doesn't want to see the floodgates open with exceptions and exclusions.

Beyond what obama has already excepted and excluded? It's nearly comical at this point as we find out what's in it.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I don't see Republicans as sending diversity to the court, so I'll vote for Democratic leaders who I think will be more likely to appoint justices with more diverse opinions.  

You can't honestly believe Dems don't have an agenda with the courts do you? Why do you think the Dems have been scrambling to appoint as many federal judges as possible. GEEEEEEEZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!

Of course not. I'm not a fool. I like the Democrats agenda better.

Eric wrote:

I'm Catholic, but I just don't understand how birth control can be called health care in the first place.

Before y'all bring up the argument of the costs of prenatal care, childbirth and the costs associated with the health of a child, I will agree that, without birth control, those costs will occur with a pregnancy.

But eating a high fat diet, living near a power plant and breathing the air, and a million other things can affect peoples' health and healthcare costs, but you don't see the gubment paying for licensed dietitians and healthy food and paying for scrubbers on smoke stacks and calling it health care.  

I think of health care as prevention and treatment of ailments, much of which are unforeseen.  You have to draw the line somewhere.

The Hobby Lobby decision will have a negligible financial effect on Obamacare anyway.  I think the Administration just doesn't want to see the floodgates open with exceptions and exclusions.

I think a lot of women would disagree with you that birth control pills are not healthcare. There are millions of American women who use them for ovarian cysts, a lot of young women use them to regulate their periods and relieve them of the pain that comes with irregular cycles. There are also women with legitimate health reasons to not want to become pregnant who need the pill- they don't "want" the pill, they need the pill. At least one of my daughters used them for irregular cycles and the pain that comes with them, and no, she was not sexually active and using it for an excuse. She was just young and had screwed up hormones.
The "pill" is not just for birth control.
And since medicare will pay for Viagra, I really don't see where men have an argument against the pill being financed by the government.

BTW, I'm getting a "confirmation code" every time I post now. I hate those squiggly numbers.
What's up with that?

Otter wrote:

BTW, I'm getting a "confirmation code" every time I post now. I hate those squiggly numbers.
What's up with that?

What the hell is a confirmation code? One of those damn CAPTCHA things?

I hate those things. Please let me know what your problem is specifically and I will try to see what is happening on my end.

Is anybody else having posting issues like this?

I have no problem if steroids are prescribed for medical reasons. Actually, I have no problem with the use of birth control pills.

I just think that we shouldn't be forced to pay for birth control pills if our religious beliefs preclude the use of 'em. It's like paying for something you aren't going to get.

Otter, here's a message on our forum host (Forumotion) support website where someone asked about why CAPTCHA's are occuring.

Quote :

Could you link me to a thread that users are having a captcha appearing as well as tell me the username of someone who has experienced it? By doing this I could probably tell you the word(s) that is trigger it.

What this is, forumotion has a built in spam filter that has a bunch of the most commonly used spam words in it and if this word appears then the captcha is triggered. It'll also trigger if someone quotes that post.

You can't turn this specific captcha off I'm afraid.

Yes, it was a captcha. I got it three times in a row on this thread and now am not getting it anymore. I wondered what it was about. A specific word?   That's strange.


Maybe "antithetical?" I used that word but on second thought it may not even be a word. It's the only one I could think of at the time to express what I was trying to say. That is the post that started the captchas though.

Yes, I just checked and it is a word.

I wonder what did trigger those things?

Eric wrote:

I'm Catholic, but I just don't understand how birth control can be called health care in the first place.

Before y'all bring up the argument of the costs of prenatal care, childbirth and the costs associated with the health of a child, I will agree that, without birth control, those costs will occur with a pregnancy.

But eating a high fat diet, living near a power plant and breathing the air, and a million other things can affect peoples' health and healthcare costs, but you don't see the gubment paying for licensed dietitians and healthy food and paying for scrubbers on smoke stacks and calling it health care.  

I think of health care as prevention and treatment of ailments, much of which are unforeseen.  You have to draw the line somewhere.

The Hobby Lobby decision will have a negligible financial effect on Obamacare anyway.  I think the Administration just doesn't want to see the floodgates open with exceptions and exclusions.

Not Catholic but the analogy that it was that religion/belief that lead the justices to that decision was pure nonsense...Again, just may have been that these mandated clauses/additions are not what a majority of Americans want or courts believe are Constitutional ..

Otter wrote:

Eric wrote:

I'm Catholic, but I just don't understand how birth control can be called health care in the first place.

Before y'all bring up the argument of the costs of prenatal care, childbirth and the costs associated with the health of a child, I will agree that, without birth control, those costs will occur with a pregnancy.

But eating a high fat diet, living near a power plant and breathing the air, and a million other things can affect peoples' health and healthcare costs, but you don't see the gubment paying for licensed dietitians and healthy food and paying for scrubbers on smoke stacks and calling it health care.  

I think of health care as prevention and treatment of ailments, much of which are unforeseen.  You have to draw the line somewhere.

The Hobby Lobby decision will have a negligible financial effect on Obamacare anyway.  I think the Administration just doesn't want to see the floodgates open with exceptions and exclusions.

I think a lot of women would disagree with you that birth control pills are not healthcare. There are millions of American women who use them for ovarian cysts, a lot of young women use them to regulate their periods and relieve them of the pain that comes with irregular cycles. There are also women with legitimate health reasons to not want to become pregnant who need the pill- they don't "want" the pill, they need the pill.  At least one of my daughters used them for irregular cycles and the pain that comes with them,  and no, she was not sexually active and using it for an excuse. She was just young and had screwed up hormones.
The "pill" is not just for birth control.
And since medicare will pay for Viagra, I really don't see where men have an argument against the pill being financed by the government.

The pills not covered by Hobby Lobby are NOT regular birth control pills, they are NOT recommended for daily use, and they are certainly NOT recommended to be used on a regular once a month basis ( more than 1 month in a row)as an  emergency morning after pill..They are not used for menstrual cramps, regulation of periods , nor for ovarian cysts. Hobby Lobby covers all 16 types of prescription birth control pills.... but not the after the fact medication.

The pills not covered are emergency morning after pills and they are not prescription medication. They are sold OTC.  One of the functions of the pills in question is to prevent implantation of an already  fertilized egg into the uterus. It is the belief of many many Christians that life begins at the time of conception.
.

Otter wrote:

Eric wrote:

I'm Catholic, but I just don't understand how birth control can be called health care in the first place.

Before y'all bring up the argument of the costs of prenatal care, childbirth and the costs associated with the health of a child, I will agree that, without birth control, those costs will occur with a pregnancy.

But eating a high fat diet, living near a power plant and breathing the air, and a million other things can affect peoples' health and healthcare costs, but you don't see the gubment paying for licensed dietitians and healthy food and paying for scrubbers on smoke stacks and calling it health care.  

I think of health care as prevention and treatment of ailments, much of which are unforeseen.  You have to draw the line somewhere.

The Hobby Lobby decision will have a negligible financial effect on Obamacare anyway.  I think the Administration just doesn't want to see the floodgates open with exceptions and exclusions.

I think a lot of women would disagree with you that birth control pills are not healthcare. There are millions of American women who use them for ovarian cysts, a lot of young women use them to regulate their periods and relieve them of the pain that comes with irregular cycles. There are also women with legitimate health reasons to not want to become pregnant who need the pill- they don't "want" the pill, they need the pill.  At least one of my daughters used them for irregular cycles and the pain that comes with them,  and no, she was not sexually active and using it for an excuse. She was just young and had screwed up hormones.
The "pill" is not just for birth control.
And since medicare will pay for Viagra, I really don't see where men have an argument against the pill being financed by the government.

I agree with Otter on this one. Birth control with hormones in them (which include many types besides just the pill) keep me from having nearly as many migraines. To me that is most certainly health care. Also, for some women childbearing would or could cause their death and because of that, birth control is necessary. My real mom was one of those women. She chose to ignore her doctors' orders to not have children and she died because of it. In such cases birth control is also most certainly health care.

I'm sure there are other examples, but those are just off the top of my head.

Joanimaroni wrote:

The pills not covered by Hobby Lobby are NOT regular birth control pills, they are NOT recommended for daily use, and they are certainly NOT recommended to be used on a regular once a month basis ( more than 1 month in a row)as an  emergency morning after pill..They are not used for menstrual cramps, regulation of periods , nor for ovarian cysts. Hobby Lobby covers all 16 types of prescription birth control pills.... but not the after the fact medication.

The pills not covered are emergency morning after pills and they are not prescription medication. They are sold OTC.  One of the functions of the pills in question is to prevent implantation of an already  fertilized egg into the uterus. It is the belief of many many Christians that life begins at the time of conception.
.

Ohh, I did not know that. Wow, I did not know that morning after pills were sold OTC either.

The morning after pill provides 50x the amount of the progesterone hormone normally found in the female body. Like I said it is not recommended for regular use.

https://www.dred.com/uk/morning-after-pill-side-effects.html

Joanimaroni wrote:

The morning after pill provides 50x the amount of the progesterone hormone normally found in the female body. Like I said it is not recommended for regular use.

https://www.dred.com/uk/morning-after-pill-side-effects.html

ECTOPIC PREGNANCY?? No, thank you!!!