Too bad the Catholic Church did not take the same high morality stand with their pedophile priests as it does when it comes to contraception and abortion.

Putting god language on our money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and at every sporting event is against my beliefs, but I have to suck it down. The buck gets passed to me for a whole lot of things that I don't agree with, including many wars and arms dealing. In this case, we are talking about women's rights. I think that if I'm forced to fund the wars that I don't agree with, surely the church can allow its members to make their own personal choice about contraception.

That's life. It must be so horrible to allow other people the freedom to make their own choice... please!

So you say you it's against your religious beliefs and government is forcing you to offer what 98 percent of religious women want; yet in Virginia, religion pushed to have the state shove an ultrasound stick up women's vaginas even if they are not religious....don't you think that's hypocrisy? It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being a responsible adult if you are not capable mentally/physically/financially able to take care of a child for 18 yrs. Cost of raising a child: $300 000. Number of children in an already stretched thin and overburdened foster care system: 500 000. If the hypocrite religious people want to push this, then they should promise to care for ALL the fetuses they encourage to be born AFTER they are born, since that's when the children/babies suffer. Start lining up for adoption folks, put your money where your mouth/values are, or be quiet about the rights of fetuses that follow with neglect/torture.
...

There are groups out there trying to stop Christmas? Grow up.

I don't mind paying for basic healthcare items, public schools, food and water for Americans! You just don't want to pay because you are a man. You don't mind paying taxes for roads or firefighter services however do you? Of course not! Selfish, if you ask me. You are a man, and I presume you never had to dish out $3000 a year so you don't get pregnant. I'm very annoyed that you think you know what it's like to walk in a woman's shoes...let me remind you, YOU DON"T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING PREGNANT! I do want everyone to purchase healthcare. I am Canadian and get sick when I look at the bills sick people have to deal with instead of focussing on getting better, while at the same time, I hear Blue Cross/Blue Shield announce their 13 billion dollar profits last year, but yet still claim that healthcare is expensive, while they laugh all the way to the bank with their bonuses for cutting someone off their insurance. I know for a fact your stats and numbers are wrong, please send me the link for your so-called facts. PS. Fox news doesn't count. You've been brainwashed by the deregulators and lobbyest who hand your republican reps big checks to help their businesses make more profit. http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120120/A_BIZ0202/201200328/-1/A_NEWS13
...

Dane, still waiting for that link to your proof of stats.....

Don't worry about the Paulbot, Sonia. There is a belief among the Ron Paul community that the free market determines everything, including a businesses right to discriminate, be racist, harass, pay whatever wages they feel like, and so on up until the point where we look like Foxconn. Remember all that nonsense about free market racism being okay coming from the Ron Paul camp? It's the same logic that this guy is using against contraception.

What he doesn't realize, is that society is a multidimensional system where certain people at this very moment own the resources(taken from society), the intellectual property(taken from their workforce), and most of the assets(taken from the workforce), leaving the vast majority of the workforce with nothing but a weekly wage. A system where the businesses get 100% of the rights and the workforce can be treated however they feel like, it's basically a feudal system, which we already had hundreds of years ago. It doesn't work. We already did that.

We have decided as a society there are fundamental rights human beings have, and women's rights are a subset of that.

Sonia, I'm not trying to tell you what to do with your body. Please try thinking honestly for a change. I'm objecting to you trying to use threats of force to overrule employers and employees who have already come to amicable arrangements.

You own your body. You don't own other people's businesses, or other people's labor.

I support fundamental rights. The ability to override your neighbors' voluntary agreements to make them conform to your own personal preferences is not one of them. In fact, the fundamental right is your neighbors' -- to contract voluntarily without such impositions by you.

No Ron Paul supporter I've ever met thinks racism is in any way ok. FTP, again, you need to start engaging in discussion with honesty and decency, not hyperbole and distortions.

You're certainly right that many corporations have benefited, and continue to benefit, from government largesse. They often manipulate the regulations so that average people have difficulty starting and growing businesses. I agree that these abuses need to be ended. The solution is not more centralized control, and more force/imposition, but more freedom.

There is no divvying up of rights between employers and employees -- as if for one to have rights, the rights of the other must be sacrificed. The business owner and the employee contract by mutual consent, and they have a right to reach whatever voluntary agreement they want. If either doesn't like the conditions, they have every right to walk.

Feudalism was based the idea that the king owns everything, and can give handouts to his friends and military leaders. It had nothing to do with freedom, personal liberty, or property ownership by average people. Actually, a lot of the land around here was originally handed out in a similar way -- block granted from the king, governor, or colonial government. Such centralized power is the problem, not the solution. Similarly, you want to act as if the federal government owns everything.

I am happy to enlighten you Paul.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/comment-page-13/
Ron Paul racist newsletters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html
Ron Paul is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for the reasons I just mentioned.

I don't think you know your own candidate.

And as far as feudalism, the idea that the rights of the business at the time (a barony) because people have no rights (serfs) is indeed feudalism. I don't think you know your history, either. Calling it a kingdom doesn't change the analogy.

Keep trying. Happy to expose Paulbots for what they are.
:-)

Ron Paul's a racist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078217/Ron-Paul-racist-homophobic-newsletters-Video-taking-credit.html

Men should not be allowed to comment since they never walked a day in our shoes. Unless you have a vagina, I'd say be quiet since I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want women who've been raped or violated deciding what they should do with your penis.
...

He didn't write the newsletters, and wasn't involved with them during that time, FTP, as you probably already know, and he's publicly opposed and disavowed what those particular issues said, repeatedly. Everything he's been saying for 30 years has been directly opposed to that kind of thinking.

I think it's a shame that you're more interested in using guilt by association to smear a decent man, than you are in looking at his own actual record or words -- let alone directly addressing the topic we're actually here to discuss, which was not Ron Paul.

But, in the interest of combating libel:

Ron Paul: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty"

Ron Paul on the unjust treatment of minorities: "A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change."

He's been calling out the war on drugs for being racist for decades.

Paul, you can't read a signature on those racist letters? You didn't see his workers say "everything was approved by Ron Paul before we sent anything".....I'm sure you can see his halo, you are so blinded by his light/power? If you took a quick second, you'd realize that your statistics about black people are a direct correlation to poverty. Pick a city with mostly white people and check out the stats of poor/prisoners....you'll find the same statistics. It's not uncommon for minorities to land in jail, it's called poverty and suppression.

And more:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin."

"Racism is a collectivist idea you see people in groups, civil libertarians like my self see everybody as an important individual. It is not the color of the skin that is important as Martin Luther King said it is the character that is important.”

"Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero because they practice the Libertarian principle of civil disobedience, non violence.”

"Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1285, a bill naming a federal building in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks and I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Mrs. Parks’s courage and high ideals. Rosa Parks’s simple act of refusing to get up from her seat to comply with an unjust law inspired a movement that brought an end to state-mandated racial segregation.."

"Mrs. Parks was inspired to challenge government power by her conviction that laws that treated African-Americans as second- class citizens violated the natural rights all humans receive from their creator — rights which no government can justly infringe."

Not that you'd let any of this get in the way of a good ad-hominem, of course ...

Did you actually read the Huff Post article you linked to? If so, you might have found Paul repeatedly quoted condemning bigotry, as well as the following:

"Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military."

As he's said, the only aspect of the Civil Rights act he opposed were the mandates on private property owners, and I agree with him.

Again, we're far afield of the original topic, but the right way to handle people who have undesirable behavior and attitudes that do not rise to the level of violence against persons/property is through social pressure, not threats of force. This includes boycotts, pickets, ostracism, etc, and it's very effective.

Even as a practical matter, once you open the door to using threats of force as a solution to nonviolent, yet undesirable attitudes and behaviors, you invite future abuse -- jim crow laws themselves were based on the same notion -- that government has a right to threaten people if they live their lives in a way that does not conform to the preferences of the majority.

My point was the feudalism was not based on individual property rights, and personal liberty. That much is obvious.

I've repeatedly said I support individual rights. I also oppose corporate personhood, by the way.

You say you're supporting individual rights, but that's the exact opposite of the truth.

What you're saying is that if I and my neighbor voluntarily agree to trade labor for payment which does not include contraceptives, you as a third party will intervene with threats of force, and extort money from us. That is neither moral nor appropriate behavior -- a fact you'd easily recognize in any other context.

I suggest you dispense with the rest of the nonsense, about Ron Paul or barons, and focus on this, the actual topic at hand.

Sonya, you say, "Paul, you can't read a signature on those racist letters?"

I can, and the signature reads, "James B. Powell". http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters

You probably believe Ralph Lauren stitches and signs each shirt, right?

"You didn't see his workers say "everything was approved by Ron Paul before we sent anything"

That was one disgruntled employee, who had been fired. Everyone else says the opposite. Of course, wherever smear machine you use to get your news probably didn't report that ...

"I'm sure you can see his halo, you are so blinded by his light/power?"

He's certainly not perfect. Exhibit A would be his allowing a newsletter to go out bearing his name, with little oversight. But, he's no racist -- his record, and his publicly recorded words for decades, proves the opposite.

"Pick a city with mostly white people and check out the stats of poor/prisoners....you'll find the same statistics."

That's not entirely true, actually -- there is bias against minorities in the "justice" system, especially regarding the war on drugs. They are far more likely to get severe penalties for substance abuse, while rich white folks get rehab. Class-ism exists too, of course, and it sometimes can be difficult to disentangle the two.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html

Ron Paul's photo taken with White Supremacists and hackers posting the emails of his meetings.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39862_Anonymous_Hacks_White_Supremacist_Site_Finds_Direct_Links_to_Ron_Paul

@ Paul

I'm sorry, but you seem to have no concept of society. You're either a morally bankrupt millionaire, or a fool. What if business owners decide not to provide health insurance at all? What would you do? How would you cover yourself and your family? Get another job? And if THAT business owner decides the same thing? What would you do? Do you want a lawless society where a handfull of incredibly wealthy kings tell you how, where and when? Why?

Contraception is a very good thing. It benefits all of us, as a society. It's in our collective best interest to ensure it's availbale to all, regardless of income.

Sonia, candidates have their pictures taken with hundreds of people a day. I've been at these events -- anyone and everyone who wants a photo with Ron Paul gets one.

All the interest quoted in that article is one sided -- them trying to have an influence on the movement. They fail, of course.

I found this quote amusing, by the Kelso bigot: "This is our audience, this is our public. These are our people. If we can't persuade these people of the rightness of our cause, then we're finished,"

Well then I guess they're finished. And good riddance.

David, you say: "I'm sorry, but you seem to have no concept of society."

I do. I believe society means people living near each other, engaging with each other in a peaceful way, usually trading goods and services, and cooperating voluntarily, when interests align.

I don't believe "society" is an excuse for me to forcibly impose my preferences on my neighbors. In fact, I think that kind of behavior is anti-societal, and besides being inherently wrong, leads to greater strife.

"You're either a morally bankrupt millionaire, or a fool."

Or maybe your boxes are too small and too few. I'm not wealthy, though, if you're wondering.

"What if business owners decide not to provide health insurance at all? What would you do?"

Actually, I think that'd be outstanding, assuming I would get a commensurate raise in wages. Do you ever wonder why health care costs have skyrocketed in recent decades? There are a number of causes, but one of the biggest is third party payments -- nobody competes on cost or efficiency anymore.

E.g. http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly09/healthcare07-09.html

David, you ask, "Do you want a lawless society where a handfull of incredibly wealthy kings tell you how, where and when? Why?"

Nope. That's exactly why I don't appreciate the behavior of federal government politicians and bureaucrats, or the bankers/corporatists in bed with them.

The idea that concentrating power in the hands of a few is the best way to protect us from being under the thumb of a few people with concentrated power, is really really silly, as was demonstrated quite vividly by the USSR.

"Contraception is a very good thing. It benefits all of us, as a society. It's in our collective best interest to ensure it's availbale to all, regardless of income."

I really am uncomfortable when minorities get swept up and collectivized along with majorities. This kind of rhetoric tends to immediately precede their preferences being stomped on, and their rights violated, by said majorities.

We are not all the same -- and we have different goals and preferences in life. For some people, not using or financing contraception is a very high priority. It's not my priority, but I respect their right to make their own decisions. I'm not going to threaten them, in order to force them to live their lives according to my preferences.

You know, it's amazing how many people there are who laud diversity with their words, yet whose actions continually seek to impose conformity.

So what you are saying is that you prefer that the taxpayers pay $300 000/child for all the unwanted babies who will be born because of the lack of contraception & allow more kids to join the already 500 000 & counting foster kids we already have?Wow,that makes sense to you,or did you just forget about them?I suggest you travel around the world & get your head out of the sand since your statement of saying "nothing is more expensive than when it's government free" makes no sense.A group gets a group rate,buying bulk,do you know what that means? Canada gets affordable drugs; the pharmaceuticals don't have to sell it, but yet they all fight for the contracts because they still make a lot of money they won't give up. Look at any developped nation around the world, they believe in having children responsibly; it's irresponsible to do otherwise; it's no wonder the world thinks we are so dumb.Do you want everyone to be like the Duggard family/going back to the old Catholic days having 10-12 kids? Seriously?Look at the big picture and the future. Just look at countries like Ethiopia and Kenya, they are having tons of babies because they have no access to contraception. Well I guess I shouldn't pay for you or your kids to use public schools then,& you should stop driving because those are my tax paying dollar roads, oh & stay away from the library,post office,no trash pick-up for you,or clean water/sewage piped to your home.

We are a society Dane, we understand that everyone benefits when certain things are done together as a society - and one is the cost of your healthcare when its spread over your lifetime.

Over all our lifetimes, the price to the community for making BC unavailable to many would be astronomical... and you'd be on the hook for your share. Preventative... can't you understand that simple thing? That's what this is about, preventing higher costs later.

Jan socialized medicine is NOT the answer if it were it would have worked in the MANY places its in opertation right now. It does not and that is why the medicines and the procedures that actually work come from the US and its free market system. I have friends and relatives from Canada and when the have heart problems, cancer or other serious problems they come to the US for treatment why? because we are the best in the world.

Jan, you say: "We are a society"

No, we're people.

"we understand that everyone benefits when certain things are done together as a society"

I agree, I love it when we voluntarily work together to accomplish good things, through local charities, community organizations, etc.

Or did you really mean, "We all agree that majorities should be able to impose their personal preferences on minorities?" Because no, I don't agree with that.

"Over all our lifetimes, the price to the community for making BC unavailable to many would be astronomical... and you'd be on the hook for your share."

Sorry, we're not a commune, as much as you seem to want us to be. Go start one, if you like.

"Preventative... can't you understand that simple thing? That's what this is about, preventing higher costs later."

Great, so start a charity that provides contraception to folks who can't afford it. I'll donate.

What you're suggesting is to forcibly prohibit people from voluntarily trading labor for considerations not including contraception. It's arrogant, frankly, and immoral, for you to impose your personal preferences in this way.

The church isn't paying for it. The insurance company is. Accusing the insurance company of guilt by association needs to be taken up with the insurance company. And I already answered you. If churches get a free pass on only having to pay for things when they feel like it, well, I have personal beliefs, too. Can I do the same thing? It's naïve to think you can just opt out of society whenever you feel like it but jump right back in when it suits you.

Here's an idea: why doesn't the church just hire a bunch of priests and nuns to do all the work and ask them if they will voluntarily forgo insurance? Then, everyone would be in agreement instead of people like you forcing your beliefs on others.

If you are going to use that logic, then what if a large business owned by Jehovah's Witness followers decided to only offer their employees only holistic health care and prayers for their health benefits because modern medicine is against their religious beliefs? Any religious group or special interest group could come up with some belief-based reason to deny a certain health benefit to their employees. If this were the Jehovah's ranting about wanting to curtail certain health care benefits you'd probably be mocking them, but because this is the mighty Catholic Church, well we all better listen up and grant them an exemption because we know all know how fair and just the Catholic Church has been in addressing wrongdoing. What I would really like to see is a listing of where the Catholic Church invests its money. I would bet there would be plenty of "belief based conflicts" uncovered if the Catholic Church ever opened its financial books to the public.

Yes, you should be able to make your own choices FTP, because you own your own property. I know it's a radical idea and all, not continually using the federal government to jam your personal preferences down your neighbors' throat ...

"Society" is not equivalent to the state, and the fact that your neighbor lives near you and trades with you does not mean you suddenly have the right to act like you own them and their property.

bob you cant argue with people that want other peoples money. They will always find an excuse to why someone else should pay for them. Like I said the only problem is when you run out of other peoples money... which we have.

So only married people need contraception? hahahahahahah

And yes, it is a female only issue - contraception is required to be taken continuously to be effective and it is not available over the counter - the male contraceptive usually used on-the-spot and is cheap and readily available.

And its used by many women for other reasons besides choosing when to conceive.

Is this only about your money?
Or do you actually despise women as you appear to here?

@ Jan

"And its used by many women for other reasons besides choosing when to conceive."

Right. There are some medical reasons for taking the pill. I think there are lots of people (particularly men, I'd guess) that don't understand that.

Bob,
Last time I checked, men could not get pregnant. Therefore, there is no physical risk involved for a man who does not have contraception. This IS a FEMALE issue!

Bob,
Last time I checked, men could not get pregnant. Therefore, there is no physical risk to a man who does not have contraception available. This IS a FEMALE issue!

You were clearly raised to think sex was unatural and bad, let me guess, Catholic maybe? I hope you put your name in for adoption because there will be lots of babies coming from drug addicts/alcoholics/abused-raped women....hope you have a big house and lots of money since you can't see past your nose when it comes to the word "prevention" or "future". Again, travel, get an education....all these things will help you understand. Has nothing to do with "haters" just "ignorance".

Jan it’s not about medicines to keep you alive it’s about where do we stop spending? Money is tight and if the government healthcare only had enough money for YOUR heart medication to keep you alive OR Sonia’s contraceptives which would you prefer we spend the money on?

Dane, being an adoptive parent myself, get your head out of the sand. People don't want to adopt "kids", only newborns....check your statistics. If 2 million parents are waiting then why are there 500 000 kids in foster care. Seriously, get educated before you speak. People go abroad because it's quicker, no living relatives close that they have to deal with in the future, and others want babies who look like them. Have you ever heard of DSS? Call them, they'll explain that you are plain WRONG! I personally know kids who live in group homes. Do you? Who raised you? Did you get raised in the foster care system? Do you know that it takes doube the number of years a child has lived in foster care to overcome their emotional/special needs issues? "Approximately 500 000 children are in foster care on any given day, an increase of 65% in the past 10 years." Not wise to talk about stuff like you know what you are saying but don't have a clue. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/3/536

Jan - if you don't have the $3000 to by birth control pills then don't go on vacation, or don't have sex until you can afford it. Why should we pay for your fun?

Dane, being an adoptive parent myself, get your head out of the sand. People don't want to adopt "kids", only newborns....check your statistics. If 2 million parents are waiting then why are there 500 000 kids in foster care. Seriously, get educated before you speak. People go abroad because it's quicker, no living relatives close that they have to deal with in the future, and others want babies who look like them. Have you ever heard of DSS? Call them, they'll explain that you are plain WRONG! I personally know kids who live in group homes. Do you? Who raised you? Did you get raised in the foster care system? Do you know that it takes doube the number of years a child has lived in foster care to overcome their emotional/special needs issues? "Approximately 500 000 children are in foster care on any given day, an increase of 65% in the past 10 years." Not wise to talk about stuff like you know what you are saying but don't have a clue. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/3/536
Like I said, hope you are ready and have millions in the bank to adopt all those kids!

@ Dane
"Money is tight and if the government healthcare only had enough money for YOUR heart medication to keep you alive OR Sonia’s contraceptives which would you prefer we spend the money on?"

There's money for both (and both are important). It's a question of priorities. Less war + taxing those who have been getting away with financial murder = healthcare for all. This argument is so silly.

What countries have you visited? Somehow I gather you may have stayed in a resort and not learned a thing about the ways other countries handle healthcare? And yes, most developped nations cover birth control because they don't have their heads stuck in the bible and have moved on past the 1800's and understand the human body better, as they realized the world is no longer flat as they once believed.

Like it or lump it, we are part of a society, and sometimes we need our leaders to lead. That includes guiding behavior towards civil rights, rights in the workplace, and even the right to not have a baby. The church should not be able to force the insurance company not to provide contraception (even in their own twisted logic). I may never have walked in a woman's shoes, but I know to let them make their own choice.

http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-pauls-anti-atheist-bigotry.html

A wrapup about Ron Paul and bigotry.

Hello Tony!!!

The resolution was introduced last week in the Tea Party-controlled New Hampshire House by Majority Leader D.J. Betencourt (R-Salem)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/birth-control-debate-new-hampshire-lawmaker-abstinence_n_1284934.html

@Rick: Thanks for the link, I appreciate it. :-)

Birth control has more uses than preventing pregnancy. This is why people like yourselves should stay out of it.

"David and jan say we have enough money to pay for it all."

That's right. Stop invading countries and make Mitt and General Electric pay the same tax rates as YOU do, and there will be money for contraceptives; lots and lots of contraceptives.

Viagara, are you happy to pay for your insurance carrier to cover that?

@Dane: interesting statement,, does this thinking of yours apply across the board to everything ?

Very well said Lorna!

You equate eating a food with planning for when your family can grow?

Actually your analogy doesn't work. The vendor who serves your store delivers to individuals, and they ask for meat - from that vendor - not from you.

Imagine if we had vegan grocery stores. :-)

Let everyone make their own choice.

Great example!!

Hocus....hiding behind a silly name when you make such silly statements? I can see why! GOP are known for protecting pharmaceuticals and taking in big checks so no one is really going to take you seriously! http://www.iccr.org/publications/examiner_pastarticles/examiner_phrma.htm

"GOP are known for protecting pharmaceuticals and taking in big checks so no one is really going to take you seriously!"

So you would be in agreement that Ann Kuster's record as a lobbyist for Pharma would influence her opinion on this. The fact that she'd write an editorial here and not disclose that is wrong.

Don i am NOT Catholic or anti contraceptive. Its not even about the church its about freedom from government.

Don - moral issues are what a church is about - and you are complaining about what they decided is moral or not? Start your own church and decide what you think is moral. Do you "blindly follow" your church? Haven't you noticed how many intellectuals are member of the Catholic Church?

The difference is that a child being born costs $300 000 and a lot of comon sense, a decent income, mental health, patience and support, which are things that many people do not have to offer their children who do not ask to be born. It's all sweet when people clain they fight for life when they fight for the fetus, but the minute that fetus becomes a baby, they don't give a damn what happens to that person in the next 18 yrs.

@Sonia what’s the next government requirement on income before having children? I understand the democratic/your position that we need to stop the poor, young, and/or uneducated people from having children. I just don't agree with Democrats, Kuster and you on those misguided ideas. Again if my parents thought like you people I wouldn't be here nor would many of my friends.

Kids are NOT a burden, they are NOT a price tag, they ARE a gift even (if they are unplanned). NO ONE needs $300,000 in the bank to have a child no matter HOW many times you say it in this blog.

My parents raised us from very humble beginnings to adult hood without government handouts. ALL of their children graduated from College despite the fact that my mom didn’t get her high school diploma until she was 25 going to night school.

Well if you’re poor in the US you have access to many free or discounted things like contraception, housing, food, medical, daycare, college, schooling, transportation, vehicles, and now cell phones (since 2008). Funny the highest birthrate per capita is in the lowest incomes in the US. Those pregnancies seem to have people like you most distressed and they already get free contraception! This is NOT about access to contraception because NO ONE is being denied that, but the ability for Democrats to say here is one more “free” thing you get for voting for us!

The social conservative agenda by the Republicans: anti-gay, anti-women, anti-labor panders to the hicks in our state. Ever talk to a Republican and see that gleam in their eye when they talk about how evil gay marriage is? Or how Obama ruined the country single-handedly? Or how contraception is inviting the wrath of god? It's a certain look they get, not unlike a preacher at the bully pulpit calling down fire and brimstone. I read an article this morning about how people were gravitating towards Rick Santorum because "he's like us." As if that's a way to pick a president, he hates just like they do!

And then you get complicated issues like health care and our state, circumventing the medical center requirement rules, and these same hicks come out of the woodwork buying every single word without clear understanding of the issue. They have no idea and really don't care about how it affects citizens of New Hampshire; they just know a Republican said the word "jobs" so they nod and smile. It's so lowbrow and disappointingly unsophisticated. It's an embarrassment to me every time I see our state in the news.

It started last year with a Republican in our house saying Hitler had the right idea, and it continues to this day with further discrimination against our people. Hateful bunch of bigoted rubes.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/03/15/new-hampshire-republican-resigns-after-saying-hitler-did-something-right

@Rick: I don't think the house will be doing it either. They are trying to improve their low approval rating so they can still be around in 10 months. I do think though some of the posts here are a good example of why we do need contraceptives!

well said "forthepeople"....don't forget wanting to allow guns in the state house, guns on college campuses, removing all gun liscensing like Arizona (don't allow them to drink but we want to hand them guns at age 16), not making school mandatory anymore, reducing the school drop out age to 16 (back to the farming days of 1971), wanting to get rid of medicare, social security, or anything else that's good for the people so they can privatize/deregulate and pocket more money!

Ah FORTHEPEOPLE with democratic Amnesia! Republicans have always been the party of smaller government, economic freedom, personal freedoms, anti slavery and equality for all. Lincoln the first Republican president was the one that held the country together and ended slavery at the cost of his own life. Douglas was the DEMOCRAT! Blacks and whites fought together for years in the military from the revolutionary war right on through WW1. The segregation of the US military (and many other branches) happened under a DEMOCRATIC liberal progressive president Wilson. And was continued under FDR during WW2 “I DO approve of the segregation that is being attempted in several of the departments,” President Wilson wrote in his first year in office.
I could go on all day about the numerous DEMOCRATIC RACIST and that have been governors, presidents, and leaders but that would be a waste of time because you don’t want to hear it anyway.

President Lincoln was not an abolitionist. I'm amused that you have to bring up the 1800s to find someone less racist than your own Republican Party! That gave me a laugh.

Undoubtedly, the Kings of bigotry are the Republicans, and there's no debate on that.

I will give you a few factoids because you apparently have the filtered education on the revolution and civil war. Abraham Lincoln was willing to concede slavery to the south if they did not secede. One might say that the Emancipation Proclamation was awfully convenient given that the North was in the middle of a costly war, and that proclamation would only hold in the northern territories (unless they win … Get it?). It's easy to find fault with Abraham Lincoln; he is not the champion on civil rights that people think he is. This is blasphemy in our culture, of course.

Democrats have far less racists because that party is designed to appeal to the greater population. They're the ones who have supported social programs, affirmative-action, and the civil rights act of 1964 (John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Democrats). Look at Harry Byrd of 1960 election, who openly opposed racial desegregation in schools. It was actually this period of time when the southern states started to vote Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. Bigotry and racism at its core.

http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/evmaps/electoral-maps.htm

@ FTP

I remember that. It was shocking. It's what happens when decent people stay home on election day.

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
--Plato

@David

I was at that hearing. I do my share of volunteering, and I was there because one of my favored organizations was getting hit by that legislation. When that woman stood up and accused the Republican of damning her child to Siberia, the entire audience got out of their seats, started pointing and swearing at Bill O'Brien. His reply? "Nobody's perfect."

Where were the cameras? Where were the journalists? Was a packed house full of the developmentally disabled, addicts, and the homeless. I saw a homeless person wearing his backpack past church curfew asking Bill O'Brien what he was supposed to do, that he was suffering and couldn't get the services he needed. Unfortunately, he also had trouble communicating his needs.

And that's why people like myself show up at these hearings. Most certainly, if you have gone to these hearings, you have probably met me. And every time, just like this time, it's the Republicans hiding behind prejudice, racism, and bigotry to rig the system for the rich against people that have nothing.

I stand by my assertions about the Republican Party.

@ Dane
"Republicans have always been the party of smaller government..."

Absolutely untrue. A very popular myth.

"Big government gets bigger"
"George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/?page=all

@ Don here is one of our founding fathers thoughts on this matter:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

-James Madison

Checks and balances does not mean there is no government at all. You inferred we should be free from government. I say that would lead to chaos with no government. It is a matter of the degree of government we should have.

"DEMOCRATIC RACISTS".?...Seriously,,, you need to take a step back.

Dane, go back to spending time with your family, you are embarrassing yourself. I think you have gotten a little obsessed with posting on PATCH and like I said earlier, it's time to take a step back.

I was contacted by SOS and they will be putting out signs next week, can I put one on your lawn ?

I already responded to the Abraham Lincoln misinformation. In regards to the Democrats of the 1960 election, it's true that John F. Kennedy had trouble convincing some parts of his own party that racial equality was the way to go. This was a huge hurdle for a lot of people to get over, and if you read about John F. Kennedy, you will see that he actually knew his racial equality viewpoint may cost a lot of programs that he cared about. Congress was sharply divided on the topic, and it was only after his death that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was able to pass. It's impossible to deny that his platform and wishes were honored post-humorously, and in no small part due to his efforts along with civil rights leaders everywhere.

I remain amused that you go back in time half a century and more to a time of great strife and burgeoning enlightenment. It's undeniable that for a large group of people, the Civil War isn't over. You're talking about a lot of towns that remain depressed economically and in regards to their population. Many people still fly the Confederate flag down south (Republican states!), and there is no doubt who will win their state elections. It's not a coincidence. You need only look at the electoral map I posted, read some news, and actually comprehend that your party has been infiltrated by extremists, bigots, anddisturbed individuals that would like nothing more than to serve the rich.It's the party of me-me-me. That's why they get along with libertarians.

@Jane your so right I have been called every horrible name in the book because i believe that able bodied working adults should pay for their own contraceptives.

@FORTHEPEOPLE- Lincoln MISINFORMATION?! Really? Kennedy couldn't get it done for fear of loss of programs?! really?! I am certain Lincoln not only knew that his ideas on racial equality and ending slavery would cost him programs but also knew it could cost him his life too. You put down Lincoln who fought the bloodiest war in US history against DEMOCRAT Douglas to keep our country together and end slavery then make excuses for Kennedy and the democrats? I also love that you skipped past the civil rights voting record of 1964 posted above showing higher % of Republicans voted for it than democrats. oh and DEMOCRATS filibustering it for 54 days trying to stop it.

Funny i grew up down south and all around this great country as my dad was a Marine of 26 years. I brought a beautiful black woman to the prom(gasp) and had no racial problems with my family or southerners. Yeah people down south for a long time were Democrats and some were racists but they turned that page many years ago. Try traveling a little before painting everyone with your brushes of hate. Never have I seen more hate, lack of tolerance and discontent than from liberals up here talking about the South, conservatives, religious people, or republicans.

@ Dane
"Never have I seen more hate, lack of tolerance and discontent than from liberals up here talking about the South, conservatives, religious people, or republicans."

I think people get exasperated. We have one country. "Liberals up here" want America to join the rest of the enlightened world. But people who deny science and rational thought, who believe we need fewer constraints on corporations and violent criminals who want guns, but more on reproductive organs and who can get married, who still think, 30 years later, that wealth will "trickle down", who think billionaires need even more while teachers should do with even less, who believe in freedom of religion as long as it doesn’t involve turbans, who think corporations are people, who see a fetus as a divine gift and a child as a grubby moocher, who think American workers organizing to bargain in their best interests is thuggery, while corporations laying off American workers while making record profits is smart business, who believe the pentagon budget can't be too big while ranting about debt, who’ve decided that evolution and all the evidence that supports it is bunkum while the virgin birth makes perfect sense and should be taught in public school, who say government can’t do anything right, and then get in office and prove it…keep holding the country back. Some grow weary of the constant insanity and drama that keeps America from being the #1 nation that "conservatives" love to believe it is.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/Allen_West_tirade_WassermanSchultz_viledespicablenot_a_Lady.html

You mean this guy? Please. This guy is a tea party flag waver.

I looked at your video, it was a slanted view of history that glossed over a lot of the points I have made regarding the 60s and Abraham Lincoln. Honestly, if you have to go back 150 years to prove Republicans are not racist, something isn't right, wouldn't you say?

Again, when the South takes down their Confederate flags please come on back and try again.

For current events:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry racist camp rock:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/10/03/141004538/rick-perry-caught-between-racist-rock-and-toxic-mortgages

Newt Gingrich racism(I have only included one example!):
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jan/22/redblueamerica-is-newt-gingrich-running-racist/

Ron Paul racism:
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/comment-page-13/
Ron Paul newsletters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

FTP: As far as your examples I agree to a point. Perry once claimed that he was a "physical conservative"! He's a few brain cells short of being president and conservatives know it and kicked him out of the race. He does not represent us and his views are inconsequential in equating them to what the republican party believes.
Ron Paul has some explaining to do. Either he is a racist or he never bothered to read his own newsletter. What I wanted to hear from him regarding this is that he read it and immediately fired the person responsible and printed a retraction immediately. His claim of not knowing who was responsible because people have come and go in his campaign, if true does not show the ability to be on top of his administration.

(cont.)

Gingrich's comment about the NAACP was arrogant and egocentric. Anyone who thinks he can solve problems all by himself by "explaining" the situation is insulting to those he feels he needs to "explain" things to and is not based in reality. His second comment at least clarified his intent, that poor people need help in learning how to get and keep a good job, so that they may someday be their own boss. There are many people on government aide such as young mothers, that have never worked and need assistance in learning the basics as how to present yourself at an interview. In the 70's recession, after using up my initial unemployment I was required to take a 2 week course that taught everything from how to project reliability and confidence to a prospective employer (we watched ourselves on video during a mock interview) to how to balance a check book. By the end of the 2nd week, most had been hired. One timid graphic artist showed up at an interview and was told the position had been filled. With confidence he asked to present his portfolio so that he could be considered in the future. They gave him a job! Of course, there have to be jobs for those you are training to get one; which is why any help for the poor must include a growth in jobs that are accessible to those who do not have the benefit of a college education. My grandfather had a 5th grade education but had his own successful loom fixing business after working his way up from a floor boy in a mill.

That being said let's take a look at just who the "poor people" are and if it is racist to believe that there is an inequality in the ratio of black and white poor people. It is a fact the the ratio of black people on food stamps is higher than the ratio of white people. I know, only 22% of people on food stamps are black and 34% of those on food stamps are white. Now lets look at the percentage of each race in the general population. Whites make up 75.1% of the US population and make up less than half of that percentage of food stamp recipients. Blacks make up 12.3% of the US population and make up almost twice that percentage of those on food stamps. To suggest that blacks need a hand up and out of poverty is to recognize that their is a gross inequality in those that need help.

As to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, she has gone as far as being instrumental in organizing a protest in front of West's campaign headquarters, and purposely waited until West had left the chambers before speaking against him. This is not the behavior of a respectable Congresswoman. West was angry and has just had enough. She calls it "unbelievable" that a member of congress from Florida would support a bill that would raise medicare costs. I agree. The following is a schedule of medicare costs in Obamacare:
The per-person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to:
$104.20 in 2012
$120.20 in 2013
And
$247.00 in 2014."

It looks like you are almost there, Lorna.

How about this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjHa1JHiHFU

More bigotry from Newt Gingrich. If you are conceding that the vast majority of your Republican presidential candidates are bigots, I don't understand your counterpoint. My point is that the right wing attracts these kinds of people that get hundreds of thousands of people to vote for them. I have repeatedly posted about even our own House of Representatives and their bigotry problem. Like it or lump it, the right wing attracts the bigoted crazies.

There is such a thing as being conservative economically, but what conservative means in the day and age of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and friends, is quite another.

As far as your profiling attempts, I'm bothered by it because it looks like you are trying to make a racial point about food stamps. You are treading on very thin ice with those kinds of assertions, and it's these kind of comments that exacerbate the problem. If you want to talk about racial inequality, let's do that, but please be careful how you write it. What would help is to provide references and also further clarification on your conclusions.

FTP: Almost where? To admit that there are some inept republican candidates (and maybe one racist, Paul) is not in any way agreeing that Republicans attract racists. I believe that there are racists on both sides of the aisle. There are some black democrats who have said some pretty nasty and ignorant things about whites also. I would assert that politics in general attracts racists. Most politicians will tell you today that they are in it for their constituents, but once in office they think they are better than everyone else. It's only a small step from thinking you are better than everyone else to thinking your race is better than other races.

My statement regarding the ratio of blacks and whites on food stamps vs. the ratio in the general population in no way was meant to be detrimental to one race. It was simply made to point out that when a politician mentions blacks when discussing government aid it does not mean he is racist, it means that he is aware that blacks have a disportionate ratio of aid and that the reasons for this must be investigated and the needs of black citizens be met in order to help them become self-sufficient.

(cont.)

(cont.)
As to your link to Gingrich's comment on speaking English, once again it's an "open mouth, insert foot" moment; something that tells me we shouldn't trust him as the GOP candidate. I don't believe he meant any racial intent. As other countries around the world require students to learn and be proficient in English so that they can be competitive in the world market, right here in the US it is possible to graduate high school with only a rudimentary grasp on what is the world's language of success. That being said, if you don't speak English well you are more apt to end up in the ghetto than with a good paying job.

I got my figures for the population ratio simply by looking up the census results. I also looked up the percentages of those on food stamps. I don't usually post unless I have checked the figures. That being said I pulled an oopsy with the Obama care figures. (I trusted someone else's post) In researching these figures it is near impossible to follow the ins and outs of every aspect of the Obamacare law enough to come to a definite figure. I'll leave that up to the CBO. However, it is interesting to note that the predicted increase to $104.20 by 2012 is low, it is $115.40 this year.
Here's some interesting info direct from the CBO on Obama care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebMSpLaXmls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP0Z9Tn39js

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqlvakWH31U

I get it, Lorna, you are an apologist for Republican bigots, but this isn't getting us anywhere in this conversation. How long have you been around this board? If you look over at the Joe Biden section,

http://concord-nh.patch.com/articles/video-obama-supporters-line-up-for-biden-in-new-hampshire

Scroll on down to the comments. This is the kind of crap we have had to read for far too long coming from the right. It might be that you are an older Republican, and you are still remembering what that party used to be rather than what it is today. You need to be able to step back and look at your cast of characters, who is pulling the strings, what the tea party is about, who puppeteers the Republican party (Grover Norquist anyone? How about the Koch brothers?), and you also need to look at the rhetoric.

The bigotry is undeniable, I post about it almost every day with a new event/quotation about the latest group under attack. This time it's about women. The difference between your party of choice and persons like myself (I'm independent) is I can easily turn my back tomorrow on the Democrats if they turned against the people. What I'm asking for is fiscal responsibility and social responsibility. That means trying to create a country for everyone. That means not pointing a finger at black people or making incorrect statements about the Spanish language (I'm almost fluent myself and certainly not ghetto).

I would also suggest that you can have fiscal responsibility and social responsibility. You can create a system with jobs initiatives, a debt deal, and expanding civil rights for everyone. The Democrats have tried to do that. It's the Republicans who are blocking them. Here's how it works.

Most people don't read about politics. It's true. They lead their own lives in their own world, and to some extent there is a level of insulation to the world around them. For some, if times are tough, there is a tendency to listen to the voice in their ear telling them whose fault it is. It's all too easy to listen to someone like Newt Gingrich play upon their fears and play the blame game. The truth, the absolute truth from an intellectual standpoint is that the situation is tremendously complicated, and the color of your skin has nothing to do with it. The language that you speak has nothing to do with it. The nation you come from has nothing to do with it. It's all a big facade for who runs the planet, and the only way they can get the more ignorant folks on board is to play upon their fears. Most people can't understand currency fluctuations, but blaming Mexicans for taking their jobs is playing down to their level, right?

All I'm asking from you is to actually do some daily reading, look at your candidates, and really ask yourself if this is what you support. There's no shame in maturing your views and leaving hate behind.

Speaking of Allen West, he is in the news this morning, making as much sense as he always doesn't:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/florida-congressman-upset-obama-70-fill-hummer-215636787.html

Summary: it's Obama's fault that it's expensive to fill his Hummer.

Out of touch rich people's party... always good for a laugh.

First of all, a hummer is Alan West’s form of self-protection, and it costs a lot less than what some democrats spend to keep themselves and their families safe. Alan West was referring to the President’s energy policy when he said, “Here is the bottom line, last night it took 70 dollars to fill the tank of my 2008 H3 Hummer, what is it costing you? What does it cost the President to fill his gas tank?”
Let’s look at his energy policy.
He has halted the Oil pipeline from Canada which would provide cheaper oil from a friendly nation and provide American jobs.
While the Presidents moratorium on US gulf oil drilling was in place, the US was loaning Mexico $1 billion to expand gulf drilling. When the moratorium was “lifted” on 10/10/10 (only by court order which the Obama administration fought) the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management stated, “Even though the ban is being lifted immediately, it will likely take a couple weeks for new permitting to be approved.” The first permit was not issued until 2/28/11, for a well that had already been drilled. New well permits have been tied up in the permit process and are few and far between. Although BP got one last October! By then many rigs had left the gulf, some going to Brazil, which brings me to loaning Brazil $2 million to expand much deeper and riskier deep water drilling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

(cont.)

(cont.)

Although it is claimed that the funds are not “taxpayer money”, they are loaning profits made by the use of taxpayer money in the guarantee of loans. This bank is the official export credit agency of the United States and their mission statement says , “Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets.” Bank Chairman and President, Fred P. Hochberg, has stated, “I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services.” Does it make sense to help expand a foreign company so they can buy American goods rather than loan to an American company that is trying to expand to the foreign market? The fact is that the Obama administration has hindered the production of Oil in the US.
http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=267985
And now has defended connecting opening up a few drilling areas with placing a tax on oil companies by stating, “Oil and gas subsidies are costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices,” This would cost the oil companies $41 billion over ten years. That’s $41 billion that we pay at the pump! Like West said, how much is it costing you to fill your tank? Be prepared to pay more!
And don’t even ask me about Solyndra!

Lorna, we went from talking about racism in your own party to what now, oil drilling? Stick and move, right?

I don't believe for a minute that driving a Hummer is somehow needed for protection. It isn't Syria. Many other politicians drive Cadillacs, luxury sedans, sports cars, and more. It's a personal choice and the status symbol of a very wealthy man. He just happened to choose a gas guzzler and made a poor choice of calling attention to it.

Anyway, I'm moving on to different threads. You are welcome to bring your baggage over there, and we can continue.

Yes, you are quite correct that you *are* digressing- half a century and more- to find Democrat racism. I have reminded you repeatedly about the way the world operated back then, and we have come so far since.

The Democrat agenda is very much about equality- women's rights, civil rights, rights for persons with disabilities, patient rights, rights of the poor, and more. The Republican agenda is nothing more nor less than a plutocracy, and the bigotry that comes out of that is merely to get lowbrow, small brained, ignorant folks on board with those policies. It gives them something to really sink their primitive teeth into.

Democrat agenda is not about equality. If anything, Democrats are condescending towards minorities. They tell them 'its ok, you don't have to be as qualified as other people to get a job. We will lower the test score requirements for you"
Also, did you see the President sent a letter to the Afghan president to apologize for the US offending the religious beliefs of the Afghan people because of the accidental burning of the Quran.
Has he sent one a letter to the Pope to apologize for offending the beliefs of the Cotholic Church and contraception?

I agree, Wendy. All they talked about was jobs, jobs, and jobs. Now it's all vagina control.

This is today's pathetic GOP, yet a considerable portion of the voting public support these scoundrels. We need to prioritize education. We're a nation of fools.

There is actually some more sinister bills being proposed as it relates to New Hampshire health issues. I'm surprised that our weekly roundup didn't mention them, but there are several healthcare related bills on the table right now.

Come on patch people, expose our government for what they're doing.

I don't recall any politician ever running for office a few years ago on a platform of changing the definition of the word marriage to include same sex marriage. Did you have a problem with the state house, state senate and governor passed same sex marriage in NH when they never campaigned on the issue?
(insert sound of crickets here)

@ Seamus
The point is, they're not doing anything on jobs - the issue they ran on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy

Apparently you don't read the whole news, just the part that you like on Fox. Keep trying! The funny part is, even though it's clear that the Democrats are inclusive and the Republicans are not, I don't think it matters to you. So why bring it up? :-)

@ Dane
"...Obama who you idolize says the definition of Marriage is a man and a woman."

He's running for office, and he's a smart man. He understands how to approach a bigoted electorate. We're not a flexible people. Change needs to happen gradually. He's has said his views on the issue are evolving. In my opinion, he's always been about equal marriage rights. In a more enlightened, less fearful nation, he'd be able to just say it.

Serious answer, all insurance pools spend money on the individuals that need it by taking all of the combined money and redistributing it according to what's covered. Sometimes you will be the winner, and sometimes you will not.

@ForThePeople...agreed, but slightly off-topic. We're not talking about what private insurance companies can and can't do without government intervention; they should be able to do what they want as a private enterprise. We're talking about government mandates. Making the government make yet another "need" free is the question. So, again, if the governement needs to mandate insurance making contraception free, why not have them make Shaws provide free food...Century 21 free homes...Kohls free clothes. It's the same model, and you have to agree that clothes, food, and homes are more necessary than contraceptives. So, why not?

Shelter, food, and clothing all have social safety nets. So it's not that birth control is somehow elevated above basic needs. The mandate is largely because a religious organization that chooses to exist also as a business is abusing their religious standing to get around providing coverage to Americans. You can't have one foot inside the religious part of it, and your other foot inside basic American business. Keep in mind these groups are running hospitals, schools, and public sector services; these are not churches sitting on a street corner.

Government mandates are meant to level the playing field, provide services to folks that need them, and protect people from each other. Left of their own devices, women that need services would not get them. I'm guessing that you might not know this, but birth control is useful for many women beyond just preventing pregnancy. Finally, if it's about the bottom line, would you rather your insurance premium pay for birth control or the resulting child/health complication?

The end result, those that want birth control services can have them, and those that object to it do not have to accept it. It's the insurance company's responsibility. Some people say that the buck will be passed to the organization, and at some level everything you do in life gets paid for at the last stop. There are many things I don't agree with that I have to pay for, but I don't hide behind a sky fairy to do it.

The church can play their little games, and it'll catch up with them (I'm a huge organized religion critic). But, regardless, the government has no rite to impose a mandatory private buy (contraception coverage) on any private OR church organization; it doesn't matter which of the two the church chooses to be on a particular day.

Government mandates to level the playing field? It's the government's job to provide opportunity, not a result. We, as free Americans, can take advantage of the opportunity in pursuit of a result, or, we have the rite to be poor and disadvantaged. We can choose to finish free K-12, and make good life choices...which includes sleeping with whomever but take on the consequences themselves, not burden everyone else with your poor risk decision. And even then, for those that get a bad break, there are countless charities/friends/churches/groups out there to help using donated private funds. Government isn't here to take those that don't pursue opportunity and make good life decisions and hand them a result anyway...unless we're talking about Socialist regimes, and how are they working out?

Leveling the playing field is about providing opportunity- that's what a level playing field is. And just like you don't want to pay for contraception, I don't want to pay for other peoples' children. But I do. I don't want to pay for your kids to go to school because I don't have any kids that go to school. But I do. I don't want to have to pay for Apache helicopters to go shoot up sand dunes, but I do. Are you getting it? You can't have one foot in the middle of everything and then say that you don't want to play anymore when it something you don't agree with. You are either in collectively, or you are out collectively.

Now, if you want to sidestep and talk about socialist governments, why don't you make a new topic for that and I will be happy to participate. I happen to know a great deal about it, way more than about Greece so you better be prepared. :-)

Women who work for church organizations are not oppressed. They have chosen these jobs. I agree with Mr. Deane; food, clothes and shelter are needs, sex is a want (maybe this is what our founding fathers meant by "the pursuit of happiness?" :)). While I agree with ForThePeople that there are many that should be encouraged to NOT have children, i suspect that the women who work for church organizations are not those folks. Another concern is that the women we want to encourage to NOT have children, do we give them their choice of healthcare? Unlimited condoms are available almost everywhere, isn't that sufficient? The pill? what if they forget that one, then we have both the meds and the kids? What about norplant or an IUD? what level are they guaranteed vs required? and what is available free vs at a cost?

Reasonable people: "The birth control pill is not only used to prevent pregnancy but also to prevent common complications for women's health related to their monthly visitor."

Irrational people: "It's about SEX, isn't it?!"

Hello John, please read the following about the benefits of birth control pills:
http://www.emedexpert.com/compare/birth-control-advantages.shtml

You will notice that this isn't just about preventing pregnancy. I should add that having a child, especially for a family that can't afford it, costs way more to the insurance company and perhaps to society than the pill. I'm sure we all know people that have no business making babies.

So in terms of decreasing the bottom line cost and providing health services beyond preventing pregnancy to women, the birth control pill wins every time. If there should be any debate, it should be about providing Viagra to men but not providing birth control to women!

I'm not sure about your social safety net comments. I was bringing them up because we do have welfare to provide the basic necessities of life. I am fully in favor of increasing services to the homeless, but our Republican overlords were not last spring when we did our health services budget cut. I personally watched the speaker of the house stare down a young man wearing a backpack and past church curfew asking for help, only to be turned away with no answers.

Yes, we do part ways on "the collective." My personal interest is in the safeguard of men and women, in the ways they personally decide. I believe a woman's body is her own, that she has the highest rights above all others to that body (including rights above a multicellular embryo). No one can decide for us.

More than a few women on this board have asked men to stay out of their healthcare. Leave the gods at home, leave the morality police at home; recognize that others have different values than you. Understand that if you push other people on how to live their life, they're going to push back, and they're going to push back hard. I'm one of those people that will stand beside folks who are being oppressed, especially by religious fundies. This time it's women, last year it was the developmentally disabled, battered women, the sick, and the homeless. Who knows who it's going to be next year?

The great challenge is, in the eyes of a devout fundamentalist, forcing god upon others seems to be part of the entire racket. And there are others who would take that piety and manipulate it to their agenda (*cough* Republicans). But in the eyes of most reasonable people, this zealotry is repulsive. And in the eyes of a rational person, unless you can prove god in the eyes of the court, you cannot use god as a witness to legislate against others. Christians would not appreciate Muslim law, Muslims would not appreciate Christian law, and there's about as much evidence for both of them. Without god, this whole contraception debate becomes a matter of opinion.

It's certainly not about healthcare. If it was, we would be worried about preventing ovarian cysts through birth control. All the devout can see is one less baby that will be born into the flock to increase their army of ignorance.

Agreed. Why have kids and then not educate them? They just grow up to recite right wing talking points and vote against their own best interests. It's cruel.

The great mystery about the tea party is how giving tax breaks to the wealthy is somehow better than saving our automakers, for example.

Are you familiar with how insurance works, at all? I mean, this rant is really confusing. You start off with complaining about her scholarship and then you make it sound as if her birth control is subsidized. Insurance is a gamble. Everyone puts their money in the pool for a set of services designed to safeguard the participants. Such pools have included things like Viagra, prenatal care, birth costs, and more. There are a lot of things and a lot of services that I don't want to pay for, but I don't hide behind religion to not pay. The fact of the matter is, insurance is not about your religion, it's about protecting the participants, and a woman's health care is part of that. So sorry if it doesn't suit you.

If you really want to be consistent, please tell everyone why you expect them to pay prenatal through birth costs plus the costs of caring for a baby after birth rather than paying for contraception. Why should I have to pay more because of some unsubstantiated sky fairy? Why should I have to pay for Viagra? For that matter, why should I have to pay for anything at all that doesn't have to do with me? Why can't I be a 100% selfish libertarian/Republican and just choose to support whatever I want and claim outrage whenever it suits me?

And I will answer that. Because that is society. If you want to wreck the place, go ahead and vote that way, but don't act like this is some new thing that "liberals" came up with.

Thank you for expanding on what I said about health insurance plans. I'm not sure where we differ. The fact of the matter is, all health insurance plans are risk pools that cover a set of services designed to protect the participants. You, individually, do not get a choice. I have to pay into the pool for services that you might use that I don't care about and that might be against my personal religion. You can't go around discriminating against people and calling it your religion, and on the other hand picking and choosing the parts about society that you like. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I never said that all health insurance plans are equal, and I think it's your right-wing background that makes you unable to agree with a progressive like myself. Clearly the world would end if we agreed, right?

Sigh. I'm not a left wingnut, nor a crazy right wing conspiracist. My back ground is frighteningly liberal - sufficient for bleeding heart crowd and my house is big enough to classify me sight unseen as a selfish Republican. Unfortuntately this means that I'm stuck here in the middle. I just don't think that the goverment should tell companies what services their health care plans need to provide. Doesn't this rule also mean that the plans would need to cover male contraception? As I believe the churchs/religious employers are not discriminating at all as they won't pay for the pill, but also won't support the big V either. I'd rather they require vision (glasses are expensive and my son has broken/lost 2 pair in the last year, i'd rather not pay for that and it would apply to both male and females) as i'm okay with paying for my own contraception, but would appreciate the $1000 towards glasses.

I don't buy the religious argument at all. This is about the selfish agenda on the right finding ways to cut services. The only reason that Libertarians are on board with it is because it's less money they have to pay that someone might get in their insurance pool. Not that it's going to save them any money, the executives will pocket that thank you very much. The religion part of it is a means to an end for them. I highly doubt someone is going to bed upset tonight because an ovary didn't release an egg. I just don't buy it because this has been going on for years. You mean to tell me that someone just noticed it now? Come on, it doesn't even pass the smell test.

You have to notice the far right has two major populations. Rich people and ignorant bigots. The rich will throw a bone to the bigots as often as necessary to manipulate the ignorant for the votes. Do you really think that Romney is bothered by gay people? Do you really think that Newt Gingrich goes to sleep every night worried about the Mexicans? No. They are doing just fine, and the only reason that stuff even comes up is because it gets people motivated and scared from their base. I would be very worried about aligning with a base that is made up of people like that. This time it's women, what will it be next time?

We differ again. From my vantage point, there are ignorant bigots across the political spectrum (you are clearly discriminating against a full half of the ignorant bigots in this country) ;).

You said "This is about the selfish agenda on the right finding ways to cut services." But this isn't a service cut. The folks in question do not currently have this service, nor have they ever had it, nor have the impacted individuals demanded it of their employers. This change is being made on their behalf. This is not a discrimatory policy by the impacted organizations becuase they don't cover vasectomies either.

I don't like the "it is for a woman's health" argument beucase as a healthy sexually active woman, I have over my life experienced multiple forms of birth control (covered by insurance and not) as well as pregnancy. There are risks to pregnancy as well as every form of birth control.

I think you can take the religion out of it. Lets go back to the viagra for a second. Sex is an aerobic activity that is good for humans physically and mentally. From a wellness perspective it would behoove a company to cover this medicine for their male employees. Sexually active men, will be happier and healthier employees. Should the government require companies to cover this medicine? I think in both cases it is enough for a company to say "no" I don't think they even need to give a reason why.

And to be quite honest with you, i don't have as much problem with the requirement to provide contraception (as long as it is required for both men and women) as i have with the smoke screen the adminisrtation set up that the insurance companies will pay for it. We all know that this will look like a sale at a used car lot. 20% off sale, and don't worry, we only jacked the prices from last week up 30%. Such a deal.

I would be interested in hearing how the left has a systemic bigotry problem. Do tell.

The issue of selfishness is clearly evident with your statement about your personal experience with birth control. You don't consider folks that have issues with cysts or anemia, for example. You don't consider women that can't afford it. It's not all about you. How about listening to other women that are having a problem?

For a lot of women, they rely on their employer and the jobs that they have for their services. It's not as simple as saying "just get a new job." You cannot single out birth control as being the one thing that nobody wants to pay for without singling out a variety of services that I don't want to pay for. That's society. If I don't want to be in the same pool as you and pay for your childbirth, your kid to go to school, your glasses, or anything else, would you mind if that was part of my religion?

We all have things that we don't want to pay for. It's time to be an adult about it.

Didn't mean to imply that my experience with birth control and pregnancy was to exclude others needs and experiences. I just meant that i had educated myself on the risks of the various types of birth control and pregnancies before and after age 35 (i.e. advanced maternal age). It is currently possible for anemic women in the church plans to get the BCP becuase it is a hormone the reduces bleeding and not necessarily a hormone to prevent pregnancy. Actually I'll take that back, i assume it is becuase i have a friend who worked at a catholic hospital who's daughter took BCP as a teenager to reduce acne. It was a hormone prescription covered b/c it was used as a hormone and not birth control. So when this type of birth control is used as medicine to treat illness, the situation is already dealt with. For those that cant afford regular birth control (to prevent pregnancy), there are many options (if they are not able to switch jobs) planned parenthood is able to provide birth control at roughly the same cost as an insurance plan (my copay for BCP is $20 per month). if you struggle financially, even $20 per month is pretty steep, what copay would be required for the church plans?

I don't think the difference in opinoin is about women that need the pill for health reasons. What about the women that don't need the pill for health reasons, but just want it so they can have sex without getting pregnant? Is that collateral damage to get the benefit for those that do?

Your argument keeps jumping around. Now you are talking about a Rush Limbaugh argument, women having "too much sex." It doesn't matter if you have sex once a week or you got raped once last year, the birth control pill is the same. What you have here is the haves and have-nots. There are a lot of people hiding behind religion because they "have." Do you know the costs(monetary and otherwise) to the insurance company, to society, and to the mother of an unexpected child? If you want to ignore the health benefits of birth control, consider that unplanned pregnancy is a costly outcome. You are not going to control other peoples bodies, as much as you wish you could I'm sure. People are going to have sex. The question is, what outcome do you see with birth control and without birth control? How does this make sense in your mind, and more importantly, how can you vote against other women? Are you so well-off that anyone that's not like you be damned?

I think we can expect that health coverage for women be covered. For a religious employer, if they think the insurance company is passing the buck on to them, get a new insurance company. I pay for a lot of things that I don't want to. That's society, welcome to the club. Birth control is just one of those things that make so much sense for the woman and for society that it's a nonsensical issue.