TwitterFacebook

Republicans Bar Women From Hearing on Contraception

Misogynistic kabuki theater
Wingnuts • Views: 28,848

In the increasingly absurd Republican Party war on contraception, today GOP religious fanatics held a hearing on birth control — with no women on the panel: Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception.

A Capitol Hill hearing that was supposed to be about religious freedom and a mandate that health insurers cover contraception in the United States began as an argument about whether Democrats could add a woman to the all-male panel.

“Where are the women?” the minority Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked early in the hearing.

She criticized the Republican committee chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa, for wanting to “roll back the fundamental rights of women to a time when the government thought what happens in the bedroom is their business.”

“We will not be forced back to that primitive era,” she said.

Issa bristled at the charge and said Democrats could not add their witness because she was not a member of the clergy, but a student at Georgetown. He also faulted Democrats for not submitting the name of the witness, Sandra Fluke, in time.

Fluke would have talked about a classmate who lost an ovary because of a syndrome that causes ovarian cysts. Georgetown, which is affiliated with the Catholic Church, does not insure birth control, which is also used to treat the syndrome.

Issa said the hearing is meant to be more broadly about religious freedom and not specifically about the contraception mandate in the Health Reform law.

And if you want to risk serious cognitive damage, try watching this video clip of Rep. Darrell Issa’s Bizarro-world opening statement:

Jump to bottom

222 comments

1 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:27:32am

What’s with the placards I see on the clip image (can’t watch right now)?

2 Bulworth  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:27:50am

How routine is it to hold committee hearings in Congress and have only one side present witnesses?

3 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:28:28am

I asked already but really not a single woman? But when you’ve got an agenda and bus, I guess women go underneath Issa and Republicans’ bus.

4 Charles Johnson  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:28:50am

re: #1 e_e

What’s with the placards I see on the clip image?

It’s exactly what it looks like. These are the props Issa brought to the hearing.

5 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:29:00am

Who needs to listen to women? Don’t you know they’re ruled by their hormones and are all emotional?

Nope. We need a bunch of old men to tell women what to do with their bodies. That’s God’s will.

///

6 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:29:40am

re: #4 Charles Johnson

It’s exactly what it looks like. These are the props Issa brought to the hearing.

Ugh.

7 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:29:48am

Cavemen

8 Varek Raith  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:30:17am

re: #7 Gus

Cavemen

Mongo agree.

9 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:30:21am

To repeat from the Overnight:

I wonder if this is a good analogy for the contraceptives brouhaha: if some religious group thinks that transfusion of blood is sinful and prohibited, should they pay for it as a part of health insurance for their employees?

10 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:30:28am

Marjoriemoon just paged this too.

This should be a retweet frenzy.

11 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:30:48am

re: #5 Lidane

Who needs to listen to women? Don’t you know they’re ruled by their hormones and are all emotional?

Nope. We need a bunch of old men to tell women what to do with their bodies. That’s God’s will.

///

I know you used this in a wingnut context, but this is almost certainly the mindset. Even if it’s been forced down to a subconscious level, the entire attitude of the “good ol’ boys” is, “We’re men and they’re women. Their opinions don’t matter, all they’re good for is breeding and making us dinner.”

12 What, me worry?  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:30:57am

Pelosi is on fire.

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

“I think it’s really curiouser and curiouser that as we get further into this debate, the Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it’s appropriate to have a hearing on the subject of women’s health and can purposely exclude women from the panel,” Pelosi said during a press conference. “What else do you need to know about the subject?”

“If you need to know more, tune in, I may, I may at some point be moved to explain biology to my colleagues.”

[…]

“Five men are testifying on women’s health,” Pelosi said. “Where are the women? Imagine having a panel on women’s health and they don’t have any women on the panel.”

She paused, and then added, “Duh!”

13 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:32:02am

re: #12 marjoriemoon

I don’t like Nancy Pelosi at all, but that being said, YOU GO GIRL!

14 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:32:10am

re: #12 marjoriemoon

Pelosi is on fire.

I’m as confused as Nancy is. I mean you can’t have a goddamned hearing on women’s health and not have any women speak. Who better to speak on women’s health than you know women.

15 Bulworth  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:32:16am

I’m sure they can find some wingnut women (Karen Handel is probably free) to weigh in against contraception, but the issue really is the lack of any minority (i.e. Democratic Party) representation on the panel.

16 What, me worry?  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:33:07am

re: #10 Daniel Ballard

Marjoriemoon just paged this too.

This should be a retweet frenzy.

Thanks! I can’t listen to Issa, certainly not before lunch, but I rather hear this:

17 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:34:06am

I am fucking sick and tired of “religious freedom”, because it never really means that. All it ever means is “religious freedom for us to be as bigoted and backwards as we want to be”. Any other religion that doesn’t agree with them? Well, those don’t count.

When did religious freedom turn into a veto over any and all policy? When it’s not contraception, it’s “Not banning abortions” or “Not locking up gays” or “Letting those Muslims build mosques” that violate “religious freedom”.

Well, if this is what religious freedom means, then you know what? Count me out. Put me in the camp of wanting to oppress the poor majority Christians, since apparently they deserve it.

18 What, me worry?  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:34:14am

re: #13 thedopefishlives

I don’t like Nancy Pelosi at all, but that being said, YOU GO GIRL!

I love her and I don’t have to go into a closet and whisper it :)

19 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:34:24am
Issa said the hearing is meant to be more broadly about religious freedom and not specifically about the contraception mandate in the Health Reform law.

More broadly! Now with fewer broads!

20 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:35:23am

re: #11 thedopefishlives

I know you used this in a wingnut context, but this is almost certainly the mindset.

Of course it is. For these assholes, women should be seen and not heard, and they’re too stupid to know anything about their health or their bodies or anything. They’re emotional, ruled by hormones, unfit for combat, ask to be raped by joining the military or going on a date, etc.

It’s why a hearing about contraception doesn’t have a single woman testifying.

21 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:36:29am

re: #14 HappyWarrior

I’m as confused as Nancy is. I mean you can’t have a goddamned hearing on women’s health and not have any women speak. Who better to speak on women’s health than you know women.

Well, remember, it’s not about women’s heath or contraceptives! It’s about religious freedom! And we know that only applies to men.

22 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:36:37am

re: #18 marjoriemoon

I love her and I don’t have to go into a closet and whisper it :)

Same here. I like her.

23 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:36:58am

re: #17 Simply Sarah

I am fucking sick and tired of “religious freedom”, because it never really means that. All it ever means is “religious freedom for us to be as bigoted and backwards as we want to be”. Any other religion that doesn’t agree with them? Well, those don’t count.

When did religious freedom turn into a veto over any and all policy? When it’s not contraception, it’s “Not banning abortions” or “Not locking up gays” or “Letting those Muslims build mosques” that violate “religious freedom”.

Well, if this is what religious freedom means, then you know what? Count me out. Put me in the camp of wanting to oppress the poor majority Christians, since apparently they deserve it.

The problem is their “religious freedom” gets in way of others freedom. Take gay marriage. Your church should have the freedom not to bless gay marriages if you so choose but your church’s views about gay marriage shouldn’t be state policy because you feel your church is superior to the rest. And honestly no one really ever talks about the houses of worship that have and will bless gay marriages but that’s another story.

24 simoom  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:37:46am

re: #17 Simply Sarah

I am fucking sick and tired of “religious freedom”, because it never really means that. All it ever means is “religious freedom for us to be as bigoted and backwards as we want to be”. Any other religion that doesn’t agree with them? Well, those don’t count.

When did religious freedom turn into a veto over any and all policy? When it’s not contraception, it’s “Not banning abortions” or “Not locking up gays” or “Letting those Muslims build mosques” that violate “religious freedom”.

From the article on the Issa hearing, in some bizarro-world reversal of “get the gov’t/church out our bedrooms/medical-decisions:

“Religious people determine what violates their conscience not the federal government,” the Rev. Jonah Paffhausen, Washington archbishop of the Orthodox Church in America, said. “Please get the federal government, Mr. Chairman, out of our consciences.”

25 [deleted]  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:38:03am
26 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:38:11am

Charles. Shouldn’t the title be “Republicans Bar Women…” Plural form?

27 Charles Johnson  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:39:43am

re: #26 Gus

Charles. Shouldn’t the title be “Republicans Bar Women…” Plural form?

I was actually referring to the quoted article about a specific woman - but you’re right, they barred all women, not just one.

28 chandsolo  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:39:51am

re: #26 Gus

In this case it is a single woman that they are talking about, but in general it should be plural.

29 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:39:59am

re: #23 HappyWarrior

The problem is their “religious freedom” gets in way of others freedom. Take gay marriage. Your church should have the freedom not to bless gay marriages if you so choose but your church’s views about gay marriage shouldn’t be state policy because you feel your church is superior to the rest.

Well, of course. It’s just like “state’s rights”. For the vast majority of people complaining, it’s simply a smokescreen for “We deserve to get our way!” There’s no interest in broad concepts of freedom or rights beyond their own. 150+ years ago, they would be saying that ending slavery would be unfair to the rights of the slaveholders.

30 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:40:13am

Democratic Sen. Phil Puckett says he will vote for “Personhood Bill”

ROANOKE, VA —
The “Personhood Bill” passed the House of Delegates by a wide margin Tuesday and now it has a good chance of passing the State Senate.

The bill specifically defines life to the moment of conception. This would allow prosecutors to bring additional charges against suspects for the death of an unborn child.

Abortion issues are largely voted on down party lines and with Republican controlling the Senate with the 20-20 split. Now a Democrat says he supports the bill as well, meaning it would likely pass on the Senate floor.

Russell County Democrat Phil Puckett (D-38th) tells WSLS’s Jarett Henshaw that he will vote for the Personhood Bill for religious reasons. He says he believes life begins at conception, and he’s not concerned about any possible backlash within the caucus over those beliefs.

31 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:40:47am

re: #23 HappyWarrior

The problem is their “religious freedom” gets in way of others freedom. Take gay marriage. Your church should have the freedom not to bless gay marriages if you so choose but your church’s views about gay marriage shouldn’t be state policy because you feel your church is superior to the rest.

The thing is, my fellow Christians all seem to think that since they are the majority and that this country is a “Christian country” (remember, they have their own revisionist history), they are entitled to define “religious freedom” to mean “freedom for Christianity and to hell with everyone else.” And it really pisses me off. This country is plenty big enough for religions other than Christianity. I don’t want my religious morals forced down people’s throats.

32 simoom  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:40:53am

re: #26 Gus

Issa seems to have barred all minority party witnesses, but the ABC News article was about a specific witness who showed up anyway, was in the audience, and when the Dems asked Issa to reconsider he blocked her again — that’s why the article used the singular.

33 Varek Raith  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:40:59am

MBF detected.

34 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:42:06am
35 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:42:18am

Sigh.

I wish these scumbags would be honest and stop pretending this is about freedom. They are interested in power and power alone. They don’t care who gets hurt in their pursuit of it. They don’t care if the country burns so long as they rule over the ashes.

Loathsome insects, the lot of them.

36 What, me worry?  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:42:23am

re: #22 Lidane

Same here. I like her.

To me, the rap against her is like the rap against Obama. Like it’s become a sin to admit you like either of them. Who was it that put out a video, maybe it was on SNL, where some dude playing Obama says it’s ok to secretly vote for him without telling anyone.

37 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:42:46am

re: #30 NJDhockeyfan

Democratic Sen. Phil Puckett says he will vote for “Personhood Bill”

There are plenty of wingnut derpy assholes with a (D) after their name, especially here in the South.

38 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:42:59am

re: #33 Varek Raith

MBF detected.

See! This proves that you can’t even trust the Democrats on this issue!

//

39 chandsolo  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:43:21am

re: #33 Varek Raith

MBF detected.

She’s always on standby to be deployed by some. I don’t know why, it’s not like we don’t know why the MBF appears. You. Are. Not. Fooling. Anyone.

I feel better now.

40 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:43:32am

re: #17 Simply Sarah

I am fucking sick and tired of “religious freedom”, because it never really means that. All it ever means is “religious freedom for us to be as bigoted and backwards as we want to be”. Any other religion that doesn’t agree with them? Well, those don’t count.

When did religious freedom turn into a veto over any and all policy? When it’s not contraception, it’s “Not banning abortions” or “Not locking up gays” or “Letting those Muslims build mosques” that violate “religious freedom”.

Well, if this is what religious freedom means, then you know what? Count me out. Put me in the camp of wanting to oppress the poor majority Christians, since apparently they deserve it.

As the now oft quoted Garry Wills said:

The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics. This is religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.

41 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:43:44am

re: #30 NJDhockeyfan

Democratic Sen. Phil Puckett says he will vote for “Personhood Bill”

Not just another idiot with a minimal grasp of biology—a tie-breaking idiot with a minimal grasp of biology.

42 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:44:33am

re: #33 Varek Raith

MBF detected.

I must’ve missed something.

43 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:44:35am

re: #38 Gus

See! This proves that you can’t even trust the Democrats on this issue!

//

I don’t give a damn what their party is, I care how they vote.

44 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:45:38am

re: #40 wrenchwench

As the now oft quoted Garry Wills said:

Yep. It’s “My relgious beliefs über alles.”

45 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:46:12am

re: #42 thedopefishlives

I must’ve missed something.

#30. A Democrat for Personhood!!1!

46 What, me worry?  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:46:46am

The Huffpo article says there were 2 women who testified, but both against Obama. It’s really nice to have an unbiased viewpoint, ain’t it.

A second panel included two women, but both were critics of Obama’s birth control mandate, which does not exempt religiously affiliated employers from having to include contraception in employees’ insurance coverage. Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.) told reporters in the hallway outside the hearing that she marched out because it was being conducted like an “autocratic regime.”

47 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:46:58am

Yeah. This isn’t a partisan issue.

//

48 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:47:07am

Sigh Puckett’s decision is exactly why I wanted to expand the Dem majority in the state senate. I mean this personhood bill is something that resembles a referendum that failed in Mississippi because it went too far. Hey dipshit legislators the people voted for you because they wanted you to focus on the economy not your social agenda. And of course Bob “For Jobs” McDonnell will sign it.

49 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:47:09am

re: #43 SanFranciscoZionist

I don’t give a damn what their party is, I care how they vote.

Yup.

50 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:47:29am

re: #45 wrenchwench

#30. A Democrat for Personhood!!1!

Which doesn’t invalidate women being excluded from a hearing about contraception. But hey, the MBF at least has to try. =P

51 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:48:58am

re: #45 wrenchwench

#30. A Democrat for Personhood!!1!

My Phil Puckett news invalidates your “Republicans bar women” headline!

//

52 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:49:02am

re: #33 Varek Raith

MBF detected.

Heh. When the demiocrats and republicans have a similar proportion of like minded throwbacks then the MBF can be be invited to the party. Until then she is cordially invited to stick her dick in the mashed potato.

53 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:49:22am

re: #46 marjoriemoon

The Huffpo article says there were 2 women who testified, but both against Obama. It’s really nice to have an unbiased viewpoint, ain’t it.

I’ve always liked Holmes-Norton. Shockingly, she wasn’t placated by token women taking a position contrary to the majority of women in the country.

54 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:49:26am

re: #47 Gus

Yeah. This isn’t a partisan issue.

//

I think it’s hilarious that the Republicans have made contraception a partisan issue in 2012.

Honestly, to paraphrase John Cole, Barack Obama has been blessed with the stupidest fucking enemies on the planet. They actually think this kind of retrograde, caveman bullshit is a winning issue for them. WTF.

55 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:49:39am

re: #52 Jimmah

When the demiocrats and republicans have a similar proportion of like minded throwbacks then the MBF can be be invited to the party. Until then she is cordially invited to stick her dick in the mashed potato.

Exactly.

56 Four More Tears  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:50:22am

Why is everyone getting bent out of shape? This is about religious freedom, and women obviously have nothing worth hearing on that subject.

Why so serious?

57 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:50:57am

I just hope Virginia voters are tired of McDonnell’s so-con bullshit and reject Bolling or Cuciccnelli when they run next year. Remember Va’s term limits its governors to one term.

58 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:52:07am

re: #45 wrenchwench

#30. A Democrat for Personhood!!1!

I got that part. What the heck is an MBF?

59 Four More Tears  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:52:22am

re: #30 NJDhockeyfan

Are you for real? I mean, seriously? Changing this man’s mind would make it go away?

60 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:52:48am

re: #58 thedopefishlives

I got that part. What the heck is an MBF?

Magical Balance Fairy- the old equalizer. “Yeah my side sucks but here’s your side sucking too.”

61 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:53:24am

re: #58 thedopefishlives

I got that part. What the heck is an MBF?

Magical Balance Fairy

62 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:53:48am

re: #60 HappyWarrior

Magical Balance Fairy- the old equalizer. “Yeah my side sucks but here’s your side sucking too.”

Aha. And now it all clicks into place. The term is used so infrequently (at least, during the hours I’m around) that I couldn’t puzzle it out.

63 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:54:19am

Pelosi To GOP: ‘Duh!,’ Women Should Be Included In A Hearing About Contraception

PELOSI: What is it that men don’t understand about women’s health and how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you’re having families but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would include this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel. I think the fact that they did not allow a woman on the panel is symbolic of the whole debate as to who is making these decisions about women’s health and who should be covered.

64 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:54:45am
65 [deleted]  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:54:47am
66 Eventual Carrion  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:56:07am

re: #65 Channeling Confucius

Female Democrats Have Walked Out on Issa’s Contraception Hearing

Good, it is a sham anyway.

67 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:56:53am

re: #65 Channeling Confucius

Female Democrats Have Walked Out on Issa’s Contraception Hearing

I really would have liked the headline to match the URL and say Democratic Women instead of Female Democrats. Bah.

68 Tumulus11  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:59:50am

. Right now Rep. Issa’s staff is frantically trying to round up a male Republican opponent of birth control who has lost an ovary due to ovarian cysts.

69 Tigger2005  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:00:06am

“If they have any questions, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in a Congressional hearing.”


re: #56 They’re pants, essentially…

Why is everyone getting bent out of shape? This is about religious freedom, and women obviously have nothing worth hearing on that subject.

Why so serious?

70 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:00:59am

re: #65 Channeling Confucius

Issa’s statement is first about “a man’s” faith. /

71 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:01:40am

re: #17 Simply Sarah

This goes back to one of the Founding Myths of America. that the Pilgrrims came here to enjoy “religious freedom”.

The “religious freedom” they came to enjoy was the right to impose their theocracy on the entire community: to fine people for failing to attend church, to openly castigate and punish those who did not conform to their interpretation of God’s Law.

The “oppression” they were escpaing was from other people who did not wish to let them impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society. SO they fled to a place where they could be alone and undisturbed.

72 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:01:55am

It’s the Mens’ Rights Party.

73 Charles Johnson  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:02:15am

More love in the comments for Jeffrey Goldberg’s post at The Atlantic: There’s Racist Dog-Whistling, and Then There’s … Racism - Jeffrey Goldberg - National - the Atlantic

Charles Johnson is one of the most despised people on the blogosphere and he should be shunned by everyone and Goldberg should know better than to link to him. Johnson is notorious for turning on friends and commenters and has even gone to extremes in order to try and destroy people who were once his friends citing all sorts of vile and flimsy accusations against them from racism to hate speech. 

Johnson has reversed his stance on virtually every issue he stood for literally overnight, from Obama to Islam to global warming while laughably claiming he was duped for seven years. Since he switched to the left, his blog traffic has collapsed and he now resorts to race baiting as one way to try and boost his traffic even it means exploiting Whitney Houston’s death. 

74 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:03:48am

re: #71 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

This goes back to one of the Founding Myths of America. that the Pilgrrims came here to enjoy “religious freedom”.

The “religious freedom” they came to enjoy was the right to impose their theocracy on the entire community: to fine people for failing to attend church, to openly castigate and punish those who did not conform to their interpretation of God’s Law.

The “oppression” they were escpaing was from other people who did not wish to let them impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society. SO they fled to a place where they could be alone and undisturbed.

Yep. It’s almost depressing how utterly false pretty much everything Americans supposedly know about the founding of the country is. Granted, I’m sure that’s a big part of the reason no one wants to think about the truth.

75 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:03:48am

re: #27 Charles Johnson

I was actually referring to the quoted article about a specific woman - but you’re right, they barred all women, not just one.

It’s not like they would have thought to perhaps invite one themselves…but it highlights that this is entirely a political and ideological issue, it has nothing to do with women.

76 Charles Johnson  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:03:48am

The same person says all the racist comments are being planted, of course: There’s Racist Dog-Whistling, and Then There’s … Racism - Jeffrey Goldberg - National - the Atlantic

Has it ever occurred to anyone that these comments at Fox are planted? When you have that many in such a short space of time surely that would be suspicious. 

 If Johnson was so concerned about racist posts, why doesn’t he go to You Tube or Yahoo? There’s tonnes of them there and they’re not deleted. His only concern is to smear the Right. Insults and racism accusations are all the left wing have.

77 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:04:11am

re: #73 Charles Johnson

“Literally overnight!” Another commenter who has problems with English.

78 allegro  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:04:53am

Somehow I’m seeing a direct connection between the anti-contraception/pro-forced birth and pro-rape policy stances of these Republican men. Deny women the ability to control their fertility and rape will be the only way they will get laid.

79 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:05:00am

re: #72 Gus

It’s the White Mens’ Rights Party.

FTFY

80 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:06:50am

re: #73 Charles Johnson

Tell me who despises you, and I’ll tell you who you are, or something to that effect ;)

81 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:06:58am

re: #74 Simply Sarah

Yep. It’s almost depressing how utterly false pretty much everything Americans supposedly know about the founding of the country is. Granted, I’m sure that’s a big part of the reason no one wants to think about the truth.

Well the reality goes against the hallowed images we have in our collective mindset of the pilgrims. Anyhow, yeah it’s funny because the historical mythology makes it look like the Church of England who were the fanatics and the Puritans like they were just trying to live their religion in peace.

82 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:08:12am

re: #76 Charles Johnson

Well, there’s an easy way to find out. Grab the IP logs and .. wait, what? Now you’re not so interested in finding out who posted all those racist comments? Gee, I wonder why not./

83 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:08:55am

re: #80 e_e

Tell me who despises you, and I’ll tell you who you are, or something to that effect ;)

You can tell a lot about a man by looking at his enemies.

84 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:09:36am

re: #83 Kragar

Ah, thanks, that’s it.

85 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:10:00am

re: #73 Charles Johnson

More love in the comments for Jeffrey Goldberg’s post at The Atlantic: There’s Racist Dog-Whistling, and Then There’s … Racism - Jeffrey Goldberg - National - the Atlantic

ppl who change their minds are eevil. all forms of intellectual/political/personal growth, including but not restricted to mind changing are NOT ALLOWED! /

From the Wingnut Code, article 64 section 2, paragraph c.

86 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:10:09am

Steve Benen:

The ostensible point of a congressional hearing is to provide lawmakers with information they need to shape public policy. In this case, Issa has invited nine “expert” witnesses to discuss contraception coverage — and all nine are men who represent religious institutions.
…..
Remember, there are no church-state lines being crossed with the White House policy. Churches and other houses of worship are exempt, and a compromise measure ensures that religiously-affiliated employers won’t have to pay for contraception coverage, either.
[Link: maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com…]

87 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:10:59am

re: #85 Jimmah

ppl who change their minds are eevil. all forms of intellectual/political/personal growth, including but not restricted to mind changing are NOT ALLOWED! /

From the Wingnut Code, article 64 section 2, paragraph c.

Paragraph d: St. Ray the Gun is the exception to para c.

88 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:11:01am

re: #85 Jimmah

ppl who change their minds are eevil. all forms of intellectual/political/personal growth, including but not restricted to mind changing are NOT ALLOWED! /

From the Wingnut Code, article 64 section 2, paragraph c.

I was born a conservative and will die a conservative!

Derp.

89 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:11:57am

‘19 Kids and Counting’ Gets Stranger, Sadder

Michelle Duggar, the broodmare who gave birth to this baseball team, was invited to speak to a ladies group at a nearby church, and though what we saw of the speech was mostly a series of platitudes about family and children and all that, there was a single shot that said much more — the camera panned over a handout that Michelle brought to the event, and the content was pretty unsettling. TLC maybe included this shot for people like us, who of course paused it and advanced the frames to read as much of it as we could, and, whooo boy, was it unpleasant. It was all about how to make your husband happy in a marriage, which is of paramount importance to patriarch-dominated Quiverfull families. There were things about how wives shouldn’t refuse their husbands’ sexual advances, about how self-reliance is what kills marriages, about not stepping out of bounds in terms of what your responsibilities are as a wife (do too much and you emasculate him, you see). It was all reeeeally gross stuff that you never really hear the Duggars talking about on the show, but is absolutely the unspoken (on camera, at least) foundation of their family. (As evidenced by the fact that older boys are encouraged to pursue education and careers while their sisters remain indentured babysitters.) So that’s why the rage-junkies watch this horrorshow, to get that electric adrenalin rush of anger at what a strange and backwards belief system these seemingly cheery and wholesome creatures actually operate under.

90 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:12:09am

re: #87 e_e

Paragraph d: St. Ray the Gun is the exception to para c.

Not true! Saint Ray the Gun was born a conservative! Lies!

Robert Byrd!

Derp!

//

91 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:12:13am

re: #86 jaunte

Steve Benen:

Yet the nutjobs are acting like this policy is religious oppression and a war on religion. Hey assholes you want to be persecuted for your religion. Move to North Korea, I hear it’s authoritarian with 100% chance of oppression and hardship.

92 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:12:50am

re: #85 Jimmah

Ah lerned all ah need to fum mah daddy, and he fum his, on down.

93 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:13:14am

re: #92 jaunte

Ah lerned all ah need to fum mah daddy, and he fum his, on down.

[Banjo music.]

94 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:13:23am

re: #87 e_e

Paragraph d: St. Ray the Gun is the exception to para c.

Your display name correlates eerily with the hunting call of the iceweasel :-)

95 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:13:27am

re: #81 HappyWarrior

Well the reality goes against the hallowed images we have in our collective mindset of the pilgrims. Anyhow, yeah it’s funny because the historical mythology makes it look like the Church of England who were the fanatics and the Puritans like they were just trying to live their religion in peace.

The Pilgrims were aliens from outer space!
//history channel!!

96 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:13:30am

re: #91 HappyWarrior

Yet the nutjobs are acting like this policy is religious oppression and a war on religion. Hey assholes you want to be persecuted for your religion. Move to North Korea, I hear it’s authoritarian with 100% chance of oppression and hardship.

They seem to forget that Freedom of Religion is also supposed to mean Freedom from Religion.

97 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:13:49am

re: #94 Jimmah

Your display name correlates eerily with the hunting call of the iceweasel :-)

[Dobro slide.]

98 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:14:42am

re: #97 Gus

[Dobro slide.]

Tonight with us: Gus, ladies and gentlemen!

/

99 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:14:45am

re: #94 Jimmah

Your display name correlates eerily with the hunting call of the iceweasel :-)

How are you and ice doing, anyway? I saw her operating the dinger controls a couple of weeks back, but haven’t heard from her in a while.

100 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:15:10am

re: #96 Kragar

They seem to forget that Freedom of Religion is also supposed to mean Freedom from Religion.

Yep. It’s a two way street always has been. Really these guys piss me off when they claim that they’re being oppressed. Please asshole, there are people out there who get killed because of their religious beliefs and you’re mad because of voluntary birth control? Yeah priorities. Have them you do not.

101 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:15:32am

re: #96 Kragar

They seem to forget that Freedom of Religion is also supposed to mean Freedom from Religion.

Ironically enough, the exact opposite is actually a slogan among the uber-right-wing Christians.

102 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:15:45am

Republican ideology is kind of like taking a canoe trip down the Cahulawassee River.

103 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:16:34am

re: #102 Gus

Gopher, Everett?

104 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:16:46am

re: #94 Jimmah

Your display name correlates eerily with the hunting call of the iceweasel :-)

I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.

/

105 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:17:28am

re: #103 jaunte

Gopher, Everett?

Oh shit.

106 SpaceJesus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:19:01am

re: #4 Charles Johnson

what in the hell

107 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:19:39am

Right Wing Watch:
Religious Right’s Claim that Obama is Undercutting Religious Freedom Becomes Even More Pathetic

Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who today is testifying at Rep. Darrell Issa’s male and conservative dominated hearing on whether the “Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience,” earlier appeared on James Dobson’s program Family Talk to claim that “aggressive secularity” is “becoming the established ‘religion’ in our country today.”

After discussing the contraception mandate, Lori went on to claim that gay rights measures are attempts to “force us out of foster care and adoption.” To be clear, no group has been ‘forced out’ of such services, some church-affiliated organizations did not receive taxpayer dollars for such services because they insisted on using taxpayer money while discriminating against gay and lesbian taxpayers. Lori went on to lament that public schools are denigrating Christianity while affirming homosexuality.

108 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:19:59am

re: #86 jaunte

Steve Benen:

Remember, there are no church-state lines being crossed with the White House policy.

It’s the other side, trying to cross that line from the other direction.

109 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:20:05am

re: #90 Gus

Not true! Saint Ray the Gun was born a conservative! Lies!

Robert Byrd!

Derp!

//

And Darwin died a creationist, begging Jesus to spare his soul from the damnation that he admitted he fully deserved!

110 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:20:51am

Here we have a Christian approved Health care system counseling a patient.

Pat Robertson Tells Viewer it’s His Own Fault, Not Robertson’s, that Healing Didn’t Work

Today on the 700 Club, we saw an example of that when a viewer called in wondering why it is that when he prayed with Pat Robertson during his show for a healing of his knee pain the pain came back the next day. Robertson responded that people can “give up” his healings because “you don’t believe that it’s real” and never claimed the healing, “this is mine.” He also maintained that the return of the pain “may be Satanic and the things come back on you, they come back and you need to rebuke it and command it to leave you, permanently.”

111 Interesting Times  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:20:58am
112 HappyWarrior  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:22:31am

re: #110 Kragar

Here we have a Christian approved Health care system counseling a patient.

Pat Robertson Tells Viewer it’s His Own Fault, Not Robertson’s, that Healing Didn’t Work

This is the same “man of God” who says he’d walk out on his wife if she were sick. “For better or screw it she’s sick and I need some young blood.”

113 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:22:53am

re: #111 Interesting Times


Skip birth control, invest in a rentboy.
/

114 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:23:45am

re: #111 Interesting Times

What reason could that be?

//

115 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:24:51am

That inspired another joke about a certain organized group which I’ll keep to myself since I don’t feel like making the bottom 10.

//

116 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:26:18am
117 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:26:30am

Bleh. I think I’m gonna hurl. Again.

118 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:26:33am

Sarah Posner:

[Eleanor Holmes Norton] accused Issa, who engaged in a lengthy disquisition at the outset of the hearing, claiming that the Democrats did not comply with House rules for placing witnesses on the list. Holmes Norton called Issa’s excuses “a pretzel-twisting of the rules to deny us witnesses” that is reminiscent of “autocratic regimes.”
[Link: www.religiondispatches.org…]

119 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:27:24am

I was reading an article about the bidet, an entirely useful bit of plumbing that is all but unknown in the US and UK.

Not because it is not eminently useful in keeping parts of you clean without having to shower, but because the use of the bidet was associated with sexual licentiousness: prostitutes used them to flush themselves out to prevent pregnancies.

For that reason, it was summarily rejected by most of US and UK society, whereas it is a standard fixture in France.

120 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:27:57am

I wonder if L. Ron Hubbard “came back to Earth” if he would qualify for an exemption.

121 Merkin  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:28:02am

If it’s war on religion to force Catholics institutions to provide health care including contraception then isn’t also war on religion to force individual Catholics to pay the portion of their taxes that go toward the other things that Catholics and their pope find offensive,like capital punishment, torture, solving international disputes with war and social problems by imprisonment?

122 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:28:07am

re: #116 Gus

Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

123 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:28:44am

re: #97 Gus

[Dobro slide.]

I hope my upding didn’t give the impression I knew what the hell you’re saying there :-)

124 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:28:45am

re: #122 Kragar

Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

But if you can get more from Caesar by giving more to God, then more power to you.

/Wait, you mean that’s not in there?

125 Interesting Times  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:29:03am
126 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:29:47am

re: #123 Jimmah

I hope my upding didn’t give the impression I knew what the hell you’re saying there :-)

I also had to google it the first time it was used a few weeks ago ;)

127 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:30:15am

re: #125 Interesting Times

Because no one had children back in his days…

What a fuck.

128 iossarian  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:30:27am

re: #125 Interesting Times

What an unmitigated clownshow the Republican party has become.

129 Shvaughn  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:31:36am

re: #89 Kragar

The Duggar family is Rick Santorum’s ideal plan for America. *shudder*

130 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:31:38am

re: #119 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

I was reading an article about the bidet, an entirely useful bit of plumbing that is all but unknown in the US and UK.

Not because it is not eminently useful in keeping parts of you clean without having to shower, but because the use of the bidet was associated with sexual licentiousness: prostitutes used them to flush themselves out to prevent pregnancies.

For that reason, it was summarily rejected by most of US and UK society, whereas it is a standard fixture in France.

You see them all over mainland Europe. It’s kind of weird, at first.

131 Kragar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:31:38am

re: #128 iossarian

What an unmitigated clownshow the Republican party has become.

A dramatic interpretation of my leaving the GOP

132 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:31:55am

re: #121 Merkin

If it’s war on religion to force Catholics institutions to provide health care including contraception then isn’t also war on religion to force individual Catholics to pay the portion of their taxes that go toward the other things that Catholics and their pope find offensive,like capital punishment, torture, solving international disputes with war and social problems by imprisonment?

Those are probably a lower priority than getting a handle on ‘aggressive secularism.’

133 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:32:15am

re: #126 e_e

I also had to google it the first time it was used a few weeks ago ;)

I googled it already and all I got was some shit bout slide guitars :)

134 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:32:23am

re: #123 Jimmah

I hope my upding didn’t give the impression I knew what the hell you’re saying there :-)

It’s like “banjo music” but a Dobro instead. You know kind of like a scene looking through the grass at a gravel road in the middle of a hot Summer. Crickets in the background as the local sheriff’s car comes into view. Then you hear that Dobro slide.

135 Interesting Times  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:33:12am

re: #128 iossarian

What an unmitigated clownshow the Republican party has become.

Billionaire wingnut Foster Friess sez put that aspirin ‘tween your knees!

136 Eventual Carrion  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:35:10am

re: #82 thedopefishlives

Well, there’s an easy way to find out. Grab the IP logs and .. wait, what? Now you’re not so interested in finding out who posted all those racist comments? Gee, I wonder why not./

Or as was mentioned before, just ban the username that they are using to sign in. That should take care of all those sock puppets being used to make the right look bad. Guess they can’t do that because then the good righties with the same username won’t be able to post. How do they keep multiple usernames separate? Man, how do they do it? The sites I have to log into won’t let me make a username that is already taken. Must be righty technology, just can’t explain it?

137 Lidane  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:35:57am

re: #73 Charles Johnson

What’s hilarious is that the same people also say you’re irrelevant and that LGF is a boil on the ass of the internet, yet they can’t help but follow any mention of you around to spam the comments about how irrelevant you are.

Self-awareness, they haz none.

138 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:36:14am

Good golly. —->

139 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:36:21am

re: #134 Gus

It’s like “banjo music” but a Dobro instead. You know kind of like a scene looking through the grass at a gravel road in the middle of a hot Summer. Crickets in the background as the local sheriff’s car comes into view. Then you hear that Dobro slide.

Aah like in Dukes of Hazzard?

140 iossarian  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:36:44am

“Hi. I’m Bert McSerious, and I am a big local businessman. I support Rod McMoney as the Republican candidate for city councilor, because Rod thinks that the best way to fix our local finances is to burn black people alive and make it illegal for women to leave the kitchen unaccompanied, while simultaneously cutting taxes on rich white folk and eliminating those annoying laws that prevent you from beating your wife if she doesn’t do what you tell her.”

141 Jimmah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:37:49am

re: #97 Gus

[Dobro slide.]

EXACTLY :)

142 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:38:48am

re: #139 Jimmah

Aah like in Dukes of Hazzard?

Yep. Or any number of shows from back in the 70s.

“Here comes Cletus!”

[Dobro slide.]

143 Eventual Carrion  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:42:44am

re: #116 Gus

No, but he would also be maced and arrested in the lobby of Chase Manhattan for turning over the tables and running the money changers out.

144 Petero1818  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:55:48am

For anyone interested, I found a good article looking at the legal arguments around religious exemptions to legislation including related to contraception and abortion. I found it to be a pretty good synopsis. Perhaps the most interesting part, is that the USSC has passed on hearing arguments on this issue twice already. It is fairly well established law at this point at the appellate level that Obama is relying on here.

[Link: www.rhrealitycheck.org…]

145 Ming  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 11:42:36am

Yep, a Congressional hearing limited to conservative religious men. That’s what Republicans consider “fair and balanced”.

Republicans seem to care about only one thing: can they turn this contraception brouhaha into an “Obama versus Religion” headline?

Republicans don’t care that (from what I’ve read) most religious Americans have no particular problem with contraception. All that Republicans care about is: will the “Obama is on one side, religion is on the other side” meme become “the story”?

I hope Obama can make it clear to most Americans that his position on contraception is NOT anti-religion. As crazy as this is, the Republicans may benefit politically from it. Religion is a “third-rail” type of issue (like Social Security, motherhood, and apple pie). It can get anyone, even the very smart Barack Obama, into political trouble.

146 sunnygal  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 11:48:48am

The events of the past two to three weeks (Komen Fdn, attempted contraceptive ban in the Congress, the insane laws passed in Virginia [and Texas], etc., etc.) have awakened in me a rage unlike anything I have experienced in my past. I have determined to spend as much time and effort as necessary to inform and educate women about how their very way of life is being threatened by these “conservative” men and how they need to vote the bastards out and send them into outer space, if necessary. But, I have a problem which I hope some of you will be able to help with:

Since I can’t do this by myself and have any effect at all, what organizations are out there that I can join and work with to accomplish this? I don’t want to become affiliated with any political organization (political meaning political party or affiliate) and wonder if there is any organization that just focuses on this issue of contraception and keeping women barefoot and pregnant. NARAL is too one-issue-focused, NOW is too broadly focused. The League of Women Voters doesn’t focus on particular issues affecting only women. Any ideas? And, I want to do this in my community, which is sorely in need of education. I don’t have tons of money to donate to a cause. Just time and passion.

147 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 11:51:06am

re: #146 sunnygal

Since I can’t do this by myself and have any effect at all, what organizations are out there that I can join and work with to accomplish this?

Emily’s List is a good one, but it’s affiliated with the Democrats and it’s mostly about pro-choice.

I’m not sure what you’re really asking for. What are the issues you’re concerned about? Those particular issues affecting women, but NOW is too broad about it?

148 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:09:35pm

Get your story straight. There were women at the hearing. Dr. Allison Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Dr. Laura Champion of Calvin College Health Services.

149 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:13:27pm

Hey sunnygal. There is no attempt to ban contraceptives. Where are you getting your news from?!

150 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:13:29pm

re: #148 carlaschluge

First of all, they banned multiple women.

Second, both those women spoke against contraception.

So, the more meticulous accurate headline would be ‘Republicans ban women who disagree with them from hearing”.

Would that be preferable to you?

151 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:23:41pm

re: #148 carlaschluge

Get your story straight. There were women at the hearing. Dr. Allison Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Dr. Laura Champion of Calvin College Health Services.

There were two panel hearings, by the way. The first contained no women. Does this help you?

152 Charles Johnson  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:28:28pm

re: #148 carlaschluge

Get your story straight. There were women at the hearing. Dr. Allison Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Dr. Laura Champion of Calvin College Health Services.

I think you need to get your story straight. The morning hearing had five men on the panel. No women.

153 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:36:21pm

That was the first panel, but you ignore completely the second panel. So I say again, get your story straight.

154 labman57  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:38:10pm

Congressional Republicans to female constituents: “When we want your opinion, we’ll give it to you.”

155 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:39:59pm

re: #153 carlaschluge

So you’d really be okay with a headline that ran:

Republicans ban all women who disagree with them from hearing on contraception?

156 Charles Johnson  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:40:03pm

re: #153 carlaschluge

That was the first panel, but you ignore completely the second panel. So I say again, get your story straight.

I see what the problem is - a lack of reading comprehension.

There’s a timestamp on this post. Maybe you should take a second and think about when it was written, before embarrassing yourself any further.

157 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:42:34pm

Hey Obdicut.

It’s the headline of the story, and the story itself that misleading. Just asking for accuracy. Finally, no one spoke “against contraception.” They spoke against contraceptive coverage … a completely different issue.

158 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:45:38pm

re: #157 carlaschluge

Hey Obdicut.

It’s the headline of the story, and the story itself that misleading.

Could you answer the simple, straightforward question, please?

So you’d really be okay with a headline that ran:

Republicans ban all women who disagree with them from hearing on contraception?

159 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:45:41pm

re: #157 carlaschluge

Hey Obdicut.

It’s the headline of the story, and the story itself that misleading. Just asking for accuracy. Finally, no one spoke “against contraception.” They spoke against contraceptive coverage … a completely different issue.

There’s that comprehension problem again.

What good is contraception if it’s inaccessible? It’s not the exact same issue, but they are closely related.

Why are you against accessible contraception?

160 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:46:50pm

“Republicans ban inconvenient opinions from hearing on contraception”

161 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:49:07pm

Re 156 Charles Johnson

Pretty sad indeed when you have to retreat and rely in the “timestamp” argument. Sad also that you fail to admit that the headline, and premise of the story, were inaccurate, especially given that women, in fact, were not barred.

162 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:50:18pm

Re post 160

Hey Charles, juante’s post would have been the accurate headline, and premise.

163 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:50:52pm

re: #162 carlaschluge

The people with the inconvenient opinions happened to be women.

164 Charles Johnson  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:52:01pm

re: #161 carlaschluge

Re 156 Charles Johnson

Pretty sad indeed when you have to retreat and rely in the “timestamp” argument. Sad also that you fail to admit that the headline, and premise of the story, were inaccurate, especially given that women, in fact, were not barred.

I’m not retreating from anything, but apparently you’re too dense to get the point: this post was written immediately after the morning hearing concluded, and it’s absolutely correct as written, not “inaccurate” at all.

And I’m not changing a thing about it.

165 Coracle  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:52:07pm

re: #161 carlaschluge

Re 156 Charles Johnson

Pretty sad indeed when you have to retreat and rely in the “timestamp” argument. Sad also that you fail to admit that the headline, and premise of the story, were inaccurate, especially given that women, in fact, were not barred.

Come off it. Multiple women were, in fact barred. AND all women were barred from testifying the morning hearing. AND all women of dissenting opinion were barred from testifying in both hearings. If anything, the headline is understated.

166 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:52:28pm

Re 613

Hey juante. There were two woman on the second panel that actually had convenient opinions.

167 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:53:53pm

re: #166 carlaschluge

If you’re going to dead thread troll, can you at least use the damn Reply and Quote buttons?

168 YoungLochinvar  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:54:11pm

So would employers be able to opt out of coverage for vasectomies as well? I mean it’s the same principle, right? Men that choose to practice birth control should also have to pay out of pocket, right?

169 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:54:20pm

Re 164

Now you’re just being stubborn.

170 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:55:02pm

re: #167 Simply Sarah

Agreed.

171 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:58:11pm

re: #169 carlaschluge

Re 164

Now you’re just being stubborn.

And you’re being obstinate.

I don’t want my insurer, a private company, to be told by the federal government what it needs to cover, including contraceptives. If the insurer wants to do that, then fine. If the insurer doesn’t want to, then fine. But there is no constitutional basis for the federal government issuing a mandate that requires a private insurer to provide certain kinds of coverage.

172 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:01:12pm

re: #168 YoungLochinvar

So would employers be able to opt out of coverage for vasectomies as well? I mean it’s the same principle, right? Men that choose to practice birth control should also have to pay out of pocket, right?

Answer to first question. Yes.
Answer to second question. No. Government is not trying to mandate (unconstitutionally) vesectomies, and never should.
Answer to third questions. If covered by their insurer, no. If not covered by their insurer, yes. Regardless, you can get a vesectomy and obtain contraceptives regardless coverage.

173 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:01:59pm

re: #172 carlaschluge

Answer to first question. Yes.
Answer to second question. No. Government is not trying to mandate (unconstitutionally) vesectomies, and never should.
Answer to third questions. If covered by their insurer, no. If not covered by their insurer, yes. Regardless, you can get a vesectomy and obtain contraceptives regardless coverage.

Wait, what? The government isn’t trying to mandate the usage of birth control, either.

174 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:03:42pm

re: #172 carlaschluge

Answer to first question. Yes.
Answer to second question. No. Government is not trying to mandate (unconstitutionally) vesectomies, and never should.
Answer to third questions. If covered by their insurer, no. If not covered by their insurer, yes. Regardless, you can get a vesectomy and obtain contraceptives regardless coverage.

Word salad.

Sarah Palin, is that you?

175 sunnygal  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:04:38pm

re: #147 Obdicut

I would like to be part of an organization that goes door-knocking, holds meetings, makes personal contact with women. I think presenting myself as associated with NOW would be a turnoff to some uncommitted and to many conservative women. I went to NOW’s website and there is no local chapter. It’s more about supporting NOW financially so they can lobby Congress. And Emily’s List does good things, but it’s all about donations to support their candidates. These approaches differ from what I would like to do. Thanks for responding. I was hoping that I had overlooked something.

176 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:04:40pm

re: #172 carlaschluge

Should an employer be able to opt out of covering blood transfusions, if they’re religiously opposed to them?

177 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:05:17pm

re: #173 Simply Sarah

The administration wants to tell insurers that they have to provide coverage for contraceptives.

178 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:05:30pm

re: #173 Simply Sarah

You mean the government just wants birth control to be more easily available and they aren’t forcing anyone to use it against the dictates of their conscience or their religious dictates? But that would mean this whole debate is just a sham!

179 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:06:30pm

re: #177 carlaschluge

The administration wants to tell insurers that they have to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Yep. or rather, that they have to provide them with no copay, since they already cover them under Bush-era rules.

Not mandating that people use them. You grasp that difference, yeah?

180 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:07:13pm

re: #177 carlaschluge

The administration wants to tell insurers that they have to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Err…yes. If the plan covers prescription drugs, it needs to cover all valid prescription drugs. This isn’t new. The main change is that there cannot be a copay.

181 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:08:22pm

It’s ignoring me! Now I has a sad.

re: #161 carlaschluge

Re 156 Charles Johnson

Pretty sad indeed when you have to retreat and rely in the “timestamp” argument. Sad also that you fail to admit that the headline, and premise of the story, were inaccurate, especially given that women, in fact, were not barred.

bbl

182 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:09:12pm

re: #176 Obdicut

Easy question. Yes.

183 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:10:52pm

re: #182 carlaschluge

Easy question. Yes.

Well then, all the more reason scrap employer provided health insurance and move to something like a single payer system, because what you’re suggesting basically makes the former even more of a joke than it already is.

184 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:10:52pm

re: #182 carlaschluge

Easy question. Yes.

So an employer has the right to allow his employee to die because he would otherwise not be able to afford a transfusion?

I think therefore this hypothetical employer would be liable for manslaughter.

Dark ages.

185 Coracle  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:11:40pm

Some prescription drugs are simply immoral.

Add to the list:
Insulin: meddles with sugar imbalances caused by God’s plan for diabetics.
Lipitor: allows people to avoid God’s lessons for gluttonous living.
Triple Cocktail: Openly defies God’s punishment of homosexuality and promiscuity.

186 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:13:39pm

re: #182 carlaschluge

Easy question. Yes.

Wow. Why?

If I go to work for some company, then it gets bought by some crazy dude, I can suddenly find out my health insurance no longer covers anything but leeches— and this is something you support?

Why?

187 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:14:46pm

re: #186 Obdicut

Wow. Why?

If I go to work for some company, then it gets bought by some crazy dude, I can suddenly find out my health insurance no longer covers anything but leeches— and this is something you support?

Why?

That being said, that may actually be possible now.

188 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:22:20pm

re: #180 Simply Sarah

Err…yes. If the plan covers prescription drugs, it needs to cover all valid prescription drugs. This isn’t new. The main change is that there cannot be a copay.

I don’t think you are correct in your statement that plans that cover prescription drugs are required to cover all valid prescription drugs.

189 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:26:56pm

re: #183 Simply Sarah

Well then, all the more reason scrap employer provided health insurance and move to something like a single payer system, because what you’re suggesting basically makes the former even more of a joke than it already is.

Single payer would result in a system much worse than what we have now.

190 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:26:59pm

re: #188 carlaschluge


Why do you dodge so many questions?

191 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:27:28pm

re: #189 carlaschluge

Single payer would result in a system much worse than what we have now.

Oh? Do explain why.

192 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:28:43pm

re: #186 Obdicut

Wow. Why?

If I go to work for some company, then it gets bought by some crazy dude, I can suddenly find out my health insurance no longer covers anything but leeches— and this is something you support?

Why?

Wouldn’t happen. You get to see the plans every year. Get real.

193 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:29:42pm

re: #191 Simply Sarah

Oh? Do explain why.

Go to the DMV. Get the picture?

194 Simply Sarah  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:30:40pm

re: #193 carlaschluge

Go to the DMV. Get the picture?

Uh, not really, no. Medicare or the VA would be better places to look.

195 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:30:56pm

re: #192 carlaschluge

Wouldn’t happen. You get to see the plans every year. Get real.

Okay, let’s get real. So next year, I’m told that the plan that I pay for won’t cover vaccinations or blood transfusions. Or it’s probably buried somewhere deep in the giant packet you get with every health insurance form. Anyway.

And this is okay with you why? Can you explain your logic?

196 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:32:09pm

re: #193 carlaschluge

Go to the DMV. Get the picture?

Every experience I’ve had with the DMV has been efficient and awesome. It varies state-by-state, I’ve heard, but a lot of them have done lots to improve recently.

It’s one of those things that works more as a joke than as a reality.

For example, insurance companies are fucking hell to navigate the bureaucracy of, and they’re private institutions, not public ones.

197 jamesfirecat  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:35:36pm

re: #189 carlaschluge

Single payer would result in a system much worse than what we have now.

On what do you base this conclusion?

198 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:35:47pm

re: #184 Gus

So an employer has the right to allow his employee to die because he would otherwise not be able to afford a transfusion?

I think therefore this hypothetical employer would be liable for manslaughter.

Dark ages.

Hypotheticals are great because you can emerse yourself into the realm of the unreasonable. Show me an employer that does not provide transfusions, and I’ll show you an employer with no employees.

199 Gus  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:36:47pm

re: #198 carlaschluge

Hypotheticals are great because you can emerse yourself into the realm of the unreasonable. Show me an employer that does not provide transfusions, and I’ll show you an employer with no employees.

Randian.

200 jamesfirecat  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:38:59pm

re: #198 carlaschluge

Hypotheticals are great because you can emerse yourself into the realm of the unreasonable. Show me an employer that does not provide transfusions, and I’ll show you an employer with no employees.

Like your Hypothetical about how single payer would have to resemble the DMV instead of looking at actual data for places like Canada where people spend less on average and on average live longer than we do?

[Link: www.unitednorthamerica.org…]

Canada has a 3.7% higher life expectancy.

USA spends 6% more money on health care as expressed in % of GDP.

201 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:39:39pm

re: #198 carlaschluge

Um, there are employers who don’t even really provide health insurance, and they still have employees.

Often times, people have to accept crap jobs because there’s nothing else they can find.

You do know that, right?

202 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:41:53pm

re: #196 Obdicut

Every experience I’ve had with the DMV has been efficient and awesome. It varies state-by-state, I’ve heard, but a lot of them have done lots to improve recently.

It’s one of those things that works more as a joke than as a reality.

For example, insurance companies are fucking hell to navigate the bureaucracy of, and they’re private institutions, not public ones.

You are right about that. I think, though, that it’s one of those “choose your poison” situations. I choose the private institution over the public ones. Others, vice versa.

203 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:42:57pm

re: #202 carlaschluge

You are right about that. I think, though, that it’s one of those “choose your poison” situations. I choose the private institution over the public ones. Others, vice versa.

Why on earth would you make your decision based on that, rather than, you know, how good they actually each were?

204 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:44:53pm

re: #198 carlaschluge

you can emerse yourself into the realm of the unreasonable

That would make a nice Random Quotation.

205 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:44:53pm

re: #200 jamesfirecat

Like your Hypothetical about how single payer would have to resemble the DMV instead of looking at actual data for places like Canada where people spend less on average and on average live longer than we do?

[Link: www.unitednorthamerica.org…]

Canada has a 3.7% higher life expectancy.

USA spends 6% more money on health care as expressed in % of GDP.

And single payer will increase life expectancy, and result in less money spent on health care? That’s a stretch, eh?

206 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:45:20pm

re: #205 carlaschluge

Argument by personal incredulity is not much of an argument.

207 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:46:16pm

re: #202 carlaschluge

You are right about that. I think, though, that it’s one of those “choose your poison” situations. I choose the private institution over the public ones. Others, vice versa.

So ‘choosing your poison’ is OK, but ‘choosing to cover birth control’ is bad?

208 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:47:49pm

Sarah Posner:

Let’s have a moment of truth here: the whole purpose of this hearing was for the GOP to be seen by its anti-“activist judge” base relitigating settled constitutional law in the court of public opinion. Issa and his cohorts kept insisting the hearing wasn’t about contraception, but about religious liberty. Not only is their first claim transparently false, their position on the second claim is demonstrably upside-down. As I’ve written previously, the constitutional question of whether a generally applicable law like the contraception coverage regulation infringes on someone’s religious freedom because they do not approve of the use of birth control has been decided in court. It neither represents an infringement of anyone’s religious freedom, nor an imposition of a particular religious view by the government. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which some of Issa’s witnesses said is violated here, the Bishops and their allies would have to demonstrate the regulation places a “substantial burden” on their religious practices. As the ACLU noted in a written statement submitted to the Committee, “the link between the contraceptive coverage requirement and the religiously prohibited behavior is too attenuated to amount to a substantial burden.” [Link: www.religiondispatches.org…]

209 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:50:31pm

re: #208 jaunte

You’re just going to run into that ‘reading comprehension’ problem again.

210 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:53:31pm

re: #209 wrenchwench

The GOP appeals to their ‘anti-activist judge’ base so often I get the sense that it might wander off the minute they stop inventing new outrages to talk about.

211 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:02:21pm

re: #208 jaunte

What decisions are you referring to when you say it is settled law? It’s not settled law. What settled law allows the executive branch to issue a mandate (1) instructing employers that they have to provide coverage for abortion and contraceptives and (2) insurers have to provide coverage for abortion and contraceptives? It may be settled law in some states, but it’s not settled law on a federal level.

212 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:03:29pm

re: #203 Obdicut

Why on earth would you make your decision based on that, rather than, you know, how good they actually each were?

[Link: online.wsj.com…]

Read it and weep.

213 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:04:22pm

re: #211 carlaschluge

Religious institutions already comply with very similar laws to the announced January 20 rule in 28 states. Catholic Charities challenged substantially similar laws to the new federal regulation in two states, California and New York, and the highest courts in both states held that there was no violation of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. That’s because the law doesn’t “substantially burden” anyone’s religious practice and is one of general applicability that was not targeted at infringing a particular religious practice.

To permit religious beliefs to “excuse compliance with otherwise valid laws regulating matters the state is free to regulate,” would, the California Supreme Court wrote in its 2004 decision, quoting from a U.S. Supreme Court case, “‘make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.’”
[Link: www.religiondispatches.org…]

214 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:16:23pm

re: #213 jaunte

That’s what I thought. That California case, much as California would love it to be otherwise, applies, alas, only to California. There are 50 (not 57 as President Obama once thought) states. 28 states does not make something the law of the land. And just what are the “similar” laws in the 28 states? I doubt they are all identical. You think maybe this Sarah Posner might have taken a few liberties?

215 jaunte  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:17:02pm

re: #214 carlaschluge

I encourage you to begin litigating the question. Spend lots.

216 Coracle  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:18:33pm

re: #214 carlaschluge

Really? A 4 year old gaffe is your best asinine shot?

Any seriousness you might have deserved is now shot to shit. Ta.

217 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:18:37pm

re: #215 jaunte

I encourage you to begin litigating the question. Spend lots.

I can’t afford it!

218 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:20:57pm

re: #216 Coracle

Really? A 4 year old gaffe is your best asinine shot?

Any seriousness you might have deserved is now shot to shit. Ta.

You can’t stand Obama gaffes? Here are a few more:

[Link: politicalhumor.about.com…]

219 Coracle  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:27:17pm

re: #218 carlaschluge

I can’t stand lame non-sequiturs brought to divert from failing arguments. No candidate has ever been gaffe free so please don’t try to pretend that trucking out chestnuts makes some kind of point.

You’ve got nothing but ideology and zing quotes, so you can’t be taken seriously.

220 carlaschluge  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:30:31pm

re: #219 Coracle

I can’t stand lame non-sequiturs brought to divert from failing arguments. No candidate has ever been gaffe free so please don’t try to pretend that trucking out chestnuts makes some kind of point.

You’ve got nothing but ideology and zing quotes, so you can’t be taken seriously.

Likewise.

221 Obdicut  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 3:38:08pm

re: #220 carlaschluge

All you did was nitpick the headline, and then fail to explain yourself. Why do you think anyone will be moved by that?

222 sagehen  Thu, Feb 16, 2012 6:19:03pm

re: #211 carlaschluge

What decisions are you referring to when you say it is settled law? It’s not settled law. What settled law allows the executive branch to issue a mandate (1) instructing employers that they have to provide coverage for abortion and contraceptives and (2) insurers have to provide coverage for abortion and contraceptives? It may be settled law in some states, but it’s not settled law on a federal level.

You’ve been registered for 6 hours, and you’re already at -119 karma (with 26 comments).

That may be a new world record.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
Take advantage of our end-of-the-year subscription special, and save 25% off the normal subscription price! For a limited time, one-year ad-free subscriptions are just $59.95. Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing now and save!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-12-15 2:06 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
CriticalDragon1177
Skepchick - The Science of Rudolph’s Glowing Nose!
Cool Christmas science video from Rebecca Watson Read more at Skepchick

15 minutes ago
Views: 91 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Lumberhead
Two Police Officers Are Fatally Shot in Brooklyn; Suspect Is Also Dead
Two police officers were killed after they were shot in their patrol car in Brooklyn on Saturday afternoon, according to a law enforcement official More: Two Police Officers Are Fatally Shot in Brooklyn; Suspect Is Also Dead Edited to ...

2 hours, 22 minutes ago
Views: 95 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
New Kansas Jobs Figures Stun Sam Brownback, and Not in a Good Way
Meanwhile just the Bay area in California gained 23,000 during the same period our state lost 4,100. The new Kansas jobs numbers were released Friday morning, bringing horrible news to state taxpayers and Gov. Sam Brownback. The federal Bureau of ...

4 hours, 26 minutes ago
Views: 141 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
FemNaziBitch
‘God Loves Women Who Have Abortions’: The Religious Abortion Advocates That History Forgot
The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state's strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York ...

3 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 466 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 25 • Rating: 0
Rightwingconspirator
Blackmores Night-Christmas Music Olde And New At The Same Time
Spotify Youtube

4 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 231 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Romantic Heretic
It’s Beginning To Feel A Lot Like Christmas
As always, Fairytale of New York makes me realize what time of the year it is.

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 432 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
Dark_Falcon
The College Rape Overcorrection
This is the article I promised to post this morning. The quoted passage is from the second section, "2. An Overcorrection". We are told that one of the most dangerous places for a young woman in America today is a ...

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 753 • Comments: 11
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
cinesimon
Charles Barkley and the Plague of ‘Unintelligent’ Blacks
theatlantic.com

1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 780 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
 Frank says:

Reporter:
This is a personal thing, I think that if you wanted to make top ten hits and sell millions of records, you could.

Frank Zappa:
Yeah, but who wants to go through life with a tiny nose and one glove on?