It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Democrats Propose Law to Force Christians to Pay for Abortion Drugs

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

All ideologies that impose Authoritarian and Totalitarian methods are Left of Center.

Genuine "Right" Conservative groups don't endorse those methods.

Therefore; "Fascism" is Left Wing.

And I notice how the "Definitions" of Fascism always deflect, yet still adhere to the general concepts of their self-proclaimed "enemies".

Very clever trick and effective tactic. Many people are fooled.





posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's how it seems to me too, but that obviously isn't the reasoning they would use to explain it. I'm more curious as what their reason is for only choosing to deny women and not men too. I'd really like to hear their logic behind it.


ask the insurance companies.

they make that stuff up.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

stellar post!

if that ain't clear enough, i don't know what is.

but expect some push back with talking points and propaganda.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
False argument. The SCOTUS decision only applies to a very specific class of corporation where all the owners share the same belief and only applies to four methods that are seen to cause a fertilized egg to abort.


I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. The decision applies to all "closely-held", for-profit corporations, which is about 80-90% of the companies in the US. And the Supreme Court has said that it applies to the entire contraceptive mandate, not just the four discussed in the suit. This has all been discussed and sourced in other threads.



The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.


Source

I am not and never have been a member of a political party. This isn't about parties to me. It's about women's health care. It's about being unfair to women, based on religion. That's just not OK with me.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Just say no to sex ladies!! Let's see how fast the tide turns then!



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Battleline

When fascists (GOP and tea party) loose a fight they shut down government…
I would say that is worst than a tantrum.


Typical liberal or cubical response, if you say it , it must be true.

Get some help and look up the definition of fascism then take a good look at this administration.

If you can't see your bias then I just have to consider the source.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Well how's this for American religious liberty? Since conservatives seem to think it's ok for them to refuse to pay their employees birth control insurance due to a religious objection, then since monetary interest on a loan is a religious no-no in Islam, all Muslims with us bank loans must have their interest on those loans forgiven. How's that sit with you? It's this simple, KEEP YOUR RELIGION AT HOME and quit forcing it on other people.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
Well how's this for American religious liberty? Since conservatives seem to think it's ok for them to refuse to pay their employees birth control insurance due to a religious objection, then since monetary interest on a loan is a religious no-no in Islam, all Muslims with us bank loans must have their interest on those loans forgiven. How's that sit with you? It's this simple, KEEP YOUR RELIGION AT HOME and quit forcing it on other people.


Cannot the same be said for sex? Keep it at home and quit making me pay for it.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I stand corrected. I had missed that. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Exactly, I'm tired of being told that what they do with their bodies and in their bedrooms is none of my business (hmmm, business) and then being told that I have to pay for it (doesn't that then make it my business?).

If they want me to butt out, stop demanding I be a part of it with my money.

If you want to keep the exclusive to decide what you do with yourself and how, then you take full responsibility for that, including monetary responsibility. If I'm not involved at any point in the process, then why would I have any say?



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I've already acknowledged my error.

The Hobby Lobby case however was only about the four methods out of 20 and unrelated. That's were I got confused.

The problem remains that one side is trying to force the other side to go against their core beliefs, even to the point of wanting them to pay for something they honestly believe is murder. To call that unreasonable and in fact just plain bullying is not entirely wrong.

Shoe on the other foot, you believe something the other side is forcing on you is wrong at the same level as murder; do you fight back or do what you think is a horrible crime?

Compromise is the only answer and those unwilling to engage in finding a compromise are the problem.


(post by spurgeonatorsrevenge removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I've already acknowledged my error.

The Hobby Lobby case however was only about the four methods out of 20 and unrelated. That's were I got confused.

The problem remains that one side is trying to force the other side to go against their core beliefs, even to the point of wanting them to pay for something they honestly believe is murder. To call that unreasonable and in fact just plain bullying is not entirely wrong.

Shoe on the other foot, you believe something the other side is forcing on you is wrong at the same level as murder; do you fight back or do what you think is a horrible crime?

Compromise is the only answer and those unwilling to engage in finding a compromise are the problem.


As I pointed out before, the actual money Hobby Lobby pay to insurers is used to fund abortion when other people in the pool (who are unrelated to Hobby Lobby) get abortions and birth control. This is the very nature of insurance, the idea that Hobby Lobby has any control of how their premiums are spent is an illusion. Anyways it is just a feel good thing in this case.

But let's talk religion. As another person pointed out, Muslims are religiously instructed that interest on loans are immoral and tat amount to usury (a thing that Christianity believed in the 1400's).

So Are we going to make the same exceptions for Muslims? There are far more people forced to break this religious tenet than we are discussing with this Hobby Lobby issue. Should America make an exception for Muslims because they are forced to participate in a system that they deem immoral? If you are consistent you would say yes, however I am sure you understand the implications...



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Why do you think people say the GOP has a war on women?

Because it's one of those catchy soundbites that the left likes so much ... you know ... like 'yes we can'. Seems to me the dems have a 'war on Christians' much more than the GOP could possibly have a 'war on women'. I mean, afterall, Obama even came out and called the right 'the enemy' in front of a bunch of democratic supporters.

Obama tells Latinos to 'punish our enemies, the GOP



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Why do you think people say the GOP has a war on women?

Because it's one of those catchy soundbites that the left likes so much ... you know ...


No it's not.

I was a Christian Republican most of my life.

The GOP is the Christian Right. Fundamental Christianity is oppressive of women in itself.

It is what it is. Don't try to blame the Left for this attitude that women are of lesser value.


edit on 11-7-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
This would be shocking if it hadn't been done before. Congress can override the supreme court, checks and balances.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
The GOP is the Christian Right.

That's where the Christian far right tends to go.
But the GOP isn't all, or even mostly, fundamentalist Christian right.
The TEA Party .. that's another story ....

Fundamental Christianity is oppressive of women in itself.

Agreed. Totally agreed.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Why do you think people say the GOP has a war on women?

Because it's one of those catchy soundbites that the left likes so much ... you know ... like 'yes we can'. Seems to me the dems have a 'war on Christians' much more than the GOP could possibly have a 'war on women'. I mean, afterall, Obama even came out and called the right 'the enemy' in front of a bunch of democratic supporters.

Obama tells Latinos to 'punish our enemies, the GOP



Funny thing about that.

They will call everything else a ' WAR' except what is going on the ME at the moment.

War on poverty.

War on drugs.

War on the middle class.

Etc.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Exactly, I'm tired of being told that what they do with their bodies and in their bedrooms is none of my business (hmmm, business) and then being told that I have to pay for it (doesn't that then make it my business?).

If they want me to butt out, stop demanding I be a part of it with my money.

If you want to keep the exclusive to decide what you do with yourself and how, then you take full responsibility for that, including monetary responsibility. If I'm not involved at any point in the process, then why would I have any say?



Of course it's only about a womans body until it's time to pay, then responsibility is then transferred to the public who should remain quiet but open their wallet for practices of confiscation. Is it not the same for any instance where personal responsibility is ignored? The greatest of vote purchasing agents available.

With pen and paper we shall absolve you of any responsibility, and transfer said deed or deeds to public accountability at which time you can remember us at the voting booth.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Of course it's only about a womans body until it's time to pay, then responsibility is then transferred to the public who should remain quiet but open their wallet for practices of confiscation. Is it not the same for any instance where personal responsibility is ignored? The greatest of vote purchasing agents available.


You prefer paying for the care and education of unwanted, neglected, abused living children?

Oh wait, no you don't. They're not on your radar --- out of sight, out of mind.

No personal responsibility on your shoulders. It's the living children's fault.




top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join