Women Silenced at US House Hearing on Contraception Access

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Open your eyes.

The entire ObamaCare disaster will be thrown out by SCOTUS by June 2012.

It's unconstitutional.

There you go again with the wishful thinking. More than likely, the only part of "ObamaCare" that will be deemed unconstitutional is the "Personal Mandate" to purchase coverage through a private insurer, which by the way, was a mainstay position of the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and the GOP as a whole, right up until the minute that Obama caved on the issue and gave in to their demands.

If you remember correctly, us democrats wanted a seat at the table for representatives of a "Single-Payer" and/or "Public Option" but were denied, much the same way that women were denied the right to representation at the hearing that is the subject of this thread. Can you see a pattern here?

Once the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the "personal mandate" and I agree that they will probably deem it to be unlawful, it will pave the way for a more comprehensive "single-payer" plan like the one envisioned by the democrats to begin with.

On the other hand, the current GOP tactic of denying representation to those most affected by legislation will only blow up in their face.

Dream on. The Canadian - single payer / Public Option is not coming to America.

When the SCOTUS kills the - personal mandate- then ObamaCare is dead.

That's how it was going to be funded.

We will have a much better - alternative - to fix the current health care mess.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

It's hard for Obama to get re-elected if the price of gas is $7 a gallon.

Womens health will NOT be the number one thing on everyones mind.

According to James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid." Remember?
--------
Stop playing the victim card. It's sad and it won't work.

Look, as much as you would like to blame the President for everything you disagree with in the world today, that hardly makes it true.

$7 a gallon gas, if it indeed comes to pass, would not in any way be the sole fault of the President and/or his policies and most americans are smart enough to realize that truth. Hell, the other day I read a thread where the current Falkland Island issue was somehow his fault. What, does he run the U.K. too? Is there anything that is not the Presidents fault?

Furthermore, in case you hadn't noticed, the economy is slowly getting better and the GOP has apparently decided that it's their religious ideology imposed upon others that they will use to influence voters to support their nominee. Hardly a winning stance, if you ask me.

reply to post by Flatfish


Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline.

It's almost as if Obama - wants - the price of gasoline to be sky high. Hmmm.....

-------
Instead of worrying about women getting silenced at a House Hearing, people will

be racing to buy their Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf.

Well now, isn't that clever.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Dream on. The Canadian - single payer / Public Option is not coming to America.

When the SCOTUS kills the - personal mandate- then ObamaCare is dead.

That's how it was going to be funded.

We will have a much better - alternative - to fix the current health care mess.

No one said it had to be Canada's plan that would be adopted here in America but universal healthcare is coming, one way or another.

Seeing how we're the only industrialized nation in the world not to have universal healthcare of one type or another, I would suggest that we study them all and devise one for America that takes the best attributes from each and incorporates them into one that fits us best.

truecostblog.com...

Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Click links for more source material on each country’s health care system.
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier
United States 2014 Insurance Mandate

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Instead of worrying about women getting silenced at a House Hearing, people will

be racing to buy their Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf.

And buying a Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf is to somehow supposed to be a bad thing?

reply to post by Flatfish


There IS a better alternative.

It will be revealed January 2013.

First we have to throw ObamaCare in the trash where it belongs.

Then ALL of us will get waivers to ObamaCare.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Instead of worrying about women getting silenced at a House Hearing, people will

be racing to buy their Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf.

And buying a Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf is to somehow supposed to be a bad thing?

Yes, the range is too limited. It costs too much. Nobody wants to buy it.

Your ultra clean electric cars are recharged on the electric power grid.

News Flash : Over 50% of the power plants in America are - coal fired power plants-.

Your electric car is running on dirty coal!

Originally posted by Flatfish
Look, as much as you would like to blame the President for everything you disagree with in the world today, that hardly makes it true.

If only people voted that way.

History has shown us repeatedly that current administrations are judged by the 'right now' (regardless of how you got there). Most votes (historically) have been more about ousting the 'bad' person, not so much of putting in a 'good' person. So, if gas hits $7/gallon, it will be blamed on Obama (like he could change it), and there would be a real risk of voters looking to oust him for it (and the rest of the poor economy).

Just how it goes.

reply to post by Flatfish


When the batteries start to require replacement, we will start to see the true 'cost' of those cars.

We are a very long ways away from an actual 'clean' car. We have just moved from direct air pollution to direct ground pollution (of smaller quantity, but far more toxic).

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by Flatfish
Look, as much as you would like to blame the President for everything you disagree with in the world today, that hardly makes it true.

If only people voted that way.

History has shown us repeatedly that current administrations are judged by the 'right now' (regardless of how you got there). Most votes (historically) have been more about ousting the 'bad' person, not so much of putting in a 'good' person. So, if gas hits $7/gallon, it will be blamed on Obama (like he could change it), and there would be a real risk of voters looking to oust him for it (and the rest of the poor economy).

Just how it goes.

Translation: Obama is doomed.

Even Bob Beckel said that killing the Keystone Pipeline was clearly a mistake.

reply to post by David9176


This quote is a response from my U.S. Senator. It nails the core of the issue.

The government should not force doctors to perform procedures or employers to provide coverage for services they view as immoral any more than the government should force treatments on Americans. The federal government has no business in a doctor's examining room, and the Administration's actions have put our nation's deep commitment to religious freedom in jeopardy.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by David9176

 

This quote is a response from my U.S. Senator. It nails the core of the issue.

The government should not force doctors to perform procedures or employers to provide coverage for services they view as immoral any more than the government should force treatments on Americans. The federal government has no business in a doctor's examining room, and the Administration's actions have put our nation's deep commitment to religious freedom in jeopardy.

Bingo!

ObamaCare is fundamentally flawed and will be thrown out.

The iron fist of socialism does not belong in the doctors examination room.

That is NOT the role of the United States Government.

The topic is women being silenced in a house hearing on contraceptives.

Silenced by Obama? No. Silenced by the GOP.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
The topic is women being silenced in a house hearing on contraceptives.

Silenced by Obama? No. Silenced by the GOP.

Silenced by nobody.

The women complaining about being silenced are being heard on MSNBC.

This is just another example of liberals trying to get rewarded for crazy antics.

I do have question about this whole deal:

In Canada, you have to apply to speak in special committee / house hearings. You don't get to walk in and say your piece. This is abused by the opponent du jour regularly as being 'silenced'.

Did this woman go through all the correct channels? Or is this a dog and pony show?

reply to post by peck420


It's crazy antics.

It's expected in Washington DC. We usually see it during election years.

They are going after Issa because he is doing serious damage to Team Obama.

I'm an atheist and I feel that the U.S.Govt does not have the right to deem what any religious organization should or should not do. If Christians do not believe in using birth control than the govt should not force them to provide them.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

It's hard for Obama to get re-elected if the price of gas is $7 a gallon.

Womens health will NOT be the number one thing on everyones mind.

According to James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid." Remember?
--------
Stop playing the victim card. It's sad and it won't work.

Look, as much as you would like to blame the President for everything you disagree with in the world today, that hardly makes it true.

$7 a gallon gas, if it indeed comes to pass, would not in any way be the sole fault of the President and/or his policies and most americans are smart enough to realize that truth. Hell, the other day I read a thread where the current Falkland Island issue was somehow his fault. What, does he run the U.K. too? Is there anything that is not the Presidents fault?

Furthermore, in case you hadn't noticed, the economy is slowly getting better and the GOP has apparently decided that it's their religious ideology imposed upon others that they will use to influence voters to support their nominee. Hardly a winning stance, if you ask me.

edit on 17-2-2012 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

Actually the President has declared war on drilling in the U.S. and even went so far as to kill the pipeline. He has already said that he was okay with people paying more for gas, so yes it is his fault. Second, just because we see some doctored numbers does not mean that the economy is getting better. On the contrary almost everyone I talk to, especially SMB owners are telling a very different tale.This President and his socialist ilk are so anti-business that it is disgusting.

reply to post by luccadeo

Actually the President has declared war on drilling in the U.S. and even went so far as to kill the pipeline. He has already said that he was okay with people paying more for gas, so yes it is his fault.

The pipeline will do nothing to cut the cost of gasoline nor make the United States any more energy independent t than it already is. Oil is sold on the open market. The United States top export is OIL.

This is a profit maker for the oil companies...nothing more....not that they really need it. Exxon Mobil is the most profitable company in t he history of the world...they are raking in billions of dollars each year.....you aren't seeing it at the gas pump are you?

I

Originally posted by luccadeo
Actually the President has declared war on drilling in the U.S. and even went so far as to kill the pipeline. He has already said that he was okay with people paying more for gas, so yes it is his fault. Second, just because we see some doctored numbers does not mean that the economy is getting better. On the contrary almost everyone I talk to, especially SMB owners are telling a very different tale.This President and his socialist ilk are so anti-business that it is disgusting.

Actually, the President has done no such thing. I think you have it confused with the Republican's war on Facts and if you don't believe me, you can read it for yourself here; www.factcheck.org...

U.S. Oil Production: Up or Down?

While Republicans have criticized Obama’s energy policies, the president has touted — as he did in a March 11 press conference — that oil production rose last year.

Obama, March 11: Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high.

Obama is right on both counts. EIA data (table 4a) shows that total domestic production of crude oil was 5.51 million barrels per day, including 1.64 million barrels per day from the Gulf of Mexico. Historical EIA data shows that the last time the U.S. produced that much total oil was in 2003, when it generated 5.68 million barrels per day. (We already addressed that 2010 was indeed a record year for the Gulf.)

So, why did Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California say on CNN’s “State of the Union” that oil production has gone down?

McCarthy, March 13: You know, under this administration, our output has gone down 13 percent.

McCarthy is wrong. He undoubtedly meant to say that oil production in the Gulf is projected to go down 13 percent this year — which is how Sen. Jon Kyl correctly stated it later on the same program. But that figure represents a projection, not an actual decline, and overall decline in domestic production is expected to be 2 percent once you factor in a rise in domestic production elsewhere. It’s another example of selective use of figures to make a partisan point.

Gheit said the longer range “picture is not as grim” as some make it out to be. He pointed to the Bakken Shale deposit in North Dakota, which the EIA says produced 49.4 million barrels in 2009. Gheit said North Dakota could be producing 1 million barrels a day by 2014. “That would more than exceed any shortfall in the Gulf,” he said. (The Bakken isn’t the world’s largest oil reserve as claimed in a chain e-mail that has circulated for years, but it is helping U.S. production significantly.)

U.S. Oil Imports: Up or Down?

How much oil the U.S. imports also has been a source of confusion.

Earlier this month we wrote about seemingly conflicting comments made by Obama and McConnell. The president said that imports declined last year to less than 50 percent of U.S. consumption, while the Kentucky senator warned that the U.S. imports 60 percent of our oil. McConnell was talking about total imports, while Obama was talking about net imports (total imports minus exports). Both can claim to be correct, but the EIA sides with Obama’s math when gauging U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

As you can see, it is easy to cite official numbers to support a partisan narrative.

Also on imports, Palin claimed in that same March 15 Facebook post that the administration’s inaction on drilling permits is “allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.”

There is no question that the U.S. for a long time has relied on importing oil from dangerously unstable parts of the world. But has Obama allowed us to become “increasingly dependent”? No.

First of all, net imports are trending downward. Our reliance on imported liquid fuels — as the EIA calls oil and other petroleum products — declined to less than 50 percent of U.S. consumption in 2010. And, despite an expected uptick this and next year, it will decline through 2035. The EIA’s 2011 Annual Energy Outlook, released December 2010, projects our reliance on imported liquid fuels will drop to 42 percent by 2035.

EIA, December 2010: U.S. dependence on imported liquid fuels measured as a share of total U.S. liquid fuel use, which reached 60 percent in 2005 and 2006 before falling to 52 percent in 2009, is expected to continue declining over the projection period, to 42 percent in 2035.

Our reliance on imports from foreign countries — whether stable or unstable — is projected to trend down in the long-term, even though there may be ups and downs along the way.

I know this is kinda off topic but, If you really want the Facts then check out the link for the whole story.