Rick Santorum To Single Mothers: Government Paternity Tests Or No Welfare

Originally posted by Damrod
I have looked at the GOP's war on women and birth control and pro-choice issues and am completely puzzled by a party that says they want small government and gov out of your life. There is something hidden beneath the surface here...I'm almost certain of it.

There is no "war on women" from the GOP. Sorry, isn't happening. The whole birth control thing is about forcing a CHURCH to pay for birth control, if that goes against their religion. Sorry, but if someone wants birth control, they can pay for it. As for abortion, that's about infanticide, not "choice". Totally unrelated to this discussion.

Originally posted by DamrodSometimes I think they are worried because statistics say that Caucasian Americans are having less children and I think they are afraid of becoming a minority...so they want to secretly force people to make more babies...well...the babies they want (White anglo saxon christian)

Actually, percentage-wise, more minority babies are aborted, and stopping that would mean an increase in their birth rate. Frankly, I don't care what race the person is; every baby has a right to live.

Originally posted by DamrodAt other times, I wonder why they want to bring babies into this world who will suffer from poverty...and then I consider they (TPTB) need to maintain the sheer numbers of uneducated slave class, poverty level workers.

That would be the other party, the ones supporting huge numbers of poor illegals int he country, more welfare dependents, etc. The GOP wants people to learn to take care of themselves. Less dependence, less control.

Originally posted by XXX777
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I can't help but agree with your old fashioned common sense. Those girls back in the days used to hold an aspirin between their knees and that was as good as contraception. Problem is Bobby Ray figured out he could sneak around the back. Oh well. Found an extra hole too. Peek-a-boo!!

Back in those days, there were less teens getting pregnant, too! Of course, that's a fact the other side wants to ignore. Responsibility and commitment have become "bad" in this day and age, and that's a sad thing!

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


actually, "the church" is the individuals who are the members who are getting together to worship the way they believe...
actual...
the constitution is to protect the rights of individuals...weather or not they meet within a group to worship or not...
and actually... the money that you are paying into the health insurance policy at work just may be used to pay for any healthcare that I might need, if both of our employers are using the same company!!

so, actually what is being said is that no insurance should be paying for any birth control, since well, a believer's money is being pooled into that fund and could possibly be used to by something that they object to!!!

I object to having all these kids on antidepressants and anti anxiety, and all that crap that is probably causing them to go nuts and walk into their school and start blowing people away!!! what do you reckon is the chances that me and those who agree with me can get that coverage taken out on the same grounds as your argument is giving???

oh, and ya...forgot one...
actually quite a few women meeting in that building we call the catholic church are using birth control???

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

actually, "the church" is the individuals who are the members who are getting together to worship the way they believe...

Yes, but an organization run by those people should not have to pay for things that are against their religion.

Originally posted by dawnstaractual...
the constitution is to protect the rights of individuals...weather or not they meet within a group to worship or not...
and actually... the money that you are paying into the health insurance policy at work just may be used to pay for any healthcare that I might need, if both of our employers are using the same company!!

The Constitution doesn't guarantee health care, either. Insurance should only be regulated so far as being sure they pay valid claims, that are included in the policy, and some pricing controls, to prevent gouging. In this case, a church could choose to use an insurance company that did not offer contraceptives, and they should have that option. I have worked places that offered NO insurance, and businesses should have that right as well. Actually, the price controlling would make it easier for companies to afford to offer any plan.

Originally posted by dawnstarso, actually what is being said is that no insurance should be paying for any birth control, since well, a believer's money is being pooled into that fund and could possibly be used to by something that they object to!!!

No, they are saying that a church plan should not have to include it. That's all. I have nothing against non-abortive methods, but some do, and they have freedom of religion. This would ONLY apply to a church, or church-run school. One would guess that employees of these places would basically agree with the same faith tenets as the organizing body.

Originally posted by dawnstarI object to having all these kids on antidepressants and anti anxiety, and all that crap that is probably causing them to go nuts and walk into their school and start blowing people away!!! what do you reckon is the chances that me and those who agree with me can get that coverage taken out on the same grounds as your argument is giving???

Hey, all for that! WAY too many drugs being pumped into kids, many that cause adults to become suicidal! I suspect if insurance didn't cover those so easily, they would be less prescribed.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

There is no "war on women" from the GOP. Sorry, isn't happening. The whole birth control thing is about forcing a CHURCH to pay for birth control, if that goes against their religion. Sorry, but if someone wants birth control, they can pay for it. As for abortion, that's about infanticide, not "choice". Totally unrelated to this discussion.

The GOP wants to outlaw birth control all together.
I call that war.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He wants dead beat dads to pay for their kids instead of the US government.

I'm actually thinking this is a good idea. I have no idea how he'd implement it.
But getting dead beat dads to pay for kids may stop them from mass procreating
tons of kids who will just end up on welfare, foodstamps and getting free lunches
at school ... all paid for by the tax payer.

I actually agree as well. The way dead beat dads are made to pay for their children now is that the courts go after them, and if they dont help support their children, they go to jail, etc. It's a flawed system in that many women make up multiple lies about it all, dont actually spend the money on the kids, keep pushing the courts for more,more, when the dads who DO pay get a little better job, etc.

Even so, dont have a bunch of kids, expect my tax dollars to feed them, while you "protect" their father(s) from having to do his part in caring for the kids. Yes, it IS about the kids, but rather than reward moms who think its all a free ride after getting pregnant, make THEM be more accountable as well. And MAYBE they will quit having kids they cant afford to feed, clothe, etc.

no, the constitution doesn't include healthcare as a right....
but...the gov't taking money from me to provide someone else healthcare kind of gives the the responsibility to make sure the people that they are taking the money from can obtain it themselves!!!

as for the rest...guess it just depends on how you look at it.....
I agree with you, the gov't really needs to get out of this manadate thing.....and start heading to a spot where the individual, the companies, and the doctors can act according to their consious and what they believe is right for them..
unfortunately....all of those listed are quickly becoming dependent on the gov't to keep the tax money flowing to them. so, well...we are in the spot that we are...a mandated healthcare plan devlivered to us courtesy of Uncle Sam!! and arguing and bickering over just what that plan should have in it...
and I don't believe the bickering will stop even if the religious institutions were allowed to do as they want, because it's the individuals who have the rights, not the institutions. and well.....sooner or later they'd make the same argument that I did and that would be that!!
our tax money goes for so much crap that most of us shudder to consider!!! maybe it's time to say enough is enough as one voice, instead of a million and one which seem to be only looking out for their own interest???

people should be able to afford their healthcare weather they are insured or not, poor enough to be on welfare or not, companies should be able to afford to cover their employees if they wish....and one of two things or both, must happen for that to be...the cost of the healthcare must be reduced and the incomes of the lower wages earners must be raised!!!

otherwise, welll, let's bicker on!!!

Originally posted by dawnstar

people should be able to afford their healthcare weather they are insured or not, poor enough to be on welfare or not, companies should be able to afford to cover their employees if they wish....and one of two things or both, must happen for that to be...the cost of the healthcare must be reduced and the incomes of the lower wages earners must be raised!!!

otherwise, welll, let's bicker on!!!

HCR was supposed to do just that but Republicans were so worried about the insurance companies god given right to make more money that we got what we got instead.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This would ONLY apply to a church, or church-run school.

But it is about hospitals, not churches or schools. Hospitals that collect tax subsidies in order to stay open. Cannot have it both ways. If I have to subsidize your religious freedom then you have to show some respect back.

reply to post by FlyersFan



Well said



Over here in the UK its now become a lifestyle choice for many young girls to get pregnant at 17 ( or earlier ) they then can claim child benefit payments , social security payments and get provided with social housing with the rent paid for by local govt, theres no pressure on these girls to get a job till the child reaches 5 yrs old either - so what many seem to do is just keep popping out kids every couple of years - for many its what thier mothers did so now they are doing it too.

As a single father of a 6 yr old boy I still work , pay the mortgage , child care etc - so can many of these young mothers , they choose not to because the state will keep them anyway.

Originally posted by LErickson
HCR was supposed to do just that but Republicans were so worried about the insurance companies god given right to make more money that we got what we got instead.

I'm old enough to remember when company insurance was free and covered everything.

Then we get called into a meeting that premiums are going up so - its still free but they have to cut costs by eliminating some positions and doubling up work on remaining employees.

Then we get called into a meeting that premiums are going up and they can only subsidize part of it - - the rest will be taken out of our paychecks.

Then we get called into a meeting that premiums are going up - - so we have to go with a cheaper provider - that only provides minimal coverage that we used to have.

And on and on and on and on.

I just started Medicare. But my husband who is younger was paying over $400 a month for me alone - - - only for major medical hospitalization with a $2000 deductible.

There is no reason basic health care should be as expensive as it is. Its definitely a racket.

"We say to Mom that you tell us the wrong name, and we'll bring that guy in and we'll do a blood test and that's not Dad, you lose your welfare benefits,” he said at another event that same day in New Bloomfield. “You lose your welfare benefits ... Not till you tell us another name, but till we find out who Dad is, we establish it."

This suggests that Santorum is going to enact some sort of law for compulsory blood/DNA sampling of men without a court order or criminal arrest. This is a very serious matter.

But I bet that, by the end of this campaign, a LOT of unwed mothers are naming Rick Santorum as the baby daddy. (This has been done before with other celebs. The Nixon campaign tried to make a big deal when it found a birth certificate of a welfare mother who had named George McGovern - and there were plenty around at the same time that named Dick Nixon.)

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


As I said in my first post on the topic, I have mixed emotions about all of this talk.

Dad's should pay up. I was briefly married when I was very young because I got a girl pregnant. We go a divorce. I paid child support for 17 years. During that time, I met another lady, got married and had two more kids and we are still together after 23 years. I don't have a problem at all making dead beat Da's cough up some cash and at least be partially responsible...it's the right thing to do.

As far as the church ran, taxable institutions...sorry...it might have it's coffers accented by neighborhood offerings, but they don't get to play the religion card...if they want to play that card...then free services....no...you don't get to play both sides of the coin my friends...if you are pretending to be a tax free religious organization...then you cannot charge going rates for services....free or severely reduced...non negotiable.

Birth Control...get over it...some women need it for more than preventing pregnancies...I know a couple women that have to take it for medical reasons and guess what?...they are so homely I promise they are not having sex! Church needs to step off that ancient stupidity and get into at least the middle of the 20th century...unlike Mr. Santorum...who appears to be living somewhere in the 13th century.

Abortion... I disagree with it being retroactive birth control...however...when there are problems....it should be between a Doctor and his patient...no government involvement...no church involvement...I still disagree that a zygote has a soul...but that's just me (and well maybe 65% of the intelligent people of the world). Cases of rape, incest and extreme physical or mental disabilities...well...again it should be a Doctor and his patient...

This invasion from the party that thinks government should be smaller and out of people's lives....funny isn't it...they say they want out of your life but they still want to be in your bedroom and inside a woman's womb...

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

"Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (Declaration of Independence)

"Give me Liberty or Give me death" (Patrick Henry)

"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both" (Thomas Jefferson/Benjamin Franklin)

I believe in freedom....period. As in intelligent and compassionate human being...I am willing to make allowances for a social net to protect the less fortunate. I believe people should be free to make their own judgements and decisions. I think Government is there to protect our borders and take care of our roads...and that's about it.

I agree with this. Why should YOU AND I foot the bill for these idiots popping out babies without even knowing who the father is? Forget about morals - I'm talking about my friggin tax money. The 25% of my paycheck that is taken away every paycheck!!!!

The way I look at it, every dollar I make, a quarter of it goes to some low-life "baby mama" who is ready to pop out another one to live off of us tax payers.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by LErickson

 

Ok I will type slow for your benefit.
If Mommy does not know which of the men is her babydaddy, this is what I would call...loose.
When my wife got pregnant she knew of the choices, me, me, and me was the father.
If needed I can repost in multicolor to simulate crayon.

So what!

The child did not choose to be born.

The child's sperm donor is just as responsible for this child as the mother.

AGAIN - - always the woman's fault.

Do you support abortion? Because the child also does not choose to be killed in the womb.

I agree with some other posters that the father SHOULD share in the responsibility. Why have welfare pay out money that could go to others who need it, instead of making the dad help pay something towards he raising of the child.

On the other hand, it seems to be very broad on the part of the males. It seems to imply that all they need is a name and accusation of "he my baby daddy" to go after these guys. Don't seem to be asking for PROOF that there ever was a relationship, or if they even really know each other. Could be quite dangerous, in an annoying way, for you guys out there. Picture some bitter chick you dissed coming back with an accusation of he the daddy, just to screw with your life. The government will get ALL in your business and DNA.

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by LErickson

 

Ok I will type slow for your benefit.
If Mommy does not know which of the men is her babydaddy, this is what I would call...loose.
When my wife got pregnant she knew of the choices, me, me, and me was the father.
If needed I can repost in multicolor to simulate crayon.

So what!

The child did not choose to be born.

The child's sperm donor is just as responsible for this child as the mother.

AGAIN - - always the woman's fault.

Do you support abortion? Because the child also does not choose to be killed in the womb.

I had an abortion.

Next question.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Republicans...the party of small government.

They'll get the government out of your lives...unless you are a women...and then the government is in your pants monitoring your vagina.


How are there still women who vote Republican???

That is because you, like most people, are totally ignorant on the true nature of the gender war. Right now those traditionalist Republicans are PANDERING TO TRADITIONALIST WOMEN!

People really need to study history for themselves instead of falling for the B.S, watered down propaganda that passes for history.

But because I am in a generous mood I will give you two key terms "Mothers of the Republic", and "Traditionalist Noose".
--------
Also, were do you think these traditionalist guy's come from? Did you think they magically pop into existence? They are CONDITIONED to be that way by their mothers and grand mothers. It is actually quite sad how dog like they are in their conditioning. After all, as much as Feminism is a gnyocentric movement, Traditionalism is very much a matriarchal movement.

In order to understand that last bit, you have to understand that not all people are motivated by material wealth and other metrics of success(accumulation of political or economic power etc). These traditionalist gal's believe they have a divine right to raise and lord over their families(they often use the Bible as a whip against their husbands). The part about singling out the father is part of the Traditionalist motif of trying to restrain and suppress male sexuality(similar to how an Islamist seeks to regulate women).

But at the same time Mr. Santorum isn't totally stupid. MRA's tend to vote Republican(actually most MRA's are leftist's, but don't vote Democratic because of the Democratic Parties history of hatred against males) and traditionalists are trying to a) convert, b) court or c) restrain the Men's Rights Movement. For my part I tried to drill it into MRA's(Men's Rights Activist's) heads that traditionalist's are every bit the male hating bigots that feminist's are. It is just that traditionalists are bigots with a smiley face.

reply to post by Shoonra

This suggests that Santorum is going to enact some sort of law for compulsory blood/DNA sampling of men without a court order or criminal arrest. This is a very serious matter.

Now we're finally getting to the root of the matter.
I'd of thought ATS would have hit on this pages ago.
Great post.

And yes - that is EXACTLY what is at the root of all - BIOMETRIC ID CARDS and/or compulsory DNA registry for ALL. Just you wait.

APPLAUSE to you!

peace

peace

reply to post by korathin

These traditionalist gal's believe they have a divine right to raise and lord over their families(they often use the Bible as a whip against their husbands).

Your post has a lot of interesting points. It's too bad you took it one step too far and added in the bible slander (or so it seems, I'm just saying it seems so). My point? The bible states equivocally the woman/wife is to be *submissive to her husband in all things. How can a woman use that to whip up her homeboy?

(*Ephesians 5:21-33)

peace