On the Blunt Amendment (for religious freedom) ??

Definitely something to watch.

We all "get" how politics works, and B-Boxer is playing to her constituents. But adult who understands our form of government and the U.S. Constitution KNOWS that religious liberty trumps anything that violates conscience. I won't rhetorically ask if she is nuts or not. I already know the answer to that question. The worst part is that these really ultra left liberals are people who hate people of faith, plain and simple.

No votes yet

First thing about your wack-job link. No-one is "pro-abortion". Liberals are pro-choice...I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, big difference.

Boxer is absolutely right. Health insurance shouldn't be subjected to religious morals or superstitions of those paying for it. If you boss is a Jehovah Witness is it OK if your insurance doesn't pay for blood transfusions or organ transplants. Hell, you boss could be Christian Scientist and not believe in doctors at all. Is it OK for him to mandate insurance not cover anything? How about a Jewish or Muslim boss who doesn't think insurance should cover any gelatin based pill? Hell, Republicans are currently arguing that no insurance provider should have to pay for anything they find morally questionable. That's so broad it could mean not covering inter-racial couples.

This isn't a matter government inflicting it's will on religion, it's government stepping in to keep religion from inflicting it's will on the rest of us. If you're Catholic and don't want to take "the pill" then by all means don't, no one is forcing you.

I wish the Catholic Bishops would put as much effort into keeping priests from raping children as they do trying to keep birth control out of the hands of women.

It's a broad coalition of people of faith, as well as men and women in congress who recognize this for what it is - government oppression.

You are off base on so much of this discussion. First of all you are assuming that health insurance is a basic human right guaranteed by government. No - it's a commercial product. And government has no rights, at least under the U.S. Constitution, to force us to buy any commercial product. It certainly has no right to require people of faith to participate in the killing of the unborn. That entire idea is beyond insane.

Your examples are beyond goofy, because many jobs don't offer insurance in the place. And BO's idea is - don't have insurance? Then I will MAKE you buy some. Well, why doesn't he jut MAKE the homeless buy homes or rent apartments. And then to "play" to his constituency from 2008, he decides to attack religious freedom.

Pro-choice is code for making a choice to kill a baby. Dr. Nathanson, a former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL said that the members of that group, when "pro-choice" was first suggested as a marketing slogan for abortion - he said that everybody around the table burst out laughing, because they knew the American public wouldn't be STUPID ENOUGH to buy that. Dr. Nathanson, a former atheist and abortion doctor, since became, first, unalterably PRO LIFE, and later on a believing Christian.

But think about the NARAL founder laughing at "pro-chioce". In other words, waaay back then, they thought that only idiots would buy that nonsense. In othe words, they were mocking you years in advance.

I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt, Obamacare is going down.

And government has no rights, at least under the U.S. Constitution, to force us to buy any commercial product.

That hasn't stopped the State of Ohio from forcing the residents to buy automobile insurance. When the State passed this law I thought it violated the Constitution, but evidently the court system isn't in agreement with me. Now, since the State has successfully forced us to buy auto insurance, what stops them from forcing us to buy health insurance?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

"Health insurance shouldn't be subjected to religious morals or superstitions of those paying for it"

And, since "medical" marijuana is becoming legal in Michigan, I demand that Sensless-G PAY FOR MY WEED.

Now cough up your cash! Give me your money! I DEMAND you pay for my "medical" weed!

YOU WILL PAY FOR MY HIGH and you can keep your f***ing mouth SHUT about it! Give me your cash so your insurance company can pay for my weed!

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

That's funny HeWhoBegsForGaySex,

I can play too...

I want to marry 3 women at the same time!

I want marry my 13 year old niece!

I want to be able to kill my daughter if she's ever alone with a man!

I want to able to throw acid in the face of any boy who kisses my daughter!

What the government won't let me do these thing! Religious freedom!

Nobody CARES what you want to do.
Nobody CARES what you don't want to do.
Nobody CARES about your morals or lack of morals.
You will pay my insurance company to buy marijuana for me and you don't get a choice about it.
Now just shut the hell up like a good little boy and give me your money.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

by all means, marry 3 women at once. If you can figure out how to keep the peace in a family like that, I'd vote you into office in a second.

I'm betting you'd try it and end up in the cracker factory after six months or so of the constant racket.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

And, since "medical" marijuana is becoming legal in Michigan, I demand that Sensless-G PAY FOR MY WEED.

Yeah! What he said! I want mine too!

I'm a sick man, I tell you. I need a little herb to put me to rights. Cough it up, SensorG. Now! Right now! And I'm not taking any of that Michigan ditch weed, either. Nope, not this boy. I want some primo Maui Wowie.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Only then it can be prescribed by a doctor and filled by a pharmacy. Currently no insurance company covers medical marijuana because it can't be filed by a pharmacy in Michigan. However, if you live in Michigan and a doctor gives you a physician certification, I support your right to legally self-medicate.

If you're interested in plowing that hedgehog you call a wife, get a prescription for Viagra from your doctor and take it straight to the pharmacy. Erectile dysfunction medication is covered by most prescription drug plans, so you can thank us younger workers for subsidizing your twice yearly boning of your old lady.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Let me prove you wrong on each of your points.

1) "Only then it can be prescribed by a doctor and filled by a pharmacy."
Here are just a FEW doctors in Michigan who will give a Michigander a prescription for Medical Marijuana:

2) "Currently no insurance company covers medical marijuana because it can't be filed by a pharmacy "
You really should have read the ObamaCare bill. Here is what you have not read. The "Preventive Care Rules under the Affordable Care Act"
"Treatment Services Not Affected. The Rules also clarify that a plan may impose cost-sharing requirements for any treatment that is not a recommended preventive item or service, even if the treatment results from a recommended preventive service

This clarification of what is covered as "preventative" under ObamaCare says "a plan may impose cost-sharing requirements for any treatment that is not a recommended preventive item or service, even if the treatment results from a recommended preventive service."

So, even if you don't agree under moral grounds, you will be obligated to pay for Medical Marijuana.

Now keep your morality off of my body. If Obama and your type can force an insurance company to cover birth control for the Catholic Church, then you should also be forced to pay for medical weed.

Keep your "morality" off of my body. Libs/Dems can force Insurance companies to cover any product. The die has been cast.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Here are just a FEW doctors in Michigan who will give a Michigander a prescription for Medical Marijuana:

Michigan doctors cannot prescribe medical marijuana. They can only give you a physician certification, which allows you to apply for a medical marijuana card. That card only prevents prosecution for possession and use of marijuana. The card doesn't let you go to the pharmacy to get pot because they don't stock it. You have to find your own supplier and no prescription drug plan covers bags of pot bought from a dealer.

You really should have read the ObamaCare bill. Here is what you have not read. The "Preventive Care Rules under the Affordable Care Act"

You can't get a medical marijuana card in Michigan for preventative use.

Now keep your morality off of my body.

No one is forcing you to use medical marijuana, even if you qualify under the Michigan statutes. It's not a mandated transvaginal ultrasound, it's just another treatment option.

If Obama and your type can force an insurance company to cover birth control for the Catholic Church,

I don't care about the arcane beliefs of the Catholic Church when they've displayed less honor than Penn State. At least PSU fired their president when they learned he was involved in covering up rampant molestation. How about this: I'm willing to review Obamacare's impact on their practices when they start turning over child-molesting priests to the police, and not a day sooner.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Condoms are that expensive that anyone who isn't provided birth control that they can't afford them? I think not.

And unlike the morning after pill and the pill - condoms protect against the majority of STDs.


Condoms also require a man to wear and put birth control in the man's hands. Birth control pills allow a woman to take ownership of birth control. I see how that scare conservatives.

As if a woman cannot control what goes into her vagina? Yeah I guess you're right the liberals should prevent women from the situation of having to say no to a man because no woman should ever have to say no to a man. Follow-up, does this count for her mouth and anus as well?

Still no reason to deny a religion it's right to practice his belief and forget the constitution exists.


Freedom of religion don’t mean you get to put subject me to yours and you get everything you want.

How does it subject you to my religion? Are women not able to purchase condoms? Are women not able to make the man they intend to have sex with wear a condom?

The Catholic church isn't making their employees convert nor are they requiring them to do anything. The Catholic church just says "we don't believe in this and thus will not provide it".


First birth control isn't abortion.

Also, please. please, please keep talking about this. Republicans will be crushed come November.

Reasonable people know that "Pro-choice" is the politically acceptable term for "Pro-abortion" (if you consider abortion an option--you are in favor of--i.e. "pro" abortion). Let's stop allowing the liberals to define our labels and call people either "Pro" or "Anti" abortion.

A lot of time under your rock you liar to come up with all this wisdom? You define liberals as pro-abortion and accuse us of labels. What a dumb ass. Back under your rock you bug.

Again, I'm anti-abortion, but I guess I'm just a small government liberal who doesn't think it should be making moral or medical decisions for people.

government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Catholic Church has long held that birth control is wrong and it is a fundamental teaching of the church whether it's members follow it or not.

To make them or their insurance company provide it is prohibiting the free exercise of their belief.

And the Catholic Church does allow for two types of birth control. Fertility awareness or as it is sometimes called Natural Family Planning. The other is abstinence of course.

I know some Catholics who use NFP but the far majority I know do not use any birth control. So I don't know where Nancy Pelosi gets her 99% of Catholics use birth control stat but I find it very very hard to believe.


Why is this still an issue? As it stands, religious institutions are not forced to pay nor provide contraceptives. In these cases, insurance companies would provide them directly--free of cost.

Pink Slip

What about religious organizations that self insure?

It still goes against Church doctrine because the church is forced to provide health coverage or pay a penalty. Now the insurer is forced to provide the birth control. So they church must still do business with someone who is an enabler of what they define as a sin so that is why it is still an issue.


Actually, churches themselves are except. This only applies to church affiliated businesses, ie colleges, hospitals where most of their employees aren’t of the same religion.

It doesn't matter. You're still making a church provide for something they don't believe in.


"Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods".
There is still a percentage of Catholics that say this issue will not deter support of Obama for this years election and some of them believe the president's new rule resolves the religious liberty issues. My question is how can they conclude this reasoning based on Catholic teachings concerning this issue?
I believe its still a religious freedom issue and Obama could be in trouble on this one.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Except most Catholics ignore this anyway. Gone are are the days where Catholic familes have 7-9 kids. They're still out there, but they are far and few between.

After years of GOP culture war antics it is natural to assume that the current birth control flap is yet another Republican party wedge issue. Only this time it is not, it was the Obama who decided to pick this particular fight right now.

The birth control flap has energized the most lunatic factions of the GOP base, and this in turn pays Obama multiple dividends. In order to keep in with their base the GOP takes positions that are drastically unpopular with the public at large, making them more fringe and Obama mainstream. Even though Romney is still the favorite to win the nomination, Santorum is now a real contender. The fight looks set to continue for many months yet, and the longer the two GOP front runners are fighting each other, the worse the prospects for the Republican party in November. Read the rest of this post...

This GOP battle could come down to the party bosses choosing the nominee and this birth control issue will affect both sides, your right, Obama for having anything to do with it, and the GOP for their stance on the issue.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I don't believe that. Case in point.

John McCain secured the GOP nomination by March of 2008. The Clinton/Obama battle lasted all the way until June with many Clinton supporters saying they would NEVER support Obama because of the hard fought primary.

In the end the factions all rallied to support the nominee. I have yet to see anything that would prevent that in this year's GOP nomination. Whoever the party chooses everyone will support and yes I still do see a wide enthusiasm gap between Dems and Repubs despite the early states low turnout. This is because in national polls when the question is asked if someone will probably vote and definitely vote the GOP receives about 4% more than the Dems. In tight elections the Dems generally have a 2% lead on that question. That gives the Republicans a 6% enthusiasm gap over their rivals.

Now I don't think this is so much a mark of GOP excitement as I see it as a depressed turnout of Democrats. There are many Obama supporters I've known or talked to who still support him but aren't enthusiastic about voting.


Have Ricky Santorum be the GOP nominee, and you'll see plenty of Dems all jacked up to vote in November.

I don't believe that.

Rarely do you see a scenario play out where the contender drives the turnout. Generally when there is an incumbent the election is a referendum on them, a referendum on the current issues, or a wave election. If both candidates were new as was '08 then yes I'd agree with you that one can either drive or hinder turnout based on their stances.

I cannot recall any election that doesn't fit the above profiles where an incumbent polls below 50% yet wins in a landslide because of the contender. Now I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying historically I cannot think of that instance without it being a wave election.

And I do not believe 2012 will be a wave election for either side. I think the GOP will gain a one to four Senate seats but will lose about 10 House seats and the Presidency will be a close one both in popular vote and electoral college.


Does Romney win, and can he beat Obama??????

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

DTOM, I have long stated that I think anyone in the GOP field could potentially beat the President. This is due to two things 1) the President's vulnerability 2) GOP enthusiasm.

Do I think Romney will get the nomination? Yes. Here's why I think that at this time. He's the only candidate on the GOP side to reach 40% support in any poll of GOP voters. Now my thought could change if any one of the other three bow out but at this time I don't see that happening until it's too late.

Each candidate brings something different to the table and puts new things into play and removes others.

I think Santorum would easily win FL, IA and PA. Meaning if he can win either OH, VA he wins the GE. I don't believe the President will win NC or NH (regardless who's running) but will win CO, NM and NV.

With Romney I think he will lose IA and OH but will win VA, CO, NV (last two cuz of the Mormon vote) and FL and PA still as toss up with PA probably more in his favor. The problem with Romney is the same as Al Gore had in 2000, he has to create a winning map without winning his home state, it doesn't ever happen but technically one could say NH is his home now and MI and MA are not which is why that paradigmn may not fit him.

Gingrich has the toughest map of anyone despite the southern portion of the map much redder. He wins FL, NC, even VA. Then he must take one of NV, CO, NM, OH, PA, and NH but that is much easier said than done for him. If that is the scenario he should focus on two and really put money there, most likely OH and PA because they represent the most EVs.

RP wont win the nomination so I won't discuss him.

Tim Pawlenty or Marco Rubio as a running mate puts their respective states into play or safe.


Who are the people that are voting for Romney? Are they also non-Reagan supporters? Are they also ok with Romney helping get liberal activists judges elected to the bench in Massachusetts, as well as having some of the same policies as Obama. At the end of the day yes, they all have something to offer that is appealing and some issues not so appealing. Where do these negative political ads take the Rep/independent voters who only watch these ads? Also can Romney pull the Latino vote from Obama?

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

The pollsters do not go as far back as Reagan in their Likely Voter screens. Each pollster develops their methodology but generally they ask Do you intend to vote? with answers being definitely, maybe, no, and probably while others will ask Did you vote in the last Presidential election? to determine the LV screen. I would say it's irrelevate to ask if they voted for Reagan because a large portion of the electorate was not of voting age in 1984 (a 17 yr old in 84 is 48 today).

I understand your hesitation. I too found Romney as the least favorable candidate but put my support on the answer to several of his key questions to the debates. Especially in the NH debates I found his answers acceptable enough for my support but each voter must decide that for themselves. And while his answers were acceptable enough to receive my vote he has not convinced me enough to drive me to vote for him. I may, I may not, I'm still awaiting some things from each candidate.

From Rick Santorum I, personally, was waiting for him to give a more than ok debate performance. I did not see that in the last debate. While I agree with many of his policies I can say unless if something big happens between now and the OH primary he will not receive my vote. For Romeny what he lacks from me is passion, I've seen glimpses of it but I would love for someone with Newts passion but without his penchant for putting his foot in his mouth and doublespeaking. But again that's just for me as a voter.

" Also can Romney pull the Latino vote from Obama?" Again that hinges more on Obama than Romney IMO. The President's policies regarding Catholics WILL affect the Latino vote and was a HUGE political miscalculation for something that could have waited until after November. Again if the President doesn't drive them to the GOP nominee he will at least have achieved to disenthuse enough of them to affect the President negatively.

In places like CO and NV there is a large portion of Mormon voters who will be enthused to come out for Romney, which is why I believe he has a good chance at those states but a state like IA falls out of play where it would be in play for Santorum, it's the political geography.


As to the Reagan question the older voting group who know about Reagan. I don't think they will fall to Romney .
Where do you think the 20 to 35 year old range will fall to, and where will the Ron Paul supporters go.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Romney may be an acceptable choice--i.e. may be moderate enough--for some Dems dissatisfied with Obama. No way Santorum falls into that category. He will bring people out on the left in droves who might have considered staying home or doing a one-time crossover.

While I understand your 'historical' perspective, we're already seeing a GOP nomination process that is straying far from the norm. Already, this hasn't been a typical election season.

The only deviation from the norm is a lack of candidates who refuse to get out.

This race actually resembles the '76 GOP nomination just with more people in the race but has many of the same discussions i.e. electability, social conservatism, organization and money.

You have offered nothing to support your theory that Santorum would cause a mass group of voters to the polls. Just because you don't think he's moderate enough. Will there be people on the left more energized if RS gets the nom? Yes but there will also be a significant portion on the right. Santorum's policies take some places that the Dems think they can challenge like NC, GA, and the FL panhandle and puts them into the safe and enthused column. Santorum's path to victory is actually the same strategy President Bush used in 2000 where his religious views brought out the religious right in very key swing places like IA, MO and the FL panhandle.

Plus I think Santorum will have a higher favorability than Romney, he's actually quite like the President, in that he has a lot of charisma but yet can be very polarizing in his views.


"You have offered nothing to support your theory that Santorum would cause a mass group of voters to the polls. Just because you don't think he's moderate enough. Will there be people on the left more energized if RS gets the nom? Yes but there will also be a significant portion on the right"

No the demographics offset. Just as there are lefty's who would be energized to vote against RS there would righty's to vote for him. There is nothing to show that the lefties would far outnumber the righty's just as there's nothing to show this group wouldn't have voted anyway.

Here's an example. The President recieved massive ammounts of support from the 18-25 year olds last time. These being the most idealistic of our society and the ones who bought the most into hope and change. Yet they're the largest depressed for the next election. This is a combination of several factors.

Now will they be enthused to vote against RS? Not likely. Will they be enthused to vote for the President? Not likely. In fact, for that demographic the only candidate I can see who can enthuse them to vote is Ron Paul but I don't think he will be on the ticket. I believe we will see them fall back into the pre-2008 trend of not voting for a variety of reasons but the biggest being that they entered a job market not willing to take them in.


"There are many Obama supporters I've known or talked to who still support him but aren't enthusiastic about voting."

I have yet to find ANYONE who admits voting for the empty suit, Dumbo ear, Socialist Golfer-In-Chief illegitimate child of a foreigner.

Plenty of Democrats I work with and talk to, but absolutely nobody admits they were duped enough to help elect him.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

That was a true statement I made.

My wife's old boss and his wife are as liberal as they come. They both are old Democrats who are transplants from NYC. They have government jobs with a military support agency. They were REALLY enthusiastic about the President in '08. They watch Jon Stewart and then Rachel Maddow each day.

This time they are going to vote for him but with the military cuts their jobs are precarious at best and they are not enthused about the President's policies. In fact, I think if Romney were the nominee at least one of them will switch.


Explain to me how Romney the white Obama, rates any better in the political, domestic, and foreign categories that are in question. Oh don't forget there is a Mormon welfare system...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I didn't say he rates any better. I said based upon the polls and the anecdotal evidence he can compete against the President.

Again I haven't thrown my support behind any of the GOP candidates. I'm just watching. I agree with some on this issue but not that. I don't know if I will vote in the primary either. My Dad is supporting Santorum, my Mom Romney. I see in all the candidates something I could vote for and I won't defend/offend any of them until I have to make a choice. And despite my lack of a decision I am still supportive of any of them against the President.

Also despite my conservative nature if Hillary decided to run for the Dem nomination I would probably switch my party ID to vote for her and would probably vote for her in the GE. I would do this because I think she has been a good SoS and I thought she was very good on foreign policy as a Senator. She decided not to run so that is not an option for me. I feel the same had Lieberman decided to run for the Dem nomination.

But again I think ALL of the current GOP candidates can be the President in a General Election. I think this based upon the polls, the movement I've seen in the polls, and history as an example.


I can't imagine why Boxer is making such a big deal about this. All she has to do is get an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood and similar organizations, and the birth control issue is neatly solved. Same with abortion.

I think it's likely that the real objection is about cost. Think: The employer (whomever it may be) will hire people that share the employer's religious beliefs. I cannot imagine Cedar Creek hiring an avowed atheist to pump the pipe organ any more than I can imagine a devout Catholic being hired to mop the floor at the local Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall. Your average pagan isn't going to be hired as caretaker at the First Self-Righteous Church either. So - if your Church believes that birth control is wrong and using it could lead to dancing or card playing, it naturally follows that the janitor believes the same, as does the Church secretary. So, your insurance company can offer all the free happiness they want, and there won't be any takers. So where's the objection here?

Boxer might be doing this as a sort of Henry VIII protest against Church oppression. Henry knew how to deal with the Church... but he was a good deal better looking than Boxer. Smarter, too.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.