Magox Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Amid growing rancor between the Catholic hierarchy and the White House, Republican rising star Sen. Marco Rubio is pushing a bill that takes a swipe at the Obama administration’s stance on expanding access to birth control. The Florida senator, widely considered on the short list for the GOP vice presidential pick, introduced legislation Tuesday that would vastly expand the ability of religious or faith-based employers to opt out of a health reform law requirement that health plans cover all FDA-approved contraceptives without any co-pay. Continue Reading The administration had offered a narrow exemption to religious organizations, which the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops said was unacceptable. They were not mollified when the administration gave other religious group, such as a religiously affiliated hospitals or charities, an extra year — until August 2013 — to comply with the requirement. Rubio’s bill would allow individuals to take a conscience exemption and not offer the benefit to workers. The administration has defined access to birth control as a basic preventive health service that should be available. “This is a common-sense bill that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so,” Rubio said in a statement. The controversy is part of a broader rift between Catholics and President Barack Obama. Polls show that he has seen his support among Catholics drop by 10 points, a harsh turnaround since winning the Catholic vote over John McCain by a 54-to-45 percent margin in 2008. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72209.html#ixzz1l40G3ExT I'm a pro choice guy, but I completely respect the pro life stance, and this bill makes alot of sense. It is yet another reason why a candidate like Rubio will appeal to many Americans, I have little doubt that he will one day in the not so distan future end up being the president of this country.
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 ...I have little doubt that he will one day in the not so distan future end up being the president of this country. Sooner rather than later, please.
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72209.html#ixzz1l40G3ExT I'm a pro choice guy, but I completely respect the pro life stance, and this bill makes alot of sense. It is yet another reason why a candidate like Rubio will appeal to many Americans, I have little doubt that he will one day in the not so distan future end up being the president of this country. That's not a pro-life bill he's pushing, that's a separation of church and state bill. Makes far too much sense. Almost like he's read the Constitution.
Magox Posted January 31, 2012 Author Posted January 31, 2012 That's not a pro-life bill he's pushing, that's a separation of church and state bill. Makes far too much sense. Almost like he's read the Constitution. Exactly!
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 That's not a pro-life bill he's pushing, that's a separation of church and state bill. Makes far too much sense. Almost like he's read the Constitution. You really have to marvel at the way the administration stages its election year battles; telling churches they must supply birth control services to their employees. What better vehicle to gin up your liberal base than to pick a public fight with Catholics. I'm still learning my way around politics, but it didn't take long to figure out that that the left absolutely, positively HATES Catholics. I remember at the end of one of Obama's first national addresses, he closed with the obligatory "And may God bless the United States of America," and there was an op-ed of sorts at the HuffPost about how stupid that comment was and how disappointed some were since they wrongly believed they elected a president who was above the spaghetti monster story. So making Catholics provide their staff with free condoms and birth control pills is pretty smart. From a strategic standpoint, I mean. This president. What a great leader.
Gary M Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Makes far too much sense. Almost like he's read the Constitution. I thought Obama wrote an executive order that banned that!!
Koko78 Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I thought Obama wrote an executive order that banned that!! Nah, it was just a signing statement, stating that he did not feel the need to follow that pesky document because everything was Bush's fault.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 This is just too funny! Ok, so we have a bunch of old virgin men sitting around and making very serious decisions about women's health? This is gonna backfire on them I think
3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 This is just too funny! Ok, so we have a bunch of old virgin men sitting around and making very serious decisions about women's health? This is gonna backfire on them I think I see you're back from your time-out. Way to totally miss the point.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 More common sense from Senator Rubio last Saturday. Hello, I’m Marco Rubio, a Senator from Florida. Right now all eyes are focused on my home state ahead of next week’s Republican presidential primary. It’s an exciting contest and I know that passions are high. So I wanted to take a moment to explain to the rest of the country why Republicans in Florida are so excited about this primary: Because we believe our country is in big trouble. As you know, earlier this week, President Obama delivered his fourth annual address to Congress. It was an opportunity for the President to talk about his accomplishments over the last three years and to lay out his plans for the year ahead. And he missed on both counts. You didn’t hear much talk about the success of his Administration—and that’s because there isn’t much. Yes, this President inherited a significant national debt, but over the last three years he’s made it worse. Our national debt has grown by nearly 50 percent since he took over, and now, for the first time since World War II, our national debt is larger than our country’s economy. Yes, this President inherited an economy where unemployment was too high, but over the last three years he’s made it worse. Today our unemployment rate is higher than the day he took office. In fact, since he took over, it’s been stuck over 8 percent every single month. This President didn’t talk about his record for one simple reason; he doesn’t want you to know about it. But you do know about it, because you feel the failure of his leadership every single day of your life. The bottom line is this President inherited a country with serious problems. He asked the Congress to give him the stimulus and Obamacare to fix it. The Democrats in Congress gave it to him. And not only did it not work, it made everything worse. President Obama has a year left in the White House. So what are his plans now to make things better? What does he plan to do now, that he didn’t do before? Well we got our answer Tuesday night. He plans to divide us against each other. To pit Americans against other Americans in the hopes of generating enough votes to get re-elected. He tells Americans worried about their jobs that the way to help them is to raise their bosses’ taxes. He tells those who are hurting that the only way they can be better off, is for others to be worse off. He tells all of us that the only way for some of us to climb up the economic ladder is for others to be pulled down. Continued at link.......... Investors Business Daily .
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 This is just too funny! Ok, so we have a bunch of old virgin men sitting around and making very serious decisions about women's health? This is gonna backfire on them I think Not a goddamn thing in your post is even remotely based in reality. Including, especially, the last two words.
/dev/null Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I have little doubt that he will one day in the not so distan future end up being the president of this country. Sooner rather than later, please. How about letting him prove himself in the Senate before annointing him. Last time we tried that with a fresh faced and dare I say "Clean and articulate" Senator fresh out of the State Legislature, look where it got us.
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Not a goddamn thing in your post is even remotely based in reality. Including, especially, the last two words. In Dave's defense, he IS repeating the administration's stance. This is not about religious beliefs. It's about women's health. And let's face it, the only entity qualified to lead on the issue of women's health is the same entity that tells women "Hey, that whole getting-a-mammogram-after-40 thing is SOOOO overblown." How about letting him prove himself in the Senate before annointing him. Last time we tried that with a fresh faced and dare I say "Clean and articulate" Senator fresh out of the State Legislature, look where it got us. Sure. He can take the next four years to think about it.
Magox Posted January 31, 2012 Author Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) How about letting him prove himself in the Senate before annointing him. Last time we tried that with a fresh faced and dare I say "Clean and articulate" Senator fresh out of the State Legislature, look where it got us. Na, I'm gonna annoint him, cuz thats whats gonna happen. Btw, he will continue to prove himself, watch and see. In regards to the Obama adm. stance on this position, they better do a 180, if not I see this as being a significant issue that would undoubtedly have an effect on the margins, and in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, if you piss off enough catholics, in these battleground states, a few percentage points could make the difference. The controversy is part of a broader rift between Catholics and President Barack Obama. Polls show that he has seen his support among Catholics drop by 10 points, a harsh turnaround since winning the Catholic vote over John McCain by a 54-to-45 percent margin in 2008. And this is before all this **** is happening, if this thing carries on, those numbers will drop, and there are alot of Catholic prolife independent and moderate Democrats in the rust belt region. Edited January 31, 2012 by Magox
Chef Jim Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Na, I'm gonna annoint him, cuz thats whats gonna happen. Btw, he will continue to prove himself, watch and see. In regards to the Obama adm. stance on this position, they better do a 180, if not I see this as being a significant issue that would undoubtedly have an effect on the margins, and in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, if you piss off enough catholics, in these battleground states, a few percentage points could make the difference. And this is before all this **** is happening, if this thing carries on, those numbers will drop, and there are alot of Catholic prolife independent and moderate Democrats in the rust belt region. And there are plenty of people that are not religious who are going to say "stop telling people what the HAVE to do."
Buftex Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 And there are plenty of people that are not religious who are going to say "stop telling people what the HAVE to do." That could apply to so many issues, from all sides of the political spectrum....the next person to run and says I am not required to pay for auto insurance every month (though I have never had an accident, in nearly 30 years of driving) gets my vote. What is best for me, should be best for everyone!
Magox Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 That could apply to so many issues, from all sides of the political spectrum....the next person to run and says I am not required to pay for auto insurance every month (though I have never had an accident, in nearly 30 years of driving) gets my vote. What is best for me, should be best for everyone! This is a poor analogy that the left has attempted to justify the health insurance mandate. One huge difference and that is called liability, if you are financing or leasing a vehicle to a customer, you need to require that the customer has insurance or it is more than likely, if an accident occurred that he may skip out on paying for the damage, leaving the creditor stuck with the loss. Also, liability insurance, if you are driving a machine that could kill or injure another person, then there has to be safguards in place to help ensure that the culpable party pays for the damage. But nice try Buftex
B-Man Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 For the "Daves" out there who are missing the big picture. Washington Post Obama plays his Catholic allies for foolsBy Michael Gerson, January 30 In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. Preparing for the march, Catholic students gathered for Mass at Verizon Center. The faithful held vigil at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Knights of Columbus and bishops arrived to trudge in the cold along the Mall. All came to Washington in time for their mocking. Catholic leaders are still trying to process the implications of this ambush. The president had every opportunity to back down from confrontation. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed a broad religious autonomy right rooted in the Constitution. Obama could have taken the decision as justification for retreat. And it would have been a minor retreat. The administration was on the verge of mandating nearly universal contraceptive coverage through Obamacare without public notice. There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions. Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder. Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists. The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men: Continued at link .
IDBillzFan Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 But nice try Buftex I'm actually surprised that Buftex took the "car insurance" position. That's an Alan Colmes position; a position that gets repeated by the extremely lazy-minded.
Recommended Posts