Pro-Choice GOP Warns Party That Contraception Fight Will Be A Disaster

[kpete]

Pro-Choice GOP Warns Party That Contraception Fight Will Be A Disaster
..........................
FEBRUARY 8, 2012, 2:58 PM

Pro-choice Republicans are begging their party to drop this fight over contraception before it’s too late. Turning to a discussion about access to birth control will be nothing short of a disaster, they say.

The new and unexpected war over contraception may not end up as only a battle between the White House and the Republican party. It could end up as a fight between the GOP and itself. As we saw during the 2011’s push to defund Planned Parenthood — when some Republican Senators rebuked their colleagues in the House for attacking the organization — Republicans on Capitol Hill do not speak with one voice on matters of women’s health. Now, as Speaker John Boehner seemingly prepares to turn the House GOP’s attention to contraception, pro-choice Republicans are warning that the GOP may become the next Komen For The Cure.

“I think this week’s outrage over the Komen decision should be a warning to the Republican party about how quickly there was a mass outrage over further and further attacks on general women’s health,” Kellie Ferguson, executive director of Republican Majority for choice, told me Wednesday. “You could see the same backlash on attacks on contraception.”

Ferguson calls the Republican rhetoric on contraception “crossing the line” — taking the discussion away from choice issues (where Republicans can find some broader, if still national minority constituency) and into the realm of the fringy extreme.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/pro-choice-gop-warns-party-that-contraception-fight-will-be-a-disaster.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

[southernyankeebelle]

1. They sure better listen to the republicans on this issue. They will lose. Women will not vote

for republicans who want to take a woman's right to chose. Simple as that.

[OregonBlue]

75. Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage

Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administration’s birth control rule would effectively permit any employer to deny contraception coverage in their employee health plans, critics note.

It appears they do want to take this issue on. He has 26 sponsors (25 GOP and Manchin, W VA) I really, really, really hope that they do!!!

[tanyev]

2. If the GOP wants to shoot themselves in the foot, there's a nice pink Hope handgun available.

[gejohnston]

9. Republican hands should never touch a Walther

besides, a shot in foot like that would be much bigger than a .22

If they have have about 14K Euros, one of these would be more appropriate. I doubt you will find one outside of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeifer_Zeliska_.600_Nitro_Express_revolver

[calimary]

31. Somebody overcompensating?

[gejohnston]

44. more likely taking up elephant hunting

with a handgun. The round is designed for that sort of thing. I'm not sure it could be imported in the US (there are a couple of guns that are legal for Europeans but can't be imported.) Any handgun .44 mag and above is really designed for hunting. That thing is overkill for anything in US or Canada. For hunting I lean towards Nikon in 10 megapixals.
The only known customers are a couple of rich Europeans, and I don't know how the ATF would rule on it since it is over .50 caliber and does not have (as far as I know) the sporting exemption that the double barrel rifles that use those rounds (found only in gun shops in places like NYC and London) have. With out that, it would be registred (and extensive background check) as a destructive device under National Firearms Act of 1934.

That is not me in the pic, I think that is the builder.

[1ProudAtheist]

3. Shhhhhh

let the morons keep on trudging down the endless path to nowhere.

[peace frog]

42. Like lemmings over a cliff

but kudos to pro-choice Republicans who are at least trying to pull them back from disaster. Common sense from republicans, who knew? OTOH, let' em jump off the cliff.

[baldguy]

4. There are pro-choice Republicans?

I thought they had been burned at the stake long ago.

[stillwaiting]

6. Well, there are gay Republicans,

AND

racial minority Republicans

AND

atheist Republicans

AND

satanist Republicans,

ETC...

It seems that if you value your current (or future ---> ) wealth as your first and ultimate priority then you can stand with people who hate your fucking guts and would deport, if not kill, you if given the chance.

They are Greed is Good Republicans (or, they have a completely brainwashed and warped view on what freedom and liberty truly is not realizing that corporations have enslaved more Americans than our government ever has or most likely ever would), but they'll come up with other lame and transparent issues (i.e., Democrats are "weak on defense&quot so they can attempt to fool some people about their ultimate values.

They are quite foul individuals.

[WheelWalker]

7. Beautiful. Just dazzling. +1 x 10 to the 99th

[AlbertCat]

35. wealth as your first and ultimate priority

Boy did you get that right!

The only gay repugs I know literally fall into 3 categories....

1. rich
2. in the closet (usually only to their families!)
3. all the above.


"Stupid" does not seem to be a stand alone category in this instance.

[patrice]

5. Personally, I can't imagine why they'd focus on establishing state-supported=tax-exempt religion

especially since it is soooooooooooooooo clear that that is what opposition to gay marriage is too: it's a religious position supported by our tax dollars that pay the way for tax-exempt organizations, ergo, a state-religion, that is now morphing into state-religion that seeks to limit the public's use of it's own tax-exempt health care systems for which we pay their way too.

Would any of this exist without public dollars? They are our ward and yet they want to tell us how to use our own resources.

[RainDog]

8. I hope this destroys the anti-woman Republicans

they are so out of step with reality and modernity it's astonishing.

conservatives need to remove themselves from the company of these nuts - for all our good. there comes a time and you have to stop those who are trying to undermine justice, equality and basic human rights in the name of their religions.

[pangaia]

14. RainDog..

I agree 10,000%.
But also, what if we really encourage them, support them, get Santorum to win the nomination. Then we encourage him and all the crazies running for Congress to keep going, leading (or chasing) them all in the wrong direction, up the hill to the 'high ground', almost to the top, and then in early November, just as they smell victory...we appear over the top of the hill and smite them all in one fell swoop.. not exactly the same, but also not unlike Sitting Bull, Gall and Crazy Horse did to Custer on June 25, 1876.

That was the first time, according to many historians, that an "Indian" leader led his warriors AWAY from a battle, to circle around behind them instead of confronting them head on. Maybe Obama knows of this day.

[RainDog]

24. that would be a wonderful thing

but I'm not privy to any such strategies.

all I see is the danger to the majority of people in this nation with religious extremists in power. fiscal conservatives need to move back to the Eisenhower sort of conservatism - which is where Obama stands, fiscally, and move away from the Goldwater/John Birch whackos.

if those conservatives who are also not bat shit crazy would do this, we'd all be better off.

one way or another - it's time for the "southern strategy" and the tea bircher strategy to go away.

[bayareaboy]

51. I agree, except

Do you folks remember 2000 and 2004. It may not make a diff if we have Obama has to run against any of the GOP clowns. There is a fair amount of money out there to change at all levels from counting votes to the Supremes. The GOP fairly quiet in 2008, do you think they will be this time. I mean talk to a RePUG and ask him if all Presidents should be GOP and somehow he usually tells you that any means necessary to get some one to fight socialism and European thinking and that, well you folks know the rest!

[Angry Dragon]

10. Why do republicans hate women??

[eyewall]

11. for their freedoms.

[RainDog]

12. +10000

[wryter2000]

47. lol

For that, you get another heart.

[Rozlee]

19. For our uteruses.

[Angry Dragon]

20. Perhaps if women took them on strike

women would see a huge mood swing in this country
Women form a union and take your bodies on strike and watch the men
bend over backwards to give you what you want............

[hamsterjill]

54. You're almost right, Rozlee!

Loved your response!!! But actually, they hate uteruses that aren't actively developing a fetus. After all, in their eyes, what else are women good for?

[eyewall]

13. It is so in character for the republicans

to jump on the anti contraception bus immediately after the same action has had a disastrous effect on one of their own.

[sakabatou]

15. And here's the other Republican response:

[Zoonart]

41. My painting Dirty Secret

Or this:

[Firebrand Gary]

48. Incredible

Beautiful work.

[unkachuck]

16. 'Ferguson calls the Republican rhetoric on contraception "crossing the line"...'

....no need to compromise, Ms. Ferguson....

....the Democratic Party understands your concerns and welcomes you should you consider a change of Party necessary....

....the Democratic Party has long been a leader in health care and womens' issues....

[Arkana]

17. If ever there was a clarion call for a losing battle, this would be the one.

The GOP is gonna ride this one-horse open sleigh straight to electoral hell.

[Iliyah]

18. gosh darn it

these pro-choice repugs need to be assimilated! Captain Koch, how in the hell did this happen!

[kiranon]

21. Against birth control? The GOP is a century behind the times and so out

of touch they can drop the "G" and just be known as the Old Party from now on. The Catholic Church and other religious institutions also save a lot of money by not offering a contraceptive option for their employees. Having contraceptives as an option under the health plan does not constitute endorsing the use of contraceptives. But, if all religious women who use contraceptives are asked to leave the church, there will be very few women left to do all the work that they do. Boehner's position is anti women's health and just another attempt to be anti anything this administration is for. Boehner fell into another trap. It's just no fun when he doesn't take the time to consider the consequences of the ridiculous positions he promotes. He's too easy of a mark.

[RainDog]

23. that would be a GREAT Catholic woman protest

every Catholic woman who uses birth control of some sort should not attend church or donate money to the same until this issue is settled.

[Dawson Leery]

22. McCain lost the female vote by 14%.

Any more losses with the female vote will make it impossible for a Rethug to win in the fall.

[Lil Missy]

25. Compromise: Give them the exception they want then take away their tax-exempt status. n/t

[still_one]

26. Let the country see what the republicans really stand for. A war against people

[Ken Burch]

27. Why do any of the "pro-choice" people stay in the GOP?

They know the "religious" right types have permanently carried the day there. There's no room for anybody like Betty Ford in that party anymore.

[dadzilla]

28. Betty Ford...

You have to ask that question... why do women tolerate this sort stance in the party.

[tblue]

53. Probably they think they'll play less in taxes.

For some folks, their own $$$ is reason enough.

[SayIt]

29. Santorum won trifecta...

Bcause of the birth control issue by Obama.

[IndyJones]

30. This is just so offensive to me. Why do they think they get to decide for the women that they can't

get birth control? Are they also banning viagra? No, the priests need that for their prey.

This really pisses me off how they act so indigant over birth control, but they shelter pedophiles and shell out money to the family of that priest who had an adult, consentual relationship that gave him two kids out of wedlock. It's all about their f'ed up "religious priorities".

[Skittles]

56. they'll pass the plate when it comes to their boner action

but hoo boy do they get the vapors over women's rights

[calimary]

32. That's what came to my mind about the komen scandal.

I see that at least one GOP woman noticed the size of the backlash. ONE woman in the GOP steps forward, having noticed how the opposition on this issue is NO pushover. She's quite correct - they really should stop, shut the fuck up, and start listening to the real world instead of the pretend one they invented to give their ridiculous 13th-Century ideas some cover.

Amazing. Even my "lost soul" best friend, who went over to the dark side, cannot stomach this year's CON crop. Too much even for her! I hope this year is a red, white & blue big-ass Titanic electoral disaster for all of 'em on that side of the aisle! Still won't wake most of 'em up or lead them to see reason and enlightenment. Still won't illuminate the calendar for them, to let them know this is actually the 21st Century they're living in.

Ms. Ferguson, as a cogent, reasonable, fully-grounded-in-reality woman, what on earth are you still doing in the republi-CON party???? I just don't get it. They offer you NOTHING.

[beac]

33. Apparently, she hasn't realized her party IS the "realm of the fringy extreme." n/t

[Brettongarcia]

34. Compromise. Otherwise? This single issue loses the election for Democrats

Unfortunately, this could be an extremely expensive, game-chancing issue, working against Democrats.

Probably we democrats should just back down on this one: since Santorum and others are using this issue, bigtime, to say that Democrats are opposed to religion, Christianity. This issue will activate the religious base, like no other.

So why not give consciencious objectors, a religious exemption? It's no biggie. Then? Insist though, that those working in opt-out organizations, be given an individual opt-in option, for reproductive services, if they want it.

By the way? It's said that 90% of Catholics, have used contraception.

[AlbertCat]

36. So why not give consciencious objectors, a religious exemption?

Because medicine is a serious business and for adults only.

If your religion dictates you not do your job, get another job. No one is forcing you to do or believe anything. If you like your job, then DO IT. There are planty of positions in the medical profession that do not require anyone to distribute birth control.

It's really a non issue. (of course ) It's trying to get special treatment for certain religions. "Congress shall make no law....

[jeff47]

40. Think about your entire post.

There's two points you wrote about that I want to draw attention to.

First, 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

Second, you claim this would activate a religious backlash.

Think about that stat for a moment. Only 2% of their own followers agree with the Catholic church. Who, exactly, would be the foot soldiers in this backlash? 2%? I think we can withstand that tiny number that wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

[Brettongarcia]

62. Contraception is lead-up to abortion issue. Which traditionally throws 2-19% of vote to Repubs

Good points. But?

The problem is that Republicans are going to use the contraception issue ... to lead into the related question of abortion. Which is historically an election-busting issue.

And in fact, conservative Republican religious organs like EWTN/RN are already complaining that some strong, day-after contraceptives are in effect, abortifacients; causing abortions. So that abortion soon becomes the issue. While that issue, at a minimum, throws 2% of the vote to Republicans.

So why not just compromise on this one? What is lost? Consider the virulence of the opposition.

To be sure, trying to keep the discussion on Contraception proper, might help avoid this landmine. BUt? This must be dealt with very, very carefully.

Among other problems too, is the religious problem. Note Greenberg - Yale Law prof's - current NYTimes opinion. Which notes objections to religion trumping law ... but after all mentions difficulties here too, when law puts too many religious claims to the side. Legally, its a tough case, either way.

[jeff47]

63. There is nothing in politics as popular as contraception

Absolutely nothing. MASSIVE majorities like contraception. Very large majorities want to make it available to as many people as possible and as cheaply as possible.

Using contraception to get to abortion is about as effective as supporting pedophilia to get to abortion. It's incredibly stupid, and will be incredibly ineffective. Especially since we used contraception to fight off attempts to end abortion. Those "personhood" amendments failed because of the effect they would have on contraception.

So why not just compromise on this one? What is lost?

About 51% of voters. They're called women.

We might want to, ya know, not toss aside women to please a small block of men who won't vote for anyone with a (D) after their name.

Legally, its a tough case, either way.

No, it's a trivial case that has already been decided by the SCOTUS in our favor. There is no need to compromise with people who just un-apologized for raping children.

[Brettongarcia]

65. Maybe. But ... this is the very issue that is pushing Santorum up, up, up!

OK; good points all. I give in. Likely in fact, the contraception issue, specifically, will be a loser for Republicans.

But? The "religious persecution" issue is the one that is giving Santorum all his current popularity. Let's be very careful here.

[jeff47]

68. Fantastic

There is nothing I want more in the next year than Santorum to be the Republican nominee.

Because that would make FDR's 1936 victory seem tiny. Obama absolutely crushes Santorum in polling. The only people who like Santorum are evangelicals, and the more people hear about Santorum's policies the more crazy they think he is. I'm encouraging all my liberal friends to donate to the Santorum campaign.

[Brettongarcia]

70. Contraception issue can lead to religion issue, and Santorum; problems?

Good point.

But? Consider the more likely scenario.

What happens if Santorum's campaign fails ... and then he throws his support to another candidate? And in this way adds his religious issues - and votes - to another, stronger Republican candidate?

Santorum is building up the right wing religious vote, right now. On this issue. And he is going to turn all those votes over to a stronger candidate. Probably beefing up Romney, on one issue where Romney is weak: religion, Christianity.

[jeff47]

72. His voters would vote for that candidate anyway

It comes down to a horse race between two candidates, and the people who support Santorum will vote for the Republican, no matter who it is.

Santorum is building up the right wing religious vote, right now.

No, he's taking the right wing religious vote. He's not bringing out any new voters. And he's driving independents away. It's those independents Romney will need to win, and an enthusiastic Santorum endorsement undermines that.

Romney's weakness with evangelicals is a problem in the primary. Those evangelicals will vote for him in the real election anyway because he isn't Obama.

[Brettongarcia]

73. The Catholic vote is variable; don't lose it

Overall, I agree strongly with your points, and the main idea of this post: the issue of contraception, per se, is a winner for Demos, more than a loser.

But? I'm still thinking that after all, much of the religious vote is not a constant; it can be built up, won or lost. The Catholic vote particularly, swung to Bush II unexpectedly, and was credited with his success (c. 2004?).

To be sure, the deep unpopularity of anti-contraception, even among Catholics, makes the issue, overall, a winner.

Still? Any ideas about ALSO picking up the - say 2%? - variable right-wing/religious vote? Keeping in mind that many elections are won or lost by less than 1%?

[jeff47]

74. Pick up the ones who like contraception instead of trying, failing to get the ones that don't. (nt)

[Brettongarcia]

76. Granting religious exemption loses nothing practically speaking; and gains some votes?

Practically speaking, granting a religious exemption, loses very little money to the health system. Especially if we allow individuals employed by opt-out Catholic hospitals, to opt back in, according to their own individual - often non-catholic - beliefs.

And? Being perceived as allowing religious freedom, gains the Democrats many votes.

Remember: it was the Catholic independents, swinging unexpectedly to Bush II over religious/reproductive issues, that lost 2004.

To be sure, it is a bit risky: but perhaps allowing religious exemption, properly handled, won't lose any of the Pro Choice vote? Since reproductive services are not being dropped. But are simply left to discretion of individuals.

Let's watch Santorum carefully; if he seems to be gaining lots of ground? Think about this option.

Otherwise? Looks like you've got a winner, overall.

[Brettongarcia]

79. The President apparently agrees that some compromise is in order;

Obama just announced a compromise with anti-contraceptionists; the day after most of this was filed here.

[DallasNE]

71. Have You Ever Heard Of Roe v. Wade

And what they say about the 1st trimester? Plus, how could you ever block the morning after pill when most of the women who take it have not been impregnated. It provides assurance to those women. In a minority of cases is does stop an unwanted pregnancy.

One Republican wanted to allow an exception if there was a police report of a rape. That would be a sure way of getting a lot more reports of rape. Do we really want the police drawn into the middle of this in this manner as reports of rape would skyrocket, especially for date rape. How stupid would that be?

[CanonRay]

37. You can always count on the Rethugs to overreach

It's that religious zeal that brings out teh stoopid.

[Katashi_itto]

38. Help destory the Repuke Brand, call or email your Republican senator/rep and tell them they need to

Support this in every way possible!

[glowing]

39. Do they even realize how many women are prescribed birth control as a tool to

help regulate women's cycle's... Shoot that's 1/2 the reason I was prescribed birth control. I was 19 and had very irregular periods, and I was starting out in a relationship (that lasted a year)... so, it just made sense to use birth control to help with regulation and with some extra insurance against un-wanted pregnancy in a very hot and heated relationship. It was probably the best thing we did in the relationship (lol). As much sex as we had, using just a condom would more than likely lead to some type of accident/ incident.

And my husband and I have very much enjoyed having the ability to decide when or when not to get pregnant now. There have been times in the last 10 years that a pregnancy would have resulted in an abortion because we wouldn't have financially been able to cope with the costs of caring for a child; and that would have killed us to have to make that decision.

Birth control has been around for such a long time. Planned Parenthood is a place where young women and poor women can access the services needed to control when they decide to have a baby. Women need more access to birth control; not less. The idea that people have sex just to procreate is the stupidest idea that has come out of the right wing loony bus.

They will definitely loose out on this discussion. Most women w/o insurance understand how much preventing the cost of pregnancy cost.. I was between insurance plans at one point; and the cost was $60.00 to avoid unwanted pregnancy. It was only 4 months; so I dealt with the costs. However, if it had been any longer, I would have accessed the Planned Parenthood to receive it for cheaper. When I was in college in South Carolina, the University teamed up with the Health Department and provided college women free yearly check-ups and free birth control for the year. Our Senior year, every one of us went to get a last "check-up" and another year's worth of birth control (since we were all going to be cut off from parent's insurance upon graduation). The women Drs. at the clinic threw in about a year and 1/2 worth of free pills for us so we'd have a little bit extra to help us in-between.

[CAPHAVOC]

43. Get religion out of the First Amendment.

What does religious freedom have to do with free speech anyway.

[RC]

45. Show me just where in "Obama's Policy" does it force the use of birth control on any one?

It doesn't, in any way, shape, or form.
What this does do is ALLOW women their Right to birth control. It is their bodies, their lives and their decision.
By what right does any religious organization have to dictate medical decisions to people not adhering to that faith? Birth control is a health care issue, not a religious issue.
The so-called Pro-Life movement is only pro-life until birth. Then the woman and child are on their own.
The same people that are against birth control, are against abortion and programs that help women and born children.
See the pattern here? Their purpose is to subjugate women to 2nd class citizenship, suitable to their roll as brood mares.
I for one do not think so. Women are people also, and every bit as capable as men are, to control and live their own lives.

[Nikia]

46. I think that this will cause them to lose too

There are a number of Republican and Republican leaning women who will not vote for a candidate who is against birth control. They will not pick up any new Republican voters by this move.

[liberal N proud]

49. More discourse in the republican party

Love it

[Maineman]

50. Those screaming about contraception are the same people who freaked out when they heard that

...that the earth rotates around the sun rather than vice versa.

[rtw]

52. I disagree.

I think you may be on the wrong side of this one.

The main issue here seems to be getting cloudy. The Catholic Church is asking for an exemption for providing contraception and sterilization in the insurance they offer employees.

No woman's reproductive rights are jeopardized by providing this religious exemption. There is no taking away of anything.

In addition, there is no right to free contraception and sterilization simply by virtue of an employer/employee relationship. There is, however, a right to the free exercise of religion.

In terms of power and force, no one forces a particular person to be Catholic or even adhere to their beliefs and practices. However, Catholics will now be forced to pay fines if they would like to follow their beliefs robustly.

[Skittles]

55. LOLOL

are you fucking kidding?

[spooky3]

59. Do you have more expertise on employment law and the Constitution than does David Boies?

He thinks you are mistaken.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46329631/ns/msnbc_tv/t/last-word-lawrence-odonnell-wednesday-february/

[jeff47]

66. Because they're free, right?

Women can go down and have surgery for free, if it's for contraception, right?

Oh wait...no they'd have to pay out of pocket if it's not covered by insurance.

There is, however, a right to the free exercise of religion

I'm starting a new religion. One of our sacraments will be to sacrifice a Republican to our god every week. Why are you asking me to stop murdering people? You are trampling all over my religious freedom!!!

The right to free exercise of religion ends when you force others to exercise your religion.

In terms of power and force, no one forces a particular person to be Catholic or even adhere to their beliefs and practices.

In this case, they are. They are forcing non-Catholics to forego legal medical procedures.

Should Catholics who work for Muslim-owned businesses be forced to follow Sharia Law? Why not? You're trampling on that devout Muslim's deeply held belief.

Catholics will now be forced to pay fines if they would like to follow their beliefs robustly.

Not at all. They are still free to not use contraception.

Although you might need to spread the word a bit on that one, since 98% of Catholic women do use contraception. You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that it's a deeply held important belief when only 2% of your followers agree with it.

[DallasNE]

69. Hello, Most Catholics Use Contraception

This is limited to employers like non-profit hospitals affiliated with a church and has nothing to do with the teachings of the church. Most of these employees are either of another religion or even non-religious. Catholics working for a for-profit hospital get this benefit but it doesn't impact personal decision regarding contracepton. Non-Catholics working at a non-profit hospital would have their personal decision regarding contraception impacted by perhaps having to choose between using contraception or putting food on the table.

Your argument, in other words, just doesn't fly. Not in the real world.

[Skittles]

57. they were fine with it until Obama!

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

[DallasNE]

58. How Ironic To Deny Hospital Workers Medical Benefits

Most of the workers we are talking about here are staffers working at non-profit hospitals (how is that for an oxymoron) with a religious affiliation. And here we are talking about whether those workers pay the full amount or just a co-pay for birth control pills or the morning after pill. That is how micro-managing the GOP is being here. Yet the GOP is so far winning the messaging war because most Americans simply don't understand what the issue is and MSM is providing not help. They only report on the message and ignore the true issue and facts -- that is how worthless MSM has become.

[spooky3]

60. It's pretty simple arithmetic

Proportion of the voting population who support access to contraception and fairness in employment health care coverage: probably 80% of both genders

How many voters does that leave, to support the wingnut position?

Yes, nutcases that might not have voted might be stirred up enough to come out to vote by right wing rhetoric. But for every one of these there is going to be a woman or man who might have stayed home that is now concerned about being denied rights (for themselves or for others) who will get out to vote, too.

[KamaAina]

61. Pro-Choice GOP?

Let me guess. They share office space with the Log Cabin Republicans. In a phone booth.

[DallasNE]

64. Now Here Is An Effective Line Of Attack

Go after those who would deny coverage that have coverage themself. The hypocrit angle should be very effective by putting them on the defensive.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/09/422133/members-of-congress-benefit-from-contraception-coverage-but-seek-to-limit-access-to-women/

[jeff47]

67. Not really.

We want to demonstrate that you can be a good Catholic even if your insurance will pay for other people's contraception. Screaming "hypocrisy" doesn't help that. Plus it's a non-religious, public entity offering the insurance.

[SunSeeker]

77. If we had single payer healthcare, all of this would be moot.

Instead, we're stuck trying to make medieval religious institutions operate in the 21th century. What is even more galling, we are forced, despite the 1st Amendment, to support the establishment of these religions through all the tax exemptions we give them.

[and-justice-for-all]

78. Let them cut their own throats! nt

[sarcasmo]

80. Kick!