• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Foster Friess: In my day women used Bayer aspirin for contraception.

It doesn't; it was a response to the usual tactic of taking an issue and making about something else. Admittedly, it is easy to do with this particular topic because the issues of religouis freedom and birth control are intertwined.

Tim-

Both sides are attempting to do that with this issue. Conservatives want it to be about religious freedom. Liberals want to make it about women's health. It's not fully about either. If the church gets its way, it won't have a big impact on women's health and won't curb most people's access to contraception. Otherwise, the no one will be forced to practice contraception or directly facilitate anyone else's practice.

Personally, I find the church's objection anachronistic and, frankly, silly. My wife and I have practiced birth control regularly and, now, permanently. Insurance facilitated that -- as it should, as I pay a lot for the access. The idea that someone else should be denied that on the basis of their employer's religious beliefs seems absurd.
 
Friesse is a sexist idiot. If people decide not to use contraception in their own relationships, fine and dandy. But to even hint that government should prevent everyone from using contraception simply because some people don't is ludicrous. And hinting that government should prevent everyone from using contraception because of the religious belief of some sounds downright unconstitutional.

Wait a minute here...so, if Obama doesn't get to force the catholic church to provide contraception, either directly, or indirectly, against their doctrine, then contraception will be illegal?

Nonsense

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
Friesse is a sexist idiot. If people decide not to use contraception in their own relationships, fine and dandy. But to even hint that government should prevent everyone from using contraception simply because some people don't is ludicrous. And hinting that government should prevent everyone from using contraception because of the religious belief of some sounds downright unconstitutional.
The religious are not trying or hinting that no one should be able to use contraception, they simply do not want to pay for it. Whether you agree or disagree with the objections, they are not trying to prevent anyone from using contraceptives.
 
It was an old man repeating an old joke, no big deal but as usual the left wing media will do the mountain mole hill thing. The point of the old joke is valid though, keep your legs shut and you won't end up preggers.
 
Both sides are attempting to do that with this issue. Conservatives want it to be about religious freedom. Liberals want to make it about women's health. It's not fully about either. If the church gets its way, it won't have a big impact on women's health and won't curb most people's access to contraception. Otherwise, the no one will be forced to practice contraception or directly facilitate anyone else's practice.

Personally, I find the church's objection anachronistic and, frankly, silly. My wife and I have practiced birth control regularly and, now, permanently. Insurance facilitated that -- as it should, as I pay a lot for the access. The idea that someone else should be denied that on the basis of their employer's religious beliefs seems absurd.

And if part of the Church's accomodation were to refund a portion of health insurance back to the consumer because they do not provide contraception coverage, what would be wrong with that?

This administration didnt even try to be accomodating is my point. There are solutions that are decent and acceptable to everyone, the administration choose the most narrow and when pressed feel back to a position that was only slightly less narrow when they could have presented a variety of solutions and sent them to the hill to be voted on. I dont think Sebellius and Obama should have "decreed" this, it goes to show what a terrible piece of legislation the Affordable Health Care Act really is.
 
Both sides are attempting to do that with this issue. Conservatives want it to be about religious freedom. Liberals want to make it about women's health. It's not fully about either. If the church gets its way, it won't have a big impact on women's health and won't curb most people's access to contraception. Otherwise, the no one will be forced to practice contraception or directly facilitate anyone else's practice.

Personally, I find the church's Muslims' objection anachronistic and, frankly, silly. My wife and I have practiced birth control eaten pork regularly... Insurance my grocery store facilitated that -- as it should, as I pay a lot for the access. The idea that someone else should be denied that the new Muslim grocer on the street would refuse to carry pork on the basis of their employer's religious beliefs seems absurd.


huh. interesting.
 
huh. interesting.

And also still correct, even with the changed parts.

The lack of birth control causes serious quality of life issues for a huge number of people, while pork rarely does. However, in a hypothetical cases where there is an allergy or other meats to highly expensive, then accommodations should be made.
 
Last edited:
And also still correct, even with the changed parts.

The lack of birth control causes serious quality of life issues for a huge number of people, while pork rarely does. However, in a hypothetical cases where there is an allergy or other meats to highly expensive, then accommodations should be made.
There is no shortage of birth control, nor is access limited. Some individuals are simply too stupid to use it.
 
And also still correct, even with the changed parts.

The lack of birth control causes serious quality of life issues for a huge number of people, while pork rarely does. However, in a hypothetical cases where there is an allergy or other meats to highly expensive, then accommodations should be made.


Where is there a "lack of Birth Control"?????


j-mac
 
Foster Friess: In my day, women "used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Foster Friess, a prominent backer of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, raised eyebrows Thursday when he offered up his own idea for a possible contraceptive method: "This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so... inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives."

Friess's implication is that if women hold aspirin between their legs, they won't open them.


OMG OMG OMG OMG. Wait for it.... Andrea Mitchell, what could she have said?:eek:

She could've said, "Gosh, that's an old one!"

Ann Landers made this same joke many times in her column.
 
huh. interesting.

Well, to complete your analogy: In this case, the store owner is paying his employees -- in part -- with discount food vouchers to the store and thereby limiting the employees' access to pork. The heart of the issue isn't what a store must stock on its shelves, but whether a Muslim boss can put up roadblocks to a Christian's bacon breakfast.
 
And if part of the Church's accomodation were to refund a portion of health insurance back to the consumer because they do not provide contraception coverage, what would be wrong with that?

This administration didnt even try to be accomodating is my point. There are solutions that are decent and acceptable to everyone, the administration choose the most narrow and when pressed feel back to a position that was only slightly less narrow when they could have presented a variety of solutions and sent them to the hill to be voted on. I dont think Sebellius and Obama should have "decreed" this, it goes to show what a terrible piece of legislation the Affordable Health Care Act really is.

How is that any different than the current compromise, in terms of the Catholic objection? I thought the whole point was the church didn't want its money going to contraception -- even indirectly. How is refunding the money better than just paying the premium?
 
When I was in HS, there was a very prevalent rumor that if a woman douched with coca-cola after sex, she would not conceive. I never heard the one about aspirin, but it may have been part of the mythology.

This idiot needs a class on contraception, and Santorum needs to tell his crazy people supporters to STFU.

Its a friggin joke. He was eluding to how old he is and how things have evolved. Everyone needs to stop being so sensitive.
 
Foster Friess: In my day, women "used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Foster Friess, a prominent backer of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, raised eyebrows Thursday when he offered up his own idea for a possible contraceptive method: "This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so... inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives."

Friess's implication is that if women hold aspirin between their legs, they won't open them.


OMG OMG OMG OMG. Wait for it.... Andrea Mitchell, what could she have said?:eek:

People need to lighten up... it was obviously a joke.
 
People need to lighten up... it was obviously a joke.


Well, the Progressives will latch on to absolutely anything right now to keep eyes off Obama's record, Hell, they are digging thirty years back and further....It is sad really.


Chris Matthews was frothing that Friess was Santorum's lead spokesman....heh, heh...What a joke the drooler is....


j-mac
 
Well, the Progressives will latch on to absolutely anything right now to keep eyes off Obama's record, Hell, they are digging thirty years back and further....It is sad really.


Chris Matthews was frothing that Friess was Santorum's lead spokesman....heh, heh...What a joke the drooler is....


j-mac

It's smart politics, but really petty in my opinion. I'm amazed that the public never gets tired of this stuff.
 
Wait a minute here...so, if Obama doesn't get to force the catholic church to provide contraception, either directly, or indirectly, against their doctrine, then contraception will be illegal?

Nonsense

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

You're right, the first sentence of your post is nonsense. However, it had nothing to do with what I said.

The religious are not trying or hinting that no one should be able to use contraception, they simply do not want to pay for it. Whether you agree or disagree with the objections, they are not trying to prevent anyone from using contraceptives.

The church does not pay for contraceptives. Medical insurance pays for contraceptives. The church, however, doesn't want medical insurance for church employees, regardless of the employees' religion, to pay for contraceptives. Therefore, the church is dictating insurance terms to the insurance company, thereby forbidding any of their employees access to contraception unless they pay full price for the prescriptions themselves. Oddly enough, the church has no problem with medical insurance covering viagra.

The church should not be in the insurance business. The church should not be in the business of dictating personal medical decisions. The church should be in the business of telling their own parishoners how the church wants them to behave. And that should be the limit of the church's authority. Period.
 
Last edited:
You're right, the first sentence of your post is nonsense. However, it had nothing to do with what I said.



The church does not pay for contraceptives. Medical insurance pays for contraceptives. The church, however, doesn't want medical insurance for church employees, regardless of the employees' religion, to pay for contraceptives. Therefore, the church is dictating insurance terms to the insurance company, thereby forbidding any of their employees access to contraception unless they pay full price for the prescriptions themselves. Oddly enough, the church has no problem with medical insurance covering viagra.

The church should not be in the insurance business. The church should not be in the business of dictating personal medical decisions. The church should be in the business of telling their own parishoners how the church wants them to behave. And that should be the limit of the church's authority. Period.



What of those that self insure?


j-mac
 
I mean, it does sound like a joke, but it doesn't really make any sense.
 
I mean, it does sound like a joke, but it doesn't really make any sense.


What are you confused about....Keeping an asprin between the knees, ie; Ladies keep your legs closed.....

j-mac
 
When I was in HS, there was a very prevalent rumor that if a woman douched with coca-cola after sex, she would not conceive. I never heard the one about aspirin, but it may have been part of the mythology.

This idiot needs a class on contraception, and Santorum needs to tell his crazy people supporters to STFU.

Wouldn't that hurt like hell?
 
Back
Top Bottom