• 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!

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

j-mac said:
Nah, it isn't...Tell me, what 'access' exactly was restricted in terms of contraception before this?

j-mac
Click to expand...

They have to pay for it out of pocket - so the access could be restricted due to monetary restrictions.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Do any of the genuis glitterati in here still really think this is about contraception at all? Cause I got news for everyone....It isn't.


j-mac
Click to expand...


It's about the Catholic Church's objection to contraception and their expectation of getting special treatments from the government.
 
tessaesque said:
So should we start asking kindergarteners to voice their opinions on Superintendent candidates?
Should we start asking steal workers to voice their opinions on what color to paint play grounds?

This hearing isn't about women's rights.
Click to expand...

Why would you think women only need to be there for women's rights hearing? Are there no women who are religious? Don't you think religious issues affect women?
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
This hearing isn't about women's rights.
Click to expand...

It was about creating a faux controversy to hang on Obama. And then hang him in Nov.

Issa is such a prick. He's an embarrassment, and he's on his way out.
 
kenvin said:
I am so glad we agree that women should have been represented in the discussion that most certainly effected them.
Click to expand...


So, you have no intention of answering the question posed to you. I thought not...Your portion of the debate is now effectively moot. Thanks for playing.


j-mac
 
hazlnut said:
It was about creating a faux controversy to hang on Obama. And then hang him in Nov.

Issa is such a prick. He's an embarrassment, and he's on his way out.
Click to expand...

Your racist language is not appreciated.


j-mac
 
tessaesque said:
Would they have complained if the male witnesses had advocated for women's rights? Is this just manufactured outrage over an issue that was already pretty damn stupid to start with?
Click to expand...

No, it's not manufactured outrage.

The issue is women getting access to birth control. And in regards to this issue, they are interviewing religious leaders.

Which is like when Congress or the President wants to pass regulations on how government and charities interact to provide services to the people, they decide to get the testimony of comedians on how to do so.

EDIT: Unless what you are alluding to is the manufactured outrage of the religious leaders. In which case you would be right.
 
Last edited:
Emotional redirect because the position of the President is untenable. Mission accomplished.
 
tessaesque said:
you're seriously implying that men are completely incapable of representing women on a discussion of whether or not the Obama administration overstepped its bounds regarding a new privelege for women? Seems kind of sexist to me.
Click to expand...

The men who Issa chose? you betcha!

Men in general? Nope, but that is not what this is about. Issa went out of his way to deny women access to testify.

On top of this, he is wasting tax payer money to promote religion on your dime in your legislative house and all just because he does not like that Obama is in the White House and forcing discriminating organisations to stop discriminating.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Emotional redirect because the position of the President is untenable. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty much it. This isn't about birth control. The issue is wether a religious organization that does not approve of birth control should be required to pay for birth control. religious liberty.

If an employee disagrees with the church's stand, they can get a different job - just like liberals often say if someone doesn't want to be a member of a union they can be something other than a teacher.
 
buck said:
I think that's pretty much it. This isn't about birth control. The issue is wether a religious organization that does not approve of birth control should be required to pay for birth control. religious liberty.

If an employee disagrees with the church's stand, they can get a different job - just like liberals often say if someone doesn't want to be a member of a union they can be something other than a teacher.
Click to expand...


So when JW's stop paying for blood transfusions it will be ok. Or when scientologists don't pay for vaccines that's ok.

Right wing doesn't like single payer, but don't want private insurance to work either.
 
kenvin said:
So when JW's stop paying for blood transfusions it will be ok.
Click to expand...

Do you have some information that the Watchtower provides insurance to their employees? I actually don't think they have any employees (its all voulenteer from what I recall).

But, yes. I would say that if JW's are running a hospital they should be able to decide that in accordance with their doctrine, that hospital should not be required to perform transfusions.

Likewise, if the Watchtower is employing and providing insurance, they should have the option of opting out of certain coverages - i'm not sure how realistic opting out of blood transfusions are, but ok...
 
buck said:
Do you have some information that the Watchtower provides insurance to their employees? I actually don't think they have any employees (its all voulenteer from what I recall).

But, yes. I would say that if JW's are running a hospital they should be able to decide that in accordance with their doctrine, that hospital should not be required to perform transfusions.

Likewise, if the Watchtower is employing and providing insurance, they should have the option of opting out of certain coverages - i'm not sure how realistic opting out of blood transfusions are, but ok...
Click to expand...


Well you wouldn't opt out of having a blood transfusion your insurance just woudn't cover it and you would have a big bill. All of this is stupid. Perhaps the government should stop funding all catholic hospitals and just build new ones.
 
Last edited:
kenvin said:
Well you wouldn't opt out of having a blood transfusion your insurance just woudn't cover it and you would have a big bill.
Click to expand...

In other words, the watchtower society would be opting out of that coverage. I would assume they would have some form of savings, as small a savings as it is. Again, though, i'm not sure how realistic that is, but you asked a hypothetical.
 
Hey, Carolyn, where are the dead babies? Do they not have a say in this?

That's what I thought.
 
buck said:
I think that's pretty much it. This isn't about birth control. The issue is wether a religious organization that does not approve of birth control should be required to pay for birth control. religious liberty.
Click to expand...

When that religious organization is operating as a business then religious liberty is no longer an issue in regards to how it treats its employees.
 
samsmart said:
When that religious organization is operating as a business then religious liberty is no longer an issue in regards to how it treats its employees.
Click to expand...

The courts disagree, as do I. This is just one of many such decisions. So don't get too weighed down on the specifics.

Fired for little more then signing her name to a pro-abortion newspaper ad.

3rd Circuit affirms right of Catholic school to fire Pro-abortion teacher

Michele Curay-Cramer taught English and Religion at Ursuline Academy, an independent Catholic school in Wilmington, Delaware. In January 2003, on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Curay-Cramer signed onto a full-page ad in the Wilmington News Journal, praising the Roe decision and declaring her pro-abortion position. The Ursulines, however, are a decidedly pro-life organization and on the same day were sponsoring a field trip of its students to Washington, DC to protest the Roe decision and declare the school's pro-life position.

Following her public declaration on abortion, Curay-Cramer was terminated by the school. Curay-Cramer quickly sued the school (and others), claiming her discharge was sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Click to expand...
 
buck said:
The courts disagree, as do I. This is just one of many such decisions. So don't get too weighed down on the specifics.
Click to expand...

Just because a court thinks otherwise doesn't mean that court is correct.
 
samsmart said:
Just because a court thinks otherwise doesn't mean that court is correct.
Click to expand...

The court quoted above was actually an appeals court. So, that would make two courts that arrived at the same conclusion on that specific case. Then there are the rest of the courts that have come to similar conclusions in other, similar cases.

However, I guess you can still claim that doesn't mean they were all right. Its just not really possible (or prudent) to argue with such amazing reasoning as you provided, though, is it?
 
kenvin said:
Do you think that contraception kills babies really?
Click to expand...

No, but you get the point. They don't have a say in the abortion argument, but I'd bet Carolyn wouldn't speak to that if the discussion turned there.
 
Erod said:
No, but you get the point. They don't have a say in the abortion argument, but I'd bet Carolyn wouldn't speak to that if the discussion turned there.
Click to expand...

What babies can't even talk much less the unborn. Not to mention all humans were at one time one cell so humans are well represented in the debate on abortion. Women should be represented in issues that directly relate to women.
 
tessaesque said:
The hearing is about whether or not Obama is offending religion, not women.
Click to expand...

I can't believe the thread went farther than this, frankly! The issue has nothing to do with women. It's about a core constitutional freedom, period!

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I can't believe the thread went farther than this, frankly! The issue has nothing to do with women. It's about a core constitutional freedom, period!
Click to expand...

So does that mean Mormon men can start marrying several teenage wives again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom