Better watch your butt, Rogers. This vitriol makes you a possible domestic terrorist. Think I'm kidding. Go to the latest Department of Homeland Security rant by that lunatic Napolitano and read it. Anti Catholic sentiments = domestic terrorism. http://start.umd.edu/start/pub...rorism.pdf page 10. Are you ready for the Gulag, Rogers?

Do you seriously think this comic is vitriolic or anti-Catholic?

Nation’s Largest Catholic University: We Offer ‘A Prescription Contraceptive Benefit’
http://thinkprogress.org/health/issue/

When this Administration takes away freedom, the liberal lapdogs on these pages follow just like the mind numbed sheeple they are.

Business any business should be able to pick and choose what they offer and what they want to pay for in their own Healthplans, its not an attack on women, it's the freedom to choose what they offer, and based on that decision the women that work for that business have the freedom to choose if they want to work there or not.

Oh I forgot the freedom to make your own decisons is only resevered for women who want to kill their unborn babies, any other decisions must mandated by a huge Federal Government. (as long as a liberal Democrat is in charge)

Unreal...

When this Administration takes away freedom, the liberal lapdogs on these pages follow just like the mind numbed sheeple they are.

Business any business should be able to pick and choose what they offer and what they want to pay for in their own Healthplans, its not an attack on women, it's the freedom to choose what they offer, and based on that decision the women that work for that business have the freedom to choose if they want to work there or not.

Right on man. Where would we be if employers don't have the FREEDOM to deny workers basic medical services? Another great FREEDOM that companies are losing out on is the FREEDOM to deny insurance coverage to workers with pre-existing conditions. That worked so well in the last few decades.

Now employers are losing the FREEDOM to deny coverage for contraceptives and all the bishops and cardinals in the Catholic hierarchy are upset that women might have sexytime for fun instead of babies. We can't have that! These bishops and cardinals have all taken a vow of celibacy, and who knows best what everyone else should do with their privates than old celibate men?

I grew up Catholic and endured 12 years of Catholic school. Both sides of my family, not to mention all of my in-laws are Catholic. Almost to a person, the lot of them are faithful, anti-abortion, go-to-mass-every-Sunday believers. There are several who go to Mass EVERY DAY. They will vehemently defend the Catholic church and its teaching against all attacks. Among all who are married and of child-bearing age, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them uses contraception (or their husbands have had vasectomies). Just sayin'.

What this really is about and why it should be striking, and indeed scary, to people is that Obama is sending a very clear signal of how powerful the feds. are, and will become more so, even in the most intimate areas of life, once they wrap their tentacles around the healthcare system.

This is a brazen pronouncment that they view religion as subservient to their policy agenda and that they feel quite comfortable in disgegarding the beliefs of people, presumably of all faiths, that interfere with their leftism.

And funny how those on the left are screaming about how they want Republicans out of their bedrooms.

I'm confused. They want the government out of their bedrooms but want them to pay for their birth control and abortions????

Here we go with the "free" stuff again! It is NOT FREE - someone, somewhere will be paying for this.

written by code red, February 09, 2012 - 11:24 AM

What this really is about and why it should be striking, and indeed scary, to people is that Obama is sending a very clear signal of how powerful the feds. are

Yeah, they're so powerful that they fund these Catholic institutions to the tune of $45 billion a year. So the hypocritcal church takes the money with one hand but denies any need to follow the rules with the other. They want it both ways, as usual. If they don't want to follow the rules, they they should just be privately funded. Think they'd go for that? Did you even read Deke's link? These Catholic institutions and universities have been offering contraceptives in their health plans all along. The Church is just making it a big deal in this election year in the hopes of beating Pres. Obama. It will backfire.

I'm confused. They want the government out of their bedrooms but want them to pay for their birth control and abortions????

Don't be confused. I will explain it to you. We want the government out of our bodies and bedrooms, yes. That means they don't get to dictate to women or two consenting adults what they can do with their bodies. That has nothing to do with requiring publicly funded institutions to offer contraceptives in their health care plans so that women have access to them, since 98% of Catholic women and 99% of all women use contraceptives at some point in their childbearing years. No one is asking them to actually provide these women with the actual contraceptives- just the coverage. They can continue to preach to their Catholic employees that they should not avail themselves of such (which will fall on deaf ears). And no one is asking the Catholic Church to provide abortions. You'd think from the inflammatory rhetoric that Pres. Obama is asking them to set up abortion clinics in the narthex. Geez.

Here we go with the "free" stuff again! It is NOT FREE - someone, somewhere will be paying for this.

Whaaa? How on earth do you get there? The issue is that contraceptives must be covered by health insurance plans. So yes, it is NOT FREE because if someone has health insurance, they are paying health insurance premiums.

Gorillagogo--Don't matter what I think, its what the Department of Homeland Security thinks. I'll send candies and such to Rogers when Napolitano puts him in the Gulag. Did you bother to read the link? You can't make this crap up.

wop2 -- Yes I read your link. I didn't know if you were being serious earlier but it seems like you are. I honestly don't know what to say to that other than you are a fool. Here's what it says:

The definition of terrorism used by the GTD is: the threatened or actual use of illegal force by non-state actors, in order to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal, through fear, coercion or intimidation. It is important to note that the classification of an event as terrorism depends as much on threats as the actual use of violence. For example, instances in which individuals seize an aircraft and threaten to blow it up unless their demands are met are defined as terrorist events. Note also that by specifying the threatened or actual use of force the definition of terrorism used by the GTD excludes hoaxes. The requirement that these events be limited to the actions of “non-state actors” means that considerable violence and terrorism that is directly attributable to states or their militaries is also excluded. And the requirement that the act have a direct political, economic, religious or social goal means that ordinary criminal violence is excluded. Thus, the GTD excludes state terrorism and many types of crime and genocide, topics that are important and complex enough to warrant their own separate analysis.

It then, on page 10, lists anti-Catholicism as one potential motivating force behind a terrorist act. Somehow, someway, this report was the first thing you thought of when you read Rogers latest political cartoon. That's just utterly pathetic.

You want the government out of your bodies and bedrooms but DO want the government to provide a safety net,as to what could be a result of, what happens with what goes on in your bedroom.

But you DO want the government (taxpayers) to pay for your abortions OR entitlement programs that pay for everything, if you decide to bring a child into the world.

"...you'd think that Pres. Obama is asking them to set up abortion clinics in the narthex."

No, not YET, anyway.

The Church is making this an issue in the hopes of beating Obama??

The majority of members of that church Sally, are the ones that help put Obama into office.

They were OK back in 2008 but now that they disagree with The One they are just playing politics (or are now racists).

...
written by code red, February 09, 2012 - 04:42 PM
The Church is making this an issue in the hopes of beating Obama??

The majority of members of that church Sally, are the ones that help put Obama into office.

They were OK back in 2008 but now that they disagree with The One they are just playing politics (or are now racists).

Democrats, historically, especially in presidential elections, vote Democratic. This was no coup for Obama.

written by code red, February 09, 2012 - 04:42 PM

...
written by code red, February 09, 2012 - 04:42 PM

The Church is making this an issue in the hopes of beating Obama??

The majority of members of that church Sally, are the ones that help put Obama into office.

You're confusing the Church heirarchy with the actual parishoners. The Church officials never supported Obama because he was pro-choice. The members rejected that (like they do the ban on contraceptives) and voted for him anyway.