Goin' Rogue: Obama Admin Declares the 1st Amendemnt Doesn't Mean Jacksh*t

[The One Man Gang]

Amendment 1:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/205413-obama-administration-orders-health-plans-to-cover-birth-control-without-co-pays

The Communists have won.

1787-2009

It was a good run.

[CD]

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."

It is good to know that the Obamanistas are balancing our Religious Liberty (and all constitutional liberties) against their statist plans. It is sickening to a patriot that the Executive agencies have assumed the power to find such an “appropriate balance” involving a fundamental liberty. Of course, it will all be moot if the Supreme Court finds the whole farce unconstitutional.

[Just Win]

 OMG and CD,

To this "Hope and Change" bunch this Bill of Rights mess is nothing but a load of negative rights that get in the way of the State exercising ultimate power. The bigger the size of the national government becomes, the more the Bill of Rights must be attenuated in deference to the national government's exercise of power. Ideas, although not tangible in nature, have consequences in the real world. This entire issue you present hinges upon where you believe the rights of the individual are derived. If the answer is the rights of the individual are granted by the State to the people (the belief of the new "Hope and Change" put into office in 2008), then it is no problem to simply pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you will recognize and which parts you will simply ignore and pay lip service to in order to say you are true to the founders in a rather blatant heretical fashion. You can couch it in terms that you are somehow "balancing" the rights of the individual but the bottom line net result is the rights of the individual are being encroached by the State in an unconstitutional manner. We saw this same sort of bolderdash legal reasoning in the convoluted and contradictory Roe decision back in '73. When they start using the word "balancing" in regard to the Bill of Rights, LOOK OUT. It means the national government is about to grab more power at the expense of individual freecom. Pay attention to what they do not what they say. Just like a scam artist salesman they will tickle your ears with what you want to hear. The old axiom "actions speak louder than words" comes to mind with this current Whitehouse bunch.  

Remember, with this current Administration it is not the ideas of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, or Jay that are important or matter. Instead the philosophical underpinnings of this current "Hope and Change" lot in power are from names like Mao, Alinsky, Marx, Cloward and Piven... Again, intangible contemporary liberal ideas have devastating consequences in the real world.




The adjunct faculty part-time professor/Community Organizer
describes the Alinsky "Power Analysis" Socialist disruption concept to
a room full of students striving to get a good Law School grade.

[NCVol]

From the article:

Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement

Just like the communists, who made religion illegal and shut down houses of worship, Obama exempted churches from the mandate.  

And really, if the women in those organizations don't use contraception - not likely unless they're actively trying to get pregnant since 90-99% of them use contraception - is it really a fundamental issue of religious freedom HOW MUCH that contraception costs her? Sounds stupid to me...

Edit - meant to say that if the women don't use contraception, as per their supposedly sacred religious tenets, then the the question is moot. In the very worst case, a religious institution NOT a church will pay very slightly higher premiums for a feature of their insurance plan that none of the women will use. 

And if the religious women DO use contraception, as almost every woman will at some point, then how is that an issue of religious freedom - they're going to use contraception - we know this - and the only question is whether the insurance policy will cover it and/or require a copay, aka the cost of it, not its use. 

[Flummoxed Lummox]

From the article:

Just like the communists, who made religion illegal and shut down houses of worship, Obama exempted churches from the mandate. 

And really, if the women in those organizations don't use contraception - not likely unless they're actively trying to get pregnant since 90-99% of them use contraception - is it really a fundamental issue of religious freedom HOW MUCH that contraception costs her? Sounds stupid to me...

NC Vol,

As we have seen repeatedly over the years, facts do not matter to wingnuts, only perception as it relates to their myopic world view. Obama must be against the 1st Amendment (Rush said so, that settles it) so he is.

[NCVol]

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."

It is good to know that the Obamanistas are balancing our Religious Liberty (and all constitutional liberties) against their statist plans. It is sickening to a patriot that the Executive agencies have assumed the power to find such an “appropriate balance” involving a fundamental liberty. Of course, it will all be moot if the Supreme Court finds the whole farce unconstitutional.

A "fundamental liberty" simply isn't how much contraception costs.  It might be a fundamental liberty WHETHER the woman can use contraception, or whether it's available to her, but I don't think we're debating whether it's legal or not, or whether women who work at affected institutions can GET contraception, just whether it's provided in the insurance plan with or without a copay.

And for the life of me, the right wing opposition to contraception is confusing.  If you're opposed to abortion, then shouldn't you welcome making access to contraception easier and cheaper, especially for the poorest women, to reduce unplanned pregnancies and therefore ABORTION?  

Final point, it's a very good bet the wives of every single conservative on here, and their adult daughters if they have any, use currently or used contraception for many of their childbearing years.  Almost all of you had pre-marital sex, and depended on contraception to prevent pregnancy, as did your wives.  If you have daughters, the odds of her having premarital sex are between 95-99%, and she'll use contraception to prevent pregnancy in H.S., college or as a young unmarried adult.  Those are just facts.  So remind me again why this is a fundamental issue of religious freedom since what we're talking about is how much contraception, used by just about every couple including religious couples that wants to prevent pregnancy, COSTS.  

[Just Win]

A "fundamental liberty" simply isn't how much contraception costs.  It might be a fundamental liberty WHETHER the woman can use contraception, or whether it's available to her, but I don't think we're debating whether it's legal or not, or whether women who work at affected institutions can GET contraception, just whether it's provided in the insurance plan with or without a copay.

And for the life of me, the right wing opposition to contraception is confusing.  If you're opposed to abortion, then shouldn't you welcome making access to contraception easier and cheaper, especially for the poorest women, to reduce unplanned pregnancies and therefore ABORTION?  

Final point, it's a very good bet the wives of every single conservative on here, and their adult daughters if they have any, use currently or used contraception for many of their childbearing years.  Almost all of you had pre-marital sex, and depended on contraception to prevent pregnancy, as did your wives.  If you have daughters, the odds of her having premarital sex are between 95-99%, and she'll use contraception to prevent pregnancy in H.S., college or as a young unmarried adult.  Those are just facts.  So remind me again why this is a fundamental issue of religious freedom since what we're talking about is how much contraception, used by just about every couple including religious couples that wants to prevent pregnancy, COSTS.  

Nothing new under the sun with your rot above. Simply a repeat of the garbage of  fallen civilizations s of past. Warmed over paganism of ages past. When you get a new Axelrod thinking/talking point idea from the extreme left check back in with us. We all got a up close view of the motives , disers, and behavirs of the Obamatons during these Occupy Wall Street Protests. We know what your kind is all about.




The adjunct faculty part-time professor/Community Organizer
describes the Alinsky "Power Analysis" Socialist disruption concept to
a room full of students striving to get a good Law School grade.