Senate Democrats push bills on contra...

Senate Democrats push bills on contraception, equal pay to fire up female voters this fall

There are 21 comments on the Fox News story from Jul 17, 2014, titled Senate Democrats push bills on contraception, equal pay to fire up female voters this fall. In it, Fox News reports that:

In this Sept. 16, 2013, file photo, the U.S. Capitol at sunset in Washington. Democrats and Republicans are fervently pursuing a batch of doomed bills in Congress because they target a coveted prize in the Nov. 4 elections: female voters.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
the Light

El Paso, TX

#4 Jul 17, 2014
Our Country is a mess and you democratic idiots are pushing more birth control. True-Hispanics need it but won't use it.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#5 Jul 17, 2014
Not only should the government provide free birth control, they should dictate who must use it or face a tax, I mean a fine.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#6 Jul 17, 2014
the Light wrote:
Our Country is a mess and you democratic idiots are pushing more birth control. True-Hispanics need it but won't use it.
We're too late on birth control. After all, you're here.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#7 Jul 17, 2014
If Democrat women are too drugged and insistently ignorant to see to their own birth control, they shouldn't have the right to vote. Repeal the Nineteenth Amendment and especially the Twenty Sixth Amendment. It was and remains insane to give voting rights to young, arrogant and intellectually stagnant females killing babies, whose brains haven't even completed sloughing off the doped detritus of Sesame Street.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#8 Jul 17, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
If Democrat women are too drugged and insistently ignorant to see to their own birth control, they shouldn't have the right to vote. Repeal the Nineteenth Amendment and especially the Twenty Sixth Amendment. It was and remains insane to give voting rights to young, arrogant and intellectually stagnant females killing babies, whose brains haven't even completed sloughing off the doped detritus of Sesame Street.
Your arrogance is kind of amusing, but monumentally undeserved.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#9 Jul 18, 2014
RustyS wrote:
Not only should the government provide free birth control, they should dictate who must use it or face a tax, I mean a fine.
"they should dictate who must use it"

Come on Rusty... that is stretching reality a bit too far
There is nothing that mandates use of birth control...
Just the desire that the woman gets to be the party who has the choice
...not her boss.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#10 Jul 18, 2014
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
"they should dictate who must use it"
Come on Rusty... that is stretching reality a bit too far
There is nothing that mandates use of birth control...
Just the desire that the woman gets to be the party who has the choice
...not her boss.
Her boss can tell her if she can or can't use birth control?

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#11 Jul 18, 2014
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
Her boss can tell her if she can or can't use birth control?
Not my words let me refresh your memory..
You said.....

"Not only should the government provide free birth control, they should dictate who must use it or face a tax, I mean a fine."

Read it two or three times Rusty...
One more time
What you said...

"....they should dictate who must use it"

Read it again Rusty ... what is it you said?

Not even in South Park will the Gov't dictate who must use it...

And neither should her boss be enabled to say, a female employee should not receive birth control through a third party... even in South Park
the Light

El Paso, TX

#12 Jul 18, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>We're too late on birth control. After all, you're here.
Do you even know who your'e parents are? When you were born, your'e mom saw your face and said take it back. LOL

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#13 Jul 18, 2014
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my words let me refresh your memory..
You said.....
"Not only should the government provide free birth control, they should dictate who must use it or face a tax, I mean a fine."
Read it two or three times Rusty...
One more time
What you said...
"....they should dictate who must use it"
Read it again Rusty ... what is it you said?
Not even in South Park will the Gov't dictate who must use it...
And neither should her boss be enabled to say, a female employee should not receive birth control through a third party... even in South Park
Sarcasm can be subtle, sorry. So, if we're re-reading statements, yours was:
"Just the desire that the woman gets to be the party who has the choice
...not her boss.
To clarify then, was that sarcasm or do you believe the boss actually controls the woman's choice to use or not use birth control?

Why do the progressive insist on the bullshit argument of 'choice'. The CHOICE is absolutely the right of the woman, always has been, still is. Just say it, you think the employer is responsible to pay for it. Who pays the $20-30 a month is the only factual issue.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#14 Jul 18, 2014
the Light wrote:
<quoted text> Do you even know who your'e parents are? When you were born, your'e mom saw your face and said take it back. LOL
You forgot the rim shot.

You're so ugly, when you walk into a bank, they turn off the cameras.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#15 Jul 18, 2014
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sarcasm can be subtle, sorry. So, if we're re-reading statements, yours was:
"Just the desire that the woman gets to be the party who has the choice
...not her boss.
To clarify then, was that sarcasm or do you believe the boss actually controls the woman's choice to use or not use birth control?
Why do the progressive insist on the bullshit argument of 'choice'. The CHOICE is absolutely the right of the woman, always has been, still is. Just say it, you think the employer is responsible to pay for it. Who pays the $20-30 a month is the only factual issue.
Employers should not have to be the employees' parents. Medicare for all is the answer.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#16 Jul 19, 2014
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sarcasm can be subtle, sorry. So, if we're re-reading statements, yours was:
"Just the desire that the woman gets to be the party who has the choice
...not her boss.
To clarify then, was that sarcasm or do you believe the boss actually controls the woman's choice to use or not use birth control?
Why do the progressive insist on the bullshit argument of 'choice'. The CHOICE is absolutely the right of the woman, always has been, still is. Just say it, you think the employer is responsible to pay for it. Who pays the $20-30 a month is the only factual issue.
Ok we then set sarcasm aside... it is very refreshing to hear you are absolutely pro- choice on wommens reproduction isssues. The issue is not who gets to pay the $20-$30 per month. ACA was designed to allow employeers who have an objection to opt out of birth control coverage for female employees. What the issue became was attempting to block women from obtaining it through a third party, the gov't. After the company is absolved of the burden of providing this coverage they should have no further say. Thus the recent SCOTUS decision is about the boss is attempting to influemnce their female employees choices. The arguement that won before SCOTUS was not Hobby Lobby saying the couple bucks to be the issue but access to birth control and their ability to make that as difficult as is possible by siting their moral objection.
Is that not correct?

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#17 Jul 19, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Employers should not have to be the employees' parents. Medicare for all is the answer.
Thats crazy talk Lawrence...
The rest of the world has a single payer type of plan...
They pay less per capita and get better results
Why would we ever want to do that

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#18 Jul 19, 2014
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok we then set sarcasm aside... it is very refreshing to hear you are absolutely pro- choice on wommens reproduction isssues. The issue is not who gets to pay the $20-$30 per month. ACA was designed to allow employeers who have an objection to opt out of birth control coverage for female employees. What the issue became was attempting to block women from obtaining it through a third party, the gov't. After the company is absolved of the burden of providing this coverage they should have no further say. Thus the recent SCOTUS decision is about the boss is attempting to influemnce their female employees choices. The arguement that won before SCOTUS was not Hobby Lobby saying the couple bucks to be the issue but access to birth control and their ability to make that as difficult as is possible by siting their moral objection.
Is that not correct?
Not exactly. Hobby Lobby objected to four of 18 methods the government required to be provided to female employees under the Affordable Care Actís contraception mandate. They objected to paying for forms of the emergency morning-after pill.

Women have the right to birth control, but there is no constitutional right to demand someone else pay for it. That was the question in the Hobby Lobby case, whether the government can force someone else to pay for a womanís contraceptives even though that person has religious objections to doing so. And no, I won't get into a discussion of when life begins.
There was nothing about making it difficult for women to make their own choice.

Contrary to progressive belief, the ACA was politically rushed, poorly designed and implemented. The IRS bureaucratic inefficiency and complexity will pale to the ACA.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#20 Jul 19, 2014
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats crazy talk Lawrence...
The rest of the world has a single payer type of plan...
They pay less per capita and get better results
Why would we ever want to do that
Sir Bull, Medicare for all IS a single-payer plan.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#21 Jul 19, 2014
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly. Hobby Lobby objected to four of 18 methods the government required to be provided to female employees under the Affordable Care Actís contraception mandate. They objected to paying for forms of the emergency morning-after pill.
Women have the right to birth control, but there is no constitutional right to demand someone else pay for it. That was the question in the Hobby Lobby case, whether the government can force someone else to pay for a womanís contraceptives even though that person has religious objections to doing so. And no, I won't get into a discussion of when life begins.
There was nothing about making it difficult for women to make their own choice.
Contrary to progressive belief, the ACA was politically rushed, poorly designed and implemented. The IRS bureaucratic inefficiency and complexity will pale to the ACA.
With out getting in to a debate on when like begins... can you discuss contraception with out understanding conception...Ok without doing that then the religiously based opinion of the party providing the insurance, on the nature of a procedure or medication would take the place of the consensus of the medical professionals in that field? Did the objections stated agree with that consensus
Second the objection of the employer is addressed by not requiring them to provide it ... and to not stand in the way of their employees access.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#22 Jul 19, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Sir Bull, Medicare for all IS a single-payer plan.
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats crazy talk Lawrence...
The rest of the world has a single payer type of plan...
They pay less per capita and get better results
Why would we ever want to do that

I am not quite that dull sir Lawrence....
calling it crazy talk was sarcasm...

the rest of the post endorsement

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#23 Jul 19, 2014
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats crazy talk Lawrence...
The rest of the world has a single payer type of plan...
They pay less per capita and get better results
Why would we ever want to do that
I am not quite that dull sir Lawrence....
calling it crazy talk was sarcasm...
the rest of the post endorsement
Just so we're clear, I favor a single-payer plan. Maybe we're on the same side.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#25 Jul 19, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Just so we're clear, I favor a single-payer plan. Maybe we're on the same side.
Yes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mark Udall Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP Faces Uphill Climb With Latino Voters In Ke... (Oct '15) Nov '16 Media Moguls 8
News For Obama, golf is an escape, even when he brin... (Aug '15) Aug '15 American_Infidel 56
News Avoiding the Trump Trap on Immigration (Jul '15) Jul '15 Jesus Latter Day ... 13
News Can Republicans Repeat an Upset in Colorado? (May '15) May '15 Le Jimbo 1
News Self-Inflicted Wounds: Phony 'War on Women' Fal... (May '15) May '15 Responsibility 4
News Gary Hart apologizes to Cory Gardner for barbs ... (May '15) May '15 Holy Silicon Wafer 1
News Poll: Paul best GOP bet in three swing states a... (Apr '15) Apr '15 E Warren the Weasel 1
More from around the web