The Republicans Aren't Done with Birth Control

Oh boy! They just don't know when to quit.

House Speaker John A. Boehner signaled on Thursday that House Republicans would continue the fight.

“I think it’s important for us to win this issue,” Mr. Boehner told reporters just before the Senate killed a Republican measure with a vote of 51 to 48. “The government, our government, for 220 years has respected the religious views of the American people, and for all of this time there’s been an exception for those churches and other groups to protect the religious beliefs that they believe in, and that’s being violated here.”

  • They are just nuts. The GOP is having employers force their religious values on employees. Remember this does not even stop with women’s healthcare though that’s bad enough. An employer for any reason of conviction can deny any healthcare from their employee. What if you have an employer that’s a Jovah Witness. Yup you guessed it your employer can refuse to have insurance pay for your kidney transplant and transfusions.

    This is a 99% and 1% control issue. They want the 1% (employers) dictating to the 99% employees what care they will pay for.

  • I don’t see a problem here at all. Let the insane douchers like Johnny B. fight a fight that was resolved fifty years ago. Jobs up, economy better, GDP growing, gee, Mr. Speaker, was there anything else you wanted to talk about?

  • Zen Diesel

    For the love of the great sky wizard, why are the Republicans so tone def. Do they really think they can piss off half of the population and still win elections. They are doing their best to send all of us back to the 1950’s.

    • Lately Republicans seem to have a real problem with the idea of women having agency. I’m beginning to think they don’t fully grasp that women can and will vote and really won’t understand how deep a hole they’re digging for themselves until November.

      • Zen Diesel

        The hole is going to be really deep when you add in the Oxi/Viagra windbag. It seems today, he decided to call the President, “Our Little Boy President”.

        • agrazingmoose

          Good god.

  • agrazingmoose

    Take a vote John. Show us where your members stand. It will make it easier for us to figure out Democratic funding for different races.

    • D_C_Wilson

      I have a feeling he’s going to be crying a lot this year.

      • One can only hope. Unless he only cries when he’s happy. Ohwait, I forgot. It’s that he only cries when he’s sozzled. Never mind.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Check out this classic bit of cognitive dissonance I encountered recently over at HuffPo. I actually had two conversations with two different posters that essentially went exactly like this, although the one linked here went a bit longer and farther, until the other party just went back to the beginning.

    The problem is that this issue has nothing to do with “religious freedom,” so it’s impossible to explain how it does without running into a logical buzzsaw. This person, like so many others, starts with the premise that “government” may not ever, under any circumstances, “interfere” with “religious exercise,” but when you point out that there are laws against, e.g., taking peyote, marrying more than one person, and killing infidels, all of which constitute “religious exercise” in one way or another, they find themselves stuck in a feedback loop. There is no logical way to claim that a law requiring that employer-provided comprehensive medical insurance plans include coverage for contraception violates religious liberty, but laws forbidding polygamy, hallucinogenic drug-taking and scripturally-sanctioned homicide don’t. And don’t even bother trying to explain that controlling the lives of others, or ensuring that others live according to one’s own personal religious beliefs, is not itself a religious belief, nor is it religious exercise or religious liberty.

    What they really mean is that this particular belief held by this particular religion may not be subjected to this particular form of “interference” by this particular government under this particular President. They’re working backwards from there, trying to find a grander “principle” to support an unsupportable argument.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Honestly, Graf, I don’t know how you can post in the Huffpost comments section. I gave up on that site years ago when they started with those stupid moderator badges that enabled the wingnuts to delete any post just because they didn’t like it.

      • I have a continuing love/hate relationship with huffpost. Some of the stuff posted on there is really douchey and doesn’t reflect the insight and progressive narrative they used to have before they sold out to AOL.

      • It’s an individuals choice but I don’t get it either. I just started patronizing folks who I like on AOLHP e.g. Bob Cesca of course instead of putting up with the whole cesspool.

    • i_a_c

      As usual you’re right, Graf. I love this ending remark:

      That which is proven. The First Amendment which I quoted (without quote marks) is what it is. It is not what you interpret it to be.

      Funny. I love it when these folks claim to love the Constitution so much, but they hate the institutions the Constitution sets up to “interpret ” it. It’s hilarious that the poster used the word “interpret” in particular. He/she should go read up on the Free Exercise Clause and SCOTUS “interpretations” and find out for themselves what is allowed and what is not allowed.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        What they don’t realize is that they’re doing just as much “interpreting” as anyone else. They think they’re reading it literally and without “interpretation” but they’re not. So declarations like that are meaningless, dishonest and stupid.

        Even the self-proclaimed Constitutional originalists/literalists that I encounter over there keep on insisting that the Constitution alone is all we need; federal statutes and case law are superfluous and unnecessary. And it’s of no avail to point out that, inter alia, the text of the Constitution by itself does not tell us whether prayer in public school constitutes “an establishment of religion,” whether the electric chair constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” whether opening someone’s glove compartment during a traffic stop constitutes “unreasonable search and seizure,” etc.

        They only hate the “institutions set up to interpret it” to the extent that those institutions come up with interpretations that are inconsistent with Republican politics. Whatever Republicans say it means, that’s the literal meaning; everything else is an invalid and unwarranted “interpretation.”

        • i_a_c

          In other words, “forget what the actual law is, here are some bumper sticker slogans and talking points in lieu of reality.”

    • muselet

      I’m glad you’re around to school the nincompoops—even though it won’t do any good, it’s amusing to watch. If the task were left to me, I’d manage maybe one or two responses before I gave up and began banging my head against a wall.


    • Nothing against you. I’m just amazed seemingly intelligent people like you try to argue with the ignorant lunatic fringe that occupies AOLHP.

      Your points are valid plus what the law does is let your employer, even from a secular business like a supermarket, tramp all over an individual employee’s religious freedoms. I don’t know why people can’t see this is an attempt to let the 1% dictate what the 99% can receive in medical benefits.

      Left and right all AOLHP tries to attract now is hair on fire reactionaries.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Sometimes the educator in me still feels the need to educate. As awful as these people are, what they really need is to be educated. Although this one resorted to insults and empty rhetorical slogans when backed into a logical corner, maybe the chance that he’ll re-examine his thinking for a minute when he gets off the computer, and maybe recognize what it is he’s missing or ignoring, is worth it.

        • incredulous72

          Well I applaud you, Graf. Reading the comments at the HuffPo is aggravating enough for me. Actually responding would definitely require mass amounts of alcohol.

          And weed.

    • Brutlyhonest

      Like others here, I don’t know how you can keep trying to educate the willfully ignorant. Logic and education are the enemy of dogma, and those manipulating the middle and lower class people who continue to support republicans know it.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        See my reply to KQuark above. Sometimes I enjoy the challenge; in this case I actually got the person, without his/her even realizing it, to admit that religious practice is subject to the law. He sabotaged his own argument without even knowing it. It was obvious he was backed into a corner when he hit the re-set button and quoted the First Amendment.

        I think I also do it in order to show that it can be done without resorting to the kind of lowbrow insults and name-calling we so often see, and that this individual distributed in abundance on that particular thread, to me and others. Believe me, I get tempted sometimes.

        • Brutlyhonest

          Well I salute you, sir. Being fully aware of my government-supplied anger management issues, I now tend to avoid conflict and/or dealing with people who make my head ‘splode.

  • My best guess is that Boehners data shows their base is deserting them, so their only hope to save control of congress is to get voters to show up and vote for their Repub congresscritter, even though they hate Romney.

  • BuffaloBuckeye

    Evidently the GOP HoR thinks the country is in pretty good shape, except for this little issue. Hoo boy.

  • CB

    Yesterday, a republican woman confided to my hubby that she would not vote for any of their nominees over this whole contraception crap.

    The gift that keeps on giving. Double-down guys!

  • I can’t figure out if they’re insane, or just douchebags.

    • How abouth both?

      • D_C_Wilson

        Insane douchebags works for me.