Have they blocked any Birth Control? No, they have just said a company doesn't have to pay for it...you keep swinging though, it's fun to watch!!!

What the five old men did was make it OK for religious zealot employers to come between a woman and her doctor in the name of religion. In other words, if a doctor thinks it best for a woman to have a certain type of IUD, the woman's employer could have veto power in the name of religion.

 

And Republicans wonder why there was a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election. Talk about handing a campaign issue to Hillary on a silver platter. Sheesh.

I believe he wishes that exact result so we don't disagree there. On the other hand, just because it's wishful thinking on his part doesn't mean there isn't a lot of truth to it.

 

No more truth to it than the opposite. It's an opinion and a prediction, no truth involved at all. This ruling could just as easily bring more people back into the fold if they see the blowback as religion being attacked. Kind of like when Hillary was attacked in the 90's and it increased her popularity.

What the five old men did was make it OK for religious zealot employers to come between a woman and her doctor in the name of religion. In other words, if a doctor thinks it best for a woman to have a certain type of IUD, the woman's employer could have veto power in the name of religion.

 

And Republicans wonder why there was a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election. Talk about handing a campaign issue to Hillary on a silver platter. Sheesh.

 

1) You really like to throw insults don't you?

 

2) You realize that gender gap cuts both ways? Are you concerned about the male side of it favoring the Republicans as much as you are the female side of it favoring Democrats? Romney had a 7 to 10 point advantage in males while Obama had a 10 to 11 point advantage in females. Thus, the 20 point gap you refer to. That does not bode well for Hillary.

What the five old men did was make it OK for religious zealot employers to come between a woman and her doctor in the name of religion. In other words, if a doctor thinks it best for a woman to have a certain type of IUD, the woman's employer could have veto power in the name of religion.

 

And Republicans wonder why there was a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election. Talk about handing a campaign issue to Hillary on a silver platter. Sheesh.

 

The Democratic constituency scares me. The Republican party really needs to force education of what this holding truly means. The Democrats are thumping this as just another ruling in favor of rich white men who want to hold everyone else down. They can't beat abortion so they are taking birth control away. That's not what the ruling said, and it is not what is going to happen. Now, will the liberals want to listen?????? They tend to love to hear themselves talk.

What the five old men did was make it OK for religious zealot employers to come between a woman and her doctor in the name of religion. In other words, if a doctor thinks it best for a woman to have a certain type of IUD, the woman's employer could have veto power in the name of religion.

 

And Republicans wonder why there was a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election. Talk about handing a campaign issue to Hillary on a silver platter. Sheesh.

You forgot to say white, oh wait, Harry already did that.

Well, at least you keep playing the gender card in keeping true to party talking points.

The Democratic constituency scares me. The Republican party really needs to force education of what this holding truly means. The Democrats are thumping this as just another ruling in favor of rich white men who want to hold everyone else down. They can't beat abortion so they are taking birth control away. That's not what the ruling said, and it is not what is going to happen. Now, will the liberals want to listen?????? They tend to love to hear themselves talk.

They will continue to lie and the uneducated will continue to buy into it.

What the five old men did was make it OK for religious zealot employers to come between a woman and her doctor in the name of religion. In other words, if a doctor thinks it best for a woman to have a certain type of IUD, the woman's employer could have veto power in the name of religion.

 

And Republicans wonder why there was a 20-point gender gap in the last presidential election. Talk about handing a campaign issue to Hillary on a silver platter. Sheesh.

 

I thought Reid said 'five white men'. Now its five 'old' men. So confused. Its much easier if everyone if reads the hymns the same way. Did they fix the talking points and resend?

I thought Reid said 'five white men'. Now its five 'old' men. So confused. Its much easier if everyone if reads the hymns the same way. Did they fix the talking points and resend?

I think the new one will be four old white and one old black, Catholic, women hating, republican, zealot, rich men.

I think the new one will be four old white and one old black, Catholic, women hating, republican, zealot, rich men.

 

Try getting all that on a bumper sticker.

I think the new one will be four old white and one old black, Catholic, women hating, republican, zealot, rich men.

Ha ha ha. Just had to bring religion to this conversation, didn't you? But now that you mention it ...

The Democratic constituency scares me. The Republican party really needs to force education of what this holding truly means. The Democrats are thumping this as just another ruling in favor of rich white men who want to hold everyone else down. They can't beat abortion so they are taking birth control away. That's not what the ruling said, and it is not what is going to happen. Now, will the liberals want to listen?????? They tend to love to hear themselves talk.

No need to embellish. I think I summarized the ruling fairly accurately in the first paragraph of post 46. We're not talking about options, we're talking about religious zealot employers having the "right" to interfere with what a woman and her doctor decide.

 

Very bad on several levels.

No more truth to it than the opposite.

 

We have to agree to disagree.

1) You really like to throw insults don't you?

 

2) You realize that gender gap cuts both ways? Are you concerned about the male side of it favoring the Republicans as much as you are the female side of it favoring Democrats? Romney had a 7 to 10 point advantage in males while Obama had a 10 to 11 point advantage in females. Thus, the 20 point gap you refer to. That does not bode well for Hillary.

Your argument is a bit misguided. Women voted for Obama by 12 points in '12. Men for Romney by 8 points. Percentage of electorate that is female: 53 to 54. Women also are better at making it to the polls on Election Day, by 4 percentage points, I believe. The equally challenging issue for the GOP is that Hispanic, black, Asian, Jewish voters are all solidly voting Democratic in national elections.

 

Hobby Lobby decision just reinforces the idea that the GOP is simply a party that caters to white males.

You forgot to say white, oh wait, Harry already did that.

Well, at least you keep playing the gender card in keeping true to party talking points.

 

I guess Harry never met Justice Thomas!

We have to agree to disagree.

 

Hey, I don't have to agree to anything!