Obama birth-control rule stokes election-year fight

OF COURSE IT'S AN ATTACK ON RELIGION.

BARACK OBAMA, THE RELIGION-HATING ATHE---oh wait, Muslim.

My god people. I'm surprised they haven't invented conspiracies about his ties yet.

Edgar wrote:

OF COURSE IT'S AN ATTACK ON RELIGION.
BARACK OBAMA, THE RELIGION-HATING ATHE---oh wait, Muslim.
My god people. I'm surprised they haven't invented conspiracies about his ties yet.

I'm sure you'll dream up with some kind of shoe pissin conspiracy beingn texass.

fatbacks x wrote:

<quoted text>I'm sure you'll dream up with some kind of shoe pissin conspiracy beingn texass.

No, but my republican't neighbors will.

A recent study shows that, thanks to increased use of contraception, teen pregnancy rates are the lowest in 40 years and abortion rates are at their lowest since abortion was legalized.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2012/02/08/teen-p...

two lost wars, people baying for a third pointless war in iran... a broken economy, a debt so large it will never be payed... and people are still worries by abortion and religion...

shows how bad things are getting in america

wake up this is a non issue in the scheme of things...

Obama & Infanticide!

August 25, 2008

The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.

Summary

Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Who's "Lying?"

A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.

The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying."

But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.

The Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against BUT In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.

We find that Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama...

FUBO!!!

You are a disgusting piece of filth.

Obama: Put the babies in a closet and let 'em scream until they die.

Obama abortion support exceeds even NARAL's
Records document opposition to protecting born-alive babies
http://www.wnd.com/...

Sen. Barack Obama is more dedicated to abortion at any time for any reason than even the National Abortion Rights Action League, according to documents unveiled by the National Right to Life Committee and publicized by WND columnist Jill Stanek, who also blogs at JillStanek.com .

"He actually did vote on March 13, 2003, in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee to approve the Illinois Born Alive Act, which was the same as the federal law. Then he voted it down," Stanek said. "He is the most pro-abortion senator.… Even NARAL went neutral [on the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act]."

The Born Alive Infant Protection acts on the state and federal levels provide that infants who do survive abortions should be given necessary medical care and treatment. Stanek has been working to institute such provisions since, as a nurse, she discovered an abortion-surviving infant alive, but relegated to a closet shelf where the child was left to die.

Obama's long reputation for abortion advocacy has been a red flag in his intense efforts to collect support from voters who oppose the idea of partial-birth abortions, which Obama has supported, and who want to protect survivors of abortion procedures. He's often said, and his own website repeats, that he would have supported the Illinois state law protecting those born-alive infants if it had had a "neutrality" clause like the federal law, which states the law specifically is not intended to impact the status of babies before birth.

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an [Illinois] state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 – denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions – were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose," Johnson wrote in his report.

We all know why he agrees with infanticide:

http://maria-zain.suite101.com/prohibiting-fe...

Wartime VII wrote:

Obama: Put the babies in a closet and let 'em scream until they die.
Obama abortion support exceeds even NARAL's
Records document opposition to protecting born-alive babies
http://www.wnd.com/...
~~ snipped for brevity.

Illinois Senate transcript, April 4, 2002, the day the live birth abortion bill was debated on the Senate floor with Obama's own words, starting around page 31.

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans...

Edgar wrote:

OF COURSE IT'S AN ATTACK ON RELIGION.
BARACK OBAMA, THE RELIGION-HATING ATHE---oh wait, Muslim.
My god people. I'm surprised they haven't invented conspiracies about his ties yet.

Where in the US Constitution does it say churches don't have to pay taxes? Why are we subsidizing churches?

Makes sense wrote:

Where in the US Constitution does it say churches don't have to pay taxes? Why are we subsidizing churches?

Amendment 1 - Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....

Exactly what part of "NO Law..." is ambiguous?

BTW, a non-transfer of funds does NOT equate to "subsidizing"?

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
Amendment 1 - Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....
Exactly what part of "NO Law..." is ambiguous?
BTW, a non-transfer of funds does NOT equate to "subsidizing"?

BS, Pat Robertson.

Again, where in the US Constitution does it say churches don't have to pay taxes? Why are we subsidizing churches? By subsidizing churches, we are ESTABLISHING churches.

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
Amendment 1 - Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....
Exactly what part of "NO Law..." is ambiguous?
BTW, a non-transfer of funds does NOT equate to "subsidizing"?

ACTIVIST JUDGES decided that churches don't have to pay taxes and that was way before the Pat Robertson/Joel Olsteen jet set-limousine church culture.

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
ACTIVIST JUDGES decided that churches don't have to pay taxes and that was way before the Pat Robertson/Joel Olsteen jet set-limousine church culture.

Actually, it is in the IRS code..... not for profit organizations, which includes churches and 27 other not for profit organizations are exempt from taxation.

Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.§ 501(c)

Your claim that activist judges are responsible really highlights your ignorance.

Last week obama threw away the union/labor vote by vetoing the Keystone pipeline project with the tens of thousands of jobs that come with it and now hes throwing away the religious Catholic vote by forcing religious institutions to sanction abortion and birth control.All this in an election year.The only explanation for this stupidity on obamas part is that obama is a radical left nut job too tied into left-wing ideology to understand practical reelection campaigning.

Moliner wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, it is in the IRS code..... not for profit organizations, which includes churches and 27 other not for profit organizations are exempt from taxation.
Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.§ 501(c)
Your claim that activist judges are responsible really highlights your ignorance.

BS

The statute is codification of the caselaw of ACTIVIST JUDGES.

You still haven't shown where it's in the US Constitution.

So you want us to believe Pat Robertson, Joel Olsteen, the Pope don't make profits??? LOL

http://taxthechurches.org/

Edgar wrote:

OF COURSE IT'S AN ATTACK ON RELIGION.
BARACK OBAMA, THE RELIGION-HATING ATHE---oh wait, Muslim.
My god people. I'm surprised they haven't invented conspiracies about his ties yet.

Wrong on all misspelled counts, Jethro.

Catholic churches and Catholic church employees are exempt from this requirement that their health insurance plans include fully covered birth control.

Its hospitals and universities, with lots of non Catholic or non practicing Catholic employees, who are covered. Whether a particular hospital or university is run by the RCC is moot, since these hospitals and universities get taxpayer monies.

Nor is this some Obama invention. Twenty eight states have had such rules as the Obama Administration is now proposing...for years.

Santorumps Frothy Surge wrote:

Wrong on all misspelled counts, Jethro.
Catholic churches and Catholic church employees are exempt from this requirement that their health insurance plans include fully covered birth control.
Its hospitals and universities, with lots of non Catholic or non practicing Catholic employees, who are covered. Whether a particular hospital or university is run by the RCC is moot, since these hospitals and universities get taxpayer monies.
Nor is this some Obama invention. Twenty eight states have had such rules as the Obama Administration is now proposing...for years.

Bumpkin, the "contraceptive and abortifacient" clause is SOOooooo narrowly defined, that the only exemptions allowed are Nunneries and Monastaries. Should any Religious establishments employ ANYone outside of the Faith, and provide healthcare benefits, they are REQUIRED to provide these "services". Of course, I have yet to see pregnancy defined as a disease. Inconvenient, maybe, but disease?

Makes sense wrote:

BS
The statute is codification of the caselaw of ACTIVIST JUDGES.
You still haven't shown where it's in the US Constitution.
So you want us to believe Pat Robertson, Joel Olsteen, the Pope don't make profits??? LOL

Activist Jurists were the ones who ignored the First Amendment, claiming that the First Amendment applied to Religions, not Churches