Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Seven States Sue To Block Mandate For Contraception

February 27, 2012 by  

Seven States Sue To Block Mandate For Contraception

Seven States filed a lawsuit to block the Federal government's requirement that religious organizations provide health insurance coverage that includes access to contraception for women, free of charge, NewsCore reported.

According to the news outlet, the attorneys general of Florida, Texas, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Nebraska and Ohio jointly filed the lawsuit in a Nebraska U.S. District Court. Two private citizens, two religious non-profit organizations and a Catholic school also joined the States against the contraception mandate, part of President Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare reform.

NewsCore reported that the lawsuit asks a Federal judge to declare the mandate unConstitutional and enjoin the government from enforcing the law.

"The President's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "The very 1st Amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions."

POLITICO reported that Democratic House leaders recently used a hearing to again accuse House Republicans of ignoring women in the debate over the contraception mandate. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Seven States Sue To Block Mandate For Contraception”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    If this issue is this simple, then men should be angry because they’re being left out of the ‘contraception equation.’ Since when do women reproduce themselves?
    Aside from the fact that this is NONE of Obummer’s business, he’d do better to concentrate on JOBS, saving the dollar, explaining his constant LIES concerning high gas prices, finally making America OIL INDEPENDENT and acting like a president instead of a campaign also-ran who’s never certain whether or not he belongs in the White House.
    Maybe Obummer’s legal hit man, Holder, never explained to him why religious freedom trumps half-baked lawyers and poser W H vacationers. Neither can get away with raping the Constitution forever.

    • Robert Smith

      As the religious views of those few who want to deny contraception are forced upon those who want freedom in America.

      Why are these manipulators trying to say it’s THEIR religious views that are being infringed upon when it is THEY who are tryingn to force others to COMPLY?

      I now! Good propaganda.

      Rob

      • http://naver samurai

        Hey Rob, still with the nonsense eh? Look at this and weep. I can’t believe that a judge ruled according to the 1st amendment and the will of the people, especially in a heavily lib state.

        http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default,aspx?id=1542248

        Looks like you have lost on this one. But alas! You always lose. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tim L.

        Bravo Robert! I wish our elected officials would stop pandering to these religious whack-jobs. Contraception is legal and should be supported. It’s not like we are running out of people. We have over seven billion. What we need is a way to stop war and hunger.

      • Warrior

        Well, as far as hunger, you could cut of the food supply, i.e. welfare, but it’s probably much more humane to just kill babies. Don’t you think?

      • Libertytrain

        ‘Why are these manipulators trying to say it’s THEIR LACK OF religious views that are being infringed upon when it is THEY who are tryingn to force others to COMPLY?

        ‘I KNOW! Good propaganda.’

      • Jibbs

        Tim L. says:
        February 27, 2012 at 7:55 am
        Bravo Robert! I wish our elected officials would stop pandering to these religious whack-jobs. Contraception is legal and should be supported. It’s not like we are running out of people. We have over seven billion. What we need is a way to stop war and hunger.

        ****************************************************************************************************************

        Maybe unwed woman should keep their legs togeather, or maybe the government should supply men with condums. Birth control has nothing to do womans health and should not be mandated in any healthcare program.
        Why should I pay for someone else’s birth control or unwed child birthing problems?
        It’s as easy as saying NO to drugs……..JUST SAY NO!!!
        Men buy and pay for rubbers, why can’t woman pay for the pill?
        Did you ever see a healthcare insurance company ever pay for condums? NO!

        A glass of wine is good for you, why don’t they pay for wine too?
        Why can’t people do anything on their own anymore? Maybe taking some responsibility for their own actions and decisions.

      • Blue Devil

        Robert — I am Catholic and, personally, have no quarrel with contraception. I realize that that puts me at odds with the Church, but that is an issue between me and my confessor. What I AM opposed to is YOUR contraception on MY dime!!! Abortion, on the other hand, is MURDER!!!

      • Robert Smith

        B Devil says: “What I AM opposed to is YOUR contraception on MY dime!!! ”

        And I’m opposed to the Bush wars, tobacco subsidies, oil subsidies… So, can I simply claim religious reasons and not pay taxes?

        “Abortion, on the other hand, is MURDER!!!”

        Only in the context of your religion. Others don’t believe as you do.

        Rob

      • Robert Smith

        Jibbs asks: “Men buy and pay for rubbers, why can’t woman pay for the pill?”

        At many parties I’ve been to condoms have been sitting in nice little bowles in the bathrooms for anyone who wants them. They were free.

        Rob

      • Blue Devil

        Rob — Now, you are talking like a “Philadelphia Lawyer.” In tne event tnat you are not old enough to recognize the reference, Google it up!!

      • Crystal

        As a woman with other like-minded women (and there are a lot of us), I don’t want the government involved in my contraception use. Stay out of our reproductive lives.

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Blue, Let’s see what’s at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_lawyer

        “Philadelphia Lawyer is a term to describe a lawyer who knows the most detailed and minute points of law or is an exceptionally competent lawyer.”

        I’ll go with that one.

        I’ll bet that like your right wing scripture your mileage may vary.

        Rob

      • Blue Devil

        Rob — ¡Bravíssimo! You looked it up. Try the next one down — “A shrewd attorney adept at the discovery and manipulation of legal technicaliries.” In other words, a shyster.

      • Jibbs

        Robert Smith says:
        February 27, 2012 at 11:29 am
        Jibbs asks: “Men buy and pay for rubbers, why can’t woman pay for the pill?”

        At many parties I’ve been to condoms have been sitting in nice little bowles in the bathrooms for anyone who wants them. They were free.

        Rob

        ************************************************************************************************************
        Your reply is baseless and has nothing to do with what I stated…..try again swinger man,
        But you can bet that someone pulled the money out of their pocket to pay for them and not their insurance card.

  • Robert Smith

    From the article: “”The President’s so called ‘accommodation’ was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles,”"

    And why should they expect someone not of their flock to be obligated to their “principles?”

    Looks to me like they are working to jam their religion upon the rest of us. That shouldn’t work in America. It’s that simple.

    Rob

    • http://naver samurai

      Its called our God given rights as are written in the 1st Amendment. Why don’t you try to understand the meaning of this Amendment before opening up your yap? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Robert Smith

        Here goes samurai with is repeated lie: “Its called our God given rights as are written in the 1st Amendment.”

        WE THE PEOPLE…

        America is NOT run by your taliban.

        Rob

    • Libertytrain

      ‘And why should they expect someone not of their flock of no-religion followers to be obligated to their “principles?”

      ‘Looks to me like they are working to jam their LACK OF religion upon the rest of us. That shouldn’t work in America. IT’S THAT SIMPLE.’

    • Buster the Anatolian

      “And why should they expect someone not of their flock to be obligated to their “principles?” ”

      No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to attend the Catholic Church. No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to work for the religious institutions that oppose birth control.

      • Robert Smith

        I’m sure Dr. Tiller and several others will argue about that gun to the head part…

        But oops, they were shot dead by alleged pro-lifers.

        Amazing! Pro-Live_____ BANG.

        Rob

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000970227178 Paul Zahn

    For all the Liberals that think losing religious freedom Rights under our Constitution is OK, what other freedoms & rights are you willing to give up next? This has “nothing” to do with Religions forcing their views on anyone, it has to do with the Federal Government telling Religions what to do, even if it’s against their beliefs. Besides, nobody is trying to take birth control away from women, and why should it be free anyway, what other health care do you get FREE? This was an attempt by Obama for women’s votes, just like Obama’s class-warfare is for dividing the country for lower & middle income votes.

    • GregS

      Very well said, Paul!

    • bwilly123

      I don’t see where “Obummer” is forcing the religious wackos to “USE” contraception!! He is only saying the health insurance they provide to their employees, “same religion or not”, must provide contraception for those who “WANT” to use it!!

      Your argument only holds up if you are being forced to “USE” contraception against your will.

      Seriously, how assinine are you.

      • Dennis48e

        “He is only saying the health insurance they provide to their employees, “same religion or not”, must provide contraception for those who “WANT” to use it!!”

        And that is FORCING the religion to pay for something they are oppoased to same difference.

      • GregS

        You’ve missed the point completely! Obummer is FORCING the Catholic Church to PAY for contraception, NOT use it! The Church has NEVER said that its employees could not USE contraception, and the Church would have NO problems with the government providing access to contraception with federal funds, instead of Church funds.

    • Robert Smith

      Posted: “it has to do with the Federal Government telling Religions what to do, even if it’s against their beliefs.”

      No… It’s about the government telling EVERYONE what to do. Some right wing religions think they are ever so “special” and need to have an exception because they ask for it.

      Do you feel “special” today?

      Rob

  • http://google john p.

    look our government is gone as we no it . when you elected Obama
    as president . you also got a new government its called do as i say
    not as i do .remember Obama care our democrats that we elected
    voted for it . our democrats are dictators socialist now .

  • steve

    this is only about one thing that nobody is getting . the government whats to eliminate religion from our life. next to music it is the only other common denominator that people have in this country and in the world. the government knows this and will shut down and destroy all religion. you want proof read the book of revelation chapter 16 thru 18. babylon the great will be destroyed. GOD will put the idea into the governments hearts rev 17;17.

  • Kelly Thomas

    Did you vote for change? Well baby you got it. It may not be the kind you were thinking about but I bet it’s not the first time you have been mislead about something.—Fool me once your probably a cheat or a lyer fool me twice and I have joined your ranks.—

  • Chester

    For Warrior and all the rest of you who believe this is just about making churches do something they don’t believe in, do you honestly believe the catholic church has the right to set policy for the whole country? If so, fine, move to Italy or one of the other countries where the Church writes the laws and see how many of the people actually follow what the church wants. Incidentally, the next step after personhood is declaring each and every sperm cell must be counted as a person as well, as each of them has the potential to become one, as does each and every egg a woman carries and loses each month when she has her period. Think before you leap, or the leap may well be from the frying pan into the fire.

    • GregS

      Chester says:

      “…do you honestly believe the catholic church has the right to set policy for the whole country?”

      The answer to that question is a resounding NO! The Catholic Church NEVER had that intention in the first place. My question to you, Chester, is: When has the Catholic Church ever said that its employees cannot use contraception???

      The FACT is that ALL employees of the Catholic Church are perfectly free to use contraception whenever they wish.

      The ISSUE is that the government is FORCING the Church to PAY for something that is contrary to its own teachings. Otherwise, the Catholic Church would have NO problems with government making contraception available to Church employees through OTHER sources of funding (e.g. federal funding).

      Chester says:

      “Incidentally, the next step after personhood is declaring each and every sperm cell must be counted as a person as well, as each of them has the potential to become one, as does each and every egg a woman carries and loses each month when she has her period.”

      Wrong! That could NEVER happen, because neither the sperm nor the egg are complete living human organisms, and, therefore, they could NEVER develop into an adult human on their own. The fertilized egg, on the other hand, has the ability to develop into an adult human, because it is a complete living human organism. Any medical textbook will tell you this.

    • Warrior

      The issue Chester is – “The Gubmit” has NO right to mandate anyone to have to provide any crap for free”! And furthermore, this issue that the “progressives” selected to throw at us is right from their playbook of “divide and conquer”. Ask yourself this question. If you wished to have a real impact on healthcare for the citizens of this country why wouldn’t you start with an aspect of health that affects 100% of the population i.e. Dental Care? Nope, let’s pick an issue that we know have public opinion viewpoints span 180 degrees apart.

  • DavidL

    This is not a religious freedom issue, and their is no constitutional breach here. This is an employment law issue. Can the Catholic church, or any church employer, out of religious conviction, refuse to pay its employees at least the minimum wage, or maintain a safe work place as required by health and safety rules? Can the Catholic Church only pay someone for six hours of work when they actually worked for 12 hours? Of course they can’t.

    Access to contraception reduces the number of abortions as well as the cost of healthcare in our country. I would think the Catholic Church leadership would want to support such a policy, ninety eight percent of all Catholics do.

    • Buster the Anatolian

      “… ninety eight percent of all Catholics do.”

      Playing fast and loose with the stats again are you. Here is a much more accurate number.

      “A survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, published on Tuesday, revealed that almost 60 percent of American Catholics agree with the idea of employers being forced to provide birth control measures.

      Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/surprise-surprise-most-catholics-support-obamas/#ixzz1nbUlRYQs

      While considered a majority 60& is far from the 98% you say. Incedently the other surveys I checked gave numbers from 53%-67% none were anywhere close to your 98%

    • GregS

      DavidL says:

      “Can the Catholic church, or any church employer, out of religious conviction, refuse to pay its employees at least the minimum wage, or maintain a safe work place as required by health and safety rules? Can the Catholic Church only pay someone for six hours of work when they actually worked for 12 hours?”

      The problem with these analogies is that NONE of them has ever been against the teachings of any church employer. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

      The fact is that the government is forcing the Church to PAY for something that goes against its teachings. The Church does NOT care whether or not its employees use contraception. In fact, it would have NO problem if the government were to provide access to contraception for the Church’s employees through OTHER sources of funding (e.g. federal funding).

      • Robert Smith

        Now here’s another right wing lie: “In fact, it would have NO problem if the government were to provide access to contraception for the Church’s employees through OTHER sources of funding (e.g. federal funding).”

        Really? Just like with abortion, huh?

        They are going to try to jam their religion under any circumstances they can. It’s their nature and in America we simply don’t allow that.

        Rob

      • GregS

        As usual, Robert, you are way off track.

        Abortion and birth control are two SEPARATE issues. The Church has NEVER opposed federal funding of birth control. If you think it has, then PROVE IT!

        On the other hand MANY different people and organizations (including many who consider themselves to be “pro-choice”) oppose federal funding of abortions.

      • Blue Devil

        They are going to try to jam their religion under any circumstances they can. It’s their nature and in America we simply don’t allow that.

        Rob

        Rob — That is the argument that Herbert Hoover used against Al Smith back in 1932 (Yes, I’m old enough to remember that — barely). Guess what! The Pope is still in Rome!!!

      • Blue Devil

        Oops! 1928, not 1932. Sorry!

  • http://personallibertydigest gottaplenty

    The whole issue is whether you have a right of choice ,,, and that is what the Obummer would like to have in his hand…

    • bwilly123

      And you do have the right to choose “not to use” contraception if you want.

      You do not have the right to prevent other people from choosing to use it if they want!!

      • Buster the Anatolian

        You also do not have the right to force an institution to pay for your birth control If it is against their religious beliefs to do so.

      • Robert Smith

        Buster claims: “You also do not have the right to force an institution to pay for your birth control If it is against their religious beliefs to do so.”

        Actually if that’s the rule for all other employers then under equality under law it should be the rule for religious employers.

        You know, no “special” rules for those who are different in America. Isn’t that the right wing way? Do you feel “special?”

        The way it works in America is the rules should be the same for everyone. It’s that simple.

        Rob

  • Bob Marshall

    ‘America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: Its patriotism,its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Joseph Stalin. Contraceptives is a better alternative than the 53 million abortions that have been carried out through Planned Parenthood.

    • Robert Smith

      And Planned Parenthood PREVENTS many more abortions than any other organization by educatine people about contraception and reproductive health issues.

      Rob

  • JimH

    It’s amazing that what is an infringment on 1rst amendment rights got spun into anti-womans health care stodgy old men, want to take away contraception.
    Religious freedom is mentioned right at the top of the page in the Bill of Rights. Contraception is not mentioned at all.
    Contrception will still be available as it has been in the past. People who’s religion it goes against,still shouldn’t be forced to pay for or support it.
    If the mandate is blocked the Constitution is upheld and contrception will remain availiable as it has been before.
    If people pay a co-pay for blood preasure medicine and diabetics for insuline, why is contraception considered SO important ?

    • Robert Smith

      Jim H claims: “People who’s religion it goes against,still shouldn’t be forced to pay for or support it.”

      If I declared war to be against my religion should I be forced to pay for them in Iraq and Afganastan?

      If creationisn is against my religion should I be forced to pay for textbooks that mention it as “science?”

      Rob

      • JimH

        Rob, Apples and oranges Bob Smith(BS).
        We are talking about a church having to cover something in their emlpoyee Benifit package, NOT taxation.
        If you don’t like how your tax dollars are spent, write your congressman.
        If war is against your religion don’t join the military. When we had a draft you could apply to be a consciensious objector.
        You would be hard pressed to find a current text book that mentions creationism as “science”.
        If one group is being wronged does it mean everyone else’s rights should just go out the window too? Or do we look and see what we can do to correct the Constitutional right that is being violated. Like blocking a mandate that violates a 1rst amendment right.

      • Robert Smith

        Jim H. claims: ” Like blocking a mandate that violates a 1rst amendment right.”

        Religion can NOT deny equality under law for Americans. America just doesn’t work that way. If ALL employers are repsonsible for particular health care rules then ALL employers are responsible for health care rules.

        Ohhhhh, I get it you want “special” treatment for the church because of that right wing brutal god’s demands.

        I get it: “Special” treatment for the right wing.

        Rob

      • JimH

        BS, The Constitution provides equality under the law and not religion. That means EVERYBODIES religion or lack of is protected no matter what the political ajenda is.
        No favoritism(right or left)

  • s c

    Stalin, like Obummer, knew that MANY people won’t stop to think if they’re always confronted by a sick mentality that says “it’s not murder if you don’t CALL it MURDER.” In the real world, semantics is no defense.
    However, politicians and dictators know from experience that when people are raised NOT to think [only elected filth can "think" - HA!], it takes very little to control a discussion or enslave a nation.
    So, is Obummer any different than Stalin? No. Fortunately, Stalin is no longer with us, but he’s had millions of other defective retards take over for him – and most of them surrendered their right to call themselves human long ago.

    • eddie47d

      What species are you SC? You continually try and control the discussion with cheap and extreme views so which beloved party do you belong to? Does one exist??

      • Ted Crawford

        ” The way to crush the Bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation” Vladimir Llyich Ulyanov
        With gas at $3.65 and rising and his continued insistance on raising taxes, oh I know he’s only talking about the “Rich”, but you know I know everybody knows, that with his refusal to make any substantive cuts to spending, it will soon be ALL of us, Seems Obama has followed Lennin!

      • eddie47d

        Did Bush/Cheney save us from economic collaspe Ted?Did their Conservative principles lift us up into a Republican Utopia? The front runners are now Romney and Santorum so if either are elected who will then save us. So I’m asking you what illustrious leader in world history will they be following if you couldn’t get it right 11 years ago. Will they be programmed into Pinochet or Hitler in their self destructive policies? In case you are wondering whether the next President will be Republican or Democrat the price of gas will still head north not south no matter whom. Everyone also knows that the wealthy are predicted to become even richer no matter how they amass their fortunes and you will sit idly by as they get away with their market manipulations.

    • Robert Smith

      s c claims: “a sick mentality that says “it’s not murder if you don’t CALL it MURDER.” In the real world, semantics is no defense.”

      Actually most laws are semantics. And in America abortion is mostly legal under most circumstances.

      It’s the meally mouth right wing that wants to call a pile of goo a “babyyyyyyyyy” and enslave a woman to 9 months as an incubator for it against her will. In America we don’t do that anymore.

      Further, you personally don’t have to have any abortions you personally don’t want to have. That’s what CHOICE is about. NO GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

      BTW, you do you reconcile no government control in conception and yet demand government control in the abortion issue? Seems to me no government control is no government control in all medical issues. If you are rooting for no universal health care, aren’t you saying NO to government control of medicine?

      Or are you simply talking out of two sides of your pie hole?

      Rob

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Yet you promote unlimited abortion without government interference but want government interference in birth control.

      • Robert Smith

        Birth control should be available to anyone who wants it.

        Religion has absolutely NO place in birth control except among thier own flock who has volunteered for that particular relilgion.

        Rob

      • GregS

        Again, Robert, you’ve got it all wrong. Birth control is ALREADY “available to anyone who wants it.” My question to YOU, Robert, is: When has the Church ever told it’s employees (excluding its own clergy, who have taken the vow of chastity) that they CANNOT practice birth control, under penalty of being fired???

        You say that “Religion has absolutely NO place in birth control…” Well I’ve got news for you, Robert: The government is involving religion in birth control by FORCING it to PAY for it. It is NOT the responsibility of the Church to pay for anyone’s birth control, especially if it’s against the teachings of the Church. The government has no business telling the Church what it can and can’t do. It’s called separation of Church and State.

  • Ted Crawford

    One very simple fact proves that this is not about Contrecption or Womans Health, or anything but an attempt by the Federal Government to overstep their bounds. NO ONE, NO ONE, I say again NO ONE is forced to work at any of these places! If you don’t like the conditions or the wages or the benifits offered by an employer,by all means look elsewhere!
    We still have that right, untill that is we give Obama another term. From that moment on all bets are off!

    • Robert Smith

      From Ted: “If you don’t like the conditions or the wages or the benifits offered by an employer,by all means look elsewhere!”

      But minimums are set for most working circumstances. The number of hours, how expense reimbursement works, in some states how vacation works, etc. As long as the rules are the same for all employers then they are legal.

      BTW, why do you want YOUR religion to be treated so “special?”

      Rob

  • Karolyn

    Has anyone ever seen “Freakonomics?” A study was done that found that there was a huge corollary between abortion and the drop in crime in the 90s. If all those unwanted aborted babies in the 70s had grown up, there would have been more crime. Very logical. Unwanted children generally grow up in unhappy households and can tend toward crime.

    • JimH

      Karolyn, Using that logic, Unleaded gasoline came around in the 70′s. the crime rate is down so leaded gas causes crime.
      It’s pretty presumpuous to believe YOU know these murdered kids would have grown up to be criminals.

      • Robert Smith

        From JimH: “It’s pretty presumpuous to believe YOU know these murdered kids would have grown up to be criminals.”

        Again with the “murder” lie. Abortion is mostly legal. If you wanna call it “murder” please expain why you do so. I suspect it’s because you’re into some sort of religious cult that wants to inflame others with a hot button issue for political gain.

        Now, to address your alleged “issue.” Actually it isn’t presumpuous. It is quite logical to follow that abortion reduces crime.

        It’s often referred to as the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis. It is the theory that legal abortion reduces crime.

        The general argument is that that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals. They are born to disadvantaged women in bad neighborhoods. They get less health care, suffer more problems, both physical and mental, and are generally margenalized by mainstream society.

        You can read more about it at: http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

        Rob

      • JimH

        Hi Bob Smith(BD), OK LEAGAL MURDER.

      • Robert Smith

        Note how JimH doesn’t address the core issue…

        Typical right wing response when referenced reasonable ideas are put forward.

        And the theory that abortion does reduce crime has some validity in many circles.

        Rob

      • JimH

        Bob Smith,When it comes to avoiding the core issue YOU are the expert at redirect. Mostly because you can’t refute what was written.
        If you put forward a REASONABLE idea it would merit a response. The idea that crime is down because of abortion is absurd.
        With 54 million abortions crime would be non-existant if that idea had any merit.
        The theory UFOs built the pyramids has validity in many circles. Doesn’t make it valid.
        There it’s adressed. Have a nice day.

    • Greg

      That is so STUPID!!! More speculation coming from the left. Take it further than that, but you won’t. All those aborted babies also shows a slowing down of advance medical research because the murdered babies would have found the cure to cancer, or how to survive on Mars, or taken physical science to such a degree that our automobiles would not be running on salt water. Guessing what something or someone may have done is just as stupid as Obama stating if he hadn’t done this thing then that thing MAY have happened. Dumb all the way.

      • Robert Smith

        Greg speculated: “All those aborted babies also shows a slowing down of advance medical research because the murdered babies would have found the cure to cancer, or how to survive on Mars,”

        That’s not the way it works. One must remain in the reality of this world. In this world many of the aborted babies (certainly not all) would have been born to disadvantaged women with no fathers in sight. Hardly an ideal circumstance to bring up a future scientist in. Further, it’s often been proven (The Bell Curve most recently) that during early years the environment can have an impact upon IQ. Eating well, being able to go to school without fear, and not being beaten for simply being around are all factors in intellectual development.

        So, it can be clearly demonstrated that the kids born to disadvantaged women have a far higher propability to lean toward crime than others in better environments. Thus, when they are allowed to abort those kids can’t be recruited into criminal enterprise.

        Rob

      • Greg

        Newsflash Robert, the idea or stereotype that leads your belief on crime is called “bigotry.” Regardless of where, when, and whom a person is born to does not define whether they will be a criminal or not. If that’s the case, let’s count every single white collar criminal who usually comes from a more privileged background. You don’t count them because they don’t fit into most individuals definition of crime. You don’t normally see them on the news until they get caught in a big way (i.e., Enron Executives) and then it blows over really fast and you still don’t look on all executive types as criminals (even though you can read white collar crimes happening every single day if you venture to your public courtroom cases — they just don’t make the evening news).

        You see the college student selling drugs is not looked down on like the kid in the ghetto selling drugs. The police don’t even go after the college student with the same vigor as they do the kid in the ghetto. Money is and will always be the defining factor as to whether you will be prosecuted for your crimes or not. The more money a community has, the more crimes they can get away with. Just a fact.

        Your belief system is the reason we have legalized murder in this country. Abortion was originally created to get rid of what they call “trash” meaning children of Black women. Why do you see the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics in Black communities throughout the nation? It was designed that way. As it goes, abortion spread to other communties throughout the country — just like a disease that spreads. So your opinion should have been researched a whole lot more than repeating what some confused liberal on the t.v. had to say in defense of legalized murder (abortion).

        So while you sit on your stoop looking down on poor women and assume they all have criminals for children, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself what crimes you’ve committed even if it’s just that pen you took from work.

      • Robert Smith

        What a diaper load Greg.

        If it isn’t obvious to you that criminals are of higher proportions in some neighborhoods vs. other aerias of population nothing will convince you.

        Rob

    • JimH

      Karolyn, Sice the 70′s 54 million babies have been aborted. Good thing they were executed before they could commit a crime, because we don’t have enough prisons to hold 54 million more.
      I doubt we would have 54 million more criminals. How many good people were not given the chance they deserve? 54 million.

      • Robert Smith

        JimH says: “How many good people were not given the chance they deserve? 54 million.”

        Didn’t they get thier ticket punched to that there “heaven” because they were “persons” (your term) who never had a chance to “sin?”

        All of them went straight to that there brutal god’s heaven!

        Aint christanity great! All those soules in heaven!

        Why aren’t you celebrating JimH?

        Could it be that they skipped the part of “life” where YOU had a chance to judge them? Are you playing god, JimH?

        Rob

      • Blue Devil

        The Philadelphia Lawyer flies again!!!!

      • JimH

        Hi Did Karolyn ask you to be her advocate or did you just but in on your own?
        Try to deny 54 million people had their whole life ahead of them stolen.

      • Greg

        Good point JimH.

      • JimH

        Rob, You ask if I’m playing God.
        I’m not the one who decided the aborted babies are better off dead because they would have just become criminals anyway.
        I’m not the one who thinks they can decide who gets to be born and who doesn’t.
        Someone else is playing God. Just not who you think it is.

  • eddie47d

    Didn’t the Virginia Governor over step his boundaries with the blessing of Conservatives and the intrusive right wing party. Demanding an evasive ultra sound on any woman who selects an abortion. I have heard several hundred times how those on this site hate the government intruding on our Liberties at the airports. That TSA agents have no right to pat you down to make sure you have a safe flight. I would agree with that but now you reverse coarse when a woman wants to make her own choice in birth control and you go and FORCE her AGAINST her will to have that ultrasound placed up her vagina. The last time I checked anyone who puts a penetrable object up a woman’s vagina against her will is a rapist. Yet so many of you sanctioned this intrusive and government sponsered rape on a woman. Hypocrites,double standards or just something that is okay if you approve of it?

    • GregS

      eddie47d says:

      “…you go and FORCE her AGAINST her will to have that ultrasound placed up her vagina.”

      Wrong! The law states that the woman would be OFFERED, but could DECLINE, a vaginal ultrasound.

      You really need to get your facts straight, Eddie!

      Furthermore, abortionists are already routinely doing this type of ultrasound to determaine the gestationlal age of the unborn child, before doing the abortion.

      The use of vaginal ultrasound takes on added significance with “chemical” (RU486) abortions, where abortionists have long since raced past pushing the envelope. They are already employing this two-drug abortion technique through nine weeks of pregnancy (two weeks past when the FDA says it is safe), so they really do want to know the unborn child’s age.

      Therefore, Eddie, to answer your question, the Virginia Governor did NOT “over step his boundaries” by any stretch of the immagination!

    • eddie47d

      He sure did simply for the fact that he originally agreed to such intrusive behavior. Now tell us what the consequence would be if these women didn’t comply? I know you Conservatives love to shout out WRONG but attempt to push your agenda anyway. How far will you go next time? Will it be like that of Conservative Senator Bennett of Utah who wanted to pass a bill making it a crime if a woman didn’t report their miscarriages to the police. The difference in your reply is the free will of the woman and not forced to have it done without her consent at a clinic.

  • Jaded

    May the Socialists are trying to keep our reproductive numbers down. Hmmmm.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.