jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (6 posts)

So, yet again: Republicans were for it before they were against it. Why do you s

  1. lovemychris profile image59
    lovemychrisposted 3 years ago

    So, yet again: Republicans were for it before they were against it. Why do you still believe them??

    "In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."
    At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.
    The state laws were the product of a campaign by women's groups and others that began after insurers started covering Viagra for men."
    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15 … s-20120216
    info via Casey ?@pari_passu  ยท


  2. Ewent profile image88
    Ewentposted 3 years ago

    First of all, the GOP as usual and the 5 GOP appointed SC justices who voted FOR are spiting the noses on their faces. 52% of the US population according to the 2013 US Census are women. Of that 52%, nearly 85% work outside the home. That number includes senior women who are past retirement age and are still employed.

    For middle class younger families, this ruling is so biased, it will only result in more pregnant women who are struggling to provide a 2nd income for their families by working outside the home. This will result in men in these households needing to recoup the loss of those 2nd incomes. Not too smart.

    Then, this ruling ignores that there are many Islamic businesses in the US who now have the freedom to impose their religious views on female employees.

    Lastly and the most moronic part of this ruling is that nearly 75% of all employees in the US now contribute to the cost of their employer's plan which HE chooses for them and in which they have zero say.

    Do any of the Soprano Mob 5 think employees will help an employer by contributing to their healthcare insurance when it is gender biased against women? Women will opt out of these employer plans in droves, especially since they have a less expensive option with the new ACA plans.

    The end result of this exodus? Employers who are, by law, mandated to enroll in their company plan will pay more for their personal healthcare insurance when they HMOs drop their plans.

    1. lovemychris profile image59
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I thought this ? was gone.Oh well. Thanks for answering! Maybe people will choose not to work there, too. Or shop there.I certainly wouldn't. I'm so sick of the Religious Right, I could scream. Guns-ok. Death penalty-ok.Wars--yes, please!! Head games

  3. lovemychris profile image59
    lovemychrisposted 3 years ago

    They lied!
    "Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to."
    The Handmaid's Tale.... we are living it.
    American Taliban

    1. Ewent profile image88
      Ewentposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I prefer to think it's more that the Soprano 5 weren't prepared for the backlash. It was always just a GOP inspired end run around Roe vs. Wade. The backlash being of course, women opting out in droves of employer plans they help pay for.

    2. lovemychris profile image59
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      They have succeeded pretty well.Safe, sterile abortion is pretty much non-existent anymore.It shows their disdain for the Constitution that they're always yapping about....Bawk Bawk. Tea Bagger Court. Republicans on ice.Privacy: Bawk! Autonomy: Bawk!