Is the Birth Control Issue hurting the GOP with Women Voters?

As far as taxing religious institutions that involve themselves in politics, I couldn't agree with you more. They say anything remotely political from the pulpit, in church correspondence both internal and to the congregation, rallies, protests, anything, tax them like any other business. If they are pushing any political agenda in any manner, they should be subject to taxation. I defy any fellow conservatives to show how it would violate the separation clause without reaching. Even though in all the placement tests I've taken I come up as slightly left of center libertarian, the challenge is still out there. Show me in the Constitution where it exempts churchs from taxation.

But don't confuse the majority of conservatives with the GOP. They have long since replaced true conservatism with some strange bastardization. Most consevatives don't want the government involved in ANY type of social engineering. Not left and not right. We want the federal government to do what is spelled out in the constitution, no more, no less. We believe folks should be able to succeed by their own hard work and keep what they earn from their toils. Folks don't "deserve" that big screen tv with all the premium cable channels, Escalade, $200 dollar tennis shoes, or a house out in the suburbs, just because they exist or because "everybody else has it, why not me?". We believe you have to work for it if you want it.

I may be a bit different from other conservatives in the realm of birth control and abortion. I would never suggest an abortion to anyone. If I got a gal pregnant, I would do everything legally in my power to stop her from getting an abortion (unfortunately that's not very much), but I would never deny a woman her right to choose. Every single choice we make in life has it's consequences and we all need to be responsible for our own choices. Our own, not someone elses. If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's real simple. The only way to be sure and not make babies, is to not do that which produces babies. All forms of contraception have a failure rate. The only sure proof method is abstinance. But if you can't keep your dick in your pants or your legs closed, don't expect me to help pay for it. I have to take care of me and mine, and that's hard enough. I didn't get the pleasure of dipping in to your woman and getting her pregnant, so don't expect me to pay for it when does get knocked up. And before you get indignant, I'm talking to you, yes, but my words are directed at the topic, not you specifically.

Bottom line is, as someone stated earlier, It's pay to play. If you want to engage in behaviour that has a specific consequence but don't want to be responsible for the results of that behaviour, you are violating my rights as a human being to not be responsible for your choices. That includes paying for your birth control and viagra.

Yes, you are right-winger. And yes you are scientifically illiterate because you say "life begins at conception", ignoramus. Moron, that is not fact- that is your idiot opinion backed by zero credibility or no good science. And no good number of experts in the medical or science community agrees with you either. I'm not gonna go into all the methodology and details because I know it'll go over your head. All I'm gonna say is that A human embryo is not considered viable, because it cannot survive outside the uterus. at the end of the 8th week after fertilization (10 weeks of pregnancy), the embryo is considered a fetus. (In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization).The fetus is actually considered full-term between weeks 37 and 40, which means that the fetus is considered sufficiently developed for life outside the uterus.

You are one clueless charlatan. Sex among teenagers is on a record high. Abortions rates are way lower because of contraceptive uses. There is no proof abstinence works better than or just as good as sex ed. So, stop trying to misleadingly substantiate your falsehoods.

" So I very much believe we should make condoms and other forms of birth control available as early as 5th or 6th grade. But we can't just provide contraception and leave it at that."

There you go again attacking the reproductive rights of women. The sadder part of this whole thing is that you're too dumb to figure out that what you've just said is both misogynist and discriminatory. Why can't girls get the same access to birth control as boys, moron? Why won't Congress pass a "Every Sperm is Sacred" bill rather than a "Abortion is Evil" bill?


Like I said, take your religious, anti-intellectual beliefs and shove it. No one's listening to you. The majority of Americans are on my side, not yours.

You clearly do NOT understand or know how to read. I NEVER SAID ABSTINENCE ONLY. I even said they should start passing out condoms in freaking grade school. Are you really STILL trying to tell me you can get pregnant without having some form of sex? If you try answering my questions and get past your leftist agenda perhaps we can have a genuine discussion. I've very clearly stated that I'm very close to being an atheist, not a member of the GOP, and I am pro choice. Yet you continue to try and call me a member of some vast christian right conspiracy. The fact is I disavowed myself from the GOP specifically because of their cow towing to the christian right, way back in the '90s.

I'm not going to insult you anymore, mainly because you don't understand the insults in the first place(last one I promise). I really want to have this conversation with you in a rational manner with no rhetoric or agendas from either of us.

First, you have never actually addressed the topic of this thread, which is whether or not insurance companies, by force of federal legislation, should be required to cover the cost of birth control, and whether or not the GOP's saying they should not be is going to hurt their chances in the upcoming election. My assertion is that yes it will, and I base that on the main stream media misstating the conservative position on the matter. It is not about the GOP wanting to limit women's rights to birth control. It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation.

Second, you have yet to even try to explain to me exactly how you get pregnant without having sex. For purposes of this discussion you need to leave out such things as artificial insemination because that is an intentional attempt at pregnancy. You keep going on about how abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, and surprise, surprise, I agree with you on that. You go on about "comprehensive sex education", yet want to eliminate abstinence from the discussion. By definition of "comprehensive", eliminating abstinence shortens it to being only sex ed. We need to teach people that they have the option to take advantage of the only way possible to not get pregnant or catch a disease, as well as how to protect themselves if they choose to have sex. We need to teach them the physical and mental ramifications of sexuality. If you limit the discussion to throwing rubbers and the pill at them, without also explaining to them there are ways to not have to make use of them, you are then NOT giving them all the tools they need to make proper and informed decisions as regards to having sex.

If you can't answer my questions in a rational and honest manner, specifically how a gal can get pregnant if she doesn't have sex, then I'm going to have to give up on you as a leftist rhetoric infused fool. If you can, then I owe you a very sincere apology. To qualify for that apology though, you need to prove your case without trying to say I said things I never said. That means re reading my words and comprehending them
in an honest manner.

" It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation..." "should be required to cover the cost of birth control, and whether.... "

Wrong again. Are you ever right on anything? the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the "right to marital privacy". In 1972, the case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried couples. Also, Read the Welfare Clause of the US Constitution.

"It is not about the GOP wanting to limit women's rights to birth control. It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation."
Wrong again. you seem to never be right. We already are giving federal aid (tax dollars) to non-profit organizations like Planned Paenthood for providing reproductive health and maternal and child health services. We already subsidize insurance companies to offer birth control for men and women, the federal govt funds clinical research on erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals like Viagra and Cialis, the state and federal governments oversees Medicaid, which is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States, and the federal gov't funds other services like giving out free condoms to boys and men in schools. So why not make insurance companies offer birth control for women too>? are you slow or what? What don't you grasp?

"Second, you have yet to even try to explain to me exactly how you get pregnant without having sex."

Something is wrong with you. I ignored this on several occasions because it's outlandishly retarded it doesn't derserve an answer .

"...not the GOP's saying they should not be is going to hurt their chances in the upcoming election,.."

.You've never asked this question.

"You clearly do NOT understand or know how to read. I NEVER SAID ABSTINENCE ONLY."

Oh, Ok. yet you say girls shouldn't have access to birth control. Only boys should. what a moron.

"...I even said they should start passing out condoms in freaking grade school."

What about girls' reproductive rights. Why are derailing?

"I've very clearly stated that I'm very close to being an atheist, not a member of the GOP, and I am pro choice. Yet you continue to try and call me a member of some vast christian right conspiracy."

Yeah, ok. Liar, liar, pants on fire/

I was really hoping you could get your head out of your ass but that's what I get for being an optimist. You've expounded so much BS I'm not going to try and answer it all. Can you show me where you answered the topic this thread is on? No you can't.
Can you show me where I said women should be denied access to birth control or where only guys should? Nope, you can't.
I could post my voter registration card but I won't. Very likely you wouldn't recognize one if you saw it.
The topic has nothing to do with "the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the "right to marital privacy". In 1972, the case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried couples. Also, Read the Welfare Clause of the US Constitution". You must have pulled that out of your ass, though I don't know how you found the room for it pass with your head so far up there. Talk about derailing.
You started out in your first post attacking conservatives in an ugly vitriolic manner, and yet I agreed with your basic premise of taxing churches that engage in political activity. You are typical dumb liberal want the world handed to them idiots. You can't let go of the rhetoric or get out of attack mode and have a real and valid discussion on the issues as presented.

Go ahead and continue to spin what I have said to try and fit your argument that isn't even relevant to the conversation in the first place. Go ahead and keep that veil over your eyes and believe that condoms and other contraceptive devices are more effective than not engaging in activities that can make you pregnant or even kill you.

I'll only bang my head against the wall for so long before I walk away, and now it's time to go. If you want to have a rational discussion on the actual topics and things I have said rather than things I haven't said, I will gladly entertain that prospect. In the meantime, I sincerely hope you are enjoying that kool-aid you've been drinking, because you must be pissing buckets of it by now.