Jump to content
Want daily summaries and Breaking News alerts?
From staff reports
As of Sunday, February 19, 2012
© Copyright 2013
For more squawks, pick up a copy of today's Albany Herald.
To submit a squawk, Click here.
Wrong again Genius Squawker. Republicans are FOR LIFE, for PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY, and for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM among many other things. Republicans are AGAINST GOVERNMENT FORCING PEOPLE TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S laziness, irresponsibility, stupidity, or lack of morality. Don't force ME to pay for YOUR contraceptives (including and especially ABORTION) if my FAITH prohibits it and you are not MY SPOUSE.
ENOUGH WITH THE SHOUTING!
I have NEVER considered an abortion as contraception. I thought "contraception" was pregnancy prevention. I have nothing against preventing pregnancy until you are ready, able and can afford a child. (or think you can afford...they r a gift that keeps on costing... lol)
The squawker is referring to Republican efforts to block the ObamaCare requirement for contraception to be paid for by entities that oppose the use of contraception, like the Catholic Church. No mention of abortions.
Don't get me wrong, the squawker is still an idiot, but let's at least blast him for the right things.
Another IGNORANT squawk. No one is against contraception. We ARE, though, against being MADE to pay for your contraception.
Contraception certainly is better than abortion. Abstanance is even better. I know some feel they have a right to have children, but along with that right must come the ability to afford them. Not expecting the other members of the so called village to pay to raise your children.
If the squawker is approached by strangers at the theater who wants him/her to pay for their tickets, would he /she say no? Certainly! Would it be because he/she is against the strangers attending the movies? The squawk indicates that must be the reason. How dare you to not want strangers enjoying the movies! A pox on your house! ;)
Did the bill suddenly become contraceptive coverage for those who cannot afford it as opposed to simply denying insurance coverage for all women? Would it not be cheaper to assist in preventing pregnancies than to pay for a child until the 18th birthday? We are being MADE to pay for Viagra and Cialis that may be helping to cause pregnancies; what is the difference? Are you actually going to argue that Viagra and Cialis are pro-life and contraception prevents life?
while there may be some exceptions to the rule, I think the men taking viagra and cialis, if married, probably have wives who have passed their prime and can no longer have chillins (menopause). so that part of your argument does not hold water
oh, puh-lease! who says a Viagra man is only doing his menopausal wife? he could be single, divorced, widowed----and doing a young woman of child-bearing age!
because, despite of what you see and hear in movies, tv, music, media....most men are faithful. that's why I said IF MARRIED. i also said there were exceptions to the rule. you really need to take the whole post into consideration and not just pick and choose. tell me where to send the money...i'd like to start paying for your advice/opinion! It is realllllllyyyyyy good! there's no way we should be getting this information for free anymore
Dare to dream, Tywebb. Check State Police records for arrested and convicted rapists who were found with Viagra or Cialis on their person or in home when detained. The numbers may shock you.
"Would it not be cheaper to assist in preventing pregnancies than to pay for a child until the 18th birthday?"
The way you phrased the question made me think you are referring to the cost to the government. If so, you must be talking about the cost of welfare for those who can not support their children. Certainly it makes financial sense to pay for contraception rather than pay for raising someone else's child. Not only should the government provide contraception for those on welfare, effective contraception should be required for anyone who already has a child they can not support without governmental assistance.
On the other hand, if you are suggesting that private groups should be forced to include certain provisions in the policies they write or purchase, the issue becomes a matter of government intrusion and denial of personal freedoms.
If the government had not stuck it's "camel's nose" under the tent, the answer to your question would be: Yes! And He and She are responsible for the cost of avoiding the pregnancy and also for the cost of raising the child that results from their best efforts.
Without government intrusion, insurance companies and their customers could agree on policies they believe work best for them, rather than the government dictating what must be in the policy. Insurance companies could calculate the cost effectiveness of including contraceptive coverage and then price the options accordingly for their customers who want it included. Perhaps contraceptive coverage would result in lower premiums. Customers would be free to choose options that meet their needs.
With this new contraception bill, the government IS interfering in lives. When don't they? Compulsory school, taxes, speed limits, housing codes, fire codes, paint codes, color of wiring codes, weight limit codes...the list goes on. Constitutional rights are also government intrusions. Can't pick and choose.
Welfare, Food stamps, free lunch (fraud or not), emergency room as primary care, overcrowded and underfunded public schools---however, not the point. I do not receive any of these gov't funds and I do not mind paying taxes to fund them. What other option is there? Oh right, leave them to the dogs as many in this region (and religions) would do.
Sorry, erudite. I'm old and slow. I didn't follow you, other than governments intrude into lives in a gazillion ways. Can you explain "Constitutional rights are also government intrusions." ? Thanks in advance.
I struggle with this issue. On the one hand I do not think that I should have to pay for my neighbors contraceptives. On the other hand, I cannot help but think that if my helping pay for my neighbors contraceptives helps prevent an unwanted pregnancy or child or an abortion of an unwanted child then the shared cost was a small price to pay.
To be clear, I agree with Shinedownfan, abortion is NOT a contraceptive and I do not want to be made to pay for anyone's abortion. I am talking strictly preventive measures like condoms and birth control pills.
Even so, if we DID pay for all our neighbors' contraception, we can't possibly force them to USE it. Or make them go to the doctor to get it.
i'm pretty sure it's the catholic church who is against contraception, not republicans. although, just about all catholics are repubs, not all of the repubs are catholics
Ty, some free advice, okay? although it is your right to free speech, you may want to consider that your opinion (different from free speech) is whether readers take you seriously--or not. so your opinion should be based on facts--not just how you feel about an issue. http://blog.adw.org/2012/02/to-what-p...>
so, take out my second sentence. That sentence was based on my personal experiences. sorry for confusing you. i'll definitely pay you for that advice later. you are the best poster out there (fact, not opinion)
The fracas has less to do with private moral choices and religious liberty than with rewriting the First Amendment's first freedom, religion. The new code words used by major and minor administration officials are "freedom of worship," and the free exercise of religion is being reduced to free speech inside church buildings.
It comes down to the government defining "exclusively religious activities" as preaching, teaching catechism and providing sacramental services.
The bottom line: Just about anyone will have access to "contraceptive services" (including abortifacients) in one way or another. In dense government-ese and buried in the pages and pages of PPACA documentation is the fact that all insurance companies still must provide the three things Catholic teachings oppose: contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization.
We are not against contraception. The issue is religious freedom. Must a church provide and pay for something, which it morally opposes? Only in a nation with an overbearing government.
Did y'all hear the one about the feminist democrat female fetus who could not wait to be born so she could could March for Choice?
Did y'all hear about this? http://www.slate.com/articles/double_...>
in a post from fridays squak, you said you are a teacher? how do you get to spend so much time on this website if you're a teacher? are you one of the cheaters who get to sit over at an old school building, waiting for your day in court? or are you just one of the many fine teachers who don't teach?
first off, today is a furlough day (no school). second, hate to disappoint you, but I wasn't one of the cheaters. and third, I teach (I think). Anyway, I like to think I teach. hard to say if anybody's learning, however, with all the talking, texting, and sleeping----that is, if they show up in the first place.
didn't know you had a furlough day. sorry. i used to teach, so i understand what you're saying. and i'm not disappointed.
What the real question is, simply put, does the Government have a duty to force a relegious sect into financing something that is totally against it's basic tennants. The parts of the Bible this sect has chosen to adopt for their claim to relegion. In reality right now, there are many Catholics funding birth-control and abortions through their taxes they pay. However the Catholic Church is not funding these, because they don't pay taxes. So the Government is now telling the Catholic Church that they will have to offer Birth-control as a covered part of their health care program. How right, or how wrong are either side? I would guess when one went to work for the Catholic Church, one should know something about their beliefs. The one about birth-control is well known and often debated as to whether it is meant to keep the Catholic Church well populated, or it has to do with God's wishes. Who knows, I know I fund one heck of a lot of things I don't agree with, courtesy of the Government. Maybe the Catholic Church should also. Lets make all the Church's pay taxes while we are at it.
Contraceptives have been free for I know 40 years. The health clinic has always given free birth control. You may have to pay a token fee now, but did not use to. When I first became sexually active, doctors and their high moral ethics would not prescribe them to a single female. So I went to the health clinic and never looked back. It cost them money Now the signs are everywhere, but you will be suprised who does not know about them or the morning after pill. It is much easier to pay that than later. I myself believe that a woman on welfare should be forced to use a midwife unless an emergency. She should never be given any more free epidurials or free anything except the delivery by a midwife. If more of these girls experienced the pain I had, nothing was given they would be less likely to have another baby until they can afford all the perks that paying customers get. All the luzuries should not be free.
You are correct about the free birth control at health departments -- at least, I KNOW it was 8-10 years ago because I took my daughters there for it. A nurse told me one day that every Friday afternoon after school let out at LCHS, lots of boys would stop by there to pick up little paper bags of condoms that they gave out for free.