DescentBB

Calm down Slick. 4-5 good reasons make good assumptions, I was being gracious but only time will tell. The 'Merikan remark was obviously sarcasm directed at Vision's prior use of it. I also found it equally disturbing that our soldiers were likened to mercenaries and gave circumstances that would make that possible but that's not how it is now.

Lol. I was wondering when you played that card. I can't be a racist. You can't believe in God and be a racist. I feel that all the different cultures and races show the greatness and diversity of God. I'm against Obama personally and for very specific reasons. Now that the race card is gone, maybe we could discuss them .

EDIT: The pompous asses I was referring to was your buddies, Jeez

Obama has apparently succeeded with this little battle. He's either cagier than I thought, or lucky. Kind of makes me happy to see a right wing attack on the left blow up right in their own faces.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/publ ... 13637.html

why is it that if someone dislikes Obama, one of the first thing that Democrats think is they've got to be racist????
I've found that those who scream racist the most, tend to be the biggest racist.

Matthew 7:5 wrote:Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:The source of most of those Warren court quotes being bandied about happens to be NPR.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of your little spin job.

what spin job? In the context of the discussion, they are just fine. Obama is expressing the intent of the Warren court, NOT his opinion, if you read the whole thing.

First it's a lie, has to be lie. Now talk about spin, Obama was expressing his views and opinions not the intent of the Warren court. The intent and opinions of the Warren court came their rulings.

CUDA wrote:why is it that if someone dislikes Obama, one of the first thing that Democrats think is they've got to be racist????
I've found that those who scream racist the most, tend to be the biggest racist.

Matthew 7:5 wrote:Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

I said nothing of the sort concerning racism. All I said was that I was happy that Obama has finally gotten one small victory in the constant war being waged against him. Sure, he's brought on some of the attacks himself with his ineptitude and conservative butt kissing, but this little victory is more personal because I'm female and I don't want to see my rights regress back to the 1950's courtesy of the Catholic Church patriarchy, never mind that most of their own flock doesn't follow their own dogma either.

Try this on for size. The Catholics are only one of many religions that could have fought Obama on this health care demand. As a far fetched but plausible example, what if say, Scientologists, ran some hospitals by their strict no drug edicts and had decided that they didn't want to pay for chemo treatments for non-Scientologist cancer patients, and their hospitals were the only ones for miles around that these patients could go to? In many areas, including Corvallis, Lebanon and Albany, the Catholics own the hospitals, Good Samaritan. If a woman happens to need to have a necessary abortion due to her health reasons, good luck getting it performed around here.

Let one religion have an exemption when they deal with the rest of society, and it's a slippery slope to the failure of the whole system. We aren't a Catholic-based society in this country any more than we are a Scientology-based society. We're a mix of many religions and creeds that need to respect one another to function as a whole. If Catholics don't want to treat those who are non-Catholic, they need to get out of the health care business. It's no longer a palliative care medical world. It's full of technological and medical advances that may or may not violate their beliefs. They can't pick and choose who and how to treat when they provide services to everyone, especially when they take in federal dollars from everyone. If they don't want to comply to secular demands, don't take federal dollars and don't treat non-Catholics. Very simple. If a non-Catholics want to get care from a Catholic institution under those restrictions, they're free to do so.

Heretic wrote:First it's a lie, has to be lie. Now talk about spin, Obama was expressing his views and opinions not the intent of the Warren court. The intent and opinions of the Warren court came their rulings.

do you routinely have reading comprehension problems or does Obama just bring them on for you? Read, slowly if need be, the whole text again. He is discussing the fact that, although the Warren court was considered 'radical' by many, they maintained a certain definition of the restraints of the Constitution which had been in force for a century. Elaborating on that definition are the words you cite as his feelings about the Constitution. It really isn't that hard to figure out, unless you are bound and determined to find some evil plan behind the Obama Presidency.

tunnelcat wrote:I said nothing of the sort concerning racism

I'm pretty sure CUDA was referencing my question to Flip on that score, not your post. And, to clarify, as one who has probably made close to 10,000 pursuasion calls, canvassing survey calls and walking visits to homes, I do see a subtle racism playing out in some folks' objections to Obama. Why? Because you can go, point by point, through their voiced objections, debunking and clarifying, and they concede in most cases that their views were off to some extent, yet they actively search for more reasons to dislike the man. I've never seen such a response in 36 years of political activism to any major candidate or incumbant. Further, I tend to see such responses ONLY from white voters. I'm not assuming anything, but it does make me wonder. I asked the question of Flip as I gave him credit for an honest answer.
.

Oh, and TC: well put framing of the whole contraceptive coverage thing. I heard someone the other night put it well when they stated that the entire issue is that under Obama's plans, ALL women, regardless of income or religion, have the right to choose contraception if they wish to, or decline it if they wish to, and THAT is what freedom looks like.

If spin don't work insult.

Heretic wrote:If spin don't work insult.

look, plain English is plain English. Demonstrating repeatedly that one has read same and coming up with bogus conclusions is a reading comprehension issue. Or, bald-faced lying. I was trying to be charitable.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I said nothing of the sort concerning racism

I'm pretty sure CUDA was referencing my question to Flip on that score, not your post. And, to clarify, as one who has probably made close to 10,000 pursuasion calls, canvassing survey calls and walking visits to homes, I do see a subtle racism playing out in some folks' objections to Obama. Why? Because you can go, point by point, through their voiced objections, debunking and clarifying, and they concede in most cases that their views were off to some extent, yet they actively search for more reasons to dislike the man. I've never seen such a response in 36 years of political activism to any major candidate or incumbant. Further, I tend to see such responses ONLY from white voters. I'm not assuming anything, but it does make me wonder. I asked the question of Flip as I gave him credit for an honest answer.

My bad. He's brought up the race issue before because I have in the past, although not this time.

callmeslick wrote:Oh, and TC: well put framing of the whole contraceptive coverage thing. I heard someone the other night put it well when they stated that the entire issue is that under Obama's plans, ALL women, regardless of income or religion, have the right to choose contraception if they wish to, or decline it if they wish to, and THAT is what freedom looks like.

That's the problem with freedom. One person's idea of freedom can be another person's repression. Since we are all different, we have to deal with that fact and try to come to a workable consensus. There is always give and take, an optimum point.

Jenson from Deus Ex wrote:Absolute freedom is no different than chaos

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:If spin don't work insult.

look, plain English is plain English. Demonstrating repeatedly that one has read same and coming up with bogus conclusions is a reading comprehension issue. Or, bald-faced lying. I was trying to be charitable.

Then Rinse and Repeat insult. Liberals Just love doing that.

puhlease. You would prefer liberals and moderates(I am the latter) simply make s*** up like you do?

Funny I'm a liar but it's for some elses spoken words. Those are his words. Not Mine.

Rinse and Repeat

tunnelcat wrote:
That's the problem with freedom. One person's idea of freedom can be another person's repression. Since we are all different, we have to deal with that fact and try to come to a workable consensus. There is always give and take, an optimum point.

You're right. The question is, who's right is more important? The one established in the Bill of Rights: freedom of religion; or this newer idea: the right to birth control?

I am not opposed to birth control. I believe prevention is key. I am opposed to a group being legally required to provide a product/service when it goes against their belief, even if I personally disagree with their belief. We do need to find a compromise. My idea of compromise would be the non-Catholic doctors opening up a clinic across the street that provided the services the Hospital won't. Or an insurance company offering contraceptive coverage to employees that want it. Or maybe a health savings plan that can be use at the clinic across the street.

I feel that something can be done to make both groups happy without stepping on the toes of either side.

ryguy64 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
That's the problem with freedom. One person's idea of freedom can be another person's repression. Since we are all different, we have to deal with that fact and try to come to a workable consensus. There is always give and take, an optimum point.

You're right. The question is, who's right is more important? The one established in the Bill of Rights: freedom of religion; or this newer idea: the right to birth control?

I am not opposed to birth control. I believe prevention is key. I am opposed to a group being legally required to provide a product/service when it goes against their belief, even if I personally disagree with their belief. We do need to find a compromise. My idea of compromise would be the non-Catholic doctors opening up a clinic across the street that provided the services the Hospital won't. Or an insurance company offering contraceptive coverage to employees that want it. Or maybe a health savings plan that can be use at the clinic across the street.

I feel that something can be done to make both groups happy without stepping on the toes of either side.

No one's rights should take precedence over another person's rights. What you propose is the sort of sensible compromise that should be being discussed in all this rhetoric. But no one, either side, seems to want compromise, only to demagogue. Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to make everyone follow a particular religion's beliefs. That's why the "Separation of Church and State" is such an important idea. Unfortunately, when the public and private sectors have overlapping contact, we're going to have friction.

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-protest ... 31756.html

The solutions are simple. Either religious organizations need to get out of the health care business all together or follow your idea of opening up non-denominational clinics with non-Catholic employees. If they don't want their rights violated, they shouldn't be serving the general public at large when using federal tax dollars. They will have to find a new way to deal with modern health care instead of crying that their rights are being trampled on by those evil liberals.

tunnelcat wrote:

I said nothing of the sort concerning racism. All I said was that I was happy that Obama has finally gotten one small victory in the constant war being waged against him. Sure, he's brought on some of the attacks himself with his ineptitude and conservative butt kissing, but this little victory is more personal because I'm female and I don't want to see my rights regress back to the 1950's courtesy of the Catholic Church patriarchy, never mind that most of their own flock doesn't follow their own dogma either.

Callmeslick wrote: Oh, and TC: well put framing of the whole contraceptive coverage thing. I heard someone the other night put it well when they stated that the entire issue is that under Obama's plans, ALL women, regardless of income or religion, have the right to choose contraception if they wish to, or decline it if they wish to, and THAT is what freedom looks like.

Tell me, if Obama never brought this up, how would womens right to contraceptives/abortion been abrogated? Only change is they may of had to pay for some of it instead of getting it free. Obama has just raised a pre-election canard for political reasons. The real question is just how far are you willing to let the feds into your life? NC is already up in arms over a fed being in a elementary school telling a kid mommy packed a worthless lunch and the govt. is a better parent. So what next? Free vasectomies? Forced requirements of what kids can wear to school. We are on the road to the feds taking control of our personal lives and some of you think it is a good idea.

callmeslick wrote:
I'm pretty sure CUDA was referencing my question to Flip on that score, not your post. And, to clarify, as one who has probably made close to 10,000 pursuasion calls, canvassing survey calls and walking visits to homes, I do see a subtle racism playing out in some folks' objections to Obama. Why? Because you can go, point by point, through their voiced objections, debunking and clarifying, and they concede in most cases that their views were off to some extent, yet they actively search for more reasons to dislike the man. I've never seen such a response in 36 years of political activism to any major candidate or incumbant. Further, I tend to see such responses ONLY from white voters. I'm not assuming anything, but it does make me wonder. I asked the question of Flip as I gave him credit for an honest answer.

I bet if I canvassed the inner city of Detroit and couched my questions about the GOP white boy choice, I too would detect racism...only it would not be subtle.

woodchip wrote:Tell me, if Obama never brought this up, how would womens right to contraceptives/abortion been abrogated? Only change is they may of had to pay for some of it instead of getting it free. Obama has just raised a pre-election canard for political reasons. The real question is just how far are you willing to let the feds into your life? NC is already up in arms over a fed being in a elementary school telling a kid mommy packed a worthless lunch and the govt. is a better parent. So what next? Free vasectomies? Forced requirements of what kids can wear to school. We are on the road to the feds taking control of our personal lives and some of you think it is a good idea.

You're right that this was a calculated political move by Obama. But the Catholics rose right up to the bait, and may have lost the battle because the patriarchy was out of touch with the times and they didn't realize that their own flock wanted the same thing Obama was pushing. Like I said in my earlier post, the Catholics pretty much run the hospitals in my area, so they would definitely abrogate a woman's access to contraceptives here just because they are the biggest player in town. As for free vasectomies, why not? They're quick, cheap and sometimes reversible. That would put the onus of reproductive responsibility on the male for once.

As for the feds controlling our lives, if the government didn't protect the commons that we all share, we'd have a free-for-all winner-take-all atmosphere. What I worry about are the global corporations that are infiltrating our lives. But since the feds are now controlled by corporate interests, you may have a point, because the commons is now being privatized for profit and our private information is being bought and sold like a commodity. I'd be more receptive to right wing arguments of shrinking government if they vowed to trim our government by weening it off of corporate cronyism. By the way, we WERE forced to adhere to a dress code when I was in PUBLIC grade school and junior high. It royally sucked.

tunnelcat wrote:No one's rights should take precedence over another person's rights. What you propose is the sort of sensible compromise that should be being discussed in all this rhetoric. But no one, either side, seems to want compromise, only to demagogue. Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to make everyone follow a particular religion's beliefs. That's why the "Separation of Church and State" is such an important idea. Unfortunately, when the public and private sectors have overlapping contact, we're going to have friction.

But here's the thing...no one would be forcing these employees to adhere to particular religious beliefs. They're perfectly free to walk down to their local drugstore and pick up a pack of condoms, or get a prescription for the Pill filled, and their employer would have no say in the matter either way. The issue is whether or not said employer should have to be the one footing the bill for (generally) optional medications or procedures that directly violate their core beliefs. If a prospective employer of mine offers me a health package that isn't adequate for my needs, I have every right to look elsewhere for an employer who does; in the same way, if the people looking for employment at Catholic-run institutions are adamant that birth control should be covered for them, then they should seek jobs elsewhere.

In the end, I simply don't see why the fact that a medical institution happens to accept some degree of federal funding should have any bearing on what services they're forced to provide, particularly when said services generally don't constitute as medical care. (Obviously, medically-necessary sterilizations, or birth-control pills being used to treat hormonal imbalances, represent exceptions, and I would have no issues with coverage of those.) People are still free to buy birth-control on their own, but the Church shouldn't be the one footing the bill.

so much of this thread illustrates the exact problem with US healthcare and insurance. One should never be at the mercy of an employer or have to change employers to get simple basic cost-effective healthcare insurance. And, contraceptives ARE extremely cost effective medicine. Once again I ask: why don't we just all get behind the concept of cradle to grave Medicare, and accept the taxation to pay for it? The costs to the average person(my company and I pay a total of $17000 per year for my plan),
will plummet, the citizenry will be freed from working for insurance coverage, the economy will blossom and employers can move forward free of the most burdensome threat of all.......not knowing what future costs will be for health coverage.

woodchip wrote: The real question is just how far are you willing to let the feds into your life?

couldn't it be seen that the GOP view is essentially a bunch of men(note list of those expected to testify at tomorrows contrraceptives hearing in the House) telling women what to do with their lives? My view on this, and abortion for that matter is that I shouldn't object to any woman's choice until I am able to get pregnant.




Then again, we could all share the enlightened view of a major Santorum supporter, and I quote, directly:
"This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's so inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly."

Back to the dark ages with the 21st century version of 'conservatives'. Of course, these nitwits have no relation to true conservatives, by any traditional definition. Frankly, some of these folks are moving towards being Luddites.

callmeslick wrote:so much of this thread illustrates the exact problem with US healthcare and insurance. One should never be at the mercy of an employer or have to change employers to get simple basic cost-effective healthcare insurance. And, contraceptives ARE extremely cost effective medicine. Once again I ask: why don't we just all get behind the concept of cradle to grave Medicare, and accept the taxation to pay for it? The costs to the average person(my company and I pay a total of $17000 per year for my plan),
will plummet, the citizenry will be freed from working for insurance coverage, the economy will blossom and employers can move forward free of the most burdensome threat of all.......not knowing what future costs will be for health coverage.

I don't deny that the current system is all sorts of FUBAR and really needs to be changed. But given that said system is the one in play, and employers are the ones responsible for covering their employees' healthcare needs, I can't agree with a plan that forces organizations into paying for elective services that they have a moral issue with, with the only other option being a complete shutdown of said organizations.

(God that Bayer quote made me wince.)

But, TG, the plan doesn't call for that, it just insists that such coverage be available, which it will, from other sources, to those employees. Also, as I heard someone point out tonight, imagine if you give employers some sort of nebulous moral exclusion to any sorts of health coverage. Want to bet all sorts of 'moral' objections pop up, especially to expensive stuff? Now, I don't agree with the Catholic position on contraception, but I grant them the right to not provide the medication or service. I do not agree that, when in a role of employer to folks who might have a variety of beliefs, that they should be able to not cover contraceptives. On the other hand, as I pointed out, the insurance companies will gladly foot the bill for (cheap, cheap, cheap) contraceptives on the actuarial premise that they might later have to pay for prenatal care, premature births, pediatric illnesses, etc(expensive).

It does seem that Obama's clarification does provide a good compromise, as far as I've been able to tell. I was more referring to the proposal as it was initially phrased, which really was forcing the issue.

I wonder if I canvassed a white neighborhood in Crawford, TX, would I hear any racism woodchip? Or maybe Savannah? Or maybe Phoenix?

There are people that voted for Obama simply because he is black...just as there are people that voted against Obama simply because he is black.

I've been saying this for years, if the Church(es) want to have a hand in the political process, then they need to start paying taxes. Everyone one else (including corporations) have to pay some sort of income tax, yet the Churches get away with it for free. They are for profit and they meddle in the affairs of so many people that don't believe what they do. The Catholic Church is the single wealthiest corporation on the face of the Earth...

OK, this just proves it. Republicans have now proved they're just unprincipled hypocrite hacks who want nothing good for the country or it citizens and only want to destroy a Democratic President and his policies, no matter what it takes. They were for it before they were against it, even Romney (who's now railing against it in his campaign speeches) and Huckabee (a minister).

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-gop ... 2996.story

The kicker, the Catholic hierarchy either went along with this mandate, or conveniently kept their mouths shut, when Republicans proposed and implemented similar mandates in many GOP governed states back a few years ago. They aren't true to their faith either, only politics when it suits their agenda.

I've been saying this for years, if the Church want to have a hand in the political process, then they need to start paying taxes. Everyone one else (including corporations) have to pay some sort of income tax, yet the Church gets away with it for free. They are for profit and they meddle in the affairs of so many people that don't believe what they do. The Catholic Church is the single wealthiest corporation on the face of the Earth...

Agreed. I myself don't have a pot to piss in.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:why is it that if someone dislikes Obama, one of the first thing that Democrats think is they've got to be racist????
I've found that those who scream racist the most, tend to be the biggest racist.

Matthew 7:5 wrote:Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

I said nothing of the sort concerning racism.

I wasn't referring to you

so what's next?? first the government forces Church run organizations to provide contraceptives against their will and moral standards. do they next they force them to perform abortions??

More than likely. China does and for some reason at least half our elected officials admire their process.They will want to control and allocate down to the smallest detail eventually. This is my thoughts exactly. All the "elite decision makers" have decided we have to cast our lots in together and I think their right, either we pool our resources and work together or we fight over them. But look at them, quibblers and drama queens. It will be way to huge for any type of group to manage. The in-fighting itself would cause it to self-destruct. Then we will end up with a Dictator that has world-wide authority.

EDIT: There is also an infallible historical record, that this has already happened once and those that recorded the event attributed it's downfall to a God they believed in. The evidence they give for it being an act of God is that they all began to speak, and think in different languages. So God chose in-fighting.

tunnelcat wrote:

You're right that this was a calculated political move by Obama. But the Catholics rose right up to the bait, and may have lost the battle because the patriarchy was out of touch with the times and they didn't realize that their own flock wanted the same thing Obama was pushing.

No, Obama may have lost the Catholic vote because he will be viewed as messing with their church.

tunnelcat wrote:Like I said in my earlier post, the Catholics pretty much run the hospitals in my area, so they would definitely abrogate a woman's access to contraceptives here just because they are the biggest player in town.

So what are the women doing now? Going to a planned parenthood clinic? To the local pharmacy?

tunnelcat wrote:As for the feds controlling our lives, if the government didn't protect the commons that we all share, we'd have a free-for-all winner-take-all atmosphere.

You ever hear of a thing called States Rights? Individual states control the Commons, the feds are to protect our boarders.

callmeslick wrote:so much of this thread illustrates the exact problem with US healthcare and insurance. One should never be at the mercy of an employer or have to change employers to get simple basic cost-effective healthcare insurance. And, contraceptives ARE extremely cost effective medicine.

If it is so cost effective, why does Obama have to mandate insurance company's to provide it for free?

callmeslick wrote:Once again I ask: why don't we just all get behind the concept of cradle to grave Medicare, and accept the taxation to pay for it? The costs to the average person(my company and I pay a total of $17000 per year for my plan),
will plummet, the citizenry will be freed from working for insurance coverage, the economy will blossom and employers can move forward free of the most burdensome threat of all.......not knowing what future costs will be for health coverage.

Just where will the collected money go? Into the general fund for pork barrel projects like everything else does with a promise that the insurance will be in place when you really need it? Your plan will be just another boondoggle that politicians will squander like everything else they touch. We are 15 trillion in debt and rising. Stop coming up with gimmick ideas and tell us how to stop your buddy Obama from turning us into a third world debtor nation instead.

callmeslick wrote:
couldn't it be seen that the GOP view is essentially a bunch of men(note list of those expected to testify at tomorrows contrraceptives hearing in the House) telling women what to do with their lives? My view on this, and abortion for that matter is that I shouldn't object to any woman's choice until I am able to get pregnant.

Lets not throw this canard onto our board here. Men are NOT telling women what to do with their bodies. This is about the Feds getting their camel noses under the religious tent flaps and controlling what church's do.

Top Gun wrote:It does seem that Obama's clarification does provide a good compromise, as far as I've been able to tell. I was more referring to the proposal as it was initially phrased, which really was forcing the issue.

And if the church self insures...then what?

Zuruck wrote:I wonder if I canvassed a white neighborhood in Crawford, TX, would I hear any racism woodchip? Or maybe Savannah? Or maybe Phoenix?

Skim reading again? Peeling turnips while reading? If you care to check I was responding to your buddy Slick who essentially said the same thing you are.



I've been saying this for years, if the Church(es) want to have a hand in the political process, then they need to start paying taxes. Everyone one else (including corporations) have to pay some sort of income tax, yet the Churches get away with it for free. They are for profit and they meddle in the affairs of so many people that don't believe what they do. The Catholic Church is the single wealthiest corporation on the face of the Earth...

The church is not meddling in politics. They are trying to protect themselves from the feds meddling in their affairs. Oh and are you trying to project the church as some evil corporation?

Sanity check:
http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvi ... TvW7rfYkgw
http://vimeo.com/36901157

I have problems with the Catholic Church. Not the local ones or their parishioners, but the Catholic church in Rome has been around in it's current form since the time of Rome. It is older and more established than any other government, nation or institution on this earth. They have even kept total sovereignty and will continue to. I see it more as a sovereign theocracy with huge political influence than a true place of worship.

woodchip wrote:You ever hear of a thing called States Rights? Individual states control the Commons, the feds are to protect our boarders.

except for that part where the Constitution says the government has the power to do whatever for the 'common good', you might have been correct. But alas........

woodchip wrote:If it is so cost effective, why does Obama have to mandate insurance company's to provide it for free?

because the law being discussed is called the AFFORDABLE Care Act, and to lower costs, you have to put in place a system where the most cost-effective medicine is available to all, no matter who employs them. One would think that would be obvious to all, but sadly.....

Just where will the collected money go? Into the general fund for pork barrel projects like everything else does with a promise that the insurance will be in place when you really need it? Your plan will be just another boondoggle that politicians will squander like everything else they touch. We are 15 trillion in debt and rising. Stop coming up with gimmick ideas and tell us how to stop your buddy Obama from turning us into a third world debtor nation instead.

um, do your current Medicare taxes go into the general fund? And, we are in debt because, twelve years ago, we cut our income for NO GOOD REASON, and then went out and fought two wars and followed up with an avoidable economic bubble, which burst.
Talk about gimmicks, yours seems to be making s*** up. Quit fabricating and stick with facts.

Gee willikers mommy! All those men are trying to tell us they know better on how to keep us dumb ol' women from having unwanted babies again! Why don't they ask one us about it?

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 ... women.html

This one is rich. Santorum's benefactor knows just what Mr. Santorum wants in birth control. I like Andrea Mitchell's reaction to this guy's "joke". Gag, choke. And if the economy is what's really important in this election, why does Santorum keep bringing up his views on contraception, namely forbidding it?