WEATHERStates attack 'Obamacare' with birth control bills
Feb 18
2012
Republican lawmakers in a handful of states are opening another front in the war against President Obama's health care overhaul, seizing on the hot-button issue of birth control with bills that would allow insurance companies to ignore new federal rules requiring them to cover contraception.
Measures introduced recently in Idaho, Missouri and Arizona would go beyond religious nonprofits and expand exemptions to secular insurers or businesses that object to covering contraception, abortion and sterilization.
"In its present state, the health care bill is an affront to my religious freedoms," said Idaho Republican Rep. Carlos Bilbao, who is sponsoring the bill.
The ACLU counters, saying such bills discriminate against women.
"Each time more entities are allowed to deny contraceptive coverage, the religious beliefs of some are imposed on others, and gender equality is undermined," said Monica Hopkins, the ACLU's Idaho director.
The bills echo a separate proposal in Congress sponsored by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, allowing insurance plans to opt out of the requirement on contraception coverage if they have moral objections.
The measures are a direct challenge to a recent Obama administration decision that seeks to guarantee employees of religion-affiliated institutions reproductive health coverage, which includes contraception.
The controversy erupted nationally this year when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups protested a new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans.
Their opposition led Obama to modify the rule with changes that shift the burden from religious organizations to insurance companies, a solution that did little to satisfy the opposition and led to the statehouse challenges.
The bills, proposed by Republican lawmakers in conservative states, stand fair chances of passing.
As the issue shifts battlefields from Washington D.C. to state capitols, it offers conservative lawmakers an opportunity to make it more difficult to obtain contraceptives they oppose on moral grounds.
Also, it provides another opportunity for opponents of "Obamacare" to renew the fight they see as a test of states' rights.
Idaho was the first state to pass a law requiring its attorney general to sue over the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Arizona also joined the 27-state constitutional challenge that's pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Missouri, some Republican officials have filed a lawsuit separately.
Americans "confront unprecedented government threats to their religious freedom, in particular from the federal government's newly enacted mandates relating to health insurance," said Gary McCaleb, a lawyer from the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian nonprofit.
Planned Parenthood opposes the measures, arguing that they seek to meddle in essential women's health care that's helped reduce infant and maternal mortality.
"We're going to work to make sure women have access to this benefit no matter where they work," said Rachel Sussman, a Planned Parenthood senior policy analyst. "Only a few states are moving forward with this, and we think they're going to soon find out it's bad politics ... and it's bad health care."
Sussman said it's too early to say whether her group would file a legal challenge to these measures, should they pass, because they conflict with a federal law.
Ron Johnson, executive director of Catholic Charities Conference in Arizona, said at a hearing recently that passing the state law would give Arizona standing to sue the federal government over the regulation.
But constitutional scholar David Gray Adler, who directs the University of Idaho's McClure Center for Public Policy Research, says that should the measures pass, states will likely struggle to assert their laws over the federal rule.
"If the federal program provides that women can have access to contraceptives through insurance programs, states will be required to uphold the federal law. That's the implication of the supremacy clause — federal laws trump state laws."
The U.S. Justice Department could sue to block the laws should they pass,
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Email
.jpg)
Comments
Share your thoughts and opinions with your community. All comments on our site are governed by our Discussion Guidelines. You must have a valid account to post comments.
02:23 PM
BW1 says
brwright :When we broke from Europe and came to this country, it was because we were opressed by Government run Religion. We came over here, but what did we bring with us? Religious opression!
Somebody doesn't understand what he's talking about. People came here to escape government using force to keep them from practicing their religion. This issue is about just that, government forcing people to not practice their religion.
No we don't Goofus! The majority of Americans voted for this president because he promised to change the way Health care is run
So, his (mostly broken) promises to end the foreign occupations, close Gitmo, create jobs, save people from foreclosure, the historical watershed moment inherent in his race, and the fact that his opponent was a bankster-owned loser with a future reality-show star for a running mate had absolutely zero impact? Never mind that not a single poll since his election has shown majority support for his healthcare bill or that in every state election where Obamacare specifically was put to a vote on its own, it was voted down.
05:39 PM
brwright says
Fox News lies and distorts the truth!
Maybe that is why we have so many uneducated "Goofuses" around !!!
05:33 PM
brwright says
No we don't Goofus! The majority of Americans voted for this president because he promised to change the way Health care is run. Too many people being turned away because of pre existing conditions.
Oh yes, and it will create jobs, not kill them like the lies that are being run by your Party Goofus!
Thats a good name for you...Goofus!!
05:29 PM
brwright says
Short History lesson for the Right.
When we broke from Europe and came to this country, it was because we were opressed by Government run Religion. We came over here, but what did we bring with us? Religious opression! It's still with us Folks
11:38 AM
goofus says
Bad news moonbats, left leaning Quinnipac Polling stated that a majority of Americans wants Obozocare repealed.
09:24 AM
goofus says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/per-person-cost-of-federal-high-risk-medical-plan-doubles/2012/02/23/gIQAX3xVWR_print.html
Good old moonbat scoring of cost or should I say hiding the true cost!
09:16 AM
EZOB says
What about the section of the bill that was to take effect Jan.2012 and was set back to to 2013. You deposit 1000 dollars in a bank and it costs $10.00. Draw the money out and it costs another $10.00. 2% on your money no matter how you look at it, but get the election out of the way first because no one would ever think they would do this to us, Yeah, Right!
07:17 PM
origen says
@steve
The healthcare doesnt need "Death panels" the NDAA of 2012 has it covered. HA!!
07:02 PM
sanduskysteve says
Is this like Fox's claim that there were "death panels" in the bill as well?
01:30 PM
goofus says
http://cnsnews.com/blog/michelle-malkin/4-billion-obamacare-slush-fund-progressives
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/23/alinsky-tied-group-awarded-56-million-federal-loan-for-health-insurance-project/?test=latestnews
Surly Obozocare isn't corrupt!!!!
Yes , and President Steve, a legend in his own mind, has all the answers on Obozocare.
12:41 PM
origen says
@Steve
Most of the misunderstandings of the healthcare bill stems from the fact that the insurance companys wrote it (Evere read a insurance policy? After the second page your head hurts, This policy is thousands of pages long) And no one read it before passing it. There will be bad stuff jumping out of the healthcare bill for the next 50 years that no one knows about and will not show up unless a contingency happens. You are correct they are vastly different, They stole from Medicare to support the new healthcare bill so they are seperate.
11:33 AM
sanduskysteve says
SimpleEnough - not sure where you and the rest get the idea that anything is being ordered to be given away for free. I believe, although it is wrong to do it, that the government wanted the insurance companies to supply certain things. I do not agree with that either, but lets stop confusing the idea that others are paying for my or something elses healthcare because it is paid for by taxes - the only healthcare that is paid for by taxes is Medicaid for welfare people. Stop confusing the healthcare bill with medicaid - they are not the same.
My biggest question would be what happened to Clinton's 3-years and your are off welfare that was passed back then. Doesn't seem to be working did some republican eliminate that to gain some kind of support for something else? This one I don't know the answer to.
I would agree that the churches should not be required to pay for benefits they do not wish to just like any other employer should be able to set their own terms and conditions for employment. I think there is still a whole lot of miss-information still out there concerning the healthcare law though and it shines everyday on here.
09:03 AM
SimpleEnough says
The Big Dog's Back, What rubbish is that? No Republican is trying to hold women back. Where do you come up with this crap at?
08:59 AM
SimpleEnough says
eriemom, I Don't buy into anyo of that, I pay for my perscriptions what is happening here is the government is requiring they be given away free. Our government has and is overstepping it's bounds in deciding what is best for us.
03:50 PM
origen says
Whats next forcing people to buy plastic surgery for teachers?..............................oh wait never mind.
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/free-plastic-surgery-for-teachers/
11:27 AM
Doubt It says
I think people are missing the point here - this isn't just a faith issue, this is an issue where the government is trying to take away your rights. The government is telling insurance companies that they must offer these services; the government is telling the employer that they must pay for these services.
No one is taking away anyone's right to obtain contraceptives; all any woman (or man) has to do is buy them for themselves. If you want to be on birth control or have an abortion or be sterilized, do it. You have that option here in America. The option you shouldn't have is to force others to pay for you. Do what you do, take care of yourself, but don't insist that others foot the bill.
But, why do people need their insurance to pay for birth control pills and abortions, anyway? These aren't every day medications and surgeries that people need to survive. I think people should be pushing for coverage of actual medical NEEDS. Like more coverage for cancer patients - cancer patients rack up a lot in medical bills, they have legitimate medical needs that must be taken care of. I don't think anyone but those directly involved should have to pay for people to have sex without the risk of getting pregnant. If you really want to be on birth control go to Planned Parenthood, they ask only for donations, no co-pays and they will GIVE you birthcontrol! If you don't like that, then you gotta shell out 5 bucks for a box of condoms.
03:03 AM
BW1 says
SanduskySteve: I'm not out to "get" the catholics, but lets be fair here - they have no business dictating what the government can and cannot do anymore than the government has the right to dictate their business to them.
Fine, except that they are NOT trying to dictate government policy and the government IS trying to dictate their business to them.
The problem here is you're trying to force your religion, statism, on others, where the state tells people what they may, may not, or must do, in complete disregard for liberty. What benefits any employer offers is a matter strictly between the employer and the employee, to be freely negotiated based on the value each brings to the table, and the supply/demand status of that value.
Consider this, Stevie: The Cleveland Clinic has announced they will no longer hire smokers. Not that they won't allow smoking on the job, mind you, but that a as a condition of employment, new hires will be barred from smoking, 24/7, and be subject to chemical testing as evidence of compliance. This has already been held to be perfectly legal. In contrast, Catholic hospitals have nothing to say about whether employees use the services in question; they have simply said they will not directly pay for it. The employees are perfectly free to spend $4/month out of their paycheck on the Pill, the Church simply won't set up a system to provide it to them for free, Now, which policy represents an attempt to dictate personal decisions to employees?
Put another way, does the 2nd Amendment require every employer to provide every employee with a gun? If not, what is the difference?
The laws jumped in and stopped the multiple wives of the mormons
No, they didn't. The Mormons did away with polygamy in a political move to improve support for Utah's statehood, and they shouldn't have. They should have stood fast.
11:54 AM
goofus says
Excuse me President Steve, but you are wrong again.
With the reign of James I, the House of Stuart came to power. He persecuted both Catholics and the extreme Protestant Puritans and Separatists. He believed he had the divine right to rule as he pleased to the extent that he ruled without parliament for seven years (1614-1621). He finally gave in, however, and agreed to let Parliament share in government but he died shortly after.
It was the Anglican Church of England.
Isn't a religion based on laws and dogmas. One joins a church one conforms to their laws and faith of that church, you disagree, ou find a different church. Easy!!!
07:03 AM
Truth or Dare says
According to American's United, , the Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in America. So large, they send their tax-exempt $$$'s w/ Bishops, such as Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, who is head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop and has hooked up w/the the Evangelical Right, too Washington, D.C., along with their Lobbyists to threaten the President. I'm quite sure they told him they would withold votes if he didn't succumb to their pressure. He did. Religious/Political blackmail. It's been goin on for centuries, and here ever since the Church weasled their way into the Whitehouse. "Religious Liberty" is their new slogan. Just another cover-up in their war on all Americans to win tax-dollars for their support, whilst forcing everyone to march in lock-step to their theology.
Don't ya just love how an entire Church spent so much time hiding their own Child Molestation Scandals, which was widespread, and went on for centuries......and chances are that's just the tip of the iceburg w/the atrocitiies over the centuries, .well, how they want to dictate to the rest of us their moral belief system? Please! The Churches are powerful, they send their $$$$'s to Washington to impose their belief system upon all Americans, and they're tax-exempt! Pretty neat set-up. Wonder what Jesus would do regarding the extreme, ever-growing overpopulation of this World., especially regarding those living in extreme poverty in 3rd. World countries, let alone our own. Hmmmmm. Do ya really think he would have a problem with preventative care, such as Birth Control, to prevent anymore children being born, only to die a painful death?
Catholic Chuches and Hospitals don't hire "Catholic only". . As for the Hospitals, they don't treat only Catholics. One only need look at the problem involving the merger of the University of Louisville Hospital with Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's Health Care and St. Joseph Health System in Lexington, Ky.. Wonder if their employees, docotors included contribute? This battle puts physicians in the horrible positon of being hypocritical in regards to that hypocratic oath they take. By choosing to use Birth Control, or choosing sterilization after having children as a choice to end the concern........ To think one would be terminated, let alone would be excommunicated from the Church, or refused to be given the Sacraments? No one can separate us from God, not all the Bishops in the World, not the Pope himself, nor Ministers, no Principality, and certainly not any leader of any country that's gonna buckle to win votes of those who choose to control everyone else in this country. .
I'll leave ya with a quote: "Having failed to convince Catholics in the pews, the bishops are now obsesed with trying to legislate their ultra-conservative interpretation of Catholic teaching into law..." that was made by Jon O'Brien of Catholics for Choice.
02:30 AM
origen says
@EZ
That is the moral dilemma that has been debated for over 100 years, The church and organized dogma plus most people consider life as sacred, The science and economic side would say otherwise in certian cases. Sterilization and abortive measures (Even for the old and infirm) have been discussed, Put into working policys for some governments and executed to the extent that they have become actual crimes against humanity. It is a slippery slope to say the least. I have researched alot about this exact problem, The healthcare for all would be a grand plan until the economics of it became a burden on those that work in the society, Then cuts would have to be made. Who do they cut first, The exact same ones they were trying to help in the first place Those who cannot take care of themselves. The workers who pay into the system at the time will become first to be treated to sustain the system with monetary support. As for retirement even the old with the rise of inflation (The dollar loseing buying power) 800 dollars 30 or 40 years ago is not enough to keep thier standard of living relevent to the society in which they live today. So that leaves what to do with them, we can make them work longer, But after 40 to 60 years of hard work they deserve to be retired. We can quit the nanny state entitlements to those who didnt pay in or didnt make plans, But that would leave millions destitute. As i have said before it is truly a moral dilimma for our time.
For more research on when healthcare comes into conflict with economics look up T4 actions in germany 1933 to 1940. The atrocitys we have seen in germany were due to a healthcare system that held national hygiene for the germans above the hypocratic oath "I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice." The injustice was approved by the medical proffesionals to insure economic freedom to treat people "More useful".
01:22 AM
EZOB says
Just Asking for your comments. An unwed mother is seeking support for her third or fourth child. She's never been married and none of the fathers are paying any support, known or unknown. Question?? How many is enough?? How many should taxpayers support?? Is steralization an option at some point??? Should these Mothers and adapted Mothers (Normal Also) be reieving more money than people who have worked their whole lives and recieve Social Security?? These entitlements also include Healthcare, should they be getting better Healthcare than our Seniors and also get it "Free"?? Just questions that go through my mind, not Democrat or Republican and surely not Rich VS. Poor--- More accurate would be those who have worked their whole lives and made good choices VS. People who continue to make "Bad" choices. The Bad choices seem to be less acceptable to those that have worked hard and made the Good Choices. I want to stress that anyone can make a mistake, I'm more forgiving than most, I've been there, when is enough--enough?
07:52 PM
origen says
@Steve
I wasnt saying you said anything to that effect, Im sorry if it looked that way. I didnt have the time to explain my full thought on the matter.
The state forcing citizens, churches, industrys to purchase commoditys from private companys is flawed from the start. If women/men want birth control fine by me just dont ask me to buy it for you, When did it become my responsibility to pay for the choices of others when it is a elective act. Same with gays or any other group of individuals, Choices people still have the freedom to make. Forcing the people into supporting the acts of others through taxes or "Buying" products against thier will makes the state just as ruthless as the church in the middle ages. The churches dont make laws or policys, It is a belief that those people have and needs to be respected. If you found out that your tax money went to force sterilize mental patients would you agree to pay them? Probably not, Even if the state doctors and medical proffesionals said it would save money and lives in the long run. The reason i bring this up is it has been tried in this country before and was upheld in some states right into the 70's. Was it right that the state could force its citizens into supporting certain medical procedures for others even though thier morality (Religion) forbade even the thought of it, and now even non religious people see those same acts as repugnant? The state Has over stepped itself. The church plays a part in the decision making only through the personal thoughts of those who pass the legislation, In this new age with religion being attacked and those who do believe not being able to say "Bless you" without a Athiest somewhere going out of thier way to point out "Your magical guy in the sky doesnt exist" the belief has to reside somewhere, And most turn to the state which passes laws that infringe on others rights such as supporting birth control or other medical procedures through taxes.
06:38 PM
sanduskysteve says
Origen - you guys amaze me when you try to put words in my mouth. I never said any of that or even incinuated either.
I just believe that the separation of church and state means that government stays out of religion and religion stays out of government. If the churchs want to dictate policy and law, then they are no longer a religion (church) and needs to start paying taxes and things just like any other organization that doesn't have the name of a church attached to it.
The catholic church has always thought they were the dictators of man-kind and of the government and it's about time to stop that. If the settlers came here from England to get away from the church, that was the church they were fleeing from. I don't see that anything has changed much at this point in time. The catholic church has taken over anyplace they have setup bases at and they did it here as well.
They are one of the largest, if not the largest, religious organization in this country and have some of the largest buildings with no property taxes and some of the largest payrolls without payroll taxes paid either by the church or by those receiving the money - or most of them anyway.
I'm not out to "get" the catholics, but lets be fair here - they have no business dictating what the government can and cannot do anymore than the government has the right to dictate their business to them. And their members and employees should have to obey the same laws as the rest of us - outside of the tax laws - until it is changed anyway. The day of cover-ups and looking the other way has come as far as I am concerned. The laws jumped in and stopped the multiple wives of the mormons - but the law can't stop the catholic priests? Some is wrong with this picture.
On the other side of the coin, It's also time for the government to stop dictating the personal lives of women, gays, and any other group that they insist they need to regulate to death and how they live their lives - mostly because of religion and in many cases the catholic church.
06:01 PM
origen says
@Steve
Whats the alternetive, Science where Eugenics and forced sterilization is accepted? The state is just repressive as any religion even more so when they start forcing public policy to support private industry.
05:44 PM
sanduskysteve says
The Big Dog's back says
"The Catholic faith holds all life is sacred"? Except Vietnamese, Muslims, and women.
BD - you forgot little boys.
05:34 PM
sanduskysteve says
Sarah Palin - strong woman??? She quit the job as Govenor - she was dumb as a box of rocks and couldn't answer simple questions - in fact the simpler the harder they were for her. For instance - What types of magazines do you read? You know, all of them.
And if the other ones you mentioned are as dumb as she is, then it is good reason to attack them. Michele Bachmann didn't even make it past the first caucus.
I'm not sure anyone has attacked Ms. Rice. Isn't Anne Coulter someone from FNC? I'm not that familiar with her.
12:01 PM
the office cat says
The Register moderators need to look at the 'rules' they use regarding 'personal attacks'. When a public person places himself in a position to make public contact on a public issue, that person is not being attacked when his motives are questioned in light of his public record.
It is well documented publicly that a local priest to whom the Register turned for comment on the 'Religious Rights vs Goverment' issue was reprimanded, placed on sabbatical, and never fully disclosed publicly his reasons for carrying on an allegedly "consensual" sexual relationship with a woman whom he was counseling after celebrating at her husband's funeral.
Thus my point remains: he is a poor spokesperson on issues regarding rights of women to birth control, to female health care, and to the provision of those services by a Church that somehow wants us to believe that it cares about 'all God's people' - even women.
Bishop Blair (in his very public statements in the Blade and in the weekend's bulletins) and David Nuss (in his very public opinions in The Register) have tried to use the 'must pay for birth control' issue to set up the effort to get signatures on a proposed state amendment known as the Heartbeat Rule which would confer citizenship on every 12-week-old fetus.
Go ahead. Remove this one. It's incredibly legal, extending more than six decades from Sullivan v New York Times. Public figures are open to public comment on their public actions.
09:45 AM
goofus says
I wonder if Brutus can read and hear what come out of his mouth
The Big Dog's back says
Fine, see how many people who will work for an employer who stops providing benefits.
I wonder what the million unemployed and the million underemployed would think or say!! ROFLMAO at Brutus.
08:57 AM
kURTje says
Geez.......not again. What a bunch of weak cry babies. I served for free speech & you vain weakilings hate some facts. This explains why Ameica is in trouble.
10:43 PM
The Big Dog's back says
Fine, see how many people who will work for an employer who stops providing benefits.
10:34 PM
BW1 says
eriemom : If an employer offers prescription drug coverage, then contraceptives should be covered. Period.
WHY? Your naked assertion is not a reason. My employer offers free coffee, tea, and fountain soft drinks in the workplace, but only Pepsi products. I prefer Coke - should I be able to sue them because they offer something I don't want and don't offer something I do want? Get over yourself. When you take a job, you're agreeing to a set of terms including the amount and type of compensation you receive - if it isn't to your liking, don't take the job. If you bring sufficient value to the table, the employer may decide to meet your demands. Stop asking Big Brother to force people to give you what you want and start taking responsibility for justifying what you get with the value you bring to the table - like a grown up.
The constitution protects the individual from religous intrusion, as well as protecting religous institutions from government. A religion, any religion, cannot use government to force doctrin on its followers.
And no religion is asking for that - they are simply saying they won't pay for it - perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.
10:33 PM
BW1 says
sash : Why would we allow rights for any organization, employer or group that we as individuals would not be allowed? That would be an establishment of religion.
Actually, you're right on that point. Conscience exceptions should not be limited to organized religions. The Supreme Court, in Vietnam-era conscientious objector cases said that the First Amendment protects any worldview or philosophy that informs one's conduct as does what we commonly call religion. That's why the government shouldn't be dictating what benefits employers offer in the first place - it's a matter between employer and employee.
09:38 PM
the office cat says
Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines09:05 PM
the office cat says
except...... and recently widowed women being 'counseled' by their priests...?
11:33 AM
Marcus M says
big mut aka bfrutie now attacks Catholics, when you lack facts you attack, That's what you get from a democrapper.... Must be another bad golf cart experience...
11:24 AM
6079 Smith W says
@ Doggie aka brutus smith:
"I… turn down my intelligence level when I post on here." (brutus smith, July 3, 2010)
11:12 AM
The Big Dog's back says
"The Catholic faith holds all life is sacred"? Except Vietnamese, Muslims, and women.
10:12 AM
Train says
Sam Adams...
Thank you for being the voice of reason on this topic. People are overlooking the bigger picture here. This is an attack on religious freedom...period. It's the main reason our forefathers fled from England to colonize America. To escape religious oppression. Everyone is free to believe whatever they choose to believe...including not believing at all. If you seek employment in a Catholic institution, you should know going in that the Catholic faith holds that all life is sacred. To interfere in conception, or to end a life through abortion, goes against our basic beliefs. No one is ramming that doctrine down anyone's throat. You are free to seek employment elsewhere, and practice whatever religion you so choose. Obama just lost the majority of Catholic voters he once had in great numbers.
10:04 AM
6079 Smith W says
@ eriemom:
In it's never ending need for consumers to justify advertisers spending dollars, the twenty-four hour news cycle has determined that political elections are a daily affair.
Plus, Mr. Obama learned from Mr. Clinton the technique of the permanent campaign.
07:52 AM
eriemom says
If a person didn't know any better you might think that this was an election year, or something....
06:40 AM
Marcus M says
big mut, aka bfrutie, "attack on women" you mean like the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Anne Coulter, Condoleezza Rice, I can keep going. Why is it that far left wacko liberals terrified of strong women? When the far left wackos lack facts they always revert to either the race or gender card, typical democrappers..... .
05:05 AM
ryoshakil says
There is also a doctor to see the jobs of the same subjects of the same hospital in a variety of site. This site is a site survey of physicians Tenshoku consultant was working at the company introduce specialist physician,
02:32 AM
Don S says
With this attack on women's wombs to stop contraceptives, then Viagra(and other boner meds) should be denied to prevent a woman's unwanted pregnancy. This is truely the double standard that the Catholic church preaches and our spineless politcians advocate.
01:13 AM
origen says
LOL!! Tell them women what to do, Its the liberal way!! Good god shut up your making a fool of yourself.
(Oh BTW how many accounts do you have again?)
11:58 PM
The Big Dog's back says
The Repub attack on women is out in the open now. They are not even trying to hide it anymore. They hate women! Get a clue Repub women on here.
10:48 PM
origen says
Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines10:44 PM
origen says
Read some dolt.
10:08 PM
The Big Dog's back says
Wackadoo.
09:24 PM
origen says
Ever wonder why all the people making selections on the ramp at the concentration camps were doctors? NVM you didnt learn that in school..........................
09:23 PM
origen says
Lets force everyone to buy a porsche, It will give me a reason to buy one without my wife complaining, Otherwise shut up if a woman or man cannot have the common sense to not have a kid when they cannot afford it they get a obama stmulus for thier kid, I want a porsche.
Lets see whats in the offerering, Look up T4 germany 1935, Thank god we have healthcare. Let the killing begin.........