Diary of a Republican----Monday: Outlawed contraception...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1964? Almost 50 years ago? That's the best ammunition you can come up with?

Why don't you regale us all with tales of their 1850s opposition to slavery next?

You may be correct about the actual votes. With all due respect, the reason that the Democrats have lost much of the South is exactly because President Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act. That segment of the Southern population that votes Democratics many decades ago is now voting Republican. In turn, the moderate Republicans that supported the Civil Rights Act have left the Republican Party. Lets be real. The Democrats, not the Republicans, have continued the history of the Civil Rights Act. There are several states now that are challenging the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds. They are Southern and governed by Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, 7:53. The whole discussion is a way to take the focus away from the crappy economy and onto social issues to get the female vote in the next election. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

If getting out the female vote is such an obvious benefit for the Dems and such a decidedly negative thing for Republicans, then this thread is done. You have proved the OP's point, whether you wanted to or not.

[Anonymous]

Hardly. No one is trying to outlaw contraception. That is the smoke and mirrors. The issue is whether or not contraception should be "free" and if employers should be required to pay for said contraception even when it goes against that entities stated beliefs.

[Anonymous]

The "personhood" law definitely threatens some types of contraception.

[takoma]

In response to 12:57, to add to 13:02's response, Santorum clearly implies, and may even have stated explicitly, that he intends to let his religious beliefs determine how he governs. So a President Santorum could be expected to do all in his power to outlaw BC.

[Anonymous]

I have yet to hear Santorum state that he would attempt to make views on contraception public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to hear Santorum state that he would attempt to make views on contraception public policy.

I have not found a clip showing precisely that, but I find plenty of clips about same-sex marriage and DADT that show he wants his beliefs about gays to be national policy. Why should I expect BC to be different.

He conflates ideology and theology when he speaks of Obama's policies on environmentalism. And he spoke of that in explaining the comment he made about the BC controversy that seemed to question Obama's Christianity. He moved without hesitation from an issue that was ostensibly all about religion to one that had nothing to do with it as though it's all the same thing.

I know he is capable of arguing that his religious views are different from how he would govern, but I confess that I don't believe him.

[Anonymous]

Well considering that Obama has no beliefs and flip flops like a flag in high wind I'm willing to give a man any other man or woman but obama with principles a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well considering that Obama has no beliefs and flip flops like a flag in high wind I'm willing to give a man any other man or woman but obama with principles a shot.

I agree with you, although I'd say it without the spin: He's too damned willing to give in to GOP BS. But I'd rather have a guy who may actually be starting to act with a bit of backbone than one who is totally dedicated the aforesaid BS.

[takoma]

FWIW, 20:05 was me, having forgotten I had to restart my browser and was therefore no longer signed it. Fortunately I don't see anything I w.ant to go back and edit, so it's okay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well considering that Obama has no beliefs and flip flops like a flag in high wind I'm willing to give a man any other man or woman but obama with principles a shot.

Too bad Pol Pot isn't running. You'd love him. He had seriously entrenched principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to hear Santorum state that he would attempt to make views on contraception public policy.

Liberals have slaughtered more babies than the Khmer ever did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to hear Santorum state that he would attempt to make views on contraception public policy.

Liberals have slaughtered more babies than the Khmer ever did.

Khmer are the people of Cambodia. You meant he Khmer Rouge. They killed other Khmer as wells various minorities there. What you said is like saying "Blacks" instead of "Black Panthers".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hardly. No one is trying to outlaw contraception. That is the smoke and mirrors. The issue is whether or not contraception should be "free" and if employers should be required to pay for said contraception even when it goes against that entities stated beliefs.

Does it matter to you that now they want to remove IVF treatment from the coverage as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to hear Santorum state that he would attempt to make views on contraception public policy.

He is also in Michigan campaigning that Obama's health care coverage provides for amniocentis (sic). He states that it should not be covered because it will provide for more babies to be aborted.