Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BIRTH CONTROL: OK to pay for Viagra but not contraception?

Letter by Francesca L. Nation, Lakewood on March 6, 2012 at 2:45 pm with 82 Comments »
March 6, 2012 2:45 pm

Almost as soon as the FDA gave the OK on Viagra, insurance companies paid for it and the Catholic Church said it was acceptable for parishioners to use.

Here it is the 21st century, and women still don’t have autonomy over their own bodies. If men got pregnant, birth control would be a God-given right.

Leave a comment Comments → 82
  1. TheLawOfUnintendedConsequences says:

    Yawn

  2. itwasntmethistime says:

    If men had menstrual cycles, tampons would be free. A low-income man would NEVER have to water down his kids’ milk because he had to spend his last $8 on pads or tampons.

  3. Pacman33 says:

    What a melodramatic, half-witted blurt. Just because she doesn’t have someone else paying for her birth control, she suggests women “don’t have autonomy over their own bodies.” She isn’t privy to the fact that pregnancy isn’t on any list of diseases I am aware of and that ED is a commonly known pulmonary disorder.

    Here it is the 21st century, and radical leftist extremists would discard American’s First Amendment Rights for some contrived, feckless right to “Free Contraception”.

  4. old_benjamin says:

    Francesca, need I point out that promoting conception is not the same as preventing it? The Catholic Church is pro sex and pro conception. Ergo, there’s no contradiction in it’s actions.

    You have full autonomy over your body, just not over the Catholic Church. Exercise it the same way you do when you shop for Tom and Jerry’s ice cream. Go where it is available.

  5. itwasntmethistime says:

    Oh, give me a break, Pacman. I’ll agree that it’s ridiculous to claim that women don’t have autonomy over our own bodies, but there is no way Viagra should be covered by insurance if birth control pills aren’t.

  6. concernedtacoma7 says:

    TNT is publishing tweets?

  7. Every sperm is sacred.

  8. Here you go Francesca. I hope this answers all your questions regarding the Viagra issues:

    Why Catholic Groups’ Health Plans Say No To Contraceptives, Yes To Viagra
    by JULIE ROVNER, NPR Health Policy Correspondent
February 13, 2012

    “If health insurance plans offered by Catholic-sponsored entities refuse to cover contraceptives for women because of the religion’s moral teachings banning artificial birth control, do they cover Viagra for men?”

    “The answer on Viagra coverage is usually yes, Catholic leaders say. And they argue that’s neither hypocritical nor sexist.”

    “Procreation is something the Catholic church encourages. And Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs can be of help.”

    “Vasectomies, on the other hand, are banned by Catholic-sponsored health insurance. “We have the same objection to male sterilization as to the female variety,” Doerflinger says.” (Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops)

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/13/146822713/why-catholic-groups-health-plans-say-no-to-contraceptives-yes-to-viagra?ft=1&f=2101102

  9. If men had babies abortion would be a sacrament.

  10. TheLawOfUnintendedConsequences says:

    Today the government would tell Catholics what to do.
    Tomorrow the government will then want to tell Presbetarians what to do.
    Next will come Methodists, Muslims, Hindu, athiests, et.al.
    Stand up to religious Freedom today or lose it tomorrow.

  11. Pacman33 says:

    With an approval rating of 43% for 0bama, according to the most recent Gallup Poll, waging a class war wasn’t enough. So he had to wage a gender war.

    Stay tuned for the race war.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the left wasn’t afraid to defend their positions on legitimate, pending issues?

  12. alindasue says:

    While I don’t feel that birth control pills should necessarily be “free”, they should be covered to the same extent that other medications are covered – especially if the insurance also covers treatments such as Viagra.

    As for the Catholic issue… I do agree with TheLawofUnintented[it cut off the rest] when he or she said,

    “Stand up to religious Freedom today or lose it tomorrow.”

    No. I am not Catholic.

  13. TheLawOfUnintendedConsequences says:

    Thank you alindasue, and no, I am not a Catholic neither.
    I am simply one who fears how easily today’s American’s would so easily forego their blood-won freedoms.

  14. Pac33,
    First, no one is asking free contraceptives. What the President wanted was the contraceptives be available on all healthcare plans that cover drugs with the same charges and co-pays as the other covered drugs.

    Second, our secular laws trump all religions laws.
    Mormons used to practice plural marriages but were forced to give them up in order to join the Union.

    Some religions allow girls as young as 12 to be married, except US were our secular laws prohibit such marriages.

    Many Muslims believe the best marriage is between an uncle and his niece, but US secular prohibits such pairings.

    As of today, Real Clear Politics shows Obama’s approval rating at 48.3%, with the Gallup Poll putting the rate at 43%, and leading all GOP candidates by at least 5.1%.

    It is the social conservatives that are wage the war and do a fine job of sending women, independents, and moderates over to the Dems.

    Old_ben – you cart is before the horse. The problem is that Churches are trying to dictate to non-members what they should and should not do.

  15. If religion was worth standing up for I could agree, but it’s not. And that my friends IS a valid point. You may disagree, but your point is no more valid than mine.
    So, what is the answer? Let us have our coverage and we will not make you take any drugs you don’t like as long as your lack of immunization does not affect society adversely.
    Simple and fair.

  16. PatGreen says:

    “blood-won freedoms”

    A religion’s freedom is overunning an idividual’s freedom

  17. I hate to keep correcting xring, but he keeps getting The Obama Compromise wrong. Here is the truth of The Obama Compromise when it was first announced by The President:

    “The new compromise is that religious employers themselves will have no responsibility to either pay for this coverage or to communicate with employees about it; instead, those burdens will shift to insurance companies, at no additional cost to consumers.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/10/obama-birth-control-compromise-defuses-religion-issue.html

    Please note the words at the end, “at no additional cost to consumers.”

    Second, The Bill of Rights and the rest of The Amendments to The Constitution of The United States of America, make room for the fact that sometimes America’s “secular laws” are WRONG and need to be deemed Unconstitutional and thrown out, so that not all “secular laws” trump all other laws.

    The First Amendment leaves room for the fact that by not allowing for laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, there may IN FACT be a Higher Authority than Man, and that Authority is God. And for those of us who still believe in God, His rule trumps all others!

  18. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Constitutional rights aside, I guess the question this letter raises is which is more important to the survival of mankind, procreation or recreation?

  19. tommy98466 says:

    Whats your point? There is nothing in the scriptures that says a person cannot use a drug to get an erection. There is however a teaching by the Church that says it is a sin to abort an unborn. So what is the comparison? I would also like to know what insurance company pays for Viagra? Do you make this stuff up so you have a talking point? You are just another pathetic liberal that dosen’t know what you are talking about.

  20. Pacman33 says:

    Obama’s “compromise” is a distinction without a difference–an accounting gimmick that will still leave religious institutions footing the bill for services they find morally objectionable. Obama’s “compromise” doesn’t even pretend to provide an out for self-insured religious institutions, which happens to be more than 3/4 of them.

    Putting the obligation on the insurer and not the employer doesn’t help much if they are the same person.

    Typical 0bama bs.

  21. tommy.. Please go up-thread and read the post and link at March 6 and 4:02 PM. Okay?

  22. PatGreen says:

    Second, The Bill of Rights and the rest of The Amendments to The Constitution of The United States of America, make room for the fact that sometimes America’s “secular laws” are WRONG and need to be deemed Unconstitutional and thrown out, so that not all “secular laws” trump all other laws.
    The First Amendment leaves room for the fact that by not allowing for laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, there may IN FACT be a Higher Authority than Man, and that Authority is God. And for those of us who still believe in God, His rule trumps all others!

    I demand proof of this

  23. PatGreen, it does not exist. I suspect you already know that.

  24. I just knew it! I always suspected that stuff! OldBenjamin proved it! Tom and Jerrys Ice Cream really IS a birth control device!!!

    Is Rocky Road better or Cherry Chunk?

    Hey!!!! Now I’m wondering if a carton of “Hogs~N~Dawgs” Ice Cream could replace Viagra!

    Ive always thought those contented cows looked just a little TOO content!

    MooooooBabyMooooooooooo!

    Oh by the way,

  25. …..Francesca the letter writer sounds like a whiny, frustrated man-hating old crone…..Francesca, you need to have a bowl of ice cream and smile!

  26. muck is a good person who has trouble with logic. Lots do, so don’t feel bad muck.
    Logic can tell one if a premise can ever be true or false. Biblical stuff is one of those areas where one can never know in most instances.
    God is a great example.

  27. Muck,
    You did not correct me.

    You provide I was correct and those claiming the contractive would be free were wrong.

    And you proved that the problem was not with the Catholic Church but with the self-proclaimed social conservative and the Rpots who wanted to deflect attention from their failed plans and other talking points.

    Nice attempt to divert my argument but the fact remains that our secular law trumps religious law.

    Your take on the 1st Amendment is creative to say the least. It is also wrong as there is nothing in it that addresses the issue of the existence of a higher being.

    Also, nowhere in the Constitution are rights given to anyone but The People, the Federal Government, and to the States.

    Tommy –you are a typica conservaclown – try doing some research before posting.

    YFI – you got one thing right – there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.

    Pac – the bs is yours – the compromise does provide an out – the religious institutions can turn health care coverage over to the insurance company. I do believe that is called capitalism.

  28. I hate to point out the obvious, but we are protecting a religious institution’s freedom of religious rights against providing on their insurance, oral contraception for women’s healthcare and prevention of pregnancy, while at the same time they themselves are harboring child molesting sex offender priests.

  29. xring, You stand CORRECTED!!!

  30. Pacman33 says:

    o-ring stutters –
    “the compromise does provide an out – the religious institutions can turn health care coverage over to the insurance company.”

    Hey x watch my left hand. I said the left not the right.

    An accounting gimmick that will still leave religious institutions footing the bill for services they find morally objectionable. That is besides the fact that if 0bamacare is enacted in it’s proposed form, insurance companies will be a thing of the past, per the design of 0bamacare.

  31. Pac – what a fool you be when yourself you try to deceive.

    And more the fool because Health Care Reform means more customers for the Insurance Companies.

  32. Pacman33 says:

    This is an English only forum.

    After all the regulations are in effect, insurance companies are left with a less than a 1% profit margin. Hence the “Major Step Toward Single-Payer” logic of the left 2-years ago.

  33. muckibr – as I have posted at least a couple other times, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that it upholds completely, without any restriction, religious beliefs but it is willing to restrict action based upon those beliefs when it is determined that other rights and/or the general welfare of the public would be negatively impacted by those actions.

    Obama is trained in Constitutional law. I am sure he has a whole team of lawyers trained in Constitutional law. I am less than enthusiastic of his Administration but I do not, for a second, think that he went off half-cocked on this regulation without having seriously considered the ramifications. It is completely improbable that they went forward with this regulation without considering whether it stood a chance of withstanding a 1st Amendment challenge. The compromise was made due to political blowback, not necessarily because they “saw the light” of the 1st Amendment issues that you are so certain make the original regulation unConstitutional.

  34. Those who think that Viagra is used primarily by older men with pulmonary problems must believe in the Tooth Fairy

    Viagra abuse by adolescent males
    http://www.azcentral.com/health/men/articles/1226viagra-abuse-ON.html

    Some of you might benefit from visiting Viagraholics Anonymous
    http://www.viagraholics.com/

  35. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    bB, do you believe that those “Viagraholics” and “adolescent males” are using Viagra that they got through their insurance providers?

    Better check under your pillow.

  36. Viagra is a prescription-only drug. Abusers of the drug are able to fake out Doctors and get “legitimate” prescriptions. There is no reason to believe that they aren’t also able to defraud their Insurance providers.

  37. As John Stewart so elegantly said, “I morally objected to the Iraq war! I want my refund for that!”

  38. commoncents says:

    It’s funny how people jump to the defense of viagra because it aids in procreation and it’s a pulmonary disorder? Really? Grandpa wants to procreate? Did someone tell grandma? Somehow I think her eggs have a lot more to do with it than grandpa’s ability to get a woodie. As for pulmonary disorder…what a load (pun intendend). ED is a sexual dysfunction and nothing more. It’s primary CAUSE might be a pulmonary disorder but it in itself is not. Treating the ED will NOT improve any of it’s primary causes. In that vein (again pun intended) it’s not much different than taking Robutussin (OTC) to treat the symptoms of the cold. In fact, that’s exactly where it can be found in Mexican pharmacy’s…right next to the cold meds.

  39. kimberly9000 says:

    We need a single payer healthcare system like every other civilized nation on the globe. That way, religious extremists wouldn’t have the power to control our healthcare needs. And for those of you who don’t think pregnancy is a healthcare issue, you’re idiots. It’s a profound social issue as well, with hungry and educated kids no one seems to care about once they’re born.

  40. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Remember! – the issue here is separation of church & State and the unconstitutional directions from a marxist/communist named “OH-Bummer” not contraception!!!

  41. TacomaDad79 says:

    A religion based on a book full of sexism and racism and yet people are still surprised when the church makes sexist and racist decisions. All you have to do is read the Bible to figure out why.

  42. The Catholic Church is suppose to be pro God. If a man needs Viagra to have sex it’s obvious that God is giving him a sign (a big upside the head kinda sign) that he should not be having sex. So taking Viagra is going against God’s will. Therefore by providing Viagra the Catholic church is sinning.

  43. Pac- 1% profit – prove it.

  44. Back in the day, so to speak, there was much anti-Catholic sentiment in the good old USA. Al Smith and John Kennedy running for President experienced the anti-Catholic bias. John Kennedy felt it was necessary to give a speech stressing his decisions as President would not be governed by the Catholic church. Many people with anti-Catholic bias felt John Kennedy would be a Papal mouth piece.

    Now the argument centers on the exercise of Freedom of Religion. Rich Santorum and other Presidential hopefuls feel one segment of society should have the ability to force their religious beliefs on other peoples. And, this is occurring in a secular forum: A Catholic based hospital that takes secular patients, secular health insurance plans, secular money, and has secular employees. Also, a Catholic based school which has secular students, secular employees and staff, takes secular dollars from students.

    All this surrounds a persons right to not become pregnant. Maybe, if a woman feels she has had enough children to raise and care for, then she should engage in abstinence and tell hubby to stay on his side of the bed.

  45. AMEN SISTER! Soon as they invent male birth control, and insurance companies pay for it, I’ll quit yapping about them paying for MY birth control.

    Seriously guys, just get it snipped. Why do WE have to carry this burden FOR YOU? Take care of your own liability.

  46. aislander says:

    Just ask, “Who is trying to control whom?” The Church is asking merely NOT to be forced to do something…

  47. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    other Presidential hopefuls feel one segment of society should have the ability to force their religious beliefs on other peoples.

    Forced? Who’s forcing whom here?

    Someone needs to learn the difference between a “mandate” and a refusal based on conscience.

    Let’s get this straight. In an unprecedented new federal mandate, the Department of Health and Human Services would require all Catholic institutions to now pay for or provide to employees within their own walls services that they find deeply objectionable (contraception, sterilization and abortifacients). If they don’t, they will face enormous fines that will make the continuation of their vocations to heal the sick, care for the elderly or educate the young untenable. When they object to these strong-arm tactics and appeal to decades of legal precedent for conscience protection, and President Barack Obama’s own assurances that such protections would continue under the Affordable Care Act, it is somehow re-construed into “forcing their religious beliefs on other peoples.”

    Enough with the hyperbole! This is neither a question of “war on women” by the church or conservatives, nor an example of forcing religious beliefs upon others. It is a question of conscience which, last time I checked, was protected under the First Amendment.

  48. old_benjamin says:

    xring, read the Declaration of Independence. When government violates the natural rights of citizens, citizens have a right to abolish the government. Natural rights trump secular government. One of those rights, which is now guaranteed in our Constitution, is the freedom of religion. The government has no legal power to abridge it. It is you who have the government cart before the freedom horse.

  49. Objective says:

    Frida states-I hate to point out the obvious, but we are protecting a religious institution’s freedom of religious rights against providing on their insurance, oral contraception for women’s healthcare and prevention of pregnancy, while at the same time they themselves are harboring child molesting sex offender priests
    _________________________________________________________________

    So are you saying, our law enforcement agencies are so incompetent, they can not find these so-called sex offenders? I am sure if it was such an issue as you make it out to be, there would be lot of them in prison by now. I would also like to ask, how many sex offender priests are there?

  50. Ben – read the Constitution – it not Declaration of Independence is the law of the land and our secular law trumps religious law.

  51. wildcelticrose says:

    If the church doesn’t want to follow the same laws/regulations as every other business, then they should get out of the (highly profitable) businesses they run and employ people through.

    One need only to look at the obscene wealth on display at the Vatican to know what is truly important to the hierarchy of the church.

    Power, money and control.

  52. old_benjamin says:

    xring the Declaration provides the philosophical underpinning for the Constitution. Without the former, you can’t begin to understand the latter. There is no religious law. There is only freedon of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment. Until that is amended by the process provided in the Constitution, “secular law” may not abridge it. Even then, such law is in violation of the natural rights of man which impelled the Founders to declare independence from Great Britain.

  53. old_benjamin says:

    We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion, or the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.

    James Madison

  54. old_benjamin says:

    On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in … The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.

    Jaames Madison

  55. Ben, three minor facts:

    1. The DOI declared that the 13 Colonies were 13 free and independent States.

    2. Freedom of Religion is not mentioned the DOI.

    3. All religions have laws for the governance of the church, its clergy, and its members.

  56. BlaineCGarver says:

    What a butt-load of sad bleating….Make the guy buy a rubber, or say no….You have control of your body, but not your common sense.

  57. I’m out of ice cream

  58. old_benjamin says:

    Wildrose, a stand against contraception and love of wealth don’t seem to go together. Please explain how the latter leads to the former.

  59. BigSwingingRichard says:

    Has anyone asked the question to MS Flute, how is it she can attend a law school which costs more than $50,000 a year for three years but she needs other people to buy her contraceptives?

  60. This is such a stupid argument! Francesca has a problem with men getting Viagra paid for in their insurance and the Catholic Church approving its use by parishioners. She wrote: “FDA gave the OK on Viagra, insurance companies paid for it and the Catholic Church said it was acceptable for parishioners to use.”

    Here’s the answer to those issues:

    Why Catholic Groups’ Health Plans Say No To Contraceptives, Yes To Viagra
by JULIE ROVNER, NPR Health Policy Correspondent
February 13, 2012

    “If health insurance plans offered by Catholic-sponsored entities refuse to cover contraceptives for women because of the religion’s moral teachings banning artificial birth control, do they cover Viagra for men?”

    “The answer on Viagra coverage is usually yes, Catholic leaders say. And they argue that’s neither hypocritical nor sexist.”

    “Procreation is something the Catholic church encourages. And Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs can be of help.”

    “Vasectomies, on the other hand, are banned by Catholic-sponsored health insurance. “We have the same objection to male sterilization as to the female variety,” Doerflinger says.” (Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops)

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/13/146822713/why-catholic-groups-health-plans-say-no-to-contraceptives-yes-to-viagra?ft=1&f=2101102

    Then Francesca says: “Here it is the 21st century, and women still don’t have autonomy over their own bodies.”

    She is wrong. Women in the 21st Century can do whatever they want to with their own bodies. They can get pregnant if they want to. They can keep from getting pregnant if they want to. There are lots of ways for women to do either one of those things. And, the ultimate decision on what to do really comes down to the woman herself who is the final “decider.”

    The big complaint Francesca really has here, and the only complaint really, is who she can get to pay for her birth control, because she obviously doesn’t want to pay for it herself.

    It sure seems to be all about the money. The Catholic Church is RICH, some people on this blog have said, so make them pay for it, because they can afford it.
    Well, Bill Gates is rich too, so why not make him pay for your birth control.

    Here’s some news for you. The Catholic Church is Pro-Life. It does NOT believe in abortion. Do you expect The Catholic Church to pay for and perform abortions? Most reasonable people do not. To The Catholic Church artificial birth control is the SAME AS ABORTION. They won’t pay for abortions, so why should they pay for the same thing as abortions?

    Francesca, President Obama has said that the insurance companies will pay for you birth control, okay. So go to them. Just please get off the back of The Catholic Church on this one will you?

  61. aislander says:

    xring: The Declaration refers to the “United States of America.” The states were not ever the free and independent entities you purport them to have been, but their powers–as well as those of individuals–were viewed somewhat differently than they now are. That was to have been expected, since the USA was a completely new thing among governments.

    I personally believe the Founders were more correct than we now are with regard to the proper relationship of the central government to the several states and the individual citizen…

  62. old_benjamin says:

    Xring, as we know, the Declaration preceded the Constitution. Naturally, the states were free and independent. That in no way detracts from the fact that the Declaration provides the apologetic for the Constitution.

    “Church law,” whatever that may be is not binding on any citizen of these United States. What is binding is the First Amendment.

    True, freedom of religion isn’t mentioned in the Declaration. Neither is freedom of speech. so what?

  63. Objective? Ask the multitudes of victims. Its well documented. Old Ben? ” The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.”

    My religion says that I have the right to have an insurance that I pay for, provide the medicine that is prescribed to me by my physician, to be covered by my policy. OR I exert my right to not fund or pay for you to have your heart meds, diabetic meds, depression meds, chemotherapy treatments, arthritis meds, viagra meds, your brat’s ADHD meds, BECAUSE its about YOUR personal responsibility. Get off the coach, quit smoking, ditch your pity party and parent your own kids- MY insurance premium and MY employer should NOT have to fund in good moral conscience your laziness and immoral life either- whatever your ills may be.

  64. Objective says:

    Frida- You still did not answer the question from above. I am waiting for a reliable resource I can research. Or is it still because somebody said this or that?

    My lack of religion on this says, why should I pay for your contraception or somebody elses viagara etc.. I don’t expect you, the governement or anybody else to be concerned for my health and welfare. So, why should I care for your contraception or somebody elses viagara? So, if you want “FREE” contraception, why don’t you have those that you may sleep with pay for it if you don’t want to. If I seriously relied on the state and other state agencies or insurance companies. I just might side with you on this issue. But I don’t.

    LOL immoral life? I don’t need to sleep with everybody who shows interest in me like you portray yourself. You are like talking to a crack addict trying to get his or her next fix for free.

  65. Frida wrote: “My religion says that I have the right to have an insurance that I pay for, provide the medicine that is prescribed to me by my physician, to be covered by my policy.”

    Frida, I am not making any kind of judgement here, no snide remark, or criticism or anything at all like that. I am just very curious, and so would like to respectfully ask you to tell us: What is Your Religion?

    Thanks in advance for your honest answer to my question.

  66. goddesslunacy says:

    Birth control is commonly used to prevent other conditions besides pregnancy. My personal experience has been to suppress endrometriosis. I don’t know any alternatives aside from laparoscopies or a hysterectomy. It’s not about God or preventing pregnancy for me. It’s about preventing pain, cysts, and unnecessary surgeries. What does Viagra prevent?

  67. What does Viagra prevent?

    A recognition that, even though some men never mature emotionally beyond adolescence, they don’t retain the same instant function that they did when they were 17 years old.

  68. It’s too bad that the “boomer” generation’s parents were not afforded the “right” to birth control, this would be a lot better country had they taken advantage of it then.

  69. Imagine, a world without liberals.

  70. LornaDoone says:

    Conservatives wouldn’t have the sense to use birth control. The proof is staring us in the face daily

  71. LornaDoone says:

    “What is Your Religion?”

    My religion is “Itsnoneofyourdamnedbusiness”.

    Someone has got the idea that if a religion stipulates a certain belief, that they now have the right to demand that right be honored by all, without regard to the beliefs of others. Not everyone has to make their beliefs a public issue. I know no one an explanation of my belief system. It is protected by the First Amendment.

  72. What’s the problem? You don’t have to get your panties in a knot at the mere mention of the word “religion”. No one is trying to force you to go to church or to believe in anything that you don’t want to believe in, but don’t try to force your secular belief(?) on others. If you want an abortion because you can’t manage your life, go for it, please go for it!

  73. Hey LornaDoone Kardy! I wasn’t asking you what your religion is, because I don’t care that your religion is whatever religion honors liars.

    I was specifically asking Frida. It’s a fair question. It does not require any input from a transgender Kardy wearing a dress. By the way, your next alt can be NutterButter since you now seem to be in cookie mode.

  74. LornaDoone says:

    LornaDoone didn’t address muckibr. I addressed my comment rhetorically to the entire blog, without preference to muckibr

    Some people think they matter more than they do.

    Now if the foo sh…. you can wear that also.

    WTH is a “Kardy”?

  75. YOU are Kardy – LornaDoone!

  76. And BTW, We all know that you Kardy – LornaDoone, do think you are more important than everyone else. But Lorna-Kardy-Doone, you aren’t!

    Isn’t it about time to change your alt again? How about NutterButter!!!

  77. “ED is a commonly known pulmonary disorder.”

    pul·mo·nar·y/ˈpo͝olməˌnerē/
    Adjective: Of or relating to the lungs

    Try again.

  78. “that Authority is God. And for those of us who still believe in God, His rule trumps all others!”

    The Ayatollahs in Iran agree 100%.

  79. pul·mo·nar·y/ˈpo͝olməˌnerē/
    Adjective: Of or relating to the lungs

    Good catch.

  80. Come on ehill, you taking my quote out of context is crap! I wrote, and believe still:

    “The Bill of Rights and the rest of The Amendments to The Constitution of The United States of America, make room for the fact that sometimes America’s “secular laws” are WRONG and need to be deemed Unconstitutional and thrown out, so that not all “secular laws” trump all other laws.”

    “The First Amendment leaves room for the fact that by not allowing for laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, there may IN FACT be a Higher Authority than Man, and that Authority is God. And for those of us who still believe in God, His rule trumps all others!”

    If you believe in a benevolent and loving God, like I do, there is no issue with this. I don’t believe in the God portrayed by the Ayatollahs in Iran, and neither did the Diest’s that some refer to as The Founding Fathers of The United States of America, who wrote The Constitution of The United States of America, and The Bill of Rights, which includes The First amendment… and DAMMIT! You know that ehill!

    So don’t be stupid, and take stuff out of context to twist it to mean something else that YOU know it was never meant. Others on these blogs do that, so now are YOU doing it too ehill? I have come to expect much better than that from you ehill. You have let me down this time. And, I suspect you have let yourself down as well, stooping to such a level as that.

  81. Objective says:

    LornaDoone wrote: Conservatives wouldn’t have the sense to use birth control. The proof is staring us in the face daily.

    Guess we will see which side will outlast the other. Libs with their contraception and abortions. Or the Conservatives who keep on multiplying.

    (Ever noticed those who are for contraception/abortions have already been born- Ronald Reagan)

  82. “you taking my quote out of context is crap!”

    I didn’t take your quote out of context. You said God’s rule trumps all, and whether you like it or not, the Ayatollahs in Iran agree with you.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0