Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh please . ALL CHURCHES are exempt from the requirement to cover birth control on their health care policies--the only group in question are businesses that have nothing to do with the role of the church, but that are operated on an administrative level by church members. Many states already had laws that required BOTH churches and their side businesses, like hospitals and universities, to cover BC. The federal policy gives those groups MORE power to make those choices than many state laws. This is a made up problem.
LOL! Forgot the new world lingo where up is down, wrong is right, force is choice...
Are you talking about the personhood amendments in some states that are supported by both Democrats and Republicans and are NOT supported by Right to Life and the Roman Catholic Church???
"The amendment has been endorsed by candidates for governor from both major parties...The drive for personhood amendments has split the anti-abortion forces nationally. Some groups call it an inspired moral leap, while traditional leaders of the fight, including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, have refused to promote it..."
Doesn't appear to be a partisan issue although I understand the desire to make it one. Getting voters to rally around a "War" even a faux one is a popular strategy.
Read your own link. A candidate for office is not "the party" endorsing a policy--anyone can run for office, and until they're elected they don't speak for anyone. I'm not a democrat, but I find it highly unlikely that these proposals picked up more than an occasional democrat here or there--one democratic vote doesn't make ANYTHING "bipartisan." You don't find many radical right religious extremists in the Democratic party. You didn't used to find them in the Republican party either, at least not the party I grew up in. You all are calling yourselves republicans, but you have ZERO to do with the principals of smaller government that the party has historically fought for. These proposals are as big government as it gets, and THAT's why women are fighting the R party on them.
The GOP needs to walk itself into the 21st century, end these senseless "culture wars" that they are exacerbating by letting the far right social conservatives run amuck within its ranks, and get back to the basic fiscal conservative principles that are not as polarizing to moderates, women and minorities of many walks of life. They are basically running people away from the party trying to appease a narrow-minded part of the GOP base that get their kicks off "demonizing" anyone that isn't in lockstep with their "values."
LOL! Forgot the new world lingo where up is down, wrong is right, force is choice...
Do some research. The federal policy exempts churches--many state policies DID NOT. You also seem to forget that many churches and religious sponsored hospitals and universities were already offering BC to their employees by CHOICE before the federal mandate made it uniform. I have zero problem with this--the courts, including the SCOTUS, have historically held up the rights of employees over employers when it comes to making personal decisions vs. work related ones. I can't see how using or access to birth control through insurance could ever be a work related issue, or any of your employer's business.
Read your own link. A candidate for office is not "the party" endorsing a policy--anyone can run for office, and until they're elected they don't speak for anyone. I'm not a democrat, but I find it highly unlikely that these proposals picked up more than an occasional democrat here or there--one democratic vote doesn't make ANYTHING "bipartisan."
Reread that link, because it clearly states that both the Democratic and Republican candidate for Governor were in support of Mississippi's Personhood Policy. So you can say the same thing for the GOP. Right to Life & the Catholic Bishops were against it, btw.
Even Mitt Romney admits that he's got his work cut out for him to reach out to female voters as he transitions from the GOP presidential nomination race to a likely general election matchup against President Obama.
Reread that link, because it clearly states that both the Democratic and Republican candidate for Governor were in support of Mississippi's Personhood Policy. So you can say the same thing for the GOP. Right to Life & the Catholic Bishops were against it, btw.
THEY WERE CANDIDATES. A candidate is not an elected official, or a spokesperson for the party. You not only didn't read the link initially, but you didn't read my post. That said, ONE member of a party supporting anything doesn't make it bipartisan--it just means that they have one loose cannon running around. It happens on both sides.
An 18 point gap, when the election hasn't really started fully yet isn't terrible news, but it is bad news for Romney.
In all likelihood they are looking at closing that gab by at least half by election day, if the economy continues at its current level. Now if things get worse, they could reverse it.
So a 9 point gap in November would be catastrophic, especially seeing as they've already lost the hispanic vote. Even if Romney were to pick Rubio, which probably won't happen, its still not likely he will get the hispanic vote.
As far as courting the Hispanic vote goes, choosing Rubio would be a disaster. The vast majority of Hispanics are of Mexican ancestry in this country and do not agree with the unequal treatment of Mexicans and Cubans by our government when it comes to immigration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. ALL CHURCHES are exempt from the requirement to cover birth control on their health care policies--the only group in question are businesses that have nothing to do with the role of the church, but that are operated on an administrative level by church members. Many states already had laws that required BOTH churches and their side businesses, like hospitals and universities, to cover BC. The federal policy gives those groups MORE power to make those choices than many state laws. This is a made up problem.
