Democrats try to capitalize on contraception ruling, motivate female voters for midterm races


#1

From the AP:
Democrats see a political winner in the stinging defeat they suffered when the Supreme Court ruled that businesses with religious objections may deny coverage for contraceptives under President Barack Obama’s health care law.

A four-term senator — Washington state’s Patty Murray — and a vulnerable freshman — Mark Udall of Colorado — have pushed legislation that would counter last month’s court ruling and reinstate free contraception for women who are on health insurance plans of objecting companies.

The Senate was expected to vote Wednesday on moving ahead on the bill, which backers have dubbed the “Not My Boss’ Business Act.” Republicans who have endorsed the court’s decision as upholding the constitutional right of religious freedom are expected to block the measure.

Republicans have dismissed the bill as an election-year political stunt, designed to boost struggling incumbents. The contraception bill, Republicans say, has no chance of becoming law.

The Dems are going to continue to try to exploit this as a wedge issue. Sadly, most women in the electorate are going to snooze their way into believing the line.

The premise upon which this built is hopelessly false. Even biased “fact check” outfits acknowledge it. For example:

Politifact: Nancy Pelosi says Supreme Court is ‘five guys who start determining what contraceptions are legal’

Their conclusion: http://i.imgur.com/89743UN.gif

Even the Washington Post Fact Checker: Democrats on Hobby Lobby: ‘Misspeaks,’ ‘opinion’ and overheated rhetoric

The Fact Checker generally does not award Pinocchios for “misspeaking” or for statements of opinion. And we obviously take no position on the Supreme Court opinion. But this collection of rhetoric suggests that Democrats need to be more careful in their language about the ruling. All too often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that are not warranted by the facts at hand. Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take away a person’s religious freedom.

Certainly, a case can be made that perhaps this is a slippery slope (as Ginsburg argues in dissent) or that the cost of some contraceptives may be prohibitively high for some women who need them. But the rhetoric needs to be firmly rooted in these objections — and in many cases the Democratic response has been untethered from those basis facts.

Of course, the facts are the first casualties in a case like this.


#2

Denying facts is a political mainstay on both sides. That said, the liberals seems to be trying to create an art of it. it’s sad that so many people have bought into the lie that they need birth control.


#3

Or the lie that the Hobby Lobby ruling denies birth control to anyone.

Peace

Tim


#4

The democrats have long known that fear mongering works well when directed at the ignorant.

“Not your bosses’ business?” Yes, it’s the bosses’ business what health insurance he/she buys for employees. It’s their business, and their money. Go buy your own birth control, or get it from a clinic.


#5

The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/contraception

That definition may need to be changed.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says:

Many forms of birth control can be classified as abortifacients since they do not always prevent fertilization and in some instances work to destroy the life of a developing child.

abortionno.org/birth-control

If you change the issue of contraception from one that is an issue of preventing pregnancy to a an issue of a drug or device which may be abortifacient in some way, you could change the debate over contraception.


#6

The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/contraception

That definition may need to be changed.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says:

Many forms of birth control can be classified as abortifacients since they do not always prevent fertilization and in some instances work to destroy the life of a developing child.

abortionno.org/birth-control

The issue of contraception needs to be one in which there is more of a debate about the possibility of some at least some, being abortifacient


#7

Megyn Kelly’s response to Pelosi’s lie was entertaining.


#8

Trying to appeal to the low infomration voters


#9

Why is it the Dems war on women always focuses matters below the waist?
The way they paint the picture,one would think that is the MOST pressing issue facing women.Not that they may have a business to run,homes with families,no,it is all about women being able to have all the unfettered sex they want at the taxpayers’s expense!
Oh,I heard another arguing point the Dems are putting out ,is that Viagra hasn’t been exempted. So unfair!:rolleyes:Last time I checked,Viagra wasn’t an abortifacient!
As others have stated it is only the abortifacients that HL objected,not other contraceptive means…


#10

They can’t even get 1/2 of women to agree with them now. As women start realizing that the sky isn’t falling, more women will defect from their side.


#11

If they want to claim that you are denied your right to contraception unless your employer pays for it they should be consistent.

I have a right to bear arms, so my employer must buy me a gun.

I have a right to lawyer in a criminal case, so my employer must pay for my lawyer.

I have a right to free speech, so my employer must buy me a bullhorn, or at least a smartphone with an unlimited data plan.

We all have the right to a free press, so my employer must pay for my newspaper subscription, and maybe cable TV so I can have my opinions reformed by MSNBC.


#12

From Independent Journal Review:

i.imgur.com/fBqOIou.png

Last week, Fox News host Megyn Kelly destroyed Nancy Pelosi over her outrageous comments (lies) on the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. Tuesday night on The Kelly File, Megyn set her sights on Jon Stewart for misleading and dividing the public on the case. Spoiler: Same results.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court cited the government’s own definition of the four birth control methods opposed by Hobby Lobby (out of 20 required by ObamaCare). But hey, what difference does it make?

I don’t normally watch Fox News, but she OWNED those who claimed that SCOTUS was counter-science in the Hobby Lobby decision…

Only 3-1/2 minutes…click on the picture above for the video.


#13

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.