Goldberg: Liberals are the ones forcing beliefs on society
by Kelli
The right to own a gun is a far more settled issue constitutionally, politically and legally in this country, but not even the National Rifle Association would dream to argue that we have a right to free guns, provided by our employers. If your boss were required to give you a gun, your new employer-provided Glock still wouldn’t be free because non-cash compensation is still compensation. The costs to the employer are fungible, which means whether it’s a pistol or a pill, the cost is still coming out of your paycheck — and your coworkers’ paychecks….
The plaintiffs in these [HHS contraceptive mandate] cases aren’t saying the government should ban abortifacients or make it impossible for their employees to buy them. All they are asking is that the people using such drugs pay for them themselves rather than force employers and co-workers to share the cost. In other words, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood want such birth control decisions to be left to individual women and their doctors. Leave the rest of us out of it.
But leaving the rest of us out of it is exactly the opposite intent of the authors of Obamacare. The law forces not only arts and crafts shops but also Catholic charities and other religiously inspired groups to choose between fulfilling their mission or violating their values. You may have no moral objection to such things, but millions of people do. By what right are liberals seeking to impose their values on everyone else? Isn’t that something they denounce conservatives for?
~ Jonah Goldberg, “Liberals are culture war aggressors,” USA Today, December 2
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ironically, some of the same people who scream about the separation of church and state when it comes to religious participation in the public square have no problem with the government dictating to the church what it can and can not do.
It’s not an either/or thing. Dems certainly force tier beliefs in some ways, the GOP in others. I do think the Republican Party is worse about it though.
Amen, Jonah Goldberg. Amen!
People are ignoring the difference between a want and a need, and demanding we all pay for their wants. Wants. Needs. Not the same thing.
I agree with your post 9ek! Liberals are all about short-term, immediate gratification that would satisfy “the person” (and buy votes) whether the need is there or non-existent. And what’s worst, liberals sacrifice the collective and long-term fiscal responsibility to that end. Most democrat-run states in the US have a junk bond-rating. That says a lot about the type of stewards of financial resources dems/libs are…
The strategy of politicizing contraception was launched by George Stephanopoulis at the New Hampshire Primary debates in early 2012. He kept asking the Republican candidates if they believed that a state could ban contraception — when this was never an issue or concern to anyone.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/remember-when-no-one-understood-why-abc-asked-about-contraception-at-the-nh-republican-debate/
Well… the HHS Mandate has done its work. It distracted America from the real issues of the 2012 election (by raising phony fears that contraception would be taken away and re-igniting America’s anti-Catholic prejudices), and it got Obama re-elected.
Obama will be happy when the Supreme Court strikes it down. One less black mark on his legacy, and he won’t have to apologize to his owners (Planned Parenthood).
So when an Armageddon-obsessed gun freak accidentally blows off his face, the cost of that reconstructive surgery should be between him and the NRA.
NRA members take full responsibily for themselves and their guns. And contrary to liberal propaganda, NRA members don’t run around shouting “I have a gun” or carry signs to that effect. All stats have consistently shown that NRA members are law-abiding citizens and that they are not “Armageddon-obsessed” gun-in-your-face people. Guns are under lock and key in the safe. I think you must be referring to the illegally-owing a gun criminal element whom the liberals protect at all cost.
Point me to recent history when an NRA member shot people up in any public square or at their home?
Waiting, Megs.
You can be a perfectly law-abiding gun owner and still get injured by a firearm. I’m sure you’re capable of Googling “hunting accident.” Why should I have to subsidize medical treatment resulting from behavior that I — and many other Americans — don’t agree with?
Ask me why am I forced to subsidize abortions as a valid covered ”procedure” under ACA and I will respond to your question then. I don’t agree with that behavior either and yet, I am sure some are all too happy to be able to abort on my dime. The same logic applies Megs. HA…
Megan doesn’t like guns, but she likes abortion?
Let us know when the statistics on gun casualties in America get close to the one million deaths per year via abortion.
The only problem is that whenever anyone mentions guns, they always go after the NRA instead of the gun cartels from Mexico and all those thugs in the US that carry them illegally and use them to kill others. Anti-gun liberal logic does not apply to the criminal element. Is it because the liberals are losing the war on crime? No conservative would allow for this circus.
And yes, there are more deaths from abortion.
“Let us know when the statistics on gun casualties in America get close to the one million deaths per year via abortion.”
Silly Kel, those aren’t REAL deaths. Just fetuses and choices.
“The only problem is that whenever anyone mentions guns, they always go after the NRA instead of the gun cartels from Mexico and all those thugs in the US that carry them illegally and use them to kill others.”
I’m a gun owner and more on the “conservative” side of gun ownership (I think it’s fine within reasonable parameters). My problem with the NRA is they oppose even the most common sense type of regulations, and their solution to everything to do with gun violence seems to be “more guns”, which is… lacking in my opinion. And they don’t acknowledge the real fact that more gun deaths happen from suicide and accidents than murder, as well. So I really think that if we’re going to keep our right to bear arms we really have to start getting this under control. Just having a gun in the house increases a depressed person’s chance of a “successful” suicide like five times, and accidents are common if people aren’t trained properly in gun safety (which IS one thing I like about the NRA, is that they encourage gun safety, but considering how I’ve seen some people treat their guns I think we really have to do something about that).
And considering conservatives are the ones who push the “War on Drugs”, which is a huge, huge failure that creates more crime, I think it’s quite simplistic to act like liberals are at fault for our violent crime rates. And our violent crimes rates (except for abortion, which no one counts as violent crime in the statistics) have decreased dramatically in the past few decades, so take that as you will.
A meme I just shared on facebook
I am still not sure how someone’s reproductive system simultaneously can be 0% my business and
100% my financial responsibility.
I did not say liberals are at fault for the violent crime rate, I said liberals are losing the war on crime. A huge difference, don’t you think :)
Violent crime goes in spurs Jack. The decrease is not really there when you look at the ups and downs at different times of year. In other words, in some years the thugs make up for the “down-time.”
Carla:
I like the way you think (I am repeating myself on this). :)
Megan – hellloo?
“I did not say liberals are at fault for the violent crime rate, I said liberals are losing the war on crime. A huge difference, don’t you think ”
I wouldn’t agree that “liberals” are losing the war on crime. I would say that the US is losing the war on crime. Because for some reason we think punishment works better than rehabilitation (hint: it doesn’t), and we have a nasty habit of throwing non-violent offenders (like many drug offenders) in with extremely violent and dangerous criminals, which helps increase recidivism and increases the psychiatric problems among those populations (PTSD is common for people who get attacked and assaulted in jail or prison). The way we treat juvenile offenders is insane as well. And then, even if you do your time or other requirements your job prospects are severely limited (seriously, go try and get a job with even a misdemeanor possession charge from years ago, it’s difficult). So we basically are creating more criminals, and I don’t think it’s something you can blame on either liberals or conservatives solely. I think the GOP has absolutely hideous crime policies, but the Dems aren’t much better. Making it a party issue certainly doesn’t seem to help.
“Violent crime goes in spurs Jack. The decrease is not really there when you look at the ups and downs at different times of year. In other words, in some years the thugs make up for the “down-time.” ”
This is not true. There’s a very definite downward trend from the high crime rates we had in the nineties. Some crimes jumped up around 2008 or so, probably tied to the recession and massive unemployment (that’s just my personal opinion on it).
Perspective is a matter of location Jack. Localized crime numbers? The Windy City has not changed a bit. :(
Put more plainly: who gets to decide, and on what grounds, what kinds of services are covered by health insurance? It’s kind of a given that by pooling risk, you’re subsidizing services that you’ll never use and possibly disagree with. If everybody got to whine to the courts, literally nothing would be covered.
How about we start with denying coverage of services that always mean to kill someone?
Right, so since contraception is meant to help prevent the need to “kill someone,” there shouldn’t be any objections.
“Put more plainly: who gets to decide, and on what grounds, what kinds of services are covered by health insurance? It’s kind of a given that by pooling risk, you’re subsidizing services that you’ll never use and possibly disagree with. If everybody got to whine to the courts, literally nothing would be covered.”
Well, that’s just a good argument to move from an employer directly subsidizing healthcare to a system where your health coverage doesn’t depend on who you work for.
I think people would be 1000% less upset about subsidizing things they don’t agree with if abortion was left off the table.
“Right, so since contraception is meant to help prevent the need to “kill someone,” there shouldn’t be any objections.”
So how about you paying for filter cigarettes? Since people are smoking any way and they do reduce smoke, tar, etc. No? How about a program to “stop sex” just like “stop smoking”?
BTW I am all for expressions of true love between a married to each other man and woman that are open to life. Makes God happy and me too.
I just had an idea – when Blue Velvet becomes a member of the NRA I will support contraception.
How about it Megan, do we have a deal? :)
It seems like many liberals like to say to us, often slowly as if we were in kindergarten, “We don’t like abortion. We just want women to have a choice.” Duh. Who does “like” abortion, except the people making money off it? It’s the fact that it is accepted in our society that most pro-lifers have a problem with.