For the same reason that CEO's of major corporations don't go over the rules of how an office break room at some regional office is run. It's just basic delegation of authority. And they were voted on. The representatives you get to vote for gave other employees of the federal government the ability to enact regulations. They similarly retain the right to overturn any regulations by taking another vote. Except that this has been going on since the formation of the country and there's no evidence that the founding fathers intended it to be your way. Our military and postal services back in late 1700's and early 1800's made their own rules that weren't voted on by Congress.
#1 Obama is not forcing anyone to have an abortion, so it is not contrary to any pro choice edict. #2 He is making companies cover legal procedures. #3 If it were up to you not a damn thing would be covered.
The constitution does not permit delegation of legislative authority to any entity outside of Congress. Again, Article I says all legislative powers are vested in Congress. They cannot pass a law vesting legislative authority to someone else. Only a constitutional amendment can do that. Regulatory agencies did not exist at the conception of our republic. Not for some time in fact. Do you honestly think mandating we all pay for abortifacients like RU-486 is something that doesn't need to be voted on? BTW, Obamacare is full of statements like "the Secretary of HHS shall determine X, Y, and Z". Just unfathomable powers granted to an unelected minister. Waivers are a great example. She can just decree specific parties exempt from law the rest of us have to follow, with the stroke of a pen.
McConnell and the GOP doubles down on the stupid. Guess the GOP is giving up any chance of the women's vote this year. McConnell: GOP Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Contraception Coverage Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.
are you really confused the point is there should be more outrage on stuff like that not policies that are 50 years behind the times
I don't know, I haven't ever heard Santorum say, "I'm against priests ****ing children." Could be construed as an implicit approval of this abhorrent behavior. I can't believe Santorum approves of priests abusing children.
This is a huge tangent but I always find this argument interesting. If a fetus is a human then would you grant that fetus all the rights granted to a human? Keep in mind that the Constitution defines personhood at birth in terms of granting citizenship. If we are to consider personhood as starting at conception then should embryos and fetuses get citizenship at the time of conception? You should've addressed that to Commodore.
It has some rights but not all. Same goes for children. We define children as human. The most primary of rights is the right to life. Without it, all other rights are meaningless. Commodore was speaking unconstitutional behavior of the president decreeing employers must offer insurance plans covering some drug. 100% relevant to the discussion
There is a difference between "regulation" and "legislation". Maybe not at the conception but the US Custom Service was founded about a year after the Constitution was ratified. First off not all of us are going to pay such things as there is an exemption. So if you work for a religious institution you won't be paying any of the sort. Whether or not to vote has already been addressed. Minister in question is appointed by elected officials and approved with the advice and consent of other elected officials. That is the nature of having a republic that elected officials have the final say over bureaucrats. And if the President doesn't like that he can change the rules while if Congress doesn't like that they can write new legislation or defund the agency.
Children are also granted citizenship at birth. So then would you grant embryos citizenship at conception? Except he brought up "abortifaicients" as part of his argument in regard to his claim that we are being forced to pay for such. That is why we are even discussing abortion for the last two pages.
Obviously not. what's your point? I wouldn't grant children the same rights as adults. Children are human. because that's the issue. read the OP. smh....
So in other words you wouldn't grant embryos all human rights since they wouldn't get a right we grant to all other humans, including children, citizenship. So abortion is part of the issue we are discussing then?
I will answer your pointless question but I realize I shouldn't. I would not grant embryos the same rights as children or adults in the same way I would not grant children the same rights as adults. The issue is whether Obama can, without Congressional consent, force employers to offer a plan that provides coverage for drugs/procedure they morally disapprove of. The issue is not whether abortions should be legal or are ethical. Again, you need to read the OP.
The issue is whether a bunch of wingnut bishops can ingratiate themselves into the power structure of the Republican Party by doing their best to create a wedge issue for the general election out of nothing. It's like clockwork. Leap Year? Let's drum up some phony social isue that will get the rubes to vote for people that will give us more power. The Bishops have taken an absurd stance. A stance, I might add, that goes against the polling of their own congregants. The bishops are a bunch of old men who either actively covered up or at least didn't do their best to deal with the kid-priest issue and who probably don't really care a lot about women. Digby says it better: Again, this is a ridiculous issue. So much so that I haven't followed this thread that much, but I'm getting bombarded by it everywhere. Hey, I'm morally opposed to funding wars. My God does not support military spending. Can I refuse to pay taxes? I'm morally opposed to the agenda put forward by Congressional Republicans. Should they be able to enact it, would I have to go along with it? My God thinks it is silly to imprison people on drug charges. I shouldn't have to pay for that with my taxes. My God decreed that only men should vote, there should be no alcohol, and non-whites are inferior. My God instructs me to steal people's money and honor him buying stuff for me. My God taught that wearing seat belts and obeying speed limits are the marks of the devil. I also don't care that God gave humans the unique ability to have sex for fun because I never got any in high school and so neither should anyone else. There should be a penalty for those slutty chicks that wouldn't give me any and screw that other God because he's not like me or he would hate those b****es too. I should be able to live my life accordingly without any interference of the state on my personal religious beliefs, right? Please. This is not about contraception or Obama forcing something on someone else. This is about power. Political power and power over women. It's BS. We are America and we are still America no matter how much this poisonous strain of reactionary conservatism tries to make us into individual islands. This is a slippery slope the Repubs and bishops are leading us down. What's to stop every Koresh and Jones from claiming religious exemptions from laws they do not like? I never was quite at ease with the religion line in Imagine, but Lennon makes more and more sense as I get older. I truly wish more Republicans would follow their founder, Mr. Lincoln, and live a life worthy of a Christian even if it meant they, like Lincoln, never went to church. Speaking of Lincoln, here's a quote: "I am for liberty of conscience in its noblest, broadest, and highest sense. But I cannot give liberty of conscience to the pope and his followers, the papists, so long as they tell me, through all their councils, theologians, and canon laws that their conscience orders them to burn my wife, strangle my children, and cut my throat when they find their opportunity."
As I said it was a tangent but one I am curious about since this argument has been brought up before that embryos are human beings. I am just seeing to what extent people actually do think they are. Apparently in your case you wouldn't grant them the same rights as other humans even children. I have read the OP again and I agree that is the issue. That said the conversation has been evolving and abortion has been brought up several times including Commodore who has made it an issue the last few pages.
Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is a "wingnut?" (Incidentally, a wingnut actually is often a very important and necessary part in machinery because it eases loosening and tightening.) I am not Catholic, but I share their concerns. I don't want my tax dollars supporting abortion. I don't believe it is my right or duty to tell someone what to do or not do, but I don't want my tax dollars spent on those choices. Women choose to get pregnant by their actions (excluding rape, of course). It is not like contracting breast cancer or diabetes and other maladies that are not by choice.
