BREAKING: Senate rejects the Blunt bill by a vote of 51-48

[Massachusetts]

By a vote of 51-48, the Senate agreed to table a Republican amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would have empowered employers to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections. The measure represented the GOP’s response to President Obama’s rule requiring employers to provide contraception and other preventive health services as part of their health insurance plans. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) — who announced her retirement earlier this week — was the only Republican to join Democrats in “tabling” the amendment, while three Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Manchin (WV), and Bob Casey (PA) voted to preserve it.

Source: ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/01/435524/senate-kills-blunts-anti-contraception-amendment/)

Thoughts? At first glance, looks to be a victory for women's rights and Obama and a loss for employers who don't believe in contraception.

[realtonygoodwin]

That sucks.

A loss for the free enterprise system and liberty.

[rockerrockstar]

It is good it gives freedom of choice to people versus the companies. Contraception is cheaper then welfare.

[RiseAgainst]

It is good it gives freedom of choice to people versus the companies.

How is using government to force someone to do something freedom of choice?

[rockerrockstar]

The company is not a person. The corporation is not a person. The workers should decide if they want contraception coverage not the morals of the company. You are saying you would rather have the companies be able to decide and limit freedom of choice of the employees.

[bbwarfield]

an employer IS a person though...

If the owner of the hotel i work at doesnt want her money used to support contraception... she shouldnt have too. In fact... the owner shouldnt have to employ me if she doesnt like my life outside of work....

Thats the extreme libertarian in me though..... but the fact remains.... If i was an employer I would tell people to buy there own contraceptives, same as beer, condoms, and any other thing that helps them have sex with less worries.... I pay you.... use that money... but I would not want to be told I have to pay more to the insurance company cause they have to offer contraceptions for free to my staff that I pay a majority of there health plan. If they have a headache Im not required to offer them free asprin am I? There more likely to get the flu than pregnant.... shouldnt I be required to offer them all flu shots each year? That would be more appropriate

[RiseAgainst]

The company is not a person. The corporation is not a person. The workers should decide if they want contraception coverage not the morals of the company. You are saying you would rather have the companies be able to decide and limit freedom of choice of the employees.

No, please don't put words in my mouth. I stated that I would not celebrate the use of government force to coerce someone to do something against their will. You might as well just say that government should require employers to buy their employees cars, after all would that not benefit the freedom of choice for the employee seeking a car?

Hogwash, freedom of choice is the ABSENCE of government intervention and force. It is the market deciding through consumer choice where they would like to spend their money. Insurance tied to employment destroys the mobility of the labor market. Subscription drugs (those taken on an ongoing basis) paid through insurance benefits big pharma at the EXPENSE of the payer. This is not magic, in order to give you must take, and take by force.

You may be all for this requirement if you like, but don't call it freedom, as it most certainly is not.

[eduardo89]

The company is not a person. The corporation is not a person. The workers should decide if they want contraception coverage not the morals of the company. You are saying you would rather have the companies be able to decide and limit freedom of choice of the employees.

They can just go to another company....

[Revolution9]

This is biased in that women get subsidized but there is no male equivalent. What are they gonna do to even the score... make a dick droop pill you take prior to the morning after??

Rev9

[RiseAgainst]

This is biased in that women get subsidized but there is no male equivalent. What are they gonna do to even the score... make a dick droop pill you take prior to the morning after??

Rev9

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/045/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

[angelatc]

Source: ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/01/435524/senate-kills-blunts-anti-contraception-amendment/)

Thoughts? At first glance, looks to be a victory for women's rights and Obama and a loss for employers who don't believe in contraception.


Demagogue much? Rights belong to individuals, not to groups. Women don't have a "right" to free contraceptives.

[angelatc]

It is good it gives freedom of choice to people versus the companies. Contraception is cheaper then welfare.

Where are these people coming from?????

[Massachusetts]

Demagogue much? Rights belong to individuals, not to groups. Women don't have a "right" to free contraceptives.

Demagogue? You have to be kidding me...When did I say that women have the right to free contraceptives?

Whether you want to recognize it or not, a lot of women have come together for this movement and are pleased with this decision.

[eduardo89]

Demagogue? You have to be kidding me...When did I say that women have the right to free contraceptives?

Whether you want to recognize it or not, a lot of women have come together for this movement and are pleased with this decision.

A lot of people are also very pleased with government funded abortions...

[Massachusetts]

A lot of people are also very pleased with government funded abortions...

What does that have to do with anything that has been discussed so far?

[eduardo89]

What does that have to do with anything that has been discussed so far?

You talked about how a lot of women have come together and supported this decision. A lot of women have also come together and supported government funded abortions. Doesn't make it right. In both cases it's the state using its monopoly on force to impose things on people.

[Massachusetts]

You talked about how a lot of women have come together and supported this decision. A lot of women have also come together and supported government funded abortions. Doesn't make it right. In both cases it's the state using its monopoly on force to impose things on people.

I didn't say it was right.

[buffed]

The company is not a person. The corporation is not a person. The workers should decide if they want contraception coverage not the morals of the company. You are saying you would rather have the companies be able to decide and limit freedom of choice of the employees.

????...if a company isn't a person than who owns the company? I think you are on the wrong forum. I own a company and if I want to require my employees to have purple mohawks and clown shoes everday that's my right. It's also a person's right to choose whether they want to work for my company under those circumstances or a consumer's right to choose whether to spend their money with a business having such conditions.

[QuickZ06]

This is biased in that women get subsidized but there is no male equivalent. What are they gonna do to even the score... make a dick droop pill you take prior to the morning after??

Rev9

They have a male pill as well in the works.

[eduardo89]

They have a male pill as well in the works.

I'd never take it. And do you think women will really trust men with that? A guy will say anything to get laid.

[specsaregood]

Thoughts? At first glance, looks to be a victory for women's rights

Which "right" would that be? I musta missed it.

[eduardo89]

Which "right" would that be? I musta missed it.

37th amendment. Women have the right to everything they want, including the house when she divorces you.

[RiseAgainst]

37th amendment. Women have the right to everything they want, including the house when she divorces you.

You know, I don't really care that she has it, it's just the boyfriend who's living there for free...

[Danke]

Where are these people coming from?????

It is strange.

[eduardo89]

You know, I don't really care that she has it, it's just the boyfriend who's living there for free...

Sleeping in your bed, watching your big screen tv, listening to your record collection....

[specsaregood]

37th amendment. Women have the right to everything they want, including the house when she divorces you.

careful now, that almost sounded bitter.

[Jingles]

I have difficultly deciding if Casey or Santorum is slightly better. It's like do you want to be sucked into a black hole or do you want to be sucked into a black hole with a paper-cut as well.

[NoOneButPaul]

This is biased in that women get subsidized but there is no male equivalent. What are they gonna do to even the score... make a dick droop pill you take prior to the morning after??

Rev9

it's also biased in the sense there are barely any women in the Congress.

This is why these types of issues have to be left up to the states...

[Evangelical_Protestant]

Screw contraception, why are companies forced to provide anything other than a paycheck for labor? Humans naturally have a right to live in caves and hunt fish in shallow streams with a spear without interference. Where did all these other "rights" come from?

[rockerrockstar]

This is biased in that women get subsidized but there is no male equivalent. What are they gonna do to even the score... make a dick droop pill you take prior to the morning after??

Rev9

Ha Ha. I guess a right to viagra, cialis, and condoms.

[Brett85]

It's not surprising that some people here actually side with the extreme anti liberty Senators like Chuck Schumer on this issue. It seems like there's becoming more and more big government liberals here lately.

[specsaregood]

It seems like there's becoming more and more big government liberals here lately.

At least they are here.

[Pauls' Revere]

why oh why are companies, insurance, and government involved with your contraceptive choices? I always paid out-of-pocket for my condoms, didnt have to bother my employer,insurance or government at all!

[ZenBowman]

It is good it gives freedom of choice to people versus the companies. Contraception is cheaper then welfare.

Agreed. Too many people miss the forest for the trees.

[realtonygoodwin]

Naturally, most of us are opposed to welfare as well. Contraception being cheaper than welfare is totally irrelevant.

[Massachusetts]

It's not surprising that some people here actually side with the extreme anti liberty Senators like Chuck Schumer on this issue. It seems like there's becoming more and more big government liberals here lately.

Yes, there are big government liberals on a RON PAUL FORUM. -_-

[angelatc]

Demagogue? You have to be kidding me...When did I say that women have the right to free contraceptives?

Whether you want to recognize it or not, a lot of women have come together for this movement and are pleased with this decision.

A lot of women are nothing more than pathetic tools then.

[The Gold Standard]

It is good it gives freedom of choice to people versus the companies. Contraception is cheaper then welfare.

I never understood this argument. A bullet would be even cheaper than the contraception. So instead of eliminating the welfare state we should find the cheapest way to eliminate the people that might end up dependent on the welfare state?

[KingNothing]

Naturally, most of us are opposed to welfare as well. Contraception being cheaper than welfare is totally irrelevant.

Not a question we should ask: "Which is more utilitarian?"
A question we should ask: "Is this the role of the federal government?"

[specsaregood]

I never understood this argument. A bullet would be even cheaper than the contraception. So instead of eliminating the welfare state we should find the cheapest way to eliminate the people that might end up dependent on the welfare state?

A noose would be even cheaper, its reuseable.

[KingNothing]

I never understood this argument. A bullet would be even cheaper than the contraception. So instead of eliminating the welfare state we should find the cheapest way to eliminate the people that might end up dependent on the welfare state?

Better still, let's just slaughter everyone who doesn't work 24 hours a day. That would maximize efficiency, productivity and our tax dollars.

[ZenBowman]

A noose would be even cheaper, its reuseable.

A noose uses violence. Contraception does not.

[Danke]

why oh why are companies, insurance, and government involved with your contraceptive choices? I always paid out-of-pocket for my condoms, didnt have to bother my employer,insurance or government at all!

What a concept.

[realtonygoodwin]

A noose uses violence. Contraception does not.

A debatable point.

[specsaregood]

A noose uses violence. Contraception does not.
taking money from others to pay for your contraception uses violence.

[MaxPower]

It is truly bizarre, on the Ron Paul Forums, of all places, to see two of the first three users in this thread support coercive government control over benefit provisions in private contracts.

[specsaregood]

It is truly bizarre, on the Ron Paul Forums, of all places, to see two of the first three users in this thread support coercive government control over benefit provisions in private contracts.

Not really. Lots of people have come here to find out why they are wrong.

[The Gold Standard]

taking money from others to pay for your contraception uses violence.

Not a debatable point. So if we are going to use violence to reduce the population and hence those dependent on the state, why not do it the cheapest way possible?

[EvilEngineer]

They're covering all bases in population control. Free contraception, subsidized abortions, fattening foods to make people unattractive, and GMO foods that have a "side effect" of sterility.



Sadly... there is still not enough control on the segments of the population that need it.

[bolil]

Perhaps an easier and cheaper and altogether more effective way to provide contraception would be to sterilize a certain % of the population. We could do it prior to birth, you know, before people are actually people. Being pragmatic to seem enlightened... LOLOLOLOL.

Anyways, Women don't have a right to contraceptives. Unless I am given a right to smoke doobies all day long. I am, like a good politician, willing to compromise with you at the pecuniary expense of everyone.

[Hitman83]

At first glance, looks to be a victory for women's rights

They always say women's rights, but ignore that many women are against this too. It's a victory for people who support a platform called "women's rights." I hate the way the left acts like you're against women if you're against something like this. BTW, I'm not saying this toward you, Massachusetts, I just cringe at the phrase "women's rights."

I just wish this wasn't even being discussed in Congress. It shouldn't be a federal (or any level of govt) issue. Leave it alone.

Thanks for the post.

[tfurrh]

It is truly bizarre, on the Ron Paul Forums, of all places, to see two of the first three users in this thread support coercive government control over benefit provisions in private contracts.
I was very surprised too.

[Massachusetts]

It is truly bizarre, on the Ron Paul Forums, of all places, to see two of the first three users in this thread support coercive government control over benefit provisions in private contracts.

How am I supporting "coercive government control over benefit provisions in private contracts"? I'M AGAINST THAT. Just because I put the word womens and rights together? Relax.

[angelatc]

How am I supporting "coercive government control over benefit provisions in private contracts"? I'M AGAINST THAT. Just because I put the word womens and rights together? Relax.

You think that a government mandate that insurance companies provide birth control at no price is a great win for "womenz rights!" but somehow that isn't coercive government control?

Massachusetts - go figure.

[angelatc]

They always say women's rights, but ignore that many women are against this too. It's a victory for people who support a platform called "women's rights." I hate the way the left acts like you're against women if you're against something like this. BTW, I'm not saying this toward you, Massachusetts, I just cringe at the phrase "women's rights."

I just wish this wasn't even being discussed in Congress. It shouldn't be a federal (or any level of govt) issue. Leave it alone.

Thanks for the post.

I wish it wasn't being discussed in Congress, but this didn't even come from Congress. This came out of the Executive Branch. Congress is just powerless to stop it. (And these are the guys telling us they're going to overturn Obamacare?)

[angelatc]

Better still, let's just slaughter everyone who doesn't work 24 hours a day. That would maximize efficiency, productivity and our tax dollars.

That's coming. Socliaism is all about the worker. If you're not contributing to the common good, you have no value and therefore get no benefits. If you're old or sick, you won't get medical care. If you're young and viable, they'll keep your cog well oiled.

[Massachusetts]

You think that a government mandate that insurance companies provide birth control at no price is a great win for "womenz rights!" but somehow that isn't coercive government control?

Massachusetts - go figure.

Maybe you should stop trying to alienate everybody in the base because that's sure how I feel right now..alienated for believing the same exact thing you do.

I just told you that I'm against forcing companies to provide birth control at no cost..why are you even trying to argue right now? For the sake of arguing?

[RiseAgainst]

Maybe you should stop trying to alienate everybody in the base because that's sure how I feel right now..alienated for believing the same exact thing you do.

I just told you that I'm against forcing companies to provide birth control at no cost..why are you even trying to argue right now? For the sake of arguing?

Sorry you had to be the brundt of that Mass, but for a movement that is very concerned with real natural rights theory, the understanding of where freedom comes from and what it truly is, people can get very upset at the ridiculousness of what is claimed as 'rights' these days.

When someone says "women's rights", they don't usually mean naturally observable rights afforded to all humans (self ownership, property, etc.), they generally mean a list of wants and demands that they decide they should get for free just 'cuz. The use of 'rights' has become increasingly bastardized in today's world and can be a trigger word around here.

I can see where your heart is, and as I've said before I'm very glad you're here. I do think you are on the right path, I hope you will take the opportunity to objectively look at some things and hopefully expand your horizons around here. Lord knows we all (present company most certainly not excluded) need to keep learning more!

[ZenBowman]

taking money from others to pay for your contraception uses violence.

Taking money from others for welfare uses even more violence.

I'd say that if the welfare state were dismantled, I'd be against this measure.

But while we have a welfare state, I'm for it.

[ZenBowman]

They're covering all bases in population control. Free contraception, subsidized abortions, fattening foods to make people unattractive, and GMO foods that have a "side effect" of sterility.

Offering contraception is voluntary population control. A reasonable argument can be made that you shouldn't force people to provide it, but if you are going to force them to provide welfare, then contraception is the cheaper alternative. If you ended the welfare state, I'd agree that you could end taxing people to give others contraceptives as well.

One of the reasons I support ending the welfare state is to reduce populations. In a voluntarist society, I could donate my charitable givings exclusively to people who undergo hysterectomies or are on birth control.

[No Free Beer]

Source: ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/01/435524/senate-kills-blunts-anti-contraception-amendment/)

Thoughts? At first glance, looks to be a victory for women's rights and Obama and a loss for employers who don't believe in contraception.

Obama and the left are almost always going to win this argument. I don't mean to use Dr. Paul's words all the time because I am not a blind supporter of his, but it's the immorality of society. The reason the liberals will win this argument everytime is not such because it forces someone to carry something, it's because women these days feel that this stuff is entitled to them. That is just the plain truth. Not only that, but the liberals positioned themselves perfectly for this. While the GOP was pushing "religious freedoms", the liberals were crying "women's rights." You tell me who is going to win that battle?

For people like us all, we look at it completely differently than others. We look at this issue based on freedom, liberty, and property rights. The gov has no right to impose their will on an employer. I sure hope everyone agrees with that.

But again, it's the immorality of the people, the entitlement society that is killing us.