Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

GOP 2022 - The Bareback Party

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by pkaib01, Jul 23, 2022.

Page 5 of 6
  1. Jul 24, 2022 #81
    tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    64,206
    87,856
    14,327
    May 31, 2007
    Floridian by Birth, Now in Wilmington, NC
    Yet some polling shows up to 98% of Catholics use birth controll.

    I know a lot of Catholics. Most of them have 2 or 3 kids tops.
     
  2. Jul 24, 2022 #82
    PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,289
    366
    1,993
    Jun 14, 2014
    I very much doubt 98% of any group actively uses birth control. Maybe that number have used it once in their lives, counting the pull out and rhythm method as “birth control.”

    And while we’re talking anecdotes, my sister in law is going through Catholic marriage counseling right now. They are teaching her it’s rhythm method or bust, and that’s exactly what she says she plans on doing. She would have zero problem with a ban on condoms.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Jul 24, 2022 #83
    tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    64,206
    87,856
    14,327
    May 31, 2007
    Floridian by Birth, Now in Wilmington, NC
    The data is on the link. Most of them were artificial contraceptives and it was taken among people at risk of becoming pregnant. The churches official position is still that, but most people dont practice it.
     
  4. Jul 25, 2022 #84
    PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,289
    366
    1,993
    Jun 14, 2014
    What link?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Jul 25, 2022 #85
    phatGator

    phatGator GC Hall of Fame

    5,577
    5,242
    2,213
    Dec 3, 2007
    Dayton, Ohio
    The problem with analyzing a vote on any bill is that a bill has an overall purpose that is usually what makes the news, but often contains fine print or even added on amendments totally unrelated to the main purpose. If a representative votes against the bill because of the fine print or an amendment, they are vilified as opposing the main purpose.

    I didn’t read this entire bill, but I did read the findings section. They contain a lot of points that the Republicans probably find inflammatory. On any bill what is a representative to do if he agrees with the main purpose of the bill but not all of the language in it. Is voting for a bill approving everything in it?

    What happens in threads like this is that people take some soundbite, like Republicans are against condoms, and the entire discussion inflates around that one point and their imagined extrapolations.

    Btw, I don’t think anyone has quoted any of the Republicans who voted against it, so we don’t really know what their thinking was.
     
  6. Jul 25, 2022 #86
    pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,645
    777
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
    It's only two pages and most of it is boilerplate. I think it's worth your time if you're going to comment on it.

    The bill is about the right to contraception. That is all. It mentions the categories of contraception to ensure there is no ambiguity.

    I mentioned some of the quotes I've seen. They are not hard to find.

    "But for many Republicans, the issue of contraception access is linked to abortion rights, a far more polarizing topic that is anathema to much of the party. Some Republicans said on Thursday that they supported contraception in practice but viewed Democrats’ bill as a gateway to allowing abortion" -- NYTimes

    "Republicans said the bill went too far. They said it would lead to more abortions, which supporters deny, allow the use of drugs not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration and force health care providers to offer contraceptives, even if that contradicted their religious beliefs." -- APNews

    "To be sure, one of the principal GOP arguments this morning was that there’s no need to pass the Right To Contraception Act, since no states have tried to ban it in recent decades. That’s not a ridiculous point: As with the Respect For Marriage Act, today’s bill was inherently preemptive and intended to address a potential threat, not restrictions that have already been implemented." -- MSNBC

    "Republicans took issue with the bill’s broad definition of contraception, its potential to send additional tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and its language exempting it from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act." -- Washington Times

    "Republicans who opposed the measure say the definition of contraception is overly broad. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) called the bill “poorly drafted” and Thursday warned it would allow “unrestricted abortions.” She said Republicans do support access to contraceptives, but this bill would go too far." -- Bloomberg Law

    "“H.R. 8373 is a Trojan horse for more abortions,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state. “It should be called the Payout for Planned Parenthood Act. It would send more tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, freeing up more funds for them to provide abortions and end valuable lives.”" -- News Observer

    "“If we allow the majority to undermine constitutional safeguards for an imagined and fake emergency, they will create more imagined emergencies in the future to violate and undermine our constitutional principles,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-NY." -- PBS

    "Republicans disparaged the contraceptives bill as violating religious freedom and states’ rights to regulate their own health care policy." -- Fox 7

    Most of those objections are easily overcome as failures of logic or political spin.

    I'm sure there are other quotes and pretexts for denying us the right to contraception. Inclusion of contraception that may interrupt the germinal phase was not the de facto reason for Republicans objecting, despite the repeated assertions from those that claim to read the minds of the bill drafters and the dissenters.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Jul 25, 2022 #87
    tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    64,206
    87,856
    14,327
    May 31, 2007
    Floridian by Birth, Now in Wilmington, NC
  8. Jul 25, 2022 #88
    tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    64,206
    87,856
    14,327
    May 31, 2007
    Floridian by Birth, Now in Wilmington, NC
    Most of those proved my point. This isnt about condoms. Thank you for finally providing some factual context to the silly OP.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Jul 25, 2022 #89
    G8R92

    G8R92 GC Hall of Fame

    3,163
    342
    353
    Feb 5, 2010


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

     
  10. Jul 25, 2022 #90
    tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    64,206
    87,856
    14,327
    May 31, 2007
    Floridian by Birth, Now in Wilmington, NC
  11. Jul 25, 2022 #91
    pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,645
    777
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
    Horse hockey. Here's my OP:

    I never said this was solely about condoms, only that condoms were included. I further specified in a subsequent post that I chose condoms to highlight how outrageous it was to deny us the right to contraception. But you called me dishonest anyhow.

    If anything, the quotes I listed invalidates your repeated and unsubstantiated position that nays were due to objections to "post conception contraception" (a phrase still makes me LOL).
     
  12. Jul 25, 2022 #92
    phatGator

    phatGator GC Hall of Fame

    5,577
    5,242
    2,213
    Dec 3, 2007
    Dayton, Ohio
    Are you saying Gators do not have rational brains? That would explain a lot of the posts on Too Hot. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Jul 25, 2022 #93
    PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,289
    366
    1,993
    Jun 14, 2014
    The stats you linked don't say that, though, as the defined set excludes most women (and all men) who oppose birth control (and therefore are either not sexually active, pregnant, post-partum, or trying to get pregnant).

    Also, what person personally does is oftentimes irrelevant to their politics. Many Catholics get abortions as well, but are fine with denying that right to others.

    “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”

    Again, this is core dogma of a hugely powerful religion. The Supreme Court is talking about the "domestic supply of infants" while standing up flashing neon signs saying they are going to strip all constitutional protections for BC.

    You really expect us to believe that they stop at post-conception contraception, whatever that means?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Jul 25, 2022 #94
    phatGator

    phatGator GC Hall of Fame

    5,577
    5,242
    2,213
    Dec 3, 2007
    Dayton, Ohio
    On your admonition I did go ahead and read the rest of the bill. I can see somethings in there that would cause a conservative to vote no, such as it appears the government could be made to pay for contraception to make sure that it’s available. In the past I have heard an argument from people that a right does not exist if you cannot afford to pay for access to the right.

    I was going to give your post a like because of the information you provided, until I got to the last paragraph. I don’t see anything in those quotes that deny you access to contraception. You’re free to go out and buy whatever kind you want today.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Jul 25, 2022 #95
    tampajack1

    tampajack1 Premium Member

    9,495
    1,610
    2,453
    Apr 3, 2007
    This bill must be defeated because it will prevent men from shooting (in the biblical sense) which will then lead to the government taking away our god-given right to shoot you in the face with an AR-15.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Jul 25, 2022 #96
    pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,645
    777
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
    Where does it allude to that? There's a finding that some states are denying state funds but that's not in the actual codification.

    fyi... you have the right to a gun even if you cannot pay for one.

    There are Republican quotes that say it's up to the state to determine if you have the right to contraception. There are quotes that the right may violate religious freedom. So yes, there are objections that can lead to downstream denial of access.
     
  17. Jul 28, 2022 #97
    pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,645
    777
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
    "A majority of Americans oppose laws that would restrict what types of birth control can be used to prevent pregnancy (84%), including Dems (90%) & the GOP (77%)."



    Another example of the religious minority imposing their will upon the average American.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  18. Jul 28, 2022 #98
    OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    122,900
    163,818
    116,973
    Apr 3, 2007
    How are they imposing their will, the bill passed the House?
     
  19. Jul 28, 2022 #99
    archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    3,742
    3,553
    1,923
    Apr 8, 2020
    Anyone who would vote against that has obviously never had one.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. Jul 28, 2022 #100
    pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,645
    777
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
    You got me. "Attempting". 95% of Republican House Representatives voted against 77% of their constituents' wishes.

    Mine is a knee jerk reaction to the Senate and SCOTUS minority representation.

    Want me to delete the post or edit it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2022
Page 5 of 6