“It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom,” Clinton said at the Aspen Ideas Festival, TPM reports. “I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”
Hobby Lobby and small Pennsylvania business Conestoga Wood sued the Obama administration for forcing companies to provide four types of contraception, arguing that the birth-control mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was, ironically, signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The act says the government may only “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” when it meets a demanding test — one that the Obamacare birth-control mandate didn’t live up to.
When pressed on her husband’s approval of the law that struck the final blow to Obamacare’s pet provision, Clinton brushed aside his involvement.
When Bill Clinton signed the act into law in 1993, “there were legitimate cases of discrimination against religions,” she told reporters. “This is certainly a use that no one foresaw.”
“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer's health care plan because her employer doesn’t believe she should use birth control.”
Hobby Lobby itself provides 16 types of contraception to its employees, making it highly unlikely that a sales clerk at one of the company’s stores would find herself in such a position. But despite the hit against President Barack Obama’s health care law, Democrats are already using Monday’s ruling as a campaign cry.
Hillary and other rabid leftists are seeing an opportunity in this latest Supreme Court decision. They believe they can ride the War on Women wave to consolidate and hold power. Sadly, the level of intelligence out there is likely to allow them to succeed.
You do know that if you really can’t afford to fund your own promiscuity you can look into your local health department, where you can get your pills for free or dramatically reduced based on your income? Condoms are always free there. If you’re in college, go to your local student clinic. Your contraception is free there too.
In other words, don’t make me financially support something I am morally against just because my moral objections happen to offend you.
This whole let’s make everyone pay for my birth control is ludicrous. And you know it. This was never about birth control and if you think it is, let me remind that…
1) No one has ever died from not having sex 2) Sex or lack thereof is not a medical emergency 3) Pregnancy is not a disease
That and much more from Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on ABC’s This Week when asked by the host if she felt misled by Obama about his promise that insurance policies could be kept by the insured:
"He should’ve just been specific. No we all knew," GIllinbrand said. "The whole point of the plan is to cover things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy. How many women, the minute they get pregnant, might risk their coverage. How many women paid more because of their gender, because they might get pregnant. Those are the reforms."
If you can stomach it, watch what follows, it's revealing to those who aren't gullible and easily led. Most revealing:
Striking a tone of disgust, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ridicules the GOP as obsessed with its loathing of President Obama and hell-bent on hurting him politically, regardless the cost. She
assigns little to no blame to the president (even though Democrats privately say that’s laughable) and instead portrays him as saintly, above reproach and the victim of jealousy or something worse.
After 26 years in the House, she says, “I haven’t seen anything like it. I haven’t seen anything like it.”
Throughout a 50-minute interview on Thursday in her second-floor Capitol office, where the late Speaker Tip O’Neill used to receive supplicants, Pelosi was sharply derisive about the scorn Republicans have for this president.
“You know why it is,” she said. “You know why it is. He’s brilliant, … he thinks in a strategic way in how to get something done … and he’s completely eloquent. That’s a package that they don’t like.”
Then she added a line that she has used before, that drives Republicans batty: “He has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution. I think that’s one of the reasons the Republicans want to take him down politically, because they know he is a nonpartisan president, and that’s something very hard for them to cope with.”
Nancy Pelosi represents everything, and I do mean everything, wrong with our political leadership today.
First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments
representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That's point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.
This is arguably one of the biggest lies ever told by a sitting President. It's pathologically untruthful. And it will be tough for even the media to cover this up.
President Obama’s liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria, according to a new survey the Progressive Change Campaign Committee released Wednesday.
PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can’t find any allies.
Indeed, a majority of the activists don’t believe Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry are being honest when they lay out their justifications for taking military action.
In fact, same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in chastity in a culture that has lost much
sense of chastity. Same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in love in a civilization that no longer seems to know what love is for. Same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in the coherence of family life in a society in which the family is dissolving.
I don’t know that it will, of course, and some of the most persuasive statements of conservatism insist that we should not undertake projects the consequences of which we cannot foresee. But same-sex marriage is already here; it’s not as though we can halt it. And other profound statements of conservatism remind us that we must take people as we find them—must instruct the nation where the nation is.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Bottum, in fact, I've not heard about him to this point however, I'd like to believe I am familiar enough with Catholic teaching to know and recognize the abandonment of one of Catholicism's sacraments to the whimsy that is gay marriage.
Or is it “Farewell My Lovely?” Those are the titles that came to my mind as I read his essay today over at Commonweal.
No disrespect to Raymond Chandler intended for thinking of his titles, but I will never get back the hour I lost reading Bottums’ essay, where he makes his personal case for coming out in favor of Same Sex Marriage.
When I got to the end, it felt like I had endured the wandering in the Sinai for forty years, while learning that I was still not getting to the Promised Land.
A bad trade, that.
There also seemed to be a lot of “America” this, and “America” that, in the essay, and strike your colors thoughts like,
We are now at the point where, I believe, American Catholics should accept state recognition of same-sex marriage simply because they are Americans.
At which point I was thinking, really? So we should bag the idea of defending what the Church holds as true, both because it is philosophically true, and morally true, and knuckle under to the pressure of the animal spirits of the zeitgeist, and just throw in the towel? All because we are afraid of the potential white martyrdom of being called bigots?
Look. If he wants to say, “Most Americans oppose the Church on this and realism dictates facing that fact” he gets no argument from me. But he’s saying, “The Church needs to get with the program and pretend gay ‘marriage’ is something other than a fantasy agreed upon by a culture that is radically out of touch with reality.” His core message is “Surrender”, not “Maintain the Tradition in a hostile culture.”
There'll be more on this. Given the reaction on the Catholic blogs I read, Mr. Bottums must be a man of some influence which means his essay will be used by those who hate Catholicism like a bludgeon.
This is what I find most grievous.
There are people I love deeply who will read Bottum's words and use them as a compost pile to nurture their doubts about The Church, in effect drawing them further away from The Truth.
He's done a great disservice to his faith but more impacting, he's likely done the same to the faith of many others.
A graphic painting depicting George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin was unveiled at the Florida
Capitol rotunda Friday.
The Miami-based artist, Huong, joined protesters, referred to as the Dream Defenders, on their 25th day of camping out at the capital as they urge Florida Gov. Rick Scott to change the Stand Your Ground law.
The painting, “We Are All Trayvon Martin” shows Zimmerman firing a gun at a figure wearing a hoodie, but the painting includes a mirror where Martin's face would be to convey that the shooting could have happened to anyone.
I find this disgusting and indicative of the lengths some will go to further an agenda. This mural is a lie and the artist's suggestion that we are all Trayvon Martin a bigger one.
God forgive me for wishing a pox on all who would purposely foment division while making crap up in the attempt to do so.
The likelihood that a woman age 25 to 39 will be diagnosed with advanced breast cancer has steadily
increased since the mid-1970s, researchers from Seattle Children’s and Oregon Health and Science University have found.
Analyzing data from hundreds of thousands of cases collected in three national cancer registries, the researchers, whose work is published in Wednesday’s issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), found no other age group had such an increase.
Although breast cancer overall is relatively rare in younger women, it is the most common malignant tumor in young adult women, who tend to experience more aggressive disease and have lower survival rates, the study’s authors said.
The study looked at the extent of disease at the time of original diagnosis, comparing the change in incidence in each age group from 1976 to 2009.
The increase in incidence of metastatic disease in the 25-39 age group was small — an increase of 1.37 cases per year for every 100,000 women — but statistically significant and steady throughout the time period, said the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Rebecca Johnson, medical director of the Adolescent and Young Adult oncology program at Seattle Children’s.
Since 1992, when data on race and geographic location were added to the databases, the increase among women in that age group occurred in all races and ethnicities evaluated and in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, the researchers said.
Non-Hispanic white women and African-American women, as well as women with estrogen-receptor positive subtypes of cancer, appear to have been most affected.
186 percent increase
Over the time period analyzed in the study, the number of women ages 25-39 in the U.S. grew from about 22 million to approximately 28 to 30 million — a figure that’s been steady since the 1980s, Johnson noted. That’s an increase of about 36 percent.
But in the same period, the number of women in that age group with an original diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer increased from 293 in 1976 to 838 in 2009, an increase of 186 percent.
No other age group had a similar increase.
“We’re interested in these trends,” Johnson said, “with the hypothesis that cancers of adolescents and young adults may have unique biological features that more research may uncover.”
She hopes future studies may reveal why the rate of metastatic breast cancer in young women has increased.
“The rate of this change has been so rapid we think it’s likely there’s some sort of external factor,” she said — perhaps a “modifiable risk factor”such as obesity, alcohol use, the age when a woman first gives birth, an environmental toxin exposure, or a combination of factors.
“It could be complicated, it could be simple, or something we haven’t thought of yet,” Johnson said.
Two of the most important types of hormones that control reproduction are estrogens and progestins. Birth control pills are made from synthetic estrogens and/or progestins. Experiments have shown that these hormones cause women’s breast cells to divide more rapidly.  Cells which divide more rapidly are more prone to develop into cancer cells.
2) What is the evidence that the Pill and breast cancer are connected? In 2005, the World Health Organization classified oral contraceptives as a Group I carcinogen—the most dangerous classification known. Also, a comprehensive meta-analysis* published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in October, 2006 found that 21 out of 23 retrospective studies done since 1980 showed that women who took oral contraceptive prior to the birth of their first child sustained a 44% average increased risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, [see Table A]. ] This risk rose to 52% for women who took the pill for at least four years prior to the birth of their first child.
3) How serious of a problem is breast cancer?
Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in U. S. in women age 20-59. In the U.S. about 211,000 women are diagnosed annually and over 40,000 die from this disease. More than one in five women who are diagnosed with breast cancer (ie, 47,000 women annually) will develop it before menopause. About one in eight women will develop breast cancer at some time in her life and one fourth of such women will die from this disease. Using the birth control pill, especially at a young age, markedly increases a woman’s risk for developing breast cancer. This risk is increased even higher when combined with other breast cancer risk factors such as induced abortion, hormone treatment (such as estrogen supplementation), family history of breast cancer, and other factors.
4) Do some contraceptives cause more risk than others?
Yes. Research studies show that breast cancer risk is almost tripled for women who used Depo-Provera for 2 years or more before age 25. 
5) Are other types of cancer affected by oral contraceptive pills?
Oral contraceptives decrease the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer, while they increase the risk of cervical and breast cancer.  Since breast cancer is far more prevalent than the other three types of gynecological cancers, the pills overall effect is detrimental to women.
6) Are there other risks from contraceptives? Yes. Well known side effects of the Pill include an increased frequency of blood clots, high blood pressure, and heart attacks, as well as migraines, depression, loss of libido, and a variety of other disorders. Less well known is that oral contraceptives and injectable progestins (such as Depo-Provera) significantly increase the risk of contracting and transmitting HIV (the AIDS virus). [7,8] In addition, medical studies strongly suggest that oral contraceptives work at times by causing an early abortion. 
Next time you hear someone talk about the war on women being waged by Catholics, perhaps it'd be good to have them open their eyes to this.
The Massachusetts Department of Education has issued a new directive for schools in the handling of
transgendered students, including allowing them to use whichever restroom they choose.
“Transgender students who are uncomfortable using a sex-segregated restroom should be provided with a safe and adequate alternative, such as a single ‘unisex’ restroom or the nurse’s restroom,” the 11-page directive reads.
The directive also states even though some students may feel uncomfortable with sharing the same sex-segregated restroom or locker room as the transgendered student, the “this discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”
The directive also requires that all transgendered students be allowed to participating in gender-specific activities that he or she identifies with.
“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate.
If you have a problem with any of this, you must be... disordered.
The story that has outraged so many folks is the primary story on the march that ran in a more
prominent position than the straight story. In fact, it ran above the fold of the national news section, headlined “In Fight Over Life, a New Call by Catholics.”
The March for Life in Washington on Friday renewed the annual impassioned call to end legalized abortion, 40 years after the Roe v. Wade decision. But this year, some Roman Catholic leaders and theologians are asking why so many of those who call themselves “pro-life” have been silent, or even opposed, when it comes to controlling the guns that have been used to kill and injure millions of Americans.
More than 60 Catholic priests, nuns, scholars and two former ambassadors to theVatican sent a letter this week saying that if marchers and politicians truly want to defend life they should support “common-sense reforms to address the epidemic of gun violence in our nation.”
A caption for the piece read:
Anti-abortion protesters flooded the National Mall in Washington on Friday for the annual March for Life. Many Catholic leaders and theologians are asking why many of those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ have been silent when it comes to gun control.
You’ll notice that marchers are only called “pro-life” in a scare-quotey sense to cast skepticism on their claims. You might also wonder if the Times broke precedent to cover the massive march so as to be able to criticize it with this more prominent story, but we can’t really know the answer to that question.
We’re a family site here so I’m going to be careful here:
Are you [bleeping] kidding me? Are you [bleeping] kidding me?
What? This is the religion angle for the massive, hundreds-thousands-strong March for Life that marks the murder of 55 million unborn children over the last 40 years? We’re going to turn it into something nebulous (no specific gun controls are even discussed) related to the media’s current political cause du jour?
And it gets worse.
Believe it or not, this is basically just a press release from the same savvy, highly funded PR firm that has been rolling reporters for the last year. One is beginning to think they enjoy the ride.
The group that put out the letter is … drum roll please …
… Faith in Public Life. Yes, that Faith in Public Life! They’re the ones who came up with the highly successful “Nuns on the Bus” tour that got embarrassingly uncritical coverage for an anti-Paul Ryan campaign featuring not one, not two, but as many asthree to four nuns. We’re talking front-page coverage in major media outlets, gushy broadcasts, the works.
You couldn’t pay for coverage this nice. Except, I guess, that George Soros and his fellow donors do pay for this coverage. But you know what I mean.
Well yes, thinking people know what you mean Mollie.
It means that the media continues to be in our faces as to being in the tank for progressives and their agenda but particularly so when that agenda entails issues of faith.