published Saturday, February 4th, 2012

The Pink Ribbon

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

72
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
blackwater48 said...

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Why do republicans want to kill Planned Parenthood? Why did John Kyl announce on the floor of the Senate the big black lie that abortions make up 90% of Planned Parenthood services? (After getting that prevarication into the Congressional Record, Kyl's Staff admitted that the the Senator was not intending to make a factual statement!?!) Why did House republicans threaten to shut down the government if funding for Planned Parenthood were not removed from the budget?

And now Karen Handle, the Senior Vice President of Public Policy at Susan G. Koman, has turned the GOP war on Planned Parenthood into the worst media disaster in the history of the organization.

Handle served as Georgia's Secretary of State and ran for governor in 2010, but even Sarah Palin's endorsement didn't help. During the campaign Handle tweeted a promise to "be a pro-life governor," and "since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood."

But Handle's personal vendetta against PP has fired up supporters - democrats, republicans, and independents - who, at last count, had donated to Planned Parenthood over $3 million to make up for initial lost funding from Komen. Talk about unintended consequences. I guess it really is true: that which does not kills you makes you stronger.

February 4, 2012 at 1:13 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

Good one, Clay. You are once again accurate.

The details of this PR and fundraising nightmare are public knowledge and easy to find. No matter how Nancy Brinker tries to spin the story, this move was hatched by Karen Handal to earn her anti-Planned Parenthood creds. This was a political decision, plain and simple.

February 4, 2012 at 1:49 a.m.
fairmon said...

The return on investment for planned parent hood is good since it reduces the number that will be government dependent. Since the federal government insist on being involved in this state issue perhaps funding should be increased and the availability of free abortions made more well known, maybe even encouraged in many cases. I don't like seeing the symbol for the cure of a very serious illness and saving lives used in anything other than the intent, certainly not a political view.

February 4, 2012 at 3:04 a.m.
Haiku said...

Keep on keepin' on, Mr. Bennett. Telling the truth. If a picture is worth a thousands words your cartoons are worth a zillion!!

The only reason the right wingnuts attack you is because they fear the truth.

There is no greater honor than the attempt to silence a man. For it means you recognize his supriority to yourself.

February 4, 2012 at 4:39 a.m.
LibDem said...

Now that we know SGK's political agenda, we can watch more carefully.

February 4, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.
woody said...

Politics aside..this is what happens when the best of us, no matter the reason, stick our nose into someone elses business. Or as an old sage once pointed out after a renowned MD fell into a very deep hole, "...this one doctor who should have been attending to the sick and left the well alone...."..Woody

February 4, 2012 at 6:59 a.m.
EaTn said...

I am totally in favor of a law to ban abortion just as long as the same law includes a plan and funding to care for those unwanted kids. The problem is few anti-abortionists are willing to recognize that side of the issue.

February 4, 2012 at 7:21 a.m.
acerigger said...

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush and prominent right-wing pundit, was secretly involved in the Komen Foundation’s strategy regarding Planned Parenthood. Fleischer personally interviewed candidates for the position of “Senior Vice President for Communications and External Relations” at Komen last December. According to a source with first-hand knowledge, Fleischer drilled prospective candidates during their interviews on how they would handle the controversy about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.(via,Think Progress)

What a nest of snakes!

February 4, 2012 at 7:46 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Thank you for cutting off cancer screenings in order to prove you are pro-life - this is a card that is circulating on Facebook. It is exactly what SGK did. The grant provided breast mammograms to poor women and the underserved. They were not providing abortions or birth control service just cancer screenings.

I am sickened and depressed about Susan Komen's pandering to the haters and misogynists. I thought this foundation was to honor Nancy Brinker's sister, but instead she used her sister's name to enrich herself. Nancy Brinker makes $400,000 a year salary from the SGK foundation. Planned Parenthood's grant was only $750 k and they cut it off.

I have been a faithful supporter of everything pink ribbon; no more. I plan to let the corporate sponsors know they are harming women by having their brand name attached to SGK. Avon, Belk and hundreds more, the list is here- Susan Komen Corporate Sponsors. Let the companies know you are disappointed in this and to donate to Planned Parenthood instead. Will never wear or own anything pink ribbon again.

February 4, 2012 at 8 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

A disaster this epic would have Ari Fleischer's fingerprints on it. Way to go, Ari Fleischer and Karen Handel. Mission Accomplished!

February 4, 2012 at 8:23 a.m.
MTJohn said...

EaTn said...

I am totally in favor of a law to ban abortion just as long as the same law includes a plan and funding to care for those unwanted kids. The problem is few anti-abortionists are willing to recognize that side of the issue.

I continue to be amazed that the pro-life concern for "life" applies only to embryos and the terminally ill, with little regard for the health of pregnant mothers and those living between birth and their last days.

February 4, 2012 at 8:34 a.m.
fairmon said...

EaTn said... I am totally in favor of a law to ban abortion just as long as the same law includes a plan and funding to care for those unwanted kids. The problem is few anti-abortionists are willing to recognize that side of the issue.

I agree and prefer tax payer funded free abortions that includes sterilization or prenatal care that requires identifying a father that is DNA verified. No birth certificates without a fathers name that will pay child support or be arrested for not paying it. In some cases a woman may have to provide several names with all of them tested to identify the father. In those rare cases where a father cannot be identified and located or neither can provide for and educate the child the child should become a ward of the state and available for adoption.

February 4, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
acerigger said...

"Pro-life",I'm sure means that you stand for fact-based sex education,unfettered access to contraceptives,stream lining the adoption process,adequate funding for care of unwanted children?

Or is the fetus the only issue for the pro-lifers?

(I posted this on 1-24-'12,have yet to get any response from the "pro-lifers")

February 4, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.
fairmon said...

Ron Paul, a gynecologist and POTUS candidate, says this is a personal decision and government has no business interfering with or being involved in this issue of a personal liberty.

Banning abortions, making prostitution, use of drugs and gambling illegal has the same result as prohibition in the Al Capone era. These laws all enable some unsavory people to become very wealthy while abusing people. It would be more logical for the government to fulfill it's duty to reasonably and effectively regulate these activities and tax the income sufficiently to include enforcing the regulations. It is not possible to legislate what some view as morals and their personal beliefs regarding such. A good example is how we are losing the war on drugs while making the Mexican cartels very wealthy and powerful.

February 4, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
rick1 said...

The media will tell you it is all for polticial reasons but they never mention that Planned Parenthood is the focus of both State and Federal investigations for financial irregularities, fraud, sex trafficking, failure to comply with laws requiring reporting minor's sexual abuse and parental notification for abortion, as well as substandard medical care. This was the reason why Komen suspended funding.

Here are some links you will not hear from the MSM. The first link was written by Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/planned-parenthoods-true-colors/#ixzz1lQGHG3iW

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/komen-planned-parenthood-the-real-lesson?utm_source=NCRegister.com&utm_campaign=0235a241b0-Daily_Update_2-1-12&utm_medium=email

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_wrath_of_the_abortion_movement_unleashed_on_komen.html

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/opinion/shredding-hhs-secretary-kathleen-sebelius/article_224357cb-7f22-5c96-a67e-2e4af08d4c11.html

February 4, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
fairmon said...

acerigger said... "Pro-life",I'm sure means that you stand for fact-based sex education,unfettered access to contraceptives,stream lining the adoption process,adequate funding for care of unwanted children?

Or is the fetus the only issue for the pro-lifers?

(I posted this on 1-24-'12,have yet to get any response from the "pro-lifers")

Excellent pont. You are not likely to get a logical response since those same people advocate no or less welfare spending.

February 4, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
MTJohn said...

rick1 said...Here are some links you will not hear from the MSM.

Rick - it could well be that the reason you will not hear those stories from the MSM is because competent journalists tend to fact-check their stories before they print them. Google is your friend. Perhaps you should use it before you blindly accept sources as reliable simply because they tell stories that you want to believe are true.

February 4, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Indiana's top elections official could lose his job and his freedom after jurors convicted him of multiple voter fraud-related charges Saturday, leaving in flux the fate of one of the state's most powerful positions. Republican Secretary of State Charlie White has held on to his office for more than a year despite being accused of lying about his address on voter registration forms. A Hamilton County jury found White guilty of six of seven felony charges, including false registration, voting in another precinct, submitting a false ballot, theft and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one fraud charge. White expressed no outward emotion as the verdict was read, and later said outside the courtroom: "'I'm disappointed for my family and the people who supported me, and it's clear to me now that every republican in this great nation is wrongheaded and needs to get on board President Obama's Hope Train. Thank you and goodnight."

February 4, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.

The unlimited abortion license has done WONDERS for improving the way children are cared for. Not.

Neglect and abuse are the natural result of telling parents that their children are the primary (and insurmountable) obstacle to a life of prosperity, health, and personal fulfillment. Taking the life of an unborn baby doesn't solve problems for an individual or for society. Instead, it unleashes and multiplies the horrors of determining a child’s value based on a utilitarian calculus. When the “problem = baby = expendable” message is shoved down the throats of young women in crisis, where are pro-choicers to care for the trauma that results, or to call the sperm-donor derelicts on the carpet for their responsibility in the matter? (crickets are chirping) The dead-beat dads are the ultimate beneficiaries of the pro-choice position. Poor women and minorities are disproportionately hurt, which fulfills Planned Parenthood’s original mission to use abortion to eliminate people categorized by progressives as “undesirables.”

Next, I’ll address the whopper of a canard that pro-lifers only care for the unborn and not for the child or the mother once the baby is born.

Harp33, you are mistaken about Ron Paul’s position on abortion. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ He simply says that abortion, like all violent crimes, should be handled at the state level. The trouble for him is that the SCOTUS made it a federal issue with its issuance of the abortion license forty years ago.

February 4, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Sorry, Dude, Obama will not win Indiana, ain't going to happen. "president Obama's hope train" Thomas the tank engine could do a better job LOL

Oh, he was convicted or perjury, huh? I Thought that was a badge of honor with you Democrats, since Bill Clinton. Just like cheating on your wife and taking advandage of someone who works under you. HYOCRACY, Dude!!

February 4, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
acerigger said...

rick1,I followed your links(thanks) and all I found were people making unsubstantiated claims and partisan accusations.

Anyone can accuse,anyone can "investigate",so let's see where the results are.

February 4, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.

harp3339, gee I wonder when one of the erstwhile conservatives here is going to read what you have to say, and proclaim you to be a liberal communist tyrant out to control women.

Still I can get behind the ready availability of long-term contraceptive protocols.

rick1, a phony investigation? There are articles that have mentioned it, to condemn that excuse, with examples of how that sham of an investigation is nothing more than political grandstanding by a Congressman who should be ashamed of himself.

Besides, that's just Komen's excuse. It's about as authentic as a pair of Jimmy Choos sold on the street. The reality came out, there have been several statements by Komen people that were not at all about this party line. Plus I think they've switched their story around a bit too.

That's telling. Unfortunately, I've read indicators that Komen's apology is just a deflection, not a retraction. As in "We're sorry you got upset over this, but...we're going to do it anyway just pretend not to notice since we'll make a big deal over apologizing!"

wwwtw: What unlimited license? Many women have no constructive access to it, or any actual reproductive care. Besides, I thought blaming the child support programs was how children became part of a value system!

Unfortunately, children have been neglected and abused for so long, in so many ways, that if you think now is a terrible time, I invite you to learn about being a child in the 1800s. Or the 1700s. Or the 1300s. Heck, just check out what happened to the Children's Crusade. And it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. There are rich parents who show not the slightest love for their children, who engage in abuse, while there are poor who cherish theirs with all their effort. The rich people can just conceal their disinterest behind wealth.

If you wish to say that you, personally, support caring for the children, that's one thing, but as I said, there's plenty of cross-linking between pro-life, anti-child welfare, and disdain for reproductive education. Why are so many people abstinence only? Do they think teaching avoidance is working out very well? Not in my experience. I think informed decision making is a lot more important.

AZ, Republicans and Conservatives love Newt Gingrich. Serial adulterer, ethics violator, known liar. Your hands aren't clean.

February 4, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
workinjay said...

What's really wrong with "family planning" anyway? Doesn't it help keep our prison population down? Doesn't the means justify the end?

67% of abortions are accomplished by minorities. Isn't that racism at its optimal performance?

February 4, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Woody said: “Politics aside..this is what happens when the best of us. . . stick our nose into someone elses business. Or as an old sage once pointed out after a renowned MD fell into a very deep hole, "...this one doctor who should have been attending to the sick and left the well alone...."

Oh, dear. . . Thanks a lot, Woody. . . When I initially read about this Komen fiasco, I envisioned a big can of worms, which was relatively limited in scope so to speak. But your post about the MD falling into a very deep hole has opened up a much greater imagery area in my mind, which, needless to say, accommodates a lot more political worms.

Since reading your post, my thoughts have traveled from a once fine non-profit that abandoned its original mission and replace it with a new one involving dirty politics; to religious organizations that abandoned tenets of their faith in an effort to impose their views on citizens who do not share their beliefs; and now to cherry picking lawmakers who misuse their power to impose their personal religious views on the American public.

I say cherry picking because the Quakers believe war is against God's wishes, but their tax dollars are being spent on war; the Catholics believe that unjust wars are against God’s wishes, but a large amount of their tax dollars was just recently spent on a war that their Pope said was unjust; The Jehovah Witnesses believe it’s wrong to kill their spiritual brothers and the Seventh Day Adventist believe it’s wrong to use the sword against their enemies, but their tax dollars are being use to kill others. See what I mean? The “hole” just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

So tell me, Woody, how did it come to be that U.S. tax dollars cannot be spent on some actions which are considered “sinful” by some religious organization while U.S. tax dollars can be used on other things that are considered just as “sinful” by a great number of religious organizations? For that matter, how did religion become part of criteria for use of our tax dollars in the first place? I believe it’s only fair that you should be the one to sort this stuff out for me since you’re the one that introduced that little story about the deep hole and the renowned MD who should have been attending to the sick and left the well alone.

February 4, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.

More on the child abuse connection:

A study published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica has found that women who have had an abortion are 2.4 times more likely to physically abuse their children.

The study, led by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, looked at data taken from a survey of 518 low-income women in Baltimore who were receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children and who had at least one child aged 12 years or younger. The results showed that women with a history of one induced abortion were 2.4 times more likely to physically abuse their children than women who had not had an abortion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16299880

February 4, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
jesse said...

maybe minorities aren't having enough abortions?

maybe the solution to the RACE prob. is abortions for blacks and muslems ONLY!!

50 years down the road?no more gang prob.!no more need for pub.housing! wellfare is history!everybody is wondering "whats a drive by shootin?" sounds like" shaing gra la "to me!LOL!

February 4, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
MTJohn said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world said...A study published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica has found that women who have had an abortion are 2.4 times more likely to physically abuse their children.

I don't doubt that observation. However, I wonder what conclusions might be drawn from it. I suspect that underclass women are disproportionately represented among women who have had abortions. I suspect that women who have been raised in a single parent household are disproportionately represented among women who have had abortions. I also suspect that women who have been raised in abusive "families" are disproportionately represented among women who have had abortions. Other studies have demonstrated that dysfunctional families tend to perpetuate dysfunctional families and that child abuse is behavior learned from living in a dysfunctional family. Therefore, I'd suggest that the tendency to abuse children is NOT a consequence of a prior abortion. Rather, the cause-effect relationship would be just the opposite.

February 4, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.

wwwtw: Their methodology is suspect just from your description. Why don't you find a comprehensive survey? And do remember, post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

jesse: Yeah, there's no poor white folks in public housing, or on welfare, or engaging in gunplay. Or rich ones! Why if we eliminated everybody but the rich, the world would be perfect!

February 4, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.

(one at a time)

Mountainlaurel asked: “how did it come to be that U.S. tax dollars cannot be spent on some actions which are considered “sinful” by some religious organization while U.S. tax dollars can be used on other things that are considered just as “sinful” by a great number of religious organizations? For that matter, how did religion become part of criteria for use of our tax dollars in the first place?”


Good question. It so happens that for many hundreds of years, in-patient hospitals and other medical services in the west have been, by and large, established by religious institutions and jointly supported with both public and private funds. If there is an infringement on personal liberty, it is on the part of the administration with this decision. Among other things, it will force Catholic doctors and hospitals to violate conscience by providing birth control and administering elective abortions. Last night on the News Hour, Mark Shields observed that the President has made a major political gaffe and alienated even moderate and liberal Catholics by forcing doctors to act against conscience.

February 4, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_Wrong_With_The_Wrong said: "A study published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica has found that women who have had an abortion are 2.4 times more likely to physically abuse their children."

Shame on you, WWWTW. I suspect you already know what other medical professionals and psychologists have said about Priscilla Coleman’s alleged research:

"The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA).[3] A panel convened by the APA found that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion." [3]

Coleman, Cougle, Reardon and Rue have also been criticized by other researchers in the field. Psychologist Brenda Major published an article in the same issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal that contained Coleman's "Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth"; this article, "Psychological implications of abortion—highly charged and rife with misleading research," criticized Coleman's study, saying that it did not distinguish correlation and cause, that the direction of causality could indeed be reversed, with psychiatric problems leading to a greater incidence of women having abortions, and that the study failed to control for factors such as relationship stability and education.[11]

Jillian Henderson, a professor of gynecology, and Katharine Miller wrote to the Journal of Anxiety Disorders, saying, "We believe that Cougle, et al., operate with strong political views regarding abortion, and unfortunately their biases appear to have resulted in serious methodological flaws in the analysis published in your journal."

Wikipedia Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscill...

February 4, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_Wrong_With_The_World said: "If there is an infringement on personal liberty, it is on the part of the administration with this decision."

Since the President Obama represents the U. S. government, which is Constitutionally obligated to separate government from religion, I believe he did right by this Nation, WWWTW. Afterall, he did take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Even Catholic Presidents like John F. Kennedy understood this:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President . . . how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. . .

. . . I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation. . .

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died." . . .

. . . And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo." [John F. Kennedy]

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2000/09/I-Believe-In-An-America-Where-The-Separation-Of-Church-And-State-Is-Absolute.aspx?p=1#ixzz1lQpcZpCO

February 4, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.
NGAdad said...

JonRoss said...

Well it never matters what he says on the subject of children, since he runs from his court ordered monies to the mother of his kids. Yep, dead beat dads commenting on family planning is as hypocritical as it gets. BTW JonRoss, Do any of those Democratic Senators try to bankrupt their way out of child rearing or their tax obligations like your dumb self?

February 4, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
MTJohn said...

MountainLaurel - I pretty much share your perspective regarding the separation of church and state. However, I also like the concept of public/private partnerships, as defined in the book, "Reinventing Government", i.e. policy is defined by the public sector and public services, pursuant to that policy, is delivered by a private sector agency. I would not exclude religious institutions from such partnerships with the understanding that 1) policy is established by government and 2) if the religious institution does not like the policy it is free to not enter into the partnership.

February 4, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.

wwwtw: You're mistaken, the decision was about the coverage by insurance plans, not actions by any individuals or persons. The only people with an active role in such situations would be the accountants, who I think should have NOTHING to do with any decision or action taken, except as to veracity.

Or are you so concerned about the freedom of the accountants that you give them the freedom to chain others?

February 4, 2012 at 12:34 p.m.
fairmon said...

How did freedom of religion and the government will not impose upon the people any religion become freedom from religion? JFK analyzed it well.

February 4, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.

Turns out religion wants a role in all sorts of public life, to the point where it can intrude upon the people.

Even the right-wing conservatives get upset about that, though in typical hypocritical fashion their outrage is directed only upon those who don't share THEIR religion.

February 4, 2012 at 12:45 p.m.
dude_abides said...

jesse... the problem for you is that they won't stop at minorities, they'll continue on to those with IQs less than 90, which means no more jesse bloodline. Careful what you wish for, bigot.

February 4, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
NGAdad said...

Yep, Karen Handel and about 5 other GOP contenders for the GA Governorship were soooooo inept and/or corrupt that we now have one Nathan Deal in the office. Sheeez what a nightmare. That Handel is the best SGK could come up with is too sad. ... On the matter of religion and/in politics - the churces invite being excluded from anything when they inject themselves in elections. The saying goes, "If you play with fire, you may get burned."

February 4, 2012 at 1:10 p.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said...

harp3339, gee I wonder when one of the erstwhile conservatives here is going to read what you have to say, and proclaim you to be a liberal communist tyrant out to control women.

Your convenient conclusions revealed again but frankly I could not care less what anyone concludes or proclaim regarding my views. I don't see this as controling women, they have the option of procuring their own abortion or pre-natal care. I am only advocating prudent use of tax dollars while protecting against future cost to tax payers. I support spending on sex education, pregnancy prevention and providing of contraceptions and free voluntary sterilizations which all provide a good return on the cost.

The statements leading to your rediculous conclusions were:

I agree and prefer tax payer funded free abortions that includes sterilization or prenatal care that requires identifying a father that is DNA verified. No birth certificates without a fathers name that will pay child support or be arrested for not paying it. In some cases a woman may have to provide several names with all of them tested to identify the father. In those rare cases where a father cannot be identified and located or neither can provide for and educate the child the child should become a ward of the state and available for adoption. If these conditions are not acceptable then pay for you own. Actually this is a state issue without the federal government dictating to the states.

Banning abortions, making prostitution, use of drugs and gambling illegal has the same result as prohibition in the Al Capone era. These laws all enable some unsavory people to become very wealthy while abusing people. It would be more logical for the government to fulfill it's duty to reasonably and effectively regulate these activities and tax the income sufficiently to include enforcing the regulations. It is not possible to legislate what some view as morals and their personal beliefs regarding such. A good example is how we are losing the war on drugs while making the Mexican cartels very wealthy and powerful. Actually another issue for the states without the federal government dictating to them.

In my opinion your advocating a central all powerful government that infringes on personal freedoms and interjects itself in every facet of peoples lives is more akin to communism than either of my statements.

February 4, 2012 at 1:13 p.m.
hambone said...

Ever notice how most of the pro-life women you see on TV look like if they wanted to get pregnant they'd have to buy SPERM!!

February 4, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.
workinjay said...

MT John said ". Therefore, I'd suggest that the tendency to abuse children is NOT a consequence of a prior abortion. Rather, the cause-effect relationship would be just the opposite." See, this is more the reason why we should endorse abortion. Let's keep the dysfunctional family population down along with the prison population. Only problem is that dems are biting the hand that feeds. These babies they are killing are future votes and lives to control. I never realized how pro extermination I am. Maybe I don't mind after all government funded killing of the defenseless.

Jesse said "maybe minorities aren't having enough abortions? ". I agree. I've seen the light!!!

February 4, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn said: “I pretty much share your perspective regarding the separation of church and state. However, I also like the concept of public/private partnerships . . . I would not exclude religious institutions from such partnerships with the understanding that 1) policy is established by government and 2) if the religious institution does not like the policy it is free to not enter into the partnership."

I think anyone who has been persecuted for his or her religious beliefs fully understands and cherishes the little section in our Constitution that mentions separation of church and state. From my perspective, the concept of separation of church and state has contributed greatly to the success of this Nation, and it’s something each and every one of us should support, respect, and appreciate – I know that I certainly do.

As to the concept of public/private partnerships, I agree with what you say, MtJohn. Indeed, I’ve found through personal experience that it can work very effectively. The key is recruit compassionate, knowledgeable, non-judgmental, and tolerant people who truly believe in the “mission” and are capable of demonstrating goodwill toward others - the kind who enjoy “practicing” their faith without feeling the need to “preach” and "impose" it on others.

February 4, 2012 at 3:12 p.m.
WhitesCreek said...

I am maddest about Komen's lobbying efforts to deflect research dollars away from prevention and toward "cures". While we have increased life expectancy we have not, in 40 years, increased the cure rate whatsoever. If we focused on the cause of breast cancer even to the point of bringing us in line with, say Ecuador, we would actually be able to "cure" 75% of all breast cancers because they would never occur in the first place. That, however, would take all the "cure" money out of the health care system and would violate all those free market principles Komen supports.

The Real Graphic We should ask Komen about

February 4, 2012 at 3:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said...

I think anyone who has been persecuted for his or her religious beliefs fully understands and cherishes the little section in our Constitution that mentions separation of church and state.

It must be very small, I don't recall those words, separation of church and state, in the constitution nor can I find it. Where should I look for those words? I find and agree with freedom of religion and the government will not impose any religion upon the people. Why do we have so many laws that address what many think are good morals based primarily on religious beliefs? Why are prostitution, and gambling against the law?

February 4, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 says: “It must be very small, I don't recall those words, separation of church and state. . . Where should I look for those words? I find and agree with freedom of religion and the government will not impose any religion upon the people.

Please, Harp3339. No more silly word games. I think that I’ve finally figured out the U.S. Constitution according to Harp3339 - along with its bottom line. It says: “war is peace,” “freedom is slavery,” “ignorance is strength,” and “corporations are people too.”

February 4, 2012 at 5:07 p.m.

harp3339: Just the experience that there's quite a few erstwhile pro-life conservatives who have used declarations like yours that they pulled from somebody such Margaret Sanger to declare the pro-choice movement a Nazi Eugenics scheme. I made no conclusion about your words just reflected how you're going to be treated, if they bothered to notice it.

Do you think I'm wrong? Did you even grasp the meaning of what I was saying? I guess not.

And since I know I'm not a proponent for a central all-powerful government, which has nothing to do with actual communism anyway, but really, it's such a totally fabricated strawman on your part, that I'm just not optimistic that you'll look at your words with any scrutiny anyway. I'm pretty sure I won't give a seconds further thought to your protests about somebody else coming to conclusions though. Anybody who could make such a flagrantly hyperbolic statement clearly doesn't care about as carefully understanding others as they demand for themselves.

WhitesCreek, what, you say they want a pound of cure rather than an ounce of prevention?

mountainlaurel, don't forget "Greed is Good" .

February 4, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.

Mountainlaurel said … (something akin to) words shmerds. The Constitution says what I want it to say, and it prohibits what I want it to prohibit. Public/private joint funding is fine as long as the organization’s personnel are nice enough to accommodate my revised version of the Constitution.


There are two clauses to the First Amendment’s religious freedom provision: no state-churches (policies of denominational favoritism in European countries had proven to be a grave error) and no prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is the second clause (free exercise) which is being violated by the Obama administration. Allowing Catholic hospitals to provide essential services for Medicare patients is a far cry from establishing a Catholic state. Excluding elective abortion or contraceptives from their insurance policies for employees does nothing to establish a Catholic state. When the abortion license was legislated by the SCOTUS in 1973, service providers were given legal protection from being required to violate their religious doctrines in order to provide public health services.

http://www.consciencelaws.org/laws/usa/law-usa.html#Public%20Health%20Service%20Act%20%28the%20%22Church%20amendment%22%20of%201973%29

As you do with the First Amendment, you took the Kennedy quote out of its historical context. JFK was countering anti-Catholic sentiments that had long-dominated public opinion. He was assuring voters that if elected, he wouldn’t be a puppet for the pope. There is a great deal of the same anti-Catholic bigotry behind the ACLU’s drive to change HHS rules to force Catholic hospitals to provide insurance coverage for procedures that violate the church’s teaching (and it’s mission) about protecting the lives of the helpless and marginalized. The administration’s new measures reverse the protections of the conscience clause for religious institutions.

http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-legal/legal052.html

February 4, 2012 at 7:25 p.m.

More on the Obama administration’s disregard for religious liberty. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178833194483196.html

February 4, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.
BobMKE said...

ML,

Harp is right. Those five words "separation of church and state," are not in the Contitution. So you then responded back to Harp using "the best defense is a good offense routine," just like a good little liberal.

February 4, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.
fairmon said...

ML said.....

Please, Harp3339. No more silly word games. I think that I’ve finally figured out the U.S. Constitution according to Harp3339 - along with its bottom line. It says: “war is peace,” “freedom is slavery,” “ignorance is strength,” and “corporations are people too.”

Word games? At least I don't change the words to fit what I want them to convey.

1-You won't find any post where I advocate or support war, in fact the opposite, but I do, as the constitution says, support a strong defense.

2-What drives you to this conclusion, my not agreeing with you? If ignorance is strength you may, in a few cases not all, be the strongest person around. Or is it because of my criticism of the federal government involvement in education or the antiquated process educational institutions and unions cling to.

3-You have not seen me say post that but it is currently legal but I do believe an individual owner of any business can communicate with and support the candidate of their choice. A publicly traded company is not solely owned. Ownership is so diverse in a publicly traded company there is no one that can represent all the opinions of the various owners since each stock holder is an owner but I see no initiative by anyone in D.C. taking the initiative to curtail contributions from that source. The same applies to unions and other special interest leaders they don't represent all views in their organization. Why no initiative to change from the current mess? Check out who gets how much from whom. I don't see you objectiong to Buffet's involvement and being referenced by Obama but you do slam those that don't agree with him.

February 4, 2012 at 8:17 p.m.

Looks to me we have a bunch of conservatives who instead of dealing with the principle, are focusing on minor distractions which they blame on the character of liberals.

Are you completely oblivious to how transparent your attacks are?

harp, the reason referencing Buffet is ok, is because his name is coming out. Can you say the same about the slew of SuperPacs that masquerade under such names as "Club for Growth" or "Americans for Prosperity" ? Those names are a clue that you can't believe a word from them, but hey, some people still do.

Terrible that. Groups like ALEC are another thing. How much mention do you see of them? Yet they're writing laws in many states, with grandiose assertions of their own character. If there's anybody not to true, it's somebody who has that high an opinion of themselves.

February 4, 2012 at 8:17 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's one of the more interesting developments. Check out this headline: Planned Parenthood gets image boost on Komen win

To read the story, go to: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72451.html

February 4, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

What’s_Wrong_With_The_World said: you took the Kennedy quote out of its historical context. JFK was countering anti-Catholic sentiments that had long-dominated public opinion. He was assuring voters . . . he wouldn’t be a puppet for the pope.

I believe President Kennedy made his personal views and/or position in regard to the issue of separation of church and state rather clear in his speech, WWWTW. The circumstances as to why the speech might have been needed are irrelevant.

To suggest that President Kennedy’s position would change under different historical circumstances is wishful thinking on your part. Indeed, the speech speaks for itself, and there is nothing in the speech to suggest that he would ever feel differently.

What’s_Wrong_With_The_World said: The administration’s new measures reverse the protections of the conscience clause for religious institutions.

If the U.S. government had drafted and/or mandated these religious hospitals and organizations to provide medical and healthcare services to the public, I would agree with what you say, but clearly this is not the case, WWWTW.

It is my understanding that these hospitals have applied for Federal monies, which originate from taxpayers who as you know represent a very diverse population, especially when it comes to matters of faith. As such, I believe the U.S. government has an obligation to remember this, and act accordingly when it comes to issuing grants. If a religious organization feels in all good conscience that it cannot abide by the guidelines, they shouldn’t apply for the funds.

Personally, I think some of these religious organizations should have a little more faith. In other words, they should be less concerned about themselves and a lot more concerned about the people in ugent need of these medical and healthcare services.

February 4, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BobMKE said: "Harp is right. Those five words "separation of church and state," are not in the Contitution. So you then responded back to Harp using "the best defense is a good offense routine," just like a good little liberal."

Please interpret my post anyway you want, but I believe the post speaks for itself:

"I think anyone who has been persecuted for his or her religious beliefs fully understands and cherishes the little section in our Constitution that mentions separation of church and state. From my perspective, the concept of separation of church and state has contributed greatly to the success of this Nation, and it’s something each and every one of us should support, respect, and appreciate – I know that I certainly do." [Mountainlaurel]

February 4, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.

mountainlaurel said...

If the U.S. government had drafted and/or mandated these religious hospitals and organizations to provide medical and healthcare services to the public, I would agree with what you say, but clearly this is not the case, WWWTW.

It is my understanding that these hospitals have applied for Federal monies, which originate from taxpayers who as you know represent a very diverse population, especially when it comes to matters of faith. As such, I believe the U.S. government has an obligation to remember this, and act accordingly when it comes to issuing grants. If a religious organization feels in all good conscience that it cannot abide by the guidelines, they shouldn’t apply for the funds.


Wrong again. It has nothing to do with applying for government grants or the government mandating that they serve the public. The insurance mandates under the new healthcare law dictate that all employers pay for contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization for their employees. The only way to avoid this requirement, according the new HHS policy, is for the hospital to limit its services to people of the same faith – an unprecedented, ridiculous concept that would deprive the public of access to the care we need.

Your suggestion that opposition to this policy represents selfish disregard by these institutions for the care of patients is laughable for the lack of common sense that it represents. In many communities, they offer the best care for important medical needs. In some, they are the only option. The HHS under Obama is living, like you, in an imaginary, theoretical world disconnected from reality or history. This unprecedented policy effectively says: change your doctrine or we’re penalizing you. It’s arrogant, unconstitutional, and wrong.

The Catholic Church is in the administration’s crosshairs. The implications for the people and institutions of all faiths is chilling. Even the Washington Post acknowledges the radical nature of this policy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/respecting-religious-exemptions/2012/01/22/gIQA0ZESJQ_story.html

February 4, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_Wrong_With_The_World said: It has nothing to do with applying for government grants or the government mandating that they serve the public.”

Since MTJohn and I had be discussing contracts between the private and public sector, I had assumed that this was the issue you were addressing, but in rereading your initial post I noted this wasn’t the case - sorry. I must confess that when the sarcasm in a post starts getting heavy, my mind often shifts into sort of a scanning mode, which occurred from the get go with your post, WWWTW. The end result is that I missed some of your concerns.

Whats_Wrong_With_The_World said: The insurance mandates under the new healthcare law dictate that all employers pay for contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization for their employees.

This not exactly true, WWWTW. The new health insurance laws provide an exemption to organizations like churches and synagogues because they exist primarily to advance their faith. The new law also exempts the employees of these churches and synagogues because the employees are typically people of the same belief.

Whats_Wrong_With_The_World said: The only way to avoid this requirement, according the new HHS policy is for the hospital to limit its services to people of the same faith. Your suggestion that opposition to this policy represents selfish disregard by these institutions for the care of patients is laughable. . .”

I’m assuming your complaining because the administration’s religious exemption was not broadened to include religiously affliated hospitals, universities and other institutions. Needless to say, this issue is a bit more complicated because the primary mission of these organizations is different and the employees that work for these organizations represent a very diverse population who may have different beliefs. As such, I tend to agree with the Obama administration's thinking:

“as Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling explains in the Washington Post’s On Faith blog, the narrow exemption in the rule respects religious liberty, while preventing religiously-affiliated organizations from using religion as an excuse to discriminate and deny services to others. These organizations operate in the public sphere and should play by the rules.

Religious clergy remain free to espouse their beliefs, and individual women remain free to follow those beliefs or not, according to their conscience. A broader exemption would have served only to permit certain institutions – that don’t exist primarily to advance a faith and that serve and hire people of different faiths – to impose one set of beliefs and practices on others. We said no when inns and restaurants wanted an exemption from anti-discrimination laws because they opposed integration as a matter of faith. The administration was right to stand up for women’s health and to say no here as well.”

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/Catholic%20Church

February 5, 2012 at 12:45 p.m.

Obama Administration: "A broader exemption would have served only to permit certain institutions – that don’t exist primarily to advance a faith and that serve and hire people of different faiths – to impose one set of beliefs and practices on others."

translation: Change your doctrine or we'll change it for you.

The chilling effect is that the government will now determine what does or doesn't constitute "advancing a faith." The fact that Catholic hospitals provide services without heavy-handed proselytizing or requiring church membership is widely seen as a good thing. The church’s social teaching has always guided the services its institutions offer to the community. The same is true for other faith-based service providers. The government is saying that this is no longer allowable.

Sterilization and abortifacient birth control are not essential health services. This is a political agenda being imposed on medical professionals and institutions.

February 7, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_Wrong_With_The_World said: translation: Change your doctrine or we'll change it for you."

I believe you’re ignoring the obvious, WWWTW. What about the beliefs of the employees and the people being served? Is it fair for a religious institution to impose its personal beliefs onto these people? It seems to me your perspective is rather single minded and completely ignores their rights. To ignore the rights of others seems rather selfish to me.

What’s_Wrong_With_The_World said: “The chilling effect is that the government will now determine what does or doesn't constitute "advancing a faith."

The guidelines seem fair and rather straightforward to me, WWWTW. The simple fact is that when a religious institution branches out into areas that are not directly related to advancing their faith, they need to incorporate the rights of others. Afterall, other people do exist and they do have rights. Again, to ignore the rights of others seems rather selfish to me.

What’s_Wrong_With_The_World said: "Catholic hospitals provide services without heavy-handed proselytizing or requiring church membership . . .

Sorry, but to impose your religious birth control beliefs onto your employees seems rather heavy handed to me, WWWTW. Lots of other faiths support the concept of birth control and family planning. In fact, many have gone on record opposing laws that serve to prevent or inhibit the dispensing of birth control information and contraceptive devices by licensed physicians, hospitals, and medical clinics."

What’s_Wrong_With_The_World said: “Sterilization and abortifacient birth control are not essential health services.

Says who, WWWTW. Clearly, for some people, they are essential health services.

What’s_Wrong_With_The_World said: This is a political agenda being imposed on medical professionals and institutions.

I believe the Obama administration is attempting to assure the rights of everyone involved. As to the rants of the religious institution involved, I’m reminded of an observation that a Catholic monk made almost 50 years ago. Indeed, talk about politics and political grandstanding:

"One would certainly wish that the Catholic position on nuclear war held as strictly as the Catholic position on birth control. It seems a little strange that we are so wildly exercised about the “murder” . . . of an unborn infant by abortion, or even the prevention of conception which is hardly murder, and yet accept without a qualm the extermination of millions of helpless and innocent adults, some of whom may be Christians and even our friends rather than our enemies. I submit that we ought to fulfill the one without omitting the other." [Thomas Merton]

February 7, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.