Comments about ‘Romney quickly cites religion to counter war on women theme’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 9 2012 6:39 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

The one issue that works for Romney is the ailing economy. Nonetheless his campaign is constantly taunted into going off-message by Obama and he falls for it every time.

These ads make no sense. He's already got the evangelical vote locked up, so the commercials do nothing to help him there. It only makes Republicans look like they are insensitive if not hostile to women's issue and helps broadcast Obama's message to a larger audience. No wonder he's seven points behind even though the economy is stuck with 8+ percent unemployment.

Badger55
Nibley, Ut

Kalindra,

Kids do have access to birth control. Did that stop the pregnancy? The problem these days is sex being thrown around like it's some sort of after school activity. Need for access to sex education? You do realize that UT has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, right?

Your comment on late term abortions is sickening and frankly incorrect.

Research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute found the vast majority of late-term abortions are performed for socio-economic reasons, on a healthy and potentially viable fetus. Fetal abnormalities or woman's health considerations are rarely the reason for undergoing a late-term abortion. Also according to the Guttmacher Institute, abortions for fetal abnormalities comprise only 2% of all late-term abortions.

71% of females surveyed that had late term abortions gave the reason that they did not know they were pregnant as to why.

Let me put it into context:
According to BJS 3% of all homicides in the US during 2005 were to children under the age of 5. Is that an acceptable percentage as well? Unbelievable.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Concerning Catholic universities and hospitals that receive government funding, then try to be exempt from government rules, I like Lise Rahdert's comment:

"Respect for freedom of religion is fundamental, but a religious exception that risks public health by preventing thousands of people from obtaining basic health services should not be permitted. . . . If the rule that an institution’s insurance must cover birth control is so offensive, perhaps it is time for university administrators to explore a new industry or at least refuse to accept federal funding."

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ Henry Drummond, Romney is still fighting the primary election. The right is starting to turn from him. He can't even shore up his base. It will only get worse. I think it is the beginning of the end for his candidacy.

Badger55
Nibley, Ut

atl134 10:17 a.m. Aug. 10, 2012,
I assume you are referring to PCOS when talking about fluke's friend, to which there is no cure. Contraceptives do not cure the problem. If she did have to have surgery to remove an ovary, it would have happened even with the pill. It is a common belief among doctors that insulin resistance causes PCOS, a condition of the endocrine system, but the medical community does not know why. This is why the pill doesn't prevent or cure it. It is also the reason why doctors will often treat PCOS like prediabetes trying to prevent it from getting worse.

This is not a very good argument for getting free contraceptives. Honestly, people would be better off if they just said they wanted free birth control because they don't want to pay for it. Not much better, but at least they are being honest.

On the flip side, you should research all the health problems that are being associated with birth control.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Craig,
HHS has provided exemptions for churches. If HHS did NOT see the mandate as an attack on religion, why did they provide the exemption?

It extends beyond churches.

There is a court case in Colorado dealing with this issue.

The devout catholic owners of a business have sued that they might not have to provide contraceptive coverage, contrary to their deeply held beliefs. To force them to provide contraceptive coverage would violate their right to freely exercise their beliefs.

The court has sided with them. The court stated that under federal statute, the feds must present a compelling argument in order to force them to provide contraceptive coverage. The court also said since HHS has provided a religious exemption for churches, it has admitted it does not have a compelling argument, and therefore cannot force the devout Catholic business owners to provide contraceptive coverage.

Atl134,
being forced by federal statute to do something contrary to strongly held beliefs IS an attack on religion.

Blue,
you’re OK with PP when they tell pimps how to get abortions for their underage prostitutes?

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@lost in DC

The case that you cite was a temporary injunction so that more arguments could be heard. While I disagree with the merits of the case, I agree with the temporary injunction, which cites that there would have been more harm than good in not granting the 3 month injunction.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@ Blue - You said, "and you want to deny women access to the means to control how many children they have, it can fairly be said that you are in fact hostile to women."

I am laughing out loud at your statement.

This must be a typo. I am floored if you really stand behind this statement. We want to deny women access to the means to control how many children they have? What happened to (Responsibility, Taking Ownership, Control, Self Respect, again let me say RESPONSIBILITY). You want to, and you want me and others to pay for someones child control because they don't seem to know what brings children here, or they do not know how to stop it themselves. I, and I am sure others would love to know more about the people you are referring too who need this kind of help. I understand there is pregnancy out there that happens when people do not want it to. I prefer to pay for consistent commercials to promote responsibility than to pay for someones contraceptive. I assure you teaching someone responsibility and consequence will get them much further in life.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@ PennStater

Your post was exceptional. I could not agree with you more. Well said my friend.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

lost in DC,

"HHS has provided exemptions for churches. If HHS did NOT see the mandate as an attack on religion, why did they provide the exemption?"

The exemption for Catholic non-profit carriers was an amendment in response to vocal opposition by Catholic bishops. The Administration hadn’t anticipated the reaction when the mandate was announced. To diffuse the situation, the amendment allows bypassing the carrier and going straight to the insurance company.

But that concession didn’t stop opponents from alleging an Obama war on religion, which I repeat is quite a stretch. It’s also a stretch to allege a war on women by conservatives. It’s this excess of over the top rhetoric on both sides that makes sensible political discourse in America difficult if not impossible.

OHBU
Columbus, OH

lost in DC

You're oversimplifying the situation. What's at stake is a balance between discrimination and religious liberty. The women's health provisions were included to eliminate the disparities between health coverage for women and men. Viagra is often covered, but contraception is not. Besides, contraception has many other uses beyond simply preventing pregnancy. How is a business to know what it is being used for? They cannot enquire because that infringes on a patient's right to privacy.

There is nothing in the law that makes a Catholic business owner do something against their religion. Nobody is making them take contraception (though the vast majority do anyways...but that's another topic). Heck, Christian Scientists don't believe in healthcare at all, but they still have to provide it if they're in business and pay for ER visits through taxes. What the court must decide is whether a business owner's employees violating what he believes is right outweighs the potential discrimination and the potential Pandora's box possible by allowing people to claim religious belief to deny their employees coverage.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@UtahBrui
What happened to (Responsibility, Taking Ownership, Control, Self Respect, again let me say RESPONSIBILITY).
==========================

No one is advocating irresponsibility. However, if we are going to preach responsibilty for women, we need to do ten fold on men. Women bear a seriously disproportionate burden for an indiscretion that takes two to commit. Often times, the man bears no responsbility.

We preach that both need to be held accountable, but reality is far different.

If the cost is really the issue, providing a woman with a dollar of birth control, even 10 thousand times, is still vastly less expensive than having to raise a child on society's dime (which is often what happens because a woman who relies on the government for protection, probably cannot provide for a child.)

Should we teach responsibility? Absolutely! I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But we also must realize that indiscretions will happen (especially with urges as strong as sexual urges), some women need contraception for health reasons, and telling an adult they cannot have sex is not a practical solution.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

I have seen far to many comments about controlling the child population if you will. Get yourself down to the store and buy a package of condoms, this will help prevent having children, even if you are in a stable relationship. If you are allergic to Latex, they have latex free condoms. It will cost you about $4 for a package 3, I think you can make due. If you are on the pill, which some have indicated can be somewhat of a medicine for women for cramps, and I know other issues. This pill is already covered under insurance policies. Don't tell me it's not, I take advantage of it. This fluke lady, referred to her weekends out and being able to take advantage of he weekend opportunities. She was referring to condoms, not pills, IUD's or any other expensive procedure because those do not prevent disease. She was talking about condoms. I don't want to hear the debates, that is what she referred to at the beginning of her testimony. Thus provoking Rush's response. Don't hide Ms. Fluke behind her friends issues, that was only part of it.

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@ Blue - Contraceptives do not stop date rape, I am sorry for your friends 15 yr old daughter, this however is a different claim.

@ Darrel - I never said an adult cannot have sex, I also never said that men are not to be held responsible either. I said if your not responsible enough to get yourself some protection, then keep your clothes on. If the urge is just to strong for you, then I go back to the responsibility thing and taking ownership and self respect. Also, be prepared to take responsibility for your actions.

So you are just going to set aside accountability, because reality of today is different? This is the problem with people today. The reason our youth is slowly declining day by day. They are not asked to be respectful, take responsibility or have accountability for their actions. I will continue to raise my children with these attributes and as their parent, if they happen to falter, I will do my best to further teach and support them through their trial. But the responsibility and accountability is theirs. I won't take it for them, I will help them through it.

ChemicAl
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Has anyone bothered to ask the women what they want and believe? Studies since the 1970's have shown that a majority of sexually experienced catholic women have used a form of contraceptive, even when excluding natural family planning. Where is their religious freedom? Are the desires of the leading class truly more important than those of the followers? this is more about controlling women and there "abberant" phisiology and behavior than about religion. If a man needs a vasodilator to fix his problems, wouldn't that also be going against God's wishes for that person?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Utah Bruin believes that Religious rights, trump the civil rights of American women.
You never did address why viagra is covered but birth control isn't.
Could it be because men decided who gets what for what reason?

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@Kalindra

"It is a very sad anecdote - and the telling of it is very supportive of the need for access to sex education, contraception, and legal abortion."

From the millions of abortions that have occurred since it was made legal, contraception and sex education must not be that effective in preventing pregnancy wouldn’t you agree? At the very least providing sex education and contraceptives does not seem to have made much of a dent in abortion. I would guess only a small percentage of those abortions were because the life of the mother was in danger or she was sexually assaulted. How do we explain the rest of them?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Back to the article...
‘Romney quickly cites religion to counter war on women theme’

Because religion has been so liberating to women? Talk about laughable.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

UHBU,
OK, stop coverage for viagra (HVH, you can take note, too)

nothing in the law that makes a religious business owner do something against their religion? Did you really say that?

paying for contraceptive coverage IS against their religion. Why do you think they went to court over it? Why do you think the COURT granted a temporary injunction?

HVH,
I guess you missed the fact that religion is SPECIFICALLY addressed in the bill of rights. IT IS A RIGHT!

NOTHING about Romney's position is barring women from using contraceptives. NOTHING!!! Your comments seem to indicate you think Romney is going to destroy all methods of contraceptives and bar women from using them. The BO campaign has you snookered, too. Too much MSNBC for you!

firstamendment
Lehi, UT

I'm not sure if Obama's disrespect for religion really applies to all religions, he still seems to hold to some of his Muslim upbringing, except he doesn't seem to want to follow the pillar of giving (apparently showing no concern for charity until he decided to enter public office).
He does seem to believe that compassion takes the fish from our children and gives it to foreign regimes, terrorist organizations, CEO bonuses, bad investments in the businesses of rich friends (who launder it back to his campaign fund) etc.

But I think a truly compassionate Muslim (or Christian, or atheist, depending on the day) would believe it’s better to create more fish hatcheries, and teach people how to run them. Giving temporary handouts is great, but not if we don’t set people free to work.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments