Romney quickly cites religion to counter war on women theme

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Aug. 14, 2012 12:22 p.m.


    "Sure for the most part, it is all very civil and proper now, but it won't be that way very long. If we waited until an another "extermination order" to fight back it would be too late. My father used to tell me the best defense is a good offense. As Christians and as LDS we need to stand up for our beliefs."

    Well why you waiting then? Go join your local militia, train an army, and attack atheists/agnostics/homosexuals/ and whoever else you feel 'threatened' by. You don't understand that these groups just mentioned have been ridiculed, judged, and walked on by your kind for generations. Especially politically and civilly.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 13, 2012 8:03 p.m.

    By putting Paul Ryan on the ticket, given his long-standing policies and programs, Mitt has made it very clear that the war on women is just beginning and is going to get much, much worse.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 6:34 p.m.

    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?

    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!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    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.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:40 p.m.


    "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
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:14 p.m.

    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?

    Aug. 10, 2012 3:10 p.m.

    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?

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 2:52 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    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.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Aug. 10, 2012 2:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 10, 2012 1:57 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 1:56 p.m.

    @ PennStater

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

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 12:48 p.m.

    @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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    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.

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

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

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    Aug. 10, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    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."

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:43 a.m.


    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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    Mitt Romney on 3/14/12 speaking in Kirkwood, MO: "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

    Mr. Romney supported the Blunt amendment, a bill that was introduced to restrict access to birth control by allowing any employer the right to deny health insurance coverage for any benefit based on a "moral" conviction.

    Romney said during the primary debates that he thought Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that first made explicit the right to privacy, was also wrong. "I don't believe they decided that correctly," he said. That case was the basis for affirming a woman's right to access contraceptives.

    Womens' health issues, that should have been non-issues, are for this current crop of conservatives suddenly important. It feels like their goal is to return the nation to 1913, instead of leading us into 2013.

    And yes, I know someone who as a 15 year-old had an abortion. Date-rape. Prosecuters declined to press charges because she'd agreed to go out with the boy and his claim was that she was "asking for it."

    If she was your daughter, what would you do?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:17 a.m.


    "But not being willing to force women to go contrary to their religious beliefs is a war on women?"

    I don't remember any law that mandates women be on the pill...

    Sandra Fluke was testifying on behalf of a friend of hers who eventually needed surgical removal of an ovary for a condition that forms of birth control are frequently used in treatment. Though you're just like Rush Limbaugh probably, a depraved mind who can only think of sex and hasn't bothered to ever ask women what they use it for (hint: it can reduce cramping for one).

    Mitt Romney personally told Mike Huckabee that he supported Mississippi's personhood amendment. Now to be fair, Mitt Romney has basically said he supports every single side of every single position. He's got one vigorously held policy stance and that's his refusal to disclose tax returns.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    While contraception is the hot topic, many women are turned off of the GOP for other reasons. Primarily, their attacks on Planned Parenthood. I'll bet many of you would be surprised how many women you know have relied on their services at one time or another. Abortion is a very miniscule part of their operations. Most of what they do are things like cancer screenings for women without means to health care.

    As to the contraception thing, they are only required to offer it when they are employing non-members. In other words, the Catholic church need not cover it for their clergy, etc. But when they are receiving millions of tax dollars to support their hospitals, whose employees are largely non-Catholic, then they need to abide by the rules.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:12 a.m.


    Attitude like yours are what makes this debate difficult. Not everyone who has sex is an addict, and not all sex is moral decay. Not all sex is to simply procreate, and I would even go as far to say it isn't recreational.

    My wife and I have had 3 children (from 3 pregnancies) in a 30 month period. If she got pregnant again right now, it would absolutley ruin her. We also cannot afford to have a fourth child, and we have shown an uncanny disposition to reproduce. You're answer is to not have sex? That I believe is unnatural, and I believe goes against what is taught in the Scriptures (a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh). Most doctors would even list sex under the "Need" category and not "Recreational"

    I believe sex is meant to be an expression of love, and dedication and unity. Children are a product of that sometimes, but procreation is not the primary reason for sex.

  • JRJ Pocatello, ID
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    C'mon, Blue. The razing of churches doesn't happen first. It takes place AFTER small, insidious attacks have weakened the populous. It will happen first in the IRS, then in the areas that no one could possibly consider happening. In some places it is already in full swing as government has forbidden church groups to provide meals for the needy, stating that since they (the government) have no idea if the food being served is, shall we say, "good enough for those with no food" the food cannot be used. Take away a generous heart and replace it with The Government. If you can't see the signs everywhere, allow me to remind you that Hitler did the same thing - Get control of the education system, the health system, the food supply and destroy the people's faith". The "Night of Broken Glass, Krystalnicht" is an extreme example. Pun intended, this is food for thought.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    @ute alumni
    "obama has NOTHING to talk about but negative things"

    Sounds like the Romney campaign. Incidentally he talks about a lot of positive things, I guess Fox News doesn't like showing that sort of stuff.

    @lost in DC
    "The mandate that religious employers provide birth control coverage contrary to their convictions is contrary to the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression."

    Nobody is forced to use birth control, it's not a violation of freedom of religion.

    "Romney has not called for the abortion bans you mention."

    Romney told Huckabee on his show that he supported the Personhood amendment which would ban all abortion and the most common forms of birth control used by women.

    @Liberal Ted

    "A topic that most religions agree that a woman can choose for herself in cases of rape, incest, and when it is life threatening."

    You aren't too familiar with the evangelical south are you? Over a third of Mississippians voted to ban all abortion, no exceptions, when they had their personhood amendment come up.

    "atheists like to use the "victim minority""

    I dunno, it seems Christians like to use it given how this articles' comments have gone...

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 10, 2012 10:03 a.m.

    lost in DC,

    ".....The mandate that religious employers provide birth control coverage contrary to their convictions is contrary to the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression. BO and his HHS ARE hostile to religion."

    Let’s look at it calmly and accurately. The HHS mandate requiring contraception coverage in health plans is a Federal mandate patterned after state laws already in effect. It applies to ALL carriers, not the Catholic Church specifically. The Church knowingly chose to get into the health coverage business agreeing to follow all applicable provisions and without entitlement to special exemptions. The obvious solution would be for the Church to divest itself of involvement in a business one doesn’t ordinarily associate as non-profit or religious.

    It’s quite a stretch to call that a war on religion. Nor is it a war on women. It’s a prime example of how an unlikely endeavor can suddenly find itself in the maelstrom as a political football.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    no one is talking about taking away contraceptives. but for libs that don't want the government in the bedroom, why is it that they should force others to pay for what goes on in the bedroom? you can't have it both ways....oh right, yes you can.
    another brillant bo slogan

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    I think the use of the word "war" is inflammatory and misplaced by both sides. A war is when people are killing each other.

  • shimmer Orem, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    First of all, some birth control can be very expensive. IUD's for example can cost around $500 without insurance. Not all women can or want to take the pill. Second of all, what about women in stable relationships that don't want children? According to you they should just not have sex if they don't want to get pregnant. Seems to me a lot of husbands would have a problem with that. Not all women who take birth control are sex addicts as your underlying tone implies.

  • Jeromeo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    Contraception is healthcare. This so called battle is just part of the long standing human predisposition to be meddlesome and domineering. Next stop: The Great Inquisition. Sharpen thy swords and load thy guns, all ye bloodthirsty burners of witches, books and heretics. It's bad enough that what we have to endure now is The Great Imposition: that compulsive need of some to impose their belief system on the rest of us.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    how about obama and his war on the unborn? no one wants to talk about that. what rights do they have and who is looking out for them?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    @ Liberal Ted: Now imagine that scene occurring multiple times because abortions are illegal.

    Imagine how different that scene would have been if that girl had had access to birth control so she would not have gotten pregnant in the first place.

    Imagine if that girl had been able to talk to her parents and her pregnancy had been accepted and supported instead of something that shamed her.

    It is unfortunate for that young woman that she ended up in that situation and felt that she had no other choice.

    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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    For those of you wondering about who is pushing limits on abortion that would restrict it in cases of the life of the mother...

    Arizona recently passed (and had struck down in Court) a law that would have limited late term abortions to emergency situations where the woman's life was threatened.

    Sen. Mike Lee recently proposed a law for D.C. that would prohibit all abortions after 20 weeks even if the health of the mother was at risk.

    And, yes, late term abortions are very sad - but they are less than 2% of all abortions and, although a minuscule number of them may be for reasons other than medical, the vast majority of them are for medical reasons which are really the business of nobody but the woman, her doctor, her spouse (if she has one), and her God if she believes in one.

    @ Mountanman: We are forced to pay for what happens in bedrooms everyday - or did you not realize that is where children come from?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    you said,
    ute alumni said: "obama has NOTHING to talk about but negative much for mr. hope and change. he is a disaster"

    Please point to one ad in which mit does otherwise?

    Having spent the last three weeks in a battlegrund state I have seen pleny of Romney ads where he touts his success in the 2002 Olympics and he cites BLS statistics showing he was the most succesfful governor in Mass at job creation. (mostly while watching the Olympics on the National Barak Channel (NBC) Now you may not agree with those claims, but they were positive about Romney. I saw NO BO ads positive about BO, they were all scare tactic ads against Romney.

    Do you watch MSNBC exclusively? That may be why you have not seen the positive ads.

    Edd Doerr,
    I will humbly, but forcefully disagree with you. Please explain how forcing religious employers to violate their conscience is consistent with the 1st amendment protections of "free expression thereof". Also, please tell me where Romney is trying to ban women from using contraceptives.

    BO supports religious freedom only if it does not interefere with his agenda, as evidenced by the HHS mandate.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    With all the President has done to change for the worst hope of America, I am super afraid of what he will do as a lame duck President for 4 plus years, even the time after the election in 2012 before he leaves in January 2013. Even though President Clinton did some good things in 8 years, he did some marginal things in the time after the election without him and when he left office.

    Romney's religion is not piece and parts, it is any member's life, conviction and complete part of one's life. You can't separate government and the LDS religion, even though some attempts can and will be made. Good religion is good government. That doesn't mean you stop your religion when you are in government. It means you try to make it a better government. You can't use Utah's government as a complete example as some of those Executive and Legislative elected officials do try to make their power used to mark government workers and the school process as not good. Utah, because of the majority religion has given more to our public than any other state for the money.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    Has Blue or the Herectic ever seen an abortion or been there?

    I was called over to a home late one night from a mother in tears. She was desperate for help and asked to come over because her daughter was sick.

    I rushed over to the home, and her daughter was on a table and blood everywhere. Which is not what I had expected. I asked what happened. She had overdosed on pills on purpose. That didn't make sense to what was happening. Finally, with the daughter begging for forgiveness her mother told me that she had chosen to down the pills to force an abortion. No one else knew she was pregnant. I stayed with her two crying kids while the mother ran for a doctor, who came back and helped her. She made it through okay. She regretted that decision more than getting pregnant. The feeling in the room was dark and very sad. A human life was lossed because of several poor choices. That child could have been born and put into adoption and raised by loving parents. Instead there was death and regrets for a lifetime.

    You can't google experiences like that.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    A war on religion? What a joke. Romney is grasping for straws. He is clearly desperate.

    Where was Romney and his supporters when Michelle Bachmann and her cohorts were attacking Muslims who have worked long and hard for both the executive and legislative branches, because of their religion? There was stone silence from many who whimper about assaults on religion, including virtually the entire Utah community (including the BYU law school crowd who make religious persecution a big issue). Senator, McCain, condemned it, but not Romney. He is morally weak, a weak leader, and the far right know it. They have been pushing him around like a school yard bully. Maybe it's payback for Romney's bullying as a youth. The Romney campaign is getting sad and pathetic.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    So Obama tells us Romney is waging a war on women and Romney tells us Obama is waging a war on religion and a war on job creators. Sure are a lot of wars going on, aren't there? Oh, for the days when LBJ waged a war on poverty and called it by that name himself.

    The power of effective understatement goes unappreciated here. In Presidential politics, it's the power of rhetorical overkill that rules the day. We the voter pay the price by not being able to take seriously 99% of what is said by politicians.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    @ 7:28 a.m. Aug. 10, 2012
    Happy Valley Heretic

    One second after reading your post. What religion is personhood? So it's not religion that is attacking and forcing people to not have abortions but an activists group made up of a few people with that view point.

    That's not the view of most religions.

    Again you have jumped off of the topic that was being discussed. Blue was trying to convince everyone that religions want to force people to keep a child no matter the circumstances. Blue even cites rape, life-threatening situation etc. A point that Blue knows most religions and people agree that in those circumstances that is for the woman to decide.

    Personally, I feel when a woman has consensual sex with a man, with or without birth control, and becomes pregnant. Then she made her choice already. In my personal point of view and current understanding, if she decides to kill the child then that is murder of a human life, if it is not life threatening to the mother.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:15 a.m.


    "Personhood USA"? Really? Whoever heard of them? I can Google and come up with a fringe group that espouses any - and I mean ANY - position, too.

    But the inference was that Romney and the Republicans support a position to "ban all forms of abortion, including in cases of rape and incest", and you know it.

    To make this inference in not only disingenuous. It is an outright lie.
    Careful slinging that mud, you'll get some on you....

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    War on Religion?

    How will the faithful handle it all with only an estimated 350,000 Christian congregations (and thousands being started each year) in the U.S.?

    How will the faithful survive with only 59 million weekly worshipers?

    How will the religious survive with only an estimate 219 different denominations in the U.S.?

    How will the religious fight back with an estimated 145,691,446 members in the top 25 religions?

    * * *

    How many church houses do you see in every town? How many Sunday Worship programs are on either major networks or on their own networks each week?

    War on Religion? When it was just the Catholic church, they burned people at the stake. What do atheists do? They verbally argue with you.

    War on religion? In the very accurate words of John Stuart, you are mistaking a war on religion with not getting everything you want.

    You still get to openly express your religious view, but in this nation, you have to tolerate the fact opposing views are also allowed. Real life is not Testimony meeting.

  • PennStater USA, PA
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:09 a.m.

    Sandra Fluke from Georgetown made a fool out of herself when she addressed Congress. First of all, contraceptives are not expensive. Second, I do not want to pay for someone else's irresponsible behavior. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex. You don't need contraceptives, you need self-control and self-respect.

    I also have a problem with classifying contraceptives as a "healthcare" need. Sure, there are some women that need birth control for other reasons and I'm okay with that. The type of irresponsible sex Fluke promotes is not a health need, it is recreation. If she is expecting the government to pay for prevention of possible consequences from a recreational activity, the government might as well pay for football pads, hikers shoes, bike helmets, etc to prevent injuries.

    Bottom line is that I don't want to pay for something that causes moral decay in our country. I worked with many people with sexual addictions. Each of them deeply regrets where they are and wishes they could take back previous mistakes. I feel sorry for each of them and see how that type of lifestyle is very difficult to turn around.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    @ Blue

    War on Women??? Are you kidding? That makes a nice little sound bite, doesn't it? But not being willing to force women to go contrary to their religious beliefs is a war on women?

    Give me a break. Seriously.....

    Seems like it's the Obama camp that is whinning.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 10, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    The left's war on religion started in Waco,Texas when Janet Reno ordered the federal government to send tanks to kill women and children of a non-government approved religion! Is your religion government approved?

  • Edd_Doerr Silver Spring, MD
    Aug. 10, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    The war on women is real and Romney is part of it. His slam at Obama is totally absurd. Obama is strong for religious freedom, as he shows by favoring freedom of religion and conscience for women on reproductive matters and by opposing Republican drives to force all taxpayers to support religious schools through school vouchers. Obama is on the side of religious freedom; Romney is not. -- Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 10, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    So the government should stay out of people's bedrooms but we should be forced to pay for what happens in bedrooms? Wonderful liberal "logic" on display!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    Liberal Ted said: Where is your source on this statement? Who called for bans on abortion in cases of rape, incest, life threatening?

    2 seconds after copying your very question and pasteing it into google...

    Personhood Ohio, a state affiliate of Denver-based Personhood USA, would like to put a so-called “personhood” amendment on the ballot this fall:
    The amendment defines life as beginning at conception and would ban all forms of abortion, including in cases of rape and incest. As originally written, it would also ban in vitro fertilization and certain birth control methods. Personhood Ohio has modified the proposed language so that it would exempt IVF and “genuine contraception,” whatever that means.

    There were pages of them, (this one was especially restrictive) but that would mean looking yourself before accusing others of being out of touch.

  • DonP Sainte Genevieve, MO
    Aug. 10, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    Dear Blue: LDS do not need to be told what a war on religion looks like. We know it all too well. Sure it's not Missouri in the mid-1830s, or Nauvoo in the mid 1840s, but the signs are there. We hear some big city mayors telling a restaurant chain they are not welcome because of the religious beliefs of its CEO. The new healthcare law requires church run institutions to provide services that violate their beliefs. We see our churches vandalized and burned. Sure for the most part, it is all very civil and proper now, but it won't be that way very long. If we waited until an another "extermination order" to fight back it would be too late. My father used to tell me the best defense is a good offense. As Christians and as LDS we need to stand up for our beliefs.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 7:15 a.m.

    ute alumni said: "obama has NOTHING to talk about but negative much for mr. hope and change. he is a disaster"

    Please point to one ad in which mit does otherwise?
    Do mit's ads tell America what he plans to do?

    Obama has had plenty of successes which have been listed for your reading, but I've never seen more than 2 sentence attack ads from you, so I wouldn't expect an honest discussion.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 6:16 a.m.


    Tell me where atheists meeting houses have been bulldozed? Tell me where atheists constitution rights have been violated?

    And your ridiculous comment about athiests not easily being elected to office....really?! Maybe they need to look at their platform that they run on. When the only focus is to force everyone to lose their freedom of exercising and practicing their religion, and removing God from everything....Who would want to vote for you?

    Why don't you come out with something positive that you will do for the country. Like reduce taxes, cut the national debt, work with people of faith and those without faith instead of ram rodding your beliefs down everyones throat....

    The fact is, atheists like to use the "victim minority" mentality that it's not fair that you have to see a cross. I don't believe in the cross and yet I'm not offended by seeing it. I don't agree with homosexuals, but, I'm not offended when they're around me. I don't agree with liberals and many democrats, yet I can still be friends with need to embrace diversity:)

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 6:09 a.m.

    You said, "When you call for bans on abortion, even when the woman is a rape victim, or the pregnancy is life-threatening, 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."

    Where is your source on this statement? Who called for bans on abortion in cases of rape, incest, life threatening?

    You are out of touch of what is being discussed and jumped to a different topic. A topic that most religions agree that a woman can choose for herself in cases of rape, incest, and when it is life threatening.

    Most churches also teach that a woman has a choice when choosing to have sex. But, because a man and woman choose to have unprotected sex, and create a new life. They do not have the right to kill an innoncent human being because of the choice they made. If it is life threatening to the mother then that is something that she would have to decide with her doctor and according to her faith.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 5:53 a.m.

    the constitution guarantees the free expression of religion. The mandate that religious employers provide birth control coverage contrary to their convictions is contrary to the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression. BO and his HHS ARE hostile to religion.

    Romney has not called for the abortion bans you mention. Nor has he called for bans on contraceptives as you infer. When he does, then you can feel persecuted. until then, quit whining. The real hostility to women has been the damage to economy and mountains of debt BO has accumulated, more the any other president in history.

    Too bad you have been snookered by the BO campaign and MSNBC that you believe the misinformation being spread by the BO camp.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 5:46 a.m.

    To Blue 11:58 p.m. Aug. 9, 2012

    Exactly right. Well said.

    Aug. 10, 2012 5:39 a.m.

    Wake up citizens of Utah. STOP criticizing everything Pres. Obama has done. Tell your Republican friends to work WITH President Obama instead of "stonewalling" everything he proposes.

    I trust the Federal Government more than I trust Big Business. How would senior citizens and children of deceased parents survive without Social Security (that is hated by almost everyone in Utah...until they or a family member receive Social Security benefits?).

    By contrast, think of all the people who have lost their jobs because Big Business has "offshored" their jobs.

  • Chris from Rose Park PROVO, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 12:30 a.m.


    That's the funniest comment I've read in awhile. Good wit.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 11:58 p.m.

    War on Religion?

    Are you kidding?

    You think that because someone catches you violating the constitution, and tells you to knock it off, that you're being oppressed?

    Are your churches being bulldozed? Are you being prevented from attending or financially supporting the church of your choice?

    When you call for bans on abortion, even when the woman is a rape victim, or the pregnancy is life-threatening, 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.

    When your legislators start talking about making it illegal to go to church, and athiests are more easily elected to public office than Baptists, then you can feel persecuted. Until then, quit whining.

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 8:17 p.m.

    I am really worried for Obama. If He gets re-elected think of the mess he is going to inherit!

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 7:43 p.m.

    @ ute alumni

    I agree. It will be a long and nasty fall until the election, I'm afraid, with the current administration having nothing on which to run a campaign except negative commentts about the "other guy" and his campaign. After 4 years you'd think that Obama would have something to brag about, but alas, tis not so. Maybe that's because he spent about two and a half years blaming George Bush for everything that was wrong and didn't fix much, except to spend us into bankruptcy. We're no better off economically after the "fix" than before, in fact we're worse off because we incurred so much debt for "shovel-ready jobs" that really weren't ready. And the liberal press likes this guy.....go figure!! Only someone like him that insisted on Obamacare, passed without ever reading it, would dare place perceived women's interests (his view of them) above freedom of religion. Anti-religious socialism we DON'T NEED, in any form or fashion!!

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Aug. 9, 2012 6:42 p.m.

    obama has NOTHING to talk about but negative much for mr. hope and change. he is a disaster