Dirty Little Sisters, And Dirty Little Secrets *Open Thread* *Updated*


Update at the end of the post (video added).

The fallout from the decision by the Supreme Court regarding Hobby Lobby (and other businesses) continues. I would contend that, for the most part, the uproar from liberals has MUCH more to do with histrionics such as those displayed by Harry Reid in his recent comments regarding this ruling. From Fox News:

[…] “People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think it’s — they’re going to have — be treated unfavorably come November with the elections,” Reid told reporters on Tuesday, according to ABC.

The Senate will act soon to “ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,” Reid added.
[…] (Click here to read the rest.)

When Democrats make claims like this, I have to wonder why so many folks just accept that as Gospel. For these companies to not have to pay for four out of TWENTY different birth control methods, and only those in which an egg is fertilized, does not begin to reach the level of hyperbole Reid is utilizing. Not for nothing, but at NO TIME are these companies telling their female employees that they are not ALLOWED to use these forms, just that they have to pay for them themselves. GASP – taking personal responsibility, and paying for one’s behavior – how DARE they?! Ahem.

This has been my issue with this all along – that women are suddenly so immature, so incapable, so DEPENDENT on the GOVERNMENT for issues affecting our own bodies that they are demanding that others pay for their own choices. I have serious issues with that, and cannot understand these so-called feminists who used to scream that ONLY WOMEN could make these choices, and WOMEN were responsible for our own birth control, etc., etc., now willingly want Daddy Government to take care of them. WOW.

Let’s get down to the practical here. One of the four abortafacients for which Hobby Lobby, et al., does not want to pay is available OVER THE COUNTER, and costs $49.99 at CVS. It is also available at Planned Parenthood. So, if a woman has unprotected sex, and has to shell out $50 bucks, well, I am old-fashioned enough to think that is her (and her partner’s) responsibility. I don’t think we the taxpayers should be on e hook for ANYONE’S birth control choices, regardless of the recent ruling. I think people should be responsible for their own choices, but that’s just me.

But what about those “Dirty Little Sisters”? That would be the Sisters of the Poor, whom NOW, in their wisdom, have put on their Top 100 Dirty Lists because they, a bunch of Roman Catholic nuns, do not want to pay for BIRTH CONTROL. Gee. Go figure. Check out Megyn Kelly in her debate with the past president of NOW, Patricia Ireland (h/t BizpacReview.com, which also has excerpts from the following exchange):

Uh, yeah. And here’s the thing: Patricia Ireland kept claiming this was the law, and the nuns have to follow the law or opt out. But the contraception mandate is NOT the law. It was added in AFTER the passage of the law (all by Democrats) by HHS. From Reason.com:

[…] That’s because the contraception was never essential to Obamacare as conceived by its legislative authors. Indeed, as Ramesh Ponnuru notes at National Review, it was so inessential to the law that it wasn’t included in the actual legislation. Instead, the mandate was put in place by the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of the law’s essential benefits rule, which left an awful lot of discretion to regulators.

It’s possible, in fact, that the law would not have passed had it explicitly included a contraception mandate. Remember that several Catholic Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak, were among the final holdouts to agree to vote for the bill, which had already been passed in the Senate. Their votes were, by most accounts, crucial to its passage, and they agreed to vote for the bill only after making a deal with the White House that would prohibit federal funding to be used for abortions.

Two years later, Stupak said that he believed the HHS mandate violated the White House deal, as well as existing law, because it allowed for federal funding of abortifacients. It’s obviously impossible to be certain about how things might have turned out in a counterfactual like this, but it’s certainly easy to imagine that if the mandate had been in place prior to the law’s passage in the House, it would not have garnered the support of Stupak and his fellow Catholic Democrats—and would have died in the House as a result. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

No kidding, but that’s Obama with his “pen and phone” for you. If he can’t get it done legally, he just goes ahead and does it anyway.

The bottom line s this: we have freedom of religion in this country, and to force people to violate matters of principal with mandates that aren’t legally viable to appease a voting bloc (again, NO ONE is trying to take away birth control from women – that is a red herring), does not hold water.

The “Dirty Little Secrets” in this instance is in regards to the continuing revelation of the extent of the VA Scandals (there are so many choices, including the IRS since Koskinen is testifying again on Weds.). There was a hearing Tuesday night in which four different whistleblowers spoke up about the retaliation they received at the hands of the VA. Considering the VA then apologized for the retaliation they faced supports their contention. Their stories are powerful, and I urge you to read them here until the video of Dr. Katherine Mitchell becomes available (I will post it at the end of the post once it is up, and you can also watch an interview with the Good Doctor from Weds. morning HERE).

In the meantime, I think this Jonatha Brooke song says it all:

“Secrets and Lies,” indeed. This is an Open Thread. Thoughts?

UPDATE: Video of Dr. Mitchell (this is not the one I initially wanted, but it does show a good bit of her testimony):


19 Responses to “Dirty Little Sisters, And Dirty Little Secrets *Open Thread* *Updated*”

  1. GinaR Says:

    I posted the following rant on my personal FB page last week (I’d say brave of me, but I think I’ve been unfriended by just about everyone already so not that many people saw it!). I’d had enough of the lies from the left (including the media) about what the SCOTUS decision meant. I watched Megyn’s interview with Patricia Ireland yesterday, and I wish I could say I was surprised, but NOW has become nothing more than a propaganda arm for the left and just got me going again! Here it is:

    I am so ashamed of women in this country who define freedom for women by whether or not they can get someone else to pay for their contraception. How absurd, how inane, how condescending to women. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Before y’all start burning down Hobby Lobby stores, you might want to actually do some research on what the SCOTUS ruling was about.

    NO ONE is denying ANYONE access to contraception. Obamacare requires that every single health insurance policy contain 20 mandatory methods/types of contraception. Hobby Lobby for YEARS has offered contraception as part of their health insurance coverage for their employees, long before Obamacare. However, there are FOUR of the twenty mandatory methods of contraception that are considered abortifacents, contraception that destroys a fertilized egg. If you believe that life begins at conception, then those FOUR methods constitute abortion. Hobby Lobby, a private company, said that they have no objection to continuing to cover SIXTEEN of the 20 contraceptive methods as they have done for many years, but those four they could not, in all good conscience, as they do not believe in abortion. You may not hold that same belief, but if you want people to accept your right to abortion then it seems only fair to accept someone else’s belief that they shouldn’t have to pay for it.

    Employees can still get SIXTEEN methods of contraception paid for. They will still have their health insurance. They can still go to the doctor and get a prescription for one of the 4 abortifacents if that’s what they want. They can still go to the drug store and get that abortifacent. Only thing is, they’ll have to pay for it themselves. OMG, the world is coming to an end!! A woman has to take responsibility for her actions and pay for a frickin’ prescription! Hey, maybe the MAN involved should pay half, what do you think?

    To demean women by crying “war on women” because you don’t get ALL OF YOUR FRICKIN’ CONTRACEPTION PAID FOR BY SOMEONE ELSE is an embarrassment. If you’re old enough to have sex, then you’re old enough to pay for one of the four methods that you can’t get someone else to pay for you. Grow the hell up.

    You want to know what the real “war on women” looks like? Forced genital mutilation of girls around the world, even here in the US. Farzana Parveen, 25 and pregnant, who was stoned to death in Pakistan for marrying someone her parents didn’t approve of. 276 Nigerian school girls kidnapped by the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram. Malala Yousafzai, a 15-year-old Pakistani girl who advocated for girls’ education, who barely survived a shot to the head by the Taliban. Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, who has spent months in a Sudanese prison for refusing to denounce her Christian faith (she’s back in custody). The millions of women who must cover themselves from head to foot in public, who cannot go outside the home unless accompanied by a male relative, who cannot go to school or work or drive a car or think for themselves. That’s what a war on women looks like.

    Having to pay for four out of sixteen contraceptive methods yourself? It’s called being a grownup and taking responsibility for your actions. Those women who are “outraged” should be ashamed of themselves. Why don’t you spend your time and energy and outrage on fighting against the real war on women?

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      DAMN, I wish I had seen that before, Gina – I would have just used THAT! 😀

      WELL SAID, I applaud you for your comment. That is exactly it – when Hillary Clinton compared this ruling to SHARIA LAW, she cheapened astronomically what the women who live under Sharia Law endure. It is not having to shell out fifty bucks your own self to pay for something you chose to do. No – it is being raped and then being stoned to death for being an “adulteress” for that rape. It is being beaten by your husband, or killed by your family should you dare to “dishonor” them in whatever way they see that “dishonor.” It is, as you said, having to be hidden from view head to toe, annihilating any glimpse of SELF. It is being less than the dirt on the man’s shoe. THAT is Sharia Law, not having to pay for 4 out of 20 birth control methods your own self.


      Why women have bought into this patronizing, condescending, paternalistic bullshit and still call themselves FEMINISTS is beyond me. We fought SO HARD to get out from under this very thing. Now professional feminists are celebrating having Big Daddy take care of everything for little ol’ us. Pathetic, and infuriating…

      Outstanding rant, my friend!

      • GinaR Says:

        Thanks, Amy! I wish I knew why women have bought into this line of crap. Don’t tell me what to do with my body, just shut up and pay for my choices? I don’t get it, I really don’t. As you said, it is pathetic and infuriating. Ugh.

    • foxyladi14 Says:

      Amen Gina 🙂

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      Rightious rant Gina! Keep em coming! Because unless those of us who believe that we are strong enough and smart enough and honest enough that we don’t need Uncle Sammy to take care of us protest the left will do to women what they’ve done to the black community. Which is devastate it with dependancy and destroy the family structure needed for strong and independent men and women.

      Women on the left, the contraception cuties with their whines and wants are nothing, IMO, but cheap little sex toys for the boys. And that is what feminism has come to mean. How repulsive!

      • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

        Great cartoon, Marge – that really hits the nail on the head. Reminds me of the slogans and treatment the Left used against both Hillary and Sarah (“Bros Before Hoes,” and the one I won’t repeat, etc.).

        And what a great analogy you made. That is EXACTLY what it seems the Left and this Administration are trying to do. They have used the Roe v. Wade stick for decades now to keep women in line, and realized some of us woke up to that, so they kicked it up a few notches with this whole, “poor little women can’t really be trusted to take care of their own reproduction after all” crap. I cannot believe women are buying this, I just can’t. It flies in the face of everything feminists used to stand for back in the ol’ days.

        Yes, the whole dependency thing – that is exactly what they are engendering, and telegraphed, with their “Life of Julia” bit.

        • kenoshamarge Says:

          I have a feeling that Katie Pavlich’s book, “Assault and Flattery” is something along the lines of what we are talking about. I ordered it on Amazon even though I don’t usually order hard covers because the arthritis in my hands makes it hard for me to hold the heavier books. I know “kindle” would be easier but I still want the feel of paper in my hands when I read. Old-fashioned and stubborn, that’s me.

          • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

            Oh, GREAT! Hey, if you want to write a review of it, you’d be more than welcome to post it here, Marge.

            And I TOTALLY relate – have to have the real books. I know what you mean abt the hard covers, too.

            I’ll have to check it out. I still need to order Attkisson’s book, but there’s still time since it isn’t out yet…

  2. foxyladi14 Says:

    Only Congress can legally change the Law!!! 😡

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Yep – that is something the Democrats and Obama in particular seem to have forgotten. Guess they never saw “School House Rock”!

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      Legal-schmegal Foxy, these Chicago thugs don’t care about legal. They come from, and learned from, one of the most corrupt places in this country.

      • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

        You got that right, Marge. This Administration has demonstrated time and again that the Constitution and the law means nothing to them.

        A Facebook friend had this timely poster up today:

  3. Katherine B Says:

    OK, I dare to venture into the Hobby Lobby dispute. First, let me say I do not believe the basic issue is contraception, although most of the flap has been constructed that way. THAT is the real red herring. I believe this is an issue of yet another breach in the wall of separation between Church and State. And all the Christians who are celebrating the victory of Hobby Lobby today are not seeing the long range implications of this ruling.

    I haven’t read the decision, but from what I can glean from news reports the majority found that as a closely held family owned business whose religious beliefs infuse their business culture, Hobby Lobby and the other Mennonite business have a right to refuse to obey the law.

    So let’s just take those guide lines and apply them to Mr. Mohamad’s family run business that has stores across the country. Mr. Mohamad is an observant Wahabi Moslem and he asserts that his deeply held religious beliefs infuse his business. In this country we have laws that protect against discrimination in employment. But now in light of the Hobby Lobby decision Mr. Mohamad decides he doesn’t want to have to hire gay people, Jews or women. To Mr. Mohamad the gay lifestyle is an abomination much the way certain contraceptives are to the owners of Hobby Lobby and he doesn’t want to be forced not to discriminate against them. His religion also teaches him that Jews should not only not be employed by him, it would be preferable if they did not exist. And, as for women, they should not be let out of the home uncovered and unaccompanied, so he surely doesn’t want to be forced to hire them.

    Who among you will rush to defend Mr. Mohamad’s position based on his deeply held religious beliefs? Will you tell gay people, Jews and women that they should go seek employment elsewhere – perhaps in a drugstore that sells over the counter contraceptives? Will you tell these groups of people who are entitled to equal protection under our laws that these laws must give way to Mr. Mohamad’s religious beliefs?

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      It is not a law, Katherine, it is a mandate added after the law was passed. It was more of a bribe to women to get their vote, it seems to me. Sadly, it worked – women sold their votes for $8 in birth control pill costs (to make a point). Issues affecting women that required birth control for medical reasons were already covered, so THAT is a red herring, too. At no point has women’s access to birth control been thwarted, eroded, or removed. It is all available and accessible.

      As for the hypothetical example, Mr. Mohamad could not discriminate in terms of hiring against the groups you mentioned. That IS the law, not a mandate added by an overzealous HHS administrator as an extension of the President’s extra-legal authority and his desire.

      That said, should Mr. Hohamad make it clear those classes of people are not welcome at his establishment, I would not waste my dollars there. That’s the Free Market. If someone holds a position I don’t like or with which I disagree, I won’t spend my hard earned money in that person’s establishment, but will take it somewhere it IS appreciated. That’s how it is supposed to work, regardless of what his personal religious beliefs are.

      In my opinion, this entire issue is political, ginned up to get the women’s voting bloc to toe the line and to depict Reps as having a “war on women.” I just cannot believe that women who had screamed their LUNGS out, me included, to be seen as capable and able to care for ourselves, and make our own choices abt our bodies, are now thinking we are entitled to having OTHERS pay for our reproductive choices. That, to me, is incredibly disturbing.

      As for freedom of religion, I do not have to agree with one’s personal belief system to support one’s right to believe what one does. I can’t help but wonder if Hobby Lobby was owned by a bunch of, say, Wiccans, if the Left would be so up in arms. I bet not. But since it is owned by Conservative Christians, of course, the gov’t should be able to tell them to violate their religious beliefs because everyone knows they are stupid, intolerant, and don’t deserve to have those PARTICULAR religious principals after all because they are archaic and just assholic. That seems to be the attitude. Like I said, I don’t have to like what someone believes to support their right to believe it, and if they think killing a fertilized egg is murder, to force them to pay for that seems extreme.

      I heard someone say that what would be next, forcing a Kosher deli to carry pork?

      Again, it is abt their PAYING for it, not whether or not their employees are allowed to avail themselves of those 4 uncovered methods of birth control. They are able to do so, no one is telling them no.

      Frankly, it is stupid that people cannot CHOOSE what they want covered in their healthcare ins., and that is a big part of the problem with this mandate. IMHO, that is.

      Thanks for your comment!

      • Katherine B Says:

        I believe it is actually an implementing regulation of the law, which gives it the force of law – but I’m not absolutely sure of that so I would have to research it were I inclined to spend another millisecond of my life on the Affordable Care Act.

        But back to what I think is the actual issue at hand, i.e. separation of Church and State, here we have the latest from our friends in the faith based world. http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/faith-groups-seek-exemption-from-white-house-gay-bias-order/87791

        It hasn’t taken long for the Hobby Lobby decision to offer a leg up to the faith based industry to claim their god given right to discriminate against gay people. But of course this isn’t a law, so not to worry.

        • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

          Whether or not it is an “implementing regulation” also appears up for debate, or not, given what I have in the body of the post, and Marge’s concise comment on this topic below.

          But to this particular issue, this Hill article highlights that there was good reason for the justices to rule the way they did, and it is based on existing law, not an HHS added-after-the-fact mandate: Understanding this background, and cognizant that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits “government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” Alito noted that “The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.” Alito also carefully noted that in rendering this decision, the court holds that employees for such closely held, religious-oriented companies still maintained the personal option of obtaining insurance coverage that includes “all FDA approved contraceptives.” Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/211025-supreme-court-conservative-majority-makes-the-right-call-in#ixzz370CjdkxF

          This Act was passed during the Clinton years, just fyi for those who might not know.

          • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

            I thought I had said this, but the whole “Separation of Church and State” is not to protect the STATE, but to protect the church FROM the State. So, yeah – it is most appropriate that the ruling went the way it did.

            As for what the “industry” is doing, including some friends of Obama (tried to tell people), no it isn’t a law for faith based groups to discriminate against gay people in hiring. An EO is not the same as law, and even still, Obama’s would deal with federal contractors only.

            Even still, the request for exemption by these religious groups was written BEFORE the Hobby Lobby result: http://ncronline.org/news/politics/obamas-faith-based-advisers-divided-over-religious-exemption-anti-gay-discrimination

            These organizations are allowed to believe what they want, just like we are allowed to say what we want, because those are our rights as AMERICANS, “god given” or not.

            We are not a monolithic country, and as of yet, we are not all being forced to think exactly the same way. That is the beauty of this country and where changes need to be made, they need to be made LEGALLY, passing a bill into law. That is the only way to enjoy real protection, and something toward which one can actively work.

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      This “mandate” was added by Sebelius after the law was signed. Not the only thing that HHS added either. The last time I read the Constitution I saw no indication that Sebelius, or Obama, had the right to write or change the law.

  4. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    As evidence that this is not a law, Democrats are spending their time, as noted in the post, trying to MAKE it a law rather than dealing with the HOST of important issues facing the nation right now, like the flood of illegals, the IRS, the VA, ISIS, Iraq, etc., etc.: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/211700-democrats-unveil-bill-to-reverse-hobby-lobby-ruling

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: