Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News+Opinion: Feminism, Y'all

Re: “There is still hope for new CofC leader Glenn McConnell

Of course there is hope. Only ignorant people think reenacting is equivalent to racism. He has done nothing anti LGBT by the way. I'm a gay student at CofC, and have not ever heard or read any homophobic comments from him. I expect this comment to get a bunch of thumbs down by people who hate on him. But I honestly think he is qualified for the job. Give the man a shot.

Posted by swampfox on August 19, 2014 at 2:24 AM

Re: “Misguided praise for parents of children with disabilities

Children's do their homework with the help of computer, is the good thing to used technologies for their work but can they proper utilized their mind with actual work which we can done before some years. No, if we allow them to used this regularly they cant used their mind for do something they always used the technologies for doing every single thing. I prefer parents to avoid compute from their for some times to improve their strength.If u want to know how it can be managed simply visit here.http://www.truetime-applications.com/

Posted by truetimeapplications on August 12, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Re: “Children from same-sex couples are doing better than OK

For some people "facts" do not outweigh "bigotry". Bigots only hurt themselves. Congratulations to those "families" who are helping so many children have a home.

2 of 2 people like this.
Posted by johncopeland on July 18, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Re: “Children from same-sex couples are doing better than OK

I'm the black-Jewish son of an LGBT couple and I came out fine, along with three siblings, including an Army officer. It was never the lack of love from my family but the hate in the community that I struggled with. I have always said that I had an equal or better upbringing than kids in traditional households, because I learned that it's love, not biology, that makes a family. Now I have the science to back it up in my campaign for US Congress.

6 of 7 people like this.
Posted by Gabriel Rothblatt on July 17, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Re: “Children from same-sex couples are doing better than OK

I don't understand why there are some that still stick to the notion that we need to worry about who marries who. The amount of LGBT people in the country is so miniscule that if you don't make a big stink about it you would hardly know or care how many there are. And as many kids are stuck with one parent I would think that having two loving parents, no matter what gender they are, will be better for them.

9 of 11 people like this.
Posted by nofaith on July 16, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Re: “Children from same-sex couples are doing better than OK

I know of two lesbian couples with adopted children. They seem to be doing pretty well.

6 of 8 people like this.
Posted by pugnax on July 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

@brewengineer,
You say that the constitution is a tool for the ruling class against the people, and people haven't been in control for years. I tend to agree, as would many. The one thing I don't understand is how people like you can continue to vote for a party (democrat, or some RINO republicans) who wants to centralize power in the government?
Option 1: Vote for an increase in government power, more gov benefits, more laws forcing businesses to do things for employees, etc.
Option 2: Vote for a decrease in government power, decrease in gov benefits, less laws in general (except for public safety purposes), etc.

1 of 4 people like this.
Posted by jch7 on July 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

Lets not forget that the Obama admin didn't just exempt religious organizations (and now religiously backed businesses), but he has continued to "exempt" people for years. Do we not remember his exemptions for unions participation in the healthcare law? Amazing how it is bad on the court for exempting religious businesses, but no one really said much when Obama exempt unions from healthcare as a whole.

3 of 5 people like this.
Posted by jch7 on July 11, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

It is in no way discrimination. If women want to get these treatments they are perfectly free to have their doctor prescribe them and get them on their own. We are not talking about methods that are cost prohibitive. There is no 'right' to free birth control. And 16 different other methods of birth control are covered. There are, and have been for awhile, things that are not covered but an alternative is. One brand of prosthetic over another, one type of a painkiller versus another, etc, etc.

But, when you try and take over something as complex as the entire health insurance industry in one fell swoop these things are to be expected. Especially when the people who designed the takeover for the most part have no practical work experience in the private sector or even in the health field. The insurance industry was certainly less of a mess than it is now and as much as it was increasing it was doing so at a far slower rate than what folks are experiencing now. When the government gets involved for the most part things will be much worse instead of better.

1 of 5 people like this.
Posted by nofaith on July 11, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

Brewengineer,

The court was not charged with adjudicating matters of science. It's charged with interpreting laws.

Several years ago when the court said the EPA could regulate CO2 because it was a pollutant, they weren't making findings of scientific fact. Their decision was based on the law. It mattered not what science was finding about CO2.

In a likewise manner, the question here was quite simple. Did Obamacare infringe on religious liberties guaranteed in RFRA, not to mention the First Amendment?

That's all that mattered. It's irrelevant who thinks they're discriminated against because someone didn't buy them something they think they deserved.

1 of 4 people like this.
Posted by freefirezone on July 11, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"The SCOTUS did not make any ruling concerning women's rights. Women, including those employed by Hobby Lobby, can still have an abortion or take pills that end a pregnancy (or prevent one - semantics) after the fact. What has changed is that the government cannot force companies that have ownership with a moral objection to these pills and procedures to pay for them. NOTHING in this ruling prevents someone from paying out of their own pocket for the things that HL will not be paying for."

It is discrimination based on the fact that women can't get the most effective birth control under their insurance plan (which they probably pay into), yet everything else in the plan was left alone. What if all corporations start to pick and choose based on beliefs? I think it is a dangerous path to head down if we are going to allow corporations the opportunity to discriminate based on religion. What makes the whole ruling sillier, is that it ignores the data behind these pills and devices. I am all for keeping government out of healthcare, but we need a viable alternative. We tried it with little government regulation before, and that was a mess as well. It is hard to solve problems in a supply and demand industry where your own life is the thing in demand.

1 of 2 people like this.
Posted by brewengineer on July 11, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

T. Jefferson thought (at some point) that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years, lest each generation become thrall to the preceding generation. Probably not a really workable idea, but worthy of being debated. Mat's idea is not totally catastrophic.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by pugnax on July 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

The SCOTUS did not make any ruling concerning women's rights. Women, including those employed by Hobby Lobby, can still have an abortion or take pills that end a pregnancy (or prevent one - semantics) after the fact. What has changed is that the government cannot force companies that have ownership with a moral objection to these pills and procedures to pay for them. NOTHING in this ruling prevents someone from paying out of their own pocket for the things that HL will not be paying for.

The easy fix for this is to get the government out of the health insurance business. End Obamacare and then this is not a problem. If people saw the money that was getting paid for their health insurance and they didn't have the coverages that they wanted they would either pitch a fit or get another plan that fit their needs.

This is what happens when you have a room full of people who have never held a real job and never created anything on their own decreeing what a business should do. Hopefully when Halbig makes it way through the courts and gets rid of the subsidies the populace will realize how stupid this whole idea was and vote out the idiots who supported it.

2 of 4 people like this.
Posted by nofaith on July 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"Technically, the people were the ruling class during the creation of the constitution."

You cannot even be serious.

Posted by mat catastrophe on July 11, 2014 at 7:13 AM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

""HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non- profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations."

Again, the court was simply using the ammunition the Obama administration provided it."

Two wrongs do not make a right. It also doesn't change the fact that the ruling was wrong on a scientific basis either.

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by brewengineer on July 11, 2014 at 6:53 AM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"For profit corporations should not be allowed to use this to discriminate. Are you a corporation bound by non-discriminatory laws, or are you a religious organization. You can't be both. Unfortunately, SCOTUS decided to merge it all, so now we open the door to corporations from other religious backgrounds discriminating based on beliefs."

I'll let the Supreme Court decision speak for itself:

"HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non- profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations."

Again, the court was simply using the ammunition the Obama administration provided it.

1 of 6 people like this.
Posted by freefirezone on July 10, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

"Furthermore, the HCG studies cited did show, albeit at very low probability, evidence for fertilization even in the presence of an IUD. Moreover, IUDs have also been used in the past as a form of post-coital contraception - providing further support to the idea that even though prevention of implantation is not the primary mechanism of action, it is an event that can and does occur."

IUD's are the most effective form of birth control. Of course they will not be 100%, since there is no such thing as 100%. Implantation as a "Plan B" is not the intended use (as any doctor will tell you), so it is a moot point. There are quite a few drugs you can ingest to raise the chances of a miscarriage. That doesn't make them abortion drugs. IUDs are intended to prevent the egg from being fertilized. It is what they do and it is very effective. Viagra MAY BE used in premarital sex acts, which is strictly against the religion of HB owners. A scientifically proven 1% chance of pregnancy, which may or may not end up as a miscarriage, is not really a good reason to deny women coverage of the most effective and easy form of birth control.
Lets discuss that 1% statistic. http://www.tommys.org/page.aspx?pid=383
An estimated 20% of fertilizations will end in miscarriage. 1% of women that miscarry once will miscarry again. Is it against their religion to try again for a baby? It should be if we are going to base it all off of small statistical chances. Silly.
I really like how you danced right around the mounds of information on Plan B.


'"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I don't know what you don't understand about that. Do you not like the semicolon? Do you abhor the simplicity of the statement?'"

For profit corporations should not be allowed to use this to discriminate. Are you a corporation bound by non-discriminatory laws, or are you a religious organization. You can't be both. Unfortunately, SCOTUS decided to merge it all, so now we open the door to corporations from other religious backgrounds discriminating based on beliefs. What if my company has some silly religion that doesn't believe african americans are the same as white people? They use that belief to set a policy that no african americans are allowed to have benefits. Sure, an extreme example, but the door is now open. When it comes down to it, the case is just simple discrimination based on religion.


"Your land of equal opportunity under the law allows for the practice of one's religion without interference from Congress."

This is where you are missing the key to the above statement. It is made to protect your right, as a person, to practice religion freely. It was never meant to allow for-profit corporations to become religious organizations. I would love to see how many right wingers would freak out if this was a satanist family owned corporation trying the same shit. The hard core republicans out there are not about religious freedom, they are about christian freedom. Much like the hard core democrats are not about environmental protection, as much as they are about the stupid Green movement.

6 of 6 people like this.
Posted by brewengineer on July 10, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

Brewengineer,

I did read your links. Unfortunately, you don't grasp what they're stating as it relates to the Hobby Lobby case.

Your boingboing.net (what?) link is outdated info. IUDs don't work by inducing an inflammatory reaction and no one in their right mind would want a long-term, chronic inflammatory condition in their uterus.

Furthermore, the HCG studies cited did show, albeit at very low probability, evidence for fertilization even in the presence of an IUD. Moreover, IUDs have also been used in the past as a form of post-coital contraception - providing further support to the idea that even though prevention of implantation is not the primary mechanism of action, it is an event that can and does occur.

As far as Hobby Lobby and other pro-life organizations are concerned, life begins when fertilization occurs. So even if the technical terms of abortion (termination of pregnancy) are not met, that's irrelevant in this case and the Supreme Court didn't bother distinguishing an abortifacient from a drug/device that sometimes allows fertilization but prevents implantation.

Your land of equal opportunity under the law allows for the practice of one's religion without interference from Congress.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I don't know what you don't understand about that. Do you not like the semicolon? Do you abhor the simplicity of the statement?

As the court noted, Obama jumped the shark when he provided exemptions to religious organizations. In doing so, he demonstrated there was a less restrictive means to achieve the same outcome. That's what the RFRA requires. Obama failed to uphold that law - as he's failed with so many others.

1 of 5 people like this.
Posted by freefirezone on July 10, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Re: “The U.S. Supreme Court rules against women's rights

""The people" have had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, ever. It has existed as a tool of the ruling class, legitimized by the votes from an educated and politically active class, from the word go."

Technically, the people were the ruling class during the creation of the constitution. However, I would say the ruling class today does a very poor job of representing the people. They have done a good job of creating two party lemmings. No need to research all the facts and form your own opinion when you can just fall in line with your party.

4 of 4 people like this.
Posted by brewengineer on July 10, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Classified Listings
Most Viewed

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2014, Charleston City Paper   RSS