I know the court that has heard it bought that reasoning but I don't know how high up in the system it has gotten...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have been reading this thread and wasn't going to comment, but the mood I'm in today I just felt like I had to say something.
I know this was said a while back, and is not exactly pertinent to the discussion, but you are wrong.
Birth control is most definitely a health issue for women as far as something like the pill is concerned. Some women need it because of cysts, some for heavy menstrual flow, some to regulate their cycles, is believed to reduce the risks of some cancers, etc.
Some women should not carry a pregnancy due to other health issues that may be present.
Birth control is most definitely an issue for women.
I bet you feel viagra and it's counterparts should be covered, though.
I am under the assumption you are a man. If I am correct, then perhaps you ought to remain silent on a woman's health issues especially when it looks to me like you have a limited knowledge of what you are talking about. When men can carry a baby, then you can say something about contraception and health issues.
Oh, and one other thing, I believe you mentioned about women and "sperm donors" and how they can't keep a "decent man." It appears to me that you really have some issues with women, don't you? Did it ever occur to you that there are men out there that are less than decent, who think nothing of leaving their women and children behind?
But, I suppose that's somehow a woman's fault, too.
I receive social security survivor's benefits for myself and my children. You see, my husband decided to leave us behind when he made the choice to kill himself a few years ago. I guess that was my fault because I couldn't keep a decent man. He was a hardworking man, overtime, etc. Perhaps if his greedy employer decided to supply better healthcare he could've had the mental healthcare he obviously so desperately needed he might still be around. But you see, they "couldn't afford" it. I saw the way the owners live. I guess as long as the rich continue to be able to live in multiple homes, have nice fancy cars, vacations, etc at the expense of their employees who MAKE them their money, all is ok. Let's just continue to villify the poor.
My children receive CHIP and WIC, some would consider that a form of welfare.
I would like to go back to work as an RN, but to do so right now would be futile. Yes, even as an RN. It would actually COST me money to work. I would be paying for child care, and then would need to pay for their insurance. I can only imagine the difficulties that are faced by other single moms out there that are not as fortunate as I am to have an education. Someday when my oldest can help out with watching her siblings, I will go back to work.
I am not on drugs. I resent the fact that there are so many people who feel that welfare recipients are nothing but lazy, drug addicted slobs.
Perhaps we ought to drug test some of our politicians. Wonder how that would go over?
I'm sick of hearing people complain about their tax dollars going to help the less fortunate. Why don't people ever complain about their precious tax dollars funding things like corporate welfare, or endless wars or politicians salaries?
The hole point of the Constitution is define the fed an limit its power. If it was interpreted the way you are trying to make it out then all laws congress makes would be constitutional an the supreme court would not have spent all these years striking down unconstitutional laws..
Besides if all they legally had to do to ban something was have congress pass a law then why did they go threw all the trouble to have the states ratify a amendment to the Constitution when they wanted to ban booze?
I'm not going to read it all either. This subject has been discussed many times on here. I'm sure the normal culprits will say the same things we always say.
I don’t think we can fix the problem because we can’t agree what the problem is. Some people hear welfare and think of ”welfare queens” living off the system and milking it for all they can. I have a relative that would fit that description. Others think of people that really need the help through no fault of their own and get back on their feet after getting help through that rough time. I could introduce you to a different relative on the same side of the family. As long as we have a majority of the people that think of one or the other instead of both when they hear “welfare’, we can’t fix the system.
From what I’ve seen there are people that live off of the system and consider it an entitlement. They teach their kids to live off that system. That needs to stop. But we have to have help for those that really need it. As long as you put the rules down on paper on how to qualify, you give people a chance to find loopholes. If you make those rules too loose, there are a lot of loopholes. If you make them too tight, you get a tremendous bureaucracy and a long time between applying for and actually getting the benefits you desperately need while they check your eligibility.
I’m not smart enough to come up with the details. I’d like to see the system change to where the benefits are less than the minimum wage. Make it where people are better off working but they really don’t have to dig through garbage cans to survive. But it would take a comprehensive approach. How do you handle where someone might be able to get a job but by the time they pay for day care, they are better off on welfare than actually taking the job. Like I said, I can’t handle the details.
Strong message, catlvr976. Don't let him bother you. To assume he is a man is wrong, a man can admit they are wrong sometimes. He does like to make bigoted statements but then defend them with "I'm a realist!" I am certain that most people, even those who agree with him politically, are disgusted by his immature behavior. Don't let him discourage you, he's just a bitter old man.