Surprise...Planned Parenthood CEO Top Obama Advisor On Contraception Mandate!

Is there any doubt that Leftist Fundamentalists will be just as outraged at these secret WH meetings and consultations with contraception insiders lobbying for Obamacare's illegal HHS mandate, as they were for Cheney's WH energy summit :

The debate within the White House on this issue was, sources say, heated, and President Obama was legitimately torn. Panetta wasn’t alone in his concerns. For months, Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley argued internally against the rule, sources tell ABC News. Biden and Daley didn’t think the rule was right on either the policy or the politics, sources said. Joshua Dubois, head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, also expressed concern.

The policy was wrong, the two Catholic men, Biden and Daley, argued, saying that the Obama administration couldn’t force religious charities to pay for something they think is a sin.

But Biden and Daley faced a strong group making the case for the rule within the administration – including Catholics such as senior adviser David Plouffe and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, senior White House advisers Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, and then-domestic policy council director Melody Barnes. Others outside the White House also pushed hard for the rule, including former White House communications director Anita Dunn, Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards. (Some of the details of this internal division were first reported yesterday by Bloomberg’s Mike Dorning and Margaret Talev.)

Note that liberal feminists and the abortion lobby carried more sway with Obama than his higher ranking male advisers. Recall Barnes is a former Planned Parenthood Action Fund and EMILY’s List board member and also a former lobbyist for the Center for Reproductive Rights. We all know how tied into the abortion industry Sebelius is. Obama has surrounded himself with radical pro-abortion feminists.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...hood_ceo_top_advisor_on_contraception_mandate

If you aren't creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren't listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up.

When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of "increased access" to "reproductive services" for "poor" women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.

As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 "to stop the multiplication of the unfit." This, she boasted, would be "the most important and greatest step towards race betterment." While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to "hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities" to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services.

Outright murder wouldn't sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of "women's health" -- and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches -- would. Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign "The Negro Project."

In other writings, historian Mike Perry found, Sanger attacked programs that provided "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers" because they "facilitate the function of maternity" when "the absolute necessity is to discourage it." In an essay included in her writing collection held by the Library of Congress, Sanger urged her abortion clinic colleagues to "breed a race of thoroughbreds." Nationwide "birth control bureaus" would propagate the proper "science of breeding" to stop impoverished, non-white women from "breeding like weeds."

Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors: "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world -- that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin -- that people can -- can commit."

Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace's reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for birth city birth-control programs: "(I)t's not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control -- even among its own members." When Wallace pressed her ("In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?"), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...op_the_multiplication_of_the_unfit/page/full/

Should the FLDS "prophets" have the right to have sex with 12 year olds because it is part of their belief system? Should Christian Scientists and Adventists have the right to withhold life-saving transfusions and other treatments from their children? Should fundamentalists have the right to beat their children because they think that the Bible tells them so? Should American Muslims have the right to kill a daughter who has been raped because she has brought shame on the family? Jes askin how far this "religious freedom" thing should go.

The thing that bothers me the most is the decision to fight a losing battle.

Bill Clinton went with DADT in 1993 because it was winnable. He backed the possible, not the perfect.

Obama could have gone with free condoms as sound health policy through insurance companies and won that. Possibly the traditional birth control pill that prevents conception.

Then there's pushing chemical abortion into the parish church organizations. Just plain dumb. Not winnable. Contentious. And I repeat he's tone deaf.
Sliding back to that position won't be a win. It's a costly loss.

It's also woken up some people the Left wish he didn't: Obama's Open and Affirming church policies, the UCC, are a factor in this. Obama's pushing his religion onto others.

Santorum got cheers for his statements about false theology and turning this into church v. church issue. That will change the nature of the constitutional debate and lawsuits. If the Supreme Court develops a 3-prong test then condoms would pass the test as a public health issue in the age of AIDS. Free chemical abortions as a constitutionally protected right under a public health 3-prong SCOTUS test? Not a freaking chance unless Scalia dies.

I doubt it is a loss at all and it certainly isn't for women. If anything it puts Obama in a better position because this is giving Santorum momentum and there is no way he can win.

So, you're incapable of distinguishing between a crime and a Constitutional right? Or, are you just hoping this grotesque hyperbole would cause an argument. The 1st Amendment protects the freedom to worship freely, it does not condone, protect or advocate the "right" to commit crimes. But surely you know this.

No, I am creeped out by a bunch of virgins trying to control peoples sex lives.

Obama's mandate has nothing to do with access to contraception or abortions. At present, those services are universally available to all women. They're simply not available through Catholic organizations as a matter of religious conviction.

So if services are universally available, why would Obama then pick a fight with the Catholic Church for the sole purpose of forcing them to go against their religious convictions. There's only one answer...to usurp the Constitution and destroy the foundations of religious faith. It's Catholics under government assault this time, but it will soon be someone else having their rights steamrolled by government over-reach if this were allowed to stand. The destruction of the Church was the primary tool Hitler and Stalin used to control their respective citizenry, by driving a wedge between the people and their faith.

I'm not Catholic and I'm not religious, but every male member (self included) of my family over 30 has risked and given life, limb and taken a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution and all the rights it guarantees. Said service dates back to the Revolutionary War and even includes a conscripted Hessian.

You completely miss the point. Be creeped out all you want, it doesn't change the fact that all religions are guaranteed the right (as a matter of law) to practice their faith/s as they seem fit.

It's up to the individual Catholic to decide how Church doctrine applies to their own life. Plenty of Catholic woman use contraception and have had abortions against Church doctrine. That's a very personal and private decision.

Oh jeez, Hitler and Stalin.

Absolutely, so long as they do not force their beliefs on people who do not share them. I think that it is you who have missed the point. And, hard as it may be to believe, a substantial majority of the American People, whom you so often presume to speak for, seem to think that the President is right and you are wrong on this specific issue.

Such as say, making them pay for things they don't believe in????

No one is forcing anyone to be Catholic, no one is forcing any Catholics to use or not use contraception. The only forcing going on here is by the government.

Sorry, you're wrong on this. Our healthcare delivery system is tied directly to your job. In non-religious occupations the church is required to provide access to health insurance for its employees. How much they pay towards it is their choice as an employee benefit. They can choose not to pay for certain procedures but must.allow for their employees to add that basic coverage required by law.

It is the churches denial of access to unaffiliated employees for religious reasons that is a violation of the FA, not the other way around. The church is free to practice and is not required to.provide financial support. It simply can't deny its employee access if it wants to run secular operations.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Replicant, in one sentence or less, are you saying that birth control should be illegal?