General Discussion

sarge43

(28,940 posts)

50. Not just none. It prohibits any. nt

Reply to Initech (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:24 PM

Jun 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

*ahem* [View all] WilliamPitt Jun 2014 OP

More... Wait Wut Jun 2014 #1

"Its all about the women" me b zola Jun 2014 #14

I don't. Do you have a link, cause I can't search worth a damn here. genwah Jun 2014 #52

More Canon Fodder ProgressiveJarhead Jul 2014 #83

Couldn't agree more, my dear Will...n/t CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2014 #2

It's not about abortion or contraception, it's about naughty ladies being punished for having sex. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #3

But those naughty ladies have to be having sex with someone ladym55 Jun 2014 #5

Exactly. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #7

That's the answer! abakan Jun 2014 #21

I have been saying exactly since the rumblings locdlib Jun 2014 #22

They would buy those just in case they found an unconscious woman. abakan Jun 2014 #24

they would only have to pay the co-pay, BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #44

not mine... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #86

Welcome to DU, locdlib! calimary Jun 2014 #28

Hi calimary and thanks for locdlib Jun 2014 #41

Wait, no male and female sex? LGBTQ for everyone? Okay, I'm in. (Well not just yet!) genwah Jun 2014 #54

It certainly cures that pesky pregnancy problem..nt abakan Jun 2014 #59

This is so true. I got into it with a person on fb who was responding to mnhtnbb Jun 2014 #15

bingo. nt awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #85

I've always said that the Catholic church should hand out condoms like candy. Nye Bevan Jun 2014 #4

Plus, one needs to mention AIDS, in that argument. longship Jun 2014 #6

and more deaths. oldandhappy Jun 2014 #8

And so it seems we have returned to the fifties. WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2014 #11

...when disgraced women were forced into homes for unwed mothers me b zola Jun 2014 #16

1850s? 1750s? 1650s? Initech Jun 2014 #38

1950s, when we read article after article of illegal, dangerous WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2014 #48

Is that what we want to return to? AlbertCat Jun 2014 #53

Of course it was. WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2014 #56

Don't fear. librarylu Jul 2014 #88

No kidding. My late father-in-law was a doctor. calimary Jun 2014 #31

A long time ago, possibly even before Roe v Wade SheilaT Jun 2014 #36

The title is correct PADemD Jul 2014 #75

Thanks. SheilaT Jul 2014 #79

but wouldn't that be bad for their investments in contraceptives? MisterP Jun 2014 #9

Yeah, but maybe that's what they really want. More dead or desperate women. nt valerief Jun 2014 #10

No, what they really want WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2014 #49

True. nt valerief Jun 2014 #58

But not for the girl in the photo. Kablooie Jun 2014 #12

Not all sex is consensual. jeff47 Jun 2014 #34

*NEWSFLASH* Skittles Jun 2014 #57

Usually intentionally...at least that is what I hope. Lucky Luciano Jun 2014 #64

no Skittles Jun 2014 #65

Yes. I think we miscommunicated. No disagreements from me. nt Lucky Luciano Jun 2014 #66

Yes, but I can't see how contraceptives could help a lesbian have a baby. Kablooie Jul 2014 #71

Oral contraceptions also aid in medical problems like endometriosis, myrna minx Jul 2014 #72

And that is what is conveniently forgotten in all the fundie discussions. AngryOldDem Jul 2014 #74

... Javaman Jul 2014 #80

True, of course they don't care. Damansarajaya Jun 2014 #13

Welcome to DU, Damansarajaya! calimary Jun 2014 #33

Thank you. nt Damansarajaya Jun 2014 #37

Please add the supreme court abakan Jun 2014 #17

Not in their world joeglow3 Jun 2014 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #19

Jesus also said: dgibby Jun 2014 #32

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #35

almost, but the Supremes also made exemptions for BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #45

Adam, hypothetical scenarios are the provence of Hollywood. saidsimplesimon Jul 2014 #84

Guess what their response will be? Stop having sex. Sex is for procreation ONLY!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2014 #20

People will stop having sex when SCOTUS stops having massive buffer zones for themselves. nt valerief Jun 2014 #25

Yes, something tells me they will try that tired line. locdlib Jun 2014 #26

Ohhhh, silly locdlib, tricks are for -----dudes! BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #46

Unless a man has sex. n/t Aerows Jun 2014 #29

K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Jun 2014 #23

I always said that once they got finished with abortion Aerows Jun 2014 #27

You cannot reason with these people. Moostache Jun 2014 #30

Even simpler test - ask them where in the Constitution a religious test is required for office. Initech Jun 2014 #39

Not just none. It prohibits any. nt sarge43 Jun 2014 #50

Products made in China, investments in contraceptive producers. nolabear Jun 2014 #40

^^This!^^ BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #62

Will...You assume they give a shit about who lives and who dies. n/t truth2power Jun 2014 #42

KAY 'n ARGH! Plucketeer Jun 2014 #43

So if women working for Hobby Lobby get pregnant, does Hobby Lobby pay enough for them to tclambert Jun 2014 #47

You make the mistake of assuming they actually care about unborn life BainsBane Jun 2014 #51

Sorry, Will, but it means even more children growing up in poverty. Think about madinmaryland Jun 2014 #55

We are all mad and discouraged but ELI BOY 1950 Jun 2014 #60

I'm too sad to drag out the Monty Python clip... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #61

+1 for fuckwagons! nt Lucky Luciano Jun 2014 #63

Not to mention defacto7 Jun 2014 #67

BOYCOTT Marthe48 Jun 2014 #68

It is just slight of hand. Bozvotros Jun 2014 #69

Time to dust off that old copy of Lysistrata!! n/t Stonepounder Jun 2014 #70

Eh BlindTiresias Jul 2014 #73

Great post. K & R n/a onecent Jul 2014 #76

Well said! chrisstopher Jul 2014 #77

Were I a political cartoonist, I would draw women wearing "Hobby Lobby Employee" buttons being WinkyDink Jul 2014 #78

"pay" for contraceptives Worsel Jul 2014 #81

You nailed it, WRP. n/t Duval Jul 2014 #82

Yes, the males on SCOTUS intended to saidsimplesimon Jul 2014 #87