Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016    Login | Register        

What if Mormons wanted polygamy again? Should we defer?

Ms. Bertram in her article titled, “Obama’a assault on Catholics is a threat to the rights of us all,” begins with the standard debaters’ tactic: defining your opponent in your own terms.

I don’t know anyone who has stated or will state that pregnancy is a disease. In my brief tome, I stated that “most doctors would agree that contraception falls within the realm of public health.”

It is the reason most women receive prenatal care and most women desire to have their babies born in hospitals under the care of a trained obstetrician. It is also the reason chemical contraception must be prescribed.

In the absence of modern medicine a significant number of women died in childbirth, not due to disease but because it was childbirth. Henry VIII’s wife, Jane Seymour, died in childbirth but she was not diseased.

As far as infertility being a “disease,” I have no idea where Ms. Bertram found that gem, except within the confines of her mind and the extremes of some radical religious viewpoint. For people who wish to conceive and cannot, it is a tragedy due perhaps to disease but most likely to some other reason.

My point about Catholics not adhering to the “revealed truths” concerning the church’s viewpoint on contraception is merely this: The bishops of the church can’t even sell this extraordinary viewpoint to their own flock.

But she is right if she believes this fact has little to do with the argument because what the church believes or doesn’t believe is not germane.

If and when this case goes to the Supreme Court, several judges will explore the precepts with hypotheticals. One might be this:

You speak of revealed truths. What if tomorrow, the head of the Mormon Church has a vision that the church was all wrong when it renounced polygamy in order for Utah to join the union? What if the revealed truth of the Mormon Church is now that polygamy is church doctrine and it is expected of every Mormon? Are we then to overturn 50 state laws outlawing polygamy?

What if the Jehovah’s Witnesses open hospitals but declare they will not pay for nor handle blood transfusions? What if Scientologists open hospitals and declare they will no longer pay for psychiatric care?

Where would Ms. Bertram like for me to stop? There are a lot of revealed truths out there. We are talking about public health and establishing some uniform system for public health.

As Ms. Bertram points out the Catholic Church is a major player. And to lower the tone of the argument to “someone else’s bedroom choices” when speaking about the availability of contraception so that a woman may in fact control her own choice of when she wishes to be pregnant is both Victorian (the age of men, the responsibility of women) and unrealistic.

The unreformed church overstepped its bounds in the early 16th century, the final straw being the sale of indulgences (purchased forgiveness for sins committed or to be committed) in Germany, the proceeds of which were to be used to rebuild St. Peter’s Cathedral.

A priest, one Martin Luther, loudly protested this earthly forgiveness sale. His protest gathered steam as did his vitriol and the Christian Church splintered and remains splintered.

The men who gathered to hammer out a Constitution in Philadelphia were keenly aware of this history and extremely suspicious of religion interfering in the duties of governance. Whether deists or skeptics, the major thinkers of the time understood the dangers of mixing the religious with the temporal.

I can only imagine John F. Kennedy trying to have this conversation when he ran for President. “I will not be dictated to by Rome; however, there are revealed truths and encyclicals I will consult now and then.”

President Obama was right to take this on at this time. If religious organizations cannot follow the law as relating to public health or any other law created for society which does not directly interfere with the personal practice of their religions, they should confine themselves to their core institutions where they may claim shelter.

The rest of us will not be dictated to by either a bishop in New York or the Bishop of Rome.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.



Imagine having to listen to more than one wife complaining!!

Sure recipe for an early grave.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]Imagine having to listen to more than one wife complaining!!

Sure recipe for an early grave.[/quote]

This may be the most intelligent post that I've ever read on The Citizen!!!! LOL

PTC Observer's picture

"The men who gathered to hammer out a Constitution in Philadelphia were keenly aware of this history and extremely suspicious of religion interfering in the duties of governance. Whether deists or skeptics, the major thinkers of the time understood the dangers of mixing the religious with the temporal."

The men who gathered to hammer out a Constitution were keenly aware of a government that would over step its bounds.

Federalist Papers 9, 14, 39, and 45 to be specific. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights memorialized the purpose of government and its enumerated powers respectively. If you study these documents closely you will find no "right" to public health.

You Mr. Parker chose to pick and chose your "rights" and exclude the right for individuals to live their life free of government interference.

Inalienable rights are clearly not self evident to you.

JeffC's picture

You're on the side of government restrictions here? Where is Parker trying to restrict someone's rights?

A right to health insurance? You'll find that in the Constitution right next to the right of the government to build interstate highways and airports.

I'm trying to determine which inalienable right is being trampled on here. The Pope's right to decide what God want's and therefore the government must enforce? Well, I'm a born again God fearing Methodist. The Pope is welcome to his opinion but I ain't supporting his legislation. I actually read his pronouncement on contraceptives and women. Sorry, but it's just bunk. I like him a lot but I'll take my chances about that infallibility stuff. Tell it to Galileo.

Include contraceptives in health insurance and mollify yourself with the thought that the crazy free loving hippie liberals are going to be first in line to buy them.

Now we've reached the bottom line PTCO. Let's be clear. Are you so hard line anti-government spending that for the pitiful amount involved; and I know we are talking principles not cost.... I understand that. If it is a case of a dime is too much then a dime is too much, the amount being utterly irrelevant; any amount being an offense. Nevertheless, to pin your purist philosophy down, just so there is no doubt... you are stating that it is your position that you are against providing government funded contraceptives to liberals?

If contraceptives should be covered by insurance, then why won't the federal government pay for condoms for males? Aren't they being just a bit sexist in all of this? For cryin' out loud, why should only women have all the fun. The bottom line is, this made up mandate by the Obama administration is a bunch of bunk. Liberals only want it so that they can impose their will on Americans, because that is their sole purpose in life- to rule over people and shove their crazy whacko ideas down our throats. It will start with contraceptives, but then where does it stop? You say it's just a 'pitiful amount' - please quantify that statement. How do you know it's not going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars that will then be passed on to the insurance premiums for each and every customer whether they use it or not.

Don't get me wrong Jeff, I'm all for the use of contraceptives, and think that liberals should be forced to use them so they stop breeding ignorance and stupidity into the world.

Cyclist's picture

I'm sorry, never!!!

H.R. 3134: DIAPER Act

To amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to include providing diapers and diapering supplies among the activities for which funds may be employed to improve the quality of and access to child care.


This Act may be cited as the `Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery' or the `DIAPER Act'.


Yep, your taxes can pay for this too when and if it passes. What a country!!!!

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

S. Lindsey's picture

Right now Obamacare is costing us an extra $111 Billion per year more then was estimated... As the Politicians fight to add more Special Interest groups to the new freebie machine the cost is going to spiral even further out of control.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Cyclist's picture

Which is why I can't support that side. It's a good thing the House shifted two years ago, otherwise stuff like this could be the law of the realm.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

citizenal's picture

and then deposit in a toxic waste dump!

Until he is gone absurd will be the norm.

Gort's picture

condoms from our Uncle Sam. At first it was just the basic white ones but after a while we got them in custom colors too.

If I remember correctly they were handed out by the chaplains and came with a little prayer:

"If you must, these won’t bust, go in peace my son!”

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

for condoms for men??? Well, I sure wish I had known because I certainly would have alerted Rush and the rest of the lunatic fringe and we would have marched on Washington! I would not want my hard earned money to be used to aid these sex-crazed, out of control young men to give in to their baser desires. I am sure this must have been a plot by the Democrats (or was it the Republicans?) to turn our country into a morally corrupt Gomorrah. Oh, my, I may have to go lie down--I feel a fit of the vapors coming on.

Reveal: For those too obtuse to realize it--this was written very tongue in cheek. No need to reply.

Gort's picture

During the Vietnam War era, free condoms were available to US servicemen and there use was encouraged. The reasoning for this was the cost of providing free condoms was less than the cost of treating sexually transmitted infections the men exposed themselves too.

The cost effective reasoning is very similar to the, free contraceptives for women debate we’re having today. The cost of an unwanted pregnancy is more than the cost of prevention and that is the reason free contraceptives for women is in the Affordable Care Act.

I sure hope Rush Limbaugh kicked his drug addiction but I wouldn’t waste time trying to tell Rush anything about free condoms. When the government was handing out free condoms to US servicemen, Rush was using the giant magic pimple he grew on his fat behind to get a draft deferment. If we had the Affordable Care Act in force back then perhaps old Rush could have got treatment, eh?

As far as “sex-crazed” men goes, well we were no better or worst than our peers back in the US growing up during the late sixties and early seventies. It’s probably not much different with young people today including Ms Fluke.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

bloggers and their idjit statements. I was well aware that condoms were given to service men and I think it is still a great idea. Some people choke on a gnat and swallow a camel. As for Rush, he has nothing but a big mouth and a bunch of lemmings who can't think for themselves and follow him as if he is the second coming. He is not worthy of wiping the mud off the boots of any one of our service personnel. It is just disgusting the amount of money he makes spewing his garbage, but the way advertisers are dropping like flies, that too may be coming to an end.

Gort's picture

and may I add you’re doing an excellent job poking fun at the Limbaugh Lemmings around here! 8 - )

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

take that into consideration. As it is now when the young man impregnates the young girl, in most cases they feel he is providing for that child if he buys a box of diapers every month or so. I'd be willing to pay a dollar or two more a month if you could get either of them to use some type of contraceptive since they don't consider using restraint. And, sad to say, Uncle Sam has truly become that benevolent uncle who reaches into his pocket and pays for all those things that daddy used to provide for. The only problem with that is Uncle Sam is thee and me.

The Obama administration can mandate that insurance companies pay for liberal whore's contraceptives, but they can't make the whores use them.
One of the many problems with this mandate is that many people who have enough dignity not to demand that someone else pay for their sexual promiscuity will see their insurance premiums go up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for liberals using contraceptives. If this Fluke harlot expects insurance companies to pay for her inability to stay out of the sack with every Tom, Dick, or Harry that flatters her, then her insurance premiums should go up, not everyone elses.

Or, she can do what normal people do and go to Walgreens and buy them herself.

S. Lindsey's picture

or Healthcare in the Constitution.

You wouldn't be meaning the Good -n- Plenty clause now are you?

The key issue here is personal responsibility. Tell me Jeff, what Medical studies have shown that if you do not have Sex you will get sick or die?

Granted it may be a crime.. A Misdemeanor if you will but not medically necessary. So this is less a Health issue and more about Politics. Polls where showing that Obama was losing the Women vote soooo... here we are.

btw Jeff you wanted to know what freedoms are being trampled on - It's called freedom of Religion. You might want to look that one up.
What if some do-gooder in Government decided Baptism was a "Health" issue and issued a proclamation that your Church could no longer Baptize anyone without certain certifications, training, and maybe even a lifeguard and EMT's on stand-by?

Surely then you would be OK with that right?

Like I told Mr. Parker...be very careful what rights and freedoms you are willing to abdicate to Government... Some day we might just have a Government that you find disagreeable and then where will you be?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

PTC Observer's picture

Especially liberals if you are talking in the classical sense.

Yes, I am a purist but if you knew the basis of my purist principles you would be a purist as well.

The tired old, "find interstates and roads in the Constitution argument" is not an argument at all, the debate goes all the way back to Mr. Hamilton's report on manufacturing. We fought a Civil War in part over the Whigs insistence that "internal improvements" were part of the Constitutional mandate and Henry Clay's American System philosophy paved the way for Mr. Lincoln's political ascendancy. Shortly following Lincoln's election, the Congress wasted little time passing the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 to line the pockets of his industrialist cronies. The political corruption that followed the defeat of the South is well documented. There is a lot of material on this subject, but let's just say that until this matter was decided at the point of a gun, internal improvements were primarily privately funded. Some government funded or guaranteed loans for construction of canals and waterways were built prior to the war. Including one right here in Georgia at Augusta. Naturally everything the government touched failed financially and those that actually competed against government guarantees found themselves hauled into court. However, contrary to popular opinion, that's the whole idea behind government financed programs, the few getting rich at the expense of the many. You know its called, "democracy in action".

I will predict with absolute certainty that government corruption will be repeated again as it has been so many times in the past with the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010. Just like "green" legislation it will fill the pockets of Mr. Obama's "friends". Thus starting the cycle all over again.

Contraception is the least of our worries, Jeff. It is government that we should fear and its uncontrolled power and corruption.

JeffC's picture

It only says that this response was posted in the wrong place.

S. Lindsey's picture

So much grist for the mill.

I guess I could go the other direction and say What if Progressives wanted Socialism for us.. Oh wait they already do. Never mind on that one.

Mr. Parker how about we concern ourselves to what the Founding Fathers original intent for us was. Government has 18 enumerated powers. Period.
All other powers not otherwise specified should be decided by the States. Government has no authority in Marriage it should be returned to the Clergy from which it was taken.

If we were to do this simple thing then worrying or pondering what ifs.. this President or that President would or would not do would be rendered irrelevant now wouldn't it.

Right now the Government is "giving" us new rights. The Right to Contraceptives.

Just remember what the Government gives... It can also take away.

Just remember Mr. Parker, Obama will not be President forever. Be very careful what freedoms you are willing to give up to Government.

Some day soon Government may decide to give "Rights" to someone whose ideology disagrees with yours. Then will you be so willing for Government to grant rights?

Somehow I think not.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Gort's picture

and he’s favored to win the Georgia Primary. Who knows, maybe the conservatives around here would go for that polygamy stuff.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

ptctaxpayer's picture

Yeah, I got a little nervous seeing that photo of Newt, unsupervised, with a bunch of college girls. Callista don't care--- as long as the bling keeps on a coming.


Lady. Calista is starting to look a little long in the tooth but then maybe Newt has lost whatever it was he had--so maybe he is willing to stay with the Tiffany Tootsie and she is willing to stay with the Pillsbury Doughboy if it gets them both what they want---the White House. We have had a little bit of everything in the White House but I do think this would be the first time the President and Fist Lady would be the Adulterer and Adulteress.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]We have had a little bit of everything in the White House but I do think this would be the first time the President and Fist Lady would be the Adulterer and Adulteress.[/quote]

You say this with a straight face after the Clinton years? Are we about to elect a president or a choir boy? No I don't condone this type of activity but at this point I want the person that is best for the country regardless of his personal short comings. Would you take Clinton back? How about JFK? Thomas Jefferson? FDR? And the list goes on. Is it time to draft Billy Graham to run the country? At this point in time I want the person that can turn this country around even if he has a lifestyle like most of our other leaders have had.

but that is about it. I doubt if anybody who is running can do the job--it will be picking the lesser of all evils-and sorry, but to me that is not Newt.

G35 Dude's picture

My post was not meant to convince you that any one candidate was the guy. That is your choice to make. And I will agree with you that this election suffers from electile dysfunction. That is the inability to get excited about any of the candidates. But to slam any candidate for something that really has no affect on his ability to do the job isn't the right way to choose a leader.

Newt is a double edged sword in my opinion. He is by far the smartest of the candidates left. He is probably the guy that is most capable of turning things around. But I'm not sure that he is trust worthy. It does bother me too that this is the best we can do for leaders. But if we take a close look maybe we can see why our best and brightest don't want to run.

I used to work for a large cooperation. I took an early out. The last year that I worked there the CEO was paid $16 million. And he didn't have to go through having his life dissected for the voters nor did he have the pressure that president does. The president makes $400k a year. Which job would you choose?

President's salary is much lower than candidates could make on the outside makes you wonder why they go through what they go through to be president. But then except for Truman in the past, no president is a pauper after leaving. I too feel Newt is probably the smartest but he is really a loose cannon. Look at his record in the past. He comes up with some good ideas but some are really way out there and he does not always execute the good ones. As for why better and brighter people do not run--if they are honest and do not go along to get along they are ineffective--they have no backing--and you have to have a very thick skin and a very large ego to withstand what anyone running for office goes through. Not only does your record have to be pristine but everyone in your family going back to your great-grand father's great grand father and God forbid you have ever had a health or mental problem no matter how slight. Every word you say is scrutinized under a microscope and even then, often distorted or taken out of context. Yep, the pay off has to be very, very big, either monetarily or for the ego for anyone to undergo this torture.

and when they are found out say they have found Jesus (personally I never knew he was lost)and/or have prayed and Jesus has forgiven them. Of course we are never privy to their conversations with Jesus and must take their word for it. With Newt it took his running for President for him to see the light. And there are those blind followers who are willing to say that he has repented and reformed and all should be forgiven. A cup of gullibility anyone? I am not a Mitt fan but some of the things people are afraid of really floors me. True, he is a Mormon but he has been with one wife for thirty plus years. Yet people worry about him being a Mormon. Go figure.

Veritas's picture

Been together..... What's that got to do with the price of tea in China
Just sayin

Cyclist's picture

I wonder if he pulls the plug on Wednesday.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

If he doesn't win GA, he's toast! All I know is that I find too much intellectual instability there---which means he didn't get my vote!

On Tuesday Republicans will go to the polls to make their choice. The Party of family values may choose Newt Gingrich who has had just barely more wives than mistresses. The evangelical, conservative Republicans who once feared that JFK would take orders from the Pope may choose Rick Santorum who argues that he has the correct theology to be President, unlike President Obama, and can therefore better control women's bodies. Or the Party of Dwight Eisenhower, who was called a communist by the John Birch Society, may choose Ron Paul who began his political career with support from the John Birch Society and supports legalizing prostitution and drug use which takes us back to that “family value” thing. Or Republicans in the party of “states rights” and limited Federal Government may choose to vote for Mitt Romney, former Governor of the liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts and proponent of mandated health insurance, not to mention a member of a religion many evangelicals consider a cult.

It would be a lot simpler if you Republicans would just switch to the Democratic Party.



PTC Observer's picture

truly correct thing you have written on this board.

"It would be a lot simpler if you Republicans would just switch to the Democratic Party"

Then the sham of believing that we have a two party system would be exposed.

Is dying on the vine. Referred to subcommittee and sits there. Don't worry. The Congresspeople who are fighting contraception/abortion, etc., instead of working harmoniously to get more jobs for their constituents won't have to worry about buying diapers for all the babies born because of the lack of contraceptives for MEN AND WOMEN. Geeez.

Gort's picture

(not diapers but what goes in them,) did you read the bombastic, bubble boy, of right wing BS, Rush Limbaugh issued an apology for calling student Sandra Fluke a "slut" on his radio show?

Proving once again, principles be damned, when the sponsors walk, you change your talk.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

drugs or maybe his housekeeper hadn't come back with the latest stash when he made the comment. Amazing how someone who lives in a glass house feels perfectly fine throwing stones. Too bad this wasn't 'the good old days' or that girl's daddy could have called old Rush Baby out to a good old fashioned duel for besmirching his daughter's name.

There may be a law suit in the future. You assist your daughter in college and law school - and some nut who disagrees with her regarding women's right to have control over their body - calls her a prostitute! If I were her parent - I would be in consultation with my attorney! Rush and his sponsors are considered 'deep pockets'. Maybe this will connect his brain to his mouth! (I know, the operative word here is 'brain' - is there one?)

am not in favor of frivolous law suits but this was so uncalled for. It is time someone brought him up short. Maybe if the sponsor's lose enough money they will restrain him somewhat. He is nothing but a lot of hot air anyway.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

A lawsuit would be great. A good old fashioned libel suit with the defense being the truth. Rush would set forth his argument that this girl was receiving something of value from the government for the sole purpose of having recreational sex. That makes her a prostitute and the government her pimp. Their libel case is shredded right there, but a lawsuit would force people like Sabilius and Jarrett (if she is still there) to answer direct questions about what aspect of existing law makes this providing of birth control devices mandatory. They would actually have to answer questions like that with complete sentences instead of 5 second sound bites. And in a court, attempt to divert attention to STD's or women's health or her "right to choose" would be properly judged irrelevant to this particular case. Might even get the judge to lock up Valerie Jarrett for contempt if she persists with that nonsense.

Of course Rush's attorneys would chew them up and spit them out and the little tramp and her single mom know this and have probably already been turned down by attorneys who wouldn't take on that lawsuit on a contingency basis. If Andrew Breitbart hadn't been killed by the Dems (hard to prove, but I suspect it) he would figure out a way to quietly fund the girl's lawsuit just to get the whole drama on the world stage right before the election.

Live free or die!

Gort's picture

Interesting argument, are you saying, any woman that receives something of value after having sex is a prostitute?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

S. Lindsey's picture

Definition of PROSTITUTION

: the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money.

I think that would fit Mz. Flukes definition of what she was proposing.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

So when a women uses a contraceptive - she is engaging in promiscuous sex. Interesting. Thanks for your enlightened input.

women and contraceptives? I wonder how many of them, now or in their past, kept themselves pure and virginal til their wedding nights? From the sound of some of them, they should have continued that practice and never procreated! I was always taught that you did not cast stones because you never knew when one would be deflected back at you and also to never say never when referring to your offspring becuase you never knew what the future would bring. I imagine these gentlemen all feel they are above such.

You were taught the same way that I was taught - and possibly buddy 123. Oh well, change is hard to understand and sometimes slow in coming. It will be interesting to see how many 'women' are still with the Republican party. I hear a lot of them are registering Independent. I have nothing against high moral standards - it's just not too many men or women are adhering to them. If we all acted upon the high moral standard - we just might not be in this mess.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

especially you ladies. Timing of this thing right in the middle of the longest and most boring Republican primary campaign I can ever remember is no accident. The Dems ginned this whole thing up with Obama dissing the Catholic Church and then a couple weeks later the paid Dem operative in law school emerges. Yes, we will find out much later that she was paid when the so-called press corps stops investigating Rush and takes a look at the 30 year old registered Democrat law student. Actually she has probably been promised a job in government instead of outright payment.

So Rush takes the bait and says exactly what is on his mind about this idiotic situation and all of a sudden the issue is about him. Santorum's numbers are likely to increase, although he has no chance of beating Obama and becoming Thumper-in-chief. Women get offended about middle-aged white men trying to control their private parts and the smart ones gravitate toward independent, the dumb bunnies go Democrat. And by election day all the uneducated voters will remember the Dem's ads that are already in the can about how Republicans hate women and Rush uses bad words - so reelect Obama.

So tell me I'm wrong about this whole thing being much ado about nothing and that it was not a deliberate Democrat tactic to create chaos in the Republican primary. And the President of the United States openly calling the little s***/ I mean princess on the phone? What a coincidence.

Boycott Rush's advertisers that have boycotted him. No more Pro Flowers.com - order from Rona, locally.

Live free or die!

you. Well in this case it certainly refers to you. I am not now or have I ever been a Democrat. If you believe what Rush said just happened to be something that popped up in his head because he was so incensed you are a bigger dupe than you accuse the Dems of being. At no time in any of my postings about this situation did I say yea or nay regarding whether or not insurance companies should pay for contraceptives. My argument is the way some of you 'men' chose to refer to this woman. Rush Loudmouth did it because he loves to be bombastic and he knows it makes the hearts of his mentally challenged followers beat mightily--and this time it backfired on him. If he was the man of integrity he pretends to be he would never have backed down. So what does that make him? Can you say prostitute? For he certainly is prostituting his beliefs in order to hang on to his lucrative talk show--
One other thing, what do you call the men who must be having 'casual sex' with Ms. Fluke (your assumptions, not mine)? If the truth be known many of you would chuckle and say 'lucky'. I am sure if this was about any other subject Rush to Judgement would be calling her a femnazi or lesbo--but since this is about sex and contraceptives he had to go in another direction. As for watching or listening to him, I would never waste my time, I would rather watch grass grow.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

What would I call the young men who are having sex with Ms. Fluke? Lucky? Haaaaa, you made a funny.

My answer would be students. I think it will come out that they are 14 or 15 years old. She does have that predator look about her. Has the press asked her what size condoms she wants the government to give her? Might be some clues there.

Come to think of it, her liberal pseudo-intellectual condescending style of speaking is all the birth control she really needs as far as I am concerned. And as I said before, she will be exposed as a Dem operative (which is a far bigger insult that the s-word or the p-word that has been thrown around here by you people). And the whole thing has been manufactured by the Dems just to create chaos during the Republican primary. And why does Prezbo think it is the best use of his time to call this chippie?

Live free or die!

A father? Really? Unbelievable. Now he calls another man's daughter - who has finished law school and has the ability to advocate in a civil manner - a child molester? Where are your facts sir? Please change your name, you are doing a real disservice to the real Robert W Morgan - who is now deceased. Stop while you're ahead. The President of the United States - his name is Barack Obama. He uses his real name. You may not respect the man - but do respect the office. He is our leader, just as President Bush was our leader for 8 years. If an adult has the fortune of being a grandparent - it is obvious that they may know a little about sex. Geeeez

Gee, you really should remove your head from the dark body orifice where you placed it. But while it was there, a few things happened. First, President Lincoln freed the slaves. Now it did not go over real big here in the south, but eventually they came around to see that by Christian standards, all men were created equal. Then, believe it not, women, can you believe it (!), women were given the right to vote. Now, they even let THEM serve in the military. Then the world starting moving so fast and they guaranteed that blacks could have equal rights, vote and use the same water fountain. Again, it was not well received here in the South, but that Christian thing must have kicked in again (that and men with guns). Blasted if the sexual revolution didn’t come around in the 60s . Then, can you image, medically managed birth control came about that permitted women to manage their health and well-being. It’s hard to believe that people are still thinking like this, it being the 1970s and all. Oh gee, its 2012! Definitely time to remove your head.


Ad space area 4 internal