Shared publicly  - 
The Obama administration on Friday announced a broader opt-out for religious-affiliated groups that want to skirt the so-called contraceptive mandate.
Jamie Brasington's profile photoVote Out the Tea Party !'s profile photorichard hoover's profile photoJay Carlson's profile photo
+Alexa Antonaras, that's fine...then THAT woman can find a job with some other less "enlightened" company or organization.  And, according to our 1st Amendment...religion IS special.  Deal with it. the end of the day...religion PROMOTES freedom!
+Alexa Antonaras I agree. Now women will need to check a prospective boss's 'religious' stance onhow she can treat her body before accepting a job. NOT good...
Religious practices are not compulsory, so to practice, or not, is to exercise your freedom.  Some of the first people who want to keep religion out of govt. are the same one's who want to impose govt. on religion.  Keep them separate, but it needs to work both ways.
+Alexa Antonaras Sure they have to obey our laws.  We shouldn't pass laws that force them to do things, or pay for things, they don't believe in.  To practice religion is voluntary.  You think it is restrictive, fine, don't practice it.
Religion's greatest fear is that someone somewhere is having fun.
+Alexa Antonaras I don't believe in religion, so I shouldn't pay for military chaplains, the boy scouts, or school voucher for private religious schools, right?
Obama administration is under court order to produce a new version of the HHS mandate, thanks to a federal court that essentially forced their attorneys to admit that HHS wouldn’t enforce the version that the White House has pushed for the last ten months.  That’s the so-called “accommodation” that asked everyone to pretend that funds used to provide contraception had no relation to the premiums paid by the employer. That wasn’t going to fly, and everyone knew it, including the White House months ago.
+Jared Carlisle Yes sir it is about making them pay.  Hobby Lobby is self-insured.  The law will now require them to pay for contraception.  It's really a bigger issue.  Now the floodgates have been opened for the govt to force us to buy just about anything it deems good and necessary.
+Alexa Antonaras Agreed. This is not about your beliefs, this is about treating women like humans.
If men could get a pill to not knock women up, it would be over the counter for less than the price of a pack of gum TOMORROW.
Then go move to another "industrialized nation" idiot!
You're an idiot, I don't argue with idiots...Blocked!
This was nothing but an election-year throw down to divide religious people from non-religious people, and create an issue to scare single female voters. You might not have seen the ads Obama’s campaign ran on this, but they did run at least one ad that explicity mentioned Romney and Republicans favoring “allowing your employer to decide whether you can have birth control.” This ad was shown heavily in Virginia and other swing states.
The mandate served its purpose. Now that Obama is safely reelected and understands he’s going to get whacked on this by the courts anyway, there’s little to lose in quietly retreating.
+Jared Carlisle Another angry lefty who wishes to legislate his set of beliefs on the rest of us poor, struggling morons who don't know any better.  Thank you, oh benevolent wise one!  Now tell me, what should I have for lunch?
"Another angry lefty who wishes to legislate his set of beliefs on the rest of us poor, struggling morons who don't know any better." true.
+Jim Deatherage *now* I'm debating you. I'm advocating treating all people of any gender equally, while everyone seems to be okay with people who have a special delusion being told that they get to treat women differently.
+Jim Deatherage No, the Muslim societies are much worse than the Americans - because they let religion run their society. That's why people like me, sworn to defend the constitution, fight so hard against religion worming its way into politics. Because the Taliban is what happens when you let religion run things.
+lois howe I'm not changing your religion. I think it's worthless, but I don't care if you believe in it, because that's your constitutional right. My problem is when you think you have the right to impose your religion on others.That's unacceptable.
Christians - "Gawd's" stupidest people...(by FAR)...
+Rodney Peterson I have no particular bias against christians - I think all religions are equally worthless. However, as I say, I will defend to the death your right to believe it. Until it infringes on the freedom & happiness of others.
+Alexa Antonaras This is not a thing that needs to be subject to making the shareholders happy. And we've recently seen in the news how well going to a religion-run hospital can go for you if it's against their BS beliefs (the chick who died because a hospital wouldn't give her an abortion).
I'm still waiting for FOX news to tell me what to lefty's and your fox news line is really getting old. I suppose you form all your opinions by watching the View.
Independent studies from liberal "think" tanks.  Really, you Fox news trolls are something else.
Media bias is OK, as long as it's not against our moonbat liberal views!
+Spencer Scott Oh, you mean like everyone is silent every time some Repubilcan is forced out of the closet? Yeah, nobody EVER talks about that.
+Spencer Scott No, actually, All the other networks lie too. But not all of them blatantly deny science, reality, and basic humanity every time they come on the air.
That's probably a stat you got from MSNBC.
While the moonbats troll Fox News, unemployment up to 7.9%, GDP falling......
Climates change, soccer moms in SUV's aren't the cause.  
Hahahaha.  Only Obama moonbats think this new normal of high unemployment is great.  
8.5 million out of work in Obama's first term.  Forward!  
Not completely true about the manufacturing jobs there Jared, but they do keep going away. Obummer gets his way with Assault Weapons, or so called Assault Weapons, some more will be going away however.
Gun manufacturing is still manufacturing. It's my country Alexa, and so far I still have free speech, until they take that away, I'll sound as ignorant as I like. Would you prefer "The current POTUS"? Not that i care what you or anyone else thinks how I sound. Come to think of it, it's electrons on a screen, I am not so sure they make much of a sound.
+Dwayne Mattson Free speech means you can say what you want - it doesn't mean that you have the right not to be insulted if someone doesn't like your speech.
Let's discuss policy. What policy would you like to discuss?
I'm sorry...but the idea that we need BIPARTISAN agreement in order to have a functioning government is down right ignorant of how the government was set up in the first place.  The purpose of the government is to create the fewest number of laws needed in order to keep peace.  That's why the Constitution was designed the way it is.  The idea is to promote partisanship in order to prevent any stupid law(s) from being passed.  Honestly, some of the laws on the books today are beyond stupid.  For example, if one finds a deer on their property with 3 broken legs (presumably due to a hit-and-run with a car or truck), one cannot simply go out and shoot said deer to put it out of its miserable suffering.  One needs to first call the police.  The police then turn the matter over to the State's department of natural resources.  The DNR then turns the matter over to the ASPCA.  The ASPCA then turns it over to PETA.  PETA then refers the matter back to the police.  It's stupid.  And if one instead shoots the deer to kill it, one may be seen killing an animal "out of season" and prosecuted for it.  Sorry, but that's the stupidest set of laws we have...and that's just a single example.  There are tons more.  And why?  Because idiots back in the day COMPROMISED to create a BIPARTISAN law.  Dumb.

What we need to realize is that Government is NOT the answer.  It's the PROBLEM!  WE, the PEOPLE, are the answer.  Stop trying to turn to the government and waiting for those bozos to pass a law.  First of all, a law probably already exists anyway concerning the matter (see Immigration "reform" ).  Secondly, the government compromising into passing a law will only make things even harder to understand (not easier), which turns everything into a total cluster@#$%(see Obamacare). point this back in the direction of the original post, all Obamacare has done is alienate even further people from their employers.  And for what purpose?!?
We don't...and that's why our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution the way they did: to make it so that a dictatorship could NOT occur.  They did even allow for secession to take place (hence the 10th amendment).

However, they were wise men.  They knew that they didn't know everything and that they would make some kind of mistakes.  As such, they did allow for the citizens to elect representatives to  make changes when and if it was necessary. 
Oh...they wanted bickering for sure...that was a given.  That would thus prevent liars and those greedy bastards from taking over and perverting the government.  However, some politically correct morons insisted that bickering was unbecoming of a politician.  Well...look where that's gotten us now?
And that's because we have allowed stupid idiots to be elected who put their own self interests before that of those they swore to represent.  That's NOT the Founding Fathers fault, that's our own.  And we do know what they were thinking.  Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (at least that's a start)....they tell you EXACTLY what they were thinking and worried about.
+Alexa Antonaras The founders were very prolific writers. They left plenty to read that would give us insight. Thomas Jefferson's writings would be a good place to start.
+Dejan Jancevski It's largely because of the citizens united decision, and the gross misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. That's where a large portion of the corrupting money in politics comes from.
Here's a thought...why are we paying so much attention to the "television" media?  What we need is to go back to the printed internet, as great as it is, is NO substitute for actual fact posting on a sheet of paper delivered to the masses.
The key factor is that the states wanted to retain their individual  sovereignty and that the purpose of the Federal Government was essentially to provide a National Defense and Regulate Interstate Commerce. The majority of the governing was to be done at the state level.
you guys have faith....just not the right kind. we know what the liberal religion is. you two trolls go ahead and gang up on me if it helps you feel better. i understand you're just misguided children
+Alexa Antonaras, perhaps only thing to fear of states being different is the fact that would encourage diversity in our nation overall. And since when is diversity a bad thing? Even if the Civil War would have never happened and had Lincoln allowed the southern states to secede, I have full belief that the southern states within 20 years would ventrally crawl back into the Union begging, and they would have given up their slaves instantly to do so. It is all about economics.
Or maybe stop following a bullshit religion that takes its teachings from a book filled with lies, whose higher officers rape little boys and cover it up, and dresses their leader like a Mardi Gras decoration, you fucking moron.
Go figure, someone from LA hates religion.....hmmmm
FOX news is the only one talking about Hagels ineptness 
This fool is beginning to look like the Wile E. Coyote of American politics.
What I love about Obama care is when Nancy Pelosi said we had to wait for it to be signed before we could read it. Does that sound like a smart way to run a government?
Please understand, we are making things up as we go along.Just trust we have what's politically expedient foremost on our minds.
Yes, politically expedient, in this day and age, whatever sounds best in a sound byte. The whole Washington DC set needs whacked with a reality stick and sent to live in Westby Montana to live in a tent.
i would like to say what is obama thinking if you are against paying for it   for religous reasons why would it be better if another insurence pays for it  because they would still be paying for it
i hate your "news", none of it is honest. Shame on you all!
Anyone trying to argue "for" religion here needs to accept the reality that Freedom of Religion also includes Freedom from religion. 

A lot of "patriots" seem feel that religion needs to be more important in our government, which is all the more reason to add them the ranks of the unemployed in 2014.....
you say civility you say freedom from religion i am not a religous person but i do belive aperson has that right to believe what they want and being civilare u nuts
So, exactly what is it you have against the Tea Party?
Add a comment...