Video: Dem Rep booed by constituents over HHS mandate

posted at 10:15 am on February 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Rep. Kathy Hochul expected to get some questions on the economy and on gas prices when she met with constituents in New York’s 26th Congressional district last night.  Instead, the freshman Democrat got booed by a crowded room over her support for the HHS mandate on contraception and abortifacients, and spent the evening getting an earful from angry voters:

When Hochul spoke in support of the President, the crowd booed. Many in the audience carried signs, including one that read: “Kathy why have you betrayed our Catholic institutions?” One woman in the crowd told Hochul: “This President has lied to us repeatedly when he proclaims support for conscience protection in his infamous speech at Notre Dame as well as in the executive order he signed following passage of the health care law. He is not worthy of your support in this matter.” Another man shouted “It’s an insult to the Catholics in this country to even listen to that gibberish. It is an absolute insult and Catholics deserve better. We were taking care of this country’s sick long before the government got involved in it.”

Pastor Leon Bienart of Our Lady of Pompeii Church also asked Hochul if the President or Congress consulted with Catholic bishops before they issued the policy. Hochul replied that it was a good question and she would try to get an answer. The Congresswoman also replied this way to the questions and criticism “We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here. Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

The meeting was heavily publicized on Catholic radio and many Catholic organizations encouraged people to attend and discuss the contraception issue. It was also brought up specifically by Father Beinart during his Mass on February 5th when he criticized President Obama and Congresswoman Hochul.

A week ago or so, Duane Patterson and I got into a debate on my show over the impact of the HHS mandate on Catholic voters.  Duane worried that Barack Obama had split Catholic voters, but I reminded Duane that the Catholic vote is always split, and usually tilts slightly towards Democrats.  Obama won the Catholic vote by nine points in 2008.  What Obama did was unify Catholics — and not just Catholics, either — in opposition to his arrogance.  Bishops and priests are organizing opposition to this mandate, and this is just one small measure of the result.

Hochul, it should be remembered, is only in office because of Chris Lee’s virtual tomcatting on Internet dating sites.  He resigned when the scandal broke, and Hochul won the special election in an R+6 district one year ago.  It was one of the few rays of sunshine for Democrats midway through Obama’s term, but her chances of winning again seem to be dimming substantially in NY-26.  This is a small measure of the political miscalculation made by Obama and his administration on the mandate, and perhaps a signal to opponents of the mandate in other districts to follow suit.

Update: This claim from Hochul is categorically false:

“We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here. Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

They still have to provide insurance to their employees that includes free contraception and abortifacients.  Who pays for the insurance?  The religious organizations that get forced to facilitate those transactions, since they can no longer opt out of offering the insurance and must pay a large part of the premiums — and in some cases, the religious organizations self-insure, which means the money comes directly out of their pockets rather than indirectly.  Either way, they most certainly still do have to “provide these services.”  Hochul either is woefully misinformed or willfully lying to her constituents.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Good bye, Kathy.

artist on February 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM

They should do more than boo!

KOOLAID2 on February 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Progressive politics is a religion.

Obama will still get half the Catholic vote…..just a s he will get the majority of the Jewish vote regardless of any decision he makes.

rickyricardo on February 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Lies won’t save them. Why do they think they can just lie their way out? It’s crazy.

RBMN on February 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Here’s a message to socialist Catholic democrats:
See what happens when you lie down with dogs?

Badger40 on February 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM

But I don’t see a conflict here.

Evidently BLIND as well as STUPID.

GarandFan on February 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM

We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here. Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

No Kathy dear, we are not going to agree.

Heavy sigh. Another congress critter who has no understanding of our Constitution.

FLconservative on February 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM

And how does she not know that Obama didn’t meet with any Catholic reps before he did this? She lies.

FLconservative on February 25, 2012 at 10:25 AM

rickyricardo on February 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I can guaran-damn-tee you that I’m one Jew who will NOT be voting Democrat. EVER. And I hope there’s a lot more out there like me that you don’t normally hear from.

Rixon on February 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

“Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

When did this happen? Or is she just lying?

PetecminMd on February 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Note to Catholics: Elections have consequences. Pay attention.

HumpBot Salvation on February 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM

The spin on this issue is intense and as complete as I have ever seen, but nobody seems to be buying it. Every story talks about Obama’s “compromise” but never mentions his complete lack of authority to issue this edict in the first place.

Mord on February 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Identity politics for all.

I mean the thrust of your article is that these are women objecting. Right?

Please stop this. Not only are you making this easy for Obama, but you are hurting Democracy.

We need a credible alternative offering meaningful opposition.

When you promote 17th century policy, Obama skates.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:32 AM

The Congresswoman also replied this way to the questions and criticism “We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here. Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

Wow. That’s arrogant. I hope someone runs against her; then her constituents can tell her that her continuation as their representative is something “we’re just going to have to disagree on.”

mountainaires on February 25, 2012 at 10:32 AM

There are a lot of democrat parishioners in my church who feel angry and betrayed, not only about the mandate, but about the willingness to sacrifice the charitable services provided to the poor over a false need. They are waking up to being used as pawns in a political game at the expense of true need.

redmama on February 25, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Instead, the freshman Democrat NEW PROGRESSIVE/ MARXIST IN TRAINING got booed by a crowded room over her support for the HHS mandate on contraception and abortifacients, and spent the evening getting an earful from angry voters:

Catholics need to wake up and smell the juice in the communion cup.

The Progressives view the CHURCH (all of them really) as a threat to THEIR POWER.

Progressives first and foremost object of worship is Government power, and them controlling it.

ALL POWER TO THE STATE THAT THEY CONTROL.

It’s that simple.

PappyD61 on February 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM

What a fool this woman is. Instead of paying attention to her district, she was a mindless lackey for Pelosi and Obama.

GMO on February 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Feigned ignorance combined wih a healthy dose of arrogance. What she is really saying is that the bill doesn’t say what her constituents say that it says and she dang well knows it.

How much you want to bet Obama goes after the Catholic church’s tax exempt status if he gets re-elected?

iwasbornwithit on February 25, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Media Democrats continue to lie about the “exemption” for religious institutions which do not approve of killing babies. It is crap, of course, and we should all be vigilant about attacking these lies whenever we hear them.

Catholics will be paying for abortions through OBozoCare in every instance, through taxes and through increased health insurance premiums from insurance companies forced by government fiat to provide abortifacients “free” to women insured through their Catholic employers.

Jaibones on February 25, 2012 at 10:36 AM

When did this happen? Or is she just lying?

PetecminMd on February 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM

If i thought you were a Democrat i’d give you 5 guesses.

heshtesh on February 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM

(Democrat Emulation)

There is no conflict with Religious Liberty, You can STILL go to Church on Sunday!

And your Religion should STAY IN Church.

So, get with the program, No One Lied, and there is No Conflict with Religious Liberties here!

(/Democrat Emulation)

jaydee_007 on February 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM

abortifacients.

Ed, you do know that the morning after pill is the same hormone as the Pill, just higher levels?

ALL women know this.

So you look like a zealot when you make a distinction.

What you propose would have women eating 3-4 Pills instead, which offers similar results but is more dangerous.

Obama for the win.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

“Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

When did this happen? Or is she just lying?

PetecminMd on February 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You’re asking the wrong question, Pete. Take a look at the First Amendment again. Where, in that Amendment, does it say Government can restrict religious practices of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc so long as they’re restricting the religious practices of individual Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc?

John Hitchcock on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Rep. Kathy Hochul supports PRESIDENT INFANTICIDE.

THAT is all you need to know.

Google: Obama, Born Alive Infant protection act, Illinois Senate.

Long long ago did Barack Obama (and other Progressives as well in both parties) leave his soul at the first altar of the Progressive Temple of Power (Abortion).

You see, you must first have a blood sacrifice to enter their temple.

And that sacrifice takes place at the altar of the blood of the unborn.

Once you’re willing to cover yourself with that blood you’re permitted to move further into their hallowed halls of power in the temple.

PappyD61 on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Obama wants these hospitals to close down. Him and his Democrats wants everyone to come to the government as a beggar.

Axion on February 25, 2012 at 10:40 AM

That Obama says this is in any way an “accommodation” is based on his belief that money grows on trees, and that the government can “give” people free stuff by fiat. If they say it, then it becomes reality, at no cost. Look more closely, and the Catholic Church has to pay for it either way. There’s no such thing as free contraception.

Paul-Cincy on February 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM

abortifacients.

Ed, you do know that the morning after pill is the same hormone as the Pill, just higher levels?

ALL women know this.

So you look like a zealot when you make a distinction.

What you propose would have women eating 3-4 Pills instead, which offers similar results but is more dangerous.

Obama for the win.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

IUDs are also abortifacients. So is “Ella,” which is “not intended for routine use as a contraceptive.” So you sound ignorant when you focus on just the Pill.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Hey, freshface, there are more contraceptives than “the Pill”. And I have been opposed to “the Pill” for years because, yes, one of the three ways it prevents childbirth is by aborting the fertilized egg. I’m not opposed to contraception that does not abort, just opposed to paying for yours out of my pocket.

And since it is indeed a religious issue, and the First Amendment is very clear what the Federal Government cannot do, and it is also very clear that the Democrats/Obama/Sebelius are doing that very thing the Constitution says they cannot do… You’re wrong, like usual.

John Hitchcock on February 25, 2012 at 10:47 AM

freshface,

If you came here to be nothing but a Liberal Troll, why did you register at all?

kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services

 
There’s no severance clause in Obamacare.
 
Doesn’t this “accommodation” destroy the entire bill?

rogerb on February 25, 2012 at 10:49 AM

” I certainly have tremendous respect contempt for the individuals who came out here today to voice their opinions…”

FIFY

Dopenstrange on February 25, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Obama for the win.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Please describe what that “win” looks like.

BobMbx on February 25, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Dear NY-26,

Boo with your feet in November.

22044 on February 25, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Christians are under attack right now, not only from Liberal idiots, but from those who claim to “Conservatives” as well.

Obama’s mandate has opened the flood gates, and there are some rough waters ahead.

kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 10:51 AM


Now that there’s been an accommodation

The “accomodation” is vaporware, it is not in the regulation as finally adopted. It is a “promise” to do something about this in the future and, just like all Obama promises, it will be forgotten when the media furor dies down. We shouldn’t let the media get away with playing this as though the “accomodation” is part of the law now. It isn’t.

jdp629 on February 25, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I’ve always felt that, as the Vatican is a sovereign state and a huge bureaucracy, the Catholic church has an instituional affinity for governmentally enforced ‘charity’. When moral scandals take place, they definitely behave more like an earthly organization than a body of believers. The inherent contradictions between their ostensible positions and their behavior will only continue to cause problems for them, but I’m sure that hubris and fancy lawyering will see them through this crisis.

Fenris on February 25, 2012 at 10:54 AM

routine?
Again Ed, maybe this isn’t a topic you should be writing about if you know so little.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/08/is_ella_birth_control_or_abortion.html

Keep splitting those hairs.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM

It really has nothing to do with birth control, per se, it has to do with obama thinking he can make the churches do what he wants them to do. So as Glenn says, “we are all Catholics now, just as he said we are all Jews now.”

It is more important for him to cut the costs of health care by killing all pre-born children than by having them born and having to pay for their health care as they grow.

It is more important for him to woe the feminists then it is for him to understand religious freedom and 1st ammendment rights.

BTW, is he exempting muslims from this health strangle hold? Whether we acknowledge it or not, the muslims have up to 4 wives even living in this country and they have many children from those 4 wives. So, I believe this id the way he wants to shift the country? Kill all the black and white babies and the muslims gain control of our government in not too many years.

Watching the muslims immigrate to the US, they come with one man and one wife and several aunts who bring in their children. Who believes they are aunts? They really are the other wives. The children are very careful in school to identify the children as cousins and not as siblings. Right!

Why isn’t this acknowledged by anyone?
I only hope the Catholics and the Jews wake up because he will come for everyone’s religion – this is only the beginning. After all, “we had to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” (poulouseee)

Bambi on February 25, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Identity politics for all.

I mean the thrust of your article is that these are women objecting. Right?

Please stop this. Not only are you making this easy for Obama, but you are hurting Democracy.

We need a credible alternative offering meaningful opposition.

When you promote 17th century policy, Obama skates.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:32 AM

And when you find yourself in a similar situation, no matter the issue, i.e., the Supplicant-in-Chief denying you what you believe to be rightfully yours – what say you then?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 25, 2012 at 10:59 AM

BobMbx on February 25, 2012 at 10:50 AM

“I, Barrack Husein Obama,….”

But like I said above…I hope the GOP gets it’s sh1t together and becomes a credible alternative.

Right now Bohner looks like a zoo keeper.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM

routine?
Again Ed, maybe this isn’t a topic you should be writing about if you know so little.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/08/is_ella_birth_control_or_abortion.html

Keep splitting those hairs.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Did you really just use “Slate” as a source for your information? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…now that’s some real unbiased “journalism.”

Dopenstrange on February 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Note to Democrats: Lies have consequences.

Roy Rogers on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I notice that you completely ignored the fact that IUDs are in fact abortifacients, and that your original point is buncumb. But as Medical News Today reported two years ago about Ella when the FDA approved its use:

The FDA stresses that Ella is not intended for routine use as a contraceptive.

And as the FDA instructs on its website to this day:

ella is for occasional use as an emergency contraceptive. It should not replace a regular method of contraception. Repeated use of ella within the same menstrual cycle is not recommended, as safety and efficacy of repeat use within the same cycle has not been evaluated.

Its only approved use is as an abortifacient. Perhaps you should take your ignorant trolling elsewhere.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

This is more about Obama telling a private instition, be it religious, small business or large corporation how they must conduct their business.

Socmodfiscon on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Hochul won this seat on a wave of “Mediscare” in the wake of Paul Ryan’s proposed budget which she shamelessly mischaracterized. Expect a similar attempt in this Fall’s election. The GOP needs to turn the table by pointing out that Obamacare will allow the government to decide what procedures will be performed and who will get them in order to control costs. The older people in this district that were falsely scared about losing medicare should be correctly scared of premature death due to Obamacare rationing. Elderly GOP leaning electorates will not rate very high on Rahm Emanuel’s brother’s scale of who is worth treating.

KW64 on February 25, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Why don’t the drug companies just make it an over the counter pill, then the women, who want it, can pay for it themselves and leave the rest of us, who object out of it.

Bambi on February 25, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Boooooo, add one more.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Perhaps you should take your ignorant trolling elsewhere.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

You go, Ed! Ed 2012! Ed 2012!

Dopenstrange on February 25, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Kathy: Take some time to plan for your new life when you are voted out of office.

Philly on February 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Obama for the win.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

0 is done freshone.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Its only approved use is as an abortifacient. Perhaps you should take your ignorant trolling elsewhere.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Yipee Ed!!!!!

Bambi on February 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06pIHuL631c

Or if you prefer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNqZjlS-kK8

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Note to Catholics: “turn another cheek” does not mean to let yourself beaten into a pulp and ask for more. That’s called BDSM and is certainly a perversion (oops… consenting adults yabada yabada.. is still sick).

So… stop voting for radicals like zerobama. Stop helping muslim terrorists. Raise you voice when some convert from islam is gutted in main square. Stop helping communists.

Rookie on February 25, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Hochul’s also either a liar or desperately spinning when she says:

We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here.

The Church has regarded abortion as a mortal sin for almost 2,000 years. Whether providing abortifacients directly or paying for the insurers to make referrals (or whatever), the HHS mandate requires the Church to partake in mortal sin. I call that a helluva “conflict.”

irishspy on February 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Except, my point clearly was these are all forms of the Pill, in different strengths.

You ignore that and argue instead that women shouldn’t be allowed strong versions of the Pill.

Please argue why women should have to go back to takes 3-4 Pills at once.

That’s the argument you are going to have with the 98% of women who understand the hairs you are trying to split.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM

The Catholic hierarchy and an overwhelming number of Catholic politicians supported Obamacare and they get what they deserve. Force them to pay for every contraception ever invented by man – bring back the sponge – teach this bunch that if they want to live in the seventeenth century when it comes to birth control that is their business but they have to join the rest of us in battling against totalitarian government in Washington. Instead of diddling their altar boys the priests, bishops and cardinals should have been fighting hard against this monstrosity, maybe now they will decide that Republicans and conservatives are their friends otherwise they can have the hyper marxist Obama and all of his mandates.

Smedley on February 25, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Again Ed, maybe this isn’t a topic you should be writing about if you know so little.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Thanks for the lesson in Trolling 101. Give a little information which is probably wrong, then demean the original poster. When he replies, give a link, but don’t bother to summarize what’s in the link. Again demean the OP.

You deserved to be banned, because at this point you’re simply a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal.

Paul-Cincy on February 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM

You ignore that and argue instead that women shouldn’t be allowed strong versions of the Pill.

Really? Please point out where I argue that. What I argued is that employers shouldn’t be forced to pay for contraception, especially religious organizations whose doctrines oppose it. That does not equal that “women shouldn’t be allowed” to have it, merely that women who want to use it should pay for it themselves rather than making their employers provide it for free.

Are you really this ignorant of the issue, or are you just providing satirical performance art?

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Someone should have pointed out to Kathy that she was elected to represent the voters to the government, not to represent the democrat party to the voters.

bofh on February 25, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Paul-Cincy on February 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM

You’re probably right.

But mine is the only link in this thread full of pontification.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Does anyone else get the sneaking suspicion that if a Republican defeats Obama in November the only substantive reform of the healthcare bill will be the elimination of birth control requirements. The way the right is organizing around this and other social issues suggests that they plan on claiming minimal reforms to the law as a “victory.” It might be worth it to see conservatives wail and gnash their teeth over betrayal the way the left has done during Obama….

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

You deserved to be banned, because at this point you’re simply a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal.

Paul-Cincy on February 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Deserve, maybe. But it serves a more useful purpose by being a foil for folks to improve their troll thumpin’ skills.

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:22 AM

But mine is the only link in this thread full of pontification.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Its full of …something, but pontification isn’t the word for it.

kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 11:22 AM

They should provide a tar and feather bar at town halls..

tinkerthinker on February 25, 2012 at 11:22 AM

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

No, I think its just you.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Lets get the the pitchforks and lanterns! They all gotta go, including most of the pub’s. No more career politicians.

angrymike on February 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

No, but that is the way the disingenuous left is trying to frame the debate.

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Deserve, maybe. But it serves a more useful purpose by being a foil for folks to improve their troll thumpin’ skills.

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Has worked wonders for me.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Freshface reminds me of my younger self – unknowingly indoctrinated, full of knowledge but empty of wisdom, addicted to forcing others to make myself feel good through supporting government programs at others’ expense but personally doing very little to promote charity.

Freshface has no idea how the reproductive system works, what the pill actually does inside the body, or what the side effects are of these pills.

When I started to understand how little I knew, that betrayal helped push me along towards liberty. There’s hope yet for Freshface.

quiz1 on February 25, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Hochul either is woefully misinformed or willfully lying to her constituents.

I vote for the latter.

oldleprechaun on February 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM

No, not ignorant.

But I’m arguing political realities.

Once the compromise was made, whether you think it’s constitutional or not, further arguing looks like the issue isn’t really who has to pay for it, rather that anyone has to pay.

If you look at the original post, my point was about you posting an article saying basically ‘look look women protesting hss mandate, the gop doesn’t have a war on women’.

That was my argument.

I also pointed out that 98% of women know the term abortifiecants is used solely by zealots and doesn’t help win any arguments.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I also pointed out that 98% of women know the term abortifiecants is used solely by zealots and doesn’t help win any arguments.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:27 AM

So, it’s politically incorrect to point out that drug ends a life?

kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 11:29 AM

No, but that is the way the disingenuous left is trying to frame the debate.

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Which is why these constituents came to the table with a host of economic concerns? Who is framing the debate how?

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM

This Democrat is just another dim bulb!
There IS NOT ACCOMMODATION!
Birth control is a MANDATED FEATURE OF ALL HEALTH CARE PLANS! Therefore, the plans provided by Catholic run entities must have this feature, whether they pay for it or someone else does.

Government should not have to tell me what I “SHALL” have in my health care policy or for any policy I might purchase.

I should be able to tell an insurance company what I want and the insurance company should be allowed to give me what I want. Neither side should have to take orders from this damn government!

Even my homeowners policy would be lower in Florida if the Government didn’t mandate what had to be covered!

Get Government and Democrats out of my way and out of my wallet and let those who want to be promiscuous, pay for their own crap!

Delsa on February 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Only one problem Rep. Kathy Hochul, The United States of America isn’t a “democracy.” We are a Constitutional Republic. Rep. Kathy Hochul also needs to re-read the Constitution and she should pay very close attention to enumerated powers and the 1st Amendment.

I’m sure Rep. Kathy Hochul would love if we were a democracy, considering that is really mob rule.

Conservative4Ever on February 25, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Perhaps you should take your ignorant trolling elsewhere.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Obama Ed for the win.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Del Dolemonte on February 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Last line:

Hochul either is woefully misinformed or willfully lying to her constituents.

Always assume that a leftist is willfully lying. That is the logical assumption.

IronDioPriest on February 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Obama for the win.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Please describe what that “win” looks like.

BobMbx on February 25, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Apparently, Pyrrhic victories count as “wins.”

Myron Falwell on February 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Which is why these constituents came to the table with a host of economic concerns? Who is framing the debate how?

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Constituents expressed their concerns, to their representative. Much more civilly, and on target, than the left does. Can you say OWS, I thought you could.

If you look at the original post, my point was about you posting an article saying basically ‘look look women protesting hss mandate, the gop doesn’t have a war on women’.

That was my argument.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I did, again. No, it wasn’t.

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM

ED
I know you won’t, but there should be extra control on the trolls who come to this site daily to start arguments. I know you let most of them hang themselves, but I have noticed they seem to go after you, Tina, Jazz and others first then us. The ban hammer should have a ignorant troll switch you could throw to take out the trash.

angrymike on February 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Obama will still get half the Catholic vote…..just a s he will get the majority of the Jewish vote regardless of any decision he makes.

rickyricardo on February 25, 2012 at 10:20 AM

In terms of practicing Catholics, however, it wouldn’t be a contest… depending, of course, on whom is selected as the GOP nominee.

Myron Falwell on February 25, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Does anyone else get the sneaking suspicion that if a Republican defeats Obama in November the only substantive reform of the healthcare bill will be the elimination of birth control requirements.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

No, I think you’re alone on that idea.

But you’re not alone in raising the possibility that a Republican might beat O’bama in November!

Del Dolemonte on February 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Which is why these constituents came to the table with a host of economic concerns? Who is framing the debate how?

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM

LOL. The abortion-addicted Obama trolls tried to use contraception as an excuse and are getting it thrown back in their faces.

Looks like Barack Obama’s attempts to make Catholic churches pay for abortions and lie about it just blew up in the Obama Party’s face.

Hochul is toast in November because everyone recognizes she’s an abortion-addicted liar.

What will you do when Barack Obama and the Obama Party are swept out of office, libfreeordie, and you have to work rather than live off a welfare check?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM

angrymike on February 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM

They need to practice on the easy one’s too. They are pros now, they get this wherever they go. From other pros.

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I like the their compromise: instead of forcing an institution to pay for something, they will force a business to give away their product for free.

Where is the environmental movement on all this? Birth control pill endangers fish populations

The real question is why does Obama hate fish so much that he is subsidizing hormonal water pollution?

Laurence on February 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Praying that Obama and Democrat lackies like Hochul continue their attack on the Church.

Talk about choosing sides.

Roy Rogers on February 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

angrymike on February 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Or Ed could just lend me that wonderful hammer.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I also pointed out that 98% of women know the term abortifiecants is used solely by zealots and doesn’t help win any arguments.

freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I know Democrats believe 98% of women are stupid, but that’s only because they believe 98% of people are stupid.

BKennedy on February 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Once you’re willing to cover yourself with that blood you’re permitted to move further into their hallowed halls of power in the temple.

PappyD61 on February 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

OMG, so well stated, Pappy. Well said!

We need to use a metaphorical “D61″ on “some folks”, soonest.

Who is John Galt on February 25, 2012 at 11:38 AM

So, it’s politically incorrect to point out that drug ends a life?

kingsjester on February 25, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I think abortificant is a perfectly fine term for those pills, that is what they do, also they should be legal, just like abortion. The terminology means little.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I know Democrats believe 98% of women are stupid, but that’s only because they believe 98% of people are stupid.

BKennedy on February 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Well, you can’t exactly blame them for that; 98% of Obama Party members and supporters ARE stupid. Look at freshface and libfreeordie.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Or Ed could just lend me that wonderful hammer.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

You’ve barely learned to drive post. A hammer would be way to much horsepower at this time. It might go to your head…

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Please argue why women should have to go back to takes 3-4 Pills at once.
That’s the argument you are going to have with the 98% of women who understand the hairs you are trying to split.
freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM

You can put in your body exactly what you want and no one is stopping you. PAY THE DARN THING FOR YOURSELF and don’t ask anyone else to pick up the tab!
I’m sure even Catholic women who use contraceptives do not want obozo to make their Church pay for something they don’t believe in.

Bambi on February 25, 2012 at 11:41 AM

What will you do when Barack Obama and the Obama Party are swept out of office, libfreeordie, and you have to work rather than live off a welfare check?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Oh, I’m sure they’ll be an opening for me at some baby murdering factory where I can feed my abortion addiction. I have to tell you, that’s a very inconvenient addiction to struggle with. Having to follow pregnant ladies around, tricking them into setting up Planned Parenthood centers. So much labor, so to speak, involved.

/////No amount of sarc tags will convince cray cray NDThirty that this is tongue in cheek, but I should try anyway.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:43 AM

The ban hammer should have a ignorant troll switch you could throw to take out the trash.

angrymike on February 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I’ve administered pretty good-sized forums in the past and dealing with trolls and just argumentative people is one of the most time-consuming, emotionally-exhausting, and generally thankless jobs of being a forum admin. You can’t win, because if you deal with them properly, you lose time and energy, and if you don’t, the forum loses. Lose-lose.

Paul-Cincy on February 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

It would have been an interesting statement to stand up in the front row, turn around to tha audience and ask “how many of you voted for Obama in ’08?”. …Wait for some hands to go up… “Do you feel stupid, now?”

kurtzz3 on February 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Perhaps you should take your ignorant trolling elsewhere.
Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM

You guys let ‘em in.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 25, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Smedley on February 25, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Have you tried anger management?
What, it didn’t work?
Thanks for the demonstration of failure.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 25, 2012 at 11:46 AM

You’ve barely learned to drive post. A hammer would be way to much horsepower at this time. It might go to your head…

cozmo on February 25, 2012 at 11:40 AM

No I would make a promise to only use it on others heads.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3