I, too, am a Catholic woman who stands by the teachings of the Church, not just on some issues, but all of them. The Church is not a cafeteria or political party where you can pick which teachings you accept and which you reject. If you reject one, you are not in good standing with the Church. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves on the teachings.
For someone who is inclined to reject the teaching of the Church on contraception, I suggest reading Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) and listening to "Contraception: Cracking the Myth" by Prof. Janet Smith, available to download mp3 here for $2.50 (http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/contraception-cracking-the-myths).

It is not about being the minority/majority Catholic, but in good standing or not.

No one in any way is proposing to restrict Catholic's rights to their beliefs and teachings. To frame the argument this way is to play the religion card. This was a scientific study. It showed that one way to reduce abortions is to increase access to birth control.

Now, some, presumably because of religious beliefs, may find birth control as equally abhorrent as abortions. However, many in the mainstream probably don't find birth control in the least bit offensive. Many in the mainstream, even many of the pro-choice side of the debate, would be quite happy with reducing the number of abortions in the world. This study points to one way to accomplish that goal. Now, what exactly is wrong with that?

Please don't muddy the waters by crying about how you are being forced to pay for birth control. That has absolutely nothing to do with this study.

Isn't it also you CHOICE to believe in such nonsense as Christianity?

This study was funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

"There are clinics that people who cannot pay for them may get them free."
These programs are largely funded by tax dollars, right?
If you don't want to use birth control or have an abortion then don't. It is a religious objection, not a tax dollar objection. You have a right to your religious beliefs, but we have separation of Church and State in this country. Your anti-choice stance is a Church issue, not a State issue. Talking about tax dollars, how much does it cost society to support impoverished (usually) single mothers to take care of a kid they did not want in the first place? A LOT more than free birth control costs. I am very much in favor of social welfare programs, I would not want to social support network to further deteriorate. I would rather supply free birth control (or abortions) than pay with my tax dollars for free or reduced school lunches, food stamps, section 8 housing, state subsidized daycare in the foster care system, perhaps incarceration of people being brought into this world by ill equipped parents who did not want (more) kids in the first place.
And by the way, forcing a woman who wants an abortion (whatever her reason) to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound is demeaning and is an assault physically and emotionally.
A woman's health decisions are private.

Elaine:
With due Respect,
You are a "Hypocrite" claiming you are Catholic. "thinking for yourself" gets you closer to GOD? (than any Sunday Mass?)
Abortion Is a personal matter , but Catholic Beliefs must not be "half-Catholic".
A choice for "religion" you have. But A choice to Abortion approlval does not come under Catholicism. You obviously believe you can be a Catholic and be "married" by a justice of the Peace. My you have just denied "GOD" and everything Catholics stand for. I have nothing against your Freedom to choose , your intelligence, your choice rights, but please don't call yourself a Catholic.

You are of the "freedom to worship" mindset instead of "free exercise of religion" which is what our first amendment is actually about. That means freedom not only to worship the God of our choosing, but to practice our beliefs in all areas of our lives.
As citizens, part of our lives are lived in the political arena and we bring our beliefs with us, we don't check them at the door.

Ken:
Individuals in any group are controlled by "Laws" creted by People.
One's Religion does not mean they are not a political group.
They have a right to meet and discuss HOW any laws affect their faith.
Now, it was our President and congress that imposed Laws on Catholics and every other Religious faith Citizen in US.
Teachings from the Pulpit have much history in discussing "Morals" and Church teachings to it's members.

It is not Politics as you define it. If you want to publicly stay out of politics, then so be it.
You will continue to see All "Religions stolen right before your eyes".
Why? Because taking a Catholics money to pay for anothers' "non-religion Moral beliefs" is a loss of "Religious Freedom".
You better read that ten times.

@m jansen "freedom...to practice our beliefs in all areas of our lives"? Exactly where is that guaranteed? Think about it; it would cause real problems, i.e. eye for an eye, honor killings are milder more recent ones that come to mind. Free practice of religion where it does not interfere with the law of the land and others' rights is closer to reality, and as it should be. Your religion is not the only out there; be careful what rights you wish all Americans to have.

Paul, as for your first paragraph, I agree with you completely. That is exactly what I means when I said people have the right to vote according to their beliefs. I wouldn't take that away from anyone. And I also agree that every church has the right to meet and discuss how any proposed laws will impact their beliefs. Again, we are 100% on the same page here. As far as the second paragraph, I don't know if I've read it 10 times, but I've read it more than once. I can see how my original post would be easily misconstrued and be interpreted as inflammatory. My apologies. I was not suggesting anyone check their beliefs at the voting booth, to do so would be asinine. What I was getting at is the way some churches organize and try to impose their agendas on political leaders in a very public and vocal way, that is the only thing that bothers me in the least. I don't know that we are talking about taking "a Catholic's money" to fund things with which they disagree. We are not talking about taking the money donated directly to churches to fund anything. We are talking about an employer providing benefits to its employees. That is the issue on the table as I see it. My apologies to you any anyone who felt my intent was to say that your beliefs should be left at the door. By all means, keep them with you and let them guide your life and decisions, as I will.

"Who are you to tell someone they can or can't take birth control or have an abortion because of YOUR beliefs."

(Ignoring the implication that holding a belief and requesting that it be respected somehow interferes with the free will of others)
Running with that logic...
What if someone believed stealing was wrong and told someone else they shouldn't steal? Or what if a girl told someone they shouldn't kill her friend because she believes murder is wrong?

Tina - Do whatever you want with your own body....just stop expecting it to be for "free". In other words, be a grown up and pay for your own contraception.

Elizabeth, perhaps it is you who should grow up and not expect society to subsidize your faith in intergalactic undead zombie carpenters.

If a corporation (which any Church is, in the U.S.) decides to rely upon 501c3, it must exist within the limits of that designation. It's the law. You don't pick and choose because the corporate heads decide that certain biological facts are undesirable (including contraception). These corporations are free to preach all they like to their employees to not use contraception, but they can't force them to not use contraception under their plan.

Your concern for the corporation is touching, but let's be honest. You don't like contraception and your entire argument is about taking away the choice of others based on your belief in the Great Sky God. Don't want your money paying for contraceptives? Don't participate and pay out of pocket for everything.

As Mike K pointed out, where does your line of reasoning end? Shall Mormon groups prevent coverage of migraine treatments involving caffeine? BLASPHEMY!

OMG - Tina you are a liberal idiot. Choose and believe what you want. DO NOT help your liberal leaders pass laws that FORCE OTHERS who do not share your beliefs to violate their own by FORCING them to pay for your "choice". You have your choice. Fund it yourself. How do you NOT see the hypocrisy in your double standard comment??? Oh, wait, I forgot logic is not a liberal strong point. No one is forcing you to believe anything. Just stay out of our pockets! Btw, when the government forces Catholic organizations or Catholic citizens to fund birth control or abortions they ARE in fact telling them that they can't practice their choice of faith. How do you NOT see that??? Practice what YOU preach and stay OUT of everyone's personal business!!! Sorry for my anger folks, but I have no more tolerance left for this kind of rampant liberal stupidity. Look how it has damaged this country in just four short years. Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic, but I strongly believe the government needs to stay out of religious choice. That is stated clearly in our constitution and for good reason. The British knew what that meant, and they didn't want it here.

All this religious mudslinging and playing the victim has absolutely ZERO to do with the article. Have any of you even read the article or any of the links?

The study found one way to reduce abortions. Many consider that a good thing, maybe you don't, maybe you do.

I think most mainstream Americans on both the right and the left would like to reduce the number of abortions. Now, if people of one particular religious belief find the solution to the problem equally offensive, that is their right under the Constitution. But they can not just go around telling the rest of us what to do. Seriously, it's that simple!

The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian religion in the world.
When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no hospitals. Today, one out of five people in this country receive their medical care at a Catholic hospital.
When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no schools. Today, the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in its more than 250 Catholic Colleges and Universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic High Schools and its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools.
Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world.
The new Obama Health Mandate could end all this and the tax payers would have to make up the loss.
Also, all Catholic adoption services would come to an end. A human disaster.
Where would this country be if just the Catholic schools closed. They get no subsidy for their schools and if made to pay for contraception, abortion and sterilization, they could decide to close their doors instead of being forced to pay for these things as an employer. I always wonder where we would be if the Blessed Virgin Mary had an abortion - afterall,l she was a young teenager at the time.

From the SSM website - largest Catholic hospital system in the area (I believe) -hardly the doomsday renouncement of the affordable care act that Marie spewed:

" we are very encouraged that health insurance coverage has been expanded to 32 million Americans. SSM Health Care has long believed that all Americans have a right to basic health-care coverage necessary to live a healthy and productive life.

While it needs further refinement, the Affordable Care Act attempts to shift our health system away from a focus on disease and illness to a system that focuses on keeping people healthy, better managing chronic disease and coordinating care. We will continue to work to improve the ACA along with lawmakers and others who are dedicated to the goal of improving the health of all Americans."

I do agree about the many contributions to society that Catholic institutions have made. (of which I have contributed, and volunteered many hours in support). Thank goodness for those Nuns!

And, I can't speak for all these Catholic organizations, but the ones I worked with did NOT want to take over the entire social safety net. They want more government/tax help, NOt less. Ever heard of the Catholic preachings on Social Justice?

Whoops, after reading Marie's last line - I regret responding. Where is Larry's stonekettle link that warns of the perils of reasoning with the unreasonable.

There are too many laws, and the government interferes too much in our personal lives. This healthcare albatross is the hugest example of government overreach, and it needs to go.

I fear you have misunderstood me. I did not say "everything the Church advocates" I said "Church teachings." Precision is important. I do not agree with everything every pastor, bishop or, for that matter, pope has said, but I, as faithful Catholics are called to do, uphold all official Church teachings.

Just to clarify for anyone who may have been confused with your comment about the Church and slavery... the Church at no time has held up slavery or segregation as a good (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html), though certain clergy and individuals may have participated in it, which brought scandal to the Church. The same goes for anyone who professes to live the faith of the Church and proceeds to participate in activities contrary to the faith.

Maria, that is a convenient distinction.

Please explain exactly what you consider "Church teachings." If a Bishop, or the Pope, offers interpretation is that not doctrine?

As to your link, it's not accurate. There are papal bulls issued that absolutely support slavery. This isn't a matter of interpretation. Look it up: Romanus Pontifex, Dum Diversas. You can't simply dismiss these as not being "teachings" because it's inconvenient to your argument.

Caffeinated: There is no "convenient distinction". It is how the Church works.
Allow me to provide a couple links of for you regarding this...
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/4levels.htm
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/10/03/the-infallibility-of-the-pope-and-the-magisterium/

More on the Church and Slavery:
http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
Nicholas V refers to wars in Romanus Pontifex. Matters of war and imprisonment are prudential teachings, not infallible teachings.

Use your words, Maria. I don't speak "link." Show me you understand your own position.

You: The Church never endorsed slavery. Link provided.
Me: Yes, they did. I provided two bulls that no only did just that, but were fortified with subsequent papal bulls and were in effect for the better part of 70 years.

You: there are "teachings" and, presumably, non-teachings.
Me: what does that mean?
You: more links, and introducing the "prudential teachings" versus "infallible teachings."

Precision is important, Maria.

Caffeinated: LOL, I didn't know "link" was a language!
It is common practice to direct others to resources that support claims to keep things simple and keep posts readable.
From your other posts, I see that you are not at all interested in understanding the hierarchy of teachings of the Church, the history of the Church's position on slavery, you just want to fight.
I don't think that is very productive and I'd rather not waste any more of your time, or mine!

"I don't think that is very productive and I'd rather not waste any more of your time, or mine!"

Again, how convenient.

For those who don't know, Maria is misinformed on the history of her Church. The Catholic Church has sanctioned slavery over long periods of it's history for political, religious, and commercial reasons. This is a fact.

Papal Bulls are decrees from the Papacy (the Pope). These are not suggestions, they are decrees. Maria's never-ending string of distinctions are her rationalizing.

I would like to point out, I would also argue just as much for the right of anyone to worship anything they like. I literally don't care what your jam is, as long as it's lawful and doesn't infringe on my thing.

If my tone gets snarky, or disrespectful keep in mind I'm probably reacting to snark and disrespect.

Ahhh, well. For the sake of others who may be mislead by "Caffeinated"'s false claims regarding the Catholic Church's teachings on slavery (you must not have looked at the links I provided)...
Read this: http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
and be wary of those like "Caffeinated" who are not Catholic and despise the Catholic Church, yet claim to have full and true information about it's teachings and history.

Yes, by all means, go to catholic.com for the unbiased and unabridged truth about the Catholic Church.

Since you love links so much, here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas
Don't trust Wikipedia? Fair enough, Google "Dum Diversas"

What part of this do you contest, Maria? It doesn't count because you say so? It is a part of the history of the Church. Fact.

Your links conveniently ignore this papal bull. Doesn't it make you wonder why?

And please don't presume to tell me what I despise. I'll make that judgement, thank you.

The teachings of the Catholic Church have changed many times over its life. Some "teachings" it has abandoned, only to be reinterpreted yet again and embraced by latter leadership. There are basic tenents that have not changed, but the ones you're discussing are not in that small group. Many of the Church's positions throughout history have been downright disgraceful. For nearly 50 years, seemed we were working toward being a more enlightened, tolerant Church. No more.

I would like to point out that the link Maria provides us with the article about the Catholic Church and slavery is supplied by a Catholic website. Not exactly impartial.

Now, to be clear, are you are calling on removing tax exemptions for any tax-exempt entity that "weighs in on the political sphere" or just those involving organized religion? How about ACLU, PETA, or the myriad of other "non-religious" tax-exempt organizations that are constantly involved in forming legislation, picking court battles, lobbying, etc? Let's be fair, now.

I'm sorry to hear that you believe the Church thinks sexuality is shameful.
If you would truly like to understand the Church's beautiful, yet so often misinterpreted teachings on sexuality, I would recommend you getting any resources from Christopher West, who is an expert on JPII's Theology of the Body. The Church wishes to keep sexuality in the realm of the sacred. He compares misuse of the body to eating out of the dumpster, but proper use as eating at a banquet.
I believe the misinterpretation comes from those who want to do whatever they want to do and do not like anyone suggesting there is something wrong with it. If one doesn't like the teaching, one will most likely misrepresent it and try to attach all sorts of negative labels to it (ie "archaic, misogynist, power/wealth hungry...")
Again, I'm sorry you have been misinformed and I hope you take the time to find out what the church really teaches about sexuality.
A good starting place:
http://www.tobinstitute.org/page.asp?ContentID=9

Then don’t be Catholic! It is your choice not to be. But Catholics have every right to their beliefs whether you agree with them or not. That is not the issue here. You folks think the Catholic church has no right to force their beliefs on anyone, and they don’t, so why do you think it is ok for the demagogue religion that is the Federal Government has any right to force THEIR beliefs on Catholics????? Please explain yourself.

Contraception is just that, a force to act against conception. It is not abortion as has been taught to many Catholics as I was taught. Whether the typical contraception "pill" or patch or morning after pill, they all work to disrupt the hormones or the uterus so conception does not take place. A condom does the same thing in a different way (obstruction). It's not appropriate to mix contraception with abortion.

Missing throughout is the fact that "the pill" is not just used for contraception. Some women have issues that the hormones in the pill helps to control and control well. These women should not be denied their needed treatment because of others' issues with contraception.

My comments are directed toward the conversation here where folks are refusing to acknowledge that birth control for whatever use is not accepted by the Catholic church. That is the church’s right and the government has no right to interfere. If this is an issue for you, then do not work for a Catholic organization. Simple. I’m not Catholic and do not personally have issues with the use of birth control. I was responding to the discussion at hand.

Implicit in the amendment is the language "FREEDOM FROM RELIGION."

And we need more of that.

That is it in a nutshell, thank you for saying what is truly going on.

What about the study that concludes:
Robbing a bank -- curbs employment needs. Stupid studies -at what cost!
This article is titled:
(If birth control curbs abortions--IS IT OK?)
The study should have said (concluded) that
"Stealing other people's Money Provides Free access to Birth control"
Nothing easier than "Free"
Banning sex also reduces Abortion rates. Duh?
Vasectomy also reduces abortion rates.
Now , I have a study that concludes--Responsibility starts with
"YOURSELF" not with the Goverment.

Issue is that abortion is mainly touted as the main religious issue here, young lives being taken. Yet contraception cuts those numbers dramatically. Seems all would be on the same page and taking this as a win/win. Not so. Contraception has been too often equated with abortion, which is in error. Religion is involved and a rather convoluted mix of religion and science. That, I believe, is Margaret's point, but know many of you want it to have a different discussion.

Amen!!! lol

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you CAN opt out of vaccinations on the grounds that it violates your religious belief.

Elizabeth, I think my point was pretty clear. Separation of church & state, pure & simple. If a parent opts out of medical procedures that hurt children are subject to certain laws, as they should be. This whole topic of opting out of insurance coverage based on religious views is at the hear of the discussion. Tell me that you can opt of paying tax dollars for items that you do not believe in because of religious convictions. If so, a lot of us have rebates due.

Um, it is not free. Wash U probably received a government grant, endowment or other such money to perform the study. Not free, maybe no cost to you personally, but someone, somewhere had to pay for it. It didn't just fall from the sky.

Elizabeth...regardless of where the money came from....Wash U proved a point that if Birth Control was provided either free or at a low cost...there would be less unwanted pregnancies. Anyhow...what happens if someone who cannot afford birth control has a baby. The government ends up supporting the baby....food stamps, day care, WIC, Medicaid, etc. I am not saying that everyone should receive this free but the cost of birth control even with insurance is expensive.

Also, Elizabeth the Study was funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

"Also, Elizabeth the Study was funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation"

And? I believe that would fall under "endowment or other such money".

"I am not saying that everyone should receive this free"

Why not? Shouldn't everyone be treated equally?

And? I believe that would fall under "endowment or other such money". My point was that this study was not a government grant.

Why not? Shouldn't everyone be treated equally?

Yes everyone should be treated equally. I believe everyone should pay for birth control, I just believe the price is too high. That was the nature of this study. To prove the price of birth control is expensive with or without insurance. I pay $850 a month in insurance....they can at least cover my Mirena IUD for less than $500.00.

Elizabeth--Why do you disagree with the study?

Jessica, I only pointed out that the contraception provided is not free. I can't help it if you read more into it than that. The purpose of this blog is to tie the reported results of the study with the current political storm regarding who should have to pay for the contraception. I only pointed out the fact that calling it "free" is a misnomer. It is not free, someone had to pay for it, by your own research The Buffet Foundation paid for it. The difference of course being that the foundation chose to pay for it, versus the opposed "corporations" who don't wish to pay for it. Coincidentally, The Buffet Foundation also contributes to Planned Parenthood.

You are correct, I only assumed you disagreed with the study. I wasnt sure what your point was through all this besides "someone" had to pay for it. And yes you are correct, the Foundation also supports Planned Parenthood. Wash U started the study years ago before Obamacare was even a subject in politics. I started the study in 2007 and I know it was going about year or 2 before I started it.... so I believe it begain in 2005 or 2006. Anyhow, the goal of Wash U was to show if the costs of birth control was out of the way....how many unwanted pregnancies would occur.

I agree with your position on birth control, Sarah. I believe that this issue remains volatile because it is so important and a microcosm of an individual's life view. For me, this important issue (which I thought was fought and won by our mothers) can be politicized to the point where our right to contraception and our own family planning can be removed. All gains by science in this area can be erased and removed from our reach by a few with political power. Scary.

There are many forms of Birth Control. Responsible Woman are free to use whatever they choose.
The Church recommends the "RHYTHM" method.
Birth control "PILL taking method" is only one form of Birth control.
Catholics and ALL society should de-emphasize sexual activity outside marriage.
That has NOTHING to do with Religion.
This study should have addressed those Needing the abortions. Then you all will know Why abortions are still a problem while the Pill has been available since the 60's. Quit suggesting curbing Abortions would be good for Society if only the Catholics would agree with men-woman having sex for the fun of it.
To Catholics, "pregnancy is a "Gift from GOD".
Only GOD can determine whether a woman shall be blessed with that gift.
Millions of woman never are given that Gift. No matter how many times they try.
Could man-made birth-controls, actually make a woman forever unable to become Pregnant.? Just Maybe?
If women have the right to their body-Do woman have a "right" to become pregnant?
Do all man-made birth control methods work 100%?
Even the supreme court cannot bestow a Woman's "right" to become Pregnant.
Think about that.
Does Birth control curb abortions? It is NOT ok unless the bigger question of "What does man-made Birth control do to the Woman's body functions"?
I believe they harm their ability to ever become Pregnant. One day all the problems experienced by the Pill will be answered. Still too early for answers.

I can respect the logic of your argument, D. Walker. I may not agree with your world-view, but you are certainly not a hypocrite.

D., this has exactly nothing to do with the question. Please just answer the question.

Or have these comments sections just become wastelands of people expounding on their religious and political views for no apparent reason? If I'm wrong on that, please, by all means, go right ahead.

I agree William. Here is a video by Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod on the subject. He is absolutely correct.
http://www.lcms.org/freetobefaithful

Yes, as a Democrat I'm out to destroy America. I want to promote underage sex with sex ed, then abort the resulting babies while indoctrinating them in gay culture. I want to help our Muslim overlords take their rightful place by putting the U.N. in charge of the Department of Transportion. I want to outlaw fishing while inflating the deficit and forcing everyone to pledge allegiance to Ariana Huffington.

You got me, William Braudis. Can't fool you...

Close-minded people destroy America.................................Religeon ruins everything.

What war?

I have never felt compelled to give my identity to some stranger on the internet, especially when they spew nonsense as you do. What do you want people's identities for - he's not blogging or anything? Are you going to put him on some sort of McCarthyist list?

William, you should know, the right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution. Caffeinated is merely exercising that right. Those of you who profess to be strict constitutionalists cannot pick and choose which parts to follow.

Besides, with your earlier hate speech (which I see has been removed thankfully), it's easy to understand why Caffeinated would not want you to know who they are.

Have you contributed anything to this conversation which is relevant to the topic? Unless I've missed something, it looks like the answer is no. Why not?

Naw, I think he's saying that if I have the conviction of my beliefs then I shouldn't be afraid to sign my name to them.

The real problem is that he thinks those are actually my beliefs.

Well put Caffeinated.........................but you can not get through to this closed-minded moron. Hopefully HE uses birth control.

"Mr. Higgin, pick and choose ? lets explore my Constitution a little more closely, namely, the accuser facing the accused."

Exactly. Well said.

Roe .v Wade moron...........................................there ARE reasons for abortion that DON'T concern you. If only your mother had exercised her rights.

Perhaps you should comment on things you obviously know about, like hyper-local crime stats and city council meetings.

As a member of the Lutheran Church I must teach you that our Doctrine reads very similar to that of the Catholic Church. Neither believe that no one has the right to kill babies either in the womb nor in the birth channel. Under obama and you people, the killing of babies are a wonderful and noble act.

Dino, Wonderfully Stated.

"Your free will is what will condemn you to hell."

Nothing to add, just wanted to highlight this little gem.

Dear Sensible, the moment that the egg divides life has begun. An non-fertile egg will simply pass out of the host.

William Braudis, biologist.

So, zygotes are people? Your ignorance is laughable.

Thank you for your response. I wonder why it's the moment that the egg divides rather than the moment that the egg is fertilized, but I'll just increase my understanding incrementally.

"I would say-The best way to reduce abortions is "To Decrease access to the sexual Act".
How about "Castration/Hysterectomy" for anyone having more than 1 Pregnancy outside of marriage ..."

The American Taliban speaks (awkwardly).

I see the old white men of Patch all agree. LOL...

" This way she can return to being a whore without any concequences."

...and we can't have that, can we Billy. Perhaps we can force them into burqas?

And the men who get all of these women pregnant? What would you do to them Willy? C'mon tell us. This is getting good.

" Look, before using those big words perhaps you would FIRST look up their definition so you would not look so stupid..."

Which big words are you referring to? "concequences" perhaps?

Thank you for putting up with my stupidity.

Incoherent ramblings from a bitter, defeated old man. Need I add anything more, I believe he said all that anyone needs to know about him and his kind.

Kind of sad, really, that this country doesn't have a serious, thinking persons' political opposition any more (think George Will, or Richard Lugar, or John Huntsman). Just the fringe, fanatical ramblings of racist, sexist paranoids like Mr. Braudis. I honestly feel a little bit sorry for him.

How's that, "mike k"?

If you can make sense of the word soup that William speaks, more power to you. I would love for you to translate it into English.

That's sweet. Old mikey found his soulmate.

I don't think the term "owned" means what you think it means, you geriatric moron.