As soon as I read the article was written by 14 house GOP, I stopped reading.

TeamPOLITICO: May. 15, 2012 - 10:17 PM EST

We’re also the only party in the past 25 years to nominate a woman for vice president.

That woman is Sarah Palin. I think that just about says it all.

You are delusional. The GOP has repeatedly failed to support the Equal Rights Amendment, voted against Equal Pay legislation, and voted to defund the most extensive healthcare network for poor women in the nation.

Your GOP has granted women's doctors the right to lie to them, mandated invasive, unnecessary and costly healthcare procedures for women seeking LEGAL healthcare procedures, and now want to pass personhood bills which would effectively outlaw any kind of contraceptives.

The GOP has voted to inject religious dogma into school curriculum, and used religious dogma to deny equal rights to lesbian and gay couples despite the US constitution which upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law?

Oh, you are concerned about my financial welfare? I don't think so - you seem determined to throttle earned Social Security benefits which 60% of women over the age of 65 depend on for at least 90% of their TOTAL monthly income. You want to defund family care services that help me stay gainfully employed. You want to cut my earned unemployment benefits and make me pee into a cup to humiliate me for losing my job. You want to throw out the food stamps that help me feed my family if I only earn minimum wages and struggle as the working poor.

My health? You seem determined to overturn the ACA, which helps me provide affordable coverage for the 40 MILLION Americans without healthcare. You want to obliterate Medicare and turn it into some kind of voucher (coupon) program that would force me to shop for a healthcare provider to cover my aging and chronically ill body - which would drive up my costs by $6,000 a year I don't have.

The GOP as the party for women? Don't make me laugh.

Women account for 85 percent of all consumer purchases; they make 85 percent of all health care decisions; they start two out of three new businesses,

It would be nice to know the source of this assertion given the GOP penchant for making up "facts" or truthiness as Stpehn Colbert would say.

Just saying

Women account for 85 percent of all consumer purchases; they make 85 percent of all health care decisions; they start two out of three new businesses,

It would be nice to know the source of these assertions given the GOP penchant for making up "facts" or "truthiness" as Stephne Colbert would say.

Just saying.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) held hearings on contraception and religious freedom that produced the now-famous picture of a table full of men called to weigh in on access to contraceptives.

Where were these 14?

Foster Friess, the billionaire backer of Rick Santorum’s campaign, became an instant celebrity when he went on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show and said, “Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

Where were is the outrage from these 14?

http://2012.talkingpointsme...

Rick Santorum believes women should have no choice over the course of their pregnancy, even if they have been victims of rape or incest. He's called Planned Parenthood "poisonous" and opposes any and ALL methods of birth control for women.

What's wrong with these ladies?

http://www.change.org/petit...

All the Obamoids here are shaking their pom poms furiously trying to prop up their belved Dear Leader...pathetic actually... They're panicked and in denial that there very own left leaning oracles ABC/NYT have released poll data that shows that with women , Mitt is beating their Dear Leader 46 to 44... What !! ?? exclaim the shocked Obamoids !!! The poll must be flawed.

Sadly Obongoids all your "war on women" crap is a bust. Women ain't buyin it losers. Truth is that they're all concerned with exactly the same thing the men are.. the horrific economic failure of Oblammer.

Its the ECONOMY STUPID as bubba Clinton once said.

Dear Leader is all done in Nov...Get used to it

hahahaha!!!! i'm so sorry - couldn't make it past the headline - and i can't stop laughing! hilarious! i know, i know, delusion should NOT be funny - but i just. can't. stop. -----

!!

....And this is the argument that you begin with? "For the past few months, the Democrats have been accusing Republicans of waging a “war on women” as if some honest disagreements between the parties — over matters like how an “Obamacare” mandate should affect religious institutions or the proper scope of federal law on tribal land — constitute a deliberate GOP campaign to take away women’s rights."

For starters lets get past the notion that this has anything to do with any religious institutitions, ok? A compromise was made between the White House and the Catholic church that remedy'd that. As members of congress I would have to assume that you know "something" about the constitution that you wave in our faces. Your complaint isn't worth the type that you used to write it. And yes...a war on women is taking place within your ranks. Senator Merkowski of Alaska would tell you that.

Assuming that at least a few of you have a legal background, you might understand the fact that you cannot require any law be passed that respects an establishment of religion. When you demand that employers have the right to determine contraception for their employees based on their religious views, you are legislating religion. Surprise! Bet you didn't know that.

The Blunt Amendment violates the constitution for the simple unavoidable fact that the first Amendment, (Religious Liberty) which the Republicans are claiming is their basis, clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Republicans are leaping with both feet on the “Free- Ex” clause of the amendment and waving it wildly in the air, while ignoring the “Establishment Clause”. That won't get them anywhere.
The First Amendment forbids not only establishments, but also any law respecting or relating to an establishment. Most importantly, it forbids any law respecting an establishment of "religion." It does not say "a religion," "a national religion," "one sect or society," or "any particular denomination of religion." It is religion generically that may not be established.
Compare these two phrases:

• Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
• Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

Clearly the first example makes no sense on its own. It must refer back to the establishment clause to get its meaning. When Rick Santorum stands on his soap box and preaches “Whatever happened to the first amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion?”; he says this being completely oblivious to the wording of the amendment he is citing. His argument is over birth control, which is not a religion. However, he’s framed it as such. He is claiming birth control as religion. When he cites the free exercise of religion he must refer back to the establishment clause for his definition.
If the framers meant what they said and said what they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise of religion so long as Congress does not prohibit it. “Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be”. Cantwell v. Connecticut

The establishment clause does more than ban the federal government from establishing religion; it bars even laws respecting establishment. The Blunt Amendment establishes religion.
The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Whether "respecting" means honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. Again…the Blunt Amendment constitutionally fails on these grounds.
An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause which is a blind spot among Republicans, and especially Rick Santorum…the lawyer who should know better, is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of "religion." The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of "religion," while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise "thereof." Logically, the word "thereof" must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as "religion" for one clause must count as "religion" for the other.

The free exercise clause makes no sense unless the word "religion" is read to encompass more than a church, denomination, or sect. The state abridges free exercise when it interferes with only small parts of an individual's religious practice. The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells students they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it must provide contraception coverage even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. The Obama Compromise deals with this. Private prayer and contraception are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitutes religions in and of themselves.
If prayer and contraception count as "religion" for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as "religion" for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so too does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it must provide contraception coverage, so too does it establish religion when it makes a law that would deny contraception coverage to people based on a religious exemption to those outside the realm of the church at public expense. The state does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets up any religious practice that constitutes "religion" for the purposes of free exercise. To the extent that Republicans want to read the "thereof" in the free exercise clause broadly, they must also accept a broad reading of "religion" in the establishment clause.

One look at the laws being passed on the state level in places like Arizona, Virginia, Pennsylvania and others clearly prove that the legislation is directed at one segment of the poplulation. Women. You have no religious excuse. Get back to work on Jobs and let the social issues alone. There is a reason why Republicans are losing the women vote. You might wake up and ask yourself why?

....And this is the argument that you begin with? "For the past few months, the Democrats have been accusing Republicans of waging a “war on women” as if some honest disagreements between the parties — over matters like how an “Obamacare” mandate should affect religious institutions or the proper scope of federal law on tribal land — constitute a deliberate GOP campaign to take away women’s rights."

For starters lets get past the notion that this has anything to do with any religious institutitions, ok? A compromise was made between the White House and the Catholic church that remedy'd that. As members of congress I would have to assume that you know "something" about the constitution that you wave in our faces. Your complaint isn't worth the type that you used to write it. And yes...a war on women is taking place within your ranks. Senator Merkowski of Alaska would tell you that.

Assuming that at least a few of you have a legal background, you might understand the fact that you cannot require any law be passed that respects an establishment of religion. When you demand that employers have the right to determine contraception for their employees based on their religious views, you are legislating religion. Surprise! Bet you didn't know that.

The Blunt Amendment violates the constitution for the simple unavoidable fact that the first Amendment, (Religious Liberty) which the Republicans are claiming is their basis, clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Republicans are leaping with both feet on the “Free- Ex” clause of the amendment and waving it wildly in the air, while ignoring the “Establishment Clause”. That won't get them anywhere.
The First Amendment forbids not only establishments, but also any law respecting or relating to an establishment. Most importantly, it forbids any law respecting an establishment of "religion." It does not say "a religion," "a national religion," "one sect or society," or "any particular denomination of religion." It is religion generically that may not be established.
Compare these two phrases:

• Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
• Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

Clearly the first example makes no sense on its own. It must refer back to the establishment clause to get its meaning. When Rick Santorum stands on his soap box and preaches “Whatever happened to the first amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion?”; he says this being completely oblivious to the wording of the amendment he is citing. His argument is over birth control, which is not a religion. However, he’s framed it as such. He is claiming birth control as religion. When he cites the free exercise of religion he must refer back to the establishment clause for his definition.
If the framers meant what they said and said what they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise of religion so long as Congress does not prohibit it. “Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be”. Cantwell v. Connecticut

The establishment clause does more than ban the federal government from establishing religion; it bars even laws respecting establishment. The Blunt Amendment establishes religion.
The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Whether "respecting" means honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. Again…the Blunt Amendment constitutionally fails on these grounds.
An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause which is a blind spot among Republicans, and especially Rick Santorum…the lawyer who should know better, is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of "religion." The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of "religion," while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise "thereof." Logically, the word "thereof" must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as "religion" for one clause must count as "religion" for the other.

The free exercise clause makes no sense unless the word "religion" is read to encompass more than a church, denomination, or sect. The state abridges free exercise when it interferes with only small parts of an individual's religious practice. The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells students they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it must provide contraception coverage even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. The Obama Compromise deals with this. Private prayer and contraception are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitutes religions in and of themselves.
If prayer and contraception count as "religion" for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as "religion" for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so too does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it must provide contraception coverage, so too does it establish religion when it makes a law that would deny contraception coverage to people based on a religious exemption to those outside the realm of the church at public expense. The state does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets up any religious practice that constitutes "religion" for the purposes of free exercise. To the extent that Republicans want to read the "thereof" in the free exercise clause broadly, they must also accept a broad reading of "religion" in the establishment clause.

One look at the laws being passed on the state level in places like Arizona, Virginia, Pennsylvania and others clearly prove that the legislation is directed at one segment of the poplulation. Women. You have no religious excuse. Get back to work on Jobs and let the social issues alone. There is a reason why Republicans are losing the women vote. You might wake up and ask yourself why?