Yell,

I agree, considering that 1/3 of teenage girls are prescribed the pill for conditions such as acne, where there are obvious effective alternatives. But when:
1. Respecting the employer's conscientious objection would cause her severe financial hardship.
2. The woman either has no medical alternative to the pill or the alternatives are cost prohibitive.
3. The woman needs the pill for documented and valid medical reasons. Valid medical reasons would include those where deprivation would reasonably present a near future threat to her life, bodily functions, or physical comfort.

When those three conditions are satisfied, then I think it's detestable to respect the employer's conscientious objection to the pill.

To your second point. I doubt covering contraception will bankrupt companies to the extent that other mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will.

To your third point. What the hell does maintaining the woman's privacy have to do with "forcible rape" reforms?

BeoWolfe,
I'm talking about poor women. I disagree with general coverage.

Speaking of poor women, they:
1. Are vulnerable to economic coercion.
2. Thanks to idiotic republican abstinence programs in schools, falsehoods about sexuality and contraception perpetuate among the poor.
3. Men often resist using condoms, and poor women are easily economically pressured to give in.

I implied that I generally oppose the birth control mandate. However, the exception is when the contraceptive serves another valid medical purpose. While I agree that religious organizations should be exempt, it's despicable to grant non-religious organizations conscientious objector status to deny those who need it for valid medical reasons. Also, this logic would mean that employers could practice discrimination by arguing that their conscience is opposed to women working.

The freedom of conscience is important. But since it can be easily abused and used to justify the suffering of others, it needs to be reasonably restricted.

What I mean is, is that this election was the last chance Republicans had. Due to demographic changes, the Democratic party will become the dominant party by ~2020. The younger generation does not care about social conservatives, and the older generation that does is dying off.

Well, first election I ever voted.

Edit: I just became a little more financially informed.

Why can't we just repudiate the debt we owe to China? Besides, it would be perfectly moral, because China did that to U.S. death after Mao's seizure of power.

Unlike the USSR, fascist states did not abolish the private ownership of the means of production, and there were distinct ideological differences between fascist and communist thinkers, even with the Stalin brand of communism. Moreover, they typically hated each other. For example, both Spain and Finland had civil wars between fascists and communists.

There were similarities, especially with respect to dictatorship and suppression of popular dissent. Moreover, as WW2 progressed, the German military seized control of privately owned factories to dedicate them to military production. However, the similarities are not enough to justify equivocating fascism and communism. More often than not, the communists had a coherent economic philosophy, whereas fascists didn't. Typically, they saw themselves as a third way, an alternative to both capitalism and communism. Additionally, they did not typically abolish private ownership of the means of production in peace time, but were content with economic intervention to ensure that business owners served national interests.

At an environmentalist point of view, high gas prices mean less consumption. However, China is far more inefficient with CO2 waste than the U.S is, and their shady diplomacy has guaranteed them a certain supply of cheap oil. China has done so by making alliances with oil producing countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iran. Moreover, by threatening the global balance of power in the Middle East by aiding Iran's nuclear proliferation, China has intimidated Saudi Arabia in to granting them a guaranteed supply of cheap oil as well.

Although I haven't looked in to the math, it seems plausible to me that letting the U.S. consume more oil while restricting China's consumption would have a more positive environmental impact than artificially raising gas prices.

That poll does not count.

Here is a poll that uses valid statistical methods:

http://www.politico.com/p/2012-election/polls/president

Gas prices have dropped over 80 cents in the past month here. Gas has dropped from a high of ~3.95 to ~3.10

Incorrect. Every man benefits, except for possibly the celibate.

Well, my belief is that Sanda Fluke didn't have to attend a Catholic law school. While she said that no one should have to sacrifice a good education for coverage, my reply is that the Catholic church does not monopolize the best law schools, lol.

Personally, I think the state should just confiscate all Catholic assets, but there is no point stirring up the Catholics over nothing in the present time. Obama frankly doesn't know how to pick his fights.