Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Post removed [View all]DonCoquixote
(13,956 posts)83. not a tiny piece at all
Because sadly, women and other minroties are the canary on the coal mine. People make laws against them because they know a lot of males will not care. Then the law gets stretched, and so on, and so on. AIDS, the war on Drugs, Internet spying, a sad list of issues that were not important until a bunch of males in the suburbs got hit by them. If you automatically see one person's rights as less, you are telling the GOP "aim here, because by the time suburban males get hit by this, you will have won the war!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So if an axe-wielding maniac comes after me I shouldn't be angry because I can see it coming?
winter is coming
Jul 2014
#4
I'm not blindsided. I can multi-task: be angry about this ruling and like a lot of the ACA
riderinthestorm
Jul 2014
#7
Enough of this bullshit. You folks need to come up with something better.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#12
And obviously have no problem investing their pension funds with companies who make contraceptives.
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2014
#64
sad, yes. but not surprised. I expected such as this from certain corners.
Tuesday Afternoon
Jul 2014
#40
Because this opens the door to all kinds of abuses. 1. It is specifically discriminatory against
lostincalifornia
Jul 2014
#25
It's not about "free birth control", jeff - it's about fair healthcare coverage for women.
redqueen
Jul 2014
#35
Gee all this time I thought referring to healthcare coverage as "free" was rightwing spin.
redqueen
Jul 2014
#63
Is "free" an improper synonym for "shall not impose any cost sharing requirements"?
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2014
#80
No, I'm saying that the coverage purchased must deliver a laundry list of freebies to the insured.
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2014
#88
Show me the section of the ACA where it says Viagra is "without cost sharing requirements".
lumberjack_jeff
Jul 2014
#81
That's like saying George Zimmerman's acquittal was predictable, so no reason to be angry about it
pinboy3niner
Jul 2014
#33
I'm pretty sure all my conservative relatives on Facebook have unfriended me in the past 24 hours
Jeff In Milwaukee
Jul 2014
#57
+1. For a moment, I thought it was GG. He always agrees with the conservatives on the court.
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2014
#71