Update:
==============================
Clearly Ed Cone got the memo that a false meme was in the making and chose to lend his credibility to its construction by attempting to steer his thread in a desired direction. In so doing he lent his credibility to the construction of a lie that he could not support.
No one is trying to outlaw contraceptives nor is anyone running on a platform that calls for the outlawing of contraceptives.
Many days after the contraceptive mandate had been issued and reaction to the mandate had begun to boil over the normally news and issue sensitive Ed Cone finally waded into the controversy on the 12th of February. Yes, I had been waiting for the appearance of the tread so as to steer the narrative as best I could.
In response to my second comment Ed Cone had this to say:
Agreed, "a one-size-fits-all solution for our diverse nation of individuals" is bad, and individual liberty is worth preserving.
Thus my opposition to outlawing contraceptives.
Huh? Where did that come from? There was no previous comment that suggested outlawing contraceptives. There was nothing in the post that suggested a ban on contraceptives. The closest thing I found was the lede in an article via the link that was added as an update.
McConnell: GOP Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage
Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.
I replied to Ed Cone:
Read your links, not the lede:The exchange was bizarre. But it was no less bizarre than this exchange Romney had with Stephanopoulos during the New Hampshire debate:
The Blunt amendment he was specifically referring to would “ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions” under the Affordable Care Act.
Last night Dick Morris presented his read of the situation on Hannity:
Dick should have sent a big h/t to Legal Insurrection. I do.
Why the contrivance, "Thus my opposition to outlawing contraceptives"? Just what is your game, Ed?
Because it looks like the coordinated hatching of a false meme, Ed.
out
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rick-santorum-favors-making-birth-control-illegal/
ReplyDeleteRick Santorum thinks birth control for unmarried couples should be outlawed. Too many sources to quote, just google it.
Untrue.
ReplyDeleteRick Santorum never said "birth control for unmarried couples should be outlawed."
He did, however, say that states have the right to outlaw contraception.
And I would note that HHS also has the right to outlaw contraception.
Neither of these observations indicate that one supports outlawing contraception.
To say they do indicates you do not read the articles you link beyond the title and lede.
As a result you spread lies.
"Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president."
ReplyDeleteIt only follows that if he wants to return to the previous law of banning contraception, that it would be illegal for married people to use contraception. And he doubled down by saying that he would defund federal spending for contraception if elected president.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".
Interesting that you went from "lie" to "untrue".
Yes it went from ""lie" to "untrue"", I unintentionally published a rough draft. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteRonnie Lake said:
"It only follows that if he wants to return to the previous law of banning contraception, that it would be illegal for married people to use contraception."
Yours is a false logic. Supporting state's rights does not define one a supporter of a state's subsequent decisions any more than it follows that Catholics who support religious liberty hold Muslim beliefs.
Furthermore, there is no "right to privacy". The "right to privacy" is a phantom right found in the shadows of other words. It is a contrivance that can be used to defend abortion while at the same moment evaporate when one attempts to use "the right to privacy" to defend against ObamaCare.
Such phantom rights are used only to diminish the actual rights that are taken from every individual aborted.
"It only follows that if he wants to return to the previous law of banning contraception, that it would be illegal for married people to use contraception."
ReplyDeleteIt only follows if you've got a vivid imagination, and you need it to follow to a make a point that can't be made otherwise. Based on Santorum's previous statements, your supposition has no basis.
As far as going from "lie" to "untrue", that's a sign that the writer of said words is making the proverbial grasping at straws in order to support a viewpoint that can't be defended with facts.
One other point, pf......Cone relies on false memes purposely.
ReplyDeleteWe've known that for quite some time, and occasionally we play along to humor his tactic of providing red meat to his Peanut Gallery Usual Suspects.
Outside of those particular sycophants, he doesn't fool too many people anymore.
Bubba:One other point, pf......Cone relies on false memes purposely.
ReplyDeleteYes, but they are generally supported externally, even if tenuously.
In this case Cone's comment about not supporting abolishing contraceptives is left entirely hanging in the ether.
He was wise to not defend it.
Additionally, it should be noted that Ed Cone played this card a day before Legal Insurrection made the connection and two days before Dick Morris repeated it to a wider audience.
ReplyDeleteClearly Ed Cone got the memo that a false meme was in the making and chose to lend his credibility to its construction by attempting to steer his thread in a desired direction. In so doing he lent his credibility to the construction of a lie that he could not support.