More imposition of Christian morality by Republicans

[Goofball]

Way to go Wisconsin!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061700450.html

~:rolleyes:

Unfortunately for the holier-than-thou crowd, it appears that the bill will be quite rightly vetoed by the Gov if it reaches his desk.

[The_Doctor]

One question: Why?

The article, unless I have missed something, does not answer this.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hmm. ~:confused:

Unless things are radically different in Wisconsin the assembly is voted into office right? Therefore they represent the will of the people.

So apparently a majority of people in Wisconsin voted in a majority of republicans, so where is the imposition?

Also I didnt read anywhere about Christianity in the article. Did I miss something?


I would seriously consider revising your title to this thread because the article doesnt indicate Christian moral imposition at all.

A popularly elected assembly decided it didnt want the state college encouraging sex between the students so it acted in a lawful way to stop it. Just because you dont like the premise doesnt mean you can make things up. Sorry. :shrug:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't get what the problem is. The people voted for the members of the legislature. The legislature thus represents the people. If the people don't like what the legislature is doing, they vote them out of office and vote in people who will repeal legislation they don't agree with.

Democracy in action. Same with the governor - he sounds like he is representing the people who don't like this bill.

:book:

[Steppe Merc]

Ah. So if the people voted in a facist dictator, that would be fine, since it's democracy in action? And no one should oppose it if that happens?

[Ronin]

Hmm. ~:confused:

Unless things are radically different in Wisconsin the assembly is voted into office right? Therefore they represent the will of the people.

So apparently a majority of people in Wisconsin voted in a majority of republicans, so where is the imposition?

Also I didnt read anywhere about Christianity in the article. Did I miss something?


I would seriously consider revising your title to this thread because the article doesnt indicate Christian moral imposition at all.

A popularly elected assembly decided it didnt want the state college encouraging sex between the students so it acted in a lawful way to stop it. Just because you dont like the premise doesnt mean you can make things up. Sorry. :shrug:


if the majority that was elected was democrat and they decided to ban religious services in the state i´m pretty sure you´d see a problem with it...

[Steppe Merc]

You're example is much better than mine, Ronin. :bow:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

if the majority that was elected was democrat and they decided to ban religious services in the state i´m pretty sure you´d see a problem with it...

So you admit Democrats are anti-religious!

[/Dodge]

In this scenario, democracy is also working in your favor - the Guv there says he'll veto the bill. Democracy still in action!

[Xiahou]

if the majority that was elected was democrat and they decided to ban religious services in the state i´m pretty sure you´d see a problem with it...
First of all, it'd never happen. That's like saying "yeah well I bet if they voted to kill your first born child you wouldn't like that"- nonsense.

Ignoring that, we have a constitution that protects religious freedom so it would still not happen. We do not, however, have constitutional provisions that guarantee your right as a college student to be able to pick up a certain kind of pill on campus... of course if the law passed, someone would probably find a judge to disagree with that.

[ichi]

Too bad they can't come up with political morning after pill, one that would keep me from wanting to vomit after being screwed by the righteous right.

There is no legitimate government role in denying people the right to medical care of their choice. It's an unwarranted intrusion into people's lives, and no matter how large the majority it still wouldnt be justifiable.

ichi :bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

This isn't 'denying people 'medical care'"; its ending tax payer subsidized abortions provided by state workers in a tax payer subsidized education!

They're not even stopping the students from getting the pill, they are just not making people pay for something they find morally offensive (and that encourages premarital sex and discourages responsblity)!

Get a grip, people.

And besides: all legislation is based on morals. Look at the differences in laws between the US and, say Saudi Arabia. In the US, we have freedom of religion, and in Saudi Arabia they won't let you have a Bible. Why? Because the morals and thoughts of the people are different.

I'm sick and tired of the left constantly whining about having their drug-orgy lifestyles impeded by 'someone else's morals' and then turning around and demanding gay marriage, blind to the obvious irony that they are imposing their morals on us!

Holy crap.
[/rant off]
Crazed Rabbit

[ShadesPanther]

I noticed this


"Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW student? No," LeMahieu said. "But we can tell the university that you are not going to condone it, you are not going to participate in it, and you are not going to use our tax dollars to do it."





UW students can get the drug at discount rates from campus pharmacies funded by student fees.

hmmm.

[ichi]

and then turning around and demanding gay marriage, blind to the obvious irony that they are imposing their morals on us!

since even the strongest proposals put forth for gay marriage do not include any provisions forcing marriage, I can't see how allowing gays to be married imposes anything on you, other than tolerance for freedom

ichi :bow:

[JAG]

Bloody hell, the US society is going backwards. Whatever next banning condoms? Banning sex outside marriage? Banning holding hands in public places?

Probably sounds great to some in here no doubt, I think to any sane member of any society it is a complete travesty.

Anyway, do people think banning / making the pill illegal, will actually stop people using it / having sex? Of course not, you will simply be making perfectly fine members of society criminals. Just like the making cigarettes illegal or smacking, it is an unneccesary intrusion which is completely backwards. You people over there who worry about rights and small govt should be severely worried about this gross intrusion into your lives by govt in the pocket of religious fundamentalists.

[discovery1]

Hmm. ~:confused:

Unless things are radically different in Wisconsin the assembly is voted into office right? Therefore they represent the will of the people.

So apparently a majority of people in Wisconsin voted in a majority of republicans, so where is the imposition?

Also I didnt read anywhere about Christianity in the article. Did I miss something?


I would seriously consider revising your title to this thread because the article doesnt indicate Christian moral imposition at all.

A popularly elected assembly decided it didnt want the state college encouraging sex between the students so it acted in a lawful way to stop it. Just because you dont like the premise doesnt mean you can make things up. Sorry. :shrug:

And how do you know that the politician's will represents the people's will on this issue? Maybe the politicians got elected based on some other issue, like tax cuts?

[PanzerJaeger]

By Ronin


if the majority that was elected was democrat and they decided to ban religious services in the state i´m pretty sure you´d see a problem with it...

As X pointed out, we have a constitution to protect us from that. If there was enough public support to amend the constitution - i would be upset but i wouldnt call it an imposition.

You see, thats how America works. We elect leaders to represent us and if we dont like them, we vote them out. Our most sacred values, such as freedom of religion, are protected by a constitution. That means short term politicians will have a very hard time messing with them. Unfortunately for those who dont practice safe sex, the morning after pill has no constitutional backing. ~;)

By Discovery1


And how do you know that the politician's will represents the people's will on this issue? Maybe the politicians got elected based on some other issue, like tax cuts?

As Alex said, if this is a pressing issue the people can vote them out of office. Politicians usually dont do things that will get them voted out, so I can only assume the people of Wisconsin arent up in arms about this measure.


This isn't 'denying people 'medical care'"; its ending tax payer subsidized abortions provided by state workers in a tax payer subsidized education!

They're not even stopping the students from getting the pill, they are just not making people pay for something they find morally offensive (and that encourages premarital sex and discourages responsblity)!

Get a grip, people.

And besides: all legislation is based on morals. Look at the differences in laws between the US and, say Saudi Arabia. In the US, we have freedom of religion, and in Saudi Arabia they won't let you have a Bible. Why? Because the morals and thoughts of the people are different.

I'm sick and tired of the left constantly whining about having their drug-orgy lifestyles impeded by 'someone else's morals' and then turning around and demanding gay marriage, blind to the obvious irony that they are imposing their morals on us!

Holy crap.

Awesome. You should be writing a weekly editorial for some paper somewhere. ~;)

[Ser Clegane]

Hmm ... while I understand that the State is not willing to subsidize the use of the morning-after-pill, banning even the subscription seems a bit counter-productive.

I think people lost a bit their touch with reality if they really believe that students would actually change their sexual behaviour based on the availability of morning-after-pills on the college campus.
I doubt that a lot of students would use the morning-after-pill as a regular contraceptive - it's more of a last resort if things went somehow wrong.

The only result of such a ban would be that students get the pill elsewhere, or rather - as the awareness for this pill as an option (via ban of adevertising) will be reduced - a potential increase of abortions at a later stage, which should not really be in the interest of anybody.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've never seen the logic in the concept that "we need to make sure that later term abortions do not occur".
This makes no real sense - the line is that a fetus is a parasite until it is born.

i'm not sure at what point "it" becomes human in the eyes of most, but it is an arbitrary thing. To want to keep chemical abortions in hot supply to avoid later trimester abortions for any other reason than the health of the mother is ludicrous.

This is a state law that pertains to a select group of kids. I see nothing unethical in the concept of this. It could work to dissuade a few people from having dangerous trists. It isn't like they couldnt find it if they go out of town, it is just that the public does not want to pay for something that they believe is unethical.

I see no "Christian" morality explicitly - any more than socially aware legislation. Let them try this out; if it is an utter failure i am aure that it will be overturned.

[BDC]

I read an intresting point of view in New Scientist recently. Someone involved in all this said that whilst biologically life does start at conception, it's bizzare to think that a small bundle of cells without any form of nervous system can possibly be counted as a moral, concious human being.

Don't know why anyone would want to ban the morning after pill. People's behavoir won't change and you will just end up with loads of annoyed women making up the next generation of politicians.

[doc_bean]

LeMahieu said the bill would not affect traditional birth control pills. Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager said the bill was worded too vaguely to know for sure.

That's one major problem, laws need to be clear, before judical review kicks in.

The Bill of Rights guarantees some basic rights to the American public, since Griswold vs. Connecticut, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the government (state or federal) has no authority controlling the sex lives of their citizens. And rightly so, i 'd like to add.

Now this bill can be interpreted in two ways, and i'm not sure which is really meant in it.

1) the morning after pill is banned in college health clinics
2) we're not paying for it

I can agree with 2, I don't like it and I wouldn't support it. However, I find 1 to be a sign of a totalitarian government, and don't like it much.



As X pointed out, we have a constitution to protect us from that.

Religious freedom isn't the only thing protected, freedom implies a wide range of lifestyle choices.

[Kanamori]

OK, I believe there is some confusion here.

First: They are trying to ban the morning after pill in UW pharmacies only, not any pharmacy.

Second: The pharamacies are funded by student fees, as are most of the retail things on the campuses (thus, why they get a discount on things like software and drugs).

Third: There is more to this than just the moral issue; it is also a political one. As long as I can remember, the Republicans in our Congress have been at odds witht the UW, particularly Madison (it is, generally, one of the most liberal places in the US). And now, especially since their have been professors in Madison abusing things like state funded cell phones and trips (they make it sound like they're dealing w/ the devil), they have taken every opportunity they can to smear the UW and make the generalized idea of the UW system, seen as being quite liberal, look bad. Here, the UW (madison in particular, again) is much more than just a school; it is a political entity more powerful than any interest group, because it gets so much money and has so much influence, so that Madison can compete w/ places like Harvard. Really, it's also a part of a conservative campaign to publisize the wrongs of the UW -- we are having a budget battle right now, and UW does use lots of money...they want the UW to have less.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Ah. So if the people voted in a facist dictator, that would be fine, since it's democracy in action? And no one should oppose it if that happens?
The will of the people must be done.

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for the summary Kanamori. Didnt WU host that proffesor from colorado who said 9/11 victims were Nazis?

[Kanamori]

Yeah, he spoke on some other issue (they hired a bunch of people to make sure he was kept safe I think, and there were LOTS of protestors). It was one of the smaller schools, stout, I think.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Yeah, he spoke on some other issue (they hired a bunch of people to make sure he was kept safe I think, and there were LOTS of protestors). It was one of the smaller schools, stout, I think.
Yeah thats nice, call the 3k people who were killed by muslim extremists nazis. Lets release this man in the middle of the Iranian desert, see how long his rightous aß lasts. sorry for the tangent, just had to get that out.

[bmolsson]

Why does Americans hate sex so much ?? It's actually pretty relaxing.....

[Don Corleone]

There is no legitimate government role in denying people the right to medical care of their choice. It's an unwarranted intrusion into people's lives, and no matter how large the majority it still wouldnt be justifiable.

ichi :bow:

While in this particular case, I agree with your sentiments Ichi-san, I cannot agree with the universal tone of your statement. Government does, and should, have a vested interest in making certain that your personal health care needs do not violate the norms of society. As cloning technology is still somewhat nascent, would you argue that a woman has a right to give birth to a child, have it raised for 6 years, then remove it's liver, to give the liver to an older child? People have argued in courts of law that they have just such a right.

[ShadesPanther]

Why does Americans hate sex so much ?? It's actually pretty relaxing.....

Communists have sex...


~;)

[Don Corleone]

Kanamori, thank you for the insight into the machinations behind the scene. As usual, it would appear both sides are erecting straw men on this issue. So essentially, this is really a local turf war being played out on a rather large scale?

I have to agree with Ser Clegnane on this one, that while the state might be able to cut subsidies for the so-called morning after pill (really just a high dose of estrogen & progestin) or RU-486, they have no authority to restrict it's access. If the FDA has already approved them, how can the state have the right to ban them? In my mind, this is the exact same issue that AGs Ashcroft & Gonzalez just came out swinging on, medicinal marijuana. Is the Attorney General's office ready to cede supremacy to the legislature of Wisconsin?

By the way, I have to agree that this is not a 'Christian' issue. There are PLENTY of Leftist Christian groups out there (my Methodist church is currently reading 'God's Politics', a shameless ploy to convert believers to being Democrats and this may have me church-shopping again shortly, not because of the book, but because of the blatant stumping) and plenty of anti-abortion folks that arent' Christian, heck plenty that are 'no-religion' at all.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Kanamori, thank you for the insight into the machinations behind the scene. As usual, it would appear both sides are erecting straw men on this issue. So essentially, this is really a local turf war being played out on a rather large scale?

I have to agree with Ser Clegnane on this one, that while the state might be able to cut subsidies for the so-called morning after pill (really just a high dose of estrogen & progestin) or RU-486, they have no authority to restrict it's access. If the FDA has already approved them, how can the state have the right to ban them? In my mind, this is the exact same issue that AGs Ashcroft & Gonzalez just came out swinging on, medicinal marijuana. Is the Attorney General's office ready to cede supremacy to the legislature of Wisconsin?

By the way, I have to agree that this is not a 'Christian' issue. There are PLENTY of Leftist Christian groups out there (my Methodist church is currently reading 'God's Politics', a shameless ploy to convert believers to being Democrats and this may have me church-shopping again shortly, not because of the book, but because of the blatant stumping) and plenty of anti-abortion folks that arent' Christian, heck plenty that are 'no-religion' at all.

I always appreciate your opinions, but it seems that the issue is whether or not you and i should PAY for this pill

i am against its use
but because the FDA ruled that it can be used, i cant stop others from using it

i should be able to say whether or not my money goes to its proliferation, however.

maybe they could just cut whatever amount the pills cost from the alloted budget - and if the students wanted it bad enough they could make private donations to the campus stores in order for them to carry it

i simply have never understood the arguement that people have no right to democratically decide where their money goes - there are limits as to what can be restricted - but if the majority of a population decides not to spend their money (their time and labor) on something unethical - it is cut and dry to me

let those who believe in it carry the cost and those alone until they can get a majority to collectivize the funds

[Steppe Merc]

I may be wrong, but since it's a college, don't we not pay for it?

[doc_bean]

I always appreciate your opinions, but it seems that the issue is whether or not you and i should PAY for this pill

i am against its use
but because the FDA ruled that it can be used, i cant stop others from using it

i should be able to say whether or not my money goes to its proliferation, however.

maybe they could just cut whatever amount the pills cost from the alloted budget - and if the students wanted it bad enough they could make private donations to the campus stores in order for them to carry it

i simply have never understood the arguement that people have no right to democratically decide where their money goes - there are limits as to what can be restricted - but if the majority of a population decides not to spend their money (their time and labor) on something unethical - it is cut and dry to me

let those who believe in it carry the cost and those alone until they can get a majority to collectivize the funds

Aren't you repeating what Don Corleone said ?
Let the free market decide what is available (as long as it is relatively safe), don't subsidize, don't ban. If not enough people want to buy it and it disappears that's their problem.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Aren't you repeating what Don Corleone said ?
Let the free market decide what is available (as long as it is relatively safe), don't subsidize, don't ban. If not enough people want to buy it and it disappears that's their problem.


it is possible that i have repeated what he said elswhere because i agree with many of his points.

i thought don was saying that they have no right to ban them
but that isnt what they are doing, so i guess my post was a pointless concurrence

[ShadesPanther]

But I thought that student fees meant tax payers don't pay for them only students. Am I correct?

[ICantSpellDawg]

im not sure, but even if the student fees were the fees directly responsible for financing the MA pill, it would still not be right as the entire school is subsidized by the state

because of the fact that the state is paying for other things the school is able to use student fees to finance the arguably unethical MA pill

if we take a certain amount of subsidies out of the school, maybe they would need to use the student fees to finance necessary programs and abandon the MA pill

If they dont, then it is a pointless action and another way should be found


but i hope someone can clarify exactly what money is paying for what

[Steppe Merc]

I would also like to know. Even though I find nothing wrong with sex or the morning after pill, or it being sold on colleges, I wouldn't want the state to pay for it.

[Don Corleone]

it is possible that i have repeated what he said elswhere because i agree with many of his points.

i thought don was saying that they have no right to ban them
but that isnt what they are doing, so i guess my post was a pointless concurrence

With all due respect, Tuff, the first paragraph of the article:


The Wisconsin Assembly approved a ban on the so-called morning-after pill on state college campuses, a restriction that would be the first in the nation if approved.

...

The legislation would prohibit University of Wisconsin System health centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception _ drugs that can block a pregnancy in the days after sex. The state university system has 161,000 students on 26 campuses.


That doesn't sound like disallow the usage of state funds. That sounds like the state legislature of Wisconsin is claiming it has Legislative Supremacy over Congress on the campus of U of W, and if the Attorney Generals' office wants to at least make an attempt to appear credible, they should be consistent and force them to cease and desist. Hell, just to teach them a lesson, the governor should approve the measure and then call on the Congress & the Attorney General's office to enforce the law of the land there in Wisconsin.

See, while I might have bought Pindar's arguments on the Supremacy Clause, I certainly cannot when it appears to only be enforced to support a specific agenda. Anyone care to guess why Ashcroft, and then Gonzalez went after medicinal marijuana? Any idea how much a bag of grass costs compared to a week's supply of oxicontin? Yes, this Republican is claiming just that... the whole effort by the AG's office was a gimme to the pharmceuticals.

[GoreBag]

Any idea how much a bag of grass costs compared to a week's supply of oxicontin?

Not a related point, but oxicontin is becoming more and more popular as a recreational drug too. Maybe they should just make marijuana more accessible.

[Don Corleone]

In the US, your doctor can prescibe you cocaine, any barbituate, heroin, morphine and just about any opiate. What can't they prescribe? LSD, PCB (angel dust) and... marijuana. Can you guess which of these three things is not like the others? There's absolutely no chance they'll ever allow legal marijuana, prescribed or otherwise, because it's naturally occurring. It's cheaper than tobacco to grow. In many ways, it's easier & cheaper to grow than ordinary lawn grass. Where's the percentage in that?

I'm an objectivist. I believe in making a profit where a need exists and that need is served. I do not believe in an artificial layer of beaucracy claiming that it's fighting the war on drugs but in reality is serving to create an artificial shortage of safe & effiicent painkillers. If any of you have ever read 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand, you'd recognize the classification of marijuana as a Type I controlled substance as an 'anti-dog-eat-dog' law in another form. As William F. Buckley has said, when industries rely on government to create their markets for them, industry has become like a tree struck by lightning... rotting from the inside out, waiting for the right wind to push it over.

[bmolsson]

Communists have sex...


Looking for a ticket to Cuba......

[bmolsson]

I believe in making a profit where a need exists and that need is served.

And that is why sex, drugs and rock'n roll are present in the discussion..... ~D

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, this Republican is claiming just that... the whole effort by the AG's office was a gimme to the pharmceuticals.

Sounds dangerously libertarian to me...
*Gets Idealouge Mace to Beat Don back to Lockstep with Bill Frist*.

Seriously, now. I'm unsure as to the possible damage pot can cause. If it doesn't cause long term damage, perhaps we should unban it.


If any of you have ever read 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand, you'd recognize the classification of marijuana as a Type I controlled substance as an 'anti-dog-eat-dog' law in another form.

Indeed. Too bad Rand didn't take some tips from Hemingway on the value of brevity (and the harm of repetition), though.

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

I would also like to know. Even though I find nothing wrong with sex or the morning after pill, or it being sold on colleges, I wouldn't want the state to pay for it.

So the women should wait until they find out they are pregnant for sure and then get a state-funded abortion instead?

[Don Corleone]

Why should we have to pay for lifestyle choices of college women in the first place? For crying out loud, Goofy, how much responsibility do you want to absolve people of? I'm all about giving people the freedom to make their own decisions, but when you're going to rob me to pay for their decisions, we're going to have issues.

[Goofball]

Why should we have to pay for lifestyle choices of college women in the first place? For crying out loud, Goofy, how much responsibility do you want to absolve people of? I'm all about giving people the freedom to make their own decisions, but when you're going to rob me to pay for their decisions, we're going to have issues.

Don, I was simply pointing out that (as I have heard conservatives complain about many times) American women are already entitled to state-funded abortions. So, from a purely wallet-centric perspective it would be much cheaper to pay for them to have the morning-after pill than to wait a month and pay for their abortions.

[Redleg]

Don, I was simply pointing out that (as I have heard conservatives complain about many times) American women are already entitled to state-funded abortions. So, from a purely wallet-centric perspective it would be much cheaper to pay for them to have the morning-after pill than to wait a month and pay for their abortions.

You got it slightly backwards - only those under 18 are entitled to state funded abortions when they go to certain clinics to hide the fact that they got pregent from their parents - at clinics that treat minors without the express consent of the parent. Most others have to pay a fee to have an abortion.

[Goofball]

You got it slightly backwards - only those under 18 are entitled to state funded abortions when they go to certain clinics to hide the fact that they got pregent from their parents - at clinics that treat minors without the express consent of the parent. Most others have to pay a fee to have an abortion.

My mistake then.

[Don Corleone]

Don, I was simply pointing out that (as I have heard conservatives complain about many times) American women are already entitled to state-funded abortions. So, from a purely wallet-centric perspective it would be much cheaper to pay for them to have the morning-after pill than to wait a month and pay for their abortions.

The solution to the problem you're identifying is to stop funding abortion on demand. If it's truly a 'lifestyle choice', does that mean I should be required to surrender my paycheck to pay for an exotic dancer's breast enlargement, another 'lifestyle choice'?

When did we make the decision that we as individuals are incapable of wiping our butt without the government ordering us how to do it and then paying for the toilet paper. This slave-like mentality of dependence on a faceless entity is frankly, sickening at times. Maybe I need some Tums. Maybe I should get the government to pay for them.

[Goofball]

The solution to the problem you're identifying is to stop funding abortion on demand.

I have always been of the belief that wanting medical care when the situation requires it is not so much of a "lifestyle choice" as a "staying alive" choice.


does that mean I should be required to surrender my paycheck to pay for an exotic dancer's breast enlargement, another 'lifestyle choice'?

Well, that's about the stupidest question I've ever been asked.

Of course you should have to support bigger breasts on strippers!

~;)

[Don Corleone]

Okay, so you're contending that there's no such thing as 'elective' health care. Getting a tummy tuck, having your scalp reseeded, having your nose reshaped, getting a benign mole removed for cosmetic reasons... all of these are obligations of the state and must be funded by a public health care system?

In those cases where the life/health of the mother can be shown to be the primary rationale for the procedure, I suppose you could make an argument the state should pay for it. But that's less than 10% of the abortions performed today, in the US or Canada. Even when one figures in rape, incest, and troubled pregnancies, the total stays below 15%. Since the other 85% are elective, it's not a 'staying alive' issue, it's 'a woman's choice'. Fine, her choice, her responsibility.

Hmmm, no wonder you guys have to ration your health care, even if it is 'free'.

Edit: P.S. Goofy Quit while you are ahead. I was actually arguing on your side when this all began, but you're not going to convert me to 'pay for everything for everyone for every reason' so move on.

[Steppe Merc]

Well, I don't really think that abortion ought to be payed by the state... the woman ought to. But what exactly does payed by the state mean? Does it mean that abortions are free, or...? They should also pay for their contraceptive of choice. But if the college sells them, thats fine, assuming that college doesn't use taxpayers money to buy those pills.

Do colleges even get tax payers money? I thought that only k-12 public schools did... but I don't pay taxes, so I'm probably wrong.

[Don Corleone]

State land grant colleges and universities (which University of Wisconsion is) DO receive state funding. Private colleges and universities, such as nearby Marquette, do not.

Again, please don't let the little sideshow going on between Goofball and I at the moment distract anyone, this is NOT about funding, it's about the State of Wisconsin's right to ban the pill outright. As I've said before, as Pindar explained it to me, this violates the 'Supremacy Clause' of the Constitution, as the Executive Branch (the FDA) has already ruled the morning-after pill legal and dispensable. Strangely, he's been rather quiet on this particular turn of the debate.

[Steppe Merc]

Ah, thank you.

In that case, I believe that they have no right to prevent it being distributed. I obviously have a very liberal view when it comes to what substances people can put into their body, and when it is a legal one, they certaintly shouldn't try and ban it.

[doc_bean]

The federal government seems pretty selective when it comes to enforcing the supremacy clause.

I think (speaking as a European that's just watching from a distance) that the states should get more power, but not when it comes to limiting the freedom of the people (in a formal way, lifestyle choices should not be financially supported). What is the point of the State Legislators these days ? It seems like all they are doing is voting in laws to stop their citizens from having sex (most unconstitutional) and debating wether or not God has a place in education (I'm with Gawain, allow for different school nets fitting different ideologies).

Why is the federal government funding abortions, partial birth abortions even (I heard), why are they funding programs preaching abstinence in schools and giving false information to children ? Why are they deciding whether or not medicinal marijuana should be allowed ? Shouldn't the federal government just take care of the inter-state affairs, foreign affairs and protection of the rights and freedom of all Americans ?

I think there will be a decentralization movement soon (well, what's soon ?), the US is too big to be ruled from one place.

Of course, I'm a European, I'd think it pretty absurd if everything should be decided in Brussels without consent of the individual nations. Decentralization feels pretty natural here.

[Don Corleone]

The federal government seems pretty selective when it comes to enforcing the supremacy clause.

I think (speaking as a European that's just watching from a distance) that the states should get more power, but not when it comes to limiting the freedom of the people (in a formal way, lifestyle choices should not be financially supported). What is the point of the State Legislators these days ? It seems like all they are doing is voting in laws to stop their citizens from having sex (most unconstitutional) and debating wether or not God has a place in education (I'm with Gawain, allow for different school nets fitting different ideologies).

Why is the federal government funding abortions, partial birth abortions even (I heard), why are they funding programs preaching abstinence in schools and giving false information to children ? Why are they deciding whether or not medicinal marijuana should be allowed ? Shouldn't the federal government just take care of the inter-state affairs, foreign affairs and protection of the rights and freedom of all Americans ?

I think there will be a decentralization movement soon (well, what's soon ?), the US is too big to be ruled from one place.

Of course, I'm a European, I'd think it pretty absurd if everything should be decided in Brussels without consent of the individual nations. Decentralization feels pretty natural here.

Ooh, I take back what I said in the Stars & Bars thread, you DO get us. You DO! ~:cheers: What you said above just brought a tear to my eye.

According to strict adherents of the Supremacy Clause, the state legislatures serve no role except to enact and carry out mandates dictated them by Congress, thereby buffering Congress from unpopular ramifications of their unfunded mandates. Personally, I'd like to see them return to their Constitutional role of those activities which are not explicitly ceded to the federal government in the Constitution, but alas, one supreme court decision after another has turned them into a bunch of junior level beauracrats, with just another layer of taxation for us to pay, and another layer of red tape and enforcement to cut through. They serve no real purpose at all anymore and should be abolished to save tax overhead. We shouldn't have to pay for two systems of government when one is just parroting what comes down to them from DC.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Sweet Mary! Doc, I concur with Don's analysis of that post. ~:cheers:

[doc_bean]

Glad we can all agree on something then :bow: