Posted on 10/22/2012 2:01:08 PM PDT by NYer
CBS newsman Bob Schieffer will host the third debate tonight between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
The first two debates prompted outrage from pro-life conservatives over their bias — from biased questions and Romney twice having less time to talk during the debate to the moderator interrupting Romney more or letting Obama get the last word in more often.
Voters expecting a more fair and impartial debate this time around will be sorely disappointed — although it might be for the better that the debate is primarily expected to be focused on foreign policy issues. Schieffer made it clear earlier this year that he thinks, when it comes to social issues, that Republicans are too focused on pro-life topics.
In February, on Sunday morning’s Face the Nation, he pressed Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie over how Republicans have supposedly moved “too far to the right” to win. Later, in an interview with Maryland’s Democratic Governor, Martin O’Malley, Schieffer claimed “we’ve spent the last couple of weeks here talking about running against birth control for goodness sake” — ignoring how the media attacked pro-lifers repeated with the War on Women mantra.
Meanwhile, Schieffer twice falsely credited Obama for having “backed away” from requiring religious groups to cover birth control and abortion-causing drugs.
He said: “We’ve spent the last couple of weeks here talking about running against birth control for goodness sake. I mean, I admit, I mean, I believe the President made a serious political mistake when he tried to say to the Catholic Church, you have to buy birth control pills for the folks that work in your hospitals and your schools and so forth. But he backed away from that. And yet, the Republicans keep pushing. They say that’s not enough. That you’ve got to be totally against the birth control.”
As Media Research Center writer Brent Baker noted:
Of course, Schieffer was unable to identify any candidate who is saying “you’ve got to be totally against the birth control.”
Then with O’Malley, he repeated the claim Obama “did back away” on the birth control mandate, and proceeded to again express bewilderment that’s not good enough for Republicans: “But is that going to be an issue, this whole idea of birth control, is that going to be an issue in this campaign?”
Next, Schieffer cued up O’Malley to denounce Republicans as extremists: “Well do you think it’s good for the President if Republicans try to concentrate on social issues?”
That is so good that it should be said again! Recreational-Abortion!
Great turn of a phrase! ........................................................ FRegards
Well said.
The Democrats are obsessed with killing as many babies as possible. They are also obsessed with holding black people back (remember when they tried to burden them with “ebonics” as an alternative language that would forever keep them out of office management?).
Schieffer is insane or is obcessed with wearing women under garments.
See how that works.
You say it and it must be true.
Yes, if only the moderator’s mother had been on the pill.
Hey. :)
Hi trisham!!
Romney will run over that old goat Schieffer. He fried his brain when he couldn’t remember if he voted for FDR or Otto Van Bismarck the last election.
I don’t believe that access to birth control will decrease birth rates or childhood illnesses.
If that were so, then there wouldn’t be an explosion of births among single women. Birth control is cheap and available everywhere.
It’s a form of projection. Anything less than total agreement with the Dems on absolutely every issue is “obsession” and “hate thoughts.”
Bob is obsessed with the sound of his voice.
Bookmark
This was a specific study of 9,000 women who had access to free birth control and often chose the long lasting options like IUD. In that population there were around 80% fewer teen pregnancies and abortions compared with the national averages. Perhaps if the rest of the population availed themselves of free long term birth control we would have a significant reduction in teen pregnancies and abortions. Long term birth control requires a doctors services and costs to put in place, so is not necessarily cheap or available everywhere.
So, what you’re telling me is that over X amount of time, because studies have start and end times, 1800 women had pregnancies.
A fertility rate of 20% over a year or two (whatever it was) seems really steep to me.
So, I repeat. Free birth control does NOT decrease the likelihood of young women ending up with children or with abortions, both of which with single women, will end of dramatically changing their lives.
So, your daughter has a 20% chance of getting pregnant. Do you tell her to PRACTICE that behavior?
NO, NO, NO, you are completely misrepresenting/misunderstanding what I said. What happened is that the study subjects had around 1/5th the teen pregnancy and abortion rates of the national averages for those two items. The national average for each is 100% which might actually only be 4 or 5 pregnancies or abortions per hundred people. So that 20% would be around 1, but this is just illustrating how the number works, I don’t know what the national averages actually are.
So in the study cohort your daughter has only 1/5th the likelihood of getting pregnant compared to the national average.
I don’t want my daughter practicing behavior that lulls her to sleep with a 20% chance of getting pregnant. That means she’ll practice the behavior much more often and that 20% will eventually bite her.
I’d rather her believe she has 100% chance of getting pregnant. No illusions is best. Therefore, no birth control is best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
