My first thought upon scrolling down to her piccy was "Who let Jabba the Hut loose?"

Look, you started out by issuing a challenge that more Catholic women support the HHS decision than not. I suppose you made that point as a means of deflecting discussion away from the core issue, which of course is the freedom of a recognised faith to operate by its professed beliefs without government interference, a freedom which is enshrined our First Amendment. I countered by making an affirmative statement to the effect that what individuals choose to do or not do isn't the core of the issue - what's important in this discussion is the principle that our government not attempt to control the religious or moral positions and teachings of an established religion. .

Now you're on about who Catholic organisations employ or don't. None of that matters in the least. The fundamental issue at play here is that through HHS, the federal government is exerting legal pressure on the Catholic Church to violate long-standing principles of their faith. The people who run the Catholic Church are concerned about being told to comply with HHS because doing so puts them in the position of violating their own beliefs. As Bishop Zubik of Philadelphia put it - the government is quite plainly telling the leadership of the Catholic Church - "To Hell with you".

Let me reiterate (and I promise to type slowly so you get it all) the issue here is not about the individual - it's about our government telling a church that it must violate its principles of conscience in order to satisfy a HHS diktat. What individuals do or don't do is their own business. Where this ruling goes wrong is that through it, HHS is telling a religious organisation that if it follows it's own moral teaching and principles, it'll be fined and otherwise assailed in the courts. The message is clear - conform or face punishment, but by no means is your faith any excuse for non-compliance.

Got it now?

Well, at least they finally kinda, sorta copped to their ties to the worldwide communist collective. I mean May Day? How commie of them.

In response to the drop in funding from the Komen Foundation, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, openly criticized the anti-abortion sentiments that led to the end of the relationship between the organizations. Ms. RIchards said in a press release, “We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count.”

And that, dear friends, is where the spin and deceptions start. SGKF cancelled their funding due to a Board policy of not dealing with people and organisations who're under investigation for wrong-doing. PP is currently under investigation for wrong-doing in the matter of using public funds (taxpayer money) to fund abortions. SGKF made a policy-driven decision, not a political one. So Ms. Richards starts out from the position of having already come to the wrong conclusion, and she has subsequently charged off on her own heavily politicised path of attack.

Our society worked a whole lot better before everyone was a freakin' activist and life was all politics all the time.

Even if there are, it's irrelevant. People are free in a free society to make their own choices about moral and ethical behaviour (not to be conflated with legal behaviour) - neither the government nor their church are permitted coercive power over them in that regard. But the issue here isn't what individual Catholics are choosing and doing. The issue is that the US government has made policy decisions which compromise and negate the religiously-driven policies of the religion itself.

If an individual decides to stray from her/his religious teachings, that only affects them. When a church to which many people belong is itself told it cannot do something, or has to do something under threat of law, that affects all people associated with that religion.

I'm a compensation executive and have worked professionally in the compensation field for 25+ years. The one finding in this report which I find both fascinating and concerning is that the federal government is apparently strategically using compensation to attract, hire and retain lower level employees, but just as strategically, they're using compensation to dissuade those who've striven to rise up the career ladder through education and training.

So much for the whole fantasy of "the best and brightest", eh? Looks like they're aiming at hiring and retaining the most mediocre and mundane. .

We are at a major crossroads of life.

We are at a crossroads. World-wide collectivists are attempting to assert control over governments, peoples, and processes. It's a multi-pronged attack encompassing economics, politics, environment, and culture.

Almost every day I'm reminded of the old saying "May you live in interesting times." Well, we're living in interesting times.

Really. I wonder if this master of compassion would have the balls to face Mr. Terry's family or the family/loved ones of the 300 or so Mexicans who're dead due to F&F weapons and tell them that he thinks the death of their loved one is "tripe".

While I agree with your point, it's impractical as all get out to force open negotiations as a matter of law. There are times when either of the parties need to make a concession in bargaining which might be very unpopular with a constituency, but necessary to get a contract. Take away the shield of closed bargaining and you'll find that the already contentious process gets more contentious.

The solution, at least in my mind, is to require any pending agreement to be open to public inspection before the management authorities can officially sign it. This would give the public a chance to view and comment on the deal before it becomes fait accompli.