Sandra Fluke and the Women’s Health Canard

Kevin Rush

Faulty logic and flawed math in service of Obama’s anti-religious mandate

Sandra Fluke testifies before House Democrats

Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke prepares to testify before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. Keep your shirt on, Sandy.

In their desperation to steer the debate over President Obama’s contraceptive mandate away from the infringement of religious liberty towards the advancement of “women’s health,” this week Democrats trotted out fledgling activist and Georgetown University School of Law co-ed Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Capitol Hill that 40% of the women at Georgetown Law were experiencing financial hardship paying for contraception, which can cost as much as $1,000 a year, which she claimed amounted to her entire summer salary. This is such a revealing peek into the Democratic mind that one hardly knows where to begin in deconstructing it. So bear with me.

Sandra Fluke’s testimony and inalienable right to the pursuit of pleasure

First there is the principle. Ms. Fluke wants to have sex outside of marriage. That’s a common enough desire. There are negative consequences to sex outside marriage, against which she would like to be protected. Bravo for her foresight. There is expense connected with safeguarding against these negative consequences. Naturally. She would like someone else to pay for the safeguards. And here’s where the logic train comes to a screeching halt. Before we even get to the religious question, before we even address the Catholic Church’s objection to what they perceive as Ms. Fluke’s immorality and their Constitutional right not to be compelled to subsidize behavior that violates their religious convictions, there is the question of one person using the government to compel another person to subsidize her pursuit of pleasure.

Personally, I like fine wine. It gives me pleasure to drink a glass or two of fine wine with dinner. But purchasing fine wine presents me with a financial burden. Following Ms. Fluke’s logic, I should have the government compel the vineyard of my choice to subsidize my purchase of wine. But, you say, hers is a “women’s health” issue. Well, mine is a “men’s health” issue. My family has a long history of heart disease, which killed off several of my male ancestors in their early 60s. If not for angioplasty and a couple of artery-clearing surgeries, my father would have met the same fate. There are studies showing that red wine prevents heart disease. Subsidizing my intake of fine wine is cheaper in the long run than cardiac surgery, so it would actually amount to a savings for overall society, (though not for the burdened winery, but in the words of Joe Biden, “Time to be patriotic, time to jump in!”) Therefore, my intake of red wine, though pleasurable, is really, REALLY all about my health, just as Sandra Fluke’s sexual activity…

Wait, how is Ms. Fluke’s sexual activity related to her health? If anything, it puts her health at risk, right? Isn’t that why she needs all the layers of protection? (More on that later) Don’t women who refrain from sex, say, nuns, have longer life expectancies and lower rates of Alzheimer’s disease? Seems my red wine argument, flawed though it may be, is actually more logical than Ms. Fluke’s argument. You might respond that my daily dose of anti-oxidants, or whatever it is in red wine that allegedly clears the arteries, could be gotten elsewhere for less expense. It doesn’t have to be through Stag’s Leap Cabernet 1997. I would counter that Ms. Fluke’s sexual pleasure could be gotten digitally, or mechanically, with no risk of disease or pregnancy.

Sandra Fluke and the inalienable right to be protected from the risks of voluntary behavior

The fact of the matter is that voluntary sexual activity is a lifestyle choice. Lifestyle choices have always had to be modified to fit one’s economic circumstances. If we decide Ms. Fluke’s sexual lifestyle should be subsidized, then why not subsidize everyone whose lifestyle choices are economically burdensome? I like horseback riding. I cannot afford to buy and maintain a horse. Should the government force someone to buy me a horse? Riding is good exercise, exercise is good for my health, so it’s really going to save society in the long run, right?

Sandra Fluke: frequent, cost-free sex trumps the First Amendment

Now, after one recovers from the staggering audacity of Ms. Fluke’s assertion of entitlement, it gets worse, because then we must confront her denigration of the relative importance of the opposing party’s rights. Let’s grant Ms. Fluke that she has some kind of right to unhindered, cost-and-consequence-free sexual activity. That right must still be weighed against the right of the Catholic Church to maintain its religious principles, and not be compelled by the government to violate them. What does it say about the “Democratic mind” that it weighs consequence-free sexual activity, for which there is no right, Constitutional or otherwise, against the First Right memorialized in the Bill of Rights, and comes down in favor of sex? Logic, jurisprudence, Constitutional theory, political philosophy, tradition and judgment all bow at the altar of sexual gratification. This is a hierarchy of principle which cannot stand: elevating gratification above discipline, prudence and forbearance makes us a nation of impulses, rather than laws, and opens the doors to a demeaning level of exploitation which, back in college they told me, feminism was supposed to cure.

Sandra Fluke and the burdensome cost of contraceptives…for an army

Sandra Fluke testifies about contraception

Georgetown University law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke testifies on why religious institutions should pay for women's contraceptives.

So far Ms. Fluke’s presentation has just been bizarre, but when we start to crunch the numbers, her testimony becomes grandiose and truly delusional. Ms. Fluke claims that contraceptives can cost a woman more than $3,000 during her law school career. Assuming the women makes it through in the requisite three years, that’s $1,000 a year for birth control. What the Fluke? I went to law school, at a Jesuit Catholic university, and I certainly don’t recall women complaining about the cost of birth control. This was at the tail end of the AIDS crisis in San Francisco, and condoms could be gotten free just about anywhere. I’m told that’s still the case. During my time at law school, I was in a relationship where my girlfriend, briefly, wanted to go on The Pill. It cost about $30 a month and we split the cost. (When later she went off The Pill and we relied on condoms, it was suddenly my sole obligation to pay. I never knew why.) That would have been a total of $360 a year, half of which the woman paid, making it $180. I’m struggling to see how Ms. Fluke gets to $1,000.

Perhaps Ms. Fluke is not in a monogamous relationship, so she must bear the entire cost. Fair enough. Perhaps, even though she’s not in a relationship, she feels she needs to be on The Pill in case she’s raped. Okay, that’s a little hyper-precautious, but fine. That’s $360. What’s up with the other $640? Well, maybe Ms. Fluke is concerned with protecting against disease. She wants to have sex with men whom she doesn’t know well enough to trust, or know their sexual history, or she doesn’t want to wait until they’ve been tested and get the results. Impetuous, but fine. She’s spending $640 a year on condoms.

Well, just how many condoms will that buy? According to Amazon.com, Ms. Fluke could purchase a “Trojan Pleasure Pack 40 Premium Latex Condoms – Ecstasy, Sensations, Ultra Thin, and ENZ Lubricated,” which they call an “Awesome Assortment” for a mere $12.17. At that rate, Ms. Fluke could purchase 2,103 condoms per year. Of course, there would be some shipping charge, so let’s adjust down to 2,000 condoms per year. That’s 5.479 condoms a day, every day for a year on Ms. Fluke’s purported budget. With 40% of the co-eds Ms. Fluke surveyed operating on a similar scale, it’s a wonder the dormitories at Georgetown have not been shaken to the ground.

Truly, I can’t decide what is more audacious, Ms. Fluke’s farcical sense of entitlement, her self-aggrandizing notion that her pleasure trumps someone else’s religious conviction, or the grossly fabricated numbers she’s using to support her pathetic case. She is so ready to be a personal injury attorney, Georgetown should issue a diploma right now.

Liberals have been fighting Catholic universities over condoms for decades

As I mentioned, I went to a Jesuit law school, during the waning years of the AIDS crisis. I lost many friends during that period, including a neighbor whom I visited so many times in hospice that a nurse referred to me as his “significant other.” As a member of the Law School’s AIDS Awareness Committee, I was quite involved in debating the school’s condom policy and did succeed in getting them to liberalize the distribution of information relating to condoms and the spread of AIDS. My goal was always to find a patch of common ground where we could act affirmatively while preserving the rights of the institution to uphold its tradition and religious tenets. This placed me in opposition to the school’s Gay/Lesbian group who wanted to distribute condoms on campus on St. Valentine’s Day. When that idea was quashed by the administrative higher-ups, the ever-resourceful future attorneys of the Gay/Lesbian group decided they could compromise and move their condom distribution off the grounds of the law school to a neutral location…in front of St. Ignatius Church. If nothing else, the Obama mandate teaches that Liberals retain the same notion of compromise.

Liberal logic: If you’re not subsidizing my lifestyle, you’re repressing it

That episode revealed to me that some on the Left will stop at nothing to promote their lifestyle. I had many an argument with Gay activists during the AIDS crisis who were promoting tactics which I thought were meant to preserve the lifestyle, even at the cost of lives. Today, as every alleged triumph of Liberalism is crumbling, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid to every other entitlement program robbing the public coffers, sexual liberation is all they have left. From same-sex marriage to abortion on demand to this contraceptive mandate, the Left is desperate to expand upon its entitlement base in areas they think they can sell. The side that used to say, “U.S. out of my uterus,” is now welcoming the federal government into their bedrooms, begging that government to compel institutions to endorse and underwrite the most private choices of other people’s lives. And refusal to endorse or subsidize someone else’s sexual or reproductive activity is being sold as repression. How far we have come from the notion of liberty.

Obama’s stake in Sandra Fluke’s testimony

HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius with Barack Obama

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius with Barack Obama

Where does President Obama stand on all this? You may recall the President has expressed a fondness for audacity, so it should come as no surprise that he called Ms. Fluke to give her a pep talk before her subsequent morning show interview. He reportedly told her that her parents must be very proud. (My father has five daughters; I can only imagine his pride if one of them had made such a testimony.) One might think the President of the United States would be too preoccupied with his upcoming meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister about Iran’s nuclear ambition, or American servicemen getting shot in the heads by the Afghan troops they are training, or the general state of the economy, but no. Advancing government dependency is the sine qua non of Obama’s tenure in office. The government takeover of American lives must be advanced above any other issue.  For this to happen, Obamacare, his signature “achievement,” must be preserved. But, this is looking less and less likely as polls show more Americans disapproving of it and favoring repeal. If Sandra Fluke is successful in steering the debate about the Obamacare mandate away from religious liberty to “women’s health,” the President will be very grateful.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

57 Responses to Sandra Fluke and the Women’s Health Canard

  1. Ruth on March 3, 2012 at 9:03 am

    I wonder how many lattes she drinks in a week at Starbucks? How much is her cell phone bill a month? How many pairs of shoes does she own? How may handbags? How often does she go out to eat? How often does she party with friends at nightclubs? Does she hold a job? Seems she has extra time.If I am to support her sex life, that she can not afford, I want an answer to these qts..I will compare my answers to these qts to hers anyday, then we can see who really can afford her fun.

  2. Spaceghost on March 3, 2012 at 10:38 am

    >>In their desperation to steer the debate over President Obama’s contraceptive mandate away from the infringement of religious liberty towards the advancement of “women’s health,”

    It’s the other way around. YOU folks have taken a women’s health issue and turned into an “infringement of religious liberty” issue, despite the fact that none of you have even attempted to demonstrate how having a religious-owned institution’s health coverage include contraception is infringing on anyone’s religious liberty. Could you be more specific? How is anyone’s religious liberty being infringed?

    >>She would like someone else to pay for the safeguards. And here’s where the logic train comes to a screeching halt. Before we even get to the religious question, before we even address the Catholic Church’s objection to what they perceive as Ms. Fluke’s immorality and their Constitutional right not to be compelled to subsidize behavior that violates their religious convictions, there is the question of one person using the government to compel another person to subsidize her pursuit of pleasure.

    Your premise crashes right out of the gate. There are MANY reasons to take the pill beyond contraceptive. For starters:

    http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

    So no, it’s not even remotely just a pleasure-pursuit pill. Like, say, VIAGRA is. And yet, not a peep from you folks about that. Huh!

    >>I like horseback riding. I cannot afford to buy and maintain a horse. Should the government force someone to buy me a horse?

    I bet you also like going places. But if your legs were amputated, you’d need a wheelchair to go places. But what if you could not afford to buy a wheelchair? Should your employer’s health plan cover your wheelchair? (Hint: Yes.)

    >>That right must still be weighed against the right of the Catholic Church to maintain its religious principles, and not be compelled by the government to violate them.

    Sorry, no, it mustn’t. The government is a) not compelling anyone to “violate anyone’s religious principles,” merely by having its institutions’ health plans cover certain things it disapproves of, and b) If it were, so what? Again I ask: Do you know what the First Amendment says about freedom of religion? Can you type it without looking? Give up? Here it is, it’s very complicated:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    That’s it, that’s the whole thing. So: Does this contraceptive thing make a law that establishes a religion? No. Does it prohibit the free exercise of any religion? No. If you think it does, feel free to explain. Point out the people who are prohibited from freely exercising their religion by this thing.

    And meanwhile, take note: Nothing about “violating principles” in there. NOTHING. Not one word. Know why?

    Because that would be INSANE. That would be a ridiculously slippery slope. You’re saying, essentially, what, that no religion should be compelled to do anything that goes against its religion? So suppose the Catholic Church didn’t believe in paying anybody any wages for any work they do. Are they now exempt from paying minimum wage? By your logic, wouldn’t the minimum wage be violating their principles?

    Have you really thought this through?

    >>Liberals have been fighting Catholic universities over condoms for decades

    WTF does this have to do with anything?

    >>Today, as every alleged triumph of Liberalism is crumbling, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid to every other entitlement program robbing the public coffers, sexual liberation is all they have left.

    Oh, I get it now. You’re insane.

    >>One might think the President of the United States would be too preoccupied with his upcoming meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister about Iran’s nuclear ambition, or American servicemen getting shot in the heads by the Afghan troops they are training, or the general state of the economy, but no.

    Oh, please. Seriously, THIS is what you’re resorting to? That’s how desperate you guys are? The President should be too busy to call a woman and offer his support for a few minutes after she’s been shamed and called a “slut” by a sleazebag on national radio for testifying in favor of contraception coverage? Whereas, when Bush broke the record for vacation days by a sitting President, not a peep from you guys. Consistency! Love that about you folks.

    >>If Sandra Fluke is successful in steering the debate about the Obamacare mandate away from religious liberty to “women’s health,” the President will be very grateful.

    Unless and until you can demonstrate that this debate has anything to do with “religious liberty”, you’ve got the sarcastic quote-marks in the wrong spot.

    Whenever you’re ready.

    • Ira on March 4, 2012 at 7:41 am

      Amen Ghost well said

  3. Spaceghost on March 3, 2012 at 10:41 am

    >>I wonder how many lattes she drinks in a week at Starbucks? How much is her cell phone bill a month? How many pairs of shoes does she own? How may handbags? How often does she go out to eat? How often does she party with friends at nightclubs? Does she hold a job? Seems she has extra time.If I am to support her sex life, that she can not afford, I want an answer to these qts..I will compare my answers to these qts to hers anyday, then we can see who really can afford her fun.

    You’re an idiot, and there’s not much you can do about that, but you’re (presumably) a woman, so for you to be fighting AGAINST the accessibility to contraceptives, something they spent most of the 20th Century fighting FOR, that’s where it gets genuinely demented. Have a nice day.

  4. ECM on March 3, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Jesus, that was a good post. Bravo!

  5. Spaceghost on March 3, 2012 at 11:42 am

    >>There are studies showing that red wine prevents heart disease. Subsidizing my intake of fine wine is cheaper in the long run than cardiac surgery, so it would actually amount to a savings for overall society, (though not for the burdened winery, but in the words of Joe Biden, “Time to be patriotic, time to jump in!”) Therefore, my intake of red wine, though pleasurable, is really, REALLY all about my health, just as Sandra Fluke’s sexual activity…

    You know, if doctors actually prescribed wine for patients to prevent heart disease, you would actually have a viable analogy, and yes, it actually WOULD make sense for that to be covered. And in fact, there actually is a similar analogy to be made here: Medical marijuana. It is proven beyond doubt that marijuana eases the nausea and pain of cancer, helps control the debilitating symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease and has a whole host of other beneficial aspects for various ailments and diseases. Does a cancer patient have the right to relieve their constant nausea? Does a Parkinson’s sufferer have the right to prevent their muscles from seizing up incessantly? Or are those just luxuries that they should pay for out of pocket?

    See, the REAL disconnect here is that you scolds are simply unable to reconcile the notion of something having a medicinal purpose with something also having positive added value. If its side effects are actually enjoyable, if it’s something that people would actually take whether they were ill or not, then it must not be medicine, goes your logic. Marijuana eases nausea…Oh, but it also makes you feel high, so it must be evil. The contraceptive pill reduces cancer risk and ovarian cysts…but it also prevents ovulation and thus enables non-procreative sex, so it must be a luxury. If marijuana had no enjoyable side effects, there would be not a moment’s controversy about medicinal pot. If the pill did all it does for women’s health WITHOUT preventing conception, you wouldn’t hesitate to argue for its coverage. THAT is how twisted you guys are: If it’s fun, or it even merely ENABLES fun…it can’t be good for you.

    And oh, here, bonus question, while I’m here:

    If the idea of the church enabling behavior that’s against their religion is so abhorrent to them, then isn’t the mere hiring of people not of their faith abhorrent to them? Aren’t they paying these employees money, with which they can do what they want, including buying contraceptives? So by your logic, shouldn’t they be allowed to fire someone if they learned that they bought condoms or the pill with their wages?

    Again, I ask: Have you really thought this through?

    • Sean on March 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm

      I love how you guys actually want us to believe this is not about sex. I mean really. You make it sound as if most women take birth control pills for their health. Wake up. Even if they did, why not require insurance plans to provide apples and celery for free? It’s a health issue.

  6. Mary T Medlin on March 3, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    I totally agree with the writer of the blog! A woman could buy her own insurance to cover contraceptives and if she can’t afford it, ask the men she is having sex with to help her out. I paid for my own pills which were expensive enough and shouldn’t have to help pay for anyone else unless I choose to. The Catholic church has the right to offer insurance within their own belief systems and those who differ from that opinion are free to send in money to all the women requesting it for sexual pleasures!!! Good grief!

  7. Sallie Parker on March 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    This is so damn good I don’t know where to begin. In its wit and its reaming of leftist cant, it surpasses even Mark Steyn in his salad days. On the other hand…it was a matter of these fish and barrel, and there’s plenty of ammunition for everyone.

  8. Sallie Parker on March 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    I meant “these fish and that barrel”; a word or two dropped out.

  9. Spaceghost on March 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    And one last question, just for kicks: Did you even hear or read Sandra Fluke’s testimony before deciding to write this screed against it? Because I don’t know how you could hear this section and come to the conclusion that she wants America to pay for her right to have casual sex:

    “These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.”

    Just a yes or no will be fine on this one. Thanks.

  10. SuperFly on March 3, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Geez, Spaceghost, STFU already. You’re arguments about actual health issues are nonsense diversions from reality, just like most of her testimony. It’s obvious she’s full of it–she says it costs a grand/year when according to Planned Parenthood it’s only $15-50/month. Then she says that’s all she makes in a summer. A kid can make twice that working 20 hours/week at Taco Bell. How old is she, again? That’s right–another lie.

    I know you hippies want some righteous boning–everyone does. But why do you want me to be responsible for yours, again? This sort of thing exemplifies the liberal frame of mind: “Society has to carry my load, because I’m ill-equipped to navigate through life unaided.” Should I also pay for an escort for you, since your responses suggest you are too annoying to gain a willing partner? If someone turns you down, is it an infringement of your rights?

  11. kms on March 3, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    This article points out some interesting perspective, and I’m not saying I disagree. I’m just commenting b/c I wanted to point something out. I do believe her calculation of the cost of contraception is accurate. I know the example is given of when you were in law school during the AIDS scare (so the 1980′s?), and that birth control costed $30 a month. Well, I don’t know how inflation affects prescription drugs, so I will just speak from experience. Approximately 5 years ago, I worked for the state, and birth control was not covered by my insurance plan. So the cost for me to be on the pill was $73/month. So that would put contraceptives at $876/year and $2628 for 3 years. Since I couldn’t really afford that, I ended up going to Public Health where it was “free or whatever you can afford,” and would just give a donation. Being that was 5 years ago, there is a good possibility the prices could have gone up, right?

    In regards to the other comments (by Spaceghost), I just wanted to point out the discrepancy with the wheelchair argument. I currently work in healthcare, and in the situation you described a wheelchair is covered as it is deemed “medically necessary” by an insurance company and Medicare because an individual needs it complete their daily activities and functional mobility. Not because the individual likes to “travel.” With that being said, I do think contraception should be covered for medical conditions (i.e. endometriosis, PCOS), and even for PMS relief and less painful menstruation. Contraception can help reduce symptoms and disease progression and should be considered “medically necessary” for those cases. (and maybe it already is?)

    I think it’s wrong to assume that because a woman takes contraceptives, it’s because she’s having so much sex that she’s using “5.479 condoms a day” (based on your budget calculations), or because she’s even sexually active. Now, because she’s sexually active may be an accurate assumption the majority of the time, but not always. I’ve known many women, including myself, who were not sexually active, but taking contraceptives to regulate debilitating periods.

    Now, also being Catholic and going to catholic schools K-12, I can see how this mandate violates the first amendment if it’s just being used prevent pregnancy. (Sorry Spaceghost, I know you had asked for specifics, but I don’t want to go into the details of Catholicism right now). But shouldn’t it still be covered when there’s a documented medical diagnosis and to relieve menstrual cycle symptoms? I believe it should.

  12. Arrgh2012 on March 3, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=310778978985004&set=a.139110996151804.28222.100001587123286&type=1&ref=nf

    hey liberals….might want to get another role model….better luck next time

  13. Where did she learn to do math on March 3, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Not to mention that she claims to only make $1000 per summer. Ummm…even assuming her summer is only 5 weeks long (10-13 is more standard, right?)…that is $200 per week…or only $5 per hour. Where is she working that they don’t even pay minimum wage? Or is it that she is such a cracker jack law student that she can’t get a decent summer job? My nephew who started law school this past fall got an internship at a law firm for this past summer–before he even entered law school–that paid $20,000. Yeah, I have a LOT of time stomaching his liberal complaints about not being able to pay for health insurance since his wife is also employed and likely making about $40-50K per year.

  14. A Hollywood Republican » Sandra Fluke and the Women's Health … | Women For Health on March 3, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    [...] A Hollywood Republican » Sandra Fluke and the Women's Health … This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged aids, american, catholic, dra, fluke, king, obamacare, president, school, women health by admin. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

  15. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:20 am

    >>You’re arguments about actual health issues are nonsense diversions from reality, just like most of her testimony.

    You’re saying the contraceptive pill does NOT have health benefits beyond contraception? I just want to make sure you’re saying that before I tell you that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    >>It’s obvious she’s full of it–she says it costs a grand/year when according to Planned Parenthood it’s only $15-50/month. Then she says that’s all she makes in a summer. A kid can make twice that working 20 hours/week at Taco Bell. How old is she, again? That’s right–another lie.

    She said SOME STUDENTS pay that much for it. That’s on the high end, but so what? How does that nullify the rest of what she said, or the rest of the points about it? Do you even KNOW what she said? Did you even READ the points about it?

    >>I know you hippies want some righteous boning–everyone does. But why do you want me to be responsible for yours, again?

    Okay, let’s just pretend…JUST FOR A MOMENT…That that’s ALL the contraceptive pill does, it protects against pregnancy. JUST FOR A MOMENT, we’re pretending that.

    Guess what? That’s PLENTY reason for health plans to cover it. Because see, people are gonna HAVE SEX, you know? It’s popular. Even among conservatives. Hell, ESPECIALLY among them. But the harder it is for women to access contraception, guess what? That means more unwanted pregnancies. Which means a) More abortions; and b) More unwanted babies. Which means more poverty, unemployment, crime, and generally miserable people in the country. And it means more money going to those social safety net programs that you guys profess to hate so much.

    So there you go, it absolutely behooves society to enable women to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Happy now? Now we can stop pretending that that’s all the pill does, because it does way MORE than that, so really, all that help for the economy is just the tip of the iceberg.

    >>If someone turns you down, is it an infringement of your rights?

    Hey, speaking of “infringement of rights”, I haven’t read all the other comments, but I’d be willing to put any amount of money on the bet that none of them even attempt to demonstrate how this thing infringes on anyone’s ability to practice their religion.

    Any takers?

  16. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:23 am

    >>I love how you guys actually want us to believe this is not about sex. I mean really. You make it sound as if most women take birth control pills for their health.

    Where did I say this wasn’t about sex. It is indeed partly about having the fundamental right to have non-procreative sex…and partly about the right to take a pill that lowers risk of cancer, ovarian cysts and too many other things to list.

    Again, I say: IF it had all those health benefits and DID NOT prevent conception, you guys wouldn’t be uttering a peep about this, so why don’t YOU stop pretending that this isn’t about anything except you guys getting to act like self-righteous, hypocritical scolds. ‘kay?

  17. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:31 am

    >>A woman could buy her own insurance to cover contraceptives

    Hey, that’s swell, you telling us what people you don’t know can afford to do. Do go on!

    and if she can’t afford it, ask the men she is having sex with to help her out.

    Excellent plan! Unless they say no, and then she’s shit outta luck. But I live this grand vision of modern society you have where women get to rely on men to buy things for them. How’s the weather back in the 1950′s?

    >>I paid for my own pills which were expensive enough

    Hey, there we go. Shoots the argument that it’s so damn cheap right in the head. Here that, everybody? ONE OF YOU just said this!

    >>and shouldn’t have to help pay for anyone else unless I choose to.

    You’re aware, aren’t you, that if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy because she couldn’t afford contraceptives, then she probably can’t afford the hospital cost of giving birth, which means she’ll probably wind up going to the emergency room, which, guess what? YOU’LL BE PAYING FOR. And then of course there’s the added cost, as I mentioned above, of all the years of social safety net programs she’s going to need to raise that child she didn’t want and is now stuck home taking care of instead of working at a job. Wouldn’t it be WAY cheaper just to pay for the pill?

    >>The Catholic church has the right to offer insurance within their own belief systems

    Uh, no, they actually don’t. Show me which law or Constitutional clause or amendment allows religions to ignore the rules they don’t like. Again, I ask (in vain, I know): Should a religion that doesn’t believe in paying employees not have to pay the employees of its institutions?

    Take your time. Toughie, I know.

  18. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:41 am

    >>In regards to the other comments (by Spaceghost), I just wanted to point out the discrepancy with the wheelchair argument. I currently work in healthcare, and in the situation you described a wheelchair is covered as it is deemed “medically necessary” by an insurance company and Medicare because an individual needs it complete their daily activities and functional mobility. Not because the individual likes to “travel.”

    I was being satirical to make a point. But I find most of your comment fairly reasonable, save this:

    >>I can see how this mandate violates the first amendment if it’s just being used prevent pregnancy. (Sorry Spaceghost, I know you had asked for specifics, but I don’t want to go into the details of Catholicism right now).

    The details of Catholicism are irrelevant. All the first amendment says about religion is that you can’t make a law that a) Establishes a religion; or b) Can’t make a law that prevents anyone from freely practicing their religion. This DOESN’T DO THAT. There is no way you can make the argument that making a Catholic-run institution cover birth control in their health plans is preventing them from practicing Catholicism.

    Please, somebody point to a Catholic who is going to be unable to practice their religion as a result of this law. Just ONE!

    I mean, let’s take a fairly realistic equivalent example: Say there was a religion that had rules against pre-marital sex, living in sin, and having children out of wedlock. Most religions do, actually. So if a woman who, say, teaches at a religion-run private school got pregnant with her live-in boyfriend, should they not have to give her maternity leave? Should they be allowed to fire her, in fact? And are their 1st amendment rights being infringed upon if they aren’t?

    Aren’t HER rights to have sex with who she wants, marry or not marry who she wants, and have kids with who she wants more important?

  19. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:46 am

    >>Not to mention that she claims to only make $1000 per summer.

    No, she didn’t. Jesus Christ, doesn’t ANYBODY actually do some research before posting this crap? Here’s what she said:

    “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.”

    So “where did she learn to do math”? Question:

    Where did you learn to read?

  20. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:50 am

    >>hey liberals….might want to get another role model….better luck next time

    Huh? Where has anyone said she was 23 years old, first of all? Her birthday is right there on her Wikipedia page for all to see? So you all just assumed she was younger and then realized she was (gasp!) 30, and that’s supposed to be scandalous? That nullifies her points somehow, or the points in the debate?

    Why is everyone here so silly?

  21. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    This bears repeating, though:

    >>With that being said, I do think contraception should be covered for medical conditions (i.e. endometriosis, PCOS), and even for PMS relief and less painful menstruation. Contraception can help reduce symptoms and disease progression and should be considered “medically necessary” for those cases. (and maybe it already is?)

    >>I think it’s wrong to assume that because a woman takes contraceptives, it’s because she’s having so much sex that she’s using “5.479 condoms a day” (based on your budget calculations), or because she’s even sexually active. Now, because she’s sexually active may be an accurate assumption the majority of the time, but not always. I’ve known many women, including myself, who were not sexually active, but taking contraceptives to regulate debilitating periods.

    Thank you. Exactly. Shoots the premise that this is about trying to get the taxpayers to pay for other people’s sex lives right in the goddamn head.

  22. savvy on March 4, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Georgetown already covers contraceptives for medical reasons. One needs a prescription from their doctor first.

    If Ms. Fluke can afford tuition, she can afford contraception.

    Medicaid also provides contraception for those who can’t afford it.

    This is an attempt of the federal govt, to regulate everybody’s health care, including that of private organizations.

  23. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    >>Georgetown already covers contraceptives for medical reasons. One needs a prescription from their doctor first. If Ms. Fluke can afford tuition, she can afford contraception.

    Among other problems, that is so totally, completely, utterly not the point, I don’t even know where to begin.

    >>Medicaid also provides contraception for those who can’t afford it.

    Hilarious! Here at HollywoodRepublican.net, the internet’s mecca for hating on social safety net programs, the federal government in general, and anything that involves giving taxpayer money to the needy, a commenter mentions MEDICAID as a viable option for contraceptive access. With a straight face.

    Okay, I’ll bite. Explain to all these “Smaller government!!” advocates and “Not with MY tax money, you don’t!” whiners here: How is sending people to Medicaid for their contraceptives preferable over allowing them to be covered by their employee medical plan?

    >>This is an attempt of the federal govt, to regulate everybody’s health care, including that of private organizations.

    I see. So you want the “federal govt” so small that it’s not allowed to set certain standards about what companies must provide their employees…but NOT so small that it doesn’t have programs where eligible poor people can’t just get stuff from them as part of a social safety net program. You’d rather have the government handing out contraceptives than employee health plans having to cover contraceptives.

    I guess there’s a certain logic to that, sort of.

    Good luck explaining it to all these government-haters here, though.

    • savvy on March 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm

      “How is sending people to Medicaid for their contraceptives preferable over allowing them to be covered by their employee medical plan?”

      It does not force the employer to violate their conscience by formally buying the health plan.

      “but NOT so small that it doesn’t have programs where eligible poor people can’t just get stuff from them as part of a social safety net program.”

      If the govt. really wanted to do this, they could have made it possible without picking a fight with religious institutions they did not start.

      The issue here is an overreach into private healthcare and religious freedom.

      I never claimed to be a govt. hater. It’s something you assumed I was.

      Socialized medicine comes with strings attached.

      • Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm

        >>It does not force the employer to violate their conscience by formally buying the health plan.

        There is no legal argument to be made against anything that “forces” an employer to “violate their conscience.” First of all, owning and operating an institution like a hospital or a school is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, so no one is “forcing” anyone to do anything other than follow the rules that come with exercising this privilege.

        And second of all, as I’ve said about 100 times so far, and no one’s bothered to even attempt to respond, once we exempt employers from doing things that would “violate their conscience”, that’s an insanely slippery slope. Do you really not see that? It would violate certain employers’ consciences to hire black people. Or to pay minimum wage. Or to offer a health plan. Or to not make every Friday “Snake Handling Day.” See the ugly path you’re describing?

        >>If the govt. really wanted to do this, they could have made it possible without picking a fight with religious institutions they did not start.

        They didn’t “pick a fight.” The religious institutions rebelled against the notion of covering contraceptives in their health plans, and the President responded by…COMPROMISING with them. I don’t even think he had to do that, but he did it…and now you’re blaming him for “picking a fight”? Do you see why everybody else makes fun of you folks?

        >>The issue here is an overreach into private healthcare and religious freedom.

        A) HOW is it an overreach into private healthcare? Scroll up a little bit and you’ll see someone far more in the know, and far more sympathetic cause than ME, listing a myriad of ways that the pill provides health benefits beyond contraception. It’s MEDICINE, essentially. How is it an overreach to ensure that health plans cover certain medicines? Once again, I say: If the pill had all those qualities EXCEPT preventing conception, you wouldn’t say a word about this, so why don’t you just stop pretending this is anything but a bunch of uptight knuckleheads using this an excuse to cluck their tongues over non-procreative sex, something that 99.999999999% of the population is FOR? (Seriously, what’s the percentage in taking a stance AGAINST something that popular? Have you thought this through?)

        b) Again: Still waiting to be shown specifically how this impinges on religious freedom as defined by the first amendment. Just one single person who is prevented from freely practicing their religion by this.

        Whenever you’re ready.

        • savvy on March 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm

          “First of all, owning and operating an institution like a hospital or a school is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, so no one is “forcing” anyone to do anything other than follow the rules that come with exercising this privilege.”

          These organizations are non-profits. They were not started by the govt. And you’re saying that if someone wants rights they have not engage in any public activities?

          “Do you really not see that? It would violate certain employers’ consciences to hire black people. Or to pay minimum wage. Or to offer a health plan. Or to not make every Friday “Snake Handling Day.” See the ugly path you’re describing?”

          This is not relevant, since there aren’t religions that support this, and if they do they do not run so many schools and hospitals.

          a) Where is the constitutional right to mandate what private organizations should do?

          The issue here is not how many people use contraception, but forcing those who are opposed to it to pay for it, along with abortion drugs and sterilizations.

          The first amendment is not based on polls, but on principle.

          • Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm

            >>And you’re saying that if someone wants rights they have not engage in any public activities?

            Umm…No…Not even close, really. I’m saying if you’re doing something VOLUNTARILY, and that if you want to do that something, you have to abide by certain RULES that have been set about it, then you’re not being FORCED to do anything. If you want to do the thing, follow the rules. It’s really not that complicated.

            >>This is not relevant, since there aren’t religions that support this, and if they do they do not run so many schools and hospitals.

            You’re an idiot. The point is that it’s a SLIPPERY SLOPE. Do you know what that means? (Hint: No.) It means that when you open a door like that, wherein you establish the precedent that a religion-run organization can ignore any rules that it disapproves of, you start down a really ugly, slippery path from which there’s no climbing back up.

            Put it this way: If it were established that religions that don’t approve of contraceptives don’t have to abide by healthcare laws about them, what would be the argument AGAINST a religion that didn’t approve of minimum wage not having to abide by it?

            I’ll be right here. Take your time.

            >>a) Where is the constitutional right to mandate what private organizations should do?

            Answered above. This is quite possibly the dumbest question I’ve ever been asked, even on this website, and boy howdy, is THAT saying something.

            Congratulations!

            >>The issue here is not how many people use contraception, but forcing those who are opposed to it to pay for it, along with abortion drugs and sterilizations.

            Again: a) No one is being FORCED to do anything but abide by the rules and regulations that come with running and institution; b) There is nothing in any law ANYWHERE that says that an individual or organization shouldn’t have to do something just because it disapproves of it; and c) If there were, that would be an unholy fucking mess. Do you really not see that?

            >>The first amendment is not based on polls, but on principle.

            I have no idea what the idea is here, but it doesn’t matter. The first amendment says you can’t pass a law that prohibits anyone from practicing their religion. That’s it. Seriously. Nothing else. Nothing about “You can’t make an organization do stuff that it disapproves of.” NOTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT. NOTHING AT ALL. So (again!) until you can demonstrate how this law prevents ANYONE from practicing their religion, please stop mentioning the first amendment.

            It’s almost like you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.

  24. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    >>I never claimed to be a govt. hater. It’s something you assumed I was.

    That isn’t what I said. I’m saying this place is teeming with masses of haters on all things federal government, particularly social safety net programs, so the fact that one of you brings up Medicaid as THE ANSWER is really more hilarious than I can describe.

    >>Socialized medicine comes with strings attached.

    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but you know what DOES come with strings attached? Running a business or an institution. Strings like “You have to provide your full-time employees with a health plan, and if you morally disapprove of what that health plan covers, well…tough titty.”

    Is that what you meant?

    • savvy on March 4, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      “but you know what DOES come with strings attached? Running a business or an institution.”

      They are non-profit organizations, founded on religious principles. Most of their revenue comes from donations.

      Please tell me when does the federal govt. have a constitutional right to dictate what private organizations, they did not start and do not run have to do?

  25. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    >>They are non-profit organizations, founded on religious principles. Most of their revenue comes from donations.

    Sorry, no. Some religion-owned institutions are non-profit, and some aren’t. And what difference does it make, anyway? It’s still a privilege, not a right, to run an institution.

    >>Please tell me when does the federal govt. have a constitutional right to dictate what private organizations, they did not start and do not run have to do?

    Grammatical issues aside…Are you kidding? You’re kidding, right?

    Cause otherwise…You’re saying…What, now?

    That the government does NOT have a right to make laws for private companies to follow? That because something is a “private organization”, that means it can just…be able to do whatever the hell it wants? And the government can’t say boo about it?

    So there’s no minimum wage laws?

    Or sexual/racial discrimination laws?

    No child labor laws?

    No fire safety laws?

    No laws about benefits or hours or overtime or any other work standards and practices?

    Hmm…I think I’ve found the source of confusion.

    I’m talking about the United States of America. You know, THIS country:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law#History

    Which country are YOU talking about?

    • savvy on March 4, 2012 at 5:40 pm

      “That the government does NOT have a right to make laws for private companies to follow? That because something is a “private organization”, that means it can just…be able to do whatever the hell it wants? And the government can’t say boo about it?”

      Obama himself said, there would be conscience exemptions and then lied.

      The government cannot run the internal affairs of a church or define it’s ministry. This is exactly what this mandate is doing.

      All these other laws deal with public safety and employment laws. Contraception does not.

      This is more about a sense of entitlement that says, I have to pay for Sally’s birth control.

      Why should this be free, even when food is not?

      I am also tried to the excuse that this would cause unwanted pregnancies. Refusing to fund hamburgers does not force people to be vegetarian.

      If someone wants birth control pay for it yourself. It’s already available.

  26. savvy on March 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    “If it were established that religions that don’t approve of contraceptives don’t have to abide by healthcare laws about them, what would be the argument AGAINST a religion that didn’t approve of minimum wage not having to abide by it?”

    Wages are not the same as contraception. And when you come across a religion that forbids paying wages, let me know.

    You keep taking about abiding by the rules. Please tell me where is there a constitutional right to birth control?

    By forcing a religious employer to subsidize things they consider to be immoral, is a violation of their religious freedom.

    As for being voluntary. This is a mandate. It’s not voluntary.

  27. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    >>Obama himself said, there would be conscience exemptions and then lied.

    No idea what you’re talking about, only that it’s non-responsive. And quite probably wrong.

    >>Wages are not the same as contraception. And when you come across a religion that forbids paying wages, let me know.

    You clearly don’t understand the concept of a hypothetical, or an analogy, or a slippery slope. In other words, the breakdown in communication here might be due to the fact that you’re a fucking imbecile.

    >>The government cannot run the internal affairs of a church or define it’s ministry.

    It isn’t. What the fuck does what the health plan that a church-owned institution covers have to do with its ministry?

    >>All these other laws deal with public safety and employment laws. Contraception does not.

    Again: EXAMPLE. A “what if” scenario, if you will. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

    >>This is more about a sense of entitlement that says, I have to pay for Sally’s birth control. Why should this be free, even when food is not?

    Again, I say: There are whole shitload of things your taxes cover. Why? For the greater benefit of society. Again, I say: If Sally doesn’t have birth control and gets pregnant and has a baby she doesn’t wants and can’t afford to have, you’re paying for her to go the emergency room to have the baby, you’re paying for her welfare and food stamps because she has no money because it all goes to the baby, and you’re paying for the extra cops needed because there’s more crime because there’s more poor, desperate people out there. Wouldn’t you RATHER pay for the pills? I’m told they’re pretty affordable.

    And again: THEY’RE NOT JUST BIRTH CONTROL. But even if they were, my point stands.

    >>I am also tried to the excuse that this would cause unwanted pregnancies. Refusing to fund hamburgers does not force people to be vegetarian.

    Um…exactly MY point. If someone wants a hamburger enough, they’ll find a way to get one. Now multiply that times 10,000, and you get how much MORE likely it is that someone who really wants to have sex will have it whether they have access to birth control or not. Result? UNWANTED BABIES.

    Are you seriously trying to make the case that less access to birth control does NOT lead to an increase in unwanted babies? With a straight face?

    Ever hear of the “Baby Boom”?

    Ever wonder why it ended right around the time that the Pill came along?

    Coincidence, right?

    >>If someone wants birth control pay for it yourself. It’s already available.

    Truly idiotic. The fact that it’s available is not a reason for it not to be covered. I don’t need to be covered to get antibiotics when I have an ear infection either. It’s available. But see, if I have health insurance, I don’t NEED to pay for it, because THAT’S WHAT A HEALTH PLAN IS FOR, IT COVERS THINGS PERTAINING TO MY HEALTH. Seriously, this isn’t complicated. Scale of 1 to 10, how fucking dumb are you?

    >>You keep taking about abiding by the rules. Please tell me where is there a constitutional right to birth control?

    Fucking idiotic. First of all, the 9th amendment nullifies questions like that, like seriously, that’s EXACTLY what’s for. Where is the constitutional right to walk down the street without getting punched in the face? And yet, there are laws against punching people in the face. And second, you don’t get it. It’s not about the employee having a right to birth control, it’s about the employer NOT having a right to just ignore the rules of a health plan that they don’t like. That’s not how it fucking works, and if it were…Again: SLIPPERY FUCKING SLOPE. Which I know YOU don’t understand, but maybe if I say it enough times, you’ll look it up. Wishful thinking, I know.

    >>By forcing a religious employer to subsidize things they consider to be immoral, is a violation of their religious freedom.

    You keep saying the same stupid shit, and it’s still WRONG. Again: There is no such thing as a right to religious freedom beyond the fact that it can’t be a law prohibiting it. Seriously, that’s it. There will never be a law AGAINST practicing Catholicism. That’s it, it’s that simple. If Catholicism involved virgin sacrifices, there could indeed be a law against THAT, but they can’t outlaw Catholicism. Again, in vain, I challenge you to illustrate exactly how this law prohibits anyone from PRACTICING CATHOLICISM. Not “demands a Catholic-owned institution’s health plan to cover stuff that it disapproves of”…PROHIBITS THEM FROM PRACTICING IT.

    I’ll be right here.

    >>As for being voluntary. This is a mandate. It’s not voluntary.

    Owning a hospital? Voluntary.

    Following the laws laid out for owning a hospital?

    Mandatory FOR HOSPITAL OWNERS, who are hospital owners VOLUNTARILY.

    See the fucking difference?

    • savvy on March 4, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      Spacegoat,

      Pregnancy is not a disease. Yes, contraception is affordable, so people can buy it on their own.

      “Are you seriously trying to make the case that less access to birth control does NOT lead to an increase in unwanted babies? With a straight face?”

      I am saying that we live in a first world country, where people already have access to contraception and should not blackmail others into paying for it.

      “What the fuck does what the health plan that a church-owned institution covers have to do with its ministry?”

      It can’t cover things they deem to be immoral, like contraception, abortion drugs etc. It would be formal co-operation.

      It’s also socialist policies dictating private health care.

      • Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:41 pm

        >>Pregnancy is not a disease.

        No one’s saying it is. So fucking what? Are you going to deny that contraception is a health-related matter? Are you going to read that story I posted and tell me that the prescription of those pills is not health-related, or was not warranted by the situation, or that the pills only prevent pregnancy?

        Go ahead, try to type that with a straight face. This I gotta see.

        >>I am saying that we live in a first world country, where people already have access to contraception and should not blackmail others into paying for it.

        You don’t know what you’re talking about. No one’s “blackmailing” anybody, any more than when YOU get prescription medicine from YOUR doctor and YOUR health plan covers it.

        And again I ask: Would you rather there be more unwanted babies, and you wind up paying for all the costs associated with THAT?

        >>It can’t cover things they deem to be immoral, like contraception, abortion drugs etc.

        The way this works is: You can’t just make shit up. There actually has to be a law that you’re citing, or a section of the Constitution, that kind of thing. You can’t just say that the plan “can’t cover things they deem to be immoral” unless there actually IS such a law.

        And guess what?

        There isn’t. Know why?

        Cause that would be fucking INSANE. For the 100th time. Because then ANY business could ignore any law they wanted on the grounds that they “deem it to be immoral”.

        Seriously, you haven’t even attempted to respond to that, and it’s the fucking CRUX of the matter.

        It’s almost as if you know how totally wrong and full of shit you are. It’s almost like you haven’t thought this through. What else is one to think?

      • Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:45 pm

        >>It’s also socialist policies dictating private health care.

        No, you have at backwards, which was my point in the first place. What YOU are proposing is RELIGIOUS policies taking precedent over LEGAL ones. What YOU are saying is that a church’s disapproval of a law takes precedent over the law itself.

        I honestly, seriously cannot think of anything more un-American, or anything more subverting of the First Amendment.

        Seriously, I can’t. Because the first amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. And yet that’s basically what you’re calling for, Catholic rules superseding secular law. That is the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of a first amendment violation. It genuinely doesn’t get any more flagrantly unconstitutional than that.

        So congratulations! You hit the jackpot, you fucking moron!

        • savvy on March 5, 2012 at 12:10 am

          Looks, like you cannot talk without insulting people, and we wonder why we waste our time with libtards.

          You brought up preventing unwanted pregnancies to save money, not Me. Now don’t confuse this with contraception for medical reasons.

          An unjust law is no law.

          Where does the constitutions give the president the right to enforce mandates on people.

          The constitution has a commerce clause, that says nobody can be forced to buy anything that violates their conscience.

          • Spaceghost on March 5, 2012 at 11:00 am

            >>Looks, like you cannot talk without insulting people,

            I get insulting when I have to repeat myself ten times, when I’m already dumbing down my arguments to the point of imbecility. But what I do first and foremost is attack people’s ARGUMENTS. It’s only when you choose to put the blinders on and mindlessly regurgitate your non-responsive talking points and not actually consider what’s being said to you that I turn up the invective.

            >>You brought up preventing unwanted pregnancies to save money, not Me. Now don’t confuse this with contraception for medical reasons.

            Huh? Who’s confusing anything with anything? This IS NOT COMPLICATED. It goes like this:

            1. The pill does many things. Primarily it does many things, but its many use is for contraception.
            2. However, it also has so many OTHER benefits that some people are prescribed it (see the posted story, e.g.) even if they DON’T need contraception.
            3. So by making access to the pill more difficult, you a) Deprive people of a means of contraception, which means and increase in unwanted babies and all sorts of negative and expensive consequences from that; and b) Deprive people who want or need it for the HEALTH reasons of being healthy, such as the girl in the story.

            How is that confusing? It’s TWO solid reasons not to reduce access to this stuff. Are you having trouble counting to two?

            >>An unjust law is no law.

            That’s meaningless blather. There are plenty of unjust laws. There are hundreds of dudes rotting in prison, most of them minorities, because they were caught smoking or selling weed. There’s plenty in the legal system to complain about already, so complain away. But you what you’re NOT doing, because you CAN’T, is making a case that this is unconstitutional, or that it infringes on freedom of religion. Mainly because it isn’t and it doesn’t.

            >>Where does the constitutions give the president the right to enforce mandates on people.

            Right there, in that short, stupid sentence, is TWO pieces of evidence that you’re either not actually reading what I type, or you’re reading it but somehow not comprehending it. But I know I’m typing it. I know it’s in English. I know it’s in fairly simple language and mostly one-syllable words and some of them capitalized for emphasis. So it must not be me, it’s you. You’re a fucking idiot. That’s the only explanation.

            >>The constitution has a commerce clause, that says nobody can be forced to buy anything that violates their conscience.

            That’s not even close to what it says. It can’t even be MISINTERPRETED that way. That’s just you being flat out fucking wrong. Here, try reading a little:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Text_and_pairing

            Please, I’m begging you, show me where in there it says anything about…

            No, fuck it, never mind. You’re a genuine ignoramus, you’re not worth my time, and I’m done with you. Go join Tim Ross and play with each other’s poop. Have a nice day!

          • Spaceghost on March 5, 2012 at 11:02 am

            >>1. The pill does many things. Primarily it does many things, but its many use is for contraception.

            Sorry, this should read “The pill does many things, but its primary use is for contraception.” Not that you’re reading or understanding what I type anyway, but there you go.

    • savvy on March 4, 2012 at 10:39 pm

      People don’t need others to babysit them and subsidize their lifestyle choices or blackmail them into funding them.

      • Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:33 pm

        >>People don’t need others to babysit them and subsidize their lifestyle choices or blackmail them into funding them.

        You’re such a fucking idiot. Honestly.

  28. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Here is what it comes down to, you genuine imbecile.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut

    “No, instead beantown girl suffers from menorrhagia and secondary dysmenorrhea. That is, since almost the time of her very first period, she bled so heavily and suffered such severe pain and cramping that she was rendered immobile for the first 2-3 days of menstruation. She would become so violently ill that she would miss at least 2 days of school each month. PMS for this poor child was so horrible- she would rage, cry and be so very depressed that the entire family would try anything to avoid being near her. It ended up the safest place for her was her room for the week preceding her actual period and we all knew to just stay away from her if we could. I finally convinced her that she needed to see a doctor about this when her periods began to last for 8-9 days and she would become so pale and listless throughout the entire period that I feared she was becoming anemic. She was. After doing extensive testing, ultrasounds and blood work, the doctor diagnosed her with the menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea. She placed beantown girl on Ortho Tri-cyclen Lo, a low dose birth control pill in order to try to balance out the hormones. Since she has been on the hormones, her periods have become regular, 4-5 days of normal menstruation with less cramping and no more violent, raging PMS- an absolute godsend to my beautiful daughter, to be sure!”

    Got it so far?

    Now, in YOUR world, if this poor girl’s mother happened to work at a Catholic-run hospital or school, she would be shit out of luck in terms of coverage for this condition. No matter how sick her daughter was, all her doctors would be able to say to her was “Well, there are some pills that can take care of this, but sorry, you’ll have to pay for them out of pocket, because they’re also contraceptives, and the church doesn’t like those. Tough titty! That’s what you get for working for Catholics! Do you want to tell your bleeding, crying, anemic teenage daughter, or shall I?”

    What a wonderful world it would be!

    Shithead.

    • savvy on March 4, 2012 at 10:28 pm

      In case you don’t know the church does not oppose contraception for health reasons, only to prevent pregnancy.

      And I brought up the fact that Georgetown already covers it for these reasons, you just need a prescription from the doctor.

      King Obama however is imposing a mandate that does not give the employer any options.

      Contraception can also be got from Planned Parenthood.

      This is a direct attack on religious freedom.

  29. Spaceghost on March 4, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    >>In case you don’t know the church does not oppose contraception for health reasons, only to prevent pregnancy.

    Which is what makes it doubly stupid, then, that in your world, contraceptive pills, which do far more than prevent pregnancy, would not be covered by their institutions’ health plans.

    >>And I brought up the fact that Georgetown already covers it for these reasons, you just need a prescription from the doctor.

    And I’m telling you – AGAIN – that it’s an irrelevant point that misses the big picture. Forget the specifics of Georgetown for a moment. Think more generally about how you’re demanding that a religious institution should be allowed to ignore any employment rules it disapproves of. Think how fucking crazy that is. Can you do that? Is it really that hard? I mean, Christian Scientists are against medical care. So by your logic, a Christian Scientist-owned school should be allowed to not provide a health plan for their teachers. That make a lot of sense to you?

    >>King Obama however is imposing a mandate that does not give the employer any options.

    Uh, yes, the “tyrant” just compromised when he didn’t have to. You’re an idiot. Again: It’s not a mandate, it’s a rule to be followed by people who are doing something VOLUNTARILY. How complicated is that? Is the Catholic Church FORCED to own hospitals and schools? Did someone put a gun to its head? Ho? They CHOSE to? Hm, then it’s not a mandate. They don’t like the rules they have to follow? Gee, I guess they can always, you know…SELL their hospitals and schools. Or just follow the goddamn rules. What are you, five? This is SO not complicated.

    >>Contraception can also be got from Planned Parenthood.

    Again: Not the point.

    Again: Just because something is available doesn’t make it okay for it not to be covered. Remember the ear infection example? No thoughts on that at all? Should antibiotics be optional, since they’re available and all? YES, THEY’RE AVAILABLE, YOU MORON, LOTS OF THINGS ARE AVAILABLE. FUCKING ALLERGY MEDICINE IS AVAILABLE, BUT IF I’M ON A HEALTH PLAN, IT’S COVERED. THAT’S WHAT’S NICE ABOUT HEALTH PLANS. JESUS CHRIST, HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU?

    >>This is a direct attack on religious freedom.

    You keep saying that and still haven’t even ATTEMPTED to demonstrate it. Is how bad you suck at this. Seriously, I can’t say it any clearer. “Religious freedom” is the right to PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION. THAT’S IT. NOT THAT COMPLICATED. HOW FUCKING DUMB DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

    Seriously: Scale of 1 to 10. I’ve got a number in mind, but what’s your best guess?

    • savvy on March 5, 2012 at 12:29 am

      “Which is what makes it doubly stupid, then, that in your world, contraceptive pills, which do far more than prevent pregnancy, would not be covered by their institutions’ health plans.”

      They could if there was room for something called an option, instead of dictating private health care policies.

      I made a valid point about planned parenthood providing free contraception. It’s available, without getting others to pay for it.

      This is an attempted take-over of private health care, with contraception, abortion and the last stage will be euthanasia as we have seen with so many socialist policies in the world.

      • Spaceghost on March 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm

        >>I made a valid point about planned parenthood providing free contraception. It’s available, without getting others to pay for it.

        They don’t just give it away to everybody. There are cases where people are ELIGIBLE for free contraception, but it’s not just flat-out free to one and all. Did you really think it was? That there’s this place that just gives away millions of dollars in birth control pills to anyone who asks? Seriously, how dumb are you?

        >>This is an attempted take-over of private health care, with contraception, abortion and the last stage will be euthanasia as we have seen with so many socialist policies in the world.

        You’re such a fucking idiot.

  30. savvy on March 5, 2012 at 12:23 am

    Religious freedom is also the right to be able to practise your religion without coersion and conscience violations.

    There are limits to govt, overreach. Socialists policies cannot dictate private health care.

    It’s called limited government.

    This has nothing to do with employment rules, since they went on fine for decades without it.

    Employees know what they’re getting into when they sign a contract.

    Are you saying that if a law mandates faith-based hospitals to perform abortions, or euthanize their patients they should be compelled to do so, just because they own a hospital.

    Stupid Liberal.

  31. Spaceghost on March 5, 2012 at 8:14 am

    >>Religious freedom is also the right to be able to practise your religion without coersion and conscience violations.

    a)That might be YOUR definition of religious freedom, but it’s not the Constitution’s. You’re aware that the latter is the only one that matters, right?

    b) Apparently you also have an unusual definition of “practice your religion”, because you haven’t even attempted to make a case how this thing interferes with anyone’s ability to do that. As far as I know, practicing one’s religion means worshiping its deity or deities and following its laws. If you want to make the case that this interferes with anyone’s ability to do those things, go right ahead. We’re dozens of comments into this, and you still haven’t, but knock yourself out.

    >>There are limits to govt, overreach. Socialists policies cannot dictate private health care.

    Whatever you mean by “socialist policies”, that’s just you voicing your disapproval. It doesn’t meant shit. It’s just a talking point. Repeating it doesn’t make it so, it just makes you look like a jackass. But you know what IS one of the founding principles of the nation? That the policies of a RELIGION can’t determine law. You know, like letting Catholics decide what employee health care rules they don’t have to follow.

    You’re so fucking bad at this. You make that lunatic Tim Ross actually look GOOD at it. He’s a fucking genius compared to you.

    >>This has nothing to do with employment rules, since they went on fine for decades without it.

    That doesn’t make any sense at all. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you even read the responses or are you just programmed to spit out mindless talking points a few times an hour?

    >>Employees know what they’re getting into when they sign a contract.

    Meaning…what? When a teacher gets a job at a Catholic-run school, it says in her contract that her health plan won’t cover contraceptives? I highly, highly doubt that, but that’s not the point anyway. I mean, hell, if the contract says that all employees get flogged every Friday, and the employee is okay with that, who am I to complain, but the point is that the contract shouldn’t be ALLOWED to say that. And guess what? IT ISN’T. Know why? Cause there are laws that employers have to follow. That’s how it works. You CHOOSE to run a business, and the government says “Okay, these are the rules.” You don’t like the rules, then DON’T RUN THE FUCKING BUSINESS. See why I keep calling you a fucking idiot whenever you use the word “mandate”? Because apparently you’re using words that you don’t understand. Repeatedly. And it’s sad.

    >>Are you saying that if a law mandates faith-based hospitals to perform abortions, or euthanize their patients they should be compelled to do so, just because they own a hospital.

    IF a law mandates that? Um…Then by definition, that would be the law. Are YOU saying they should violate the law?

    But the question I assume you’re really asking is “Are you saying that you’d be okay with there BEING such a law?” To which I say: No, because that’s a matter of compelling a private business what services to provide, which is quite different from giving it rules about policies concerning EMPLOYEES.

    This is so NOT FUCKING COMPLICATED. You want to run a business, you have to pay your employees a minimum wage. You have to give them a certain amount of breaks, a certain amount of vacation, and a certain amount of benefits. All rules that people AGREE TO FOLLOW when they start a business (what was that YOU said above about knowing what you’re in for when you sign a contract?). Now there are rules about health coverage. ONCE AGAIN, you have ducked the issue that to allow certain religions to ignore the rules they don’t like is a slippery slope. I don’t know how to ask it any clearer, and I don’t feel like retyping it again, so I’m just going to have to assume that you just plain don’t have a response to what is THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.

    Which is to say that you know you’re wrong and you’re just babbling now and you’re wasting my time.

    So go away. Done with you. Thanks for playing.

  32. messup on March 5, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/obamacare_and_contraceptives_the_free_exercise_zero-sum_game.html

    America is under attack in four areas:1)religion (a frontal attack on We The People’s Judeo-Christian heritage)2) education (already in the middle tier of developed nations) 3)governance (from a representative government to a top down, centralized, command and control politik), and 4) financial (from a capitalistic economy to a marxist/leninist type soviet style economy).

    This event with a law student is just a distraction from America’s real issues: Cut-cap-balance, excessive government control, a financial system for Elites, lack of Representation in Washington DC of We The People, Judicial legislating from the bench, Greed and Power on display in everything Washington DC.

    Example: Senator McCain’s NDAA (National Defense Authorization ACT) strips away America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Gone are habeus Corpus, right to an attorney, due process, speedy trial. Now, with NDAA, Any American can be labeled a terrorist, sent to a detention camp (in USA or overseas) and never be heard of again.

    Soon, confiscation of all, yes, every single weapon in the hands of Americans will be enacted.

    God Bless America. We’re living in a dictatorship. Wake-up America. Paul Revere is riding really hard, sounding the alarm. Keep your powder dry. Form your militias…soon, they’ll be upon We The People.

    • Spaceghost on March 5, 2012 at 10:25 pm

      You’re insane.

      • messup on March 6, 2012 at 9:13 am

        Amigo! Your lead mine is cozy and warm…stay there! You’re safe! And We The People like you there too. Away from those who care and love America.Amen.

  33. messup on March 6, 2012 at 9:28 am

    http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx?pid=key10&gclid=CIL6ldHj0q4CFWwGRQod9RNbWg

    Response to spaceghost: sign the global gun ban petition. Back up your “insane accusation” with cojones, amigo! Or, go back to your lead mine. It’s safe there. OH! We The People prefer you there, too. See We The People care about our God given Rights, Liberties and Freedoms…things lead mine denizens don’t like. Amen!

    • Spaceghost on March 6, 2012 at 11:05 am

      That’s really all you got? A debunked urban legend from over two years ago?

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

      That’s just fucking sad.

      >>Or, go back to your lead mine. It’s safe there. OH! We The People prefer you there, too. See We The People care about our God given Rights, Liberties and Freedoms…things lead mine denizens don’t like. Amen!

      Brad Pitt in “Se7en” said it best:

      “I’ve been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you’re insane? Maybe you’re just sitting around, reading “Guns and Ammo”, masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, “Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!”? Yeah. Do you guys do that?”

  34. BethesdaDog on March 9, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    I’m a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center. I’m only sympathetic to the argument that hormone birth control is necessary for treatment of true medical conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome or endometriosis, not to prevent pregnacy. It is my understanding that some of treatments are that expensive, costing close to $100 a month. So, I disagree with my alma mater’s policy to the extent it does not provide for reimbursement for medical treatment.

    Otherwise, I am not sympathetic to a woman who attended the school with the express purpose of challenging the school’s religiously-based policy. I respected and still respect the religious underpinnings of Georgetown’s Jesuit and Catholic character. I wish she had gone somewhere else to practice her reproductive rights activism, rather than making a target out of my law school.

    On the other hand, Limbaugh should exit the stage. He is no longer useful, and just hurts the Conservative cause.

    There’s no need for such ugliness in this debate, and it will make it even more difficult to attract some women voters to the Republican side this November.

  35. Leon77 on March 10, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that “taxpayers” would be funding birth control coverage in this situation. In Fluke’s case, she spends a LOT of money to attend Georgetown, where the tuition is likely used to offset insurance costs. SHE pays for the insurance, not the “taxpayer.” Therefore, she should control how her insurance is used. It’s a consumer protection issue, as well as a health issue.

    Further, young people are less likely to access health care because they are healthier…why not let them use their own insurance to cover contraceptive prescriptions?

    While Catholic institutions may balk at students and employees seeking care of which they don’t approve, consumer rights trump religious objections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

On Last Week's Bill Maher show, an interesting this happened. Liberal Maher took on Ben Affleck and his liberal views on Islam. ...

Gary Oldman Comes Out Libertarian

In a Playboy interview out this month, Gary Oldman puts political correctness to the test and comes out as a Libertarian.