Ms. Parker brings the claws out

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Sure, well maybe nature decided that he was not really adding any value to the gene pool.

Perhaps. That might also be the best reason I've seen so far to cover contraceptives.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

Gosh D-Ray,

When I was a lad, personal responsibility was the birth control of the day.

When has pregnancy became a goal for collage students ? I believe that if one drives a car, one should pay for their own insurance. So if you wish to engage in unprotected fornication or adultery, you should buy your own protection, after all, it's their choice, not an elective.

Bill

I think this was blown completely out of proportion by the press. Limbaugh was being absurd to make a point. Why ought a thirty year old law school student be deprived of her right to irresponsible sex. Her lack of control and not Limbaugh's admittedly absurd statement ought be the issue. I guess it was beyond her ability to restain her willfull behavior. Of course, this completely dovetails with the left's belief that people lack either the intelliegence or are deliberately manipulated by the evil companies to act in a certain way. You do realize that Bill simply couldn't control himself in that throbbing moment with Monica.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whoaru99

Getting pregnant isn't a disease, as much as apparently it's considered similar by some. Quite the opposite, it generally means things are working A-OK.

If sex were not the underlying issue, there would be no question that providing birth control is the most practical medical intervention to avoid future medical costs. In addition to preventing unnecessary medical costs, contraception can prevent enormous social costs arising from unwanted pregnancies, over-population, etc. As many "sins" as there are for folks to get up in arms about, none carry as much fascination for the finger pointers as sex.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I think this was blown completely out of proportion by the press. Limbaugh was being absurd to make a point. Why ought a thirty year old law school student be deprived of her right to irresponsible sex. Her lack of control and not Limbaugh's admittedly absurd statement ought be the issue. I guess it was beyond her ability to restain her willfull behavior. of course, this completely dovetails with the left's belief that people lack either the intelliegence or are deliberately manipulated by the evil companies to act in a certain way. You do realize that Bill simply couldn't control himself in that throbbing moment with Monica.

Was it blown out of proportion that an all-male hearing by the GOP refused to allow any Democratic witnesses? Also, one of the points she was trying to make was that birth control pills are often used as therapy for health conditions such as cervical cancer.

Regardless of whether or not insurance companies, employers or secular extensions of the church (e.g., universities, hospitals) should offer birth control as part of an insurance plan, those that believe they should shouldn't be labelled as prostitutes, lest you want to lose the moral high ground on your argument.

Limbaugh is a pig.

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I think this was blown completely out of proportion by the press. Limbaugh was being absurd to make a point.

No doubt I'll be roasted, but I like to listen to Rush (and whom ever else happens to be next on the station regardless of political affiliation) when I'm driving. I'm familiar with his shock tactics and those of most political radio hosts. I heard this segment first hand, it was too much, IMO, beyond absurd. The point would have been made well enough after the first or second pass.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Was it blown out of proportion that an all-male hearing by the GOP refused to allow any Democratic witnesses? Also, one of the points she was trying to make was that birth control pills are often used as therapy for health conditions such as cervical cancer.

Regardless of whether or not insurance companies, employers or secular extensions of the church (e.g., universities, hospitals) should offer birth control as part of an insurance plan, those that believe they should shouldn't be labelled as prostitutes, lest you want to lose the moral high ground on your argument.

Limbaugh is a pig.

I just recieved Fluke's testimony transcript and I'm looking for Limbaugh's statements in context. I do not listen to Limbaugh, largely, because I know that Limbaugh is all about Limbaugh, primarily, increasing his ratings.

[finnbow]

I wonder how Rush feels about insurance companies covering Oxycontin.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I just recieved Fluke's testimony transcript and I'm looking for Limbaugh's statements in context. I do not listen to Limbaugh, largely, because I know that Limbaugh is all about Limbaugh, primarily, increasing his ratings.

Do these sound like the words of a prostitute?

"These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people."

“In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.

“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy."

“When this exception does 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 are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

[whoaru99]

I'm sure he feels just finneeeee.... about it.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by whoaru99

I'm sure he feels just finneeeee.... about it.

IMHO the democrats did a wonderful job of painting the GOP as mysoginists. Considering her testimony, complete with a selection of anectdotal and heart tugging testimony, her position is that having wanton sex causes undue financial hardship on the female students. The remedy is to have someone else pay to reduce that hardship, thus, paying for her behavior. She does not argue that the partners have any potential responsibility in the matter. BTW, we're talking only about $1000.00 per year.

Rush did go over the top IMHO, but I also don't think that someone else ought pay for someone elses willful choices. Come to think of it, I'd like $1000.00 for my allergy medications, that would nearly cover a nice amplifier.


Here's Rush's statement:

RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.