Sex-Crazed Co-eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control [Archive]

a completely inoffensive name

03-01-2012, 02:36

Oh that is such crap Acin you know better.

My ex comes from a wealthy family from Orange County and she has birth control. She got her birth control for free from planned parenthood. Hell she got free doctors appointments with is suppose whatever passes for a gynecologist a few times I went in with her.

You know damn well condoms and Birth control are easy as hell to get. Abortions are even frighteningly cheap.

Morning After Pill is fifty a pop. And you know what there is no real reason you should ever use that. I know couples who used condoms and birth control. Before my ex got birth control I used the pull out method (stupid I know, blah blah blah) and only ought it once and I wasn't even sure if I needed to; something just felt wrong about it that time.

No matter how cheap you make birth control, people are cheaper.

I went clam digging with one of my uncles a few years back. I spent two hours out in the water with him digging up clams. Got over a dozen. I was very excited to cook them and eat them. My uncle told me that because we didn't catch enough to feed everyone he would keep the clams in the freezer until we had enough. My family left before we could find time to go get some more clams and he knew that would happen. He stole a dozen clams from a 14 year old so he didn't have to pay for them at the market.

Teenagers are stupid. I'm stupid and I'm 19. But they are even more stupid than I am. They will have sex, you can't stop them and if for whatever reason they feel that they can't protect themselves, then we need to make sure the nation does not turn out like Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.

The flaw in your argument, which is factually sound, is that you assume the actors in this are rational.

CountArach

03-01-2012, 02:51

I don't see a problem with this :shrug:

Tuuvi

03-01-2012, 11:07

No matter how cheap you make birth control, people are cheaper.

I went clam digging with one of my uncles a few years back. I spent two hours out in the water with him digging up clams. Got over a dozen. I was very excited to cook them and eat them. My uncle told me that because we didn't catch enough to feed everyone he would keep the clams in the freezer until we had enough. My family left before we could find time to go get some more clams and he knew that would happen. He stole a dozen clams from a 14 year old so he didn't have to pay for them at the market.

Teenagers are stupid. I'm stupid and I'm 19. But they are even more stupid than I am. They will have sex, you can't stop them and if for whatever reason they feel that they can't protect themselves, then we need to make sure the nation does not turn out like Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.

The flaw in your argument, which is factually sound, is that you assume the actors in this are rational.

I think you are mostly right (mostly), but this doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. The woman talked about in the article claims that birth control costs thousands of dollars a year and so it needs to be covered by insurance. This doesn't have anything to do with horny highschoolers and whether or not they should have easy access to contraception.

Hosakawa Tito

03-01-2012, 11:56

So you would rather have pregnant teenagers?

Of course not. I just expect for them to pay for their own recreation.

Montmorency

03-01-2012, 12:09

Montmorency's high school, where people like Mont are pregnating everyone.

My friend, public transportation is not a service provided solely to myself and my acquaintances.

Ronin

03-01-2012, 12:20

*starts checking airline prices - destination Georgetown *

Vladimir

03-01-2012, 14:08

Head this on the radio yesterday.

Really people?

drone

03-01-2012, 16:28

Where were these girls when I used to cruise Georgetown? :inquisitive:

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 17:57

Centurion1

03-01-2012, 18:28

As long as viagra is covered by insurance I refuse to hear why the pill shouldn't be.

The pill has a litany of uses other than just contraception. Many woman take it to regulate periods or deal with ovarian cysts, to name a few off the top of my head. Now how we handle the particulars of coverage has merit, but to demonize these women as harlots is a terrible strawman and reeks of mysoginy.

This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.

I didn't know that Viagra was covered by insurance. If I was running an insurance company I wouldn't cover it. But your argument is sadly moot. The insurance companies are not being forced by the government to cover viagra there is no mandate requiring it. They are doing it of their own volition. The issue here is that organizations are being forced to provide birth control. It is not whether it is more valid than other things it is simply because they are being forced too. PLus many insurance companies will cover birth control if it is for medical reasons so also moot.

a completely inoffensive name

03-01-2012, 18:33

I think you are mostly right (mostly), but this doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. The woman talked about in the article claims that birth control costs thousands of dollars a year and so it needs to be covered by insurance. This doesn't have anything to do with horny highschoolers and whether or not they should have easy access to contraception.

Some teenagers don't use contraception as often as they should because it is "too expensive". Now, let's be clear. The generic pill is in fact very cheap. Like $10 a month. However, some women might have medical reasons that prevent them from using the generic formula/pill and thus need to rely on more expensive alternatives like those vaginal rings which I think can cost over $60-$80 a month.

That being said, it still shouldn't come out to thousands of dollars if I do my math correctly.

Of course not. I just expect for them to pay for their own recreation.

You expect young people to pay for their own stuff? Let them screw all day on free birth control and draw the line somewhere else that doesn't risk unwanted children being born.

My friend, public transportation is not a service provided solely to myself and my acquaintances.

:thumbsup:

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 18:34

I didn't know that Viagra was covered by insurance. If I was running an insurance company I wouldn't cover it. But your argument is sadly moot. The insurance companies are not being forced by the government to cover viagra there is no mandate requiring it. They are doing it of their own volition. The issue here is that organizations are being forced to provide birth control. It is not whether it is more valid than other things it is simply because they are being forced too. PLus many insurance companies will cover birth control if it is for medical reasons so also moot.

First off, This wouldn't be an issue if we just did what the UK does and in a few years that will happen.

The issue has ceased to be about birth control. If we were talking about the particulars I would say simply making it afforadable to women would be the best option as many who need it for medical reasons don't have insurance to begin with. The medical issues that the pill helps aliveate are numerous and very valid.

The issue now is that when this was discussed it was 6 old men who disscussed it and talk radio is already beating the slut drum half to death. If you want to talk partricualrs we can talk particulars but right now this is about the fact people are up in arms about women having sex

gaelic cowboy

03-01-2012, 18:42

Just shove the pill down there gobs at breakfast an be done with it.

drone

03-01-2012, 18:48

That being said, it still shouldn't come out to thousands of dollars if I do my math correctly.
With the pill, no it shouldn't. But if these ladies are having relations 2-3 times a day, chances are condoms are the better choice. Warding off pregnancy is one thing, but preventing a major STD epidemic is the main goal here.

a completely inoffensive name

03-01-2012, 18:52

With the pill, no it shouldn't. But if these ladies are having relations 2-3 times a day, chances are condoms are the better choice. Warding off pregnancy is one thing, but preventing a major STD epidemic is the main goal here.

If the women were paying for condoms, I could see the price go up to the thousands because some places charge a lot for condoms if you dont know where to get them cheap. However, the men really should be taking on that financial burden.

Rhyfelwyr

03-01-2012, 19:14

This has more to do with women having sex than it ever did with the validity and cost effective measures of the pill. It's a puritanical, knee jerk reaction.

Yeah well that's the kind I specialise in.

If they do want the pill covered by insurance it should only ever be on the health grounds you mentioned.

Your points are valid but this thread is specifically about those who argue they should get the pill for free so they can have recreational sex.

I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 19:16

Yeah well that's the kind I specialise in.

If they do want the pill covered by insurance it should only ever be on the health grounds you mentioned.

Your points are valid but this thread is specifically about those who argue they should get the pill for free so they can have recreational sex.

I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.

The way the woman framed her arguement was lamentable but on the other side of the coin people lobby for useless crap all the time....this really is no different.

I would also point out the man can cut and run anytime on an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy a woman, one way or another has to deal with the situation and the consequnces. That is also a pertinent point

a completely inoffensive name

03-01-2012, 19:19

I think that that particular argument will at least be more difficult to defend.

Not really. This is reality. Human's loooooove to have sex. Teenage brains are not fully developed yet, they are not fully in control. Making a moral decision of preventing birth control to horny teenagers presents us a net harm by causing an increase in abortions.

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 19:20

Not really. This is reality. Human's loooooove to have sex. Teenage brains are not fully developed yet, they are not fully in control. Making a moral decision of preventing birth control to horny teenagers presents us a net harm by causing an increase in abortions.

You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at all

gaelic cowboy

03-01-2012, 19:22

You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at all

Indeed you could make it on economic grounds less babies means women have more ability to work outside the home.

Societies where more women earn a wage are richer by default.

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 19:23

Also something that needs to be mentioned

You take the pill on a schedule. There is no "I'm going to screw the entire football team in hopes we win the big game, so I had better pop 50"

Once again an example of the male disconnect

UGh....I sounded like Gloria Steiniem

I'm going to go take a shower

a completely inoffensive name

03-01-2012, 19:25

You don't need to frame the arguement like this for birth control to considerd valid enough to at least partially cover. You don't have to talk about sex at all

That's true. I will silence myself for now then.

Centurion1

03-01-2012, 19:27

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 19:27

That's true. I will silence myself for now then.

I'm not saying you have to silence yourself

Y U Mad Tho?

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 19:29

I think everyone is aware of this I am not sure why it is relevant in the slightest.

Becuase the girl is being framed as some sort of sluf b/c her birth control costs 3,000$

The assumption being if she needs that much she must be a harlot, which is patently false

a completely inoffensive name

03-01-2012, 19:33

I'm not saying you have to silence yourself

Y U Mad Tho?

I have no more cool clam digging stories to tell people, what else can I talk about?

LOL <3 Super Mad, because I ran out of Muscle Milk today.

Vladimir

03-01-2012, 19:37

I don't consider her a slut, just the spokesperson for sluts.

But really, this person should expect to be ridiculed and it's extremely satisfying given that she's being used as a political football. This is like the outrage social conservatives receive. The fact that she's being used as a pawn by a political party I despise makes it more entertaining.

Strike For The South

03-01-2012, 19:42

Rhyfelwyr

03-01-2012, 19:49

I would also point out the man can cut and run anytime on an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy a woman, one way or another has to deal with the situation and the consequnces. That is also a pertinent point

I know its unfair, but for what it is worth I don't think single mothers should ever be demonised, and that both the government and society should support them.

I think everyone is aware of this

I wasn't.

Women are to me a strange and mysterious species and I don't know anything about all their goings on. But I'm still going to give a horrendously male-centric opinion on what I think of their sex life and life decisions.

U mad?

Not really. This is reality. Human's loooooove to have sex. Teenage brains are not fully developed yet, they are not fully in control. Making a moral decision of preventing birth control to horny teenagers presents us a net harm by causing an increase in abortions.

If they are at college they are old enough to know what they are doing. I mean the girl from the OP is like a ho activist, lobbying the entire political system to fund her sex life.

Vladimir

03-01-2012, 20:06

Hosakawa Tito

03-02-2012, 00:31

Why should she be ridiculed when 99% of Americans have used contraception? Or how about the many Americans whom use a medical device or pill to make there day to day lives eaiser?

Her lobbying efforts are no worse than the other vultures who hang around DC

But she is a woman and she is having sex. SO ITS BAD

No, the bad part is she can afford to go to law school at Georgetown, but expects to have recreational sex on somebody elses dime. That's her responsibility. Life is full of difficult financial choices, get used to it honey. Maybe she could ask Mom & Dad to help pay for it...or, *gasp* get a job.

ICantSpellDawg

03-02-2012, 05:16

My fiance's birth control is $9 every month without insurance at Target. She has one of those evil Catholic health care plans. You know, the ones that cover everything except birth control with minimal co-pays while most of us are paying 80% coinsurance. This discussion is a joke and it is about the Federal government imposing it's will on a free people and subverting the 1st Amendment. I hope the church cancels the plans and pays the fine so that the newly "liberated" employees can go find much better plans on their own. I'm sure that these people will be sending thank you letters to the President himself.

The thing that I love about the Church is that it might actually take this route. They closed up their adoption agencies in Massachusetts due to conscience differences. Maybe the government can go back to feeding us to the Lions. We did pretty well back then and they collapsed for a time.

Lemur

03-02-2012, 05:22

ICantSpellDawg

03-02-2012, 05:29

I support easy access to birth control, Lemur. I don't support the government subverting Religious liberty. You're too smart to honestly believe that most Republicans are against birth control. Birth control isn't abortion. The only people attempting to debate the morality of Birth control is the left and Rick Santorum. Get a grip. Everyone else will come around when they realize that the morning after pill is not an aborto-facient.

The Church is different. They shouldn't be forced to pay for government programs that they believe to be immoral. Separation of Church and State works both ways. You want to break the walls down, be prepared for inflow and outflow, and that isn't good for anyone I thought you knew that by now. It's fun to play hardball when you're the pitcher isn't it? I'll remember that next inning when you're up to bat.

Lemur

03-02-2012, 05:53

Separation of Church and State works both ways.
Indeed. Show me the Catholic University or the Catholic Hospital that does not take State or Federal money, and you'll have a fair point. In the meantime, they should provide their Jewish lady doctors with standard healthcare.

ICantSpellDawg

03-02-2012, 05:56

When they stop paying for employee health care and start paying the fine, they will probably save money and the government gets their contributions back -everybody is happy. Their employees will get free health care from the government, right?

The Catholic church will teabag all of your faces in the end. Remember; Don't take a hostage unless you are prepared to shoot it. The last time the Church did what was best for it politically they were complicit with child molestation. I hope they've learned their lesson and instead decide to follow their convictions and let the government pay for these newly liberated workers. They can give a pay bump if they'd like to keep the better employees. Fortunately, these poor workers will never have to suffer under such difficult conditions as $9 monthly birth control pills ever again.

Great job these past 4 years, BTW. You've really outdone yourselves. It's great watching you pat yourselves on the backs and do so much better than those dastardly Republicans. Where's the beef? Who is talking about birth control? Ask yourselves. The GOP is running from the argument because they aren't arguing about it. They saw a weakness in the executive order on 1st Amendment grounds and exploited it. That exchange, I believe, was net GOP much to the chagrin of the democratic strategists who thought that only the theocratic loonies would come out swinging.

Contraception is a base grabber for the left and has been a winning argument for them just like Abortion is a base grabber for the right and is a winning argument for them. The left is talking about their culture war issues right now because they are weak and we know that they are weak. They can tell us that the economy is getting better all they'd like, but they'd better keep the smoke and mirrors up until November, or the Emperor has no clothes.

I believe that the GOP is moving toward a Ron Paul type vision of the country. We are getting away from the Santorum's of the party. You guys can keep shadow boxing with the GOP of the 1990's, but it is moving and will move even further next time around.

Lemur

03-02-2012, 06:33

When they stop paying for employee health care and start paying the fine, they will probably save money and the government gets their contributions back -everybody is happy. Their employees will get free health care from the government, right?
When a rhetorical question from a nonsensical premise falls in the woods, does anyone hear it?

The Catholic church will teabag all of your faces in the end. Remember; Don't take a hostage unless you are prepared to shoot it. The last time the Church did what was best for it politically they were complicit with child molestation.
Not at all clear what any of these sentences mean.

Who is talking about birth control? Ask yourselves.
See Blunt Amendment (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0301/Will-Blunt-amendment-backfire-on-Republicans), see the Issa hearings on birth control, etc.

I believe that the GOP is moving toward a Ron Paul type vision of the country.
You're free to believe anything you like, but I would be interested to hear what evidence you see for this shift. Candidate Paul is pulling in smaller percentages as the primary progresses.

Strike For The South

03-02-2012, 06:38

Indeed. Show me the Catholic University or the Catholic Hospital that does not take State or Federal money, and you'll have a fair point. In the meantime, they should provide their Jewish lady doctors with standard healthcare.

This is really the crux of the issue

I believe that the GOP is moving toward a Ron Paul type vision of the country. We are getting away from the Santorum's of the party. You guys can keep shadow boxing with the GOP of the 1990's, but it is moving and will move even further next time around.

The Ron Paul people and the OWS people are really one in the same. They want massive change, as long as it doesn't affect them. They have taken all the beauty out of politics and made it some sort of life and death struggle

Strike For The South

03-02-2012, 06:40

You're missing the point and making undue inferences. That's a rather simplistic interpretation.

Would you care to complicate it up for me? Preferably with some hot wax and chains

No, the bad part is she can afford to go to law school at Georgetown, but expects to have recreational sex on somebody elses dime. That's her responsibility. Life is full of difficult financial choices, get used to it honey. Maybe she could ask Mom & Dad to help pay for it...or, *gasp* get a job.

I agree this is the worst way they could have conveyed there message

Lemur

03-02-2012, 06:45

For anyone who argues that this is a strictly 1st Amendment religious liberty issue, please explain the Blunt Amendment, which would carve out an exception for any form of healthcare that any employer objected to on any religious grounds. Think about that. Let that sink in.

So if your employer declares that he is a faith-healing worshiper of Baal, you are allowed to get whatever treatments he deems fit. And if the board of directors are Christian Scientists? Good luck, pal. This amendment received overwhelming Republican support in the Senate. Details (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/01/olympia-snowe-quit-senate-to-protest-gop-agenda.html):

Introduced by Missouri Republican Roy Blunt and cosponsored by Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown in the heat of the debate over making contraception coverage mandatory as part of preventive health care for women, the amendment looked like a good vehicle for Republicans seeking to make the debate about big government trampling on religious freedom. But polls have since shown that the religious-liberty argument has been undercut by successful Democratic efforts to characterize it as a war against women, and comedians portraying it as the GOP’s war against sex. [...]

The Blunt amendment goes beyond religious institutions, allowing any employer that, for example, disapproves of smoking or drinking to potentially withhold treatment for those behaviors. After weeks of overreach on women’s issues, including a debate over invasive probes as part of a bill in Virginia requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound, you would think that Republicans would be looking for a way to get back to the economic issues that were supposed to define this election year.

a completely inoffensive name

03-02-2012, 06:53

ICantSpellDawg

03-02-2012, 07:01

But now it's not about birth control? Now it's about your opposition to Religious conscience?

Don't work for a crazy boss. You can quit and get your own health insurance through exchanges.

Lemur

03-02-2012, 07:07

But now it's not about birth control? Now it's about your opposition to Religious conscience?
I'm not even clear who you're speaking to or what point you're addressing. Take a deep breath, marshal your arguments, try again.

Nobody is saying that churches, temples, synagogues or sky altars need to buy any health insurance at all for anyone. HOWEVER, if the local Synagogue invests in a lumber mill, they have to obey every normal law that applies to lumber mills. If the Jehovah's Witnesses invest in Payless Shoes, they are required to obey the law of the land when operating Payless Shoes. This is not weird, anti-religion or in any way shutting down their belief system.

I happen to know a Christian Scientist who owns a business. And you know what she has to do? Buy health insurance for her employees, even though she believes medicine is a lie. Would you like to argue that she should be exempt?

The Catholic Church chooses to operate multi-million dollar hospitals and universities, not to mention many related businesses. Many of those businesses pay taxes. TAXES! ON A RELIGION! OH THE TYRANNY!

Almost every hospital takes money from the feds and the state. Just about every university does the same. If they want to operate them as entirely religious entities, hiring only Catholic staff, and taking no money from Caesar, that would be a different story. But if they likee the public money, and they likee the trained specialists and experts who don't happen to be Catholic, they can play by the same damn rules as everybody else. End of story.

Vladimir

03-02-2012, 20:42

Is this what Lemur was talking about:

http://todayonthetrail.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10560998-woman-called-slut-by-limbaugh-is-stunned-outraged

PanzerJaeger

03-03-2012, 01:47

I don't know why this issue has to be framed in the context of religious freedom. The idea behind Obamacare is to ensure that no one is financially ruined by unforeseen medical issues. While contraception is prescribed by a doctor, I don't believe that it falls under that mandate. (Obviously I'm speaking of contraception prescribed solely for contraceptive and not medicinal purposes.) $1000 per year in birth control is a lot of money and I'm just not sure society should carry that burden. (Maybe that's why the cost estimates for Obamacare recently jumped $100+ billion.) Being sexually active is a choice, not an untreatable condition.

Xiahou

03-03-2012, 02:33

For anyone who argues that this is a strictly 1st Amendment religious liberty issue, please explain the Blunt Amendment, which would carve out an exception for any form of healthcare that any employer objected to on any religious grounds. Think about that. Let that sink in.

So if your employer declares that he is a faith-healing worshiper of Baal, you are allowed to get whatever treatments he deems fit. And if the board of directors are Christian Scientists? Good luck, pal. This amendment received overwhelming Republican support in the Senate. Details (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/01/olympia-snowe-quit-senate-to-protest-gop-agenda.html):
Hyperbole much? :rolleyes:

If we might get back the original topic..... Congressional Democrats trotted this women out to be their emotional appeal- having her talk about how women are struggling to pay for contraception. The problem was that they chose law students attending a prestigious school to make their examples. What you were left with was a woman complaining that she and her peers couldn't afford to have consequence free sex while enrolled in one of the top law schools in the country.... that's not really the most sympathetic cause that I can think of.

The fact of the matter is that contraception is already both readily available and inexpensive. There's no there there.

Crazed Rabbit

03-03-2012, 03:18

In regards to 'free contraception'; I do not like it when a right to buy something gets turned into an entitlement to have something provided to you by others.

I do not like forcing religious institutions to purchase that which they consider morally objectionable. If you don't like it, work someplace else.

Of course it Obamacare had actually increased consumer healthcare choice and not doubled down on the federal penalty for buying insurance privately this wouldn't be much of a problem.

CR

Lemur

03-03-2012, 04:41

What you were left with was a woman complaining that she and her peers couldn't afford to have consequence free sex while enrolled in one of the top law schools in the country.
And if you think that's how it's playing in the country at large, you're experiencing epistemic closure.

I do not like forcing religious institutions to purchase that which they consider morally objectionable. If you don't like it, work someplace else.
So if the Hare Krishnas buy a majority stake in Taco Bell, they should be able to omit any healthcare they please, as per the Blunt Amendment. Seriously? And the invisible hand of the market will sort it out? This is your proposal?

No religious institution is being asked to meet minimal standards for healthcare. None. Not a single one. However, their subsidiaries, which are not religious institutions, but rather religious-affiliated businesses, are being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else. These are the wet sticks the GOP is desperately rubbing together to ignite a war on religion.

Nevermind that 26 states already have such a requirement in place (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx). Nevermind that a majority of Catholic-affiliated businesses already offer contraception as part of their plans (http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/catholic_affiliated_institutions_that_provide_contraceptive_coverage_chart.pdf).

When Xiahou says "there's no there there," I fear he is uncannily correct, although not in the way he intends.

Crazed Rabbit

03-03-2012, 05:47

So if the Hare Krishnas buy a majority stake in Taco Bell, they should be able to omit any healthcare they please, as per the Blunt Amendment. Seriously?

Can you come up with any real life examples besides the Church not wanting to pay for contraception?

And the invisible hand of the market will sort it out? This is your proposal?

Yes. Getting a bit of the free market involved in insurance would be a good thing.

No religious institution is being asked to meet minimal standards for healthcare. None. Not a single one. However, their subsidiaries, which are not religious institutions, but rather religious-affiliated businesses, are being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else. These are the wet sticks the GOP is desperately rubbing together to ignite a war on religion.

Requiring contraception be insured is silly. Insurance is for use against accidents and unforeseen circumstances, not against willful actions.

CR

Lemur

03-03-2012, 06:32

Can you come up with any real life examples besides the Church not wanting to pay for contraception?
Can you come up with any reason why my hypothetical is invalid? Once you declare that religious-affiliated businesses can exempt anything they don't like, you open up possibilities. There's no such thing as a special Catholic-only law.

Getting a bit of the free market involved in insurance would be a good thing.
In this case, the free market being, "Don't like the denial of basic health insurance elements? Don't work for that group, losers!"

Requiring contraception be insured is silly.
Tell it to the 26 states that already do so. Tell it to anyone who likes seeing abortion rates steadily drop. Tell it to the hundreds of Catholic-affiliated business that already insure birth control.

Crazed Rabbit

03-03-2012, 07:00

Can you come up with any reason why my hypothetical is invalid? Once you declare that religious-affiliated businesses can exempt anything they don't like, you open up possibilities. There's no such thing as a special Catholic-only law.

Your possibilities are, frankly, absurd and disconnected from rational discussion of this law. If a Christian Scientist decides not to insure their employees, people won't work for them.

In this case, the free market being, "Don't like the denial of basic health insurance elements? Don't work for that group, losers!"

Nope. It'd be not taxing private insurance, or taxing employer provided insurance as well, and thus not locking people into their employer's insurance policy, and thus giving them the possibility to choose from insurance options all over the place without suffering a financial penalty. And it'd solve this whole contraception issue as well.

Tell it to the 26 states that already do so. Tell it to anyone who likes seeing abortion rates steadily drop. Tell it to the hundreds of Catholic-affiliated business that already insure birth control.

:inquisitive: Okay...

Doesn't make it any less silly.

CR

Hosakawa Tito

03-03-2012, 15:08

It's great that we can have a debate almost entirely predicated on Rush Limbaugh (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73530.html), but without crediting him.

I am stunned by the responses in this thread. Are you anti abortion? Nodding right now? Then support easy access to birth control. Abstinence education is empirically proven to be less effective than nothing, so if you've got a better idea, slap it on the table.

Seriously, I thought we were done with debating the morality of birth control in this country. What other settled issues shall we revisit? Sanctity of property? The right of the Federal government to build highways? What the fudge is going on here?

Actually Lem, this whole thing is a strawman, contrived theater, and started by by the Obama administration to scare women into believing that if the Republicans win the Whitehouse their access to birth control will be taken away. That is bs, but he can't run on his record so class warfare it will be.

Sebelius: Private Health Insurance Industry in Death Spiral (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-cabinet-secretary-private-market-death-spiral) So what ever happened to the President's promise that you could keep your current health care coverage if you wanted it? This administration wants to eliminate all except for what the government provides.

The issue isn’t about birth control — it’s about the federal government’s power to force a religious institution like Georgetown University to bend to its will and take actions that are fundamentally at odds with its core values. Religious groups are faced with an untenable choice: violate conscience or drop coverage and face penalties for doing so. Beyond religious freedom, Obamacare lands another unconstitutional blow against liberty in America with its unconstitutional individual mandate (http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2009/pdf/lm_0049.pdf) to buy health insurance. A judgment on that awaits the action of the Supreme Court. Together, the two dictates — and the others to follow under Obamacare — should be a sign to Americans that the federal government is reaching an event horizon — a point of no return — beyond which individuals will be forever subsumed to the will of the state. Once this door is knocked down, the rights the Constitution protects will be stamped with an asterisk that disclaims, “subject to the will of the federal government.”

Lemur

03-03-2012, 16:25

Your possibilities are, frankly, absurd and disconnected from rational discussion of this law.
And saying something doesn't make it so. The Blunt Amendment, as written, would give any employer exemption from any medical coverage based on his or her "faith." And who decides what constitutes faith? If the Board of Walmart declares that their religion forbids dental care, what recourse would anyone have? It's a matter of faith and religious freedom, thanks to the GOP. You can declare that my hypotheticals are "absurd" all you like, but you also cannot construct a logical argument to defend the Blunt Amendment.

Actually Lem, this whole thing is a strawman, contrived theater, and started by by the Obama administration to scare women into believing that if the Republicans win the Whitehouse their access to birth control will be taken away.
So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving Marxist president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!

So what ever happened to the President's promise that you could keep your current health care coverage if you wanted it?
I'm sorry, have you been forced to change your health plan? Has anyone you know?

This administration wants to eliminate all except for what the government provides.
Yes, I've really noticed the forced collectivization lately, the elimination or private enterprise, the millions of people forced onto collective farms where they starve because of misallocation of resources. Clearly Obama is JUST LIKE the Khmer Rouge, except with a little less mass murder. (OR MAYBE NOT!)

The issue isn’t about birth control — it’s about the federal government’s power to force a religious institution like Georgetown University to bend to its will and take actions that are fundamentally at odds with its core values.
Hosa, I love you man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere, and you haven't even read this thread. I have responded to this point at length. (Hint: What's the difference between a religious institution and a business subsidiary of a religions institution?)

Xiahou

03-03-2012, 20:26

Vuk

03-03-2012, 20:44

This is horribly offensive, and frankly tiresome. Could you please stop implying that people who criticize Obama are somehow racist? I'm really sick of it.

Those who support Obama cannot help it. It is much more effective than their weak arguments just to scream racism. Of course if he was a white woman you would be a sexist. They use any excuse they can to dismiss your argument instead of answering it.

Centurion1

03-03-2012, 20:56

This is so annoying.

We should all be ignoring Lemur. He is throwing around arguments using "evidence" and examples which are frankly absurd and worthless. He ignores certain basic facts in defense of his ideas. And now he throws race into the equation. Absolutely classless approach.

Lemur

03-03-2012, 20:59

Could you please stop implying that people who criticize Obama are somehow racist?
I'm sorry, I should have gone with Marxist-Leninist anti-capitalist closet muslin who hates America and can't speak without a teleprompter because he is stupid. If only to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.

It is much more effective than their weak arguments just to scream racism.
I've yet to see you address a single argument put forward in this debate, so you're not really in a position to hyperventilate.

We should all be ignoring Lemur. He is throwing around arguments using "evidence" and examples which are frankly absurd and worthless. He ignores certain basic facts in defense of his ideas.
And you're going to enumerate and clarify on those "basic facts" when, exactly?

Oh looky, I was so wicked as to mention the President's race, so every rightwing Orgah can now scream "victim" at the top of their lungs. We were saying something about crass and tiresome?

Crazed Rabbit

03-03-2012, 21:01

And saying something doesn't make it so. The Blunt Amendment, as written, would give any employer exemption from any medical coverage based on his or her "faith." And who decides what constitutes faith? If the Board of Walmart declares that their religion forbids dental care, what recourse would anyone have? It's a matter of faith and religious freedom, thanks to the GOP. You can declare that my hypotheticals are "absurd" all you like, but you also cannot construct a logical argument to defend the Blunt Amendment.

What recourse? Gee, not working for Walmart, not shopping at Walmart, and encouraging other people to not shop at Walmart. I don't see how you can say there's no recourse.

The Blunt amendment defends religious people who don't want to pay for what they consider immoral. Don't like it? Don't work and/or shop there. It should be a free country.

Your possibilities are absurd because they all go far beyond what were talking about; insurance for a willful action by paying for contraception.

Again, the whole reason this is an issue is because of government regulations restricting people's choice of insurance and forcing them to get insurance through their employer. That's the root cause of this.

EDIT: Lemur - just what is the point of saying this, then;

And the conniving :daisy: president

CR

Vuk

03-03-2012, 21:05

I've yet to see you address a single argument put forward in this debate, so you're not really in a position to criticize.

I have not made an argument in this thread except about your posting behavior. Again you demonstrate your mastery of diverting attention from what is inconvenient to you.

And you're going to enumerate and clarify on those "basic facts" when, exactly?

How about I throw one out. You seem to completely ignore the separation of church and state. Religious institutions are tax exempt because of the belief in separation of church and state, and yet you use that as an argument for why churches should do whatever the government wants them to do. Citizens and their government have a give and take relationship, but churches and the government do not. You don't tax 'em, and you don't tell them what to do. Otherwise they turn into a control mechanism for the government.

Oh looky, I was so crass as to mention the President's race, so every rightwing Orgah can now scream "victim" at the top of their lungs. We were saying something about crass and tiresome?

Translation: I was crying victim (for Obama) and people complained that I was doing it, so now I am going to accuse them of crying victim.
Serious Lemur, you need to try some different tactics, because it is getting old.

Lemur

03-03-2012, 21:05

Your possibilities are absurd because they all go far beyond what were talking about
I'm not conducting a slippery slope exercise; there is no legal definition of who can and cannot claim whatever they like when it comes to religion. Part of being a free country is that your religious beliefs are whatever you say they are. By linking a permanent insurance waiver to religion, and not restricting it to religious institutions such as churches, synagogues or temples, you're opening up a world of possibilities. See the law of unintended consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences). By supporting this sort of broad waiver, you're inviting the law into the question of what constitutes your religion, what constitutes a legitimate tenet of your religion, etc. It's cracking open an angry wasp's nest of state and religion, and all to score a cheap political point.

If a religion owns a business (exemplum gratum, Rev. Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon) and News World Communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_World_Communications)), that business should play by the same rules as everyone else. Religious exemptions should only apply to directly religious institutions, as is already enshrined in law. CR, I think part of the issue is you just don't like the current or previous structure of healthcare in this country, and you'd like to see the whole thing re-ordered. Which is a very legitimate perspective, but confusing in the current debate about Catholic Unis and hospitals.

You seem to completely ignore the separation of church and state. Religious institutions are tax exempt because of the belief in separation of church and state, and yet you use that as an argument for why churches should do whatever the government wants them to do.
And you seem to have not read the thread. Quick, what is the practical difference between a church and a business owned by the church?

Lemur - just what is the point of saying this, then;
Since the professional victim class is getting 200 miles per gallon out of the word ":daisy:," I edited it to read "Marxist." Which will not slow the terminal velocity of their outrage, but may give us some small chance of discussing something besides how victimized and oppressed they are when anyone has the temerity to mention the race of the President.

Vuk

03-03-2012, 21:08

What recourse? Gee, not working for Walmart, not shopping at Walmart, and encouraging other people to not shop at Walmart. I don't see how you can say there's no recourse.

The consumer is the greatest enforcer of the people's will. People seem to think the government needs to step in and regulate things, when often times the consumer is by far the best regulator. (which is not to say that there is not need for some government regulation, or that consumer regulation does not have its limits)

Vuk

03-03-2012, 21:16

I'm not conducting a slippery slope exercise; there is no legal definition of who can and cannot claim whatever they like when it comes to religion. Part of being a free country is that your religious beliefs are whatever you say they are. By linking a permanent insurance waiver to religion, and not restricting it to religious institutions such as churches, synagogues or temples, you're opening up a world of possibilities. See the law of unintended consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences). By supporting this sort of broad waiver, you're inviting the law into the question of what constitutes your religion, what constitutes a legitimate tenet of your religion, etc. It's cracking open an angry wasp's nest of state and religion, and all to score a cheap political point.

If a religion owns a business, that business should play by the same rules as everyone else. Religious exemptions should only apply to directly religious institutions, as is already enshrined in law. CR, I think part of the issue is you just don't like the current or previous structure of healthcare in this country, and you'd like to see the whole thing re-ordered. Which is a very legitimate perspective, but confusing in the current debate about Catholic Unis and hospitals.

And you seem to have not read the thread. Quick, what is the practical difference between a church and a business owned by the church?

I did read the thread Lemur, and while you made that distinction for other parts of your argument, you did not for that.
What you said came dangerously close to throwing the separation of church and state right out the window.
That said, I would like to point out several things. First of all, I agree with you Lemur that the Blunt amendment would have had unintended consequences and should only apply to religious institutions. That said, as far as religious institutions are involved, the government should have no right to force them to provide health care at all. The government should stay completely out of religion, and an amendment should be made to exempt churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions from the mandate.
The real heart of the problem here is Obamacare and the individual mandate, which should not exist. That said, though it does, there should definitely be exemptions for religious institutions. (whether those exemptions should carry over to the businesses those institutions run or not I really am not sure. I can see the arguments on both sides, and have been convinced either way)

Lemur

03-03-2012, 21:20

What you said came dangerously close to throwing the separation of church and state right out the window.
I'm not clear on how I did that. I support tax exemption and all sorts of exemptions for religious institutions. I do not support any exemptions for businesses they happen to own. Nor have I expressed otherwise in this thread.

The real heart of the problem here is Obamacare and the individual mandate, which should not exist.
Well, there are lots of alternatives, but that's what we've got right now. And within that framework, I think having exemptions for religious institutions, but not for their business subsidiaries, is pretty damn fair.

Vuk

03-03-2012, 21:37

I'm not clear on how I did that. I support tax exemption and all sorts of exemptions for religious institutions. I do not support any exemptions for businesses they happen to own. Nor have I expressed otherwise in this thread.

Well, there are lots of alternatives, but that's what we've got right now. And within that framework, I think having exemptions for religious institutions, but not for their business subsidiaries, is pretty damn fair.

I would agree with you concerning every business that is meant to make a profit (I am not sure, are religious institutions allowed to run those). If what you mean by business though is a charity, such as a relief organization or non-profit hospital, then I disagree with you, as that is just an extension of that religious institution.

Lemur

03-03-2012, 21:41

I would agree with you concerning every business that is meant to make a profit (I am not sure, are religious institutions allowed to run those).
They most certainly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_World_Communications) are. And it's entirely legal (http://www.startchurch.com/blog/view/name/can-our-church-own-a-business).

If what you mean by business though is a charity, such as a relief organization or non-profit hospital, then I disagree with you, as that is just an extension of that religious institution.
Yeah, that definitely gets a lot trickier. On the one hand, a hospital's business is healing people, so it can be seen as a direct extension of a religious mission. On the other hand, most hospitals generate profits and take serious coin from the state and the Feds. Moreover, most doctors and nurses are not Catholic, so the majority of their staff are not there for religious reasons, and do not operate as an extension of the church. Tricky.

I fall on the side of, "If it ain't a church, it doesn't get a church's special treatment."

Vuk

03-03-2012, 21:46

Yeah, that definitely gets a lot trickier. On the one hand, a hospital's business is healing people, so it can be seen as a direct extension of a religious mission. On the other hand, most hospitals generate profits and take serious coin from the state and the Feds. Moreover, the most doctors and nurses are not Catholic, so the majority of their staff are not there for religious reasons, and do not operate as an extension of the church. Tricky.

I fall on the side of, "If it ain't a church, it doesn't get a church's special treatment."

If it is not generating a profit, than the only purpose of its existence is to fulfill a religious, charitable mission. In those cases, I would say exempt that. If non-religious people don't like the terms, they don't have to take the job. If no one is taking the jobs, then the churches will realize they have to change things. Otherwise, then you get people who are ok with the terms. That would seem to me to make the most sense.

Lemur

03-03-2012, 21:51

If non-religious people don't like the terms, they don't have to take the job. If no one is taking the jobs, then the churches will realize they have to change things.
That satisfies the employment issue, but does not address the fact that universities and hospitals almost always take state and federal money. And to be honest, I don't think it really satisfies the employment issue. If Saint Vuk's Hospital is allowed to play fast and loose with any number of insurance and tax issues, I do not have supreme faith in the market to sort it out. Healthcare is not and never has been a functioning market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Low_barriers_to_entry).

Vuk

03-03-2012, 21:55

That satisfies the employment issue, but does not address the fact that universities and hospitals almost always take state and federal money. And to be honest, I don't think it really satisfies the employment issue. If Saint Vuk's Hospital is allowed to play fast and loose with any number of insurance and tax issues, I do not have supreme faith in the market to sort it out. Healthcare is not and never has been a functioning market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Low_barriers_to_entry).

State money is not the issue, Federal money is. If you are concerned with that, then you can give them the choice between Federal money or their own insurance options.
And who gives a rat's back-side what Saint Vuk's Hospital does with its employment policies if it is not breaking the law and is a non-profit organization?

EDIT: lol

Lemur

03-03-2012, 21:56

And who gives a rat's back-side what Saint Vuk's Hospital does with its employment policies if it is breaking the law and is a non-profit organization?
I think you might want to re-phrase that; as it reads now, it's ... odd.

-edit-

Ah, that's clearer. I get your point, but the question of breaking the law is self-reflexive when we're discussing what the law ought to be. I say religious-owned businesses should not get special treatment; you say that as long as they are not-for-profits, they should. We agree to disagree. I think it's safe to say that nobody is trying to stifle religious freedom.

Meanwhile, when the WaPo editorial board (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-can-no-longer-avoid-its-rush-limbaugh-problem/2012/03/02/gIQA1xvVnR_story.html) says a rightwinger has gone too far, it's worth taking note (especially given that the entire premise of this thread was an uncredited homage to Rushbo):

Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note. [...]

Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.

Rhyfelwyr

03-04-2012, 02:48

a completely inoffensive name

03-04-2012, 03:09

If religious people don't want to treat employees right, then they don't have to start a business....

Rhyfelwyr

03-04-2012, 03:14

If religious people don't want to treat employees right, then they don't have to start a business....

Who is this addressed to?

a completely inoffensive name

03-04-2012, 03:18

Who is this addressed to?

No one really. I am sure some one will take offense though.

Lemur

03-04-2012, 06:18

lol at the way some people are using this distinction between religious organisations and religiously-affiliated institutions, as if they are dropping some bombshell on their opponents - the reactionary theocrats that fly off the handle and fail to comprehend such subtleties in their rage.
That's a strange way of putting it. The blurring of lines between churches and their businesses has been the core of the GOP argument for why a relatively obscure insurance rule is a War on Religion. If anything, in this thread, I've had to hammer the distinction five or six times before anyone could be bothered to note it. I don't think that's a failure of comprehension; that's willfully ignoring a distinction that wasn't convenient to the outrage and look-at-the-stupid-sluts line of humor that constituted the first page of this thread.

It is entirely appropriate for people to question how far it is appropriate for such legislation to go, whether their concerns be religious in nature or not.
Sure, absolutely. We have no disagreement on that.

Now I think that 99.9% of the population would agree that it is appropriate for this legislation to cover concerns that are medical in nature up until a fairly substantial point. What people might start to question is how appropriate it is for this legislation to cover things that are far less medical in nature - and seem in fact to amount to the government using taxpayers money purely to fund recreational activities that many people find morally reprehensible.
Yeah, 'cause reproductive health concerns are recreational in nature. And a bunch of dudes are fit to make that judgement, rather than the stupid sluts. Oh, wait, you're getting to that ...

Lets face it - one side here framed their arguments in the form of a openly promiscuous young woman whining that the taxpayer wasn't paying for her and her high-flying college friends to have sex.

They were never going to come out on top in this discussion.
So not only do we have a Stupid Sluts argument, we cap it with "that was a dumb move, she looked bad, the Dems came out on the bottom so phooey" thing.

Problems with that argument: (1) The stupid slut has garnered far more public sympathy (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2012/03/02/with-slut-rant-rush-limbaugh-has-become-gops-own-worst-enemy) than you acknowledge. As a GOP lawmaker put it today (http://gothamist.com/2012/03/03/world_to_rush_limbaugh_please_shut.php), "Rush’s attempt to increase his ratings and get noticed again do hurt Republicans. Beating up on a college student is not good optics, and refocusing on her argument that this is about contraception [...] is simply not very helpful to the cause.”

(2) The rightwing bomb thrower who framed this entire thing as "sluts and prostitutes" is feeling the heat, and has come as close to apologizing (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-calling-sandra-fluke-slut/story?id=15841687)as a demagogue can, and (3) you are a dude declaring that birth control is not basic healthcare. Which puts you off the reservation with just about any medical group anywhere.

I think the fact that most of the rightwing Orgahs just plain want Obamacare gone is making this more of a quagmire than it needs to be. Do any of you really think this is an assault on religious freedom? Seriously? I mean, I know that's the talking point, but you don't actually believe that bullhockey, do you?

Strike For The South

03-04-2012, 07:22

State money is not the issue, Federal money is. If you are concerned with that, then you can give them the choice between Federal money or their own insurance options.
And who gives a rat's back-side what Saint Vuk's Hospital does with its employment policies if it is not breaking the law and is a non-profit organization?

EDIT: lol

State money is still government money and is therefore part of the issue.

Places like Georgetown university should not be governed under the same rules as a church

Now what we should and shouldn't be governing is another issue

But this ceased being an issue when these places became buisnesses

And for the last time RHY For birth control to work you have to continually taking it. Yes she could've been banging 10 dudes a day or she could've been in a committed relationship only sleeping with one man or even still she could have not been having sex at all.

Anyone who calls this woman a slut doesn't understand birth control and is simply parroting b grade teen comedy

Vuk

03-04-2012, 15:26

State money is still government money and is therefore part of the issue.

Places like Georgetown university should not be governed under the same rules as a church

Now what we should and shouldn't be governing is another issue

But this ceased being an issue when these places became buisnesses

And for the last time RHY For birth control to work you have to continually taking it. Yes she could've been banging 10 dudes a day or she could've been in a committed relationship only sleeping with one man or even still she could have not been having sex at all.

Anyone who calls this woman a slut doesn't understand birth control and is simply parroting b grade teen comedy

No, state money is not an issue. You may argue that taking state money makes your obliged to your State, and that you then have to obey its decrees, but it does not make you obliged to the Federal government. We are talking here about Federal law.

Lemur

03-04-2012, 17:15

No, state money is not an issue.
And yet 26 states already require religious-affiliated businesses to insure birth control. That's 26 wars on religion that we're not paying attention to! Why should the states get a free pass for oppressing Saint Vuk's Hospital?

Vuk

03-04-2012, 17:18

And yet 26 states already require religious-affiliated businesses to insure birth control. That's 26 wars on religion that we're not paying attention to! Why should the states get a free pass for oppressing Saint Vuk's Hospital?

That is not the issue at hand, Federal law is. Just as I said with the Federal level though, the same applies to the State. If you State requires that, then don't accept the money, or accept the money and comply. Your choice. If your State does not require it, then State money is not an issue.

Lemur

03-04-2012, 17:28

If you State requires that, then don't accept the money, or accept the money and comply. Your choice. If your State does not require it, then State money is not an issue.
Hmm, I see what you are saying, but doesn't it strike you as odd that the majority of states already require birth control insurance of religious-affiliated businesses, but we never heard about it before? Somehow the Catholic Church and the Republican Party were okay with everything until now?

I think the truth of the matter is that the GOP wants to take down Obamacare any way they can, and chose to craft this minor quibble into a Freedom of Religion battle. And the Church, like a patsy, fell in with it. And now the issue is playing to the public as an attack on a settled issue of reproductive health, and it ain't going so well. As once (very) conservative columnist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-luck/2012/03/01/gIQAodiZlR_story.html) put it yesterday:

Finally, the less said about contraception the better, a lesson Santorum refused to learn. It’s a settled question. The country has no real desire for cringe-inducing admonitions from politicians about libertinism and procreative (vs. pleasurable) sex.

Vuk

03-04-2012, 17:55

Hmm, I see what you are saying, but doesn't it strike you as odd that the majority of states already require birth control insurance of religious-affiliated businesses, but we never heard about it before? Somehow the Catholic Church and the Republican Party were okay with everything until now?

I think the truth of the matter is that the GOP wants to take down Obamacare any way they can, and chose to craft this minor quibble into a Freedom of Religion battle. And the Church, like a patsy, fell in with it. And now the issue is playing to the public as an attack on a settled issue of reproductive health, and it ain't going so well. As once (very) conservative columnist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-luck/2012/03/01/gIQAodiZlR_story.html) put it yesterday:

Finally, the less said about contraception the better, a lesson Santorum refused to learn. It’s a settled question. The country has no real desire for cringe-inducing admonitions from politicians about libertinism and procreative (vs. pleasurable) sex.

Many in the GOP do see it as a way to defeat Obamacare I am sure, but I think it gets down more fundamentally to an issue of State's rights. There is a significant train of thought that the Federal government needs to keep its hands off religion completely, but State governments are not as restricted. Personally, I believe that the Founders meant the Federal government to protect religion from State governments as well, but whatever.

That said, why are you surprised that it has not been a national uproar when it has not been a national issue? When the Federal government mandates something, it is a national issue and there is often a national uproar. When a state government mandates something it is a state issue, and if people in the state care about it, there can be a statewide uproar over the law.

Lemur

03-04-2012, 18:39

That said, why are you surprised that it has not been a national uproar when it has not been a national issue?
I would call something mandated by 26 states a national issue, in much the same way that a small handful of states allowing gay marriage or legalized marijuana has been a national issue. Also, nobody in the GOP, the conservative media complex or the Catholic Church has been pitching this as a States Rights issue. It's been freedom of religion (or sluts and prostitutes) straight down the line.

Hosakawa Tito

03-04-2012, 19:15

So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving :daisy: president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!

I'm sorry, have you been forced to change your health plan? Has anyone you know?

Yes, I've really noticed the forced collectivization lately, the elimination or private enterprise, the millions of people forced onto collective farms where they starve because of misallocation of resources. Clearly Obama is JUST LIKE the Khmer Rouge, except with a little less mass murder. (OR MAYBE NOT!)

Hosa, I love you man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere, and you haven't even read this thread. I have responded to this point at length. (Hint: What's the difference between a religious institution and a business subsidiary of a religions institution?)

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to. Even the Republican leadership play along and don't have the guts to call the media propaganda machine on it. There are many cheap options out there for birth control. It's not the issue, just a smoke screen to scare women voters to vote Democrat. No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything. Nor the authority to mandate a private business sell a product/service, nor set the price for it. This power grab and end run with the Commerce clause is illegitimate as stated in the link I provided. Do people actually believe that an insurance company is going to provide, at no cost, any service? Where do insurance companies get their money from?

When does this health mandate start for everyone to be required to buy health insurance? 2014 is the correct answer. Get back to me then about changing your health-care provider.

Lem, love ya man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere.

Lemur

03-04-2012, 19:22

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to.
Making hysterical, apocalyptic claims about the end of private property, free enterprise and capitalism seems to be the typical response from those who have no real argument to put forward. Does it work? Not really.

No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything.
Does the state have a right to demand that you purchase car insurance? Does the state have the right to mandate seat belts in cars? Does the state have the right to demand that you put your child in a car seat? By what right can the Feds build interstate highways?

You say, as though it were an absolute truism, that the state cannot mandate purchase of health insurance. (Even though that was the core of Romneycare and every proposal put forward by the Heritage Foundation until there was a Dem president.) This seems to be the root of your objection, rather than the bogus 1st A religious freedom argument that has been out in front.

This confirms what I have been arguing, that the "assault on religious liberty" is so much hokum and smokescreen, that the real objection on the part of rightwingers is Obamacare itself.

Which casts this all in a rather different light.

Strike For The South

03-04-2012, 20:35

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to. Even the Republican leadership play along and don't have the guts to call the media propaganda machine on it. There are many cheap options out there for birth control. It's not the issue, just a smoke screen to scare women voters to vote Democrat. No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything. Nor the authority to mandate a private business sell a product/service, nor set the price for it. This power grab and end run with the Commerce clause is illegitimate as stated in the link I provided. Do people actually believe that an insurance company is going to provide, at no cost, any service? Where do insurance companies get their money from?

When does this health mandate start for everyone to be required to buy health insurance? 2014 is the correct answer. Get back to me then about changing your health-care provider.

Lem, love ya man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere.

The state manadates you buy many things. It's amazing how many stuanch consitiutionalists have come out of the wordwork post 2008 and by amazing I mean pitiful.

Every president since Washington has pissed on the constitution at one time or another the only logical position of a constitutional absolutisit is liberalterianism

Vuk

03-04-2012, 21:48

Being a constitutionalist is a bad thing? Man, you're in the wrong country!

ICantSpellDawg

03-05-2012, 06:59

And yet 26 states already require religious-affiliated businesses to insure birth control. That's 26 wars on religion that we're not paying attention to! Why should the states get a free pass for oppressing Saint Vuk's Hospital?

The idea is unheard of in NY. We don't require religious hospitals to insure using plans that pay for birth control. You are defending the administration. I wouldn't mind paying for people to have birth control personally - buying in bulk, but I like a division between my Church and the government's politically motivated demands. I know that this particular fight is about Religious liberty. Usually it is about us trying to unravel the red tape before it is too late, but the largest part of this fight is a real one, not AstroTurf and not an attack specifically on the health mandate. Commonweal went nuts, organizations that supported the AHCA were up in arms. Less so after the "compromise", but they are more reticent of some people in the administration than they were before and the White House has been doing some unexpected damage control within their own coalition.

Strike For The South

03-05-2012, 07:33

Being a constitutionalist is a bad thing? Man, you're in the wrong country!

That's not what I said

Lemur

03-05-2012, 15:10

The idea is unheard of in NY. We don't require religious hospitals to insure using plans that pay for birth control..
New York allows "religious employers" a waiver for birth control (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx), but I'm not clear on whether that includes their affiliated businesses. I suspect you may be in the wrong; New York has been listed as one of the states where The Holy Heart of ICantSpellDawg Hospital does, in fact, have to include birth control on its insurance.

I know that this particular fight is about Religious liberty.
Then why, when pressed and debated, does every supporter wind up admitting that they just don't like Obamacare and want to take it down any way they can?

This is a ginned-up conflict, and what's worse, it's playing out very badly for the folks who ginned it up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/despite-birth-control-controversy-obama-suffers-no-erosion-among-catholics/2012/02/14/gIQAK71SDR_blog.html).

Kralizec

03-05-2012, 16:54

The idea is unheard of in NY. We don't require religious hospitals to insure using plans that pay for birth control. You are defending the administration. I wouldn't mind paying for people to have birth control personally - buying in bulk, but I like a division between my Church and the government's politically motivated demands. I know that this particular fight is about Religious liberty. Usually it is about us trying to unravel the red tape before it is too late, but the largest part of this fight is a real one, not AstroTurf and not an attack specifically on the health mandate. Commonweal went nuts, organizations that supported the AHCA were up in arms. Less so after the "compromise", but they are more reticent of some people in the administration than they were before and the White House has been doing some unexpected damage control within their own coalition.

For the purposes of this discussion, seperation between church and state doesn't mean any more (or shouldn't, at any rate) than that the government doesn't interfere with the religious institutions as such. If a government introduces legislation that turns out to affect some enterprise or organisation that is not inherently religious, but affiliated with a religious institution, that's not the problem of the government.

On a related note, I don't even get why people make such a big issue out of it. None of this forces people to, or encourages them to use contraception.

Vuk

03-05-2012, 16:58

On a related note, I don't even get why people make such a big issue out of it. None of this forces people to, or encourages them to use contraception.

That is not at all the issue.

Kralizec

03-05-2012, 17:41

Maybe you didn't notice, but that was adressed at Icantspelldawg. If you're off the opinion that religious arguments are completely out of place here, I agree.

Vuk

03-05-2012, 18:09

Maybe you didn't notice, but that was adressed at Icantspelldawg. If you're off the opinion that religious arguments are completely out of place here, I agree.

I'm sorry, did you mean that as a private message, or did you post it on a public discussion board?

Kralizec

03-05-2012, 18:54

Of course not; you can reply to any public post. But I haven't seen you correct Crazed Rabbit or Icantspelldawg who seem of the opinion that covering contraceptives is an issue in itself.

Vuk

03-05-2012, 19:27

Of course not; you can reply to any public post. But I haven't seen you correct Crazed Rabbit or Icantspelldawg who seem of the opinion that covering contraceptives is an issue in itself.

The issue is forcing a religious institution to do something that goes against their moral beliefs. No one cares if people use contraceptives, they just don't want to force religious institutions to finance things they don't believe in. I don't know what CR or ICSD have been saying, because I have only read the last page of the thread, starting with Lemur's racism accusations.

a completely inoffensive name

03-05-2012, 19:58

I don't know what CR or ICSD have been saying, because I have only read the last page of the thread, starting with Lemur's racism accusations.Well there's your problem.

Strike For The South

03-05-2012, 21:30

The issue is forcing a religious institution to do something that goes against their moral beliefs. No one cares if people use contraceptives, they just don't want to force religious institutions to finance things they don't believe in. I don't know what CR or ICSD have been saying, because I have only read the last page of the thread, starting with Lemur's racism accusations.

Once again, THEY ARE TAKING GOVERNMENT MONEY THEREFORE THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT RULES

Lemur

03-05-2012, 21:34

Lemur's racism accusations.
Ah yes, I responded to silly rant about how Obama would end capitalism and force us all into collectivization with a my own torrent of silliness invoking Stalin and the Khmer Rouge, but all anyone saw was the word ":daisy:." And when I edited that to read "Marxist," you're still going on about it two days later. Hosa even altered my quote to re-insert the word, 'cause we need to get our inujuredness in, at any cost.

And you wonder why I say the right-wingers are sniffing victim-scented glue? Seriously. Contrast my (rather silly) post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140388-Sex-Crazed-Co-eds-Going-Broke-Buying-Birth-Control&p=2053428538&viewfull=1#post2053428538) with the howls of pain and anguish coming from yourself. Contrast and compare, and then tell me who's harping on race. I made a single joke in the middle of a series of jokes; you lot are acting like someone kicked your momma and won't stop hurting the innocent old gal.

There's a substantial debate to be had on this subject, and we've been going at it, despite the relentless dirge of how horrible I was to reference the president's race, two days after the fact, and after I edited the offending word out. (I guess the memory of your pain is enough to keep it alive? Kinda like PTSD? Please, show me where the bad lemur touched you on the doll, Vuk.)

-edit-

And just a little reminder on how this issue is playing out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/joe-scarborough-contraception-rush-limbaugh-republicans_n_1321082.html) with the public at large (hint: not well)—

Mika Brzezinski reviewed new polls showing President Obama ahead of all the GOP candidates, and contributor Mark Halperin remarked that recent weeks have been a "bad period for the Republican party."

Scarborough agreed, calling the polls "absolute terrible news for a Republican party that has been working overtime to tarnish their brand." He argued that the Republican party lost a key opportunity when the Obama administration ruled that employers must include contraception in their health insurance plans.

"They had the advantage when all the Catholics were on their side but they couldn't leave it alone and it just continues with one statement after another that makes them look like they're hostile, not just to Democratic women," Scarborough lamented, referring to other controversial comments that Limbaugh and other Republicans have made about the issue.

He said that his wife had even directed him to tell the Republican party to focus on the economy and leave women's health alone. "This has been going on for a month," he continued. "I swear, what is wrong with these people?"A recent Kaiser poll (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/americans-kinda-annoyed-by-politicians-recent-obsession-with-sex.html) has some indicative data:

Americans who say they agree with the Federal mandate for birth control: 63%
Americans who say they want politicians debating birth control: less than 1%

The GOP has chosen a disastrously bad strategy on this one. This is what we call an "unforced error" in sports.

HoreTore

03-05-2012, 22:28

I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, so I don't know where the thread is right now(I suspect it's been de-railed about 3 times), but I'll give an answer to the OP:

Yes, birth control should be freely available, and preferably free. I get condoms in my mailbox every now and then, it's quite nice.

Rhyfelwyr

03-05-2012, 23:10

And for the last time RHY For birth control to work you have to continually taking it. Yes she could've been banging 10 dudes a day or she could've been in a committed relationship only sleeping with one man or even still she could have not been having sex at all.

Anyone who calls this woman a slut doesn't understand birth control and is simply parroting b grade teen comedy

OK. I apologise for presuming she is a slut when I didn't know how the pill works. I just like to be dramatic and throw around wild accusations. I am sorry.

That's a strange way of putting it. The blurring of lines between churches and their businesses has been the core of the GOP argument for why a relatively obscure insurance rule is a War on Religion. If anything, in this thread, I've had to hammer the distinction five or six times before anyone could be bothered to note it. I don't think that's a failure of comprehension; that's willfully ignoring a distinction that wasn't convenient to the outrage and look-at-the-stupid-sluts line of humor that constituted the first page of this thread.

Well to be fair, the first page was concerned with that because the OP appears to address that one particular argument, rather than the concerns that were purely or at least primarily medical in nature. Let's try to keep focused on addressing the arguments themselves, rather than turning this into another us v them debate and presuming that every argument from one side is being put forth by everyone on that side.

Yeah, 'cause reproductive health concerns are recreational in nature. And a bunch of dudes are fit to make that judgement, rather than the stupid sluts. Oh, wait, you're getting to that ...

Well, those reproductive health concerns are only there because of the recreation they are choosing to pursue. I don't believe that my gender changes that fact.

So not only do we have a Stupid Sluts argument, we cap it with "that was a dumb move, she looked bad, the Dems came out on the bottom so phooey" thing.

Well that is exactly how things appeared. At least until Mr. Limbaugh stepped in, but we'll get to that...

Problems with that argument: (1) The stupid slut has garnered far more public sympathy (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2012/03/02/with-slut-rant-rush-limbaugh-has-become-gops-own-worst-enemy) than you acknowledge. As a GOP lawmaker put it today (http://gothamist.com/2012/03/03/world_to_rush_limbaugh_please_shut.php), "Rush’s attempt to increase his ratings and get noticed again do hurt Republicans. Beating up on a college student is not good optics, and refocusing on her argument that this is about contraception [...] is simply not very helpful to the cause.”

Yes, Rush handed this very poorly and he seems to have flipped the public's perspective on this girl from being a whore to being a poor victimised college girl. When you're a public figure you have to watch your mouth.

and (3) you are a dude declaring that birth control is not basic healthcare. Which puts you off the reservation with just about any medical group anywhere.

I don't care.

I think the fact that most of the rightwing Orgahs just plain want Obamacare gone is making this more of a quagmire than it needs to be. Do any of you really think this is an assault on religious freedom? Seriously? I mean, I know that's the talking point, but you don't actually believe that bullhockey, do you?

Well I'm certainly not coming from an anti-Obamacare perspective, I love my NHS and hate how the current government is dismantling it. As for it being an assault on religious freedom, I do not believe that Obama meant it to be some sort of wicked plot to submit the church to the state. But I think that a side effect of this policy is that it does infringe on peoples' freedom of conscience without sufficient reason.

Vuk

03-05-2012, 23:33

Ah yes, I responded to silly rant about how Obama would end capitalism and force us all into collectivization with a my own torrent of silliness invoking Stalin and the Khmer Rouge, but all anyone saw was the word ":daisy:" And when I edited that to read "Marxist," you're still going on about it two days later. Hosa even altered my quote to re-insert the word, 'cause we need to get our inujuredness in, at any cost.

And you wonder why I say the right-wingers are sniffing victim-scented glue? Seriously. Contrast my (rather silly) post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140388-Sex-Crazed-Co-eds-Going-Broke-Buying-Birth-Control&p=2053428538&viewfull=1#post2053428538) with the howls of pain and anguish coming from yourself. Contrast and compare, and then tell me who's harping on race. I made a single joke in the middle of a series of jokes; you lot are acting like someone kicked your momma and won't stop hurting the innocent old gal.

There's a substantial debate to be had on this subject, and we've been going at it, despite the relentless dirge of how horrible I was to reference the president's race, two days after the fact, and after I edited the offending word out. (I guess the memory of your pain is enough to keep it alive? Kinda like PTSD? Please, show me where the bad lemur touched you on the doll, Vuk.)

-edit-

And just a little reminder on how this issue is playing out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/joe-scarborough-contraception-rush-limbaugh-republicans_n_1321082.html) with the public at large (hint: not well)—

Mika Brzezinski reviewed new polls showing President Obama ahead of all the GOP candidates, and contributor Mark Halperin remarked that recent weeks have been a "bad period for the Republican party."

Scarborough agreed, calling the polls "absolute terrible news for a Republican party that has been working overtime to tarnish their brand." He argued that the Republican party lost a key opportunity when the Obama administration ruled that employers must include contraception in their health insurance plans.

"They had the advantage when all the Catholics were on their side but they couldn't leave it alone and it just continues with one statement after another that makes them look like they're hostile, not just to Democratic women," Scarborough lamented, referring to other controversial comments that Limbaugh and other Republicans have made about the issue.

He said that his wife had even directed him to tell the Republican party to focus on the economy and leave women's health alone. "This has been going on for a month," he continued. "I swear, what is wrong with these people?"A recent Kaiser poll (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/americans-kinda-annoyed-by-politicians-recent-obsession-with-sex.html) has some indicative data:

Americans who say they agree with the Federal mandate for birth control: 63%
Americans who say they want politicians debating birth control: less than 1%

The GOP has chosen a disastrously bad strategy on this one. This is what we call an "unforced error" in sports.

Dude, you do it all the time in other threads. It is about a pattern in how you argue. You, and other liberals, always play the race card. That is why it makes people upset. That is why people commented. You meant it as a joke? Fine. I was not trying to start a conversation about it again. I was just explaining to Kralizec that my entry into this thread was more focused on something other than the main point of the thread, and that I came in at the half-way part. Please, enough whining about being whined at already.

Lemur

03-06-2012, 00:04

I think that a side effect of this policy is that it does infringe on peoples' freedom of conscience without sufficient reason.
I think reproductive health is sufficient reason, and the fact that we are men discussing whether or not women should have access to cheap/subsidized birth control has a certain delicious irony (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/251fa6410b/women-s-health-experts-speak-out), whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Your points are fair and fairly made, but we disagree on this fundamental. I think choosing when to begin a family is basic to a woman's health. (Leaving aside the 14% of women who take the pill for hormonal or other health reason.)

You, and other liberals, always play the race card. [...] Please, enough whining about being whined at already.
You want to call me out as a race-baiter? You and the four other Orgahs who bandwagoned like you were lining up for cocaine in a 70s disco? Try again. And please, try harder. By incessantly whining and crying about a two-day old post (which was edited, a fact utterly lost on you), and prissing about how it reveals the hidden race-baiting agenda of EVERY LEFTIST EVAR, you parade your intellectual barrenness for all to see. Let's put it this way: If rhetorical or substantive content were required to get a woman pregnant, your posts would be completely safe. No birth control required. "Gelded" is the word that springs to mind.

You don't even have the courtesy to come back at me with anything clever. That's just rude, that is.

-edit-

In a way, I think this is a lovely analogy for the whole birth control debate. You grabbed what you thought was a safety rope, but it was actually a downed electric line. And now you don't understand why your shirt is on fire and your hair is smoking.

And now I promise this is the last time I will respond to the plaintive cries of the oh-so-offended rightwingers on this subject in this thread. At least, until someone has the testicular fortitude to come at me with substance, humor or style. I don't anticipate that happening.

a completely inoffensive name

03-06-2012, 01:53

This is what happens when an unsubstantiated argument is presented by someone, it is dropped and replaced when someone else points out how flawed it is.

Vuk

03-06-2012, 02:02

You want to call me out as a race-baiter? You and the four other Orgahs who bandwagoned like you were lining up for cocaine in a 70s disco? Try again. And please, try harder. By incessantly whining and crying about a two-day old post (which was edited, a fact utterly lost on you), and prissing about how it reveals the hidden race-baiting agenda of EVERY LEFTIST EVAR, you parade your intellectual barrenness for all to see. Let's put it this way: If rhetorical or substantive content were required to get a woman pregnant, your posts would be completely safe. No birth control required. "Gelded" is the word that springs to mind.

You don't even have the courtesy to come back at me with anything clever. That's just rude, that is.

-edit-

In a way, I think this is a lovely analogy for the whole birth control debate. You grabbed what you thought was a safety rope, but it was actually a downed electric line. And now you don't understand why your shirt is on fire and your hair is smoking.

And now I promise this is the last time I will respond to the plaintive cries of the oh-so-offended rightwingers on this subject in this thread. At least, until someone has the testicular fortitude to come at me with substance, humor or style. I don't anticipate that happening.

You are a race-baiter, and there have been many posts that prove it (not just the one in this thread you edited). You race-bait, then you cry "HELPZ! THEYZ ATTACKINGZ ME!"
If you are gonna play the race card, then at least stick to your guns. In other words, grow some balls.

And if you are going to deny that it is not a tactic widely employed by liberals, then you are either a blatant liar or smoking something really powerful. Either way, I think that if anyone believes you, it is only yourself.

Come back with something clever? Why? The truth is enough. I don't need to dress what I say up with humor or witticisms to hide its hollowness, unlike your honorable self.

Yes, I know, I grabbed the downed electric line and now the great power of Lemur will incinerate me! Get over yourself man. Your posts aren't half as witty as you seem to think they are, and they never were either.

You aren't gonna respond to me? Good, because to be honest, I am sick to heck of reading your boring posts. Have a nice day. :)

a completely inoffensive name

03-06-2012, 02:38

Someones mad.

Rhyfelwyr

03-06-2012, 03:00

One argument in this thread:

- find common points of agreement
- explore the nuances in each others points
- acknowledge where their arguments are coming from
- apologise for any harsh words

The other argument going on here:

RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE

Vuk

03-06-2012, 03:02

a completely inoffensive name

03-06-2012, 03:17

Holy Christ Vuk, I'm here to learn from everyone. Pipe down and just leave it be. This topic interests me.

PanzerJaeger

03-06-2012, 03:45

Just like this thread, the debate surrounding this issue is now completely removed from reality. As usual, Rush has handed a political victory to the Democrats and completely shifted the focus of the debate to women's rights, which it was never about. Instead of standing up for religious freedom, the GOP is now perceived to be standing against long established women's rights and even women in general. For their part, Ms. Fluke and the Democrats are milking this for all it is worth. By not accepting Rush's apology, Ms. Fluke is seeking to prolong the bleeding and has transformed herself from a victim into a full-fledged political shill/women's rights icon. It's almost not even worth mentioning the rank hypocrisy (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html) in the Left's outrage as the damage has already been done. I cannot imagine a worse political outcome.

On principle, too, the Right got this wrong from the start. Lemur is largely correct. This is not an attack on religious freedom. What it is is another example of the kind of runaway entitlements and government overreach that have characterized this administration. Subsidized contraception may be a great thing and supported by many women's groups, but it goes beyond the Obamacare mandate and is emblematic of a government that is asleep at the fiscal wheel. Bridges are falling apart, schools are stuck in the 80's, our technological grid is falling behind many second world nations, and we cannot ask women to contribute even a dime to their own contraception? (It still has yet to be established whether men will share in this boondoggle.) This stuff can get very expensive beyond the pill.

Obamacare was sold as a measure to save Americans from unforeseen and catastrophic medical expenses. This ruling goes far beyond that premise. I suppose more emotional arguments about religious freedom or women's rights play better to the respective bases, but they are both missing the point in my opinion.

Lemur

03-06-2012, 04:43

By not accepting Rush's apology, Ms. Fluke is seeking to prolong the bleeding and has transformed herself from a victim into a full-fledged political shill/women's rights icon.
For what it's worth his apology was not an apology. "I chose two wrong words but I was right" doesn't begin to correct the evil of personally attacking a woman for three straight days, saying that she must be having so much sex it's a wonder she can walk. I can go pull quotes if you like, but some of them are not reprintable under Org rules. What the Rusbo offered was the thinnest possible level of self-justification and buttock-covering after he began to lose sponsors. I'm not going to speculate on Fluke's motives, 'cause I don't know her and have not read much about her, but calling her names for not accepting Rush's less-than-halfhearted apology is silly. If a national figure trashed you for three straight days and offered that sort of weaksauce, I doubt you would accept it either.

Subsidized contraception may be a great thing and supported by many women's groups, but it goes beyond the Obamacare mandate and is emblematic of a government that is asleep at the fiscal wheel. [...] This stuff can get very expensive beyond the pill.
This controversy has been specifically about the pill. And life doesn't really get expensive until you get into fertility therapy, which can go into the tens of thousands very quickly. Most insurance does not cover more than a fraction of that sort of thing; ask any couple that's trying (and failing) to conceive.

Again, I think basic reproductive health, such as the pill, falls well within the parameters of fundamental healthcare for women.

Moreover, I like the rate of abortion going down (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-11/entertainment/27087246_1_abortion-rate-abortion-providers-surgical-abortion). I like teen pregnancy going down (http://blogs.webmd.com/breaking-news/2012/02/drop-in-teen-pregnancy-due-to-birth-control.html). I'm not terribly sympathetic to arguments—however well-intentioned—that would lead us down the path to increasing both of those numbers.

It's almost not even worth mentioning the rank hypocrisy (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html) in the Left's outrage as the damage has already been done.
I think Frum answered that one (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rush-limbaugh-fairness/index.html) pretty well.

Papewaio

03-06-2012, 04:51

Separation of Church and State is good.

Separation of Corporations and State not so good. Yes little interference, jus not none. Government should be their to protect the individual from corporate excess.

A corporation ran by a religious group is not automatically a religious entity. A charity that does not ask for money for services would be the one that should be able to run along religious principles as long as it is fully self funded. A corporate entity that the consumer pays for goods and services should be run to the same rules regardless of the religious persuasion of the owner. To not do so is to violate the separation of church and state by either puttin unfair penalties on a religious owned company or by providing an unfair commercial advantage by removing obligations that other institutions have to perform under.

Equality for all religions. Equality for all corporations. Equality for all shareholders.

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 05:08

Just like this thread, the debate surrounding this issue is now completely removed from reality. As usual, Rush has handed a political victory to the Democrats and completely shifted the focus of the debate to women's rights, which it was never about. Instead of standing up for religious freedom, the GOP is now perceived to be standing against long established women's rights and even women in general. For their part, Ms. Fluke and the Democrats are milking this for all it is worth. By not accepting Rush's apology, Ms. Fluke is seeking to prolong the bleeding and has transformed herself from a victim into a full-fledged political shill/women's rights icon. It's almost not even worth mentioning the rank hypocrisy (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html)in the Left's outrage as the damage has already been done. I cannot imagine a worse political outcome.

On principle, too, the Right got this wrong from the start. Lemur is largely correct. This is not an attack on religious freedom. What it is is another example of the kind of runaway entitlements and government overreach that have characterized this administration. Subsidized contraception may be a great thing and supported by many women's groups, but it goes beyond the Obamacare mandate and is emblematic of a government that is asleep at the fiscal wheel. Bridges are falling apart, schools are stuck in the 80's, our technological grid is falling behind many second world nations, and we cannot ask women to contribute even a dime to their own contraception? (It still has yet to be established whether men will share in this boondoggle.) This stuff can get very expensive beyond the pill.

Obamacare was sold as a measure to save Americans from unforeseen and catastrophic medical expenses. This ruling goes far beyond that premise. I suppose more emotional arguments about religious freedom or women's rights play better to the respective bases, but they are both missing the point in my opinion.

Affordable contraceptive is not government overreach. More safe sex= less unwanted babies. That's a good thing

Centurion1

03-06-2012, 06:20

a completely inoffensive name

03-06-2012, 06:23

Why are we ignoring the fact that contraception is incredibly affordable in this country already.

I don't consider Ms. Fluke a slut. I consider her a lying piece of crap. 3,000 dollars for contraception yearly? She is a pandering liar and I hold absolutely no pity for her.

Is she too good to go to organizations such as Planned Parenthood for her Birth Control.

Clarify something for me. Does Planned Parenthood provide birth control pills or just condoms? If it is just condoms then you have to understand that many women are not going to put their trust into the random man to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.

PanzerJaeger

03-06-2012, 06:29

For what it's worth his apology was not an apology. "I chose two wrong words but I was right" doesn't begin to correct the evil of personally attacking a woman for three straight days, saying that she must be having so much sex it's a wonder she can walk. I can go pull quotes if you like, but some of them are not reprintable under Org rules. What the Rusbo offered was the thinnest possible level of self-justification and buttock-covering after he began to lose sponsors. I'm not going to speculate on Fluke's motives, 'cause I don't know her and have not read much about her, but calling her names for not accepting Rush's less-than-halfhearted apology is silly. If a national figure trashed you for three straight days and offered that sort of weaksauce, I doubt you would accept it either.

Rush wrote: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choice.” Ms. Fluke not only did not accept the apology, which is certainly justifiable, but is also making the rounds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/limbaughs-target-takes-her-own-shots-at-his-apology-on-the-view/2012/03/05/gIQArWHbtR_story.html?tid=pm_pop) on TV to ensure everyone else knows that she is not accepting the apology - i.e., making hay. That's fine - Rush reaps what he sows, but it also confirms my suspicion that she was a Democratic shill from the start brought in to bolster Pelosi's hearing. The woman currently being portrayed as an innocent college student with the temerity to testify before congress only to be savaged by Rush is actually a 30 year old feminist activist with a long history of political advocacy. This has been a political circus from the start, and both sides are trying to outdo the other in righteous indignation and feigned outrage.

This controversy has been specifically about the pill.

I was under the impression that it was still unclear (http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/five-questions-about-the-health-laws-mandate-to-cover-birth-control/43f313a587b94b219207b72de592bcad) as to which contraceptive methods and procedures will be covered. We could even be responsible for voluntary tubal ligation, and all the associated hospital costs. Hopefully you have not had to spend any time in a hospital recently, but it is just about the most expensive hotel you can find in most towns.

Again, I think basic reproductive health, such as the pill, falls well within the parameters of fundamental healthcare for women.

Why? (Assuming we are excluding those that use it for medicinal purposes.)

Moreover, I like the rate of abortion going down (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-11/entertainment/27087246_1_abortion-rate-abortion-providers-surgical-abortion). I like teen pregnancy going down (http://blogs.webmd.com/breaking-news/2012/02/drop-in-teen-pregnancy-due-to-birth-control.html). I'm not terribly sympathetic to arguments—however well-intentioned—that would lead us down the path to increasing both of those numbers.

This is a bit of a red herring. At-risk groups can be specifically targetted without subsidizing suburban housewives' vaginal rings.

I think Frum answered that one (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rush-limbaugh-fairness/index.html) pretty well.

He did not. He ignored most of the examples cited in the article I linked to. The Left is clearly pushing for Limbaugh's termination while it remained largely silent during similar instances when the perpetrator was a liberal icon. As I said before, this has transformed from the genuine fallout over the stupid remarks of a radio talk show host to the political optics of feigned outrage. The Democrats will attempt to ride the women's rights wave as far as it will take them just as the GOP tried to do the same on the religious rights wave. This seems more like politics as usual rather than Frumm's 'new kind of low'. I don't think 'slut' is any worse than 'mashed up bag of meat with lipstick'.

PanzerJaeger

03-06-2012, 06:33

Affordable contraceptive is not government overreach. More safe sex= less unwanted babies. That's a good thing

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with completely subsidizing contraception for every woman in America. It is incredibly wasteful.

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 06:50

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with completely subsidizing contraception for every woman in America. It is incredibly wasteful.

I have never called for the compelte subsidation of anything

I'd be more than happy with easily accesible and afforadable

PanzerJaeger

03-06-2012, 06:52

I have never called for the compelte subsidation of anything

I'd be more than happy with easily accesible and afforadable

I would encourage you to read the HHS mandate, because that is kind of what this whole discussion is about.

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 06:53

These women are called sluts b/c of there decison to take control of there own bodies and recognize that they are in fact sexual beings. Not only are they sexual beings but they can have control over that and it goes farther than dont have sex

Sarah Palin gets called a :daisy: for the same reason Obama gets called a :daisy:

The two are incompaitble

Centurion1

03-06-2012, 06:54

Clarify something for me. Does Planned Parenthood provide birth control pills or just condoms? If it is just condoms then you have to understand that many women are not going to put their trust into the random man to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.

As I said before...... Birth Control PILLS. And your wealth is irrelevant. Nor do girls need to tell their parents. My ex first got them for very cheap (i believe 10 per month) and then when she went to get more 6 months later they gave her a completely different kind. FREE.

They have condoms as well I noticed when I went with my girl. I don't use them as I assume they are cheap and I go through them regularly enough that it would be a pain to get them there.

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 06:56

I would encourage you to read the HHS mandate, because that is kind of what this whole discussion is about.

But that would ruin my ability to shoot from the hip and engage in sanctimonius rants

Why would you rob me of that?

a completely inoffensive name

03-06-2012, 07:07

As I said before...... Birth Control PILLS.
Woah bro, no need to shout. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know PP filled prescriptions.

And your wealth is irrelevant. Nor do girls need to tell their parents.
I have already given my point about how expensive 10 bucks is to stupid young people who probably don't have jobs. I don't recall anyone talking about kids being afraid of their parents.

My ex first got them for very cheap (i believe 10 per month) and then when she went to get more 6 months later they gave her a completely different kind. FREE.
I am not an expert on birth control. I just know that they are concentrated packages of hormones. That being said, arn't the compositions different between methods and/or brands? Swapping from one kind of control to another completely doesn't sound smart....but I could be completely wrong here.

They have condoms as well I noticed when I went with my girl. I don't use them as I assume they are cheap and I go through them regularly enough that it would be a pain to get them there.

Lucky for you the smaller sizes are cheaper, otherwise I am sure you would see how expensive birth control can be for people like me.

Beskar

03-06-2012, 07:12

My university gave out free condoms as part of a sexual awareness campaign as you were free to help yourself. They even gave out high quality durex ones. But to the issues at hand:

I have to agree with some of the points here though from both sides of the fence, to quote Panzer above me:

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with completely subsidizing contraception for every woman in America. It is incredibly wasteful.

The idea that people simply can open their hands out and go "condoms please" even in a system such as the NHS over here is cringe worthy. If some one has actually medical reasons as described by Strikes for the South, they should have unfettered access to pills which also act as birthcontrol, in order to help relieve those physical duress they might be experiencing. I understand the religious objection to birthcontrol, but does the church ban wearing pants as they hinder easy access? Of course it doesn't because it would be awfully silly of them to, having such an organisation ban the use of medication for a purpose that isn't being used as birthcontrol should be acceptable. End of the day, i am sure those religious people who are enrolled in those plans are devote followers and wouldn't do such a thing anyway and become sinners.

I think this is a pretty fair position that both sides agree on pretty much from what I have read people say, but for some reason, it seems a little lost in the communication. Feel free to agree or disagree and say why.

Now to the next point, the speaker herself.

This is really a double-edged sword.. this is why I think so.
- Whatever her personal life, may it be with a long term boyfriend, random strangers on the street, whatever the case, end of the day, it doesn't matter. If she wants to be a "harlot" in your eyes, it is her choice, and for a bunch of people yelling at the top of their lungs about the invasion of liberty, it seems awfully hypocritical. Whatever her situation it does not distract from what her arguments and claims are.
- Her arguments at first glance actually pretty bad as they fail to make sense. You don't actually need to attack her character when what she says appears to be so failed. $1000 a year on contraception for the sole purpose of recreational activity is a really poor case to make. Now, if it is she has to take certain contraception because of physical duress, not because of sexual activity then it should be covered by the insurance (if that covers medication and repeat subscriptions). Then there is the other factor related to sexual activity, is that $1000 what it costs? Then you break down the figures, what is that being spent on, why is it being spent on it, analysing the situation at hand. If it is because she buys the most expensive packets of condoms and gets it delivered via a forklift truck to her house, then it really is more of her own personal issue. If it was a case that contraception really was that expensive for "reasonable use", then there should be ways of looking into why it is so expensive. There have been talks inthread of $10 a month being a figure for their wives/girlfriends, $120 does sound a lot more acceptable cost. I haven't got this information at hand to give any real thoughts on the matter, but this is a couple of things to think about.

On a moderators note:
Keep this topic on track with the arguments and opinions expressed. I do not want to see anymore personal attacks upon other forum members (including the mentioning the race of the president) and other such disappointing reading in this thread.

PanzerJaeger

03-06-2012, 07:29

But that would ruin my ability to shoot from the hip and engage in sanctimonius rants

Why would you rob me of that?

:grin:

Here's a bit of anecdote to put the issue in perspective. My cousin is 33. She has a great job, as does her husband. They do not want kids and she is considering a full range of more permanent and costly contraceptive procedures to make sure they do not have them. Under this mandate, any one of those procedures will be completely covered under her insurance. There is absolutely no reason why she should not contribute to whichever procedure she decides on so that my premiums don't go up and/or my tax dollars don't end up subsidizing it through the back end. There is a big difference between my cousin and a 16 year old inner city girl living with her baby daddy in his Caprice Classic. This mandate makes no distinction.

a completely inoffensive name

03-06-2012, 07:36

:grin:

Here's a bit of anecdote to put the issue in perspective. My cousin is 33. She has a great job, as does her husband. They do not want kids and she is considering a full range of more permanent and costly contraceptive procedures to make sure they do not have them. Under this mandate, any one of those procedures will be completely covered under her insurance. There is absolutely no reason why she should not contribute to whichever procedure she decides on so that my premiums don't go up and/or my tax dollars don't end up subsidizing it through the back end. There is a big difference between my cousin and a 16 year old inner city girl living with her baby daddy in his Caprice Classic. This mandate makes no distinction.

Why sign up for insurance in the first place? All your money is going to other people for their bad choices. Most people's health issues are due to their own lifestyle. If you don't feel like paying for other's choices, don't participate in a communistic system to begin with. Pay for yourself.

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 07:40

:grin:

Here's a bit of anecdote to put the issue in perspective. My cousin is 33. She has a great job, as does her husband. They do not want kids and she is considering a full range of more permanent and costly contraceptive procedures to make sure they do not have them. Under this mandate, any one of those procedures will be completely covered under her insurance. There is absolutely no reason why she should not contribute to whichever procedure she decides on so that my premiums don't go up and/or my tax dollars don't end up subsidizing it through the back end. There is a big difference between my cousin and a 16 year old inner city girl living with her baby daddy in his Caprice Classic. This mandate makes no distinction.

Babby daddy has urban connitations
Urban has black connitations
Bringing up skin color is racism

Vuk will be along shortly

But I agree with you to a point, for the most part selective procedures should not be covered but I will also point out this debate has sprialed beyond that

The pill allows women a certain autonomy and even footing with men that was not possible before. This is a subtle distiniction that I feel is being ignored and different than a tubal ligation or vasectomy (forgive me if I am forward)

Tuuvi

03-06-2012, 08:54

Why sign up for insurance in the first place? All your money is going to other people for their bad choices. Most people's health issues are due to their own lifestyle. If you don't feel like paying for other's choices, don't participate in a communistic system to begin with. Pay for yourself.

We all have to sign up for insurance in 2014. (I have a feeling your post wasn't completely serious.)

a completely inoffensive name

03-06-2012, 09:06

We all have to sign up for insurance in 2014. (I have a feeling your post wasn't completely serious.)

You can thank the GOP of the 90s and early 00's for that mandate.

But I was being semi serious. Insurance are run like communistic dictatorships, everyone pays in and you get as much as you need, if the dictator decides he has enough money at the moment. It's inherently inefficient, and if people made sure they didn't get obese, health care costs would plummet because there wouldn't be nearly as much demand on our system as there currently is. At this point most of your money just subsidizes people's bad health choices.

Papewaio

03-06-2012, 10:27

Is the pursuit of happiness an unalienable right?

" it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

So aren't condoms and the pill included in Effective Saftey and Happiness? :smoking:

Vladimir

03-06-2012, 14:03

Vuk

03-06-2012, 15:48

This (http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance-transcript) is an interesting look into Sandra Fluke's beliefs regarding what insurance should cover. Really? This woman is off her rocker.

You can buy it here (https://articleworks.cadmus.com/geolaw/zsw00311.html) if you want to read the whole thing.

Here (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/) is an interesting article on her.

This woman has 'fake' written all over her. This entire incident was manufactured, knowing that the GOP would feel that religious rights were being threatened, so they could then whine that the GOP hate women. The whole thing is a farce!

Lemur

03-06-2012, 16:13

This entire incident was manufactured, knowing that the GOP would feel that religious rights were being threatened, so they could then whine that the GOP hate women.
I hate to point this out, but the entire trap was outlined in the cover article of the February 13th issue of Newsweek (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/02/12/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-set-a-contraception-trap-for-the-right.html). In detail. The GOP had ample warning, but they thought they had a winner on their hands. (And of course, Rushbo handed this entire issue over to the left by being publicly, demonstrably evil. According to news reports last night, he now blames his own behavior on the left (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/limbaugh-blames-left-calling-sandra-fluke-slut/49495/). Gotta love that conservative philosophy of personal responsibility!)

The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.

Take a look at the polling. Ask Americans if they believe that contraception should be included for free in all health-care plans and you get a 55 percent majority in favor, with 40 percent against. Ask American Catholics, and that majority actually rises above the national average, to 58 percent. A 49 percent plurality of all Americans supported the original Obama rule forcing Catholic institutions to provide contraception coverage. And once again, American Catholics actually support that more controversial position by a slightly higher margin than all Americans, with 52 percent backing it. So on religious-freedom grounds, the country is narrowly divided, but with a small majority on Obama’s side.

And on the issue of contraception itself, studies have shown that a staggering 98 percent of Catholic women not only believe in birth control but have used it. How is it possible to describe this issue as a violation of individual conscience, when no one is forced to use contraception against their will, and most Catholics have already consulted their conscience, are fine with the pill, and want it covered? This is not like abortion, a far, far graver issue. Even the church hierarchy—in a famous commission set up by Pope John XXIII to study birth control—voted to allow oral contraception under some circumstances, only to be controversially vetoed by Pope Paul VI in 1968. And the truth is, there is no real debate among most actual living, breathing American Catholics on the issue, who tend to be more liberal than most Americans. [...]

But some Republicans and conservative Catholics have already rejected the compromise. They have declared it to be just as inimical to religious freedom as church organizations being forced to pay for their employees’ contraception. Before the compromise, the spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops went even further, arguing that entirely secular corporations, if owned or run by faithful Catholics, should be able to exclude contraception from their employees’ health-insurance coverage. “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell,” he declared, “I’d be covered by the mandate.” And even that would be unacceptable.

So Catholic doctrine should, according to the bishops’ spokesman, also apply to non-Catholics—even if they are merely selling burritos.

This kind of rhetoric is not about protecting religious freedom. It is about imposing a particular religious doctrine on those who don’t share it as a condition for general employment utterly unrelated to religion at all. And if that is the hill the Catholic hierarchy and evangelical right want to fight and die on, they will lose—and lose badly.

Crazed Rabbit

03-06-2012, 16:40

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 16:57

Vuk

03-06-2012, 17:01

So you whine becuase they were out played politicaly?

No, but the American people are being lied to. That is not important to you? Also, our President has the media completely in his palm. State-run media does pose certain problems, don't you agree? When nearly all mass media is taking directives from the President, isn't that what we have?

Lemur

03-06-2012, 17:08

State-run media does pose certain problems, don't you agree? When nearly all mass media is taking directives from the President, isn't that what we have?
"State-run" media? For reals? Isn't that a bit hysterical? I haven't felt this strong of an urge to be silly since Hosa posted his rant about how Obama would end capitalism and make us all dependents of the Stalinist state.

By over-stating your case like that, you make yourself sound exactly as silly as the lefties who screamed about "fascism" and "dictatorship" under Bush 2.

I forget which comedian said it, but nobody's going to take your guns away (on the left), and nobody's going to take your birth control away (on the right). Speaking of which, that's another good parallel; imagine if the Democrats had been baited and lured into holding hearings about whether or not Americans should be allowed to own guns. Imagine the outrage, the backblast. That's pretty much what happened here. As I said, the GOP had ample warning. Why didn't they listen? I have no idea.

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 17:16

No, but the American people are being lied to. That is not important to you? Also, our President has the media completely in his palm. State-run media does pose certain problems, don't you agree? When nearly all mass media is taking directives from the President, isn't that what we have?

So your saying someone lobbying the government is lying? How will we ever press on in the face of such monstorous obstacles? She is a Georgetown law student, simply becuase the issue is pretinent to her and she has worked before she went to law school is really immterial to the issue at hand. I heard her testimony and assumed she had an agenda to push becuase she is lobbying congress.

State run media? That's hyperbole. The big 3 networks do tend to lean a bit to the left but in the same vein they also tend to take the side of the people. If the nation is feeling more libreal they will slant further to the left, more conservative to the right. To say that this adminstration has them in the palm of his hand is disingenous at best. The problem is people are clamoring for investigation into things like birth certificates which gets wrapped up with issues actually worth investigarting thus cheapining the underdogs cries for attention. The same thing happend with Bush. The left was convinced that the adminstration was hidiing something but the real issues got wrapped up in the tin foil hat stuff

To truly investigate like solyandra or F&F you need pages of texts or hours of TV. The real issue here is the 24 hr news cycle and the 30 second sound byte. Peoples analytical & critical thinking skills have been so blunted that if the information can be processed quickly and in a high degree of black and white then it doesn't make the news. One only needs to look at the tripe you try to pass off as a learned, logical opinion to see the devolution of these skills. That's the real problem with the media today, not the fact they cheerlead

Sorry for all the words. Next time I'll try to break it up by using bright colors and perhaps a puppet show

Vladimir

03-06-2012, 17:21

I vote for the puppet show (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=puppetery%20of%20the%20penis%20wiki&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPuppetry_of_the_Penis&ei=UzlWT-PvIIjZ0QGSwYH7CQ&usg=AFQjCNFGYnpTSKoO6mdxhW_yZcyF8WCyXA&cad=rja). :yes:

Strike For The South

03-06-2012, 17:22

I vote for the puppet show (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=puppetery of the penis wiki&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPuppetry_of_the_Penis&ei=UzlWT-PvIIjZ0QGSwYH7CQ&usg=AFQjCNFGYnpTSKoO6mdxhW_yZcyF8WCyXA&cad=rja). :yes:

I've been inferred worse

Centurion1

03-06-2012, 19:52

Woah bro, no need to shout. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know PP filled prescriptions.

I have already given my point about how expensive 10 bucks is to stupid young people who probably don't have jobs. I don't recall anyone talking about kids being afraid of their parents.

I am not an expert on birth control. I just know that they are concentrated packages of hormones. That being said, arn't the compositions different between methods and/or brands? Swapping from one kind of control to another completely doesn't sound smart....but I could be completely wrong here.

Lucky for you the smaller sizes are cheaper, otherwise I am sure you would see how expensive birth control can be for people like me.

She didnt switch kinds because they were cheaper they just thought they would be a better fit for her. She just asked for it to be free this time around the brand was irrelevant. Most girls when they first start out on BC will switch around and take a few different kinds until they find the perfect fit.

Papewaio

03-08-2012, 04:06

The cost of insurance generally is the cost they payout plus a profit margin.

Insurance is to cover accidents. The pricing structure they operate under looks at the risk and amount of a claim adds a safety margin adds a profit margin and their are your rates.

If your contraceptives cost $1000 a year then expect an insurance plan to cost an extra $1000 + profit margin per year.

Unless the insurance company gets to chose and bulk buy your contraceptives.

End of the day the insurance company will make a profit. So if you know you are
going to do something it is cheaper to pay for it yourself.

Lemur

03-10-2012, 18:33

Oh a happy note, looks like this dust-up is causing advertisers to pull their ads from all controversial talk-show radio (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/10/rush-limbaugh-scandal-proves-contagious-for-talk-radio-advertisers.html). Couldn't happen to a more toxic genre. Now if only our society could engineer the downfall of 24-hour cable news channels ...

Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).”

This is big. According to the radio-industry website Radio-Info.com, which first posted excerpts of the Premiere memo, among the 98 companies that have decided to no longer sponsor these programs are “carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm), and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway).” Together, these talk-radio advertising staples represent millions of dollars in revenue.

Valerie Geller, an industry insider and author of Beyond Powerful Radio, confirmed the trend. “I have talked with several reps who report that they're having conversations with their clients, who are asking not to be associated with specifically polarizing controversial hosts, particularly if those hosts are ‘mean-spirited.’ While most products and services offered on these shows have strong competitors, and enjoy purchasing the exposure that many of these shows and hosts can offer, they do not wish to be ‘tarred’ with the brush of anger, or endure customer anger, or, worse, product boycotts.”

rvg

03-12-2012, 18:36

Ironside

03-12-2012, 19:46

I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

Freedom to do whatever you want with your money?

drone

03-12-2012, 19:48

I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.
How so? Rush can still say what he wants, it's just that big companies no longer want to pay him for his views. If the government shut him up, that would be censorship, removing his funding to protect your company's name is just good business.

Don't forget kids, money = speech. Or rather, money is the volume knob on free speech.

Vladimir

03-12-2012, 20:33

The sponsors are within their rights to pull their ads (probably). However, the "mean-spirited" comment is a bit childish. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Also on the article: "..offensive or controversial.." applies to an entire genre of comedy as well.

PanzerJaeger

03-13-2012, 01:38

Aaaand it did not take long for the raw political calculus behind the latest entitlement expansion to come to the forefront. A new DNC flyer being sent to millions of likely voters in key battleground states not so subtly asks women to consider: "What have the Republicans given me for FREE lately?" I don't know whether to laugh at the blatant shamelessness in this handouts-for-votes scheme or cry at the prospect of its likely success. :shame:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Full.jpg

Crazed Rabbit

03-13-2012, 02:58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7dFyaq-pYc

CR

Lemur

03-13-2012, 06:59

I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.
As others have pointed out, censorship is what a government does; free-market boycotts are a different animal.

Also, I find Rush's three-day slander of a woman to be something other than "an unpopular opinion." Seventy-odd different instances are documented below the tag. See if you can get through them all; I could not. If you can listen to it and think anything but "vile," or "foul," you may want to adjust your moral compass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAF9s6n5cBY

Sasaki Kojiro

03-13-2012, 07:31

But it's not really advertisers choosing where to spend their money. They are responding to a perceived threat of boycotts. Imagine, say, companies yanking all funding and shutting down a talk show after the host made anti-Christianity comments because some powerful church groups were going to make a huge fuss about it. It's not really a stretch to call that the censorship of public opinion or something. And it's not like that can't be a much more powerful anti-free speech force...

In this case it's well deserved. But I have to laugh at "caught on tape", who are they kidding???? And the dinging counter thing is stupid.

Lemur

03-13-2012, 07:40

[Advertisors] are responding to a perceived threat of boycotts. Imagine, say, companies yanking all funding and shutting down a talk show after the host made anti-Christianity comments because some powerful church groups were going to make a huge fuss about it.
That sort of thing happens all the time; witness the kerfluffle with Ellen and JC Penney (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/03/one_million_moms_now_calling_f.php). In that case, the group threatening a boycott turned out to be nothing more than a tiny church in Florida, and everyone had a good laugh. In the case of Rushbo's slutgate, the advertisers perceive a more substantial public sentiment.

Are you suggesting that boycotts are bad, or a form of censorship, or what, exactly? There will always be groups demanding this or that and threatening a boycott. The trick, for companies that want to peddle their wares, is to distinguish which ones are worth paying attention to.

And again, censorship means the law says you cannot write or say something. If, on the other hand, you are shouted down by your neighbors for saying something offensive? Not censorship. Their free speech is going up against your free speech. Freedom of speech does not and never has meant freedom from consequences.

It's not really a stretch to call that the censorship of public opinion or something.
I think it's pretty clearly under the "or something" category.

Tellos Athenaios

03-13-2012, 07:42

But it's not really advertisers choosing where to spend their money. They are responding to a perceived threat of boycotts.

Boycotts by their customers, to be precise. They don't want to be affiliated with Limbaugh because Limbaugh upset their customer base. Potentially stifling? Yes. But this form of mob rule for good or ill is how the free market works.

Anyway companies "pull" adds routinely, wait for the thing to die down and then quietly put them back up. They just want to dodge that bullet of public outcry.

Lemur

03-13-2012, 07:47

Anyway companies "pull" adds routinely, wait for the thing to die down and then quietly put them back up. They just want to dodge that bullet of public outcry.
Maybe, maybe not. Limbaugh's audience is overwhelmingly old and male; not a highly desired demo. And he's been getting away with high fees for that audience for some time, notably by claiming "20 million" listeners using some very creative math.

I think, given how this has played out, and its timing, that the media landscape will emerge from Slutgate a bit changed. Further reading here (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/david-frum-mike-huckabee-brings-on-rush-limbaugh-s-decline.html).

The difference this time is that Limbaugh’s advertisers and his stations had already begun to feel ripped off. To quote my station-manager friend again: “I don’t mind paying for content. But I do mind paying for trouble.” So advertisers revolted against the TSL strategy, with Sears, JCPenney, and many other sponsors dropping the show. Many of the local advertisers who buy their ads from the local stations rather than from the syndicators have been ordering that their purchased minutes be placed on some less-controversial program.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-13-2012, 07:56

Are you suggesting that boycotts are bad, or a form of censorship, or what, exactly?

mmm, they can be a form of censorship like I said, whether it's bad depends on what's being censored.

And again, censorship means the law says you cannot write or say something. If, on the other hand, you are shouted down by your neighbors for saying something offensive? Not censorship. Their free speech is going up against your free speech. Freedom of speech does not and never has meant freedom from consequences.

??? If someone talks about "self-censorship" would you tell them that it's only censorship if the government was involved? They would say to you "that's why I said self-censorship". It's perfectly ordinary english to use the word in various ways like that.

I don't think you mean that bit about shouting someone down falling under the category of free speech.

Potentially stifling? Yes. But this form of mob rule for good or ill is how the free market works.

True. But I wouldn't want to be overly dismissive of criticisms of the treatment Rush is getting, only to have it come back and bite me later when people are using boycotts as a weapon against some idea they don't like...

Come to think of it, I think one of the major plot points of that Edward R Murrow movie was that the sponsors didn't like the trouble that his going after McCarthy caused them and were pushing his boss about it.

Tellos Athenaios

03-13-2012, 08:04

Maybe, maybe not. Limbaugh's audience is overwhelmingly old and male; not a highly desired demo. And he's been getting away with high fees for that audience for some time, notably by claiming "20 million" listeners using some very creative math.

Was talking more in general. If something is said or done on TV that gets people all hot and bothered that routinely translates into some shuffling of feet amongst the advertisers.

EDIT: Advertisers on Limbaugh's show might also use it as an opportunity to get a better deal, going by what you wrote.

Lemur

03-13-2012, 08:08

If someone talks about "self-censorship" would you tell them that it's only censorship if the government was involved? They would say to you "that's why I said self-censorship". It's perfectly ordinary english to use the word in various ways like that.
Um, okay, sure, if you're referring to "censorship" in a casual, non-legal way, then sure, but when people raise the censorship issue in relation to this case, they seem to mean it in the legal sense. In the same light, I could say that so-and-so "slaughtered" me at basketball, but if I claimed so-and-so was guilty of slaughtering, you might take it a bit differently.

I don't think you mean that bit about shouting someone down falling under the category of free speech.
Everybody has free speech, including the people who think what someone is saying is utter nonsense. To choose a recent example, Jeremaiah Wright was caught on tape saying "God **** America," which caused immense and immediate scorn to be heaped on his head from most everyone. He was, in essence, shouted down. Not censored (unless you want to take the super-broad conversational definition of "censored," which seems to be where your head is at).

Like I said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you want to say something controversial, or offensive, or distasteful, or foul, that is your right. But be prepared for others to use their free speech to tell you off.

Tellos Athenaios

03-13-2012, 08:11

True. But I wouldn't want to be overly dismissive of criticisms of the treatment Rush is getting, only to have it come back and bite me later when people are using boycotts as a weapon against some idea they don't like...

Come to think of it, I think one of the major plot points of that Edward R Murrow movie was that the sponsors didn't like the trouble that his going after McCarthy caused them and were pushing his boss about it.

That's obviously the problem in general: we on the ORG seem mostly agreed that it won't be such a "bad thing" in this instance, but unless you take away the control over on which show adverts get shown you can't really prevent it. Then again, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that being paid a comfortable salary to spout your opinions on TV is the only way to express yourself; I think if it were a matter of principle people would find they could make themselves heard without adverts, too.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-13-2012, 08:33

Um, okay, sure, if you're referring to "censorship" in a casual, non-legal way, then sure, but when people raise the censorship issue in relation to this case, they seem to mean it in the legal sense. In the same light, I could say that so-and-so "slaughtered" me at basketball, but if I claimed so-and-so was guilty of slaughtering, you might take it a bit differently.

It was being talked about in terms of being unacceptable, and of someone being shut up for having an unpopular opinion. I don't see why you object to the use of the word, it is very frequently used to refer to something other than government/legal censorship, and it's not at all important that we aren't talking about government/legal censorship.

Everybody has free speech, including the people who think what someone is saying is utter nonsense. To choose a recent example, Jeremaiah Wright was caught on tape saying "God **** America," which caused immense and immediate scorn to be heaped on his head from most everyone. He was, in essence, shouted down. Not censored (unless you want to take the super-broad conversational definition of "censored," which seems to be where your head is at).

Like I said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you want to say something controversial, or offensive, or distasteful, or foul, that is your right. But be prepared for others to use their free speech to tell you off.

mmm, yes, but we aren't talking about someone being told off. It seems pretty simple to me. Take the Murrow example. Advertisers effectively shutting down someone for raising a ruckus, according to the movie. Who cares that it isn't the government doing it, and that the advertisers have a legal right to do it? They weren't right to do it. Free speech is valuable for a reason, and that reason is often harmed by people trying to shout down someone for saying something they don't like. I think you've gotten yourself all twisted up in the legalism.

That's obviously the problem in general: we on the ORG seem mostly agreed that it won't be such a "bad thing" in this instance, but unless you take away the control over on which show adverts get shown you can't really prevent it. Then again, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that being paid a comfortable salary to spout your opinions on TV is the only way to express yourself; I think if it were a matter of principle people would find they could make themselves heard without adverts, too.

Yeah, I agree. Really I'm objecting to the "well, they're free to do that" superficial kind of statement. I mean, in a different scenario we might want to organize a counter boycott to the companies who are removing advertising support, or something.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-18-2012, 16:56

This kind of thing makes the rush limbaugh story that's going around seem like a joke...

Where Pimps Peddle Their GoodsBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html?inline=nyt-per)I WENT on a walk in Manhattan the other day with a young woman who once had to work these streets, hired out by eight pimps while she was just 16 and 17. She pointed out a McDonald’s where pimps sit while monitoring the girls outside, and a building where she had repeatedly been ordered online as if she were a pizza.
Alissa, her street name, escaped that life and is now a 24-year-old college senior planning to become a lawyer — but she will always have a scar on her cheek where a pimp gouged her with a potato peeler as a warning not to escape. “Like cattle owners brand their cattle,” she said, fingering her cheek, “he wanted to brand me in a way that I would never forget.”
After Alissa testified against her pimps, six of them went to prison for up to 25 years. Yet these days, she reserves her greatest anger not at pimps but at companies that enable them. She is particularly scathing about Backpage.com, a classified advertising Web site that is used to sell auto parts, furniture, boats — and girls. Alissa says pimps routinely peddled her on Backpage.
“You can’t buy a child at Wal-Mart, can you?” she asked me. “No, but you can go to Backpage and buy me on Backpage.”
Backpage accounts for about 70 percent of prostitution advertising among five Web sites that carry such ads in the United States, earning more than $22 million annually from prostitution ads, according to AIM Group, a media research and consulting company. It is now the premier Web site for human trafficking in the United States, according to the National Association of Attorneys General (http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=434). And it’s not a fly-by-night operation. Backpage is owned by Village Voice Media, which also owns the estimable Village Voice newspaper.
Attorneys general from 48 states have written a joint letter (http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/083111-NAAGletter.pdf) to Village Voice Media, pleading with it to get out of the flesh trade. An online petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-village-voice-media-to-stop-child-sex-trafficking-on-backpagecom) at Change.org has gathered 94,000 signatures asking Village Voice Media to stop taking prostitution advertising. Instead, the company has used The Village Voice to mock its critics. Alissa thought about using her real name for this article but decided not to for fear that Village Voice would retaliate.
Court records and public officials back Alissa’s account, and there is plenty of evidence that under-age girls are marketed on Backpage. Arrests in such cases have been reported in at least 22 states.
Just this month, prosecutors in New York City filed charges in a case (http://queensda.org/newpressreleases/2012/march/council_3_08_2012_ind.pdf) involving a gang that allegedly locked a 15-year-old Long Island girl in an empty house, drugged her, tied her up, raped her, and advertised her on Backpage. After a week of being sold for sex, prosecutors in Queens said, the girl escaped.
Liz McDougall, general counsel of Village Voice Media, told me that it is “shortsighted, ill-informed and counterproductive” to focus on Backpage when many other Web sites are also involved, particularly because Backpage tries to screen out ads for minors (http://media.villagevoicemedia.com/Backpage-statement-to-nicholas-kristof.7585803.0.pdf) and reports possible trafficking cases to the authorities. McDougall denied that Backpage dominates the field and said that the Long Island girl was marketed on 13 other Web sites as well. But if street pimps go to jail for profiteering on under-age girls, should their media partners like Village Voice Media really get a pass?
Paradoxically, Village Voice began as an alternative newspaper to speak truth to power. It publishes some superb journalism. So it’s sad to see it accept business from pimps in the greediest and most depraved kind of exploitation.
True, many prostitution ads on Backpage are placed by adult women acting on their own without coercion; they’re not my concern. Other ads are placed by pimps: the Brooklyn district attorney’s office says that the great majority of the sex trafficking cases it prosecutes involve girls marketed on Backpage.
Alissa, who grew up in a troubled household in Boston, has a story that is fairly typical. She says that one night when she was 16 — and this matches the account she gave federal prosecutors — a young man approached her and told her she was attractive. She thought that he was a rapper, and she was flattered. He told her that he wanted her to be his girlfriend, she recalls wistfully.
Within a few weeks, he was prostituting her — even as she continued to study as a high school sophomore. Alissa didn’t run away partly because of a feeling that there was a romantic bond, partly because of Stockholm syndrome, and partly because of raw fear. She says violence was common if she tried connecting to the outside world or if she didn’t meet her daily quota for cash.
“He would get aggressive and strangle me and physically assault me and threaten to sell me to someone that was more violent than him, which he eventually did,” Alissa recalled. She said she was sold from one pimp to another several times, for roughly $10,000 each time.
She was sold to johns seven days a week, 365 days a year. After a couple of years, she fled, but a pimp tracked her down and — with the women he controlled — beat and stomped Alissa, breaking her jaw and several ribs, she said. That led her to cooperate with the police.
There are no simple solutions to end sex trafficking, but it would help to have public pressure on Village Voice Media to stop carrying prostitution advertising. The Film Forum has already announced that it will stop buying ads in The Village Voice. About 100 advertisers have dropped Rush Limbaugh’s radio show because of his demeaning remarks about women. Isn’t it infinitely more insulting to provide a forum for the sale of women and girls?
Let’s be honest: Backpage’s exit from prostitution advertising wouldn’t solve the problem, for smaller Web sites would take on some of the ads. But it would be a setback for pimps to lose a major online marketplace. When Craigslist stopped taking such ads (http://aimgroup.com/blog/2011/09/06/online-prostitution-advertising-stunted-by-craigslist’s-departure/) in 2010, many did not migrate to new sites: online prostitution advertising plummeted by more than 50 percent, according to AIM Group.
Alissa, who now balances her college study with part-time work at a restaurant and at Fair Girls (http://fairgirls.org/), an antitrafficking organization, deserves the last word. “For a Web site like Backpage to make $22 million off our backs,” she said, “it’s like going back to slave times.”

Montmorency

03-18-2012, 22:25

She says violence was common if she tried connecting to the outside world or if she didn’t meet her daily quota for cash.
“He would get aggressive and strangle me and physically assault me and threaten to sell me to someone that was more violent than him, which he eventually did,” Alissa recalled. She said she was sold from one pimp to another several times, for roughly $10,000 each time.

...like going back to slave times.

Can we be sure these guys aren't just hipsters?

ajaxfetish

03-19-2012, 00:21

It seems pretty simple to me. Take the Murrow example. Advertisers effectively shutting down someone for raising a ruckus, according to the movie. Who cares that it isn't the government doing it, and that the advertisers have a legal right to do it? They weren't right to do it. Free speech is valuable for a reason, and that reason is often harmed by people trying to shout down someone for saying something they don't like.

Coming at this from the other side, it sounds like you're saying advertisers have a moral obligation, when buying ad space, to continue supporting the free speech of whoever they happen to be buying from even if it will result in a loss of money for them. Is the purpose of advertising to make money for the company, or to provide a megaphone for a few lucky citizens? It seems unreasonable to me to expect advertisers to be anything but self-interested in a situation like this. I think the onus is on demagogues like Rush to either be in tune with what their audience/advertisers want to hear, or else pay for their own privileged level of speech.

Ajax

Lemur

03-19-2012, 00:37

Truly, SK, you appear to be confusing free speech with paid speech. One is an inalienable right, the other is a privilege. Nobody is trying to prevent Rushbo from speaking, they're just trying to minimize his profitability. So using the term "censorship," no matter how loosely and post-modernly you choose to define it, is still problematic.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-19-2012, 01:08

Coming at this from the other side, it sounds like you're saying advertisers have a moral obligation, when buying ad space, to continue supporting the free speech of whoever they happen to be buying from even if it will result in a loss of money for them. Is the purpose of advertising to make money for the company, or to provide a megaphone for a few lucky citizens? It seems unreasonable to me to expect advertisers to be anything but self-interested in a situation like this. I think the onus is on demagogues like Rush to either be in tune with what their audience/advertisers want to hear, or else pay for their own privileged level of speech.

Ajax

You're being too abstract.

Advertisers should stop buying ad space for certain people even if it gives money to them. And they shouldn't stop for certain other people even if it does. It depends on who the person is and what they are doing. No one is saying they have to be super particular, but the idea that all we should expect of businesses is that they look after their profits and all we should expect of talk show people is that they tell people what their audience/advertisers want to hear...do you really believe that? Don't you have any problem with someone suppressing important political speech in our country just out of a selfish concern with their pocketbook? Imagine if it was something really important. Why would it be unreasonable to criticize them for doing that?

Truly, SK, you appear to be confusing free speech with paid speech. One is an inalienable right, the other is a privilege. Nobody is trying to prevent Rushbo from speaking, they're just trying to minimize his profitability. So using the term "censorship," no matter how loosely and post-modernly you choose to define it, is still problematic.

Here, I googled an example for you:

Johnson[3] states that "many pressures produce such censorship", some deliberate and some by default, but that "all have come, not from government, but from private corporations with something to sell". He notes an exchange in the letters page of the New York Times between Charles Tower, chairman of the National Association of Broadcasters Television Board and a reader, with Tower saying "There is a world of difference between the deletion of program material by Government command and the deletion by a private party [such as a broad-caster] [...] Deletion by Government command is censorship [...] Deletion of material by private parties [...] is not censorship." but his respondent rebutting this with "Mr. Tower's distinction [...] is spurious. The essence of censorship is the suppression of a particular point of view [...] over the channels of the mass media, and the question of who does the censoring is one of form only.". Johnson concurs with the latter view, stating that the outcome is the same.

Exact same argument, lol. Is Johsnon a post modernist?