Originally Posted by Code4

and? i buy my own condoms with no problem.

Condoms provide hormone therapy?

Originally Posted by TeckMan

i notice tigran uses pictures a lot to make his arguments

do you think it's because he is a simpleton?

Originally Posted by Tigran

omg i never thought about it like that u r so right

i mean

the hindenburg like ****

and he is burning and still is talking about sluts

so true

Originally Posted by -SS-

Bonus leftist stupidity: Women like this always scream about keeping our hands off their body (lol, ORLY?) but on the other hand, they want to have their hands in our wallets because they cant afford their sex lives and we need to subsidize their irresponsibility.

Imagine that.

-SS-, do you own any insurance? Is medical insurance a subsidy of your irresponsibility in getting sick or injured? Is car insurance a subsidy of your irresponsibility in crashing your car? Is life insurance a subsidy of your irresponsibility in dying?

If not, I don't see why you'd decide to frame reproductive health insurance as "subsidizing irresponsibility".

I'm got some bad news for you: if your idea of "personal responsibility" is always paying for everything you need yourself, and never paying for anyone else, then insurance is never going to make sense to you. The idea that people would willingly pool some of their money, just to pay for the ones that end up needing it, is going to sound like some kind of socialist enigma. But they do.

The idea that this is going to cost you more money for pills than for the inevitable societal damage of unwanted children is so laughable that not even the Republican candidates are trying that angle. Do you have any idea how much a pill costs? How about a baby?

how is insurance subsidizing anything

i don't think -SS- used his brain on that one

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

willingly

also i find it funny how social conservatives (republicans mostly) oppose any kind of birth control or abortion buy saying "life is precious" and "unmarried sex is sinful" and then when an unwanted baby does pop out they don't want government to step in and make sure the child grows up a nurtured and safe environment.

this creates an underclass of criminals, dead beats, drug addicts, etc which drains gov't funds in terms of jail time/more police/lower incomes that dont pay much taxes

wouldn't republicans want the opposite less people born that would leech of our tax dollars?

dont remember the last time there was any debate one way or the other about adoption agencies or orphanages

I for one think our country needs more orphans.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

-SS-, do you own any insurance? Is medical insurance a subsidy of your irresponsibility in getting sick or injured? Is car insurance a subsidy of your irresponsibility in crashing your car? Is life insurance a subsidy of your irresponsibility in dying?

If not, I don't see why you'd decide to frame reproductive health insurance as "subsidizing irresponsibility".

I'm got some bad news for you: if your idea of "personal responsibility" is always paying for everything you need yourself, and never paying for anyone else, then insurance is never going to make sense to you. The idea that people would willingly pool some of their money, just to pay for the ones that end up needing it, is going to sound like some kind of socialist enigma. But they do.

The idea that this is going to cost you more money for pills than for the inevitable societal damage of unwanted children is so laughable that not even the Republican candidates are trying that angle. Do you have any idea how much a pill costs? How about a baby?

Where does it end with you people? You're treating birth control pills as if it's some universal human right. For ****'s sake (literally), if you're that desperate for a good vag pounding go to planned parenthood and grab a handful of free condoms.

lets talk about how misguided crony bull**** employer provided tax deduction health insurance **** **** lead to all of this and many more worse problems too

Originally Posted by Durak

also i find it funny how social conservatives (republicans mostly) oppose any kind of birth control or abortion buy saying "life is precious" and "unmarried sex is sinful" and then when an unwanted baby does pop out they don't want government to step in and make sure the child grows up a nurtured and safe environment.

That's the conservative position Ed Schultz told you. Conservatives pay for their own contraception. They don't want to pay for yours. And "unwanted" babies are wanted by adopting parents.

At the end of the day, this should NOT BE A FEDERAL ISSUE. That's what Rush and other conservatives are arguing. States and businesses and insurance companies are more than qualified to address these issues. They don't need federal mandates.

i think the federal government should provide me with a blt everyday

and not one with some cheap thin bacon on it

Originally Posted by Code4

i think the federal government should provide me with a blt everyday

and not one with some cheap thin bacon on it

I think the federal government should provide me with a 2012 Dodge Challenger, a new collared shirt, and a bottle of Aqua Di Gio. I haven't been ****ed in three months and my reproductive health is in serious danger!

It's a good thing this has nothing to do with the government providing anybody anything at all!!!!

Oh, right. Let me fix my post: I think the federal government should order my university to provide me with a 2012 Dodge Challenger, a new collared shirt, and a bottle of Aqua Di Gio. I haven't been ****ed in three months and my reproductive health is in serious danger!

Originally Posted by Ratbert

It's a good thing this has nothing to do with the government providing anybody anything at all!!!!

This is certainly true about the "slut." If she is a student the Obamacare mandates do not change her coverage. The mandates affect employees, not students.

Obviously, this whole retarded story is about a 30 yr old woman who was active in (non)reproductive rights and went to a university she knew did not cover contraceptive care. She did this in order to make a kerfluffle. She's an activist. It does nothing to change the mandates of Obamacare. It is a way of badgering and stifling the conservative argument that the federal government should not control insurance companies by whim.

Originally Posted by DrMeithos

Oh, right. Let me fix my post: I think the federal government should order my university to provide me with a 2012 Dodge Challenger, a new collared shirt, and a bottle of Aqua Di Gio. I haven't been ****ed in three months and my reproductive health is in serious danger!

That's not it at all either? She is paying for insurance, this was a debate on weather or not contraceptive care should be mandated to be provided by the insurer, not the university.

Also birth control is used for a ton of different medical issues, not just contraception. But keep living in the 50s there guy.

Originally Posted by Ratbert

That's not it at all either? She is paying for insurance, this was a debate on weather or not contraceptive care should be mandated to be provided by the insurer, not the university.

Also birth control is used for a ton of different medical issues, not just contraception. But keep living in the 50s there guy.

This is so disingenuous. She knew the healthcare would not cover contraceptives, yet she went to the university. She did this to be a "Rosa Parks" for free contraceptives. She was an activist for the cause for FIVE years before attending Georgetown!

Conservatives know that birth control can be used for other medical issues. So can other drugs and methods. Contraceptives are only one means to that end. There are alternatives. Alternatives that would not demean and insult the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Still, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no place in this. That's why conservatives are upset. We aren't stuck in the 50's. We don't hate women or birth control. We don't want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT demanding that a religious institution be forced to provide services it finds objectionable. Why is that so hard to understand? She knew the insurance coverage provided by Georgetown before she attended. She could have attended another college that met her insurance requirements. She is making a federal issue of the case.

I love how you keep trying to make activism a bad thing.

edit*

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycan...esses-allowed/

yep, you sure love women! No women to testify at a contraceptive hearing, and when a women finally does testify, call her a slut.

Originally Posted by Ratbert

I love how you keep trying to make activism a bad thing.

edit*

Republicans hearing on contraception: no women witnesses allowed | Lousy Canuck

yep, you sure love women! No women to testify at a contraceptive hearing, and when a women finally does testify, call her a slut.

You realize that her application for testimony was provided too late? And that her testimony had no bearing on the actual discussion relating to federal mandates on insurance for employee coverage? She was not left out because she was a woman, or in favor of the contraceptive mandate. She was left out because she did not meet the timeline requirements for the congressional meeting. And she's not an expert. Pelosi made a special hearing to have her talk as a political tool. It had nothing to do with the original hearing. If you want to complain that it was an all men hearing, you should complain to the democratic leaders that did not provide proper notice to the committee. The democrats failed in ensuring her a spot, not those horrible republicans.