[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're missing a great deal here in the snippets OAW. It's a provision of Obamacare under the HHS that will mandate insurers pick up the tab for these services and will partially subsidize/incentivize those insurers in a feeble attempt to offset those increased expenditures. Obamacare carries with it employer mandates for coverage and related minimum coverage requirements. Under Obamacare you can no longer make the claim of what taxpayers are and are not on the hook for -- that cat's out of the bag my friend. We're all subsidizing it and every mandate that accompanies it, yes including "preventive health services". You can't expect Rush Limbaugh to address every aspect of leftist deceit and trickery in every dissertation, particularly when each lie is impregnated with several more.

The things you are claiming about this provision I'm just not seeing my friend.

FACT SHEET: Women’s Preventive Services and Religious Institutions

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, most health insurance plans will cover women’s preventive services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning in August, 2012. This new law will save money for millions of Americans and ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy.

Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.

Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.

The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and addresses important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception. Background on this policy is included below:

Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science. Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:

Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

Establishes a one year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the non-exempted religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more.

The White House Fact Sheet On The Contraception Compromise - Kaiser Health News

Now I also looked at the actual text of the relevant provision (i.e. Section 2713 of the ACA) and I could find nothing that indicates any sort of direct subsidy to insurance companies to cover the cost of the contraception mandate.

Preventive Regulations | HealthCare.gov

Now certainly the ACA has provisions for individual subsidies based upon income level to offset the cost of obtaining private insurance if it is not available via one's employer. But as a society the taxpayers already subsidize the cost of a huge portion of healthcare via Medicare, Medicaid, etc. This is nothing new. And so I suppose I'm confused as to why there is all this "outrage" over a provision that supposedly puts taxpayers on the hook so Ms. Fluke et al can "have sex" ... when the provision is a mandate for contraception coverage on private health plans paid for OVERWHELMINGLY by private employer and individual premiums? And perhaps in the future in much smaller amounts by the taxpayers very indirectly via income based subsidies to those who have to purchase insurance in the individual market on the forthcoming (and yet to be implemented) healthcare exchanges? Yet nary a peep about 100% taxpayer funding so old men can "have sex" that's been going on for years now?

Medicare Benefit To Cover Viagra - CBS News

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Any answers, Chongo?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
So, if there are some bad capitalist doctors (or do you if the "some" think it's most or all?), the solution is to deny birth control coverage?

My solution is for those who want to provide BC pills, abortion inducing drugs and sterilization procedures for low income women can go to their HR office, complete a United Way donation card and specify Planned Parenthood as the recipient. I specify our local Boy Scouts because I do not want my money going into the general fund, and to PPA.

Originally Posted by Chongo
In addition to those above, The world health org. has oral contraceptives listed as a group 1 carcinogen .

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
This must have been edited in after I responded. So what do you think should be done in response to this?

They need warning labels like cigarettes and booze do.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

My solution is for those who want to provide BC pills, abortion inducing drugs and sterilization procedures for low income women can go to their HR office, complete a United Way donation card and specify Planned Parenthood as the recipient. I specify our local Boy Scouts because I do not want my money going into the general fund, and to PPA.

That's great, but that wasn't the question.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They need warning labels like cigarettes and booze do.

Those are freely available to anyone. Once again, you need a Doctor to prescribe the pills. What's the point of the doctor again?

Really, I guess my problem is that you really have no interest in whether the pill is "healthy" or not, and are just trying to scare people away from it because it doesn't jibe with your beliefs.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The things you are claiming about this provision I'm just not seeing my friend.



The White House Fact Sheet On The Contraception Compromise - Kaiser Health News

Now I also looked at the actual text of the relevant provision (i.e. Section 2713 of the ACA) and I could find nothing that indicates any sort of direct subsidy to insurance companies to cover the cost of the contraception mandate.

Preventive Regulations | HealthCare.gov

Now certainly the ACA has provisions for individual subsidies based upon income level to offset the cost of obtaining private insurance if it is not available via one's employer. But as a society the taxpayers already subsidize the cost of a huge portion of healthcare via Medicare, Medicaid, etc. This is nothing new. And so I suppose I'm confused as to why there is all this "outrage" over a provision that supposedly puts taxpayers on the hook so Ms. Fluke et al can "have sex" ... when the provision is a mandate for contraception coverage on private health plans paid for OVERWHELMINGLY by private employer and individual premiums? And perhaps in the future in much smaller amounts by the taxpayers very indirectly via income based subsidies to those who have to purchase insurance in the individual market on the forthcoming (and yet to be implemented) healthcare exchanges? Yet nary a peep about 100% taxpayer funding so old men can "have sex" that's been going on for years now?

Medicare Benefit To Cover Viagra - CBS News

OAW

Having "insurance companies" pay still does not solve the problem when many of the affected are self insured. Besides, the exemption is so narrow, the only entities that qualify are churches themselves. Catholic Charities of Phoenix serves more than Catholics. To qualify, they will have to turn away anyone who is not Catholic. St. Mary's Food Bank will have to ask for baptismal certificates before giving someone a food box.

When did pregnancy become a disease that needs to be prevented?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It would be different if she was married and wanted free birth control?

No, but if she were married no one could really question her morals.

She'd still want people to pay for her ability to have sex though. I don't remember any of our founders enumerating that as a right handed down by God, but our Constitution is a pretty big document. I might have missed it somewhere.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't remember any of our founders enumerating that as a right handed down by God, but our Constitution is a pretty big document. I might have missed it somewhere.

You're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention God anywhere; not in the preamble and not in the amendments. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence holds no legal baring in determining the rights of individuals; and even so, the only reference is "Nature's God" which was purposefully ambiguous.

However, I would imagine that sex would fall under unalienable rights.

[subego]

Though people often pay me for my ability to have sex, I retain the ability without the payment.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^ Well that would be the logical conclusion one would inevitably come to given this "reasoning".

But speaking of "birth control" ....
.......

OAW

I looks like Ms fluke just may be a plant.

Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke | Jammie Wearing Fools

Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance | MRCTV

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Having "insurance companies" pay still does not solve the problem when many of the affected are self insured.

This is a fair point.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Besides, the exemption is so narrow, the only entities that qualify are churches themselves. Catholic Charities of Phoenix serves more than Catholics. To qualify, they will have to turn away anyone who is not Catholic. St. Mary's Food Bank will have to ask for baptismal certificates before giving someone a food box.

The issue here is religiously affiliated institutions don't necessarily EMPLOY or SERVE people of the same faith. This is a matter of PUBLIC POLICY in a pluralistic society. There has to be some kind of BALANCE between the rights of religiously affiliated institutions and the rights of their employees who may or may not share their faith. Simply being a faith based organization doesn't equate to an automatic trump card at the expense of every other consideration. Because if that were the case ... many of these same people who are freaking out over this supposed "violation of religious freedom" wouldn't at the same time support bans on the ritual sacrifice of chickens, goats, etc. by religious organizations other than their own. I'm just saying ...

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

No, I'm not. The Declaration outlined where our rights came from at the time of the United States creation. The Constitution enumerated what those God given unalienable rights where.

The Constitution does not mention God anywhere; not in the preamble and not in the amendments.

Doesn't have to. Already covered in our first founding document.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence holds no legal baring in determining the rights of individuals

Not it's job and I never claimed it was.

However, I would imagine that sex would fall under unalienable rights.

It was never the intention for any of the "unalienable rights" that had been granted by God to be guaranteed by taking from another citizen if it was necessary to achieve. Those "unalienable rights" had always been to allow the individual pursuit of, without government intervening to stop it. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around any argument that anywhere in time that the majority of our founders or those who had added amendments to the Constitution, had intended the extremely warped view of having a "right" bought and paid for by others, or force some other third party to GIVE something to to you that they didn't agree you earned.

If sex is a "right" then so would be eating. Based on the irrational logic presented, it's the government's job to provide all my food as well. Clothes too. Where does the madness end?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The issue here is religiously affiliated institutions don't necessarily EMPLOY or SERVE people of the same faith. This is a matter of PUBLIC POLICY in a pluralistic society. There has to be some kind of BALANCE between the rights of religiously affiliated institutions and the rights of their employees who may or may not share their faith. Simply being a faith based organization doesn't equate to an automatic trump card at the expense of every other consideration. Because if that were the case ... many of these same people who are freaking out over this supposed "violation of religious freedom" wouldn't at the same time support bans on the ritual sacrifice of chickens, goats, etc. by religious organizations other than their own. I'm just saying ...

OAW

If coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion and abortion inducing drugs to an applicant, they should seek employment or go to a college that provides such coverage. Apparently Sandra Fluke does not know where to purchase her birth control pills They can be obtained for as low as 4$ a month or $10 for a 90 day supply at Target.



This sums up what this really about

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
I'm guessing, at the heart of it, there must be a poll somewhere that says the usual 'guaranteed voter bloc' of women voters isn't as jazzed on Obama as they were during the Hopey-Changey days of 2008, and so along comes: "What scare tactic can we dredge up to scare the panties off all these poor poor helpless victims and get more of them back in our camp?"

As medical advances make surviving premature birth earlier and earlier, abortion is slowly losing it's guaranteed voter block. The dialogue needed to be changed. It's now about "women's health and preventative services" When did pregnancy become a disease?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's great, but that wasn't the question.


Those are freely available to anyone. Once again, you need a Doctor to prescribe the pills. What's the point of the doctor again?

Really, I guess my problem is that you really have no interest in whether the pill is "healthy" or not, and are just trying to scare people away from it because it doesn't jibe with your beliefs.

Free to anyone who want to pay for them. Cigarettes ($7+ a pack) and booze cost money, much more than condoms or oral contraceptives. ($4 am month at Target)

There are no secular laws preventing anyone who wants contraceptives from obtaining them, nor should there be. If a women wants to use them, she should be made aware of the possible side affects, short and long term. The pill has been on the market for only fifty years. We are learning the what affects long term use are having on women.

[Chongo]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Free to anyone who want to pay for them. Cigarettes ($7+ a pack) and booze cost money, much more than condoms or oral contraceptives. ($4 am month at Target)

There are no secular laws preventing anyone who wants contraceptives from obtaining them, nor should there be. If a women wants to use them, she should be made aware of the possible side affects, short and long term. The pill has been on the market for only fifty years. We are learning the what affects long term use are having on women.

This sounds reasonable.

[The Final Dakar]

Question: What with the furor over BC even with the Insurance company compromise, is it me, or is there a logical disconnect over the fact that even if some religious based organization doesn't directly pay for BC, if their employee purchases BC with money they earn working there, the organization is still funding something they are opposed to by virtue of employing said person.

Also, yikes at that really crappy sentence.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I looks like Ms fluke just may be a plant.

Oh FFS.

She "planted" herself at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.

Right.

You'll get more traction with "slut".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh FFS.

She "planted" herself at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.

Right.

...

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I suppose that's what you get when your approach to these threads is to throw shit on the wall and see what sticks, very rarely even bothering to aim.

[subego]

I can usually expect a smidge better than "person testifying before Congress has opinion, film at eleven".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh FFS.

She "planted" herself at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.

Right.

You'll get more traction with "slut".

From the linked articles

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They can be obtained for as low as 4$ a month or $10 for a 90 day supply at Target.

I already stated Fluke was highballing the number, but I'm going to guess this is a lowball.

Not everyone can take any oral contraceptive. That's one of the reasons there are different kinds. Again, this is a guess, but I think it's likely that price is only for the cheapest generic brand.

Asking around, the average major metro cost seems about $30 a month for generic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

From the linked articles

Yeah. I read them.

Again. The notion she's attending one of the most prestigious law schools in the country with the express purpose of altering their birth control policy is preposterous.

Prove to me she's not going there with the express purpose of getting a law degree from Georgetown.

[subego]

The thing is, I don't even really agree with this woman. As I've said, I'm bothered by forcing Jesuits to buy birth control. Yet somehow, I'm disagreeing with this woman without the character assassination.

[Chongo]

Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn't hear at Congress contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post

I caught her outside the hearing room, and we spoke about what she would have told the committee.
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the students at Georgetown that don’t have birth control covered, and what that’s meant for them. “I wanted to be able to share their stories,” she says. “My testimony would have been about women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical needs and have suffered dire consequences.. . .The committee did not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women who have been dramatically affected by this policy.”

Harvard was good enough for Obama.

For the less price of a Mac Donald's Value meal, a 30 day supply can be bought at Target.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

For the less price of a Mac Donald's Value meal, a 30 day supply can be bought at Target.

See above.

[Chongo]

Harvard already offers abortion inducing drugs, free.
Harvard University Health Services | Health Information and Resources | Health Information by Topic | Birth Control | Emergency Contraception

Harvard University Female Students can obtain EC at no cost in our clinics and after hour urgent care. The HUHS pharmacy, in the Holyoke arcade, also can dispense Plan B One-Step at no cost to female Harvard students with a valid Harvard ID who are age 17 or older. You will need to show a government issued ID to prove that you are 17 or older. Women under the age of 17 will need a prescription.

[subego]

Chongo's barrel is overheating again.

Nobody touch him until the ammo's cooked off.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm lost as to what we're about anyway.

[subego]

We're on "emergency contraception is an abortion inducing pill".

[The Final Dakar]

It's what Harvard has to do with it that's confusing me, but that's a fair point as well.

[subego]

I think the subtext is "shouldn't Harvard be good enough for her? Prestige and abortions!"

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, I'm not. The Declaration outlined where our rights came from at the time of the United States creation. The Constitution enumerated what those God given unalienable rights where.

I think you need to reread the Constitution.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Doesn't have to. Already covered in our first founding document.

The Declaration of Independence did not reference God, either. It mentions Nature's God, whatever that might be. You may personally interpret it as the Christian god, but it was purposefully ambiguous given religious tensions at the time; especially if you take into consideration he deist nature of many of the founding fathers.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Those "unalienable rights" had always been to allow the individual pursuit of, without government intervening to stop it.

Except when someone's pursuit is at the expense of another. Free people's pursuit of happiness was the expense of slave. Men's pursuit of liberty was the expense of women. Straight's pursuit of life is at the expense of homosexuals. The Constitution is not a set of guarantees, it's a set of restrictions on our government. We can't possibly list every single nay infinite unalienable rights, so it is assumed as much until it impedes on someone else.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Based on the irrational logic presented, it's the government's job to provide all my food as well. Clothes too.

If you were somehow being denied food or clothes, then yes, the government provides those.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think you need to reread the Constitution.

Why. Do you need someone to help you pronounce the big words?

The Declaration of Independence did not reference God, either. It mentions Nature's God, whatever that might be.

It mentioned our "Creator." A Supreme Being. It does leave room for interpretation, as to allow people who might not share the same God as most of the founders to not feel persecuted.

You may personally interpret it as the Christian god

I'm fine with it's original intent, which was the supreme being who created us. It doesn't necessarily have to specifically be the "God of Abraham" (which is actually the same God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam). The founders made it clear that the country they were creating was founded on the notion that there's a sentient power higher than our own and that is where the rights that they later enumerate come from.

If you were somehow being denied food or clothes, then yes, the government provides those.

Based on what?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The things you are claiming about this provision I'm just not seeing my friend.
The White House Fact Sheet On The Contraception Compromise - Kaiser Health News

Now I also looked at the actual text of the relevant provision (i.e. Section 2713 of the ACA) and I could find nothing that indicates any sort of direct subsidy to insurance companies to cover the cost of the contraception mandate.

You don't see anything regarding Medicaid expansion in there? SCHIP? Coops? Hmm... maybe they're not in Section 2713 of the ACA. C'mon OAW. If you were arguing that you couldn't find Stupak-Pitts in there from Section 1001 to 10909, I'd buy it. They're not only subsidizing our insurance directly, and insurers directly, but they're also forming exchanges with preferred providers and coops, and even a bunch of new clinics offering the preventive services.

Preventive Regulations | HealthCare.gov

Now certainly the ACA has provisions for individual subsidies based upon income level to offset the cost of obtaining private insurance if it is not available via one's employer. But as a society the taxpayers already subsidize the cost of a huge portion of healthcare via Medicare, Medicaid, etc. This is nothing new. And so I suppose I'm confused as to why there is all this "outrage" over a provision that supposedly puts taxpayers on the hook so Ms. Fluke et al can "have sex" ... when the provision is a mandate for contraception coverage on private health plans paid for OVERWHELMINGLY by private employer and individual premiums? And perhaps in the future in much smaller amounts by the taxpayers very indirectly via income based subsidies to those who have to purchase insurance in the individual market on the forthcoming (and yet to be implemented) healthcare exchanges?

I think you're way too deep into the weeds here my brother. Understanding all the interlocking pieces and taking the bill in its entirety, there's simply no other way to describe what is going on here. It makes no sense to pick such a small smattering of the massive legislation for an online argument and pretend you don't see how insurers are compensated for playing nice. Hell, there are two insurers that have negotiated additional tax breaks. The "kick-back"; again, no other way to describe it. Yet, you don't see it in Section 2713? We're not only subsidizing insurers and those who fund the preventive services including individuals, we're subsidizing the clinics and clinicians that will perform and/or distribute these services. With regard to the religious institution play in the "compromise", see Chongo's post. There's no compromise at all.

Yet nary a peep about 100% taxpayer funding so old men can "have sex" that's been going on for years now?
Medicare Benefit To Cover Viagra - CBS News

OAW

I wouldn't say there hasn't been a peep on the above. Bill Maher may have mentioned it, but then I don't recall offhand if he said anything about Michelle Bachman's husband.

I hate the idea that my premium may be higher because of an insurance company's marketing play on that demo (Bill Maher-aged men) and perhaps if I had the cash-equivalent of the plan I use to care for myself, I might be more discriminating in my coverage options and providers. You've not heard we mean-spirited, obstructionist, anti-old and helpless people conservatives complaining about the entire programs behind the racket? Don't blame me for the mental illness inherent in such a distorted marketplace; something resembling an alligator head with Barbi legs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With regard to Fluke; if you attend Georgetown @ $60k per year for example, but cannot afford your own birth control, we're subsidizing your education and your birth control. A go at community college might free up some funds for the extremely expensive birth control she's using, as some have estimated; bloated by several hundred percent. I wonder about Fluke though, did she not know birth control isn't covered at Georgetown when she enrolled or did she willingly patronize the institution in an attempt to change it to her liking? Otherwise, you're going to get Catholic teaching and direction at a Catholic institution. This whole thing is about as disingenuous as it gets.

One of the examples offered by Fluke is of a friend of her's who has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries and that many religious institution insurance plans won't cover such treatment. Her friend's claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy rather than to treat her illness, despite verification from her doctor.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If you were somehow being denied food or clothes, then yes, the government provides those.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Based on what?

Whoa. An easy question to answer in the PWL. How strange.

If you violate the public nudity laws, the government will provide you with some snappy striped (or orange) jumpsuits and 3 squares a day. However, the living conditions otherwise suck.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Whoa. An easy question to answer in the PWL. How strange.

If you violate the public nudity laws, the government will provide you with some snappy striped (or orange) jumpsuits and 3 squares a day. However, the living conditions otherwise suck.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

One of the examples offered by Fluke is of a friend of her's who has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries and that many religious institution insurance plans won't cover such treatment.

Do you have some evidence that the pill is necessary long-term? It's my understanding that the pill, when used to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome, is only used through a couple of cycles to allow the cyst to be absorbed. Fluke is 30 years old, a grown woman, a woman's rights activist, and a plant who knew about the policy before she enrolled @ Georgetown. She enrolled with the express intent of challenging this policy. The anecdote is dishonest, the pill used as medication is not necessary longterm, but often used to shirk contraception bans, and the cost is nowhere near what her friend suggests. Again, this whole thing is disingenuous to the core.

Her friend's claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy rather than to treat her illness, despite verification from her doctor.

None of that matters. She has access to the care she needs, she's not being denied a right. Planting yourself into a religious institution to secularize it is not meritorious, wise, or an exercise in civil rights. It's antagonistic and childish. If it were about rights, I would not be forced to subsidize their education at such an expensive University so they can shape society one religious institution at a time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you have some evidence that the pill is necessary long-term?

Polycystic ovary syndrome: Treatments and drugs - MayoClinic.com

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

She enrolled with the express intent of challenging this policy. The anecdote is dishonest, the pill used as medication is not necessary longterm, but often used to shirk contraception bans, and the cost is nowhere near what her friend suggests. Again, this whole thing is disingenuous to the core.

Do *you* have some evidence of this?

[subego]

Repeating now

One does not simply "plant" themselves at a super prestigious law school.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Repeating now

One does not simply "plant" themselves at a super prestigious law school.

If Obama and his family can plan far enough ahead to bury his Kenyancy, then planning far enough ahead to get into law school is a breeze.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Repeating now

One does not simply "plant" themselves at a super prestigious law school.

The story as it stands today is so preposterous, there's little doubt in my mind that there will be more about this. She was picked up to be sponsored by a Progressive organization headed by Obama's former White House Communications director and it's quite clear she's being "handled". With the right help, you can go to school where ever the hell you want.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The story as it stands today is so preposterous, there's little doubt in my mind that there will be more about this. She was picked up to be sponsored by a Progressive organization headed by Obama's former White House Communications director and it's quite clear she's being "handled". With the right help, you can go to school where ever the hell you want.

You never used to strike me as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The story as it stands today is so preposterous, there's little doubt in my mind that there will be more about this. She was picked up to be sponsored by a Progressive organization headed by Obama's former White House Communications director and it's quite clear she's being "handled". With the right help, you can go to school where ever the hell you want.

What story specifically is preposterous?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Whoa. An easy question to answer in the PWL. How strange.

If you violate the public nudity laws, the government will provide you with some snappy striped (or orange) jumpsuits and 3 squares a day. However, the living conditions otherwise suck.

Plus, the government saves on contraceptions.

Everyone wins.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You never used to strike me as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.

There's nothing to suggest this reaches the "tinfoil hat" criteria. It's actually pretty transparent.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by reader50 

If you violate the public nudity laws, the government will provide you with some snappy striped (or orange) jumpsuits and 3 squares a day. However, the living conditions otherwise suck.

Yes, but also if you're a ward of the state.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's nothing to suggest this reaches the "tinfoil hat" criteria. It's actually pretty transparent.

Especially if you have Glenn Beck draw it for you on a chalkboard.

[subego]

Honestly, I still don't know what the **** anybody is talking about except for "it" and "this".

It and this what?

[Chongo]

Has anyone stepped forward and admitted having sex with Fluke (Pronounced fluck?)

[subego]

Why would you ask?