Satou Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mccain-limbaugh-calling-law-student-slut-in-birth-control-furor-is-totally-unacceptable/2012/03/05/gIQAtRRPsR_story.html"]http://www.washingto...RPsR_story.html[/url] I thought this was an interesting thing I have learned in my communication course the other night and it is all over google like wild fire. That we as a country or more mistakenly old white guys who have no idea in what they are talking about are deliberating Women's reproductive rights -i.e being able to take birth control or obtaining birth control. So lets discuss this! I was wondering if any one else finds this ridiculous that congress and other political factions are EVEN having this type of discussion at all? And how it makes us men or women feel about this topic at hand. Coming from the stand point of being a woman (well duh), I find that they shouldn't even be questioning the idea and use of birth control amongst women. In fact I find it rather repulsive that there were no women at all in these deliberations to show an opposing side to their arguements. And the fact is that they ridiculed a woman for actually standing up for the topic at hand (KUDOS to her) in the public eye and one individual even attempted to make women look bad for obtaining and using contraceptives by saying that the amount of birth control a woman takes equates the amount she has sex. Which basically proposes that all women who take or use methods of contraception are prostitutes or looking to get some. Which I find is rather wrong and a terrible misconception. Especially since Birth control hinders or even stifles our ability to have children and that it also helps other various maladies that women may have. This topic shouldn't even be discussed or brought up in politics because it isn't their place to potentially change the ability women have in obtaining and taking birth control options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joytron Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 RICK SANTORUM, STAY OUT OF MY VAGINA! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coleman Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 People like rick santorum are part of the reason I dont even want to vote..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang67n Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 From that article: "At issue is whether women working for employers affiliated with a religion should get free birth control under President Barack Obama’s health care law." Am I missing something? How does where a woman works have ANYTHING to do with whether or not she should get free birth control from her health care?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satou Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) [quote name='mustang67n' timestamp='1331098895' post='541632'] From that article: "At issue is whether women working for employers affiliated with a religion should get free birth control under President Barack Obama’s health care law." Am I missing something? How does where a woman works have ANYTHING to do with whether or not she should get free birth control from her health care?! [/quote] The article is an example but the problem is far progressed into something else, it started with religious bigotry. [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?pagewanted=all"]http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all[/url] [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-denniston/constitution-check-does-m_b_1275231.html"]http://www.huffingto..._b_1275231.html[/url] [url="http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2012/02/birth_control_insurance_uproar.html"]http://www.cleveland...nce_uproar.html[/url] Which can and most likely will add more fuel to the flames by progressing the topic from that to all women not just those under religious obligations. Which can become a ploy to undermine a womans ability -religious or not to have or obtain contraceptives if they cannot afford it. A law student decided to stand up against this change and got smashed for it by rush limbaugh. [url="http://www.newser.com/story/140814/rush-rips-law-student-birth-control-advocate-as-slut.html"]http://www.newser.co...te-as-slut.html[/url] Edited March 7, 2012 by Satou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'm not opposed to birth control, but don't ask me to pay for it. I'm not saying that from any religious viewpoint; I simply don't want to pay for somebody else's stuff, whether through taxes or increases premiums for my insurance. I have my own bills to pay for already. What else should society be obligated to pay for simply because somebody demands it? A new car? Designer clothes? Has anybody heard of personal responsibility? The woman in question is attending a Catholic university. She knew full well before she enrolled what their view was. She's just stirring the pot and creating a stink to advance her agenda. It's like attending a Muslim university and demanding that they serve ham sandwiches in the cafeteria. And I still can't figure out how a person smart enough to be in law school doesn't know that you can get free birth control in 75% of the counties in this country simply be going to the health department. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skoozle Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I am in agreement with Gramps. I pay for my contraceptives with my own money. I don't want to be taxed to pay for someone else's through obamacare. With that being said, it should be the choice of a private health insurance provider as to whether or not they want to provide birth control pills. Then it is the choice of the consumer as to whether or not to choose that health insurance provider. This shouldn't involve the government in any way. I'm sure our government has more important problems to solve than forcing a religious organization to provide birth control pillsbirth which go against the views of that organization. Seriously, the government should be involved in religion and birth control in the same issue? Let's pay off our national debt first. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Another women's take on it..... Women's rights are under attack, much more so that most people seem to realize. Birth control is only the tip of the iceberg. Wisconsin's State Senator Republican Glenn Gorthman introduced Senate Bill No. 507 which labels single motherhood as child abuse. That's right, if you're a single mother, you're a contributor to child abuse. Apparently it's still okay to be the deadbeat dad and walk away because that's not abusive, but being left to clean up the mess and pick up the pieces? Child abuse. Look at the recent state measures passed requiring any women seeking an abortion, have a sonogram and be forced to actually look at the sonogram before the doctor can perform the procedure. I'm not and never will be pro-abortion, because I think proper use of birth control along with some greater respect for women, including self-respect, and removal of enabling entitlements like automatic increases in Aid for Dependent Children, would make 99% of all abortions a thing of a distant past. But to force a women into emotional upheaval and mental damage by forcing her to undergo a sonogram, including by the way a vaginal sonogram, if the doctor can't find a heartbeat with an external monitor? Come on..... Forced penetration against our will is rape no matter what's being used to penetrate. So what we essentially have is legalized rape taking place on a doctors table in some kind of punishment for having created a fetus in the first place. And since the heartbeat is the issue, I guess that whole thing about getting an abortion if you choose one as early is possible is now out the window right? Because if it's too soon to detect a heartbeat, you've got to submit to rape by sonogram probe. How's that for progress? Birth control should have always been free because quite frankly it's cheaper to provide birth control than the medical coverage for a birth, or abortion. Average $20 a month instead of $20,000 for a live birth at 9 months. Which would you rather be paying for Gramps? Because you're paying for it either way in those health insurance premiums. In the case of religious employers, etc., why would they even have access to know that birth control was being provided by their health insurance? Does your doctor turn over all your prescriptions to your employers? The law says that the birth control that's already being prescribed be covered by health insurance plans. That's it. It's not new or radical. It's not forcing anyone to take birth control. It's not forcing anyone to pay for it except by the premium they're already paying when they pay their share of their health insurance. Almost NO employer in this country pays 100% of the health insurance premium for their employees. I pay a little over $50 a week for mine, my employer picks up twice that much. Birth control is on the list of prescriptions there's a co-pay for. Under the new law there's no co-pay. That's the extent of the change. If a woman covered under my plan asked for birth control she gets it. But she doesn't walk in the door and get it forced on her. Why are they trying to restrict a prescription? When in fact, your Viagra is covered. Viagra is covered, but birth control to prevent conception resulting form your use of Viagra is not? How does that make sense? If you had read the background on the young women, she's not seeking birth control for prevention of pregnancy. She's seeking it for other medical reasons. Anyone not a women, may not realize birth control pills have a beneficial effect on debilitating menstrual cramps, endometriosis, onset of menopause, and a whole world of other world of medical conditions that benefit from hormone control, even severe acne. The young women you're so sure is causing trouble is seeking support of birth control for medical reasons, not as Rush Limbaugh thinks, as a slut. And lastly, why should my employer or my school insist I not receive birth control if I want it? They're trying to prevent women from being able to choose to use birth control. Once again, in the hands of the religious right wing lunatics, apparently free will is only allowed if you're doing what they want you to do. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushrat Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='Coleman' timestamp='1331096005' post='541630'] People like rick santorum are part of the reason I dont even want to vote..... [/quote] and its shit like this that makes it even more important that you DO vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Those fine liberal pubs seem to miss the back-story. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/sandra-fluke-a-self-described-professional-pro-abortion-activist/ http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/is-this-why-sandra-fluke-testified/ She researched Georgetown Law, a Catholic institution, and enrolled specifically in an effort to become a problem to that institution. It's not a public school, it's not cheap, and it's not someone else s job to pay for BC for her. Show me someone pissing all over some mosque because they won't freebee some BC for single female employees of another faith. It's a non-issue meant to distract the sheeple from the real problems happening right in front of their eyes. Rush is a dumbass, played right into the distraction, and gave something that was nothing meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1331156402' post='541682'] Those fine liberal pubs seem to miss the back-story. [url="http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/05/sandra-fluke-a-self-described-professional-pro-abortion-activist/"]http://www.lifenews....rtion-activist/[/url] [url="http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/is-this-why-sandra-fluke-testified/"]http://www.wnd.com/2...luke-testified/[/url] She researched Georgetown Law, a Catholic institution, and enrolled specifically in an effort to become a problem to that institution. It's not a public school, it's not cheap, and it's not someone else s job to pay for BC for her. [color=#0000cd][b] I think you're twisting what the words actually are. She said she researched the college and chose to not choose health care over her education. Didn't you research the college you went to? I know I did.[/b][/color] Show me someone pissing all over some mosque because they won't freebee some BC for single female employees of another faith. [color=#0000cd][b] If a mosque had come forward with the same view, I'm pretty sure there's be at least one protester in the woodwork, but so far they've been quiet on the American front. Probably because in the more radical versions of Islam it's already misogynistic enough that birth control is a non-issue. [/b][/color] It's a non-issue meant to distract the sheeple from the real problems happening right in front of their eyes. [color=#0000cd][b]Possibly, but I still believe women's rights are under attack. There's way too much anti-sexually related propaganda going on.[/b][/color] Rush is a dumbass, played right into the distraction, and gave something that was nothing meaning. [color=#0000cd][b] Well, there, it's hard to disagree. Unfortunately he wouldn't be making millions off his bullshit if people weren't buying into it. He'd be just another hermit off in the wilds of Minnesota with his dogs and his still and his internet, [/b][/color][color=#0000cd][b] [/b][/color] [/quote] There..... All better. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScotsman Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It's not just an attack on the female populace, although it seems cool for modern woman to be a victim of one thing, or another. It's an attack on every single liberty of every single person. 40,000 new laws a year, and you think they are singling out the female half of the population? Crawl off the cross, bandage up the nail holes, and join the fight to pun an end the the seemingly bottomless pit of never ending regulations that are stealing the rights of all of us. https://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/is-sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-used-by-democrats-to-push-free-birth-control a 30 year old woman posing as some helpless student is pathetic. It's even more pathetic to see people jumping up to defend the fool over her own choices, and well documented activist past. Good grief. You don't want to be bound by Catholic doctrine, I got a really good idea... don't go to an elite Catholic school with an equally elite price tag and piss and moan you don't get a damn $9.00/mo RX that is not necessary to treat a medical condition. Holy crap, how insane can people get with the gimme-gimme-gimme? Where was all this fake outrage of someone calling her names when those same names were used against leading conservative women? Treat both with equal disdain, or just be another convenient tool of the left/right/whomever. If it's OK for bill mahr, and ed schultz to call women sexually degrading names, that rule applies to all, and it's ok for all. If it's not OK for limbone, then you need to show the same outrage at schultz. Until you do, I'm tossing the fake-victim flag on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang67n Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Watched V for Vendetta lastnight.. I thought that was relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='mustang67n' timestamp='1331163047' post='541692'] Watched V for Vendetta lastnight.. I thought that was relevant. [/quote] When I see that mask it reminds me that one of my ancestors (Willian Waad) was Lieutenant of the Tower of London at the time of the Gunpowder Plot and interrogated Guy Fawkes. We're quite proud of old Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1331161969' post='541689'] It's not just an attack on the female populace, although it seems cool for modern woman to be a victim of one thing, or another. It's an attack on every single liberty of every single person. 40,000 new laws a year, and you think they are singling out the female half of the population? Crawl off the cross, bandage up the nail holes, and join the fight to pun an end the the seemingly bottomless pit of never ending regulations that are stealing the rights of all of us. [url="https://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/is-sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-used-by-democrats-to-push-free-birth-control"]https://www.examiner...e-birth-control[/url] a 30 year old woman posing as some helpless student is pathetic. It's even more pathetic to see people jumping up to defend the fool over her own choices, and well documented activist past. Good grief. You don't want to be bound by Catholic doctrine, I got a really good idea... don't go to an elite Catholic school with an equally elite price tag and piss and moan you don't get a damn $9.00/mo RX that is not necessary to treat a medical condition. Holy crap, how insane can people get with the gimme-gimme-gimme? Where was all this fake outrage of someone calling her names when those same names were used against leading conservative women? Treat both with equal disdain, or just be another convenient tool of the left/right/whomever. If it's OK for bill mahr, and ed schultz to call women sexually degrading names, that rule applies to all, and it's ok for all. If it's not OK for limbone, then you need to show the same outrage at schultz. Until you do, I'm tossing the fake-victim flag on this one. [/quote] So i take it if School A has a vastly superior education but refuses her full medical coverage that includes birth control, she has to settle for the inferior education at School B? Come on, how much sense does that really make to you? When does the line in the sand turn to cement? When we start executing all the brown-haired people again? The fact is that she shouldn't have to give up a reasonable heath care benefit in order to get a superior education. It's not about cost. What's more, we're still back to the fact that NOBODY except the people paying the heath care premium is paying for the birth control. The co-pay is being removed. Nothing more. The school isn't paying for it, the taxpayers aren't paying for it, she's paying for it as part of her coverage. That's it. Since they're not paying for it, they shouldn't have a word to say about it. Are all our freedoms being attacked? You bet. But women's and minority freedoms are key points because an overwhelming white middle aged power-class will let those slip right on through never realizing they're being used as precedent. As birth control, so the expensive heart medication, or prosthestic limbs, etc. It's about depriving first the "lesser" classes and then those now among the powerful elite, and if you don't see that, you're much blinder than I ever thought you were. So yes, y'all better be out there campaigning for women to keep their rights including birth control because trust me, your medications can't be far down the road. And don't tell me birth control is an elective medication because many, many times it's not. It treats any other condition that improves through hormonal control and/or modification. Rush Limbaugh is probably the worst of the lot, but hate mongering in any form shouldn't be allowed. He takes it to a level that borders outright inciting violence. How far from being labeled a slut is an honor killing? So yeah, we need to be speaking out against all of them. They just aren't quite so wacked out as this one in particular. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Seems to me that anybody who could afford to attend that law school could probably afford to go to Target (3 miles from campus) and buy birth control pills for 9 bucks a month for uninsured customers. Want some cheese to go with that whine? She's a shill for the Democrat Party, pure and simple. To deny it further is just crazy talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 [quote name='gramps' timestamp='1331163937' post='541697'] Seems to me that anybody who could afford to attend that law school could probably afford to go to Target (3 miles from campus) and buy birth control pills for 9 bucks a month for uninsured customers. Want some cheese to go with that whine? She's a shill for the Democrat Party, pure and simple. To deny it further is just crazy talk. [/quote] She could. That's not the point. The point is that she shouldn't have to if she's paying for health insurance. It's already in her health insurance coverage! She just doesn't have to pay for it in the form of a co-pay any longer. That's the thing nobody seems to catch onto. Go look at your heath insurance and it's medications. You'll find birth control and you'll find a co-pay for it, just like maybe you find the name brand medication at a $20 co-pay, and the generic at zero. Nobody is adding birth control to your policy. Nobody is forcing you to take it. It's already there, it just will now have a different price tag. Shill? Could be. Doesn't make the argument any less valid because she volunteered to be the scapegoat. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It's a Catholic university and they shouldn't be forced to have that covered by their insurance if it's against their beliefs. This is a First Amendment issue, not a women's health issue. The Constitution trumps all. That's the way this country works. Start tearing it apart bit by bit and we'll all be sorry in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Anyway, I don't want to hear anything else from Ms. Fluke until she learns how to pronounce her last name. I feel the same way about Bret Favre. And Lech Walesa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='gramps' timestamp='1331164532' post='541703'] It's a Catholic university and they shouldn't be forced to have that covered by their insurance if it's against their beliefs. This is a First Amendment issue, not a women's health issue. The Constitution trumps all. That's the way this country works. Start tearing it apart bit by bit and we'll all be sorry in the long run. [/quote] Why does an institution get to tell her what her policy should and should not cover when they're not paying the premiums? I'm not paying your insurance premiums and from this moment on I've decided you can't have gout medication ever again. I've decided gout is a God given affliction and you should suffer the consequences. Do I have that right when you're paying the premiums? There's a simple answer to this: Offer two policies. One does not include birth control and cost $100 a month. The one that cost $125 a month does cover birth control. Let the person paying the premium choose which they want to purchase. The problem is, some organizations are trying to prevent women from being able to make the choice to buy the more expensive option [u]because[/u] it offers birth control. The Constitution was designed to be a living document. I'ts designed to change over time as times change which is why we have the procedures we do for changing it when a portion of it becomes outdated. Not that I'm saying it should be changed willy-nilly, but it's not an unchangeable document carved in stone. I don't see this particular issue as one of the First Amendment. I believe it was not that long ago ruled that parents for instance could not refuse to treat their children by doctors for life threatening illness even though their religious doctrine prohibited medical treatment and that the First Amendment doesn't apply in the case of the treatment offered to a patient by a doctor. 'Rani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satou Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='gramps' timestamp='1331163937' post='541697'] Seems to me that anybody who could afford to attend that law school could probably afford to go to Target (3 miles from campus) and buy birth control pills for 9 bucks a month for uninsured customers. Want some cheese to go with that whine? She's a shill for the Democrat Party, pure and simple. To deny it further is just crazy talk. [/quote] Idk about you Gramps but Birth control is[u][b] NOT[/b][/u] 9 dollars a month for a packet of pills at Target or even Wal Mart for that matter (I know because I work at target and I recieve my perscriptions from their pharmacy ), [i]with co-pay Birth Control is easily 15 dollars for a [u]generic brand[/u] and with out insurance or pre-approved coverage from your insurance Birth control or other forms of Birth control are expensive - try 50$ for a month of hormones, 85 dollars for plan B and etc. [/i]Though we have Planned Parenthood, it is not available to all since they could be in the next town over or an hours drive away to recieve any sort of treatment and having the possiblity that they may not discount any contraceptives to you based on your husbands, family or your own income or amount of money in the bank. I personally believe that the only people getting mad over it are MEN - white, old, politican, religious leaders or what ever. Because Birth Control[i] for women [/i]does not benefit them directly unless they are getting some and avoiding the consequences of pregnancy. And that religious beliefs - first amendment or not should not dictate what spaces i.e colleges, hospitals and the like are able to dole out Contraceptives - if they didn't want their employees, students or members of their group utilizing birth control or having access to it because of religious dogma then their people should know or at least be informed of it rather than attempting to shove something down the throats of [b]HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS[/b] whose job is to provide treatment and care in any way shape or form. Which includes the practice of safe intercourse - i.e distribution and the knowledge of the use of contraceptives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gramps Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It was reported on several radio and television shows today. The reporter had been to the specific store and priced them. Was he lying? My daughter is a pharmacist at Walgreens. She says that your Target is over-charging. Generic is dirt cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chreees Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Here's an interesting thing for you all to think about... Those who are saying "I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for someone's birth control!" or "I don't want my tax dollars to pay for some woman to have an abortion!"... Think about this: What about all the medical issues caused by tobacco, alcohol, and everything else that people DO TO THEMSELVES? Guess we should just make sure none of the above is covered by insurance, huh? EDIT: Sonya and Gramps, concerning the price of birth control, I think it's priced differently in different parts of the country... Sonya, you live in Cali, and Gramps, you live in Alabama... Everything is going to be cheaper in Alabama compared to California, just as it is here in Tennessee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rani Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 To me the last and bottom line is if this is NOT about stopping women from controlling their own reproduction then why ARE MALE PERFORMANCE DRUGS STILL OFFERED AND COVERED??????? 'Rani 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang67n Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Rani' timestamp='1331175576' post='541724'] To me the last and bottom line is if this is NOT about stopping women from controlling their own reproduction then why ARE MALE PERFORMANCE DRUGS STILL OFFERED AND COVERED??????? 'Rani [/quote] Because the male performance enhancers help the old politicians get it up.. DUH. They're the ones writing these laws, they're just trying to get their piece of the pie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now