1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.
  2. Better Analytics for WordPress Get It Free

Will the Right Wing Continue to Attack and Condemn the Rights of American Women

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by earlpearl, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #41
    No, not all BC pills are that cheap.

     
    kaethy, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  2. Rebecca

    Rebecca Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,439
    Likes Received:
    335
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Articles:
    18
    #42
    I'm not sure which BC pills you're referring to. As a source, if you go to BirthControl.com, you'll find a variety of the most common BC pills, at these prices. Some are even less. Ortho Tri-Cyclen is $45 for a 3 month supply.
     
    Rebecca, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  3. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,098
    Likes Received:
    101
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #43
    Well kaethy since you continue to be a garden variety ignoramus I've took the liberty to investigate the issue myself . I asked 3 docs , all women "In what medical conditions is the COCP the only viable treatment ?" and the only answer they gave me with half a heart was the ovarian cyst . The only non-surgical treatment is hormonal contraception and the cheapest method of hormonal contraception is the COCP . So yes the Catholic Church should support the COCP but only if it's prescribed as a treatment and since there is only one (quite common) condition there is no need to provide a plethora of contraceptive medications . So this entire ordeal could have been summed up in a few words but instead this was treated in the typical liberal fashion with drums and rolls , emotional blackmail , "priests are murderers" banners and a boatload of ambiguity . As for the testimony of that lady I'll call it bullsh** , i couldn't find any arguments pointing otherwise .

    I'm quite sure that the Church won't oppose the COCP when it's used only and only as a treatment for cysts but they will sure oppose it's recreational use .
     
    ApocalypseXL, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  4. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    207
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #44
    We all pay for insurance, either directly or via our employer (yes at least part of that money comes from our paychecks). Almost none of us are fully covered. Every insurance policy has pages of line items describing exactly what services are and are not covered. If you want a policy that covers birth control, nobody is stopping you from buying one. Of course when you take into account how cheap birth control is (free from Planned Parenthood), not sure exactly why you would make a big deal out of it, unless you were trying to do something silly like get Catholics to provide birth control, or make political hay.

    Its rather comic that this is what we waste our time talking about, as this country pitches towards the abyss with uncontrolled spending, a 16 trillion dollar debt, and a debt to gdp ratio in excess of 100%. You are busily polishing the brass on the titanic, when looking for a life boat or a bilge pump might be a tad more intelligent.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  5. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    207
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #45
    The article goes on to source and quote from the paper published by Fluke where she states for the record that employers that refuse to pay for sex change operations for their employees are discriminating against them. This is life saving medicine that is being denied the transgender community, and I think we should all support her efforts to end this discriminatory behavior. I know if my teenage daughters were traumatized by the misfortune of having a small chest, I would want my insurance provider to save them from a possible suicidal mental state by paying for their breast augmentation. High school can be a very tough time.

    If we could get these wealthy fat cats of our business community to quit discriminating, we might be able to bring down the cost of health care for everyone.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  6. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,581
    Likes Received:
    149
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #46
    George Will, someone who has carried the Conservative banner his entire career, who is as deeply core based conservative as any commentator simply blasted the GOP and conservatives for cowering before Rush Limbaugh, but being willing to threaten Iran. How ironic...a bunch of GOP candidates talking big and tough about Iran...when they aren't responsible for acting:

    Its really a brutal dismissal of the moral standards of the entire GOP and conservative political power structure: They simply can't see the difference between appropriate behavior and being a whacked out bully:

    Read on: How observant: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...publican-leaders-are-afraid-of-rush-limbaugh/

    Somehow in the crazed extremism within the current GOP set of primaries simple common sense, so apparent to most Americans is simply missing among the candidates and their supporters.
     
    earlpearl, Mar 5, 2012 IP
  7. Rebecca

    Rebecca Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,439
    Likes Received:
    335
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Articles:
    18
    #47
    I did hear what Limbaugh said. I think it's disgusting and disrespectful. I don't like him. At the same time, I think it would be kind of opportunistic if Democrats tried to use this incident, to try to flame emotions to support forcing the Catholics to cover birth control against their religious beliefs. I don't support that either.
     
    Rebecca, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  8. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,581
    Likes Received:
    149
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #48
    Rebecca: I personally think what Limbaugh said specifically about that woman was disgusting and evidence of a bully. The comments had nothing to do with issues of religion or the interplay of religion versus health.

    The woman is not a political big shot or someone making a lot of $ or in the public eye. It was gross. There is a boycott going on now b/c of that and probably a long history of these type comments. We will see what occurs.

    I frankly don't see how universities such as Georgetown, which is a Jesuit sponsored University or a hospital that is sponsored by a religion are the "church" if the university or hospital serves the entire public and employs people that aren't of that religion.

    At that point the "church" has become a school or a hospital. I live in the DC area where Georgetown is. I took a class. I didn't have to be Catholic to take the class, the class had nothing to do with anything about the Catholic church or religion and Georgetown took my money without asking if I was Catholic. They liked the green of the money. Georgetown teaches accounting, American history, physics, and hundreds of classes like other universities ...none of which have anything to do with Catholicism. On the other hand the Church or Catholicism doesn't spend time on imbuing all its members with knowledge about accounting.

    The 2 types of institutions are different. Claiming separation of church versus state in this situation seems to me to be stretching the definition of "church". I suppose the courts will take on this issue. That is what courts do. When issues of this ilk come up they deal with the interpretation of laws and on their constitutionality and if different elements of the constitution come into play with one over ruling the other.

    Which religion fights significant outside health care? The courts have ruled that that religion cannot prevent appropriate health care for the kids of the adults of that religion. I think that is closer to church versus state than including certain very ecumenical institutions that are also sponsored in some fashion by a church such as Georgetown. The courts ruled that the child's health care trumped the religious attitudes of the parents. Additionally what is an oddity is that Georgetown is the institution where this woman attends who is caught in this firestorm...includes B/C protection in its insurance program for employees but not for students.

    I'd assume in order to get employees of all religions they broadened the health care insurance coverage.

    I wonder how long they've had that coverage? I wonder if that b/c coverage was an issue before.

    Now its become a political issue and getting a lot of press. For all we know Georgetown U might have been offering female employees b/c insurance benefits for years and the Catholic church never made a stink about it. That potentially makes this hubbub lots more about politics than about separation of church versus state and so called shoving rights down people's throats.
     
    earlpearl, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  9. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #49
    So with minimal effort on your part, you found out that I was right and you were wrong. BC is a required treatment for a genuine medical condition. Yet instead of admitting that, you continue to bad mouth me.

    I'm curious, how were you able to speak to 3 docs in such a short time? I could never get 3 docs to speak to me that quickly. Oh, and were they OB/GYN's?

    Sandra Fluke testified about that very condition, and how that condition, and Georgetown U insurance for students did not cover the medication needed for a fellow student. That student ended up having surgery, costing everyone in that insurance pool more money, and she lost an ovary.

    I think this debate would be different if it was about the possibility of men losing their balls.

    The entire ordeal could have been avoided if the catholic church would agree to stay out of womens health care.

    Nice of you to endorse allowing the pills when they are needed to treat a real medical condition, but currently, the church is not making that allowance.

    As for the argument that pills don't cost much, that's not a valid defense for denying coverage. What's affordable to one person is not necessarily affordable to another, disproportionately affecting poor women. Either it's right to cover the pills, or it's not.

     
    kaethy, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  10. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    520
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #50
    OMG ! Are we arguing about birth control pills ? I leave this to women. :D
     
    popotalk, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  11. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    207
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #51
    Oooo poor her. She went to Georgetown to create the firestorm. Why misrepresent it?

    The bigger question, which both you and Kaethy are unable to address: Why should Georgetown have to offer it's students any insurance at all, outside of staying competitive with other Universities?

    What a joke. This should really drive down the number of people applying to Georgetown - LOL.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  12. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,581
    Likes Received:
    149
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #52
    The question of the thread is one to which you have never responded: Will the Right Wing Continue to Attack and Condemn the Rights of American Women. The title was followed by an article in a media source that is significantly NOT POLITICAL. That alone is pretty significant. It describes the response of a lot of Americans, particularly Americans who aren't supercharged defenders of the Extreme Right Wing.

    Even after the initial Limbaugh apology the issue continues. I was startled to see George Will speak up on the issue. This life long deeply conservative thinker and writer called out the GOP and the Right Wing for not obviously responding to comments that virtually everyone else identifies on face value as being grotesque and at the minimum inappropriate.

    Will pointed out that the GOP political candidates are capable of rousing he-man attack language about Iran...but can't stand up to defend the simplest most obvious abuse of a regular American by a big shot highly paid, leading commentator from the Republican Extremist Right Wing. Meanwhile none of these tough talking he-man GOP candidates are responsible for pulling the trigger or not on a war. Big talk --> no responsibility. When it comes to protecting the women of America and a regular person expressing her views versus being slandered in a grotesque way by Rush Limbaugh they've all been timid. Lets face it-->cowed by the rough tough Extreme Political Right.

    In this thread nobody on the Right Wing has once commented upon the appropriateness or not of Rush Limbaugh's comments. Meanwhile across the United States there is a movement that is disgusted by his commentary and responding in a very business like fashion. They are telling the advertisers to stop sending Rush money. A number of advertisers are dropping Rush. Several local stations have dropped his show.

    A lot of Americans have found Rush grotesque. Most elements of the GOP are too cowed to agree. Alternatively they agree with Rush. That is why I call them Extreme. They are so angry and political they can't even see common sense.

    A lot of people find it grotesque. Meanwhile O_Nation has time after time refused to address the direct issue. I suppose in George Will's perspective that puts O_Nation on the Extreme Right Wing and cowed by Rush Limbaugh. Either that or O_Nation simply totally agrees with how Limbaugh described this woman who was expressing her views:

    She used freedom of expression to express her perspective:

    Rush Limbaugh called her:

    a slut
    a prostitute
    and said that the only value she could provide is if she gave us all sex videos.

    O_Nation: Why don't you address that issue instead of changing the subject?
     
    earlpearl, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  13. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    207
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #53
    Earlpearl, I covered the issue at length in earlier posts. Even the liberal press is covering the issue. Did you not read any of it?

    We've all acknowledged the Democrats are hypocrites, so now we are delving into the reasons why, and the justification for those reasons. So answer the question.


    Why should Georgetown have to offer it's students any insurance at all, outside of staying competitive with other Universities?
     
    Obamanation, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  14. Rebecca

    Rebecca Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,439
    Likes Received:
    335
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Articles:
    18
    #54
    This is an excerpt from a letter by Thomas Jefferson written in 1808:

    I don't think Thomas Jefferson would approve of this level of governmental interference. This issue is not just about Georgetown University, it's larger than that. Yet, speaking specifically about Georgetown University, the About Us page on the website describes themselves as a Catholic University. They are not a church. However, I would consider them a religious institution. Views on birth control and abortion by the Catholics are long-standing. If they are morally opposed to covering birth control on their insurance, they should not be forced by the government. Whoever wants to cover it can. For those that oppose, should be allowed to follow their conscience.

     
    Rebecca, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  15. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #55
    Thank you.

     
    kaethy, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  16. kaethy

    kaethy Guest

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #56
    Hmm, first time I was asked to address this question.

    Why shouldn't any university offer students health insurance? Don't we all want people to be healthy? Is there something wrong with that?

    I sincerely doubt it will have any effect on enrollment, but go ahead and try to maintain that illusion.
     
    kaethy, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Likes Received:
    207
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #57
    Actually, I repeated the question several times, though it may have been aimed at Earlpearl.

    Is the general health of the students the responsibility of the University, beyond not having an unhealthy environment on campus?

    Every perk a University or business offers drives enrollment. Entertainment companies offer their employees free dvds, cds, concert tickets, passes to events they promote, etc. Gaming companies offer their employees free tickets to gaming events, and usually have gaming areas where their employees can play while on the clock. Students looking at campuses are going to consider everything from the local nightlife, cost of lodging, quality of the classes, beauty of the campus, prestige of the university, and quality and cost of the health insurance offered. These are the things that drive CHOICE, whether we are talking about an employee deciding where he/she wants to work, or a student's choice in what university to attend.

    For the record, no, I don't think people would leave Georgetown en masse if they failed to provide health insurance to the students. More likely, it would just give them some bad press as students grumbled about it.
     
    Obamanation, Mar 6, 2012 IP
  18. grpaul

    grpaul Active Member

    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #58

    You can't be serious, right ?

    Apologizing for his vulgar language is one thing, but there is no way that you or anyone expected him to shut his mouth completely about the stupid issue.... That's insane.

    If you don't want to listen to him, turn him off.
     
    grpaul, Mar 7, 2012 IP
  19. grpaul

    grpaul Active Member

    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #59
    Because that would require some level of responsibility / accountability, which the left doesn't promote. Plain and simple.

    While we are at it, let's also:

    Pay for the alcohol needed to get her laid
    Make sure a governement official is present to make sure she's using the pills / condoms properly.
    Buy her a house, car, boat

    Why not ?
     
    grpaul, Mar 7, 2012 IP
  20. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #60
    Oh c'mon.... the president called the poor little girl [seriously now, not really] and apologized to her, Limbaugh has apologized.

    Meanwhile, the president took 1 MILLION bucks from Bill Maher, who called Palin a twat, a TWAT, a MILF, and a CUNT.

    -- Did she get an apology from Bill Maher? [No]
    -- Did she get a consoling call from Obama? [No]
    -- Is Obama keeping the 1 million anyway? [Oh HELL yeah]

    Seriously, save the selective outrage. Like the president's own selective chivalry [yeah right, he was really thinking of his daughters], it's total partisan bullshit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2012
    robjones, Mar 8, 2012 IP