Sandra Fluke at a democratic hearing complained that she and her fellow female law school students at Georgetown are burdened by having to pay $3,000 for their own contraceptives, which is why she agrees with including contraceptives as part of medical insurance. Getting a law degree must be easy to get at Georgetown if they have time to use up $3,000 worth of contraceptives in one year. Should the rest of us pay for their sexual lifestyle? Should we pay for the male law school students' condom bills? Should the college include contraception costs as part of tuition and expenses?
"$3,000 worth of contraceptives in one year"
Get your facts straight. "Fluke, who is in her third year of law school, testified that Georgetown did not cover contraception on its health plan, which she said could cost as much as $3,000 during a student’s law school career."
Who are you to judge what is slutty? You are aware that for birth control pills to be effective, either for a medical condition or to prevent pregnancy, they must be taken regularly regardless of the frequency of intercourse, aren't you?
Shame on you for introducing facts into such an interesting thread, lol.
The definition of slutty is in the eyes of the beholder.
this is how a relative term works.
Stern was fined for fart jokes. Limbaugh gets away with murder, and alway has.
Fire the bum.
... that had nothing to do with my post....
Stern is employed. Limbaugh is Self-employed. Sorry about your luck.
Stern was on commercial radio just like Limbaugh is now.
Bushs' FCC fined Stern, so much so that he left commercial radio,
They need to do the same to Rush. All things being equal and all.
No it isn't, and your side is the perpetraitor of it.
Time for that to end, my friend.
all things being equal.
"BOO HOO Life isn't fair" Ya, you sure do have a way with words. I guess just because someone is older, it doesn't make them wiser.
Who cares what they do. The bottom line, IMO, is no one should pay for someone else's birth control, male or female, in whatever form. If someone needs it medically, their insurance will pay for it. If they have no insurance, figure it out like the rest of us do. There's no real medical need for birth control.
You are absolutely right. Anyone too helpless to go to Wal-Mart and spend a few dollars needs to grow up before having an intimate relationship with anyone.
God to be young and stupid again with being so young and it can't happen to me mentality. I'm sorry, I disagree, many young people don't think of the ramifications of their actions. Do they need to grow up? Yes. But how many will make that mistake? If birth control can eliminate just one abortion it's worth the money spent. The alternative is everyone's insurance going up for the birth, and the additional cost of raising this unwanted child. One of the biggest increases in health insurance is the birth of a child.
I don't mean to sound hostile, but there are indeed medical reasons for birth control. I'm a virgin, and take birth control for medical reasons, none of which I feel like sharing on a public forum.
You are who Obama is taking a stand for.
I know at least two women who take the pill for medical reasons. One of them has a tubal ligation and the other isn't going to get pregnant unless her girlfriend has a very big secret.
You've been listening to too much Limbaugh recently, haven't you? I think your (and Rush's) understanding of how birth control works is flawed. Let me show you an example using one thing you said:
"Getting a law degree must be easy to get at Georgetown if they have time to use up $3,000 worth of contraceptives in one year."
You see, birth control doesn't work that way. Birth control is something that is taken on a regular basis, regardless of how often you are having sex. A woman who has 20 sexual partners in a year will not spend more on birth control than a woman who has a steady boyfriend and only has 1 sexual partner in a year.
Maybe you missed the part where Sandra Fluke was testifying on behalf of a fellow student who couldn't afford the birth control pills she needed to control ovarian cysts under the school's plan and ended up having to have an ovary removed? There are quite a few medical conditions that birth control pills treat in addition to controlling fertility.
Even if these law students are using them exclusively as birth control, who are you (or Limbaugh) to call them sluts? Law students are old enough that they're often already married, for one thing, and you need to take the Pill every day whether you have one partner or dozens.
As for "paying for other people to have sex," you do that already on most insurance plans and trust me, you'd rather be paying for $3000 worth of birth control pills than pregnancy! A normal vaginal birth with no complications is more than twice that in my region, and that doesn't include the pre-natal visits or the well baby checkups, let alone the tens or hundreds of thousands you might end up paying if there are any complications.
I won't need to call them anything unless they insist that I pay for their voluntary, recreational behavior. If they want to berate me for not bankrolling their fornication, then I may call them what they are--whiny brats who need to grow up and pay for their own stuff.
You're absolutely right, Kerry. The fact is that many, if not most, private insurers cover birth control pills because it makes economic sense for them to do so. The insurance offered through colleges and universities tends to be bare bones. They do not cover birth control because women attending college and university are not a big risk for making pregnancy claims on their insurance. That is not to say they don't get pregnant. I suspect that pregnancies followed by abortions, mifepristone prescriptions, etc. are occurring among students as they do in the aggregate 20 something population. Though it may not be cheap for the insurance companies to provide this coverage to women in their early 20s, it may be cheaper for society, in the long run, that they do.
Logically, it makes the most sense to make birth control available to the most fertile women. That would be women under 30, right?
These also happen to be the least able to financially (or emotionally) support children should they accidentally become pregnant.
I mean, even if your goal wasn't to cut down on abortions...
Indeed. And now he's suggesting she post sex tapes online so the taxpayers can get something back. You stay classy, Rush.
If the government can force ME to pay for YOUR contraception, or YOUR boner-pills, then...
... I own your sex life...
I almost agree with Limbaugh on this one...
I am unfortunately uninsured, so no, you don't, but if I get pregnant due to the fact that I can't afford reliable birth control right now, you might just own my kid.
You know, we understand what causes that now, and it's not the inability to afford reliable birth control.
I'm curious - if you get pregnant will you blame society for not providing free birth control or yourself for engaging in risky actions?
Both, most likely. I think the social benefits of providing free birth control are such that society should provide it and I'm frustrated that it doesn't. However, I'm not stupid either. My husband's lucky to get any once a month right now. Nothing kills a sex drive like paranoia about unwanted and uninsured pregnancy.
I do think that you are probably right about the social benefits of providing birth control paid for by the entire population. We do need to recognize it as just another welfare program, though, and not insurance. Maybe set it up as welfare, only the poor don't pay anything. Or a tax deduction for it. Something like that rather that simply give it to anyone wanting it. I'm not sure the country could stand the kind of money being bandied about on this thread for every woman wanting the pill.
I sympathize with you - been there, done that killing the sex drive thing.
I'm pro-single payer, so that works for me. Barring unforeseen circumstances, our poverty is a temporary situation while hubby is studying for his boards and once we're back in the six figures I would gladly pay both for my own "free" birth control and that of others if the US would just get its act together and join the rest of the civilized world. Birth control is a far better use of my tax dollars than bombs! I can't understand how Republicans are totally okay with spending a trillion dollars blowing up brown people in Iraq but scream bloody murder over anything that might conceivably improve the general living standards of the US.
I am unmarried and I have sex and I use contraception. And you do';t get any say in this whatsoever because I am a free and equal citizen who makes her own choices based on her own morals.
Try personal responsibility, it will be a new experience for you.
Point out how I am irresponsible other than not doing what you say as if I were a lesser being.
What? You consider women to be lesser beings?
You not what? Women also get to say: no. God bless America.
Then no point talking to you obviously, we are not worthy of concerting with men.
I guess you don't like that women can vote either...
I think that you are showing a great deal of personal responsibility. If you use condoms and have sex, you are taking care of yourself.
30 years (plus) ago I had a child. Who paid for that child? Not the government, not the father.. me... I did. My parents did not give me money for her, I did not get food stamps, AFDC, WIC, or HUD. *I* paid for her...
That is what everyone should expect. You open your legs, you enjoy the act, you pay for the results...
Using contraception is personal responsibility, duh.
My husband's right hand is his best friend right now, poor man.
Obviously I don't mean you specifically, lest you fall under the provided categories.
"Why are you having sex without birth control if you can't afford a baby?", would be the obvious next question.
And the immediate next question would be "Why would you expect ME to pay for your poor choice in behavior?"
I'm shocked that this is an issue. I don't have to pay for other people acting dumb. I'm sorry that women get stuck with babies, but they also get stuck with unequal transmission rates of STDs (infected men -> healthy women rate =~80%; infected women -> healthy men = ~20%).
Nature can't be fooled, and I owe you nothing.
You've been paying for people "acting dumb" all along, Evan. You pay a much larger portion of your premiums to cover long term care for a variety of illnesses that can be attributed to lifestyle choices such as smoking. Maybe, in addition to not covering birth control, we should stop paying for cancer treatments for smokers with lung cancer and sun worshippers with melanoma. We could deny coverage of insulin to type 2 diabetes sufferers after a panel determines if it was self-inflicted by "acting dumb" and overeating. Not paying for "dumb" behavior is really not a valid argument here.
You should also consider the fact, as stated in your own post, that "women get stuck with babies." And who pays for these babies when people of little or no means give birth....? Again, that'd be you Evan, unless you're off the tax rolls.
The irony in all this is that she was testifying on behalf of a gay friend who couldn't afford birth control that she needed to shrink ovarian cysts, which eventually caused her to lose an ovary. Sandra's own sex life has nothing to do with this testimony.
It seems hypocritical for Rush Limbaugh to accuse anyone of promiscuity. This is the same man who was detained for bringing illegally-obtained Viagra into the United States after a short vacation abroad. And where was that vacation? Puerto Plata in the Dominican Republic, described by some human rights groups as the child prostitution capital of the world. I guess Rush wouldn't have to know the facts about birth control if he avoids having sex with adult females.
Limbaugh should be fired for his hateful diatribe.
Eww, gross gross gross. He is such a disgusting pig. I'll just pray he didn't know about the child prostitution thing and went there for the climate, 'cause I can't even stand to think about the alternative.
Well, a lot of people also wonder if he's gay. Because DR apparently is a gay haven as well.
Think about it...he's been married 3 times, no children. Is he using the pull-out method, like the Bishops want him to do? Were his wives using birth control?
Or are his wives beards for his true sexual nature?
The world may never know.
I find it sad how many rabid homophobes turn out to be self-loathing gays. It's like they decide that if they're miserable, they're going to make damn sure everybody else is too.
Don't know if Limbaugh is or not, but I look forward to the tell-alls when he finally kicks the bucket. You can't carry around that much frothing hate day in and day out without something to hide.
Limbaugh couldn't possibly be gay... he dresses too poorly...
Seriously though, it is vaguely insulting to suggest that he might be gay. Firstly, the LGBT community doesn't want him. Secondly, insulting someone by insinuating gayness (if it isn't isn't a word, I just made it one) probably highly insulting to a homophobe... but it also suggests that there is something insulting about being gay in the first place.
Not insulting for being gay....just not who he makes himself out to be.
Cause, if he's gay...how does the Catholic Church feel about him?
All the "red-necks" who listen to him....where would they be?
He'd lose his audience. So, he keeps it on the down-low. IF that is the case.
I hope I'd be the last person to try to insult someone by insinuating that they're gay. Sorry if I misspoke badly enough to give you that impression.
Sandra has a problem...she desires to engage in (heavily I might add) in an activity or pleasure which she cannot afford and she does not want to be accountable for the outcome. Obviously self-discipline, self-restraint, and accountabliity are missing from her life...but she would say that is not her fault or her responsibility. WB
Self-discipline, self-restraint and accountability got her into Georgetown Law School.
I think it's fairly telling that it's mostly older men who seem to think that needing $3000 worth of birth control pills over three years of law school is so extreme. It's blatantly obvious that you don't have the slightest idea how birth control pills work, so maybe you should leave policy decisions about them to those of us who do.
Here's a hint: birth control pills need to be taken every day whether you're having sex or not. You can't tell from the cost whether a girl is having sex "heavily" or not, and if she is taking them for health reasons instead of or in addition to birth control, as Ms. Fluke's friend was, you can't even tell if she's having sex at all.
Are you a Rush Limbaugh fan by any chance? He called her a prostitute also.
Sandra Fluke was talking about the need of birth control bills for other health reasons, not birth control.You need to revisit her testimony. And to define her as a slut shows how ignorant Rush and those who agree with him really are!
Should the rest of pay municipal taxes on our land when churches do not? Should the rest of us pay state and federal taxes on our revenues when churches do not?
There is well over a billion dollars in taxes not collected from churches every year.
Perhaps, it's time they payed their fair share in order to have a say.
Exactly. They want to use the gvt to enforce their religion, and they don't pay for the priviledge!
Pointing the finger at another issue doesn't answer this issue. Children use that " but he did it too" routine.
It may not answer the issue, but it points out that those who raise the issue are hypocrites, making the issue a moot point.
It's more than a little judgmental to call her "slutty", don't you think?
friend of rush 's are you. real classy. wow
It's worse than you think. Fluke is an Abortion/Contraceptives-for-free advocate, who attends a Catholic College specifically to argue with their policies.
That wasn't a Congressional Hearing, either. It was a Democrat Press conference, disguised a hearing. We all fell for it, too. It was a put-up job from word one.
Is that the party line now? Did Uncle Rush say that?
Well we shouldn't be surprised now should we?
$3'000 worth of condoms would mean that she is getting it on several times a day every day, all year long. That's pretty slutty.
She even got praises from the president in her efforts to force the school to provide money for her promiscuity. Obviously this is a politically driven agenda. it is an effort to validate the mistakes that Obama is making against religions with his healthcare bill.
Fluke deliberately sought out residence at Georgetown university, (a catholic based school), in order to promote her agenda.
it is obvious that this is a political stunt in order to get women to vote for Obama in the coming election since she is making a women's "health rights" issue out of it.
What the hell does the price of condoms have to do with anything?
You take one pill every day...or every few months...regardless if you are having sex or not. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that? I think you people are being deliberately obtuse...
I wouldn't take what your masters say as facts in any way...
You may be right, I just assumed that she was talking about condoms because birth control pills only cost around $9.00 a month. That's a little over $100.00 a year, so where is the rest of the $2900.00 going?
Are you really under the assumption that this is a serious women's health issue?
Yes it is...women take birth control to treat many health issues. Fluke herself mentioned her friend who need it because of painful cysts.
That's the red herring. The rest of us use it for recreational purposes, and it is ridiculous to expect the tax payers to foot the bill.
Fine, you can ignore all the facts and believe that if you wish.
The fact is it's nothing more than a stunt to push the liberal agenda. Ignoring all of the other facts that contradict Miss Fluke's testimony simply shows how diluted some staunch believers in American liberalism are.
So if I had sex with my husband 8 times a day I would be a slut? And birth control pills -without insurance discounts- in my area are around 50 dollars a month for one brand at least (I had to call a friend for this information...obviously) Different brands or different dosages (they aren't all the same) in different areas are obviously going to vary in price. $9 dollars sounds subsidized in some way... back when I did take them (about 15 years ago) they were around 30 a month. I doubt if the price has dropped.
This kind of naivete and ignorance regarding birth control and the sexual habits of MOST people is destroying our country.
The proper use of birth control prevents unwanted pregnancy and abortions. I guess you want more abortions?
And if you are going to intentionally misquote simple facts there's absolutely no way we can begin to have a dialogue on this subject.
Clearly, your point is that those of us who pay for our insurance should not have to subsidize women's birth control because it is a woman's choice to have sex? Do I have that right?
Well, I don't want to subsidize insurance for smokers because it is a fact that smoker's get sicker and cause more sickness than others. Should we ban insurance for smokers? Should we ban insurance for fat people? I'm not fat, so for me to subsidize insurance premiums for fat people is unfair.
The proper use of birth control? Regardless of the facts in this particular situation, what I hear you saying is that when your son or daughter is out whoring it up, yes, in my day they called it sport f---ing, you're ok with that as long as they use birth control? Unwanted pregnancy can be avoided the old-fashioned way.
We don't pay for cigarettes for smokers, we don't pay for food for fat people, we shouldn't pay for birth control for sex junkies. I'm not positive about any of the insurance subsidies, but if someone wants to take the pill, does their insurance pay for it or is it considered a vanity pill like plastic surgery?
IMO, the bottom line is that schools and businesses have no reason to pay for this and should not be forced to take part in it.
You apparently don't read.
Employers pay for insurance for both smokers and fat people who jack up the premiums for the rest of us who are healthy because they use the insurance more often. So, effectively, we do pay for their cigarettes and for their food.
Regular people have sex lives, particularly in college. If you don't want to live in that reality, I guess you don't have to. Extrapolating that because I favor the use of birth control I must also favor indiscriminate sex and prostitution is like saying that because you favor gun rights you support murder. It's intellectually dishonest to use an argument like that and is fundamentally irrational.
I understand the basic feeling many people have that those who elect to have sex should understand and pay for its costs. However, insurance covers many things that are optional behaviors and birth control should be one of them. I believe the benefits to society as a whole and to the overall health and well-being of people far outweighs any harm to anyone's morals.
"I understand the basic feeling many people have that those who elect to have sex should understand and pay for its costs. However, insurance covers many things that are optional behaviors and birth control should be one of them." Then by that reasoning alone, they should pay for my ciggs or cigars.
We should not have to pay for this slut's disgusting lifestyle...
Ummm, was her phone number included in the article?
Nah.... But you can get all her phone details via the
Murdoch For$3000let'shackthebastardsoftheworld.xxx website
Just don't ask for an out of court settlement...
you've gotta play right down to the rubber!
In the UK contraception is freely available for everyone. Apart from being socially right contraception is cheaper than pregnancy whether the pregnancy goes full term or there is an abortion.
Where does "slutty" come from? Having sex? Having sex more often than me?
Please sexplain how contraception is socially right. Do you mean using it or getting it for free? (the contraception not the sex)
Well said Charles. At last, intelligent life in the universe! I could not have agreed more. This country has such atavistic and medieval attitudes towards sex and contraception. Folks, this is the 21st, not the 12th century when sex was only for marriage and procreation!
The plain and simple answer to this is, NO! We do not need to pay for somone else's sex life. This is exactly why the USA is broke. We keep paying for everyone else's crap. What they do is there business and as such it is for them to fit the bill. If we pay for this than what's next? "Um, I need 300 dollars for this spandex suit so I can spice up my sex life!"
I think you're being very short-sighted about this issue. If we don't include birth control as part of health insurance, people (and especially young people) will have more children AND more abortions. More young people having more children means more people on public assistance, which will cost taxpayers a lot more than the birth control. Some would say the solution to this is to cut public assistance programs. That saves taxpayers money in the short-term, but it also means a lot more people growing up in poverty. There is a direct link between poverty rates and crime rates, and higher crime rates tend to be more harmful to society than higher tax rates or higher health insurance premiums.
So we have a choice: we can pay for someone else's birth control today and live in a relatively peaceful society, or we can have some young thug rob us of the money at gunpoint 16 years from now, and there won't be enough police to catch him because municipalities will be broke (more poverty = smaller tax base).
"If we don't include birth control as part of health insurance, people (and especially young people) will have more children AND more abortions." I grew up in Brooklyn,NY and I lived a block away from the projects. Where thousands of people lived on welfare. Most of those people living there had more than 4 children. So, along with welfare they should get birth control.
Today I live in a suburb/rural area in NC where maybe 10-15% of the 30,000+ people living here are on welfare. The difference here is almost all the families here have 1-2 kids. That's it.
"or we can have some young thug rob us of the money at gunpoint 16 years from now, and there won't be enough police to catch him because municipalities will be broke" How is that any different than what is going on right now? Difference is we DO NOT pay for birth control right now, but we are broke anyway. In Cali and other states, police are so stretched that they can not make it to calls like, grand theft, larceny, B&E, so on.
So, I am actually being very far sighted when I say that if we pay for this now, (and there is no way of telling if people will even use them, is there) what else will be have to pay for in the future if we can make a good argument for it? Once again, this is why AMERICA is broke, and will stay this way.
America is broke because we spend an unfathomable amount of money on defense. Welfare programs are currently a very small fraction of government spending.
Preventative care has been a part of health insurance plans because it makes fiscal sense for everyone involved. Why should birth control be any different?
I would not consider 12% to be a "very small fraction". Add in school lunches and other food programs, medicaid, WIC, free cellphones and all the other charity uncle Sam hands out and it is closer to 50% than 12.
I think it depends on what we classify as government charity. The 2011 federal budget breakdown I'm looking at has welfare at 13%, and that includes a lot of the things you mentioned (food and nutrition assistance, for example, is about 1/5th of the welfare piece of the pie). When adding in the welfare portion of health care it's still only about 25%, and that's including a lot of things that are not generally considered "welfare", such as unemployment compensation, which is over 1/4th of the welfare slice even though it's a system employers pay into and requires prior employment for the receiver and therefore is not a true handout. The defense budget, pensions, and health care for seniors (which is a welfare program but you won't find any prominent politicians willing to touch that) made up about 60% of the 2011 budget.
The pieces of the budget that help the poor tend to be the most targeted by Republicans and conservative factions of the media despite representing such a small piece of the overall budget. I feel like one news story about a woman (the "welfare queen") who defrauded the welfare system 25 years ago continues to threaten an entire generation of people living in real poverty. When a $500 million budget item to provide free lunches to poor children receives more scrutiny than a $50 billion program to build fighter jets there is something wrong with the direction of political discourse and journalism in this country.
in Mexico I could get 10 years worth of loving for that
My God, we are devolving back to the 50s.
And there is no great outcry over the fact that Viagara is covered. As opposed to birth control, you only need Viagra if you want to have sex....
It is even worse when women can't understand it.
Viagra is covered not under any health plan, but as part of a national pipeline initiative
Did you really say pipeline initiative"?
Sounds like another dirty advancement by Canada, who just wants to lay their pipe down into Texas.
"New York state alone spent $6 million buying Viagra last year. You taxpayers must pay because Viagra is now covered by Medicaid"
To Uninvited Writer: No, we have not regressed to the 50s, we have regressed further to medieval Europe when women who were sexualized and independent were demonized and considered "fallen women" because they did not fit into the submissive, chaste archetype of the "perfect, feminine woman." It is sad that in the 21st century, women's sexuality and reproductive freedoms are scrutizined. How sad indeed!
But I bet most men still love the virgin idea, don'tcha? Double standards all around.
Uh hunh. I bet you're the type who love unwed mothers.
You love helping them get their start!
And do you expect the rest of us to pay for that love?
I think she's talking about keeping women barefoot and pregnant, aka needy.
We pay for people who eat fatty food and have heart attacks. We pay for old guys to get chemically enhanced boners. We pay for addicts to have methadone. We pay for other people who don't believe in condoms to whole whole soccer teams worth of babies.
So yes, we should pay for women to have access to contraception. It's only fair.
p.s. Even though the lady is not a member here, I object to her being called slut. If using contraception makes her one, you are calling me one too.
any woman who needs $3000 in birth control is either very naughty, or has a lucrative small business going.
In my single days, I needed well over $3000 a month in condoms... but that was because Goodyear charged $500 to rent one of the zeppelins
Seriously. 99% of women use contraception at some point during their lives, and about 80% of married women of childbearing age are using it at any given time. If having sex while married makes us sluts now, misogyny is really being taken to new and exciting heights. Shall I go invest in a company that makes chastity belts? How about scalpels for FGM? Surely needing a man to cut his way in will keep us nasty whores under control!
I'm suprised by those numbers if they're accurate. Would have thought they'd be a lot lower.
Women are fertile for roughly 30-40 years of their life and the average woman wants two children. If she waits until marriage to have sex and marries 15 years after becoming fertile, conceives within six months of starting to try for a baby, has two pregnancies, and breastfeeds for a year each, that's still 10-20 years where she's actively trying NOT to get pregnant and almost certainly on some form of contraception (not necessarily the pill).
The actual figures are from here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf
And I should pay for that why? Under what Constitutional authority does the Federal Government get that power?
Strictly speaking, we're talking about whether the federal government has the ability to force an employer or insurance company to cover contraception, and I believe the usual constitutional explanation given is the federal government's power to regulate commerce.
Exactly how much power the government has to regulate commerce is, of course, up for debate, but nearly all of the constitutional objections I've seen from conservatives on this issue have been based on the First Amendment and freedom of religion. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that probably counts for something.
Some people have a medieval mindset towards sex and reproduction. Wow, the double standard is alive and well........At least, Sandra Fluke is SMART enough to use contraceptives. Okay, her main grief is that Georgetown should include contraceptives in its health care plan. Well, there are tons of women who are irresponsibly having unprotected sex hence unwanted children that we are paying for in one way or another.......Give ma a break!
This isa great example of why we have such a mess in our political arena. There are so many different opinions -- with most only looking at the short sighted answer: "No! Why should I pay for someone else to have sex?!"
There are a lot of unwanted children out there. There are also a lot of wanted children out there, but who came along without being planned because the mothers did not have easy or inexpensive access to birth control. The very same people who do NOT want to pay for birth control are the very same people who do not want abortion and who also do not want our government to give welfare, food stamps or any other kind of assistance. What do you suggest then? That we have even more unwanted births and then do not feed, clothe, vaccinate or school them and then watch gleefully as the flies buzz around their emaciated litte bodies as they die slowly of starvation?
Conservatives need to pick one and stick to it: either wage war on unwanted pregnancy by offering FREE and EASY contraception use (i.e. the shot) or pay for the consequences. We do not live in a third world country and how ANYONE can consider driving by in their Cadillacs while watching children, who do not have a choice in ANYTHING, suffer is beyond my scope of understanding. Those folks should be deeply ashamed of their greed,their short-sighted lack of common sense and their lack of concern for their fellow men.
YOU said it...they don't want to help pay for birth control or unwanted kids and they don't want you to have an abortion...
Well I guess it's our fault for deciding to be female and not immediately becoming nuns : /
Bull. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's own actions? We spend more time in this country appeasing, apologizing, paying for, supporting, and looking the other way when we should be educating on responsibility. I don't really expect a government who is irresponsible to do that, though.
It's up to the parents, yes girls and boys, the parents, to educate. Not an easy task, granted, but nevertheless, we need to take responsibility for our actions, think before we - you know - and if we get into trouble, yes there should be a safety net. The problem is people expect the net without giving a second thought to avoiding the problem in the first place.
Um, isn't taking birth control avoiding the problem in the first place?
See your point but if you're a single young person, not having sex is avoiding a whole shitload of problems before they arise not the least of which is keeping your self respect. Now don't get on my case. Yes, there are some who can have all the sex in the world with confidence. But as a confidence builder or a pastime, it's not the best route for the young. I guess when I think of birth control, I automatically think of the young,
Define "young." These are a law students. I think Ms. Fluke and her friend have demonstrated they're responsible.
How is preaching chastity to someone 23+ and educated appropriate?
Somehow, the idea of telling someone studying torts and contracts and the civil code who may ultimately end up one day making our laws or even serving on the SCOTUS to stick an aspirin between her legs strikes me as ludicrous.
Yet that is the level of national discourse we're having on the subject of RESPONSIBLE sex.
The issue is about who pays for her contraceptives, not if she should stop being a pig.
To Mighty Mom: We need your logic. I was totally nonplussed when I saw this premise. I am still pinching myself- I believe that we are in the 21st century. Ms. Fluke is a responsible adult and she obviously know what she is doing. Sex is a natural and healthy function between consenting adults. Responsible adults use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I believe that Georgetown is a Catholic university and birth control is against the religion therefore it is not included in the health plan. Nonetheless, I understand Ms. Fluke's premise that contraception should be included in the health care plan.
Of course it should! They are using gvt to enforce their religion!
Websters Dictionary changed the defining of SLUT in the 21st century?
Yeah--it's now defined as senior citizen men who need help in the sleeping around dpt, and so get viagra from the tax-payers.
Why should taxpayers pay for any of this? State the Constitutional authority for this.
We are rich white men, and we say what goes.
End of story.
Try reading the Constitution. It may be a new experience.
Most of the programs the federal government places into effect are in no way associated with the Constitution. I would go as far as to say 75% of government programs are unconstitutional. The thing is, thanks to the Department of Education, we are to dumb to know this.
So basically every single woman who takes birth control and is not married is a slut? I thought a slut was a male or female who slept with anything that moved.
It's not like you take more birth control depending on how many people you sleep with.
And you continue to ignore the fact that a lot of women take birth control for medical reasons.
The issue is who pays for this desire, $3000,00 over 3 years is about 20 condoms a week. When does she study? She wants someone else to pay for her education & someone else to pay for her desires. She has no responsibility for anything.
You are not making sense. What do the number of condoms have to do with anything. They are not asking insurance to pay for condoms.
Again, a lot of women take birth control pills for health reasons...
Her friend takes birth control pills so cysts won't grow on her ovaries...that's what she was testifying to. That's what Issa didn't want to hear...just as much as he doesn't want to hear about the lewd sexual behavior practiced by many of those men in dresses who were speaking on behalf of all women.
My friend eats steak & lobster to maintain his weight. Are you gonna pay for that too?
So let's not pay for any prescription drugs at all then...why is birth control being made the scapegoat while items like Viagara are ignored and no one calls the users of that drug sluts.
If your friend gets high blood pressure from eating all that fatty food...we DO pay for it!
AS well as if he smokes those cancer-stick cigars, and drinks alcohol with his meal....everything we DO relates to our health...and 90% of tax-dollars are spent on the last year of people's lives!
You are discriminating against women because you don't think they deserve to have pleasure in sex! That's what I think.
Women & men need to pay for their own pleasures, that's called responsibility.
Not bringing an unwanted child into this world...that's responsibility.
Forcing a woman to give birth against her will.....
Doesn't matter....women are citizens of the United States, entitled to the same regard as old men in dresses.
Does matter---Nothing in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to regulate this. The 10th admendant CLEARLY religates this issue to each State.
So how come I have to pay car insurance? Everywhere I go.....no deviation.
And healthcare is a part of our pursuit of happiness. Can't be too happy if you're ill and needing care.
Ergo--it's un-American to force misery on a person. Allieviating misery is the goal.
We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are created equal. Well, you left me out, and didn't count others as men.
I say: WE are the Constitution, and we will decide what we deem Constitutional.
Me--a female citizen. Rights and safety included.
Wrong again. The Constitution can be admended if you can get the necessary votes, BUT your side can't. So you dream up stupid arguments to try to get your way.
lovemychris: You are succinct regarding your premise. The underlying issue is how dare a woman be sexually active and ask that her college insurance pay for her contraception! Oh horrors. I wish conservatives would leave women's bodies alone. Women's bodies, women's rights as long as they are responsible. You see the insidious double standard is alive and kicking well into the 21st century.
Conservatives are such odd fellows. They are totally atavistic and yearn for the good old days......when women are in their place-submissive and docile in addition to being barefoot and pregnant. To these conservatives, "good" girls don't......and "bad" girls do.
Why you think they like young boys?
And I'm not kidding. There is something WRONG with them!
Sounds a bit like talking out of both sides to me. On one hand, take responsibility, educate, educate....but then when the people are educated enough to actually WANT the ways and means to stop unwanted pregnancy, it is unavailable to them. I get sick of this silly nonsensical thinking in conservatism. Birth control pills and shots probably cost about 50 cents to manufacture and the shots even less. Yet we bow down to major pharmaceuticals at the expense of our people. Same goes for doctors who, like movie and rock stars, now expect to get rich the first year out and so make the cost of seeing a patient (if they even will and MANY WILL NOT) much higher for those without than those with insurance, making it highly COST PROHIBITIVE to get even basic gynecological services. I guess now, along with charging our citizens to visit National Parks, beaches and other public wonders available to those with money, we should just put a surcharge on sex for poor people, perhaps something similar to a public parking meter on the old chastity belt so it doesn't open with a monetary deposit showing that the users have enough to fund the evening's entertainment. Um, wait...that sounds a bit like....prostitution, but no, not if the woman is the one whose shoulders the burden falls on and then, it sounds just like business as usual, right?
You would be wrong, but that's normal for you.
People who love women don't go around calling them sluts.
Taking birth control pills doesn't even prove that she's sexually active, let alone sexually promiscuous, yet you persist in calling her a SLUT in nice big capitol letters all over this thread.
The shoe may or may not fit her, but it's glaringly obvious that the misogyny shoe fits you.
Just a lack of braincells, but forgive him he probably doesen't get any and is jealous of the "SLUT" (btw I mean taking the pill is something a married monogamous woman might do if she doesen't want another child) Prepare for a reply about how he is doing the horizontal fandango all night long, should be fun
But seriously the point is that this measure will overall save us money because we don't have to deal with as many pregnancies so it's great also having an early unwanted child has ruined many careers, careers that would have produced money and taxes.
Thank you Josak for your logical input regarding this subject. Using contraceptives is indeed imperative if a woman wishes to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Using contraceptives DOES NOT make a woman a slut but intelligent, savvy, and proactive. Amen, I have said my piece regarding this matter!
Well then, I guess if this does become a government subsidiary, than they will form an oversight committee to regulate it and just give some Congress men another stupid title. Also, since this will be more or less a "government program," they will make sure you get only the most expensive contraceptives taxpayers money can buy! Yes, I can't believe we don't have this already! Of course this will lead to more government regulation of medical insurance, but that part dosen't matter because we already have "OBAMACARE!"
Hmmm... have you really only been on HubPages for six weeks?
him and cassie....poison dart-throwers.
Repeat customers! IMO
I am going to be well.........tactful even as my temper is escalating. I must bide my venomous tongue and be ever so C-I-V-I-L! Well, certain birds of a feather( I am going to decline to state the two atavists to whom this apply to-they already know who THEY are) flock together. Let me paraphrase this- dodos usually flock together and we all know what became of the dodo bird!
I have plenty of responsibility. It sounds like you enjoy having all the fun and none of the responsibility. Your "humor" is getting old in a hurry and no, it is not okay to be sarcastic and witty at the expense of women. I tend to think you really mean it and the "humor" tags on your hubs are a cover so you can say exactly what you mean without repercussion. If you get your hand slapped too hard, you can fall back on it. Whether it is a joke or not, I am not amused.
To Connie: Pay that atavistic man no attention. We women have had the responsiblity for birth control. Yes, there is an issue regarding contraception because it is us women who use it. You see, there are some men who want women to be barefoot, submissive, and continuously pregnant. Well, if there was contraception for men, it would be quite a DIFFERENT tune, now would not be! If there was contraception for men, the government would not think twice about funding it! It seems that many men are threatened when a woman DARE to take control of her reproductive destiny!
I don't know about paying for her sluttiness, but maybe we could kick in to pay for a name-change for her. "Fluke" isn't the most flattering of names.
Intelligent women protect themselves. The price of prevention is a lot cheaper than an unwanted child who doesn't get its needs met. Again and again, I've seen it when I worked. Sure, you will have some shining stars in the bunch, but the rest end up in prison. Or addicted and abusive to everyone and everything around them. Give the woman what she wants and work contraceptives into the health care. And that goes for any woman who is responsible enough to ask for them.
Arlene - watch what you say. They'll rip you apart for insinuating that some women might not be smart enough to know what to do.
Arlene: You are preaching logic and sense. We need your wisdom on this forum. Amen. As I have said, Ms. Fluke was SMART enough to indulge in protective, contraceptive sex- there are some "women" who have unprotected sex hence unwanted babies and we have to pay for the support of the unwanted children in one way or another.
I believe that the premise of this forum is quite atavistic. First of all, the OP indicated that Ms. Fluke is slutty. Are we in Puritanical times when women who elected to "deviate" from the puriticanical norms were castigated with an "A"? The premise brought up reminds me of The Scarlet Letter. Well since Ms. Fluke wanted her health insurance to include contraception, she is the "S" word- oh my, horrors of all horrors. We are not in the 21st century, we are NOW in 1692 when women who dared to veer from the chaste norms of society were ostracized!
As a practical matter, it behooves all of us to listen up and pay attention to Ms. Fluke and her cohorts now, while they're still in law school.
Otherwise they'll graduate and sue our asses.
Okay so that's at least two for telling Fluke and her law school friends to pay their own way and the rest accept their slutty behavior without limits. In fact a couple want her phone number but since this was a democratic hearing, I'm thinking that she's going to be a very popular intern among the democrats so you guys might have to wait in line.
So to be clear: you think any woman who uses contraception other than celibacy is a slut. And that said sluts should not be offered birth control under the standard terms offered for any other preventative care.
You did well finding two people to agree with that.
Well of course we want sluts to be having kids left and right so we can pay for the well being of those kids also.....everybody wins with sluts right??
I mean the fact that we're not praising Sandra Fluke for even encouraging contraception among her peers is ridiculous. Rather people are calling her a slut for actually approaching the idea having a child with a level head? I guess we'd rather see every woman out there who wants to further their career and achieve non-domestic goals on shows like "19 and counting" (No offense to the duggers), than take preventative actions to ensure a better future for the coming generations.
Where is Ms. Fluke's sex life even documented here?
Do we know for a fact that Ms. Fluke herself is even sexually active?
For all we know, she could be a lesbian but championing this cause for her friend who needs birth control for a medical condition.
But regardless, resorting to calling Ms. Fluke "slutty" is the equivalent of the Russian newspaper Pravda calling Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "butch and a trucker type, possibly with tattoos."
Doesn't hurt the intended target one bit.
Hahahahahaha! Thank you for the heads up, couturepopcafe. If someone wants to rip me apart for what I put on the Forum, I will excuse myself and retreat to the bathroom to shampoo my hair with WEN shampoo. I am a woman with priorities. If anyone wants to rattle my cage, they can only try. And, they will need to stand in line.
The stats show that 95% of Americans have sex before/ outside of marriage. So conservatives and ideologues can either call everyone around them "sluts" and other derogatory names to feel better about themselves as they wallow in their self-righteous hypocrisy... or they can try to solve the problem.
Where contraception and safe sex is widespread and accepted without shame, there are fewer abortions, fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer problems generally. This is true within the US and internationally.
Terms like "sluts" and "whores" have lost meaning today anyway, as almost all women have sex outside of marriage. These words are mostly used by women to insult and shame each other, usually when one of them has a hot man on her arm and the other can't get laid.
There are a number of strands in this argument that have got tangled.
There may be an ideal that women should be virgins until marriage, and if they are not they are "sluts" - at least until they marry.
There is a different argument that if people choose to have sex they have had the pleasure themselves and society in general should not pay any of their health care costs be they contraception abortion or pregnancy.
While I do not agree with either argument there is at least some consistency and even integrity in them.
In all of the discussion above I note there is no suggestion that men should pay for contraception. Yet men are involved.
As a practical matter if a health care scheme pays for pregnancies it is a real money saver to pay for contraception as well.
Bring back Bill Clinton, the only US President to have presided over a significant drop in teenage pregnancies.
Re Clinton: no comment while I go vomit.
"males must be vasectomized at birth-reversible only when man can prove he is a responsible member of society."
"men need to have their spermducts regulated by the state."
Here's your answer...after all, it's the men who are the real pigs...and we need to snip their little snouts.
Let this pig pay for her own fun. She gets her education paid for, then wants us to pay for her SLUTTY behavior. $3000.00 over 3 years. That's about 20 condoms a week. She might be too tired to get to class.
Matters because you keep calling her a slut when you have no way of knowing how often she's having sex or even if she's having sex at all. You don't take birth controls on an as-needed basis, you take them daily whether you're having sex or not.
Still matters NOT--Why should I pay? waiting..............................
Because the insurance base pays for the healthcare of all people, according to their needs. And fertile women need healthcare relating to contraception and/or pregnancy.
Wrong--The insurer is a private business. As such, the insurer decides what to cover. You decide what to buy.
Nope. Insurance as the only method for accessing health coverage for employed persons is not entirely a discretionary industry, it is a Federally regulated right. That is why coverage cannot be refused to child born with congenital defect, amongst other things.
No, not End of. The only reason that fertile women need healthcare for contraception is to stop the correct operation of her body. That and she wants to play but not with condoms.
Psyche, medical insurance does not pay for hardly any non-necessary procedures/drugs. They will seldom pay for breast enlargement, for instance, or any other cosmetic surgery that isn't to repair damage or birth defect. Repair being the key word - to fix something that is wrong.
Medical insurance covering contraception is just another way to get someone else to subsidize a luxury. And yes, it is a luxury - sex without children is not a necessity although many would like to believe it is.
Sometimes birth control pills are a necessity...and often have nothing to do with sex. Why do you keep ignoring that fact.
I use the pill for contraception, and condoms for disease prevention. Because that's my informed choice based on my doctor's advice.
And fortunately I am the one who gets to make that choice. Constitutions are funny like that.
And I choose not to pay for your sex. Constitutions are funny like that.
No intention of ignoring that very true fact. But this thread is, I think, about contraception and who pays for it, not about any other benefits from the pill. Anyone needing the pill for reasons other than contraception should absolutely find it on their insurance "list".
Not true. Birth control is merely a pleasant side benefit for my sister. She needs them to control various hormonal problems that result, among other things, in her fainting several times a period when she's not on them.
I very carefully phrased that post to indicate healthcare for contraception not any other benefits from the pill.
I fully recognize that there are other problems the pill can help - my wife took it for years for just that reason. Just like your sister the contraception was a pleasant side effect and not the reason for taking the drug.
Oh maybe things like caring for your fellow man. Paying back some of the benefits you received in your life. Believing that a society should care about its citizens... You know, biblical stuff...
Go get some from Planned Parenthood
If they sold the pill at gas stations for $5 that would be a fair comparison.
Also if all men took responsibility for contraception....
contraception is part of sexual health and sexual health is part of overall health, and thus such it should be part of overall health care plan.
Slutty, LOL - 76 percent (3 out of 4) of active men and women in the US use contraception, almost the same with Canada. The number of children desired here in the US is two. How can you achieve that without using contraception for almost thirty years of being fertile. Women are fertile from 15-44 years old.
If the US through the USAID help developing countries by providing financial assistance to distribute contraceptives, how much more to its citizens.
By that logic, how about free food for everyone? Thats necessary for health too.
I totally agree...and so should the church, as they live here tax free...free food is the LEAST they can do!
by giving assistance to women achieve their reproductive goals and plan for the number of children they desire (or they don't desire at all), and of course together with their partner (married or not), you are giving service to the whole society and thus such we are all helping solve the problem of food security.
that is how society rolls and proceed, like it or not
A fundamental fact that's relevant to this thread:
Abstinence education has been a complete failure because it's resulted in an increase, not a decrease, in teen pregnancy.
gmwilliams, thank you. When you work around people in pain, most of the problem is that they were unwanted children. I know. I've read their files and know all their stories. I took enough crap for them lashing out at me for no reason. You cannot fix what is so broken. Hey, I've done a lot of dumb things when I was young. But at the same time, I'm not going to go into the business of making chastity belts. When you learn from your mistakes and don't repeat them, that's good enough. But if you bring in innocent baby into the world because of your lack of good judgement and responsibility? And put the bead into the child's head that he or she is unwanted? I don't care who you are. Shame on you! And "problem" this swings both ways.
That's right...No More Unwanted Babies! Take care of the ones we have here now!
To Arlene: I had an aunt who was brilliant and a straight A student. When she was a teenager, she become pregnant. Her future was ruined, no college. After high school graduation, she had to work at a factory job. Her youth was in tatters. She hated her life and was miserable.
She did not want her child. The child was left in the care of her mother. I saw this firsthand. This is why I staunchly believe in contraceptive education for teenagers and young people. I believe if one is going to indulge in sex, one must be protected. I have seen girls whose lives were ruined because of unexpected pregnancies. Besides the girls, think about the unwanted children. As I have said before, no child shoul be unwanted. Honestly, some of these people are just rambling ad infinitum according to their atavistic, conservative consensus without actually thinking about the importance of sexual and contraceptive health which there is a correlation. Why is America so behind the times when it comes to intelligent sexual health and attitudes!
"No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.
The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women’s health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced." --Sandra Fluke
I do believe Issa will rue the day.
"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature"
GOP Congressman on birth control: "We're not talking about scientists! I'm asking about religious beliefs!"
Uh HUH....using gvt to enforce his religious beliefs....quell UN American!
The crazy conservatives have gone off the deep end and fallen into the 19th century. This thread is a reflection of how ridiculous they've become. Laughingstocks!
See, I am a responsible non-slut... No contraceptives at all and children 5 and 6 on the way (God loves me so much he's giving them to me in twos now)
Yep... no pills for me like those slutty law students! Every woman should be as blessed as me. That many kids to take care of and none of us will have the time to concern ourselves with mans business...
Then what about prostitute? I would guess that they can get both male and female contraceptives for free right? I know they have to go to the free clinic and all, but where is this gonna end??
Tell me about it!
Viagra..what's next...porno movies?? Penthouse nmagazines for free, cause the poor guy can't function?
Will we have to pay for pornonline.com?
When will it end?
Comparing 1 wrong to another makes neither right.
Honestly, why have healthcare at all? I mean--that would save a lot of money, and we wouldn't bother anyones religious views.
Hey..you need an army to fight those wars...go ask a bishop!
"Comparing 1 wrong to another makes neither right."
I think both are right. I think healthcare is a right and a neccessity for all citizens.
I think if we had single-payer universal, we could afford more, at a WAY cheaper rate.
Then maybe we wouldn't have to squabble about womens health.
Because God knows, NO ONE squabbles about your viagra!
healthcare is a right----Where is it listed in the Bill of Rights?
Pursuit if Happiness, General Welfare.
Caring for ALL citizens, regardless of race, creed, national origin...MUST I school you?
Do you honestly believe that the right to contraceptives being paid for by other than those that desire them is in the Constitution? WOW!
Yes, I am a citizen, my healthcare matters.
...just as much as your sex life.
My sex life is no concern of yours, the governments or anyone else's.
Then why should I or anyone besides yourself have to pay for your contraceptives? If I pay, then I have rights. No pay, no rights.
Besides where in the Constitution does it say I have to spend MY hard earned money on YOUR healthcare? I pay my own way, you should too!
It may say provide for the general welfare, but it doesn't say provide welfare to anyone and pass the cost on to others.
What happens when all the workers decide it is easier to go on welfare than work? Then we have no one to pay for welfare. Or anything else. Perhaps you have not heard of the axiom about killing the golden goose? Oh that's right Obama didn't write it so it couldn't possible be relevant.
Ummmm, women do pay for health insurance...YOU want to take contraceptives out of it.
Something Bush never did....and this was never an issue back then.
Hmmmm, geeee, gosh and golly...I wonder why?
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. We're talking about requiring health insurance companies to provide birth control coverage free of charge, but if you have private or employee provided insurance then you do pay premiums, thus you're not actually getting something for nothing by getting "free" birth control. Most insurance plans cost substantially more than the $83/month Sandra Fluke is talking about for birth control pills.
Text taking from the Constitution which implies the right to contraceptives...
1. The Constitution was devised "to form a more perfect Union". Condoms help to do just that.
2. "House of Representatives shall be composed of Members". One's 'Member' should be protected when they are in the ''house'
3. Article 1, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay.."
4. "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies" (known as the 'Bill Clinton clause')
It's a good thing were not around a camp fire with this discussion!
The Constitution allows for admending. You can't get the votes to do it.
Why stop at contraceptives? Given the same theory... that insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for someone's sexual habits... then prenatal care, and labor and delivery shouldn't be paid for either.
Come to think of it, why should they have to pay for well baby checkups and pediatric care either? After all, children are just the result of somebody's sexual habits.
Insurance Companies are PRIVATE business that can decide what they are insuring against. The Government has no Constitutional authority change that.
Glad they didn't tell my dad that when he had prostate cancer.
Of course, he's a man, so they wouldn't.
Did he know what he was buying insurance for? Of course he did, he's a man.
Well, yeah...but he had to SWEAR he wasn't having sex with my mom before they insured him.
sex is bad
bad...and don't you forget it.
Yes, even in the womb....I used to hear it in my little ears...."I am woman hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore".
Always did have high testosterone. Good thing too. So many don't want equality. It's very hard to fight all the time just for that.
But this is America...We DO hold these truths to be self-evident. I am equal.
Rush wants to watch the women have sex.
Hey....Howard Stern was fired for less.....
Is everyone afraid of this dirt-bag?
Interesting thread. It seems to break down between those that believe sex is evil and society should have nothing to do with subsidizing it and those that believe women are short-changed if society does not provide birth control for them.
The idea that Viagra is equivalent to the "pill" has been brought up several times, but this is a red herring. Medical insurance is designed to share the costs to "fix" what is "broken" with our bodies. Viagra does this - a man that can't have sex due to injury, illness or simply age finds his potency restored to usable levels. The pill, on the other hand, interrupts correct functioning of the body, making a part of what should work unusable. If you want to compare, compare the pill to condoms; if the pill is to be purchased by society, then condoms need to be free, too. Fair is fair, and if women get free contraception so should men.
At the same time, free contraception is NOT medical insurance. It is welfare - society providing what someone doesn't want to pay for or can't pay for. It has absolutely nothing to do with sharing the costs of needed medical care. Only in this regard should the ethics of contraception or sex be considered; if society is footing the bill for another charity program it has the right to consider the ethics and morals of that action. To claim that medical costs will go up due to childbirth or other costs as a result of unprotected sex is a useful form of blackmail, but that is all that it is.
A couple of posters have indicated that contraception should be free (and is in the UK), but this is silly. No company has employees they don't pay and use raw materials they don't buy to provide free anything. Contraception costs money and work: the demand for free contraception is really a cry for someone else to pay for it. It is a demand that it be subsidized by those not using it (elderly, monks and faithful spouses that want children perhaps) to lower the costs that would otherwise be necessary. If that is the way you feel - that someone else needs to subsidize your entertainment - may I request a subsidy for the cruise I want to take as well? Fair is fair, after all.
"only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons"
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011 … index.html
And planning for children is a MUST.
Sorry if you want women to jump through hoops for such a basic medical thing!
BTW...condoms are free....Planned Parenthood gave them out, as do college medical centers.
Birth control is a basic supplement and should be free and plentiful. Just because you have a moral objection does not give you the right to deny its addition to insurance.
The only way contraceptives can be considered a basic and necessary supplement (whatever that means) is if we agree that self control is not possible for us. We just can't control our desire for sex; it has complete control over our mind. Nor is birth control ever free (except abstinence) - someone pays for it.
And no, I have no moral objection to sex as long as one has not promised to remain "faithful".
Ahhh, the joys of stealing money from one group of people in order to give to another!
Instead of saying "quit stealing my money at ALL", people say "should we do this, or this?"
Brilliant how you're all controlled by propaganda.
"Every one of the GOP candidates needs to be asked to respond to Limbaugh's comments."
and every single female talking head on Fox and hate talk radio.
You ever notice how good those female talking heads look? I have, and they are the reason Fox gets the ratings.
It's so funny, the rest of the Western world has no problem with birth control and who pays. Only the US...
I know how to solve this, if women can't get coverage for birth control then all women should refuse all sex. That'll get the men to change their minds in a hurry.
To Uninvited Writer: Right-on girl! For centuries, men in political and religious power have denigrated women and controlled their bodies. Well, enough is definitely enough. Well, I have one thing to say, my anatomy is not my destiny. Ms. Fluke is correct to assert that contraception should be included in her health care insurance.
Women have the right to the access of contraception. Yes, Georgetown should include contraceptive medicine in its health insurance. What is the big deal, anyway! Is contraception such an unmentionable and forbidden subject-tsk, tsk! The conservative and religious atavistic elements are rearing up their vampiric fangs, folks- it is time to drive a proverbial stake in their old sod beings as the light of reasoning did not enlighten them! Such dinosaurs- and we all know what eventually happened to dinosaurs, don't we?
The doofus who brought this all up by calling Fluke a "prostitute", Rush Limbaugh, is a fat, former drug-addict. Why should my insurance premiums subsidize his treatment? He made a choice to be fat and he made a choice to use drugs.
The issue of "personal responsibility" is IRRELEVANT to this argument because insurance covers all kinds of personal choices.
There's insurance for fat people.
There's insurance for smokers.
There's insurance for people who drive too fast.
There's insurance for people who talk on their cell phones while riding their bikes one-handed.
There's insurance for people who ski.
There's insurance for people who drink alcohol.
All of these people are at a higher risk of accidents and doctor's visits and they raise the insurance premiums for those who do not engage in these activities.
And each of those insured pay a premium for that coverage. The SLUT wants it for free.
Sir, through your comments you've demonstrated that you don't read and/or don't understand very much and are a sexist. Your reference to a woman who probably has a normal sex life and had the courage to testify before Congress as a "slut" makes you a disgusting, sad person with little or no intellectual honor.
Ms. Fluke wants contraception covered under her insurance policy. She pays a premium for that policy like any other student.
And here's an amazing irony. Georgetown, where Ms. Fluke goes to school, already covers contraception with their employee health plans. They don't cover it for their students. So there's already subsidization for sexual activity at Georgetown for the people who work there.
Well, wouldn't you know.....
Bain Capital owns Clear Channell....Russsshhhhh's enablers.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv … savage-etc
SOMEbody should get on the radio and call him a peadophile...see how he likes it.
How long before that person was fired, you think.....3 minutes?
Yes, I know, because it's such a "liberal" media. snark
Besides, if I was a woman dating a guy that couldn't afford condoms, I'd have to rethink my dating philosphy, not to mention my standards.
Hey--remember when Letterman made a joke about Palin's daughter? Remember the up-roar? He had to apologize!
Ed Shultz had to apologize to Ingraham because Malkin made such a fuss....
Ladies...what are you, women, or rats?
FYI: Select Comfort/Sleep Number just dropped Rush Limbaugh. http://twitpic.com/8r3axj -- Great work all! Onward we go...
"Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program."
Only more can follow....Hoist him on his own peetard...money. Or lack thereof.
I thought I'd listen in on the conversation today so turned my radio dial to my local Fox station. Didn't catch Rush, but Tom Sullivan was talking about it.
One thing I found highly hypocritical.
He suggested that women can get all the free birth control they want at...
you will never, ever guess where....
I kid you not.
The same PP that your cohorts are actively working to defund?
You heard it right, folks.
A Foxs News radio host sending people to Planned Parenthood.
I about crashed my car from laughing/crying/screaming while driving.
Yeah...that's what you call Limbaugh Logic.
Same logic that wants to force you to give birth, then throw you to the wolves.
Same logic that calls for drug addicst to be thrown in jail, while being a drug addict!
Yep..he didn't make those millions by being a college grad. Santorum must be proud.
The synopsis is Republicans + conservative atavists x chauvinistic/fundamentalist/ultratraditional philosophy/religiosity to the 10th power= persons opposed to the equal rights of all, particularly women!
Yes, well I tried to make it fair once, but they weren't interested.
They have a church here where they used to display fetuses in a jar when you first walked through the door...
So I asked of I could display pictures of babies born to mothers who had been subjected to depeleted uranium.
No go. Not interested. One track mind.
Only abortion is wrong.
Only birth control is bad.
Only women must be heeled.
Agent Orange...how long did that take before we admitted it caused death?
Gulf War Syndrome....how long?
It's the easy and, as you say, atavistic things they go after...you don't have to think too much, just react.
I love how a woman is claimed for her "slutty behavior" for trying to be responsible and perhaps it is for painful periods or something more serious. I don't expect the male commentators to grasp what a painful period is like, as they say if men were to bear children we would be extinct. Yet, it is the majority of the men that tend to have the most to say about this topic.
When a man is very sexually active he is deemed a stud, yet when a woman states any place or stature of her sexual activity, she is a slut. Perhaps the men should be the ones to worry about birth or a period and begin to take a daily contraceptive, then perhaps they may see the other side.
I am just saying, let's be fair and switch the tables.....
Now let the "hating" continue.
Right-on regarding your insightful premise. According to Republican and other atavistic conservative elements, the proper woman is to be pure, sexless, and virginal. Oh heavens of heavens, if she has relations, it is to be with her husband and only for the purpose of procreation. She is even not to have sex for pleasure and should always be in the submissive position therein.
These neolithic elements maintain that no decent woman should elect to be sexual. Oh no, true, feminine women are not sexual at all. Women are supposed to grin and bear it. These elements further purport that it is men who are the sexual species. Men are sexual and it is so natural for them to be sexual and to have as many conquests(wink, wink, wink ad infinitum) as possible; after all, it is the male prerogative!
Women are to stay sweet and virginal while men can be as sexual as they want. If a woman dares to be independent and sexual and/or in other words, not in her assigned place, she is called all sorts of names. Well, I say #$%##@@! to that, we women have the right to be as sexual and independent as men and advanced contraceptive technology aids to their sexual freedom. This is the postmodern era, neolithic Republicans and their allies/collaborators-women are liberated, independent, and sexual-yes, we have unbridled sex and use protection-welcome to the 21st century and the real world! The age of the submissive doormat and asexual woman is dead-if she ever existed! To jenubouka, let us intelligent and liberated women make our voices heard regarding this outmoded post! Amen to you, sister and peace be to you!
Except for Bristol Palin, of course. She is a positive role model for conservatives, having unprotected sex outside of marriage resulting in pregnancy.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erb … -for-teens
I mean, compared to being a law student at Georgetown University, unwed motherhood and reality TV star are virtuous and noble goals.
Oh thank you Gmwilliams, I think you also nailed it on the head!
Any man that would enjoy a woman just lying back and "taking it" is a load of sh$t. Or they have some serious issues with how they view how sex should be enjoyed.
PrettyPanther! Fine example, fine example indeed!
Offering contraception as part of healthcare is what freedom means in America. As a free nation, our forefathers felt this was an important right and somewhere in the Bill of Rights is found our right to sexual freedom without the consequences. I personally haven't found it and would be surprised if it were included yet politicians continue to believe it is their role to mandate and define freedoms removing consequences. Consequences when understood change behavior. Politicians today have to have a purpose. They believe their purpose is to make the decisions for individuals. Isn't this what China has done? Government needs to understand its role based on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It isn't in our best interest as citizens for our poliicians and government to continue to mandate morals and define freedoms. It is only the beginning of the death of America as we know it which worries me.
Birth control and contraception is a necessary component in a progressive, modern society. People are complaining about paying for other's people contraception. Well, I have news for those folks. We have been paying taxes for unwanted children, especially those on public welfare- it is called Aid to Dependent Children. I rather be paying for someone else's contraception than to be constantly paying for the aftereffects of those who elect not to use birth control but nevertheless have unprotected sex thus unwanted children.
Where does it end? In a free modern society, individual consequences should govern the use of birth control and contraception not the government. Even if birth control and contraception are provided doesn't mean it will be used. There will always be unwanted children in a society. China, a modern progressive society identifies girls as unwanted children. In America, we allow abortion as an option. The belief government provided birth control and contraception is the answer It is up to government to assist with illness not the symptoms. If this is justified, then there is justification for payment of liposuction to allow more Americans to eat more to become overweight. Lets pay for all the electronic cigarettes to prevent people from getting cancer. Lets pay for botox preventing the issues of age from creeping in. Ridiculous, probably, yet they fall within the same category as providing birth control and or contraceptives.
The ones that think the government should pay for this kind of garbage should be the ones who are taxed to pay for it. Send the IRS an extra check. Have the guts to back up your convictions. OH that's right, you want others to pay for your desires.
a perspective from the Patriot Post...
One of the free contraception mandate's more vocal supporters testified this week before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee about how tough life can be without free birth control. The hearing was nothing more than a showpiece for the issue with a single witness, Sandra Fluke (is there a pun here?), a Georgetown law student and self-professed "reproductive rights activist." Fluke made the absurd claim that free contraception is a necessity at her school, which currently doesn't provide it. "Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy," she complained. Of course, the HHS mandate has nothing to do with university students, but that's beside her point.
Fluke asserted that contraception could cost $3,000 through three years of law school. That's a lot of money to spend on protected sex over that time frame. In fact, humorist Frank J. Fleming quipped, "Anyone buying that much contraception should probably be writing it off on her taxes as a business expense." Fluke's assertion that she and other women have an absolute right to contraception at someone else's expense is disturbing. There is no right to sex free of consequences. Fluke also implies that the women of Georgetown law have no control over their urges or actions, all the while thinking she's standing up for women's rights. When did "get your laws off my body" become "you have to pay for the stuff that goes into my body"?
Have you priced the cost of a birth on todays market? Have you considered, whether youre of child bearing age or not, your premiums will go up with each birth? DO the math.
my main and only point is that government has no Constitutional purpose being involved in the life of citizens to this degree... especially to try to force taxpayers to pay more for the lifestyle choices of others...people need to take care of themselves more...it is not a cut and dry issue with most of the entitlement aspects government currently is involved in...but this one is easily out of lignment with the top Constitutional freedom of religion
Fine. Let's stop paying for the heart attacks of fat Mississippians (a red state) who have the highest rate of obesity due to their lifestyle choices. Oh, and also cigarette smoking Kentuckians (another red state) who contract cancer, COPD, emphysema and asthma because of their addictive, irresponsible behavior.
And while we're at it, let's stop paying for those teen pregnancies which occur at a higher rate in southern states filled with self-described Christians.
Shall I go on?
Those who kvetch about paying for contraception in health plans or as conservative pundits proclaim "the lifestyles of others." Well, I am childfree and pay taxes for schools i.e. the lifestyle of those who have children. Let me reiterate, all of us are one and we all pay for each other's lifestyles in one way or another. To be more succinct, it is better to pay for contraception in health plans that to pay taxes for the children of unwed teenaged or other mothers who were too negligent and/or stupidly ignorant to use birth control in the first place! To PrettyPanther, you are being intelligent in your premise which is levels beyond the understanding of some neolithic and unenlightened folks!
The lack of education on this topic is ridiculous. A woman takes the pill every day whether or not she is sexually active... The argument "anyone bying that much contraception" is meaningless.
This is a health issuee. I don't have children, should i refuse to pay school taxes? Do one is telling YOU to pay for it, they are asking insurance to cover it, like they cover viagra. Your country is becoming such a backward one i am afraid.
Amazing how some of the responses twist what many are saying. Fact is people engage in sex. Darnit, I said the "S" word. So we can make birth control pills part of one's insurance (which many states already do), or have more abortions, or those complaining can watch their insurance rates go up, evertime an employee has a birth of a baby. Many are so worried about cost and this socalled moral objection, I can only assume they want to support more unwanted children or pay for more births? Or perhaps those complaining used the aspirin trick? lol And what about the guys that are involved? Are they not responsible? Why only the women? Maybe instead, we should ask all those guys in favor of this to get fixed? Now that's an option we might need to consider? I always thought it took TWO to TANGO?
That this is a fake issue is one thing. The problem is: why is women's birth control is being brought up almost exclusively?
Why should I pay for some guy's Viagra or penile enlargement?
Of course it does. Think about the Roman Catholic and other fundamentalistic religions who believe that the sole purposes of women are to be wives and mothers. To elucidate further in the case of the Roman Catholic religion, the highest calling that a woman can be is a nun i.e. subservient to the male authority of priests, monsignors, archbishops, cardinals, and ultimately, the pope. The Roman Catholic religion atavistically states that no woman should be a priest. The Roman Catholic religion is one of the most misogynic religions around- it is totally against contraception and the right to abortion-i.e. in other words, women are to be continuously pregnant until menopause. The other Christian religions, especially the more fundamentalist such as Baptist, maintain that women should be totally submissive to their husbands. Even though these religions are misogynic in their premise, the main support for these religions are you guessed it-women! Go figure. I know I am digressing but women need to claim their beings and not be subjected to atavistic and misogynic ideologies regarding their personhood!
Yes--they worship Mother Mary, but forget her other aspects.
They forget it is women who hold life, and whose babies it is that they send to war. When they deem it necessary--ending life is a-ok. I think they are jealous, so they must keep her down.
Otherwise...why do they not go around condemning God for mis-carriage?
Because they think it's ok when Father God makes it happen.
Just read on Huffington Post that Limbaugh has apologized. It was a lame apology and of course, just done because he has been dropping advertisers. The latest, Carbonite's CEO, David Friend, said ""No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady," and that Limbaugh had "overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency." This was done AFTER Limbaugh had already apologized.
I was so impressed that I checked out to see what kind of product Carbonite manufactured or sold, and found that it was online backup. Having lost 26 chapters of a book when my computer crashed a few years ago and someone STEALING my external hard drive that I bought (with four short stories on there that I had been working on for years -- and the pin drives that I had backed them up to as well...), I immediately decided to support his decision and order the product. I was also impressed to see the first "free trial" offer that is actually a free trial. No credit card until the 15 day free trial is up. I really am impressed.
by Chris Mills4 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by TMMason5 years ago
---"Abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans, as revealed by CDC statistics. In the latest reported year, there were over 363,705 abortions and 289,306 total deaths from all other causes. Yet, this is...
by PJ Jones4 years ago
I was going to try to do a Hub on this subject. But Iam very curious about what men have to say about this subject. Why do republican men want to take away needed health services for women? It's not just...
by amymarie_54 years ago
I take birth control pills for medical reasons. I have PCOS. Without it, my hormones would be imbalanced and I'd be at risk for uterine cancer. There are many women like me. I find it disturbing that those...
by Joelipoo4 years ago
Obama just made a statement about changing his mandate that religious organizations must provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. This has caused an uprising becuase it infringes upon religious...
by SparklingJewel4 years ago
Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, blasted the news as a “profound violation of religious liberty.”“The reality is that the HHS mandate forces...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.