Fluke enjoyed a "lovely trip to Barcelona" before asking for free birth control.

[Seawytch]

I've attended several universities and never was I mandated to carry insurance. Course it's been years since I attended.....so who is responsible for the mandate?

It's getting more common now. My daughter is a junior at Duke and they have a mandate as well. I don't see what the relevance to a mandate from a college one chooses to attend to the discussion is anyway.

They require you to carry health insurance, therefore they need to provide free birth control...

Nope, don't get it.

If they are paying premiums for health insurance, it's not "free". That's another Rush lie.

BC requires a prescription from a doctor, that is also not "free".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fluke enjoyed a "lovely trip to Barcelona" before asking for free birth control.

Yet another conservative who just doesn’t get it.

The issue was never about affordability but availability, and efforts by some employers, universities, and other providers to subjectively and capriciously withhold insurance based on religious dogma, not objective fact, where whether one can afford to pay out-of-pocket for contraceptive services or not is irrelevant.

 

[mudwhistle]

I've attended several universities and never was I mandated to carry insurance. Course it's been years since I attended.....so who is responsible for the mandate?

It's getting more common now. My daughter is a junior at Duke and they have a mandate as well. I don't see what the relevance to a mandate from a college one chooses to attend to the discussion is anyway.

They require you to carry health insurance, therefore they need to provide free birth control...

Nope, don't get it.

So who is responsible for these mandates?

Seems to me somebody has been setting this fight up for years.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Fluke enjoyed a "lovely trip to Barcelona" before asking for free birth control.

Yet another conservative who just doesn’t get it.

The issue was never about affordability but availability

Yep.

Prescription contraceptives not available for students.

I am sure gender reassignment surgery and breast augmentation isnt either.

 

[mudwhistle]

Fluke enjoyed a "lovely trip to Barcelona" before asking for free birth control.

Yet another conservative who just doesn’t get it.

The issue was never about affordability but availability, and efforts by some employers, universities, and other providers to subjectively and capriciously withhold insurance based on religious dogma, not objective fact, where whether one can afford to pay out-of-pocket for contraceptive services or not is irrelevant.

Yeah, the purpose of all of this is to shove a red hot poker up those Bible-Bangers asses and make those who pay premiums pay for the fun.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Here you go again, a perfect example. Can't even get their minds around the idea of something being a RIGHT that should be available to EVERY woman, can they? If it's not about "me," then it must be about some "friend of mine."

I don't know, this is almost reaching the point of looking like a lot of crippled brains.

There is no right to birth control. That's the first problem with this whole vein of idiocy.

you're a very confused and ignorant person

why should insurance companies get out of paying for prescription medication because of a bunch of religious nutters?

and just for the record... it is a right:

Let me introduce you to Griswold v Connecticut.

Griswold v. Connecticut | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Birth control is a product, not a right.

I swear, every time liberals get a bug up their ass about something they always resort to calling it a "right".

 

[Wacky Quacky]

There are really only two issues here:

1) Should contraception be considered a basic medical expense and coverage be required? And,

2) If so, should non-religious institutions that are owned by religious institutions receive an exemption from that requirement if the values of the religion call for it?

(Note that religious institutions themselves do receive exemptions and no one is advocating to the contrary, so that's a non-issue.)

Nothing else -- not the personal character of any person advocating either side of this issue, in particular -- is of any importance or significance. This entire thread is a red herring.

A very well laid out look at the issue.

I stop at #1. Insurance providers are private companies, and should be allowed to cover or not cover whatever they want. Need something that a provider doesn't cover, switch providers. Insurance too high because a provider is giving you a bunch of crap you don't need, switch providers. That's what I would like to see.