Honest question: Why is it so important for liberals.......

To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

no it's not... its a troll... an honest quesiton wouldn't have presumed anyone wants to impact your "freedoms".

Wouldn't you say that liberals presume conservatives want to impact our "freedoms" all the time? Think about the abortion debate. How many times has a liberal told a pro-life person to stay out of the liberals womb? or conservatives are trying to take away a woman's right to choose?

Maybe you are saying that there are a lot of dishonest liberals out there too?

Immie
 
Nay, read the constitution again a little slower and all the words. Ok!
Nice try.

try it yourself...

Article 1,Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

1ST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and you understand none of that, whining eagle. try reading the words in bold

"general welfare" did not refer to birth control...or the lobotomy you had...or even health insurance for that matter....
 
Nay, read the constitution again a little slower and all the words. Ok!
Nice try.

try it yourself...

Article 1,Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

1ST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

As should you..





Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It's a Constitution for ALL AMERICANS.

....and your point is.....?
 
Well, the obvious answer is the more women on birth control the fewer abortions will be performed. The reason the GOP made a big deal about insurance covering birth control is ... drum roll please ... without abortion how could GOP demagogues get the social conservaties to vote against their best interests.
So no one should be able to opt out of birth control coverage ( if they want insurance) in order to prevent more abortions....that is the weakest excuse for abridging a liberty interest I have yet heard.

Um, why not respond to my post and not make shit up. Oh, of course.

If the GOP were opposed to abortion, they would have put anti abortion legislation on the table when they held both houses of Congress and GWB was President. Today the House has focused on abortion - and ignored real job legislation - because they know the GOP can only win if there exists wedge issues to exploit.

The evidence is clear, and BTW, it seems the Liberty Interests of women are the only liberty issue under attack today - yet the right continues the drum beat of God, Guns, Gays and Abortion.

Why respond to your question? It has nothing to do with the OP. and I do not know why you believe it is only the liberty interests of women under attack. This whole thread is about a liberty interests previously enjoyed by every American, and exercised by millions, that was wiped away with the swipe of a pen. A liberty interest whose exercise and existence harmed nobody. And it seems to make the left cheer.
 
Well, the obvious answer is the more women on birth control the fewer abortions will be performed. The reason the GOP made a big deal about insurance covering birth control is ... drum roll please ... without abortion how could GOP demagogues get the social conservaties to vote against their best interests.
So no one should be able to opt out of birth control coverage ( if they want insurance) in order to prevent more abortions....that is the weakest excuse for abridging a liberty interest I have yet heard.
everyone has the right to opt out on birth control....they just don't have to get it for themselves....don't take it if it is against your religion, simple as that....

But they still have to subsidize it, if their policy is mandated to include it.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

The problem with your OP is that you start off with an ignorant over generalization and premise. Are all conservatives a homogenous group and think exactly the same? How are they allegedly " remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control"?

By eliminating the option of purchasing health insurance that does not cover birth control.
 
What really is it any business of yours?

That's pretty honest.

Women should have the choice of whether they want these sort of services or not.

It's up to the indivdual. Not a religion.
What business is it of mine? I am the one paying for my policy! I am a citizen that previously had the right not to purchase birth control coverage. I agree that women should have the right to these services. That is not even at issue. No one is banning contraceptives, or even arguing that policies must not include such coverage. But millions of citizens quietly exercised a freedom that is all but erased. Clearly, that freedom means nothing to you, but to many others it is extremely important. Women will have the choice whether they want these services no matter what. Why do you want to remove my ability to make that decision? That is what makes it my business.

You are paying for your policy. You aren't "purchasing" birth control for anyone. Just like you aren't "purchasing" viagra for anyone. But both those items are available to people purchase THEIR policy.

But if I am forced to purchase a policy that covers either one, I am subsidizing those purchases. And that offends millions. Which seems ridiculous, given that those religious beliefs are easily accommodated.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Birth control is considered preventative health care, as are many other things. But the only preventative health care Republicans want to deny is birth control.

You can't get any more sexist than that, fucktard.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Birth control is considered preventative health care, as are many other things. But the only preventative health care Republicans want to deny is birth control.

You can't get any more sexist than that, fucktard.

I am not sure that there has been any push whatsoever to prevent any policy from including birth control. The push is to have the tolerant left allow employers and employees the option to purchase coverage that does not include birth control. Prior to the arrival of The One Who WouldMakeThe Seas Retreat, every American had that right. Perhaps not the ability, but the liberty to do so was permitted by the feds. So, the issue is not sexism, it's intolerance of the exercise of religious beliefs, which, incidentally, hurt no one.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Birth control is considered preventative health care, as are many other things. But the only preventative health care Republicans want to deny is birth control.

You can't get any more sexist than that, fucktard.

I am not sure that there has been any push whatsoever to prevent any policy from including birth control. The push is to have the tolerant left allow employers and employees the option to purchase coverage that does not include birth control. Prior to the arrival of The One Who WouldMakeThe Seas Retreat, every American had that right. Perhaps not the ability, but the liberty to do so was permitted by the feds. So, the issue is not sexism, it's intolerance of the exercise of religious beliefs, which, incidentally, hurt no one.
No, you're confused. People can make the choice themselves. What shouldn't be done is allow the employer to make the choice for you.
 
It's cheaper: birth control is cheaper than pregnancy.

Why are you in favor of unplanned pregnancy?

I am not. And yes, birth control is cheaper than pregnancy. Is that why you think all Americans must be forced to purchase birth control coverage, or pay a tax? Seems like a pretty tenuous reason to strip a freedom.

Let me try again. It saves money. It's cheaper. It costs less. You're still free to waste money on other things, if want.

Well lets see where, first off, women that do NOT want "birth control" simply do not order it lol, its as simple as that, no one is telling anyone you HAVE to order it, right? Second the reason why it SHOULD and now IS covered under ALL insurance is simple. it gives access to all, why is that a BAD thing? it will lead to less unwanted preggos and lead to LESS abortions. Also what you have to remember is some women have been in the situation where they want to be responsible, but the only health care insaurence they can afford does not offer it. So they can not afford it. Once you people STOP looking at health care issues as priviliges and start looking at them as a RIGHT, it will become clear how and why its being offered.
 
Birth control is considered preventative health care, as are many other things. But the only preventative health care Republicans want to deny is birth control.

You can't get any more sexist than that, fucktard.

I am not sure that there has been any push whatsoever to prevent any policy from including birth control. The push is to have the tolerant left allow employers and employees the option to purchase coverage that does not include birth control. Prior to the arrival of The One Who WouldMakeThe Seas Retreat, every American had that right. Perhaps not the ability, but the liberty to do so was permitted by the feds. So, the issue is not sexism, it's intolerance of the exercise of religious beliefs, which, incidentally, hurt no one.
No, you're confused. People can make the choice themselves. What shouldn't be done is allow the employer to make the choice for you.

That's right. Employers are now forced to involve themselves in policies that cover birth control. They have no choice. Nor, to my knowledge, do individuals. So, there is no choice. It is one that Obama has decided to make for everyone. And it seems ridiculous. Nobody is hurt if I purchase a plan that does not cover birth control. But millions have their religious liberty infringed when forced to participate in such plans.
 
Also what you have to remember is some women have been in the situation where they want to be responsible, but the only health care insaurence they can afford does not offer it. So they can not afford it.

Condoms are cheap, many places free.
 
I am not. And yes, birth control is cheaper than pregnancy. Is that why you think all Americans must be forced to purchase birth control coverage, or pay a tax? Seems like a pretty tenuous reason to strip a freedom.

Let me try again. It saves money. It's cheaper. It costs less. You're still free to waste money on other things, if want.

Well lets see where, first off, women that do NOT want "birth control" simply do not order it lol, its as simple as that, no one is telling anyone you HAVE to order it, right? Second the reason why it SHOULD and now IS covered under ALL insurance is simple. it gives access to all, why is that a BAD thing? it will lead to less unwanted preggos and lead to LESS abortions. Also what you have to remember is some women have been in the situation where they want to be responsible, but the only health care insaurence they can afford does not offer it. So they can not afford it. Once you people STOP looking at health care issues as priviliges and start looking at them as a RIGHT, it will become clear how and why its being offered.

Why is forcing others to participate in a policy that runs counter to their religious beliefs a bad thing? The answer is in the question. And, not a single person is harmed if every American has the option to purchase coverage that excludes birth control, and millions exercise that option. Not a soul is hurt. Accommodating those beliefs Need not make birth control, or birth control coverage, any less accessible to anyone. But it would require that lots of people practice a bit more tolerance for the religious beliefs of others.
 
Also what you have to remember is some women have been in the situation where they want to be responsible, but the only health care insaurence they can afford does not offer it. So they can not afford it.

Condoms are cheap, many places free.

You do know that there are OTHER reasons for women to be RXed other than preventing preggo, right? So when a woman is doubled over in pain cyst on her overies and the best way to cure and prevent that is through "the pill' but her health insurence does not cover it, should she just "get over it" there are A LOT more uses for it, so please dont be petty
 
Let me try again. It saves money. It's cheaper. It costs less. You're still free to waste money on other things, if want.

Well lets see where, first off, women that do NOT want "birth control" simply do not order it lol, its as simple as that, no one is telling anyone you HAVE to order it, right? Second the reason why it SHOULD and now IS covered under ALL insurance is simple. it gives access to all, why is that a BAD thing? it will lead to less unwanted preggos and lead to LESS abortions. Also what you have to remember is some women have been in the situation where they want to be responsible, but the only health care insaurence they can afford does not offer it. So they can not afford it. Once you people STOP looking at health care issues as priviliges and start looking at them as a RIGHT, it will become clear how and why its being offered.

Why is forcing others to participate in a policy that runs counter to their religious beliefs a bad thing? The answer is in the question. And, not a single person is harmed if every American has the option to purchase coverage that excludes birth control, and millions exercise that option. Not a soul is hurt. Accommodating those beliefs Need not make birth control, or birth control coverage, any less accessible to anyone. But it would require that lots of people practice a bit more tolerance for the religious beliefs of others.

nice try, as I just explained the other post I just put up, there are OTHER reasons why women are RXed "the pill". Now should women not have access to all their needs? cause that is question you dont seem to be asking yourself. Also thin of this, why are you making the argument that health covers should be able to restrict coverage when trying to make the argument people should be able to choose? ANSWER= all insurance covers it and PEOPLE make the choice for them selfs, no? or do you want to argue for restrictions while also trying to argue freedoms?


one quick edit here, One of the biggest carriers is the cathloic services, which prides it self of helping those that need it. They are also one of the carriers that does NOT offer it. So example, A woman who is married, loses her job, her husband is out of work too(its common) she has to turn to "cathloic services" cause she is not elidgible for gov. stuff. and now she is told that she can not get the coverage she need( the pill does other things besides preventing babies) Also what is her and her husband want to have sex? now because the government didnt protect her, a company
 
Last edited:
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Why is it you're opposed to a baseline in insurance coverage that excludes it? If you don't want to use the service, for whatever religious, ethical, stupidity reason, don't. If you don't want to use viagra, don't.

Freedom of choice is the issue, and birth control pills also have other therapeutic uses.

I will refrain from calling you a Nutsack Sucking Party shit stain.
 
Last edited:
is making that choice for her. Also the people who this affects are the people who use abortion clinique when the "condom" fails, so what is your goal here? to have women forced to carry unwanted preggos and NOT haev access to healthcare?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top