Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ever heard of the US Constitution jackwad?
My guess is he suddenly decided to hide from this thread when he realized how stupid he is.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Drill down on the link I provided. If you visit, for example, this link: Medical Insurance: Office of Faculty and Staff Benefits, you get this:
Benefits 2012 » Health & Welfare
Medical Insurance
The following medical plans are available to faculty, staff and AAPs:
To learn more about a plan, click on the plan name.
Aetna Open Choice PPO
United Healthcare Choice Plus PPO
CareFirst BlueChoice Opt-Out Plus Open Access POS
Kaiser Signature HMO
Employee Eligibility
You are eligible to enroll in a Georgetown University sponsored medical plan if you are:
A staff employee, including members of the Allied International Union, hired to work 30 or more hours per week;
An academic employee hired to work at least 75% time;
A fellow.
Dependent Eligility
If you are covered under a medical plan, you may also elect coverage for your spouse/LDA and your eligible dependent children. You will select from one of the following levels of coverage:
Employee only
Employee and spouse/LDA
Employee and child/ren
Family (employee, spouse/LDA and child/ren)
Do you see that list of plans? The first one on the list is the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown University that I had linked to previously...the one that includes contraceptive coverage.
I've proven my claim. Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage to its employees, but won't do the same for its students.
The one with the $500 individual preferred deductible and the $20 per prescription copay? That is $740 a year towards contraception that is not covered by the plan, which is almost as much as Fluke falsely claimed contraception costs. The only point you made is that you really didn't read the policy because the non preferred care plan, which is the exact same plan students get, doesn't even cover prescription meds. My guess is that students, if they wanted to shell out the higher premium, could get the preferred care insurance and sill not get contraceptive coverage, but they could pretend they do.
Trying to distract by whining about the cost doesn't change the FACTS. Georgetown, obviously, isn't keeping students from contraceptive coverage for "moral" reasons. Georgetown has no problem providing a plan that covers contraception for their employees, why deny it in coverage to students?
Why did the Dems throw fluke in the hearing at the last minute?
Her whining about how she can't afford birth control is not pertinent in deciding whether it's constitutional to force religious organizations to provide it.
She was bought in to throw things off track.
Fluke's testimony was meaningless to the hearing and merely a stunt.
What merit would that be?
Making others pay?
Being to cheap to purchase the buy up?
What exactly?
This is a prime example of how the left is diverting attention away from the real issue.
People make inaccurate claims about Fluke's testimony, so showing the testimony is diversion?
No it wasn't. Here's a grade school lesson for you: The President does not pass laws. That's what Congress does.
If you were educated at all about this stuff, you'd know that the law is not unconstitutional. You may disagree with it, as do I, but it's not unconstitutional.
Hmmm, I'm inclined to think that if we are talking about availability of contraceptive coverage amongst female Georgetown law students, then Fluke is a pretty good candidate to talk about that.
Which is why the full committee did not hear her. What's your point?
Her statement was done AFTER the hearing. Do you even know what you are talking about?
*GASP!* You mean to tell me that politicians are playing on people's emotions? Never! No politician would ever do anything like that. Have you ever before seen a politician, for example, use emotionally charged language for a sensitive issue, abortion for example, like "partial birth abortion," or "killing a baby," as opposed to using the correct technical terms? Certainly no politician would ever do something like that.
At best, you're making an ad hominem argument. Forget who has done the speaking. Let's address the merits of the arguments, and maintain an accurate portrayal of them.
You must think awful highly of the President, because you sure are putting an awful lot in his lap. Congress passes laws, the Executive executes the laws.
Simply saying "it's unconstitutional" doesn't make it so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the law. Claims of religious freedom infringements are ignorant claims that either have no knowledge of the extensive case law on religious freedom, or they completely ignore it.
Actually, if anything, the "cheap stunt" is the people who want to insist that the law is unconstitutional, instead of actually addressing the law on its merits. The "cheap stunt" is to say that anyone whatsoever can simply say "I have a religious belief" and they will be instantly exempt from any law whatsoever. THAT would be a cheap stunt.and this was a cheap stunt to make people focus on something else. There are enough idiots out there and they know this crap works. Frustrating.
Why did the Dems throw fluke in the hearing at the last minute? Her whining about how she can't afford birth control is not pertinent in deciding whether it's constitutional to force religious organizations to provide it. She was bought in to throw things off track.
Fluke's testimony was meaningless to the hearing and merely a stunt.
Statutes can be against the Constitution and go unchallenged...Ever heard of the US Constitution jackwad?
Ever hear of context, jackwad? He cited the RFRA which is a statute. And claimed that the health care law violated the RFRA. Statute cannot "contradict" statute. Statutes can be paradoxical at times, and when cases arise from these the court must determine the proper way to interpret the paradoxical laws and decide their applicability to the case before them.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Drill down on the link I provided. If you visit, for example, this link: Medical Insurance: Office of Faculty and Staff Benefits, you get this:
Benefits 2012 » Health & Welfare
Medical Insurance
The following medical plans are available to faculty, staff and AAPs:
To learn more about a plan, click on the plan name.
Aetna Open Choice PPO
United Healthcare Choice Plus PPO
CareFirst BlueChoice Opt-Out Plus Open Access POS
Kaiser Signature HMO
Employee Eligibility
You are eligible to enroll in a Georgetown University sponsored medical plan if you are:
A staff employee, including members of the Allied International Union, hired to work 30 or more hours per week;
An academic employee hired to work at least 75% time;
A fellow.
Dependent Eligility
If you are covered under a medical plan, you may also elect coverage for your spouse/LDA and your eligible dependent children. You will select from one of the following levels of coverage:
Employee only
Employee and spouse/LDA
Employee and child/ren
Family (employee, spouse/LDA and child/ren)
Do you see that list of plans? The first one on the list is the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown University that I had linked to previously...the one that includes contraceptive coverage.
I've proven my claim. Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage to its employees, but won't do the same for its students.
The one with the $500 individual preferred deductible and the $20 per prescription copay? That is $740 a year towards contraception that is not covered by the plan, which is almost as much as Fluke falsely claimed contraception costs. The only point you made is that you really didn't read the policy because the non preferred care plan, which is the exact same plan students get, doesn't even cover prescription meds. My guess is that students, if they wanted to shell out the higher premium, could get the preferred care insurance and sill not get contraceptive coverage, but they could pretend they do.
Trying to distract by whining about the cost doesn't change the FACTS. Georgetown, obviously, isn't keeping students from contraceptive coverage for "moral" reasons. Georgetown has no problem providing a plan that covers contraception for their employees, why deny it in coverage to students?
The one with the $500 individual preferred deductible and the $20 per prescription copay? That is $740 a year towards contraception that is not covered by the plan, which is almost as much as Fluke falsely claimed contraception costs. The only point you made is that you really didn't read the policy because the non preferred care plan, which is the exact same plan students get, doesn't even cover prescription meds. My guess is that students, if they wanted to shell out the higher premium, could get the preferred care insurance and sill not get contraceptive coverage, but they could pretend they do.
Trying to distract by whining about the cost doesn't change the FACTS. Georgetown, obviously, isn't keeping students from contraceptive coverage for "moral" reasons. Georgetown has no problem providing a plan that covers contraception for their employees, why deny it in coverage to students?
Georgetown isn't keeping anyone from anything. If the students want to opt into the preferred plan that covers prescription drugs they are perfectly free to do so, if they can afford it.
No, the constitution gives Congress the power to collect taxes. Federal statute establishes the actual taxation taking place.
You need to go read some case law.
Linking error. Here are the cases.Pointing to cases about taxes, which are actually written into the constitution, to make the case that the RFRA is overturned is really stupid.
Damn. look at that, the RFRA is constitutional. Isn't that what I said? And isn't that what you are trying to say is wrong? The parties do not contest the constitutionality or the applicability of RFRA to the case at hand.  
Again, just what I said.They agree that RFRA applies to the federal government, as Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), held only that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.   For the purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that RFRA is constitutional as applied to the federal government.   See Alamo v. Clay, 137 F.3d 1366, 1367 (D.C.Cir.1998).1
RFRA provides:
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;  and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Basically, they said that, although she makes a good argument, the RFRA doesn't actually apply, because all it did was restore the Sherbert test, and the court has a long history of denying religious exemptions to taxes. Even if they didn't, a first year law student wouldn't have much trouble fitting taxes into the RFRA, because collecting taxes are definitely a compelling government interest, and there is no less restrictive way to actually collect taxes than by force of law.We find Adams's arguments appealing, but ultimately unconvincing.   She has misconstrued Scott;  the focus of the court's analysis in Scott was on the sincerity of the beliefs of the individual in question-the sincerity of Adams's beliefs is not in question.   However, despite the sincerity of those beliefs, her claim has returned this court to a well established line of cases involving challenges to the collection of taxes on religious grounds.   Although Adams's beliefs may be unusual as compared to the general population, the very body of case law relating to war tax protesters indicates that in the realm of tax litigation, she is one of many.   As a result, her compulsion argument affords her no excuse, as the prior plaintiffs were also compelled by religious belief, but, like Adams, made the difficult decision to act in a manner contrary to law.   Moreover, Adams is asking this court to draw a distinction between holding sincerely felt political and religious beliefs and facing the consequences of those beliefs;  we have been and continue to be reluctant to make such a distinction.   We have noted, in slightly different contexts, that plaintiffs engaging in civil disobedience through tax protests must pay the penalties incurred as a result of engaging in such disobedience.   See Kahn, 753 F.2d at 1215-16;  cf.   Malinowski, 472 F.2d at 855-58.
My guess is he suddenly decided to hide from this thread when he realized how stupid he is.
You're the one who is deliberately ignoring facts and misrepresenting case law, in a futile attempt to preserve a false ideology. And there is nothing stupid about working overtime. They pay extra for that, you know.
Ever heard of the US Constitution jackwad?
Ever hear of context, jackwad? He cited the RFRA which is a statute. And claimed that the health care law violated the RFRA. Statute cannot "contradict" statute. Statutes can be paradoxical at times, and when cases arise from these the court must determine the proper way to interpret the paradoxical laws and decide their applicability to the case before them.
The one with the $500 individual preferred deductible and the $20 per prescription copay? That is $740 a year towards contraception that is not covered by the plan, which is almost as much as Fluke falsely claimed contraception costs. The only point you made is that you really didn't read the policy because the non preferred care plan, which is the exact same plan students get, doesn't even cover prescription meds. My guess is that students, if they wanted to shell out the higher premium, could get the preferred care insurance and sill not get contraceptive coverage, but they could pretend they do.
Trying to distract by whining about the cost doesn't change the FACTS. Georgetown, obviously, isn't keeping students from contraceptive coverage for "moral" reasons. Georgetown has no problem providing a plan that covers contraception for their employees, why deny it in coverage to students?
Georgetown isn't keeping anyone from anything. If the students want to opt into the preferred plan that covers prescription drugs they are perfectly free to do so, if they can afford it.
Trying to distract by whining about the cost doesn't change the FACTS. Georgetown, obviously, isn't keeping students from contraceptive coverage for "moral" reasons. Georgetown has no problem providing a plan that covers contraception for their employees, why deny it in coverage to students?
Georgetown isn't keeping anyone from anything. If the students want to opt into the preferred plan that covers prescription drugs they are perfectly free to do so, if they can afford it.
Students are not offered the Aetna plan that covers contraception. They are offered only one plan from the university and BC isn't covered. They only cover it for staff. You, obviously, didn't watch Sandra Fluke's testimony at all.
Statutes can be against the Constitution and go unchallenged...
Tell me something, genius, how does that in any way contradict my point that taxes are written into the constitution?
Like what? Give me one case where SCOTUS said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't restrict the federal government. Shouldn't be to hard if you try real hard.
Damn. look at that, the RFRA is constitutional. Isn't that what I said? And isn't that what you are trying to say is wrong?
It's actually quite funny now. 
Trying to distract by whining about the cost doesn't change the FACTS. Georgetown, obviously, isn't keeping students from contraceptive coverage for "moral" reasons. Georgetown has no problem providing a plan that covers contraception for their employees, why deny it in coverage to students?
Georgetown isn't keeping anyone from anything. If the students want to opt into the preferred plan that covers prescription drugs they are perfectly free to do so, if they can afford it.
Students are not offered the Aetna plan that covers contraception. They are offered only one plan from the university and BC isn't covered. They only cover it for staff. You, obviously, didn't watch Sandra Fluke's testimony at all.
Trying to distract by whining about the cost doesn't change the FACTS. Georgetown, obviously, isn't keeping students from contraceptive coverage for "moral" reasons. Georgetown has no problem providing a plan that covers contraception for their employees, why deny it in coverage to students?
Georgetown isn't keeping anyone from anything. If the students want to opt into the preferred plan that covers prescription drugs they are perfectly free to do so, if they can afford it.
Students are not offered the Aetna plan that covers contraception. They are offered only one plan from the university and BC isn't covered. They only cover it for staff. You, obviously, didn't watch Sandra Fluke's testimony at all.
