Sandra Fluke's Testimony - Here it is. Watch so you will not look like such a fool~

[Clementine]

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.

They can get the preferred plan if they want it, Aetna does business with all sorts of people, not just Goergetown.


Seriously, I don't care if Georgetown offers insurance or not, I don't care what it covers if they do, the truth doesn't change, the students can still get insurance that covers birth control if they want it, or they can go to Walmart and get it for $9.

By the way, according to this Goergetown does cover prescriptions. Being that birth control is a Tier 3 drug all the student has to do is fork over a $45 copay every 4 weeks and she can get her birth control pills from any covered pharmacy.

http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/premierplanbooklet.pdf#page=32

You might want to rethink your insistance that Fluke isn't asking other people to pay for her birth control.

Fluke claimed that paying for her birth control during her college years would equal a whole summer's salary. What kind of crap job is she doing in summer months that she can't afford the cheap pills? She is an activist and everything she said is meant to convince people there is some sort of crisis. She, and the Dems, would like everyone to forget that her demands are not constitutional and just let the gubmint tell people what to do.

We all know the real crisis is that the asthma inhalers have been taken off store shelves. Can't buy otc asthma rescue inhalers anymore. The prescription ones don't work as well since they changed them. But, who cares if millions can't breathe and can't find relief anymore, concern yourself with whether Fluke can afford to have protected sex or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your argument was, essentially, that tax law cases would not establish constitutional problems for the RFRA, because taxes are constitutionally prescribed. Your claim fails, because the constitution merely gives Congress the power to collect taxes. The taxes that were being applied in the cases were STATUTORILY established, however. Therefore, taxing people against their religious beliefs is not constitutional because taxes are discussed in the constitution. It's constitutional because religious freedom protections do not create exceptions to the law for individuals who claim a religious belief, when the law in question is one generally applicable and not dealing with inherently religious activity.

It was? I didn't actually make an argument, I asked you to explain how a regulation that violates federal law, namely the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is legal. You responded by trying to turn this into a debate about taxes and failed miserably. I even outligned the guidelines laid out in the RFRA in order to make it easy for you, and you then cited cases that were decided before the RFRA was written. You then came back with a custody dispute and another case that explained that, although the RFRA is actually constitutional, it doesn't overturn cases that say tax law is an exception to religious freedom exemptions.

Now you are trying to say I said something else all along, and only making your position worse. Simple question, should a federal regulation that clearly violates federal law be enforced?

Straw man.

Seriously? You saying the RFRA was overturned, and me asking you to provide a single example, is a strawman?

I see. You actually don't know anything about the RFRA, it's applications, its history, etc. You just know the name of the act. You don't actually know what you are putting forth when you invoke it. It's actually quite funny now.

Let me get this straight, me explaining, in detail, how the RFRA doesn't apply to taxes, restores the older Sherbert test, explains the 4 point test laid out in the law, and having the audacity to use your link to back up my explanation, proves that I don't understand it.

You are right, that certainly is funny. If I were 13. like you act, I would probably be all mad that you aren't listening to me, and stamp my feet to get your attention.