Shocking Video! Contraceptives Obtained Without Federal Mandate!

[Ernie S.]

The first amendment is quite easily understood. The phrase related to religion is only 16 easily understood words long. There is nothing to be interpreted. It clearly states the the government can't make a law that would force anyone to sacrifice their religious beliefs.
The Constitution does not "allow" or "assign" rights to citizens. It restricts and enumerates its rights and the responsibility of government to the citizens.

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

 

[peach174]

Georgetown has many types of plans to choose from. Ones that do cover contraception.
Fluke has an issue with one of Georgetown's Students plans that does not cover contraception.
But they do cover contraception when it is a medical issue.
As noted in her testimony;
Fluke‘s testimony contains a notable passage which calls her entire story into question regarding Georgetown’s policy on covering contraceptives:

" A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy."

http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/premierplanbooklet.pdf

Please note # 19 (b) and 21. under this plan.

Students are required to pay $1,895.00 for the Fall Semester Insurance Plan.

This is about the Democratic Women trying to force all Health Insurance to pay for contraception
There are plenty of services who help pay for Womens contraception.
It is about forcing Religious Insurances to pay for contraception of which is against the teaching of the church.

 

[Jarhead]

Georgetown has many types of plans to choose from. Ones that do cover contraception.
Fluke has an issue with one of Georgetown's Students plans that does not cover contraception.
But they do cover contraception when it is a medical issue.
As noted in her testimony;
Fluke‘s testimony contains a notable passage which calls her entire story into question regarding Georgetown’s policy on covering contraceptives:

" A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy."

http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/premierplanbooklet.pdf

Please note # 19 (b) and 21. under this plan.

Students are required to pay $1,895.00 for the Fall Semester Insurance Plan.

This is about the Democratic Women trying to force all Health Insurance to pay for contraception
There are plenty of services who help pay for Womens contraception.
It is about forcing Religious Insurances to pay for contraception of which is against the teaching of the church.

the whole "womens health" issue is BS...and the democratic party knows it, but continue to spew it becuase they know the American People are too naive to know the truth.

If a GYN found an individual needed birth control pills due to ovarian cancer, they do njt "code" it in the system as Birth control.

It has an ICD-9 and/or CPT4 code that is different than if the GYN was writing a script for the same pill to be used for birth control.

If I walked into my docs office and asked to have my genitals shaved befcuase I like to keep it clean, he may do it, but my insurance would not cover it.

However, if my doc had to shave my genitals so he can check for an abnormality, the insurance company would cvover it.

FYI....Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the democrats know this. They just have little respect for their supporters so they have therm spewing stuff that is completely inaccurate.

 

[WillowTree]

let me know when the rightwingnuts start demanding insurance companies stop covering viagra.

you don't really understand this issue very well, do you?

This is about INSURANCE companies paying for prescription medication and not allowing some religious zealot to take away that ability by deciding they don't like women using contraception.

Following now?

And just to emphasize, even if it was about your precious tax dollars, big deal. My tax dollars helped pay for two unnnecessary wars of choice for the neo-cons.

Get over it.

That's okay, jillian. My tax dollars are paying for endless wars, entitlements, social programs, legalized ponzi schemes ie SS, and whatever other waste the next R or D can come up with.

Social Security isn't a ponzi scheme, hon.

But you know, I'm sick to death of rightwingnuts (not addressing you, you're fairly consistent in all of these things and i disagree with you, but you haven't shown signs of insanity, nor do i see you lie).

I also don't see infrastructure and maintaining a safety net for people or education or agency oversight or government as wastes of money. i understand that you do. But I think when discussing an issue of people wanting to be allowed to use their religious beliefs to force insurance companies not to cover things they disapprove of is insane. The rightwingnuts' refusal to understand that contraception is prescription medication, along with their having zero objection to coverage of viagra because it's men who use it, makes them hypocrites.

I guess you're lying self is purposefully omitting the fact that many many drugs are not on an insurance companies "formulary" and that just because a perscription is written does not automatically mean that an insurance company will cover it "for free" as the dick tater dictates..

 

[Inthemiddle]

The first amendment is quite easily understood. The phrase related to religion is only 16 easily understood words long. There is nothing to be interpreted. It clearly states the the government can't make a law that would force anyone to sacrifice their religious beliefs.
The Constitution does not "allow" or "assign" rights to citizens. It restricts and enumerates its rights and the responsibility of government to the citizens.

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

So is it your contention that the intention of the framers was to create an absolute right in religious freedom?

 

[Trajan]

no offense...

But see what she did?

She made the issue about viagara......

But the issue isnt Viagara...nor is it Birth Control.

The issue is government MANDATING that insurance companies offer birth control...whether they want to or not.

Since when is that OK?

It is one thing for the government to say you CANT sell something becuase it is dangerous, or unhealthy, or whatever...

But for government to say YOU MUST sell something?

But the left doesnt want to touch that issue...so they made it about birth control, the religiuous right...and viagara..

And you fell into it.

Oh, I agree that govt can't enumerate what a private company should sell. I just think there are certain drugs that should come from private pay. That's all.

actually, no matter how much the religious right twists it, what they're trying to do is allow religious zealots to decide if an insurance policy is allowed to cover medication they don't approve of. they can lie. they can obfuscate. they can try to confuse the issue. but that's what it is and that's all that it is.

he thinks anyone who has a civil conversation "fell into" whatever... but not surprising from him. *shrug*

of course viagra is a fair issue to raise. rushbot and his fellow old white fat men love using that. but a woman who takes birth control is a slut?? and insurance companies shouldn't pay for her medication? really?

give me a good reason why i should pay for medication out of pocket that i've been prescribed since i'm a tween just because some religious nutter doesn't like what I have to take.

i'll wait.

God you're a babbling bag of bumptious bile......Seriously, do you drink? To excess? This early?



no. 1- Viagra is prescribed for a for a condition. Do I really need to explain what that means in the context of this discussion, or doesn’t passing the Bar exam twice require the brainpower to parse the difference? What you may like or not about that distinction means?.....thats right, poo poo.

If you are using as an excuse that its a bit of a hustle and any guy can just tell his doc he cannot get it up and get a script? Maybe...and so what? As a lawyer, you must know that has no bearing, its not even good for mitigation ....so relax and take a Midol.

2- IF ms/mrs/mr (in waiting) FlUke had a medical condition that required contraceptive drugs, guess what?

The university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases. GT would have been OK with that and covered them….why what do you know? Open mouth, insert foot.

3- Ms/mrs/mr (in waiting) FlUke SAID she chose Georgetown knowing upfront, and exactly, that GT did NOT cover medicals costs that are contrary to, or violate Catholic conscience in its student health plans.


wait on that

 

[Inthemiddle]

That would be the Catholic Church

No it's not.

which makes that a violation of the First Amendment since they are being forced to buy it.

Even if your first contention were true, this contention is untrue for two reasons.

1) Georgetown already has health insurance options available for faculty, which cover contraception. This eliminates any basis upon which to claim an infringement on religious freedom grounds.

2) The first amendment does not protect activity of a non-religious nature from being subject to regulation by the government that is generally applicable to all other people. This is why it is constitutional to outlaw gay marriage, to outlaw child marriage, to require religious organizations to be subject to taxation, to prohibit people from practicing medicine at Catholic hospitals who don't hold a medical license, etc. As the SCOTUS explained in Reynolds, it's insanity to think that the intention of the framers was to establish an absolute right to religious "freedom" that would allow a person to commit human sacrifice, for example, as a part of their religious practice, without the government having the power to intervene.

 

[Texanmike]

let me know when the rightwingnuts start demanding insurance companies stop covering viagra.

you don't really understand this issue very well, do you?

This is about INSURANCE companies paying for prescription medication and not allowing some religious zealot to take away that ability by deciding they don't like women using contraception.

Following now?

And just to emphasize, even if it was about your precious tax dollars, big deal. My tax dollars helped pay for two unnnecessary wars of choice for the neo-cons.

Get over it.

Let me see if I can straighten this out. Nobody is demanding that insurance companies stop covering something. Instead people are demanding that they cover something. I dont' know why you think the two are similar.

Mike

 

[bripat9643]

The first amendment is quite easily understood. The phrase related to religion is only 16 easily understood words long. There is nothing to be interpreted. It clearly states the the government can't make a law that would force anyone to sacrifice their religious beliefs.
The Constitution does not "allow" or "assign" rights to citizens. It restricts and enumerates its rights and the responsibility of government to the citizens.

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

So is it your contention that the intention of the framers was to create an absolute right in religious freedom?

Your right to practice your religion ends where it violates the constitutional rights of others. For instance, if your religion involves sacrificing children, then you don't have the right to that particular practice.

No one has a right to force someone else to provide free birth control.

 

[Texanmike]

The first amendment is quite easily understood. The phrase related to religion is only 16 easily understood words long. There is nothing to be interpreted. It clearly states the the government can't make a law that would force anyone to sacrifice their religious beliefs.
The Constitution does not "allow" or "assign" rights to citizens. It restricts and enumerates its rights and the responsibility of government to the citizens.

So is it your contention that the intention of the framers was to create an absolute right in religious freedom?

Your right to practice your religion ends where it violates the constitutional rights of others. For instance, if your religion involves sacrificing children, then you don't have the right to that particular practice.

No one has a right to force someone else to provide free birth control.

The problem is that this should not be a religious issue. Georgetown offers health insurance (at a discounted rate, I'm sure) and that insurance does not cover birth control. They do not prohibit anyone from getting birth control, they just don't cover it in their plan.

I don't know why people think this is such a big deal.

Mike

 

[peach174]

This is about what the Democrats do all the time. Offer something for free or in this case adding contraceptions under all health insurance so that Woman don't have to pay for their own. Wow! saving them all of 13.00 to 15.00 a month for the majority.
This then will get the Women's vote.
This is what Democrats do all the time.
Here your goodies so vote for us.

 

[Jarhead]

This is about what the Democrats do all the time. Offer something for free or in this case adding contraceptions under all health insurance so that Woman don't have to pay for their own. Wow! saving them all of 13.00 to 15.00 a month for the majority.
This then will get the Women's vote.
This is what Democrats do all the time.
Here your goodies so vote for us.

its actually done with more of a double whammy affect.

They spin the debate and make it about womens health issues and then paint the GOP as not caring about womens health....when, in fact, not a single GOPer is denying the3 womens health part oif it

And then they say..."not only do we care, but we want you to get free stuff as well"

Sadly, the left is so blind to what is being done, they fall for it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your right to practice your religion ends where it violates the constitutional rights of others. For instance, if your religion involves sacrificing children, then you don't have the right to that particular practice.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that religious freedom is not an absolute right and does indeed have limits. But, using your example, what if the parent and child both agree to the sacrifice? There's no longer an infringement on another person's rights. What about adult human sacrifice to which the "offered" agrees? How does your explanation account for the law prohibiting polygamy, or gay marriage?

Obviously, your explanation is inadequate. The courts have spent more than a century analyzing the limits of religious freedom. The right to practice your religion also ends when you're dealing with non-religious activities. For example, there is nothing inherently religious about driving a car. So if your religion demands that you drive your car at a speed than the posted speed limit, you don't have a constitutional right to do so.

 

[peach174]

Your right to practice your religion ends where it violates the constitutional rights of others. For instance, if your religion involves sacrificing children, then you don't have the right to that particular practice.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that religious freedom is not an absolute right and does indeed have limits. But, using your example, what if the parent and child both agree to the sacrifice? There's no longer an infringement on another person's rights. What about adult human sacrifice to which the "offered" agrees? How does your explanation account for the law prohibiting polygamy, or gay marriage?

Obviously, your explanation is inadequate. The courts have spent more than a century analyzing the limits of religious freedom. The right to practice your religion also ends when you're dealing with non-religious activities. For example, there is nothing inherently religious about driving a car. So if your religion demands that you drive your car at a speed than the posted speed limit, you don't have a constitutional right to do so.

Nothing inherently religious about driving a car?
Tell that to the Amish.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The problem is that this should not be a religious issue. Georgetown offers health insurance (at a discounted rate, I'm sure) and that insurance does not cover birth control. They do not prohibit anyone from getting birth control, they just don't cover it in their plan.

I don't know why people think this is such a big deal.

Mike

In and of itself, it's not a "big" deal. Though for those who wish to discuss the state of our health care system in our country, it can be an example of some of the failings in our system, as it currently stands. Access to preventative health care can be a very important issue for our society. Hence, the reason the health care law was passed.

So, we can agree or disagree with the health care law, and whether it will serve its purpose, or fail to do so, or if it is an appropriate use of government power. All well enough.

Only problem is, people insist on objecting on the basis of religious freedom, which doesn't apply in this case.

 

[KissMy]

I also don't see infrastructure and maintaining a safety net for people or education or agency oversight or government as wastes of money. i understand that you do. But I think when discussing an issue of people wanting to be allowed to use their religious beliefs to force insurance companies not to cover things they disapprove of is insane. The rightwingnuts' refusal to understand that contraception is prescription medication, along with their having zero objection to coverage of viagra because it's men who use it, makes them hypocrites.

Oversight, fraud, waste & abuse is the very definition of government. You democrats promised to pay for the health-care law with the money they saved by cracking down on Medicare Fraud. Even democrats are now forced to admit that Medicare Fraud is now $175 billion a year. That is up over 50% since the health-care bill became law.

Launched last summer, a $77 million computer system to stop Medicare fraud before it happens had prevented just one suspicious payment by Christmas. That saved taxpayers a whopping $7,591.

Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Wasteful Government Spending Apart from Fraud and Abuse. A thorough examination of healthcare waste released in 2009 by Thomson Reuters determined that between $600 billion and $850 billion of healthcare spending annually is wasted. While the study found $125 billion to $175 billion of this is attributed purely to fraud, the remainder is made up of administrative waste, provider errors, and other costs associated with unnecessary and duplicative diagnostic testing.

 

[bripat9643]

Your right to practice your religion ends where it violates the constitutional rights of others. For instance, if your religion involves sacrificing children, then you don't have the right to that particular practice.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that religious freedom is not an absolute right and does indeed have limits. But, using your example, what if the parent and child both agree to the sacrifice? There's no longer an infringement on another person's rights. What about adult human sacrifice to which the "offered" agrees? How does your explanation account for the law prohibiting polygamy, or gay marriage?

Children are not mature enough to make their own choices. The law has long recognized this fact. The fact that you need to ask such a question only shows how absurd your theory of rights is. As for your other questions, those have been debated for centuries. I have my opinions, but I see no point in offering them in this discussion.

Obviously, your explanation is inadequate. The courts have spent more than a century analyzing the limits of religious freedom. The right to practice your religion also ends when you're dealing with non-religious activities. For example, there is nothing inherently religious about driving a car. So if your religion demands that you drive your car at a speed than the posted speed limit, you don't have a constitutional right to do so.

Dumb example. You're right about one thing: There's nothing inherently religious about driving a car. That pretty much ends the discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SHOCKING!!! Forget everything you may have seen and heard over the last few weeks. This video dares to show that contraceptives can actually be purchased near Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C........ OMFG!!!!!

Shocking Video! Contraceptives Obtained Without Federal Mandate! - YouTube

SHOCKING!!!!

They have to walk 1.5 miles! How cruel. That is 3 miles round trip. Unacceptable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

let me know when the rightwingnuts start demanding insurance companies stop covering viagra.

you don't really understand this issue very well, do you?

This is about INSURANCE companies paying for prescription medication and not allowing some religious zealot to take away that ability by deciding they don't like women using contraception.

Following now?

And just to emphasize, even if it was about your precious tax dollars, big deal. My tax dollars helped pay for two unnnecessary wars of choice for the neo-cons.

Get over it.

Let me know when I demand it stop covering contraceptives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's great, he bought condoms. Now, if he could only find an epipen when someone goes into anaphalaxis.

My guess is he could have picked one up at the CVS 0.3 miles from the campus. I do wonder what that has to do with contraception since not all condoms are latex, but I actually have a brain that works.