When Even Casual Sex Requires a State Welfare Program, You’re Pretty Much Done For

[Oldstyle]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose. I'm also an agnostic but I feel it's wrong to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions or contraception either for the same reason.

If I had a problem with the Jesuits stance on issues then I wouldn't choose to attend a Jesuit institution. I certainly wouldn't attend with the stated goal of forcing THEM to change to match my moral beliefs.

 

[BlindBoo]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose. I'm also an agnostic but I feel it's wrong to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions or contraception either for the same reason.

If I had a problem with the Jesuits stance on issues then I wouldn't choose to attend a Jesuit institution. I certainly wouldn't attend with the stated goal of forcing THEM to change to match my moral beliefs.

But the government is using taxpayer money for many thing that taxpayers may find morally objectionable. I have no problem requiring insurance companies to include such coverage for women.

They cover boner pills don't they?

 

[Full-Auto]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose. I'm also an agnostic but I feel it's wrong to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions or contraception either for the same reason.

If I had a problem with the Jesuits stance on issues then I wouldn't choose to attend a Jesuit institution. I certainly wouldn't attend with the stated goal of forcing THEM to change to match my moral beliefs.

But the government is using taxpayer money for many thing that taxpayers may find morally objectionable. I have no problem requiring insurance companies to include such coverage for women.

They cover boner pills don't they?

Most do not.

The idea of making insurance affordable is cost control/.

More freebees doesnt get that done.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose.

Nobody is asking taxpayers to pay for contraception. This line is being constantly uttered, but it's not what the insurance mandate is about.

But on your line of reasoning, what if a person is morally opposed to all warfare and military spending. There are taxpayers who hold such moral objections, yet their tax money still goes toward that end. Why aren't you objecting to this?

What happens if people start citing religious beliefs as being morally opposed to interstate highways? Or securing the borders? What if they are morally opposed to the death penalty?

 

[Oldstyle]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose. I'm also an agnostic but I feel it's wrong to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions or contraception either for the same reason.

If I had a problem with the Jesuits stance on issues then I wouldn't choose to attend a Jesuit institution. I certainly wouldn't attend with the stated goal of forcing THEM to change to match my moral beliefs.

But the government is using taxpayer money for many thing that taxpayers may find morally objectionable. I have no problem requiring insurance companies to include such coverage for women.

They cover boner pills don't they?

They do and I find that to be ridiculous, Boo. Look, as someone who "is" pro-choice I'm glad that women have the right to legally make that choice for themselves. I don't however feel like they should have the right to spread the cost of that choice to others who strongly oppose abortions or contraception. That's forcing others to pay for something you KNOW they morally abhor and I find that to be an intolerant attitude. If "you" want an abortion...or "you" want to use birth control...then "you" should pay for it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose. I'm also an agnostic but I feel it's wrong to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions or contraception either for the same reason.

If I had a problem with the Jesuits stance on issues then I wouldn't choose to attend a Jesuit institution. I certainly wouldn't attend with the stated goal of forcing THEM to change to match my moral beliefs.

But the government is using taxpayer money for many thing that taxpayers may find morally objectionable. I have no problem requiring insurance companies to include such coverage for women.

They cover boner pills don't they?

Most do not.

The idea of making insurance affordable is cost control/.

More freebees doesnt get that done.

A 2007 Mercer study of large employers revealed that only about 30% denied coverage for erectile dysfunction medications.

Birth Control and Health Insurance

 

[Full-Auto]

But the government is using taxpayer money for many thing that taxpayers may find morally objectionable. I have no problem requiring insurance companies to include such coverage for women.

They cover boner pills don't they?

Most do not.

The idea of making insurance affordable is cost control/.

More freebees doesnt get that done.

A 2007 Mercer study of large employers revealed that only about 30% denied coverage for erectile dysfunction medications.

Birth Control and Health Insurance

I would like to see the details of that study as there are 50 different sets of rules for insurance, more if you add the fed.

More if you add the number of different policies offered by the companies. The premier coverage has it covered the lessor policies do not.

How did they arrive at the figures. IE measurement criteria.

 

[Vel]

Fluke never asked for the state to pay for her birth control, so Steyn and the OP are full of shit.

Well she's expecting someone other than herself or her partner to pony up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose.

Nobody is asking taxpayers to pay for contraception. This line is being constantly uttered, but it's not what the insurance mandate is about.

But on your line of reasoning, what if a person is morally opposed to all warfare and military spending. There are taxpayers who hold such moral objections, yet their tax money still goes toward that end. Why aren't you objecting to this?

What happens if people start citing religious beliefs as being morally opposed to interstate highways? Or securing the borders? What if they are morally opposed to the death penalty?

Anytime you have a "mandate" then you are in fact forcing payment. Arguing that you aren't doing so is ridiculous. The Obama Administration essentially stepped in and said that the Federal Government claimed the right to force Catholics to pay for something that went against their religious beliefs.

You can make the argument about moral opposition to warfare and I've heard it made many times before. My response is that one of the primary reasons that the Federal Government was established was to provide security in the form of a military to protect us. So the litmus test ends up being...does your moral objection to the military or war take precedence over our need for a military to protect ourselves against threats both foreign and domestic and does contraception fall under the same "essential" category? I think you're going to be hard pressed to make the argument that having access to contraceptives is as "essential" as having a military.

 

[BlindBoo]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose. I'm also an agnostic but I feel it's wrong to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions or contraception either for the same reason.

If I had a problem with the Jesuits stance on issues then I wouldn't choose to attend a Jesuit institution. I certainly wouldn't attend with the stated goal of forcing THEM to change to match my moral beliefs.

But the government is using taxpayer money for many thing that taxpayers may find morally objectionable. I have no problem requiring insurance companies to include such coverage for women.

They cover boner pills don't they?

They do and I find that to be ridiculous, Boo. Look, as someone who "is" pro-choice I'm glad that women have the right to legally make that choice for themselves. I don't however feel like they should have the right to spread the cost of that choice to others who strongly oppose abortions or contraception. That's forcing others to pay for something you KNOW they morally abhor and I find that to be an intolerant attitude. If "you" want an abortion...or "you" want to use birth control...then "you" should pay for it.

Health Secretary Sebelius: ‘There is no taxpayer funding for abortion’

Health Secretary Sebelius:

I think it, requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives pills for women will be a plus to society as a whole.

 

[Oldstyle]

But the government is using taxpayer money for many thing that taxpayers may find morally objectionable. I have no problem requiring insurance companies to include such coverage for women.

They cover boner pills don't they?

They do and I find that to be ridiculous, Boo. Look, as someone who "is" pro-choice I'm glad that women have the right to legally make that choice for themselves. I don't however feel like they should have the right to spread the cost of that choice to others who strongly oppose abortions or contraception. That's forcing others to pay for something you KNOW they morally abhor and I find that to be an intolerant attitude. If "you" want an abortion...or "you" want to use birth control...then "you" should pay for it.

Health Secretary Sebelius: ‘There is no taxpayer funding for abortion’

Health Secretary Sebelius:

I think it, requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives pills for women will be a plus to society as a whole.

I don't think the Federal Goverment has that right, Boo. I agree that access to contraceptives "is" a plus to society but forcing those in society who don't believe in using them to share the cost is intolerent. You're essentially saying that our beliefs are more valid than theirs.

 

[uscitizen]

I’m writing this from Australia, so, if I’m not quite up to speed on recent events in the United States, bear with me — the telegraph updates are a bit slow here in the bush. As I understand it, Sandra Fluke is a young coed who attends Georgetown Law, and recently testified before Congress.

Oh, wait, no. Update: It wasn’t a congressional hearing; the Democrats just got it up to look like one, like summer stock, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing the show right here in the barn, and providing a cardboard set for the world premiere of Miss Fluke Goes to Washington, with full supporting cast led by Chuck Schumer strolling in through the French windows in and drawling, “Anyone for bull****?”

Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-aged schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex life.
Well, as noted above, she’s attending Georgetown, a nominally Catholic seat of learning, so how expensive can that be? Alas, Georgetown is so nominally Catholic that the cost of her sex life runs to three grand — and, according to the star witness, 40 percent of female students “struggle financially” because of the heavy burden of maintaining a respectable level of premarital sex at a Jesuit institution.

No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It’s that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.

Insane as this scenario is, the Democrat-media complex insists that everyone take it seriously. When it emerged the other day that Amanda Clayton, a 24-year-old Michigan million-dollar-lottery winner, still receives $200 of food stamps every month, even and the bureaucrats were obliged to acknowledge the ridiculousness. Yet the same people are determined that Sandra Fluke be treated with respect as a pioneering spokesperson for the rights of the horizontally challenged.

Sorry, I pass. “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1784. In the absence of religious virtue, sexual virtue, and fiscal virtue, one might trust to the people’s sense of sheer preposterousness to reject the official narrative of the Fluke charade. Yet even that is not to be permitted. Full disclosure: I will be guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh this Monday, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment here on Rush’s intervention. But let me say this. Almost every matter of the moment boils down to the same story: The Left’s urge to narrow the bounds of public discourse and insist that “conventional wisdom” unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the laws of physics. Nothing that Rush said is as weird or as degrading as what Sandra Fluke and the Obama administration are demanding. And any freeborn citizen should reserve the right to point that out as loudly and as often as possible.

Read a lot more here: The Fluke Charade - Mark Steyn - National Review Online


Mark Steyn. He's great. And having not been born in this country he sees this stuff from a perspective. Oh and yes, in his own way he just called Fluke a slut! Because he's right. The Democrats are going after the slut vote. And telling all sluts, it doesn't matter how promiscuous you wish to be, the Democrat party has your back and will have OTHER PEOPLE pay for it.

Casual sex?
Sex is only for having babies.

/sarcasm.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Health Secretary Sebelius: ‘There is no taxpayer funding for abortion’

Health Secretary Sebelius:

I think it, requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives pills for women will be a plus to society as a whole.

Anyone that believes this 'insurance companies will pay' has lost their minds. All you need do is look at the business model to realize that premium payers pay for EVERYTHING, and the company PROFITS are what is left after the PAYING gets done.

They have NO OTHER SOURCE of gross revenues. This whole argument is BULLSHIT!!

 

[Care4all]

most BC pills are used by married women at some point in their marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Effectively she did.
I realize that subtle isn't really your thing. But think about it.

No she didn't. She wanted birth control covered in insurance policies that are paid for by the policy holders,

and that pay claims out of the premiums collected from the policy holders.

She wants to force Catholic Institutions to pay for her casual sex. She went to George Town SPECIFICALLY for that cause.

And WHEN Catholic Institutions and insurance say "we can't cover everything" guess where it goes? Obamacare.

Georgetown doesn't pay for anyone's healthcare. Georgetown offers insurance to students that COSTS the students a premium. The claims are paid out of the premiums.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fluke never asked for the state to pay for her birth control, so Steyn and the OP are full of shit.

Yes, she did. If you don't think this isn't going to lead to Obamacare, we think we know who's full of crap.

Then it should be easy for you to quote the part of her testimony where she did so.

And, as you see, no such quote exists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look, I'm a Republican who is pro-choice but I don't think that government should pay for either abortions or contraception because you're asking taxpayers who are not pro-choice to pay for something they morally oppose. I'm also an agnostic but I feel it's wrong to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions or contraception either for the same reason.

If I had a problem with the Jesuits stance on issues then I wouldn't choose to attend a Jesuit institution. I certainly wouldn't attend with the stated goal of forcing THEM to change to match my moral beliefs.

Georgetown is selling insurance to students. That is not a religious exercise; that is selling insurance.

When you sell insurance you are not a church; you are an insurance business.

 

[Care4all]

Health Secretary Sebelius: ‘There is no taxpayer funding for abortion’

Health Secretary Sebelius:

I think it, requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives pills for women will be a plus to society as a whole.

Anyone that believes this 'insurance companies will pay' has lost their minds. All you need do is look at the business model to realize that premium payers pay for EVERYTHING, and the company PROFITS are what is left after the PAYING gets done.

They have NO OTHER SOURCE of gross revenues. This whole argument is BULLSHIT!!

most insurance companies have ALREADY factored in BC pills as a cost in their policies..... do you think they will take that money out if they are forced to take it out and give customers like me a credit?

And why should anyone ''pay'' for the diabetes medicine for the heavy set guy? or for the broken bones of a mountain climber that fell, or the internal injuries of the race car driver in an accident or the drunk in an accident's medical bills, or the viagra for old and worn out men, or the sicknesses or shots for other people's children if they have no children themselves or for the shots of a person getting ready to travel overseas if they themselves never go overseas, or for the flu shots of others if they have never gotten the flu themselves, or etc etc etc etc etc etc etc???

 

[Care4all]

sandra fluke's premiums that she pays may cover her BC pills, while she never will draw on the issuance of viagra or someone else's vasectomy or injuries from mountain climbing, while the man mountain climbing that fell may never need BC pills....

that is just how insurance works....

 

[FA_Q2]

Health Secretary Sebelius: ‘There is no taxpayer funding for abortion’

Health Secretary Sebelius:

I think it, requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives pills for women will be a plus to society as a whole.

Anyone that believes this 'insurance companies will pay' has lost their minds. All you need do is look at the business model to realize that premium payers pay for EVERYTHING, and the company PROFITS are what is left after the PAYING gets done.

They have NO OTHER SOURCE of gross revenues. This whole argument is BULLSHIT!!

most insurance companies have ALREADY factored in BC pills as a cost in their policies..... do you think they will take that money out if they are forced to take it out and give customers like me a credit?

And why should anyone ''pay'' for the diabetes medicine for the heavy set guy? or for the broken bones of a mountain climber that fell, or the internal injuries of the race car driver in an accident or the drunk in an accident's medical bills, or the viagra for old and worn out men, or the sicknesses or shots for other people's children if they have no children themselves or for the shots of a person getting ready to travel overseas if they themselves never go overseas, or for the flu shots of others if they have never gotten the flu themselves, or etc etc etc etc etc etc etc???

That's right. You should not be forced to pay for any of that garbage. That is why there are several different insurance plans to choose from, so you don't have to pay for the other crap that you dont need. At least that is how it works before big daddy comes along and forces you to pay for a bunch of extra crap....