Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

[Jarhead]

Everyone who keeps repeating the lie about insurance companies being forced to offer coverage for birth control, SHUT UP NOW, AND POINT TO A SINGLE EXAMPLE. Insurance companies want to offer coverage for health care. Why? Because there is a demand in the market.

This isn't about insurance companies being forced to sell a product they don't want. It's about employers being able to prevent their employees from buying health insurance that covers normal and routine medical treatments.

wow..

You need to stay more up on what is going on.

You are dead wrong.

Learn something.

DO some research. Then get back to me.

An FYI.,......Insurance comnpanies are going to be FORCED to offer BC at no cost to the insured.

That was Obamas compromise.

Where do you live...under a rock?

 

[idb]

Do you actually read what you write skippy?
Lets start with this....

"the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans"
That is not true. AT ALL. Seems MSNBC misled you once again.

They are campaigning against the government mandate that insurance companies would HAVE to offer it and offer it for free....

Now this...

"they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable"

And exactly what is wronbg with that? That is what freedom of choice is all about. It is one of the things that makes this country great.

Curious....

Are you saying that if a Kosher Man opens a restaurant, it would be OK if the government told him he MUST serve bacon if a customer wants it?

Okay. I'm going to stop with the insults. You threw the first volley and I returned fire. But I find it petty and would prefer to try to go back to a rational discussion. Whether you do or don't is up to you.

So let's look at the "morally objectionable" thing as proposed by the fellow in FOX yesterday. The problem that Megan Kelly (who in addition to being hot, is one of the most objective reporters on any network) brought up is that it doesn't specify grounds for finding something "morally objectionable".

So if Blue Cross finds bone marrow transplants "morally objectionable", they can just exculde it (which at an average price of $400,000.00, that would love to do!). So could ANY self-insured or private insurer. So what Kaiser has been sued for denying to people (BM Transplants) because they called a standard procedure "experimental", they can now call "morally objectionable". The loophole is big enough to drive a truck through.
Do you want a Muslim company to be able to put Sharia ahead of Federal law? How about Christian Scientists? They would cover what? Prayer only?
Santorum and Romney, along with the GOP in general, are making huge points with their base but terrifying the crap out of everyone else and driving those votes directly into the "D" category. And they are seen as extreme because nothing they are making a fuss abot now, is actually a new issue. We all know that all of these things have been covered since 200 or before.
The GOP needs to get away from Social Issues and focus on just a couple things: The Economy and... The Economy.

you may want the GOP to stay way from moral issues now....but if they simply "let things happen" you, yourself, will ulitmately be disappoointed.

They did not bring up the issue of birth control...it was buried in the healthcare law and came out recently....so it HAD TO BE addressed.

You see, I am a true proponent of the free market. It works. It always has.

If a company does not want to offer a service, such is their choice...and should be their choice. And you know what happens? Someone else does, and that copmpany gets a larger chunk of market share.

We dont want government telling us what we MUST sell. I have no issue with government telling us what we CANT sell....that keeps the greedy in check....but when it comes to telling us what we MUST sell...the key word being MUST....? That is over the line. That is tyranny.

If you want a BLT and a restaurant doesnt sell it becuase it is Kosher...what will you do? Go to another restaurant, of course. That is the free market at its finest.

If you want birth control and your carrier doesnt cover it....what should you do? Go to another carrier....or pay for it out of pocket if you are otherwise happy with the carrier.

If your employer doesnt pay you what you think you deserve, what will you do? Look for a higher paying job. If you deserve more, you will get it elsewhwere...and if you dont, then maybe you dont deserve it.

Free market...not government...is the answer.

So all that being said....and here is where it gets good.....

I am pro choice...and further more...I have no issue with birth control....I disagree wholehearetedly with Rick Santorum as it pertains to BC....but I also know what he said and what he feels....it is his personal faith....but he is not telling ANYONE they must follow his way.....

At least he was honest...anmd it pisses me off how the left is taking what he said and making it as if he plans to mandate all foolow his ideology. It is BS and taking away from what is going to be a very impoortant time in our history.

In essence, we have the likes of MSNBC and FOX deciding where our country goes.

And it is very dsiturbing to me.

At least he was honest...

True, I respect him and Ron Paul for that.
Mind you, he is one serious nutcase and no mistake.

 

[koshergrl]

Everyone who keeps repeating the lie about insurance companies being forced to offer coverage for birth control, SHUT UP NOW, AND POINT TO A SINGLE EXAMPLE. Insurance companies want to offer coverage for health care. Why? Because there is a demand in the market.

This isn't about insurance companies being forced to sell a product they don't want. It's about employers being able to prevent their employees from buying health insurance that covers normal and routine medical treatments.

wow..

You need to stay more up on what is going on.

You are dead wrong.

Learn something.

DO some research. Then get back to me.

An FYI.,......Insurance comnpanies are going to be FORCED to offer BC at no cost to the insured.

That was Obamas compromise.

Where do you live...under a rock?

A rock of their own creation.

It doesn't matter what the reality is, they think reality is subjective, and that their misconceptions actually can ALTER the reality, if they state them enough times.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you keep missing the point BluePhool......Planned Parenthood is a government-funded agency along with government educational programs that are enabling teenage sexual activity and not doing the job they should be doing.

Are you really under the impression that if teenagers didn't have access to rubbers they wouldn't ****?

by and large....yes along with teaching them responsibility....handing out rubbers like candy only encourages promiscuity.....guess you don't know what abstinence-only education teaches....i believe it is having some positive effect today on teen pregnancy rates which soared for years after "free sex" took hold of society...

FEDERAL DEFINITION OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION

According to federal law, an eligible abstinence education program is one that:

A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, physiological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;

C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and

H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Source: U.S. Social Security Act, Sec. 510(b)(2).

....and Santorum has every right to address these policy issues in his own style....you just get bent out of shape because it's a Christian-style approach and so your rationality flies out the window...like koshergrl says you can't see past your own paranoia....

Wearing rubbers is not an issue policy!!!
well it sure seems to be a policy issue to PP and liberals who want to hand them out like candy and force churches and insurance companies to pay for them....

Do I believe the government should be funding their distribution? No. Is Santorum within his rights to say he is personally opposed to contraception? Sure. Does he or anyone else have the right to determine for the nation what is moral and what is not? **** no. Is he correct that morality and contraception is, as he says, "an important public policy issue?" No way.
see above

You're so busy defending a perceived attack on religion you are overlooking that I support the right of a religion to establish the tenants of their faith.....however, you seem to have the opinion that just because a church says "this is what is moral and this is what is immoral" everyone has to abide by that. Guess what? They don't. People are free to follow or not to follow what the damned church says and society has a funny way of deciding for themselves what is moral and what is not.

we seem to be back to my earlier question that you didn't answer.....'thou shalt not kill' is a religious belief.....so why is it law?........why can't people just decide for themselves....?

...laws have a funny way of "encouraging" moral or immoral behavior...

so far the liberal solution has not been working......it's produced high unmarried pregnancy rates and plenty of abortions...neither is good for society....

as i've said before.....promoting promiscuity among the young affects our society in all kinds of terrible ways.....one important example is the diseases that have become rampant....teenagers lives are even at stake...

the fact that the explosion of disease coincides with promiscuity should not be lost on you.....that is, if you are rational....

The fact that wearing rubbers reduces the rate of transmission of a disease shouldn't be lost on you. But like I said before: you endorse the "people just shouldn't **** at all" line of thought. Good luck with that one catching on.

rubbers may reduce disease but do NOT prevent catching them entirely....only abstinence will do that....the fact that 1 out of 4 teens has an STD belies your claim...with Conservative leaders like Bush and Santorum there is thankfully a push back against the stupid belief of "free sex without consequences".....

.

 

[koshergrl]

They just continue to ignore the fact that the INCIDENCE of stds, teen pregnancy, abortion, continues to increase apace. They pretend that throwing rubbers at kids while refusing to address the underlying behavior (other than to tell them that we don't expect anything else from them) will reduce the consequences of irresponsible sex.

Despite the fact that the numbers clearly indicate that AVAILABILITY OF ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTIVES DOES NOTHING TO REDUCE THE NUMBERS OF UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES AND ABORTION.

 

[koshergrl]

It's funny, because they think that telling kids that we expect them to have sex, and telling them in detail how to accomplish having sex, and provide them with various and assorted (fake) "safety nets" they are 'staying out of' people's bedrooms.

When really, they're right there applying the spermicides, doing the pelvics, scraping the uteruses, and slipping those rubbers on.

But WE'RE the ones who show an "unhealthy interest" in the sexual proclivities of people.

 

[koshergrl]

I guess telling people it's okay to stick their dicks in anythign that moves isn't intrusive...but telling them it's probably best to think carefully before doing it, is...

 

[Inthemiddle]

You are dead wrong.

No I'm not. I'm just not spouting partisan bullshit.

An FYI.,......Insurance comnpanies are going to be FORCED to offer BC at no cost to the insured.

That was Obamas compromise.

That's the compromise Obama has offered because......what? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BITCHING ABOUT THE BIRTH CONTROL DEAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

The law does not require insurance companies to offer free birth control. But since the church wants to *****, he's come up with a compromise offer. Personally, I'm against the compromise. But that's really aside from the point for the moment. You cannot object to a law as it stands, then object to it based on the proposed compromise designed to address your initial objections, and claim that the original is faulty because of the consequences that would result from the proposed compromise. That becomes question begging.

Furthermore, your diatribe ignores the point I was actually addressing in the first place. Insurance companies are not being forced to sell a product they don't want to sell. The health care law, if anything, opens up the market, and requires that a product the insurance companies do indeed want to sell, will be available to EVERYONE. I challenge you to produce a single example of a health insurance company that doesn't want to sell health insurance.

 

[Inthemiddle]

They just continue to ignore the fact that the INCIDENCE of stds, teen pregnancy, abortion, continues to increase apace.

Particularly in places like Texas, that rely on abstinence only education.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sure you have the stats on that.

 

[koshergrl]

Silence. Shocker.

 

[Missourian]

They just continue to ignore the fact that the INCIDENCE of stds, teen pregnancy, abortion, continues to increase apace.

Particularly in places like Texas, that rely on abstinence only education.

Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths

February 02, 2010|By Ashley Hayes, CNN

An abstinence-only education program is more effective than other initiatives at keeping sixth- and seventh-graders from having sex within a two-year period, according to a study described by some as a landmark.


Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths - CNN


​

Oops.

 

[koshergrl]

They just continue to ignore the fact that the INCIDENCE of stds, teen pregnancy, abortion, continues to increase apace.

Particularly in places like Texas, that rely on abstinence only education.

Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths

February 02, 2010|By Ashley Hayes, CNN

An abstinence-only education program is more effective than other initiatives at keeping sixth- and seventh-graders from having sex within a two-year period, according to a study described by some as a landmark.


Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths - CNN


​

Oops.

How embarassing for the tard.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm sure you have the stats on that.

Everything here is per population:

Texas has among worst teen pregnancy rate in country

Texas 11th in Chlamydia rates

Texas 12th in Gonorrhea rates

Texas 11th in Syphilis rates

Texas 14th in HIV rates

 

[Inthemiddle]

They just continue to ignore the fact that the INCIDENCE of stds, teen pregnancy, abortion, continues to increase apace.

Particularly in places like Texas, that rely on abstinence only education.

Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths

February 02, 2010|By Ashley Hayes, CNN

An abstinence-only education program is more effective than other initiatives at keeping sixth- and seventh-graders from having sex within a two-year period, according to a study described by some as a landmark.


Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths - CNN


​

Oops.

Great, so 6th and 7th graders aren't having sex. But the 14 year olds in Texas are popping out more babies than the Duggars. I've never seen so many 15 and 16 year old girls PREGNANT WITH THEIR THIRD CHILD! It was truly disgusting.

 

[koshergrl]

Those numbers are all over the place and can't be tied to anything except maybe RvW...because they skyrocketed after 1972. Then dropped in the 90s...leveled off until 2001 and then have gone up just a tiny bit since then. But overall, they're very close to what they were in 1972, after huge jump.

So I guess teaching abstinence really is effective.

 

[idb]

Those numbers are all over the place and can't be tied to anything except maybe RvW...because they skyrocketed after 1972. Then dropped in the 90s...leveled off until 2001 and then have gone up just a tiny bit since then. But overall, they're very close to what they were in 1972, after huge jump.

So I guess teaching abstinence really is effective.

Of course, ugly people have a natural advantage.
I suppose that's why there are so many of them.

 

[koshergrl]

We should cull them.

Let's start plastering neighborhoods with more than their fair share of ugly people with pro-abortion propaganda so the numbers diminish!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Those numbers are all over the place and can't be tied to anything except maybe RvW.

Did you even look at the links? The STD rates show state-by-state comparisons of the per population rates of their respective diseases. Why the Hell are you talking about Roe v Wade? That has nothing to do with any of this.

So I guess teaching abstinence really is effective.

Obviously not. Because if that were the truth, then Texas would have among the lowest rates of teen pregnancy, and of STD cases. Yet Texas ranks among the top in all of these. Texas is just about the only place in the country where teen births continue to be on the rise. If abstinence only is working, why are Texas teens still having sex and having more babies than the rest of the country? If it's working, why are Texans coming down with more STDs than almost anyone in the rest of the country? Your best argument is to invoke Roe v Wade? Are you ******* serious? Okay, we have a NEW stupidest thing ever said on this board.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Texas has among worst teen pregnancy rate in country

anchor babies anyone...?