The Revenge of Sandra Fluke

[cooltigger21 0]

He was essentially correct. She wanted, and I assume still wants, someone else to, pay for her birth control so she can have sex anytime with anyone.

[channonc 466]

He was essentially correct. She wanted, and I assume still wants, someone else to, pay for her birth control so she can have sex anytime with anyone.

Statements like this make it obvious that you are a man.

Don't you think it's significantly cheaper long-term to provide free birth control to everyone as a way to 1) lower the abortion rate and 2) lower then number of women and children in poverty? #2 would save the government money.

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/public-costs-of-up-2010.pdf

[AURaptor 1,137]

He was essentially correct. She wanted, and I assume still wants, someone else to, pay for her birth control so she can have sex anytime with anyone.

Correct. The 'cyst ' argument is a red herring, and only makes up a small % of those who'd otherwise wish to get free contraception. It's not invalid, as in the pill DOES offer benefits beyond contraception, but it's also disingenuous claim to make , for the vast # of those wishing to take advantage of insurance paid goodies.

Like having a doctor write off on having a deviated septum, so one can get a nose job, a cosmetic procedure, just to make one FEEL better about themselves.

[AURaptor 1,137]

He was essentially correct. She wanted, and I assume still wants, someone else to, pay for her birth control so she can have sex anytime with anyone.

Statements like this make it obvious that you are a man.

Don't you think it's significantly cheaper long-term to provide free birth control to everyone as a way to 1) lower the abortion rate and 2) lower then number of women and children in poverty? #2 would save the government money.

https://www.guttmach...-of-up-2010.pdf

Personal Responsibility.

It's for everyone.

[channonc 466]

He was essentially correct. She wanted, and I assume still wants, someone else to, pay for her birth control so she can have sex anytime with anyone.

Correct. The 'cyst ' argument is a red herring, and only makes up a small % of those who'd otherwise wish to get free contraception. It's not invalid, as in the pill DOES offer benefits beyond contraception, but it's also disingenuous claim to make , for the vast # of those wishing to take advantage of insurance paid goodies.

Like having a doctor write off on having a deviated septum, so one can get a nose job, a cosmetic procedure, just to make one FEEL better about themselves.

This is beyond offensive to women. I could make a caddy remark here, but I'll bite my tongue.

[channonc 466]

He was essentially correct. She wanted, and I assume still wants, someone else to, pay for her birth control so she can have sex anytime with anyone.

Statements like this make it obvious that you are a man.

Don't you think it's significantly cheaper long-term to provide free birth control to everyone as a way to 1) lower the abortion rate and 2) lower then number of women and children in poverty? #2 would save the government money.

https://www.guttmach...-of-up-2010.pdf

Personal Responsibility.

It's for everyone.

I know, who cares if there's more poverty. They probably deserved it. I mean they must have done something wrong to get there. More kids born in poverty? Too bad, Raptor says you just need to work harder. Should have been born to better parents.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I know, who cares if there's more poverty. They probably deserved it. I mean they must have done something wrong to get there. More kids born in poverty? Too bad, Raptor says you just need to work harder. Should have been born to better parents.

They deserve what they get, based on the choices they made. We all do.

As for better parents... hey, maybe THEY need to be the better parents themselves. Think of that one ?

[AUDub 11,784]

Should have been born to better parents.

They deserve what they get, based on the choices they made. We all do.

OK WTF

[AURaptor 1,137]

Should have been born to better parents.

They deserve what they get, based on the choices they made. We all do.

OK WTF

Self explanatory

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

What is interesting on here is the attack against the Catholic church for not wanting to pay for contraception but nary a word against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Visa Inc. and PepsiCo. These big companies that I just listed also got exemptions for not having to cover birth control but where is the outrage against them? They probably employ more people that "need" coverage than all of the folks in the Catholic churches and organizations in the US. Where are the protests? So to me folks want to rail against religion for not conforming to their views but will exempt contempt at the corporations or the government who gave out those exemptions.

There were a list of over 1200 folks that got exemptions from Obamacare but no outrage against them either. Here is a list of exempt companies from obamacare. This was scraped from a gov website before it was taken down....http://www.freerepub...t/2900475/posts

[cole256 17,085]

Me asking you for anything besides your self proclamation of owning people is propping myself up? Lol. Ok. You are lord of the political forum on a football board! Lol.

Only if you say so," Carl ".

:roflol:/>

Lmao. If you're over 22 this was sad and pathetic lol

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Since this has also been about Rush and birth control and spun off into that direction here is a list of 71 other companies besides Hobby Lobby that don't want to pay for birth control....http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-sebelius-contraceptive-for-profit-lawsuits#cases

[channonc 466]

I know, who cares if there's more poverty. They probably deserved it. I mean they must have done something wrong to get there. More kids born in poverty? Too bad, Raptor says you just need to work harder. Should have been born to better parents.

They deserve what they get, based on the choices they made. We all do.

As for better parents... hey, maybe THEY need to be the better parents themselves. Think of that one ?

This is one of the more messed up, offensive things I've read from you.

[AUDub 11,784]

Should have been born to better parents.

They deserve what they get, based on the choices they made. We all do.

OK WTF

Self explanatory

Utterly nonsensical.

[cole256 17,085]

Should have been born to better parents.

They deserve what they get, based on the choices they made. We all do.

OK WTF

Self explanatory

Utterly nonsensical.

But at the same time expected. I'm assuming like myself no one was surprised or shocked at the statement.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I know, who cares if there's more poverty. They probably deserved it. I mean they must have done something wrong to get there. More kids born in poverty? Too bad, Raptor says you just need to work harder. Should have been born to better parents.

They deserve what they get, based on the choices they made. We all do.

As for better parents... hey, maybe THEY need to be the better parents themselves. Think of that one ?

She was talking about the kids. They didn't have a lot of choice in the matter.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Carl works in a nuclear power plant... Lighten up

[cole256 17,085]

I understood the joke, I was saying using the cartoons just made me Smh. And actually I'd be homer because the group I'm in runs the plant

[AURaptor 1,137]

I understood the joke, I was saying using the cartoons just made me Smh. And actually I'd be homer because the group I'm in runs the plant

Sure thing, Carl.

[cole256 17,085]

Lol. If my 10 year old cousin acted like that my mom would tell her to stop it, she's too old for that now....you're probably in your 50's lol. Wow

[AURaptor 1,137]

Smart kid, your cousin.

[AUDub 11,784]

What is interesting on here is the attack against the Catholic church for not wanting to pay for contraception but nary a word against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Visa Inc. and PepsiCo. These big companies that I just listed also got exemptions for not having to cover birth control but where is the outrage against them? They probably employ more people that "need" coverage than all of the folks in the Catholic churches and organizations in the US. Where are the protests? So to me folks want to rail against religion for not conforming to their views but will exempt contempt at the corporations or the government who gave out those exemptions.

There were a list of over 1200 folks that got exemptions from Obamacare but no outrage against them either. Here is a list of exempt companies from obamacare. This was scraped from a gov website before it was taken down....http://www.freerepub...t/2900475/posts

Your post is misleading. None of those companies were given a special exemption to the contraceptive mandate. They have grandfathered health plans which the law itself says are not subject to the same requirements as plans purchased and implemented after passage.

The Little Sisters of the Poor do not have a grandfathered health plan and they shouldn't be pointing to others who did their due diligence and claiming persecution. It has nothing to do with politics and those companies were not offered anything that wasn't also available to the LSP.

You're parroting a lie by omission.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

What is interesting on here is the attack against the Catholic church for not wanting to pay for contraception but nary a word against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Visa Inc. and PepsiCo. These big companies that I just listed also got exemptions for not having to cover birth control but where is the outrage against them? They probably employ more people that "need" coverage than all of the folks in the Catholic churches and organizations in the US. Where are the protests? So to me folks want to rail against religion for not conforming to their views but will exempt contempt at the corporations or the government who gave out those exemptions.

There were a list of over 1200 folks that got exemptions from Obamacare but no outrage against them either. Here is a list of exempt companies from obamacare. This was scraped from a gov website before it was taken down....http://www.freerepub...t/2900475/posts

Your post is misleading. None of those companies were given a special exemption to the contraceptive mandate. They have grandfathered health plans which the law itself says are not subject to the same requirements as plans purchased and implemented after passage.

The Little Sisters of the Poor do not have a grandfathered health plan and they shouldn't be pointing to others who did their due diligence and claiming persecution. It has nothing to do with politics and those companies were not offered anything that wasn't also available to the LSP.

You're parroting a lie by omission.

So you know what is represented in all of those companies plans? Seriously? You are the one bringing up religion in the mix and about contraceptives...I am not parroting a lie. I just stated that there are over 1200 plans that got exempted in some sort or another...we don't know why they were exempted but I bet it was for political reasons. Now the Little Sisters of the Poor should have also been exempted due to their religious beliefs. SCOTUS even pointed that out in their passing it back down to the lower courts to work something out. I find it also striking that other peoples plans were not grandfathered in as the same as these companies or unions and even High Schools. People who don't want contraception coverage are now forced to buy it which is now mandated by the government. The Government has no business in my sex life or the lives of others...

Also, these companies were exempted for some reason or another, there was never a published list of why (except some were political, i.e. unions). For you to say that it doesn't equate to exempting another organization or company for the contraception issue is nuts and totally unfair to those organizations. Also, no one has been taxed for cadillac plans as of yet....funny how that happens also...to say this crap isn't political is just plain incorrect...

[AUDub 11,784]

So you know what is represented in all of those companies plans? Seriously? You are the one bringing up religion in the mix and about contraceptives...I am not parroting a lie. I just stated that there are over 1200 plans that got exempted in some sort or another...we don't know why they were exempted but I bet it was for political reasons.

No that's the explanation. Chevron, Exxon, Visa and Pepsi Co. did their due diligence, LSP did not. Admit you were wrong or lying through your teeth. Take the ideological filter and tinfoil hat off and think.

In fact, why would these be on your freeper list if the goal was to reject religious organizations?

Adventist Care Centers

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany

Heritage Christian Services

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Ogdensburg

Baptist Retirement

Look through it. I'm sure there are more.

Now the Little Sisters of the Poor should have also been exempted due to their religious beliefs. SCOTUS even pointed that out in their passing it back down to the lower courts to work something out. I find it also striking that other peoples plans were not grandfathered in as the same as these companies or unions and even High Schools. People who don't want contraception coverage are now forced to buy it which is now mandated by the government. The Government has no business in my sex life or the lives of others...

The Little Sisters of the Poor weren't exempted because their health plan did not retain its grandfathered status, and these rules were out there for all to see. Those companies did their due diligence, LSP did not. It really is that simple.

Now, had you actually followed the thread, you would find that I have already stated that the SCOTUS did its job!

This sets a precedent for any religious person who owns a corporation or business to refuse to abide by federal laws based on their religion. If it is not birth control, then blood transfusions, organ transplants, fertility treatment, palliative care. What about circumventing antidiscrimination hiring practices? They can refuse service to customers based on religious freedom? What about some type of biblical justification for not paying taxes? It makes it terribly difficult to run a country.

Jews, Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Scientologists, Pagans, Buddhists, Rastafarian, those of you who own businesses, please come forward and make your case for religious freedom. How will this all play out?

As long as the taxpayers provide support for church operated secular organizations involved in providing health care for fees, it is the church, not the government, that has breached the wall of separation. I do not willingly support any entity that denies a segment of the population any right or service that the government specifically supports.

The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from religion as much as it does freedom of religion. Health care, birth control included, must fall into the irreligious protections guaranteed the minority.

A business is not a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or any other place of worship. If a church wants to participate in a secular endeavor, I believe they should be expected to play by the same rules as any other businesses.

Regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor, I happen to believe that the Court did its job here and correctly applied the law as written, but I quite frankly do not like the result. Congress needs to take another look at RFRA and whether it needs to be amended. Until RFRA is addressed in Congress, the Supreme Court has likely opened itself up to years of litigation over how far RFRA actually goes. Some interesting cases will be brought up by minority religions like the Witnesses. One early example: Citing the ruling, a judge excused a FLDS member from testifying in court in a case about child labor who claimed it violated his religious freedom.

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?213cv0281-121

I disagree, of course. See the example I linked above. Also, these other mines in the minefield:

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/07/gitmo-detainees-invoke-hobby-lobby-ruling/

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/satanic-temple-turns-tables-hobby-lobby-ruling/

There is a potential legal quagmire here, Titan.

I'm glad we agree on this. I'm all for ending this "who's going to pay for it?" nonsense.

The end result: I'd much rather be a Christian starting a company than a non-Christian. It'll cost less.

That is the lesson here. However you cut it, it's government playing favorites. And that's exactly what the first amendment was written to prevent. The legal reasoning regarding the ruling as RFRA was written is sound. But it stinks for the businessman who isn't religious.

Also, these companies were exempted for some reason or another, there was never a published list of why (except some were political, i.e. unions). For you to say that it doesn't equate to exempting another organization or company for the contraception issue is nuts and totally unfair to those organizations. Also, no one has been taxed for cadillac plans as of yet....funny how that happens also...to say this crap isn't political is just plain incorrect...

Some were religious too.

No, the why is quite obvious. That you favor some tinfoil hat nonsense shocks me not at all.

[homersapien 12,172]

Since this has also been about Rush and birth control and spun off into that direction here is a list of 71 other companies besides Hobby Lobby that don't want to pay for birth control....http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-sebelius-contraceptive-for-profit-lawsuits#cases

For religious reasons?

It's my understanding that from a business standpoint, insurers actually want to cover birth control as pregnancies are so much more expensive.