Obama Calls Sandra Fluke to Console Her

[....lybob]

Birth control should be a mandatory part of every single insurance plan in America. We need to vastly reduce the cost of our social programs, and this is one of the best ways to do it.

 

Unwanted children are a huge burden on our system, and contraception ends up saving taxpayers countless dollars. As far as religious institutions go? Religious institutions should be able to opt out, but that should come with losing all aid from the federal government and losing tax-exempt status.

Holy **** the voice of reason!!! how did that make through the sanity censer

[3rdnlng]

Birth control should be a mandatory part of every single insurance plan in America. We need to vastly reduce the cost of our social programs, and this is one of the best ways to do it.

 

Unwanted children are a huge burden on our system, and contraception ends up saving taxpayers countless dollars. As far as religious institutions go? Religious institutions should be able to opt out, but that should come with losing all aid from the federal government and losing tax-exempt status.

 

 

So, in other words you are for the government coercing their version of religion upon certain faiths?

[Buff_bills4ever]

Birth control should be a mandatory part of every single insurance plan in America. We need to vastly reduce the cost of our social programs, and this is one of the best ways to do it.

 

Unwanted children are a huge burden on our system, and contraception ends up saving taxpayers countless dollars. As far as religious institutions go? Religious institutions should be able to opt out, but that should come with losing all aid from the federal government and losing tax-exempt status.

 

If the government wants to hand out condoms and birth control pills for free, I'm all for it, but forcing Religious institutions who oppose their use to provide them for their employees is wrong.

 

BTW thank you for bringing us back on topic. 7 pages of dick measuring.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Buff_bills4ever

[Booster4324]

Rush apologizes:

 

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

 

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Click here to find out more!

 

Yeah, calling her a slut was an analogy. Implying she needed 3k a year to have rampant sex was an analogy. Poor Rush, soon he will need to be looking at Glenn Beck's sponsors.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Booster4324

[Rob's House]

Rush apologizes:

 

 

 

Yeah, calling her a slut was an analogy. Implying she needed 3k a year to have rampant sex was an analogy. Poor Rush, soon he will need to be looking at Glenn Beck's sponsors.

Why does this offend you so much? You don't normally jump on these idoitic liberal band wagons. Why this one?

[Booster4324]

Why does this offend you so much? You don't normally jump on these idoitic liberal band wagons. Why this one?

 

Time to kill?

 

Actually, I think Rush is bad for the whole process. I think Maher is an asshat and if we were talking about the Sara Palin bit and I had time to kill I would be condemning him.

[Rob's House]

Time to kill?

 

Actually, I think Rush is bad for the whole process. I think Maher is an asshat and if we were talking about the Sara Palin bit and I had time to kill I would be condemning him.

Regardless of your opinion of any of these guys, a radio or TV talk show host referring to an activist dropping the details of her sex life in front of congress as a slut is hardly the outrage this non-story's been blown up to be.

[Booster4324]

Regardless of your opinion of any of these guys, a radio or TV talk show host referring to an activist dropping the details of her sex life in front of congress as a slut is hardly the outrage this non-story's been blown up to be.

 

But it wasn't about sex primarily. She was talking about how the pill has uses for women's health other than avoiding pregnancy. Although frankly, I think the latter is very economical. So he completely mischaracterized her points and then calls her a slut based on the mischaracteration. Typical Rush, but I only cared enough to tweet about it once other than to post here.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

If the government wants to hand out condoms and birth control pills for free, I'm all for it, but forcing Religious institutions who oppose their use to provide them for their employees is wrong.

 

BTW thank you for bringing us back on topic. 7 pages of dick measuring.

 

Mine was the biggest!

 

Birth control should be a mandatory part of every single insurance plan in America. We need to vastly reduce the cost of our social programs, and this is one of the best ways to do it.

 

Unwanted children are a huge burden on our system, and contraception ends up saving taxpayers countless dollars. As far as religious institutions go? Religious institutions should be able to opt out, but that should come with losing all aid from the federal government and losing tax-exempt status.

 

The problem only problem I have with stopping the conception of unwanted children is that I loose the fun of denying those children education, food, and healthcare later on the basis that it just costs too much.

 

Regardless of your opinion of any of these guys, a radio or TV talk show host referring to an activist dropping the details of her sex life in front of congress as a slut is hardly the outrage this non-story's been blown up to be.

 

At no point during her testimony did she talk about her sex life. She was talking about the medical hardships that not having access to affordable birth control can cause. This isn't about making it easier for college co-eds to go out and have sex which is what Rush was trying to make it about.

 

Nor are we asking tax payers to pay for her birth control as both Rush and others on this board have been implying. She is paying for health insurance and then being told that one of the services she is paying for is not being covered.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan

[3rdnlng]

Mine was the biggest!

 

 

 

The problem only problem I have with stopping the conception of unwanted children is that I loose the fun of denying those children education, food, and healthcare later on the basis that it just costs too much.

 

 

 

At no point during her testimony did she talk about her sex life. She was talking about the medical hardships that not having access to affordable birth control can cause. This isn't about making it easier for college co-eds to go out and have sex which is what Rush was trying to make it about.

 

Nor are we asking tax payers to pay for her birth control as both Rush and others on this board have been implying. She is paying for health insurance and then being told that one of the services she is paying for is not being covered.

 

 

Yes, you are the biggest dick. She is paying for health insurance and then being told that one of the services she is paying for is not covered? No, she is wishing that her health insurance included birth control, but she is paying for insurance that does not include it. Taxpayers will end up paying for her birth control if the proposed modification to the healthcare law forces insurance companies to provide it free of additional charges.

[DC Tom]

At no point during her testimony did she talk about her sex life. She was talking about the medical hardships that not having access to affordable birth control can cause. This isn't about making it easier for college co-eds to go out and have sex which is what Rush was trying to make it about.

 

And what medical hardship does no access to birth control cause?

 

Nor are we asking tax payers to pay for her birth control as both Rush and others on this board have been implying. She is paying for health insurance and then being told that one of the services she is paying for is not being covered.

 

No, you're just asking religious institutions to violate their religious tenants. Screw the First Amendment.

[Fingon]

So, in other words you are for the government coercing their version of religion upon certain faiths?

"their version of religion"? Facts and reason are the antithesis of religion. It's been proven that birth control saves taxpayer money, which has nothing to do with religion. If these institutions don't like it, they can feel free to give up the numerous benefits afforded to them by the government.

 

 

This decision wasn't made because of a religious belief that all women should have access to contraception, but because it's logical.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Fingon

[3rdnlng]

And what medical hardship does no access to birth control cause?

 

 

 

No, you're just asking religious institutions to violate their religious tenants. Screw the First Amendment.

 

Actually, as I understand it, the latest edict from Obama doesn't make the religious institutions pay for it. It makes the insurance company provide it for free. So Obama's smoke and mirror attempt to please the church hierarchy is just a way to make you pay for her no consequence sex.

[DC Tom]

Actually, as I understand it, the latest edict from Obama doesn't make the religious institutions pay for it. It makes the insurance company provide it for free. So Obama's smoke and mirror attempt to please the church hierarchy is just a way to make you pay for her no consequence sex.

 

Which is bull ****...the religious institution still has to provide the insurance that provides it. It's not a compromise at all, except in as much as the government is requiring religions to compromise their beliefs.

[Rob's House]

"their version of religion"? Facts and reason are the antithesis of religion. It's been proven that birth control saves taxpayer money, which has nothing to do with religion. If these institutions don't like it, they can feel free to give up the numerous benefits afforded to them by the government.

 

 

This decision wasn't made because of a religious belief that all women should have access to contraception, but because it's logical.

Actually the decision was made because Obama's in deep **** politically and needed a diversionary controversy so they pull this bogus non-issue of birth control out of nowhere. And predictably, the conversation drifts from the real issue which is the government exceeding it's authority by placing mandates, to the merits of contraception. Of course, in order to sell this steaming turd of an idea we have to concoct the fiction that birth control is prohibitively expensive, when in reality it's relatively cheap.

 

I also love the all or nothing attitude you statists love to throw out whenever someone has a problem with the government trampling on their rights. Rather than look to the principle of the infringment, morons just take the approach that birth control is good and Catholic church is loony anyway so who gives a **** about their rights. And then you claim claim if they have a problem with any aspect of government intrusion whatsoever then they should be cut off from every government benefit. It's !@#$ing stupid.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

"their version of religion"? Facts and reason are the antithesis of religion. It's been proven that birth control saves taxpayer money, which has nothing to do with religion. If these institutions don't like it, they can feel free to give up the numerous benefits afforded to them by the government.

 

 

This decision wasn't made because of a religious belief that all women should have access to contraception, but because it's logical.

 

And it still goes counter to the First Amendment.

 

No one's arguing (that I've seen yet, at least) that the Church is right in this regard - personally, I think the Catholic Church is one of the most backwards institutions on the planet, and that if they had half a clue they'd support contraception to reduce the number of abortions. But they don't. And no matter how backwards I think they are, they have a First Amendment right to be backwards.

 

If health care were truly private, it would't be an issue. On the other hand, if it were truly public, the government would be providing it and the church would have nothing to do with it, and it wouldn't be an issue. Instead, we get this weird public/private hybrid where the government doesn't provide anything, just mandates what private organizations MUST provide, and at what cost they must provide it, with precedent over every other legally protected right. Welcome to the reason this abortion of a health care law is completely unworkable and total bull ****.

[3rdnlng]

"their version of religion"? Facts and reason are the antithesis of religion. It's been proven that birth control saves taxpayer money, which has nothing to do with religion. If these institutions don't like it, they can feel free to give up the numerous benefits afforded to them by the government.

 

 

This decision wasn't made because of a religious belief that all women should have access to contraception, but because it's logical.

 

 

It may be logical and I may even prefer that everyone that doesn't want a kid use birth control, but it is an encroachment upon the constitution. It is a very slippery slope that you are proposing that we start down. I'd rather the government made it free to all that wanted it than for them to try to force it down the throats of religious institutions when it goes against their beliefs. With that said, Obama is trying to satisfy The Church by not forcing them to pay for it, just their insurance company.

[Fingon]

And it still goes counter to the First Amendment.

 

No one's arguing (that I've seen yet, at least) that the Church is right in this regard - personally, I think the Catholic Church is one of the most backwards institutions on the planet, and that if they had half a clue they'd support contraception to reduce the number of abortions. But they don't. And no matter how backwards I think they are, they have a First Amendment right to be backwards.

 

If health care were truly private, it would't be an issue. On the other hand, if it were truly public, the government would be providing it and the church would have nothing to do with it, and it wouldn't be an issue. Instead, we get this weird public/private hybrid where the government doesn't provide anything, just mandates what private organizations MUST provide, and at what cost they must provide it, with precedent over every other legally protected right. Welcome to the reason this abortion of a health care law is completely unworkable and total bull ****.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a law may encroach upon religious freedom if it meets the 3 criteria:

 

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

I don't see where this law violates any of those rules. It's clearly constitutional for the same reason that marijuana is still illegal for Rastafarians.

[3rdnlng]

Which is bull ****...the religious institution still has to provide the insurance that provides it. It's not a compromise at all, except in as much as the government is requiring religions to compromise their beliefs.

 

That's why I said it was smoke and mirrors.

[DC Tom]

The Supreme Court has ruled that a law may encroach upon religious freedom if it meets the 3 criteria:

 

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

I don't see where this law violates any of those rules. It's clearly constitutional for the same reason that marijuana is still illegal for Rastafarians.

 

"You must provide a benefit to workers that runs counter to your doctrine" sounds pretty inhibitory to me. It's telling the Catholic Church that they are not, in fact, free to practice their own doctrine.

 

And marijuana shouldn't be illegal for Rastafarians. I consider that a First Amendment violation as well.