Now, here's something Rush Limbaugh said yesterday. He was talking about Sandra Fluke, "a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to having so much sex that she can't afford it anymore." Fluke is a woman who testified last week at an unofficial hearing (set up by Nancy Pelosi) in support of requiring health insurance coverage for birth control, even for those who get their health insurance from institutions affiliated with religions that see birth control as sinful. Opponents of that requirement had crafted their argument around respect for religious belief, and before Rush's loud voice took over, they seemed to want us to think about the exalted religious feeling underlying the objection to birth control. But Rush dragged our attention to the spectacle of a woman having sex, over and over — 3 times a day! — and she wants us "to pay for it." Heh heh. Wants us to pay for it?!! So she's a slut! A prostitute!
When [President Obama telephoned Fluke and] asked her if she's okay, she said that Obama told her that she should tell her parents they should be proud. (pause) Okay, I'm button [sic] my lip on that one. The president tells Sandra Fluke (chuckling), 30-year-old Sandra Fluke, that her parents should be proud. Okay. Let me ask you a question. I might be surprised at the answer I would get to this question. Your daughter appears before a congressional committee and says she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it. Would you be proud? I don't know about you, but I'd be embarrassed. I'd disconnect the phone. I'd go into hiding and hope the media didn't find me. See, everybody forgets what starts this, or what started this whole thing. Or maybe they don't! Maybe that's normal behavior on the left now, for all I know.If that were your daughter, you should be ashamed. Shame! She's having so much sex. Shame. 3 times a day. Wants to get paid. Shame. That's Rush's theme. He can't let it go. That's where he found the resonance with the audience he imagines as he speaks. Who are those listeners? They're not those people on the left. (Who knows what "normal behavior" for them is now?) But his audience, he knows how to talk to them, and he's sounding the theme of shame — shame for the woman who openly enjoys her sexuality. Rush is plying the audience, playing on their haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. So much sex!
Now, I know he's also got the small government theme in there. "We" shouldn't have to pay for it. There shouldn't be "a new welfare program" for it. That's distorted. It's not a welfare program funded by taxpayers. It's an insurance regulation that will have some effect on insurance premiums. That's a conservative theme that resonates with listeners who don't worry about how much sex other people are having. But he doesn't bother to get the conservative argument straight. He has to distort it so it works with his joking about prostitution, and he's only talking about it in connection to sex — that very, very frequent sex that somebody else is having.
And whatever happened to religion? I mean religion as the exalted aspiration toward God, the theme that other Republicans had worked so hard to refine and articulate before Rush's big voice drowned them out. Now, the connection to religion seems to be about the old sexual Puritanism. This is a theme that makes many modern American women suspect that what people like Rush are really about is preserving the body's uncontrolled sexual function for the purpose of subordinating women. How dare women seize the power to disconnect sexuality from the consequences God built in!
But it is fundamental to women's freedom that we have the ability to decide for ourselves when our bodies will go through pregnancy and bear children. At some point, society ought to intervene to protect a developing child, and we will argue until doomsday about exactly where that point is, but it is nevertheless crucial to the equality of women that we control our bodies' reproductive function. There are in this world societies that appropriate the reproductive function and use it as a means of intimidating and punishing women who might act upon sexual desire, but that is not the United States, not since quite a long time ago. Now, we could become a society like that, and I suspect some of Rush's listeners, if not Rush himself, love that idea.
Yes, yes, no one is currently proposing taking away birth control. The debate is about who pays for it. Of course. But the political effort to channel public opinion reaches more deeply into the human mind. Politicians make choices about what emotions to stimulate. The Republican Party and the Republican candidates seem to have decided that their emotional theme would be freedom of religion. That might elegantly balance the Democratic Party's theme of reproductive freedom. And then Rush lumbered into the spotlight and spouted about sex. Sex! The women are having too much sex! Sex, sex, sex, all the time, 3 times a day! Sex!
In the long comments thread on yesterday's post about Limbaugh and Fluke, Mark O said:
This is part of a wonderfully orchestrated maneuver to distract the voters from Obama's economic failures to something nearly irrelevant.And I said:
Nice of Rush to sit in on Obama's orchestra.
Posts
535 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 535 of 535But hey, facts tend not to support Leftists.
Well, not to the same extent that you believe your empty platitudes support Rightists.
Yup continue pounding that abstinence-only agenda Repukes, that's a real winner! Meanwhile the rest of the country is laughing at you.
I listen to him all the time, via podcast, nearly all of every show
You've got way too much time on your ears. I doubt even Rush listens to Rush 3 hours a day. That's almost creepy stalker territory.
"What is her qualification to testify such that anyone should listen to her?"
Well, Ms. Fluke apparantly is in possession of some studies of the law student community. She stated:
"...contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Students like her have no choice but to go without contraception."
$3000.
Forty percent of female students.
Someone needs to do something - even if it's stupid!
My question is would anyone hire a lawyer who displayed such ignorance of reality during an initial interview? Probably not, they would more likely just let their mind drift back to a famous SNL line, "Jane, you ignorant slut."
Poor Rush, he couldn't control himself and vocalized it.
Well, not to the same extent that you believe your empty platitudes support Rightists.
Ritmo - you're slipping. Part of having an aura of invincibility is never conceding anything. You just conceded the idea that leftists are filled with empty platitudes. You should have immediately launched a withering, relentless attack backed by 100 media matters links. Dude, why do I have to do this for you? Get it together.
phx said...
Cubanbob said:
Crack two things to know about Ritmo:
1-he has never uttered an intelligent statement.
2-the honest Brazilian has yet to be born.
However Brazil is a lovely country and the woman often times are amazingly hot and the food is good.
I just thought that was worth posting again. In case you want to engage cubanbob in discussion.
3/3/12 1:29 PM
You missed the part where i said I wanted you to pay for top class and a truckload of viagra all expenses paid by you extended stay stay vacation in brazil for my lifestyle, correction medically indicated needs. Was that an oversight? And don't forget to tell Garage to get my Palm Beach home and Rolls Royce for the same reason. Hurry boys I am in desperate need.
Canuck on a more serious note Canada and the US are not clones. Different cultures and different legal system foundations. Here the federal government is constituted as having enumerated powers and not plenary powers. The basic fundamentals of US contract law is that contracts entered under duress are facially invalid. Passing a regulatory scheme that that requires someone to enter a contract under duress is on its face invalid. That is at the heart of the Fluke nonsense. That is what Somefeller doesn't want to understand. By forcing insurance companies to cover something that isn't an insurable event hence something outside the scope of an insurance policy, the US government would require that each of the contracting parties enter in to contracts under duress, the carrier and the university. Now I don't claim to have any knowledge legal system so I can't say whether or not you charter of rights require the provinces or the federal government to pay for health care. But the US constitution is a charter of enumerated powers and negative rights, not positive rights. Congress can at any time it chooses to change amend or abolish the entitlement state, the US constitution doesn't require Congress to mandate those things. But Congress doesn't have the power to exceed it's authority which when it comes to health care as defined by Obamacare will be decided this year. And that also includes insurance mandates (or at least as far as federal mandates are
concerned). Of course it doesn't occur to the usual progressive commenters here that if insurance companies are required as a public good cover things that are not insurable events or are actuarially
unsound then the loss taken by those companies may well have to be born by the tax payers as a taking clause argument. And trying to impose a single payer system in this country like that in Canada would result in the mother of all eminent
domain lawsuit where the government would be either forced to back down or pay God only knows how many billions of dollars to the companies in compensation. That is why I said you assertions are irrelevant in the US context.
You confused what I said with what Darleen said.
Went away for the afternoon. I come back and this is up to 400! Let me tell you all. Out there in the real world. this is ALL people see and all they are saying -- "He called her a slut!!!"
If you think the arcane, scholasticism of all your remarks advances the cause of real conservative ideas, you are totally deluding yourselves. But then all too few here actually really care about advancing anything at all. Just as well. Because this is a full-scale slaughter for conervatives made possible by Rush Limbaugh and aided and abetted by a caste of thousands who seem to think he should matter. For cryin' out loud, just sound the retreat. Better yet, stop making any sound at all. It is awesomely pathetic.
Poor Rush, he couldn't control himself
This seems to be a problem for Rush in many aspects of his life.
Cubanbob, to be fair to me, I couldn't read beyond what I quoted, because that in itself was just weird and ridiculous.
To me anyway. Obviously YMMV.
Jon - yup. This thread can reach 1400 comments and it change the electoral tsunami headed at the GOP. Up until this whole birth control thing began a month ago, the GOP had a chance to make real gains. Now they've literally gone to the dogs just like that. I've never seen anything like it in my life and I've been following politics regularly since the early 90s. My guess is it's time for a real bloodletting between the fiscal vs social conservatives in the party. We(fiscal) can no longer put up with the Christian whackjobs anymore. There can be no more accommodation with them, they are the enemy.
So the bloodbath of 2012 will lead to a schism in the GOP splitting it up into 2 parties. My prediction is the religious conservatives will get to keep the GOP brand, while the fiscal conservatives and social moderates flee to newer pastures.
Almost Ali:
Thanks - I figured it out with your help.
somefeller said...
cubanbob says:To lobby a bunch of dimwitted democrats to trash the constitution and over turn centuries of contract law?
You are aware that health insurance is a regulated industry and has been for many years, right? So having hearings about what should or shouldn't be part of health insurance regulations isn't trashing the constitution or turning over centuries (Centuries, I tell you! Back to Magna Carta!) of contract law. And once again, thanks for playing internet lawyer.
3/3/12 1:57 PM
And thanks for playing internet fool. By the way whether I am proven right or wrong remains to be seen but the Supreme Court is going to listen to arguments this term on precisely on what I said. We will know sometime this year the outcome.
Imagine you're one of those women moderate voters. You get a choice between Obama or Santorum. You know Santorum wants to take away your BC pill. OTOH, Obama is a bit scary with his $1.5 trillion deficits. OTOH, Santorum makes no case for reducing the deficit, thus freeing the moderate women to vote on their social issue.
I think my brilliance is unsurpassed.
I don't get it. 70% of the GOP is not the religious right, yet we let them control OUR party.
Oh, so much confused inanity and outright intellectual dishonesty going on here, what to choose from?
Well, this will do --
I don't like birth control as a wedge issue. Mitch Daniels was right about a truce on social issues, but some people love that stuff.
She says as she rams that wedge in as hard as she can and as deep as it will go, indiscriminately firing off missiles right and left in her idea of a "truce," wherein the left can engage in all-out nuclear war and society is just supposed to take it.
AJ Lynch said...
Almost Ali: Thanks - I figured it out with your help.
You're welcome - but I may have jumped the sunfish in this regard: Ann "usually" opens a new thread before the 400 mark - because of the inherent difficulty in negotiating 400 comments.
But maybe in this instance she prefers the subject just collapse from it own weight.
She says as she rams that wedge in as hard as she can and as deep as it will go, indiscriminately firing off missiles right and left in her idea of a "truce," wherein the left can engage in all-out nuclear war and society is just supposed to take it.
I'm sick and tired of you religious nutjobs. What you call "nuclear war" is people living their lives and not wanting people like YOU preaching to them. Why can't you stay the fuck out of our lives? Just GTFO of my party!
I don't see Ann leaving this alone. Suddenly birth control/abortion has become the #1 issue in the nation above the economy, energy and Iran.
Who really believes mandating employers to offer insurance coverage with an option for birth control is "trashing the constitution?"
I don't think anybody believes that except the most extreme members of the tea party. And a lot of people against it just say that it trashes the constitution to give them cover for punishing women.
The tail is wagging the dog in the Republican Party. I see bad-ass consequences in their near future.
Alex said...
You do understand the distinction? And no, men should not have ED medications subsidized by others either if the intended use is for recreational sex either. In both instances the parties getting laid should pay for their pleasure.
So what this is really about is hating people for having "recreational sex" as though such a thing exists.
3/3/12 1:49 PM
And what is your point? That other should be compelled to subsidize others? Really going on about haters is really silly. Yes they hate having to spend their money for other peoples pleasure. By me a truckload of my favorite beer to show you are not a hater.
I don't see Ann leaving this alone. Suddenly birth control/abortion has become the #1 issue in the nation above the economy, energy and Iran.
Lol.
The slutty GOP is as promiscuous with phony issues to make hay out of as they are with phony front-runners.
Ritmo - congrats, your side just won permanent power.
cubanbob says:And thanks for playing internet fool. By the way whether I am proven right or wrong remains to be seen but the Supreme Court is going to listen to arguments this term on precisely on what I said. We will know sometime this year the outcome.
The Supreme Court case is on the constitutionality of a mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. It is not on the constitutionality of the ability of the federal government to regulate health insurance in general or to require or forbid particular types of coverage within the existing regulatory structure. Thanks again for playing internet lawyer.
It's never permanent. Just 40-year generational cycles back and forth.
Long enough to seem permanent, I suppose.
And right on time: 1888 - 1928 - 1968 - 2008.
Ritmo - you are wrong. There is proof of permanent power, look at North Korea. The same jackboot thugocracy in power for 60 years in a row.
phx said...
Cubanbob, to be fair to me, I couldn't read beyond what I quoted, because that in itself was just weird and ridiculous.
To me anyway. Obviously YMMV.
3/3/12 2:26 PM
Interestingly enough that is what happens when I read your comments. Not a sensible thought to found and to be dropped before permanent neural damage occurs.
North Korea is not America -- the country I thought you were talking about.
How often do you "found" thoughts, Bob. I wasn't aware thoughts, let alone "sensible thoughts" could be founded.
Obviously today is not your day. I would have left well enough alone and let you just go through somefeller's shredding of you on your own. But you insulted me earlier, you see. And paybacks are a bitch. Or at least in this case, a bit bitchy.
Enjoy.
Why can't you stay the fuck out of our lives?
Because you won't leave people alone. Because you insist on dragging all of society into the bedroom with you, where we really have no desire to be.
But if we really must be a contraceptive culture, if everyone must be involved in contracepting, I really do wish that you folks would put a condom on your incessant hate.
Alex will you cry in your beer (actually in the beer you owe) me when the election doesn't turn out the way you fear (or hope it will)? Will Garage and Ritmo heads explode? Inquiring minds want to know. Only nine more months to the moment of truth. Even less before the Supreme Court decides whether the signature accomplishment of the democrats in the last three years was an epic fail of an abortion or worse an epic triumph over individual liberties. We will know soon enough.
Has it been a while, Bender?
Because you insist on dragging all of society into the bedroom with you, where we really have no desire to be.
Oh the irony!
Are you accusing ME of causing neural damage???
You know they have prescription drugs that can fix that.
If the Affordable Care Act is completely repealed it will energize the left more than Citizens United energized OWS.
I wonder if anyone else wonders why health insurance premiums keep increasing when the State keeps mandating more and more things it needs to cover.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
How often do you "found" thoughts, Bob. I wasn't aware thoughts, let alone "sensible thoughts" could be founded.
Obviously today is not your day. I would have left well enough alone and let you just go through somefeller's shredding of you on your own. But you insulted me earlier, you see. And paybacks are a bitch. Or at least in this case, a bit bitchy.
Enjoy.
3/3/12 2:56 PM
Coming from someone that has never made an intelligent comment and always is drenched in snark that rather rich. Today like every day is not your day.
If you think somefeller is shredding my arguments you're dumber than usual today. Notice he can't actually refute my point about this at heart being a matter of contract law and public good and private obligation to pay. Now I recognize that I may very well be wrong but what I am saying is what I stated is what the supreme court will listen to in arguments this year and decide in this term. As you said paybacks are bitch indeed. We will know soon enough. Now, now don't be so touchy about insults as you seem to have no problem giving them but are bit touchy about getting them.
Anyway enough of that back and forth and not saying in snark do go and have a nice day.
Alex said...
I don't get it. 70% of the GOP is not the religious right, yet we let them control OUR party.
Actually, they don't. Milton isn't weighing in on this, nor are Newt and Captain Tin Foil.
PS Some phony folksy still contends Ms Fluke isn't a liar.
She presented herself primarily as a law student and wasn't at all eager at first to let people know she was an old veteran of the culture wars.
That's a lie.
She picked Georgetown in particular to have this fight and contends it's not a war against the Church.
That's a lie.
She also gives the implication in her testimony that her $3000 figure is somehow typical for women in law school. Planned Barrenhood offers 3 month implants for $100 and birth control at Walmart costs as little as $9.
So she lies there.
Some phony folksy likes to play word games when he's cornered, but the lies (his and hers) won't go away.
I wonder if anyone else wonders why health insurance premiums keep increasing when the State keeps mandating more and more things it needs to cover.
When have health insurance premiums NOT been increasing?
O Ritmo Segundo said...
If the Affordable Care Act is completely repealed it will energize the left more than Citizens United energized OWS.
3/3/12 3:04 PM
On this you are actually spot on. However there is the flip side that if the act is repealed depending on how broad the ruling it might energize the conservative- right-libertarian majority even more with the possibility of a major roll back in the entitlement state. Nine months is an eternity in politics so who knows how this will ultimately play out.
Thanks phx, I really don't need to lighten up. I just don't understand why liberals can't see the absolute hilarity in a 30 year old Georgetown law student complaining she can't afford birth control. Like I said, I was paying for my own when I was 16 and working as a stock boy in a grocery store.
I will confess Ritmo does annoy me more than others. I guess its his faux intellectualism. He may write a good game but he can't really debate honestly because he really has no argument other than to take one word or phrase out of context and then build a strawman tower of babel out of it.
As for the topic at hand, sex has two purposes: Procreation and pleasure. If you're not having sex to create a child then you're doing it for pleasure. So now we're at the stage where we are including sex for pleasure only as a health care issue.
You guys don't really see the absurdity in that? Cause if you don't then I guess we're on different planes of existance.
When have health insurance premiums NOT been increasing?
Oh I see. So since they have always been increasing no harm in just piling on some more stuff.
Brilliant argument.
Cubanbob #1: Crack two things to know about Ritmo:
1-he has never uttered an intelligent statement.
Cubanbob #2: O Ritmo Segundo said...On this you are actually spot on.
I can't keep up with cubanbob.
So since they have always been increasing no harm in just piling on some more stuff.
That's the argument women have with GOP right now I think. "Oh, if it's OUR stuff, now we have to draw a line."
Esp. as the argument from some of the GOP is "It's not expensive. You can afford it yourself."
That's the argument women have with GOP right now I think. "Oh, if it's OUR stuff, now we have to draw a line."
Our stuff? Are condoms covered by health insurance?
You people do know that fluffing up the comments this high is like telling Althouse to go on a long break. She's probably skateboarding around the lake right now. It's 80 degrees here in L.A. today so I too must go out.
Besides, this is a funky thread where it seem again that the sides are just talking right past each other and not really addressing the point together even though it's real simple.
The left feels that we should force some of our citizens to pay for others' birth control and the right says it's your own responsibility.
Is there really anything more to it than that? The rest is all off point.
Of course, Althouse is always more interested in the optics than the issue, but for every social conservative or libertarian that gets lumped in with them there is at least one voter who is obsessed with the idea of these people somehow controlling their choices, which never really happens.
Regardless they often vote in knee jerk fashion against the people they imagine being knee jerk. There is a lot of jerking going around and Althouse just jerked it a bunch more.
Relax. Think it through, and then go vote your damned emotion anyway.
HD: I don't think most people equate condoms with birth control pills for example, which also serve treating acne, irregular periods and cramps, cancer, and others. But sure, rescuing your analogy, I don't have a problem covering vasectomies.
Is there really anything more to it than that? The rest is all off point.
Sure, if the voters see it that way. But they won't.
The left feels that we should force some of our citizens to pay for others' birth control and the right says it's your own responsibility.
And if that's the "emotively neutral" language that the media used to spin the argument in the direction favoring the left, man would you all be howling!
Oh I see. So since they have always been increasing no harm in just piling on some more stuff.
That would almost be an intelligent response except for the fact that you forgot what you said initially...
"I wonder if anyone else wonders why health insurance premiums keep increasing when the State keeps mandating more and more things it needs to cover."
Here's the point... Health insurance premiums have been increasing for a long time. Whether or not "the State keeps mandating more and more things it needs to cover," health insurance premiums keep trending higher. So your insistence that health insurance premiums are only increasing because of State mandates completely ignores a substantial history of rising health care premiums.
IMHO, statements that rely on ignorance of historical trends aren't very impressive. But to each his own.
Have a super day!
HD: I don't think most people equate condoms with birth control pills for example, which also serve treating acne, irregular periods and cramps, cancer, and others.
Well that's all fine and good but I really haven't heard much in the way of arguments that the need for health insurance coverage of birth control pills was to treat 'acne, irregular periods and cramps, cancer, and others'.
I truly do wonder how many women are on the pill for those things and not because they want to engage in recreational sex.
Hell, you may be right and its millions. If so, that should be the argument the left should be making and not because 30 year old Georgetown law students can't afford birth control so they can boink their boyfriends.
And if that's the "emotively neutral" language that the media used to spin the argument in the direction favoring the left, man would you all be howling!
Are you saying it's not neutral and accurate? If not, please give us your simple one sentence statement of the issue that is.
bagoh20 said...
"The left feels that we should force some of our citizens to pay for others' birth control and the right says it's your own responsibility."
bagoh20,
As a business owner, are there any government benefits that you take advantage of?
So your insistence that health insurance premiums are only increasing because of State mandates completely ignores a substantial history of rising health care premiums.
I know like Ritmo you're not very bright but allow me to clarify.
Insurance, including health insuance is regulated by individual states (all 57). States are always implementing new regulations and mandates for insurance coverage which increase costs.
Now costs (not just insurance premiums)) will always increase due to simple inflation but toss in additional costs such as regulation and mandates and the costs will surpass inflation.
Maybe I should have been more clear and stated that costs rise higher than inflation but then I again I continually make the mistake that some people aren't simply bright enough to understand the implication. In the future, for your sake, I will use simpler words and a lot of them so you don't miss out on anything.
Ciao
The real problem is the damned 19th Amendment.
If so, that should be the argument the left should be making and not because 30 year old Georgetown law students can't afford birth control so they can boink their boyfriends.
We can, we should, and we do. But we don't have as much fun with it as we do with the other angle.
I won't dwell on what it is about why you respond that makes it so much fun for us (wouldn't want to raise your blood pressure further and raise your health care costs), but you shouldn't assume that just because you feel emotional about something, that doesn't mean that others don't feel just as emotional or moreso (or just in greater numbers) in an opposite way.
Just food for thought. Take that however you want.
I don't think most people equate condoms with birth control pills for example, which also serve treating acne, irregular periods and cramps, cancer, and others.
You know, I had a problem with acne in my 20's, so I went to a dermo about it (I was already on the pill). I was perfectly willing to pay for it, but was pretty much shocked that my insurance would pay for the drugs that I wanted entirely to solve a minor cosmetic annoyance.
ritmo sock puppet wrote: This strange, new world must frighten and confuse you, Tex. But don't worry. Think about the wonderful afterlife that awaits. No complicated libertine behaviors to have to regulate there.
"Regulate libertine behaviors?"
Why am I not surprised that you equate a reluctance to have gov't coerce taxpayers or insurance companies to provide contraceptives incidental to Ms. Fluke's daily triples with "regulating libertine behaviors."
You really are confused, aren't you?
See, if you and the other dorm boys want to dally with sheep, Sock, I don't even think that should be regulated. But taxpayers ought not to be required to provide the condoms.
Run along now. Come back after graduation.
Hoosier still never made clear his completely unemotional and intellectually honest objection to vasectomies as a widely covered procedure.
Just stating that one for the record. (That and because he had to start up the stupid insults again. I wouldn't mind them if his arguments really were better. But they aren't. They're amazingly selfish and short-sighted).
Bagoh20: Respectfully I don't have to fix your emotionally charged sentences for you, my job, as I see it, is simply to call you out when you use emotively charged language and then claim that everyone else is being emotional.
But here's the tipoff: EMOTIVELY CHARGED: The left feels that we should force some of our citizens to pay for others' birth control.
Is that how you would describe chemotherapy coverage for example? That "some of our citizens should be forced to pay for others chemotherapy"?
You need to be more critical with yourself.
I have to make new posts to see the second page of posts at all; there's no link on the main posts page that I can see and it only shows up when I make a fresh post.
And, when you see a link, it probably does not work.
I thought that the problem was on my end, with the way that I have blogger and Foxfire configured. Don't see how though. I think it is a blogger problem, that was recently introduced, and isn't causing most Blogger bloggers problems because they rarely exceed 200 posts.
Oh fuck off and die already, Hombre. Should people be taxed to execute capital offenders? What about their objection to "paying", in a way in which they don't agree, for the consequences of the behavior that put someone in that situation?
A social cost is a social cost no matter how arcane you want to get about it, and no one but the most blustering of worn-out politicians thinks that rape-babies are a "blessing".
BTW, I like your "sock puppet" name, also. That took quite a bit of creativity to drop the "el" part. Did you think no one would notice?
As a business owner, are there any government benefits that you take advantage of?"
Of course, every one I can. And I, as well as all my employees, pay for them as well as the ones we can't take advantage of because we ain't got no lobbyist money.
I'm successful, and consequently I pay the equivalent of at least 50 citizens' income tax contributions, half of whom not only pay nothing but get money back from the kitty.
In addition, my efforts and risk taking employs and supports hundreds of people as well as the taxes they pay, the charities we all support, and the economic activity the grows from all that. So I pay plenty for what I get. Yet I get just one vote like everyone else. Seems unfair to me.
Well, looks like it is slowing down a bit. Turned mostly into a food fight, where not much new is being said.
bagoh20 said...
“Of course, every one I can. And I, as well as all my employees, pay for them as well as the ones we can't take advantage of because we ain't got no lobbyist money.”
Well, if contraception improves women’s health, reduce abortions and lower health care costs in the long term, why is that benefit less worthy than then ones afforded to you?
Generic birth control pills can be had at big box stores in Texas for $5 per month.
Most docs have hundreds of samples they dispense to patients in need.
Planned parenthood and university dispensaries, ditto.
This is a manufactured crisis to distract from Oblahblah's dismal performance. Even the Obots are not so stupid as to be unable to predict the Catholic Church's response to this nonsense.
Republicans and, apparently, Limbaugh, are simply too stupid to know how to handle the absurd argument symbolized by Fluke's testimony.
Trolls like Ritmo have a field day deflecting attention further away from real, important issues.
I'm pretty libertarian, but I do think government subsidized basic birth control is a smart and acceptable use of taxes, but I don't agree that the government should be forcing private people and companies into contracts. The result will be run away costs and low quality, not to mention the simple unAmerican violation of liberty.
True that Bruce. As much my fault as anyone's. Shoulda closed this window much earlier! Peace.
bagoh20,
My understanding is that insurance companies are on board with the contraception issue since it is less expensive than maternity costs or abortion.
Hoosier still never made clear his completely unemotional and intellectually honest objection to vasectomies as a widely covered procedure.
On the contrary, I am on the record on this blog and others in my 'completely unemotional and intellectually honest objection' to many things that are covered by health insurance that really shouldn't be covered since its really not insuring a risk.
I guess maybe that's because I understand what insurance is and you don't. It's not your fault though, many people don't understand what insurance really is. What I do fault you for is for making idiotic comments about a concept that you don't understand.
But you know what? I'm feeling magnanimous today and I will give you a quick tutorial.
Assuming you are old enough to drive and responsible enough to have car insurance, whip out your insurance policy and let me know if you have any provisions that cover your oil changes, tire rotations, alignments, spark plug changes and any of the myriad of monthly, quarterly or annual maintenance items that you should be doing to ensure your car performs as its supposed to.
Now after you do that, get back to me and let me know what you find.
"Well, if contraception improves women’s health, reduce abortions and lower health care costs in the long term, why is that benefit less worthy than then ones afforded to you?"
As I say above, agree with you on birth control, but you must realize that the kind of justification you just gave could be used for just about anything from food to paying for people to keep their tires inflated. At some point it's just not possible without sacrificing everything, and I mean everything. We have already gone to far toward that.
And I don't want any benefits from the government beyond those basic few listed in the constitution. They aren't even worth what they cost me anyway.
Generic birth control pills can be had at big box stores in Texas for $5 per month.
And the women and moderates want to know why are you digging your heels in on THIS issue then, to the point of calling people sluts and prostitutes, rather than in fixing some other areas of health care where the $ are really wasted?
It's because it's about punishing women who have sex and use BC, huh? Single women, right?
And even if you swear up and down from now until doomsday no, no, no, that's not it, you won't be believed. Because on this thread alone so many give voice to the contrary. They really don't like the idea that someone, somewhere, may be happy, particularly if it's a woman. And it's sex that's making her happy. And it's not with you.
"My understanding is that insurance companies are on board with the contraception issue since it is less expensive than maternity costs or abortion."
Then why do we need to force them?
I'm fine if they all voluntarily want to do that. If that's what the market offers of it's free will, I assume it's the best compromise.
My understanding is that insurance companies are on board with the contraception issue since it is less expensive than maternity costs or abortion.
You know that brings up and interesting point. As a hypothetical, since the insurance company will be providing coverage for birth control, is it safe to assume that if the individual is irresponsible and doesn't take the medication as prescribed and then becomes pregnant, can the insurance company deny coverage for the birth costs or abortion?
Behind every happy woman, there's probably a miserable man.
Then why do we need to force them?
Isn't it so the employers will be sure to carry at least one policy that offer is?
bagoh20 said...
“As I say above, agree with you on birth control, but you must realize that the kind of justification you just gave could be used for just about anything from food to paying for people to keep their tires inflated. At some point it's just not possible without sacrificing everything, and I mean everything. We have already gone to far toward that.
And I don't want any benefits from the government beyond those basic few listed in the constitution. They aren't even worth what they cost me anyway.”
bagoh20,
Well the topic is about insurance and if the insurance companies are on board it seems reasonable. The actual benefit in question is allowing women who do not share the religious beliefs of their employer being permitted to have insurance coverage for services they may practice in accordance with their own faith.
Ritmo the sock puppet wrote: Should people be taxed to execute capital offenders?
Good lord, you moron. Is it really possible you don't know the difference between public considerations and private behavior?
----------
As to the other: Given that I posted here as "hombre, formerly elhombre" for a couple of months after the change, I was fairly sure people of normal intelligence would catch the change. Evidently you missed it.
phx said...
Cubanbob #1: Crack two things to know about Ritmo:
1-he has never uttered an intelligent statement.
Cubanbob #2: O Ritmo Segundo said...On this you are actually spot on.
I can't keep up with cubanbob.
3/3/12 3:21 PM
Yes for once he happened to be right, luck accidents do occasionally happen, as for keeping up with me it's not fault you don't the sufficient neural matter to do so.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“You know that brings up and interesting point. As a hypothetical, since the insurance company will be providing coverage for birth control, is it safe to assume that if the individual is irresponsible and doesn't take the medication as prescribed and then becomes pregnant, can the insurance company deny coverage for the birth costs or abortion?”
Hoosier Daddy,
That seems to be a reasonable point from the business side of the equation. Maybe not deny coverage for the birth costs or abortion but increase the premiums as is done for auto insurance after one has a car accident.
Can we have some rules for the Over 400 Club?
Anybody who doesn't have any sense of humor has to defer to anyone who does - regardless of politics or position.
You have to say "Sorry you're right, I'm wrong" at least once a month.
Any use of "This", "sockpuppet" "libtard" "rethuglican" needs to draw the IMMEDIATE scorn of all participants.
And I want to say sorry again to HD. He's a good guy that I never agree with and I was baiting him badly. He got over it.
And I want to say sorry again to HD. He's a good guy that I never agree with and I was baiting him badly. He got over it.
You're fine chief.
Limbaugh just apologized. LOL
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.
That Carbonite is some serious shit.
If what we're arguing about is, as Althouse says, "what coverage is required" then the free market is gone and we've lost our freedom.
Health "insurance" should be a contract between two parties with terms agreeable to them both. Government "requirements" are a big part of why "insurance" premiums have increased so much. If you want a policy with all your drugs paid, YOUR premium should reflect that while mine--assuming I want less "coverage"--should cost less. I certainly should not wind up paying more premium because the insurance company is REQUIRED to cover all kinds of things I choose not to pay for. As Ron Paul has pointed out (when questioned about this specific "controversy") getting your meds "free" because someone else is being forced to pay for them isn't "insurance," it's welfare. From there it's not really a stretch to satirize a woman demanding that the cost of her having sex be paid for as a prostitute.
bagoh20 said...
“Then why do we need to force them?
I'm fine if they all voluntarily want to do that. If that's what the market offers of it's free will, I assume it's the best compromise.”
bagoh20,
Maybe because it’s a public funding issue verses a business cost issue. I read an article that stated studies have found for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $4 to $14 of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-related costs.
I guess that is the basis of the mandate, to lower government (i.e., taxpayer) subsidized costs for healthcare.
"Well, if contraception improves women’s health, reduce abortions and lower health care costs in the long term, why is that benefit less worthy than then ones afforded to you?"
Easily available contraception has never and will never reduce abortions.
Saying so or arguing that it *ought* to doesn't change the truth.
And if the government can force you to purchase *anything*, either for yourself or force you to purchase and provide it to others... yes, the Constitution has been trashed.
And maybe someone ought to have fussed earlier about it, but it seems that *previously* exemptions for 1st Amendment religious conscience were honored.
Now costs (not just insurance premiums)) will always increase due to simple inflation but toss in additional costs such as regulation and mandates and the costs will surpass inflation.
It's interesting that you didn't include rising medical costs as a major factor leading to higher health insurance premiums.
If you want to make the case that State mandates are primarily responsible for rising health insurance costs, you need to provide evidence to establish a foundation for your quantitative claim. OTOH, if you just want to rant about State health insurance mandates and regulations without actually saying anything meaningful, carry on as you have been.
"The actual benefit in question is allowing women who do not share the religious beliefs of their employer being permitted to have insurance coverage for services they may practice in accordance with their own faith."
Permitted? They are free to have the thing they want, they just shouldn't be forcing someone else to pay for it just because that person hired them to do a job.
I don't want to force my employer to pay for things that they find morally wrong. Do you? And how far are you willing to take that? It's hard for people to get this until they are the one being forced to go against their own strongly held beliefs just because they hired someone to do a job. Imagine you hire a gardener, and then he demands you pay for something you find morally wrong?
BTW, considering how much time most of the people here spending writing comments to each other, I'd have thought you would have learned to treat each other with at least a bit of courtesy.
The strong impression these comments leave is that many of you are fairly unpleasant people. I'm sure that's not actually true, but quite a few of you don't seem to be showing your best here.
That's just my observation--it's not intended to be a lecture.
Have a good weekend.
"I read an article that stated studies have found for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $4 to $14 of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-related costs."
I can easily see how that could work. A child never born sure does save a lot of money. We are not the first to see that angle, but I don't want to live in a country that has forced it's government to see people as cost/benefit decisions.
Epic thread, but I gotta go. Thanks all.
36fsfiend said...
Woman just like men are free to buy their own insurance. The employer who provides the benefit is also free to contract what he or she chooses to cover in what they consider the best overall interest of their business. Mandating coverage is always a free-rider issue. I have no problem with insurance companies offering plans that cover items that are not insurable events if that is their business decision or employers that do so as well. it's mandating to enter contracts to purchase or sell something that you don't want to buy or being forced to pay for something that you neither want nor need that is the issue.
As repeated numerous times birth control pills prescribed and paid for by medical insurance for medically indicated reasons is not in contention. What is in contention is being forced to buy and hence overpay for insurance to cover something that when used for it's intended effect is not a medical condition or insurable event. Indeed the birth control issue is really the latest outrage that might break the camels back. It's the accumulation of mandates that is making insurance unaffordable for what it was supposed to be intended for. If the next congress really wants to do something about making making medical insurance policies more affordable it should use the commerce clause by allowing medical insurance indeed all forms of insurance to be sold on a national basis so if an insurance company wants to sell a bare bones catastrophe policy it could do so to any policyholder in any state that wants to but that policy. One of the states will allow that to happen if congress actually were to do something right for a change. For those who want something more like a pre-paid medical fee and drug plan they can chose that as well. Liberty of contract, it's a concept that is difficult for the entitlement mentality mind to comprehend.
the free market is gone and we've lost our freedom.
There are very few absolutes. You never had an absolute free market. And you never even had absolute freedom.
bagoh20 said...
“I don't want to force my employer to pay for things that they find morally wrong. Do you? And how far are you willing to take that? It's hard for people to get this until they are the one being forced to go against their own strongly held beliefs just because they hired someone to do a job. Imagine you hire a gardener, and then he demands you pay for something you find morally wrong?
bagoh20,
Well, I’m of the position that if a person voluntarily elects to participate in business in the public sector, they should be prepared to follow any and all public laws. To me this moral issue is the same as paying taxes that support our military and war effort. Many hold religious beliefs against war and yet these individuals are not exempt from paying taxes based on their religious beliefs against war.
Indeed, in Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Scalia wrote that to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land would have the anarchic effect of permitting every citizen to become a law unto himself.
bagoh20 said...
"I read an article that stated studies have found for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $4 to $14 of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-related costs."
I can easily see how that could work. A child never born sure does save a lot of money. We are not the first to see that angle, but I don't want to live in a country that has forced it's government to see people as cost/benefit decisions.
Epic thread, but I gotta go. Thanks all.
3/3/12 4:54 PM
In Europe and Japan they are finding out that a shrinking population of younger people can't afford to maintain an expanding population of older people. It's in how you look at it, short term savings versus long term expenses.
bagoh20 said...
"I can easily see how that could work. A child never born sure does save a lot of money. We are not the first to see that angle, but I don't want to live in a country that has forced it's government to see people as cost/benefit decisions."
I don't seriously believe that route you imply is where we as a nation are going with this issue.
@Bruce Hayden, et al.
Yeah, trying to get to the most recent comments flummoxed me for a while, too. Eventually I went to "Show Original Post" where one can select the "Newer, Newest" buttons.
Anyway, yer all fucking stoopid. The fundamental malfeasance here has virtually nothing to do with contraception. Obama has used the power of the government to attempt to force Catholic organizations to breach their most basic doctrine. If Obama decides tomorrow that pork is the new white meat, can he force the local mosque to distribute baby back ribs? Everbody likes ribs, right? If the gay community convinces Obama that unclipped cocks are hotter, can he forbid the bris? I'm waxing satirical here, but I am deadly serious.
And by the way, this thread is too goddamned long. I insist on this being the last comment.
cubanbob said...
“Woman just like men are free to buy their own insurance. The employer who provides the benefit is also free to contract what he or she chooses to cover in what they consider the best overall interest of their business. Mandating coverage is always a free-rider issue. I have no problem with insurance companies offering plans that cover items that are not insurable events if that is their business decision or employers that do so as well. it's mandating to enter contracts to purchase or sell something that you don't want to buy or being forced to pay for something that you neither want nor need that is the issue.”
As repeated numerous times birth control pills prescribed and paid for by medical insurance for medically indicated reasons is not in contention. What is in contention is being forced to buy and hence overpay for insurance to cover something that when used for it's intended effect is not a medical condition or insurable event. Indeed the birth control issue is really the latest outrage that might break the camels back. It's the accumulation of mandates that is making insurance unaffordable for what it was supposed to be intended for. If the next congress really wants to do something about making making medical insurance policies more affordable it should use the commerce clause by allowing medical insurance indeed all forms of insurance to be sold on a national basis so if an insurance company wants to sell a bare bones catastrophe policy it could do so to any policyholder in any state that wants to but that policy. One of the states will allow that to happen if congress actually were to do something right for a change. For those who want something more like a pre-paid medical fee and drug plan they can chose that as well. Liberty of contract, it's a concept that is difficult for the entitlement mentality mind to comprehend.”
cubanbob,
Well, I guess I'm not looking at this so much as an entitlement issue but more as an issue to allow woman to have insurance coverage for services unique to them. Within weeks of hitting the U.S. market in 1998, more than half of Viagra prescriptions received health insurance coverage. Why the discrimination with providing insurance coverage for contraception?
And as I mentioned up thread, I believe the mandate is an attempt to reduce taxpayer funding for healthcare where every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $4 to $14 of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-related costs.
Synova said...
"Easily available contraception has never and will never reduce abortions."
Synova,
This article indicates otherwise:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2009/10/14/abortion-down-contraception-up-recipe-for-health-reform
From the article:
"Global abortion rates are down—from an estimated 45.5 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003... A key reason for that drop, the report said, was that the proportion of married women using contraception worldwide increased from 54 percent in 1990 to 63 percent in 2003 as pregnancy prevention methods became more available and socially acceptable."
This woman set upon undermining an institution that would have no bearing on her life if she chose not to let it. She purposely chose Georgetown specifically because of what's covered in the insurance policy. She did so for the express purposes of undermining them. Now she's had her day in Congress. I truly wonder if she as much sex as she's testified. Whether or not she deserved to be called a slut doesn't matter to me. As far as I'm concerned, she's a manipulative, lying asshole.
If the gay community convinces Obama that unclipped cocks are hotter, can he forbid the bris?
Already being attempted, in San Fran of all places. They must not have any Muslims, who are also clipped, or this would be bigger news.
In my expert opinion, foreskins are ugly and stinky.
Canuck said: Lyssa - you didn't have cystic acne.
Um, OK, thanks, Dr. Canuck.
(I'm sure that some acne is really painful (I guess that's why you're bringing up cystic acne), but my problem was entirely cosmetic, and I expected to pay for it in the same way that I pay for make up and hair spray. Why should health insurance have paid for it?)
It's interesting that you didn't include rising medical costs as a major factor leading to higher health insurance premiums.
Well again, I guess those costs are what we refer to as inflationary costs which most intelligent folks understand are implied.
I suppose we should start calling health insurance 'health and lifestyle maintenance plans' because that's essentialy what they are. Insurance provides financial protection from unexpected occurances. If a company is going to pay for a routine monthly, quarterly or annual examination, drug, or other service its not an unexpected occurance now is it.
Let me know when you get a better understanding of what insurance is and get back to me.
Anne - actual GSS research and others studies have suggested that social conservatives are happier than lefties. Easily tracked stats on homicide, suicide, and rates of treatment for mental disorders are much higher for progressives than conservatives. Conversely, emotional satisfaction with family life is also higher on the right.
As far as I know, few argue that freedom for heterosexual men requires that they be guarranteed as much consequence free sex as they want. So why is that true of women?
pregnancy prevention methods became more available and socially acceptable.
Since coat-hangers have always been cheap, plentiful, and the height of respectability.
"I truly do wonder how many women are on the pill for those things and not because they want to engage in recreational sex.
Hell, you may be right and its millions."
yeah, it is. That's why this is a dumb political argument and damaging the G.O.P.
Is it? Can you provide any evidence that millions of women are on the pill for acne, bad cramps and cancer prevention rather than preventing pregnancies from having recreational sex?
Cause I think that would be awesome ammunition for your side.
Canuck- is birth control for women (but not vasectomies) covered with zero copay by mandate in Candada?
As to the other: Given that I posted here as "hombre, formerly elhombre" for a couple of months after the change, I was fairly sure people of normal intelligence would catch the change. Evidently you missed it.
Or maybe just had better things to do. Evidently you missed out on the idea that someone could have a life away from this place.
Jeez. Do you ever lighten up? Is retirement really not relieving the toll on your obviously heavily burdened psyche?
Hell, if I was as uptight as you, I'd have to stop doing what I loved eventually, too. People who never stop, like the much more productive (and moral) Warren Buffets of the world, must really get under your skin.
Or Bill Gates. Ever consider philanthropy? If you actually do have grandchildren, perhaps it would give them memories of you as something other than an asshole, which is how you come across here. And if nothing else, working on an actual legacy of which you could be proud, one that others wouldn't simply feel a need to spit upon, would be a healthier channel for your otherwise incredibly ugly narcissism.
Well again, I guess those costs are what we refer to as inflationary costs which most intelligent folks understand are implied.
(...)
Let me know when you get a better understanding of what insurance is and get back to me.
Stop being disingenuous or intentionally ignorant, Hoosier Dominatrix. The rising costs of health care are exponentially greater than the inflationary rate of any other good or service.
Phx might feel compelled to cut you some slack on account of a presumption that you honestly don't know any better and are just speaking your convictions. But I have no problem spanking your raging little ass when you stridently spout off such proud ignorance that decent people have bothered to become better informed about.
(I'm sure that some acne is really painful (I guess that's why you're bringing up cystic acne), but my problem was entirely cosmetic, and I expected to pay for it in the same way that I pay for make up and hair spray. Why should health insurance have paid for it?)
Or a prosthetic arm, for that matter. I'm sure a lot of folks with mangled limbs could learn to get by with just one.
Because obviously the line between a health need and a thriving lifestyle is just that clear, bright and thick.
I just wanted to add my two cents..
thanks.
"Well, I’m of the position that if a person voluntarily elects to participate in business in the public sector, they should be prepared to follow any and all public laws."
Oh gawd.
I just got hit upside the head with crazy like this guy who spams the Reason.com comment threads with anti-property screeds about how we can't own anything, ever.
How does one LIVE if they are barred by their religious convictions of participating in the economy?
The government (public) has to do certain things, of course they do. The private sphere is what we're talking about. What can the government force every employer to do, no matter what, no matter conflicts in religious freedom?
And if the answer is... well then, if you don't like it, you don't have to make that voluntary choice to participate.
And do what instead? Move in with the anti-property anarchist crazy dude and frolic in the bounty of Eden?
I guess those costs are what we refer to as inflationary costs which most intelligent folks understand are implied.
But they aren't inflationary costs. You appear to have a basic misunderstanding about how and why medical costs are rising. For example, new and better drugs simply cost more to develop and produce. Similarly, new medical technology and procedural advances lead to increases in cost. To lump these cost increases into "inflation" means that you overlook the basis for the steeper than inflationary cost increases in providing medical care.
Once again, if you want to make the argument that health insurance premiums--accounting for inflation--are increasing solely or primarily because of State mandates and regulations, you need to provide evidence to support your position. So far you haven't come close.
Stop being disingenuous or intentionally ignorant, Hoosier Dominatrix. The rising costs of health care are exponentially greater than the inflationary rate of any other good or service.
No shit Sherlock. That's what my point was but you're too stupid to understand it. No shock there since I didn't use pictures to make it easier for you to understand.
But I have no problem spanking your raging little ass
Oh I have no doubt you have no problem spanking. Self gratification is about all self absorbed assholes like yourself can manage.
Stop being disingenuous or intentionally ignorant, Hoosier Dominatrix.
Dominatrix? So that's how you envision me Ritmo? As an overpowering leather clad Amazonian female wielding a whip?
Well I must say you would be quite disappointed but hey, whatever floats your boat. I don't judge folks on their sexual peccadillos like you seem to do.
Ritmo Sock Puppet wrote: Jeez. Do you ever lighten up? ... If you actually do have grandchildren, perhaps it would give them memories of you as something other than an asshole ....
Do I ever lighten up? Project much, Sock?
My grandchildren are 10, 9, 6 and 2. They, like you, also get pissy and abusive and sometime have tantrums when corrected by mature adults. I expect them to grow out of it. You, on the other hand, may need ritalin. You lack the attention span for serious discussion.
phx wrote: It's because it's about punishing women who have sex and use BC, huh? Single women, right? ... They really don't like the idea that someone, somewhere, may be happy, particularly if it's a woman. And it's sex that's making her happy. And it's not with you.
You're joking, right? You don't really think that's what this is about.
Even if you do, are you actually arguing that employers, insurance companies or taxpayers ought to be required to provide contraceptives so women can screw themselves happy?
I can't read any more of this muddled lefty bullshit.
Not sure if liberalism is the proper term, but I've thought of this brand of thought as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, disapproves of them.
Modern day Liberalism is the haunting fear that some conservative, somewhere is speaking.
My grandchildren are 10, 9, 6 and 2. They, like you, also get pissy and abusive and sometime have tantrums when corrected by mature adults.
Sounds like they were created in their grandfather's image.
I can't let Ritmo have the last comment. That's a skid mark on the lingerie of a blog.
Birth control is an equalizer. It allows women too to use sex for purposes other than reproduction, ranging from personal growth (a term I hate but will use for convenience here) and the expression of love to mere fun and pleasure to addiction and degradation. Women won't use sex exactly as men do, but birth control opens up to women the wider range of effects of sexual power that men have had access to. Who knows, for instance, what effect knowing your own sexuality (and knowing it to be your own) has on creativity and self-assertion in spheres other than the sexual? Could sexual shame and fear be one of the things that's crippled women in terms of worldly power?
Obviously, I'm for birth control (not least because it helps prevent abortion). But I also understand and rather admire the conservative Catholic position that sex should always be open to creating life. That, too, is beautiful. The government should not compel people or institutions to pay for things that conflict with their values, and women should not allow themselves to be shamed for being sexual.
Ann,
The man who fathers a child isn't made to pay because he made a choice to have sex. It's not about retribution and consequences. It's the simple reality that there is a child, a child is a dependent, and there are expenses involved. It's his child, and he owes something to the child.
OTOH, the man is not in a position to (a) abort; (b) give the child up for adoption; or (c) drop it off anonymously at a hospital or fire station, no questions asked, as you can do in CA (IIRC) within 30 days of birth, no questions asked.
"You have a blind spot on Rush's bit here Althouse."
This is exactly right. You need to stop wearing your vagina as a blindfold.
The core issue here is the Obamacare mandate and these requirements that every insurance cover birth control. Thus people are now required to buy insurance and forced to pay for others' birth control.
It really isn't that hard to understand.
How about this? A woman wants to exercise her 2nd Amendment rights. Should another woman be forced to pay for her gun?
You are being dense here and maybe it does have to do with you being a woman.
Post a Comment