The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

   Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.

    Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.

    “Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.

    It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

    “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Nathan- if private insurance covers it, no issue.  If the government forces it on a religious organization to include it in their coverage it's entirely another.

$1000 a year for "protected" sex?  The pill only "protects" against pregnancy (in most cases).  At $30 average retail for the pill, that's $360 per year, not $1000.

Checking prices on-line, appears that multi-packs of jimmy hats end up being about .50 per hat.

That's 2000 times per year, by my math, or 5.4 throws a day.  Sounds like she's spending more time on her back than in class or at the law library.

Ms. Fluke seems to have a problem with:

A) Reality
B) The truth
C) Her libido is bigger than Jabba The Hutt.

Or... "belt and suspenders" approach.

$360 for pills, leaving $640 for condoms.  That would only be 1280 times per year or about 3.5 times per day.  I wonder what her law specialty will be.

You guys are upset that a woman has frequent sex?

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university's policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills--the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen--for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can't afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate's supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.

So you're saying that it's not important that health insurance cover contraception?

It took me more than a decade out before I ACTUALLY knew everything.  :P

You guys are upset that a woman has frequent sex?

There are no bigger idealistic dooshbags than law students. Man, they know everything. It took me more than a decade out before I ACTUALLY knew everything.  :P

And since those employees are likely from diverse backgrounds and have diverse religious viewpoints, it's not right that their employer can impose his own religious viewpoint on them.  

So you're saying that it's not important that health insurance cover contraception?

I believe Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby are closed on Sunday because of the employers' religious viewpoint.  Are you saying the employees should be able to force them to open on Sunday?

I believe Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby are closed on Sunday because of the employers' religious viewpoint.  Are you saying the employees should be able to force them to open on Sunday?

Geez, people!  Think about it!  You wouldn't rather pay a little now to keep them from having babies?  Rather than the alternative??  Can't never tell - they might grow up to be Oklahoma legislators!!!!

More likely to grow up to be Democrats.  I say let them have free contraception.

Oh, I dunno Gweed....you may have to wait a bit longer....

When a religious organization operates a business, whether it's a hospital, bookstore, or a newspaper, it's no longer a strictly religious institution.  It's an employer, and like any other employer it has to treat employees fairly.  And since those employees are likely from diverse backgrounds and have diverse religious viewpoints, it's not right that their employer can impose his own religious viewpoint on them.  

It's entirely different when the employees are working within the church, such as a church secretary, librarian, or counselor.  The church still acts as an employer, yet the church is free to discriminate and see that these employees are of the faith.  In the other situation, say where the church operates a hospital, the employees cannot be required to belong to the church, so providing health care coverage - including contraception - isn't a matter of religious freedom.  It has far more to do with fair employment.

You don't like what the catholic church has to say on contraception or abortion? Work elsewhere.

You don't like paying those union dues? Work elsewhere.

Now you are getting it. Finally.

Pull the other one.

Geez, people!  Think about it!  You wouldn't rather pay a little now to keep them from having babies?  Rather than the alternative??  Can't never tell - they might grow up to be Oklahoma legislators!!!!

Why should I take responsibility for someone else's irresponsibility?

Something about separation of church and state is coming to mind...

Funny how that pops up only when it's helpful to one's argument.

Sheesh, do we seriously need THIS person championing the cause for free birth control?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSudHNOxDsPFYJrW00RnPx0vdiIBlU73hs9AWSPdv6bt5DV9wiT)

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/28/georgetown-law-co-ed-demands-everyone-else-pay-for-her-untamed-sex-life/

favor
That was precisely my point, T. I was not using that tired mantra to advance my argument because it would be inconsistent with my views on that overused artifice. Rather, I was musing aloud as to the whereabouts of all the church and staters when it comes to government butting in on issues they favor.

We need separation of junk and state!

i know a lot of women who currently wish the state would stop trying to get in to their junk.

... the consequences of a run-of-the-mill plugging.

You are such a romantic. What is your idea of foreplay, telling them to "brace themself?"

Really, when a religious organization operates a business it's an employer? What about businesses having less than 15 people? What about private clubs operating businesses? Hows about Indian tribes? Fact is, exceptions riddle the "you're a business, now treat everyone fairly" meme you are running with right now.
Now, the idea that an employee of a religious-oriented business should not have that religious viewpoint imposed on them is a non-starter to me. You don't like what the catholic church has to say on contraception or abortion? Work elsewhere. Why should a religious institution toss out its belief structure in favor of an employee? Since when is it government's job to stick its nose in the affairs of churches (in this case, telling a church how it conducts business). Something about separation of church and state is coming to mind...

The church should remove itself from the workings of society, that way we won't have to worry about any more inquisitions.
If the church wants government to butt out of its dealings as an employer then the church needs to keep its nose out of government
If the church doesn't want to pay for birth control for the non-Catholics that it hires? Don't hire any, make sure the Catholics you hire don't waste any seed.
I want small Government influence and small organized religious influence in my life.

Guido, after reading your topic headline it occurred to me. There actually may not be a very good market for your rubbers. Try selling your barbeque sauce. ;)

I am in tears over that. Also, I think you mean Gaspar as the BBQ sauce dude.

Why should I take responsibility for someone else's irresponsibility?

Guido, after reading your topic headline it occurred to me. There actually may not be a very good market for your rubbers.

...latex ... paint ... dip that puppy in

I hope you never run for President. You just recommended dipping puppies in latex paint. ;)

Keeps them warm for the long drive.

Condoms are made from latex as is paint. Just keep a gallon near the bed, dip that puppy in and run a fan over it to dry. You should be good.

Saran Wrap works in a pinch.

Stay away from Reynolds Wrap though, unless you don't want them to know what you're thinking!

Condoms are made from latex as is paint. Just keep a gallon near the bed, dip that puppy in and run a fan over it to dry. You should be good.

The church should remove itself from the workings of society, that way we won't have to worry about any more inquisitions.
If the church wants government to butt out of its dealings as an employer then the church needs to keep its nose out of government
If the church doesn't want to pay for birth control for the non-Catholics that it hires? Don't hire any, and make sure the Catholics you hire don't waste any seed.
I want small Government influence and small organized religious influence in my life.

Really, when a religious organization operates a business it's an employer?...Now, the idea that an employee of a religious-oriented business should not have that religious viewpoint imposed on them is a non-starter to me. You don't like what the catholic church has to say on contraception or abortion? Work elsewhere.

Let's talk about a specific, Guido.  I think even you would agree that a hospital is not a church. They are not primarily supported by donations or tithes from the faithful.  They bill people for services just like any other business.  They are no different from any other business, and they shouldn't be permitted to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to deny their employees medical needs.  It's an unfair advantage for a religiously affiliated business. 

Where does it stop?  If a business owner said some terms of medical insurance violated his personal belief system, could he deny certain medical procedures to his employees?  I'm thinking of those who prefer the power of prayer rather than modern medicine.   

As a Catholic organization Saint Francis Health System seeks to reflect the presence of Christ in every personal and corporate encounter. Saint Francis Health System operates according to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services and continually strives to integrate those values put forward in these directives.

We believe that each person is made in the image and likeness of God, and thus we pledge to deliver quality healthcare to all we serve, giving special reverence to those who are newly conceived or near death. Because we believe that healthcare is a basic human right, our service to the regional community includes working to shape public policy to ensure that the root causes of ill health and suffering are addressed and eradicated. We seek to develop programs that reach those most in need - the poor, the alienated, the aged - all who struggle for full dignity within our society.

Our mission charges us to provide a place and an environment that instills confidence, trust and hope. By demonstrating to a suffering person that his or her life is precious, we seek to help them discover its meaning and truth. The intended outcome of our combined efforts both for those we serve and for ourselves is a renewed hope for union with the authentic goal of the journey of life and a profound gratitude for each life overflowing into the community at large.

That's why I'm a Protestant. That's the Church for me, If I want, I can wear a rubber sheath on my ol fella and not worry about impregnating you...... I couldn't help thinking of "The meaning of Life"

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8

This forum always goes to Marshall's, Blazing Saddles or the Meaning of Life...its the way of things. Oh and for good measure no one has called anyone else a nazi for awhile so: shut up nazi.

I cannot get passed the "bricks and sticks" confines of a religious institution as you suggest; meaning, whether something is a church does not limit where its dogma/tenets/teaching may be passed along. St Francis in Tulsa is a Catholic-oriented health care facility. This is from their website:

That's its mission, whether one likes it or not. Same goes for private clubs such as Southern Hills or Tulsa Country Club. They employ numerous people; however its members rights to free association and federal law permit them to conduct their business differently than non-private/public businesses. Now, you can argue that the health care field is different, or that Catholic hospitals receive government monies, or any other justification to impose on them requirements similar to public hospitals which is fine. But in my very humble opinion, if you hold yourself out as a religious-oriented hospital, that's what you are and you can act consistent with that.

Now, you can argue that the health care field is different, or that Catholic hospitals receive government monies, or any other justification to impose on them requirements similar to public hospitals which is fine. But in my very humble opinion, if you hold yourself out as a religious-oriented hospital, that's what you are and you can act consistent with that.

JC- Thanks. I thought that was the case.  I also don't believe they will terminate a pregnancy under any circumstances.  Now, I did have my own tubes tied in one of the medical buildings on the SFH campus.  I guess that's different for men?

Back on topic,

This whiner from Georgetown in her testimony said: "I've seen the looks on the faces of women walking on campus who carry this burden..." or very close to that (caught a snippet at lunch).  Really?  It's that much of a big deal?  Then go back to studying and quit being so dependent on sex!

How long will it be until sex toys are determined to be necessary for sexual, mental, and physical well being and it will be required for insurance companies and government health care to "provide access" (read: another freebee on the backs of tax and other rate payers) to these novelties?

FWIW, I've paid for my 22 y/o's pills for the last few years she has been on them.  The main issue originally, as it is for many women: hormonal issues that the pills can help with.  She's dated the same guy for three years, so of course, I'm not stupid but it's not an expense she has to bear until she graduates in May.  It's not itemized out separately but I give her money for groceries and various & sundry items.  When the doc suggested it I said, "No worries, I'll put some extra in your account every month."  She also works a part time job to give her some mad money, plus she enjoys working.

What I'm getting at is I don't buy the BS that this is such a hardship on college students.  I believe another avenue they can take for reasonably priced contraception is via Planned Parenthood.

Oh, wait, what's that?  Another drug people must be inconvenienced to get a prescription for?  (Sorry couldn't resist, they are still playing those stupid whiney, and misleading ads about having to go to the doc every time you need Sudafed).

Hey, it's a campaign year.  Face it, free birth-control rocks as a vote purchase.  In 2016 Rahm will run with a platform featuring free child care. . .and on. . .and on, divert the debate away from the greater economic issues, and force out the puss of the idiotic republican base who can't resist discussing their belief systems, rather than their position on the important issues. 

It's no coincidence the timing of this debate.  Old democrat strategy that works every damn time it's applied.  Take the republican off balance by focusing on social programs that challenge his/her beliefs/values/morals. 

The social issues debate re-ignited on Capitol Hill today when senators killed a proposal to throw out President Obama’s contraception mandate. Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was thrust into the center of the debate after he called the woman who was denied the right to speak on the controversial all-male conception panel at a hearing last month a “slut” on his show Wednesday. The issue heated up more today when Limbaugh took his comments even further.

The conservative radio host’s remarks sparked an angry backlash from House Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. But instead of heeding their requests for an apology, Limbaugh doubled down against what he called the “conniption fit” of  the House Democrats.

Echoing Foster Friess, the single largest donor to the pro- Rick Santorum’s super PAC, Limbaugh said that he would “happily buy [Fluke] all the aspirin she wants.”

Limbaugh was referencing the comment Friess made in February when he said the “gals” in “his day” put aspirin between their legs in lieu of contraception. Limbaugh then expanded his offer to include the university’s entire female student body.

“I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want,” he said.

Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law School, was barred from testifying by Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the faith-based hearing on Capitol Hill, because he deemed her unqualified.  Issa said the panel was supposed to focus on religious freedom and Fluke is not a member of any clergy.

She eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing spearheaded by Pelosi on Feb. 23, where she talked about the need for birth control coverage. Fluke spoke of one friend in particular who needed contraception to prevent ovarian cysts.

Rush Limbaugh, though, had a different take on Fluke’s testimony. On his show Wednesday, he suggested that the reason Fluke cannot afford birth control  is because she is having too much sex.

“Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?” he said. “Your daughter…testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the pope.”

Fluke testified that without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman as much as $3,000 during law school.

“Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it,” Limbaugh said, adding that high school boys applying to college should consider Georgetown. “They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!”

The conservative radio host continued: “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

Limbaugh shied away from his word choice towards the end of his show, saying “So, she’s not a slut. She’s round-heeled. I take it back.” Round-heeled, though, is a euphemism for the same thing, an old-fashioned term for a “promiscuous woman.”

On today’s show, Limbaugh turned up the heat and suggested that women who use insurance-covered birth control should post sex tapes online: “So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,” he said.

Limbaugh’s comments today came on the same day of the rejection of the “Blunt Amendment,” which would have repealed Obama’s controversial contraception rule.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee drafted a petition today to ask Republican leaders to denounce Limbaugh’s “repulsive attacks on women,” DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson said.

“When it comes to Limbaugh,” Ferguson said, “expect the unexpected. But what should be expected is for Republican leaders to stand up and say they don’t want him to defend them anymore.”

More than 75 Democratic House Members signed a letter to House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday urging him to condemn Limbaugh’s remarks. Read the DCCC’s letter to Speaker Boehner here. And here is the list of signatures the petition has received so far.

Let's see, what's next?  A guest hosting spot on SNL for Sandra Fluke?  Her own reality show?  A shot at the bachelorette?

At the very least, I can see an SNL skit on the near horizon.

Limpbaugh is exercising his First Amendment right to call an admitted loose woman a slut.  Anyone else on here want to be the first to honestly claim you've never used the term in thought or word?

Limpbaugh is exercising his First Amendment right to call an admitted loose woman a slut.  Anyone else on here want to be the first to honestly claim you've never used the term in thought or word?

Limpbaugh is exercising his First Amendment right to call an admitted loose woman a slut. 

“If we’re going to have to pay for this — then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke,” Limbaugh said. “And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/rush-doubles-down-on-slut-claim-demands-sex-video-in-exchange-for-contraceptives/#ixzz1nuo9TQnC

So the students are essentially buying insurance. So the only person paying for the birth control would be the woman in question.

If the woman in question is paying the full tab, why does it need to be an insurance benefit?  

Unless the school is a charity, they're charging students enough to run the health center. If they are, Limbaugh still isn't paying for it and neither are you. Unless you donate to Georgetown University on a regular basis?

So the only person paying for the birth control would be the woman in question.

"The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman, told CNN.

A woman and her boyfriend were arrested Tuesday in Rogers County on child abuse complaints, authorities said.

One of three children dropped off at an Oologah daycare Tuesday by Oologah residents Ashley Hamil, 24, and Dustin Craig Jones, 23, had a black eye, the Rogers County Sheriff's Office said.

The girl told employees that she had fallen and hit her eye, but employees noticed bruises on her legs and bottom as she went to the bathroom, the Sheriff's Office said.

Deputies arrested Hamil on complaints of child abuse by injury and permitting child abuse. Jones was arrested on a complaint of child abuse by injury.

Both were released on bond Wednesday.

All three children were taken into Department of Human Services custody, the Sheriff's Office said.

Women roar back at Rush's rhetoric
By Rita Rubin

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10564407-women-roar-back-at-rushs-rhetoric

Limbaugh’s call for the posting of videotapes of women who use birth control went beyond sticks and stones, though, says Kathi Miner, an assistant professor of psychology and women’s and gender studies at Texas A&M University, who described the notion as “a form of sexual violence.”

^^^^ quite a bit of that violence flowing in Tulsey from reading this thread. :P

Join! FIGHT RUSH’S HATE  http://thinkprogress.org/stand-with-sandra-fluke-b/
http://thinkprogress.org/?mobile=nc


Hard to believe the GOP/Teabaggers fail to condemn this entertainer, philanderer, and ex drug addict Limbaugh but it's just more outlandish moral code that they've failed to stop for over 4 years now. Losers.

Rush yells too loud, twists the facts, and judges too much. It was refreshing to see sponsors pull their financial support from him.
It's one thing to have a different view, but it's another thing to be a fanatic and line your pockets by getting people angrier then they already are.

I don't understand anyone discouraging the use of contraceptives. If someone is paying their insurance premium along with their deductible and co-pay, it isn't truly a free ride. Would we rather support the children who are born unexpectedly or look for loving homes for them or deal with even worse situations that result from unexpected pregnancies?

I don't understand anyone discouraging the use of contraceptives.

I'll toss out one number, and leave it at that.

7 billion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/03/us-usa-contraception-limbaugh-idUSTRE8220T220120303

Rush Limbaugh apologizes to law student for "insulting" comments

(Reuters) - Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, facing heavy criticism for branding a law student a "slut" over her remarks on President Barack Obama's new policy on contraception, apologized on Saturday.

The furor prompted Obama to call the Georgetown University student, Sandra Fluke, on Friday to express his support.

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

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised this has gone as far as it has.  Rush has said despicable things in the past -- several times, actually -- and it hasn't caused advertisers to run for the exit in such public fashion.  I'm not sure what it is exactly that puts this particular insult beyond the pale.

So far, the fool has lost:

AOL
Tax Resolution Services
Citrix
Sleep Number
Legal Zoom
Quicken
Sleep Train
Pro-Flowers
Carbonite

How many more sponsors can he have?  I would imagine that's about 80% of his big money advertisers.  
The rest are nothing:

Goldworth.com
American Standard Heating and Air
Batteries Plus
Stamps.com
Incomeathome.com
Barracuda
National Tire & Battery


I think we have just witnessed the end of the Rush Limbaugh show!

Hopefully that means we can reclaim about 4 hours of KRMG for more useful programming.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised this has gone as far as it has.  Rush has said despicable things in the past -- several times, actually -- and it hasn't caused advertisers to run for the exit in such public fashion.  I'm not sure what it is exactly that puts this particular insult beyond the pale.

I'm not sure what it is exactly that puts this particular insult beyond the pale.

He basically called everybody's daughter a slut. His past insults have been hurled specifically at liberals or darkies.

He basically called everybody's daughter a slut. His past insults have been hurled specifically at liberals or darkies.

erfalf, I could buy the 'slip' thing if he hadn't gone back the next day and taken it even farther with the "I'm entitled to a tape of you having sex" BS.

It couldn't have helped that it was a rant straight out of his 1994 playbook with the continuous references to "the feminazis" and so on. You gotta keep your schtick fresh or people get tired of it.

CNN) - Former GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Monday pointed to partisanship in the uproar over Rush Limbaugh's comments about a female law student, saying top conservative women face similar "vitriol" but receive far less attention.

"I have gone through myself, and experienced, more things said about me and I have never seen this level of outrage on the left about what left-leaning commentators said about me," Bachmann said in an interview set to air Monday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight."

The Minnesota congresswoman added that for a conservative woman, "it seems like there is no level of vitriol that's beyond the pale."

"I've been on the receiving end of it. We all know Governor Palin has been on the receiving end of it. You don't see this level of outrage," Bachmann said. "You certainly don't see advertisers cutting back."

Limbaugh apologized Saturday after calling the law student, Sandra Fluke, a "slut" and a "prostitute" following her appearance advocating for contraception coverage at a Democratic hearing last month.

His comments sparked an uproar of criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as a swarm of advertisers who pledged to take their business elsewhere.

On Monday, Bachmann said the main take-away from Limbaugh's comments was that people should be more careful in their choice of words.

"That's what we should learn out of all of this, is that on both sides, we want to pay attention to what we're saying," Bachmann said.

Bachmann is making up her own reality again...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/05/bachmann-on-limbaugh-wheres-the-outrage/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/05/bachmann-on-limbaugh-wheres-the-outrage/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29)

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR73JYnq7TSSovjSjuoQUWFOZ8X7TgBTcEgQKIsIleh-GL6Tb4n)

With all due respect, I'm not sure if your advice holds up in reality. Fresh or not millions of people are still listening. Agree with him or not, he is the most prolific radio personality of our generation. A generation that has basically forgotten radio for more on demand forms of entertainment.

Bachmann is making up her own reality again...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/05/bachmann-on-limbaugh-wheres-the-outrage/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/05/bachmann-on-limbaugh-wheres-the-outrage/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29)

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR73JYnq7TSSovjSjuoQUWFOZ8X7TgBTcEgQKIsIleh-GL6Tb4n)

I'm really tired of this "both sides do it" routine. This woman from Georgetown is a law student who spoke as a citizen. Bachmann and Palin were running for President. Seems like those two occupations are different. You open yourself to a lot more criticism as a politician than as a citizen guest of a congressional panel.

I don't think you'll find too many people who agree with you on that Mr. G.

It wouldn't have mattered if it was Joe the Plumber, Rush would have attacked him and folks like you would call him an opportunist/activist. So the world keeps turning.....

Won't find many in this forum, er your side, that won't agree. So what. Fact is, this 23 y/o (I'm sorry 30 y/o) political novice (nope, well traveled activist--ever wondered why SHE got asked by a former house speaker to speak?) exercised her free speech and others in this country are now exercising theirs. This includes Rush, who is now dealing with the fall out of his speech just like "she who gets plugged often".
Here's a link to a story covering the other side of the story.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/
And how did Joe the Plumber get brought in on this? Wasn't he randomly asked a question by Obama at his campaign rally? Oh this is just like Fluke reading prepared testimony to the House.  ::)

If your desire for an argument leads you to carrying water for Rush freakin' Limbaugh, you might want to step back and think about it for a minute.

You may have noticed that nobody is saying that Rush doesn't have the right to say whatever crosses his dopey mind. One's use of that right is not, however, free from consequences. What a sad world it would be if we weren't allowed to disagree with each other out of some bastardized concept of freedom of speech.

soccer punk

Like how you support Rush by quoting the website "The Blaze", run by Glenn Beck, who is also one step from falling off the wagon except when he is plugging the people that pay his fees, who so he doesn't suffer the effects of being an over the air talking head and is now almost completely web based so he can say what he wants because he owns the website that he is on. I predict that elRushbo will soon be a web based talking head. And yes I am a conservative Republican that is losing faith in the party. Also I can't stand the opposite people on msnbc. Everytime I see Ed Schultz, Reverend Al and all the others I want to puke.

Hmmm, let's see, contributor to "The Blaze" Glenn Beck on a "Freedom Of Speech" controversy....

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/jellyfish-capitalism-and-the-jeremy-lin-saga/ (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/jellyfish-capitalism-and-the-jeremy-lin-saga/)

Free speech is something that we are all granted in the Constitution, but to publicly on the air call someone a "slut" "whore" and "I want a sex tape of them" is way out of bounds. To air a disagreement and share an editorial opinion is fine. That's what I understand the amendment to mean. But to liable and slander someone in a public manner is, to me, not an acceptable thing. Call me a simpleton or call me stupid, he was way out of line for his comments. Just because he is "The bellweather" of the so called conservative party, and he is no representation of my conservative thoughts, doesn't give him liscense to say what ever he wants.

Actually guido I offer a challenge. When I get back to Tulsa, I will find you in a public forum, and I will hurl insults, slander and slurs against you. How long will it take you to file charges aganst me? And I will proclaim that my statements are my given right under the first amendment in accordance with freedom of speech, regardless of their validity. Who wins that battle?

Hmmm, let's see, contributor to "The Blaze" Glenn Beck on a "Freedom Of Speech" controversy....

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/jellyfish-capitalism-and-the-jeremy-lin-saga/ (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/jellyfish-capitalism-and-the-jeremy-lin-saga/)

Free speech is something that we are all granted in the Constitution, but to publicly on the air call someone a "slut" "whore" and "I want a sex tape of them" is way out of bounds. To air a disagreement and share an editorial opinion is fine. That's what I understand the amendment to mean. But to liable and slander someone in a public manner is, to me, not an acceptable thing. Call me a simpleton or call me stupid, he was way out of line for his comments. Just because he is "The bellweather" of the so called conservative party, and he is no representation of my conservative thoughts, doesn't give him liscense to say what ever he wants.

Libel and slander? Are you being serious? Whether you like Rush or not, today's line of what constitutes acceptable discourse is so damned blurry accusing one of such is almost frivolous.  Did you not see the video I posted of those three "men" ripping on women? Maher calling Palin a dumb "twat", and referencing Clinton's "c%nt"? Get some perspective.

Still, I do like to read lay persons understanding as to what sort of speech is acceptable and what amounts to actionable defamation. The slippery slope becomes readily apparent in very short order.

But back to the original point, who trumps who in the battle that I proposed. And no closing argument style tactics.

Here's another story on Rush's victim.
http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance

This is a nonsensical hypothetical. I am speaking at a public forum on what, say, no more stop lights on Memorial between 101st & 111th and you stand up and call be a serial child assaulter or a murderer? This is your hypo, put yourself if a situation where you would become a target for a Rush tactic and deal with it.

That's what I was proposing. I could buy airtime on KRMG, and by agreement release them of any liabilty for my commentary, and as long as I don't violate FCC rules, state a commentary about you, and say what I want.

You will get sued. Now, how is that relevant to what we are talking about here? How is testifying before Congress on a controversial subject and a national media figure weighing in even remotely comparable to you and I speaking on a local radio show? I am now kicking myself for getting roped into this distraction.

She gave testimony in a public forum (a congresional hearing) and her testimony as a matter of public record, were taken and commented on by Rush (in a public forum on his show over public airways) as his interrpritation as to her charachter, based on his opinion of her comments, and he labeled her as a slut and whore to a national audience of people who did not know her. Is that not slander?

Allah has an opinion which I have no criticism other than it is light on the law.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/05/steny-hoyer-to-sandra-fluke-you-should-probably-sue-rush-you-know/comment-page-1/#comments

My thought would be "bring it". Discovery would be a real b!tch for her.

Still, I do like to read lay persons understanding as to what sort of speech is acceptable and what amounts to actionable defamation. The slippery slope becomes readily apparent in very short order.

Won't find many in this forum, er your side, that won't agree. So what. Fact is, this 23 y/o (I'm sorry 30 y/o) political novice (nope, well traveled activist--ever wondered why SHE got asked by a former house speaker to speak?) exercised her free speech and others in this country are now exercising theirs. This includes Rush, who is now dealing with the fall out of his speech just like "she who gets plugged often".

Here's a link to a story covering the other side of the story.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/

And how did Joe the Plumber get brought in on this? Wasn't he randomly asked a question by Obama at his campaign rally? Oh this is just like Fluke reading prepared testimony to the House.  ::)

That Blaze post is such glorious bullshit.  Full of accusatory flim flam that in the end results in nothing.  Fluke to my knowledge never misrepresented her age.  It was misreported by the media.  She never claimed to be a personal victim of Georgetown's contraceptive policies (even though as a woman, she would have been); she was going to congress to share the stories of others.  She is in fact a Georgetown law grad student and has made the intersection of health policy and gender study her specialty.  She's distinguished herself already in that field . . . which is why she was asked to speak to Congress about the intersection of health policy and gender.  Why you're surprised that she might also address the policy ramifications of gender reassignment surgery and its lack of coverage among private insurance policies in a completely separate forum is beyond me.  This is what this woman does, and reportedly does it very well.  

So, what in the above makes her a slut and a whore?  What makes Limbaugh's rants acceptable?  

What makes Limbaugh's rants acceptable? 

So, as a, "lay person" do I get  a kiss and a reach around from you?

So, what in the above makes her a slut and a whore?  What makes Limbaugh's rants acceptable? 

Doesn't prove she is or isn't.  Rush's rants are unacceptable due to the fact he is on the far right.  It has nothing to do with truth or fiction.  I personally believe the rants were uncalled for regardless of whether she is or isn't.

Doesn't prove she is or isn't.  Rush's rants are unacceptable due to the fact he is on the far right.  It has nothing to do with truth or fiction.  I personally believe the rants were uncalled for regardless of whether she is or isn't.

Where or where were these benefiters of doubt when Joe the Plumber came onto the scene? I will look back to his thread in the future next time some newbie on the right surfaces and opines on a controversial subject.

Of course they were.  If it were a far lefter I would have called them unacceptable.

Rush's issue is that, like many who post on here, he is an unabated AW.  If he's not the center of attention he feels weak.  Look how many of the conservatives that criticized him for this have now relented on that criticism.  He's the defacto spokesman for the RNC, or at the very least, a controlling faction of the Republican party.

Solution? Get a woman from Georgetown, (the oldest catholic/Jesuit college in the US) to speak in favor of broadening the availability of BC. That to me is partly why I started this.

Only if your goal is to be a self righteous d!ck wise guy.

Ms. Fluke kept claiming that this contraception was going to cost $1,000 a year. I understand some pill forms are quit expensive. I also understand Wal-Mart offers a product for less than $10/month.

Plus my wife (who does not follow this stuff at all, but still heard about this) told me, "why doesn't the idiot just get an IUD, there like $500 and they last 5 years". I love how my wife is the most common sense person. She's got her opinions and you better have some pretty damn good facts if you think you can change her mind, cause she'll mow you down if you don't.

That all being said, this whole thing starting with the testimony and ending with Rush was all for Political purposes. She had no real business testifying cause she's not an expert on anything that was actually being heard at the time. It was a sneaky ploy by the libs to change the "language" (translate, lie) of the argument. I don't know how this got started (but I do), but at no point was the availability of contraception the issue. But now it is somehow. And the repubs are anti-women. What?

This confirms that sometime in my lifetime I will get to hear testimony before congress presented by someone demanding that their employer or government pay for their food, housing, clothing, etc, and congress men/women will hear that testimony with teary eyes, and bobble-heads.  

I would be content to take that fantasy "total compensation" package as a cash payment and go find my own benefits. 

That is essentially what contract employees (as compared to full time, regular employees) do.  At least in the engineering world, they get more pay but no benefits.  ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) frequently sends me info on insurance but since I toss it, I don't know if any of it has been health insurance.  It's frequently life insurance.  IEEE probably offers something similar.

It has always been about that one way or the other, at one level or the other.  The whole point of working at a job is to earn money to pay for all those and all other things one wants to have money to spend on.  Goes to the "total compensation" package mentioned by employers.  Don't forget, they are also paying for our vacation.  And that is the way it should be in a free enterprise system.

The big shift we have seen in recent decades is that rather than the employers using their built in resources to perhaps get volume discounts, or other group buying considerations, they want to put it back on the employee (typically without a corresponding raise in pay to keep it even for that employee).  Pensions are probably the biggest example of that just because it was the 'low hanging fruit' for diverting large blocks of cash back to the company.  Now we see insurance coming to the head of the line.

That is the perfect response I was looking for.

As we rush to our knees to beg our employers, and our government to directly provide more and more of the luxuries we desire and more and more of the necessities we require we naturally limit our choices.  We surrender our ability to regulate the market through the choices we make with our wages.  The quality of the products and services we receive is no longer under our control. The free market becomes corrupted through contract and negotiation.

We freely give up our freedom to choose, because it is easier not to have to make a choice.  It is also easier to leverage the buying power of the company/government against the providers of those goods and services.  We perceive this as acquiring goods and services at some discount.  But this is an illusion.  Over a very short period of time the market corrects any initial vacuum in profit through decrease in quality, service, and limited choice.  Eventually this market imbalance creates outrageous and unchecked profits, insulated from the choices of the consumer.

When a company relies the choices of individuals, the company does everything within their margin to produce products that appeal to their market segment.  Take that away and you eliminate most if not all of the expense they spend on marketing, R&D, service, and innovation.  Even when you do this just slightly (like our current insurance industry) you create an imbalance in profits, and the emergence of near-monopolies.

We get angry when we see industries that do not answer to the consumer, but we're too myopic to see that we delivered that power to them.

If you hate the modern health insurance industry, set it free.  Watch the choices of individuals destroy it, and pick its bones clean like 300 million hungry piranha.  Then watch a thousand new choices grow from the carcass.

You completely left out the effect of big money buying the legislative agenda it wants.  That is a much bigger effect than any of the second/third order effects mentioned.

And that can only be resisted by large moneyed organizations in opposition to that effect.  That's where unions came from in the first place.  The moneyed corporate interests have been winning that contest - for better or worse - for several decades, with no new institution to take the unions place.  Ending up with corporate interests AND bought and paid for government handing our heads to us on a platter.

That's all part of it, in the Book of progress. . .  

Entitlement begot dependence.  Dependence begot collective purchasing.  Collective purchasing begot limited choice and the lobby.  Lobbying begot exclusive contracts and even more limited choice.  Limited choice begot worker organization to demand more entitlement.

The grand Ouroboros content to devour itself.

Liberty is often a heavy burden on a man. It involves the necessity for perpetual choice which is the kind of labor men have always dreaded. – Oliver Wendall Holmes

I guess you don't use group insurance or shop at a price club

She had no real business testifying cause she's not an expert on anything that was actually being heard at the time.

I do have group health insurance because under our current system of group administration, that's the only way to affordably get insurance.  It sucks, coverage is crap, and choices are limited, but rather than me as an individual having the power of choice within my budget, I am resigned to take whatever scrap the company offers and still pay a premium for it.

It will get better soon.  More choices.  And now, you cannot be denied for existing conditions.  And if you had kids, they could be covered until 26.

No less so than the male clergy Issa called.

And Gassy, you should be happy for the health insurance exchanges soon to be required by law. What's not to love about a competitive individual insurance market?

The clergy were far more appropriate considering the issue at hand was religious freedom when it came to health insurance coverage, ie choice.

Fluke was a way to change the subject. In fact is wasn't even a hearing she was at, it was a press conference designed to appear like a hearing. See how no one is even talking about what initially got this started, Obama's dictate that all insurance cover this stuff.

It's a brave new world where your children are dependents until 26.

A brave new world!

The clergy were far more appropriate considering the issue at hand was religious freedom when it came to health insurance coverage, ie choice.

Fluke was a way to change the subject. In fact is wasn't even a hearing she was at, it was a press conference designed to appear like a hearing. See how no one is even talking about what initially got this started, Obama's dictate that all insurance cover this stuff.

You know you're not forced to do that right?

Do you think it's a bad idea?

Meh.  I know people who's 30yo kids still live with them.  You feed them, and supply electricity for their Nintendos.  Why not provide healthcare. 

In this economy the prospects for young people are getting slimmer and slimmer. . .you know with the 1% and all.  ;)

So don't cover them or do cover them?

By that age, my kids will be adults, and decisions regarding their healthcare will be their own.  

I can't speak for other people's children, I just know that some are never allowed to grow up.

It is unwise to continue adding rungs to the ladder of dependence.

So 18 and that's it.  College students go uninsured.

By that age, my kids will be adults, and decisions regarding their healthcare will be their own.  

I can't speak for other people's children, I just know that some are never allowed to grow up.

It is unwise to continue adding rungs to the ladder of dependence.

Why?

When I was 18 I was going to college and working.  I was insured, it was relatively cheap, and my employer had several plans that I could choose.  Because I was young and single, I opted for the cheapest plan with a $200 deductible.  Looking back, that plan covered far more than my current plan covers and was a fraction of the cost.

The question is not whether it is right or wrong, the question is wether it is wise.

Amen Gasp. I am with a woman who is all about enabling her children. Her oldest is 23 and still living at home. Hasnt had to fend for himself one bit. He is on his fourth car. Which she bought all of them. He spends every dime he makes (when he works) on fun little things for himself. And her second child is on his first car, which she bought. But this one likes to work and has a high dollar clothes addiction so I dont see him leaving anytime soon either.
Im pretty quick to point out that I moved out at 18 and never went back home. Just doesnt seem to soak in though. It is a totally different time I know but the kids today with their mentality of entitlement is just scary.
Oh and I already know the whole Dr. Phil spiel that it is my fault with the way I raised them. Believe you me I have taken my fair share of blame for what has taken place in my life. I just wish they would too.
The sad fact is if you dont cover them with health insurance. They will still be at your home, just disabled on the couch.

Independence is not a goal to reach, it's one to exceed.  I instill that into my children by involving them in all of the families financial discussions.  They are too young now to understand everything, but the logic they learn through the process is the tool that allows them to build an understanding of what is necessary to be independent, and how to get there.  Over time their demands for toys, candy, and anything else colorful on the shelf at the store strategically positioned 1.5' off the ground is diminishing.  They have their own money, they earn it by helping around the house with chores and other tasks that they are capable of.  When we go to the store now, they weigh the decision to take their money or save it.  9 times out of 10 they opt to save it for a bigger purchase.

My Daughter is 6.  She's in Girl Scouts.  This was the first year for her to sell cookies.  Her troupe set a goal of 100 boxes per girl.  She decided she was going to sell 200.  I asked her why 200, and her response was "100 is just their goal, you know, for the lazy girls."  She's on the right track!

It's a brave new world where your children are dependents until 26.

A brave new world!

(http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ah_14226502.jpg?w=360&h=240&crop=1)

Getting ready to make decisions on women's healthcare.

If you were being honest you would say, "Getting ready to make decisions on women's (who happen to work for religiously affiliated organizations) pocketbooks.

What they said or did limited in no way a woman's right to get health care.

If you were being honest you would say, "Getting ready to make decisions on women's (who happen to work for religiously affiliated organizations) pocketbooks.

What they said or did limited in no way a woman's right to get health care.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa


The California congressman convened an all-male panel of clergy to discuss the mandate that insurance companies include coverage of birth control pills. He declined to include Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, which oversees some 1200 Catholic health organizations across the U.S., or Georgetown law student and activist Sandra Fluke, whose health plan does not cover contraception. Of the latter woman, Issa stated, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the [Obama] administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

What We Learned: Freedom of conscience is not an appropriate topic for women to discuss; freedom from unplanned pregnancy, ovarian cysts, symptoms of endometriosis, irregular periods, migraines, and other health issues are not matters of public conscience; talking about icky body stuff is easier for dudes when ladies aren’t around.

Amen Gasp. I am with a woman who is all about enabling her children. Her oldest is 23 and still living at home. Hasnt had to fend for himself one bit. He is on his fourth car. Which she bought all of them. He spends every dime he makes (when he works) on fun little things for himself. And her second child is on his first car, which she bought. But this one likes to work and has a high dollar clothes addiction so I dont see him leaving anytime soon either.

With the unemployment rate for under-25s at around 20% thanks to all the older folks who would otherwise be unemployed taking the low-end jobs the outlook isn't great for getting the kids off your couch.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin

I seriously doubt much has changed in this regard over the years.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin

I seriously doubt much has changed in this regard over the years.

So are you saying price their corn and medical care in a particular way?

So are you saying price their corn and medical care in a particular way?

I think Erfalf is just the Washington County version of Gassy...

Just out of curriosity, why did you ask that that particular question?

Thanks for the compliment  ;)

And just so I'm straight, would I still be getting the snarky Washington County/Bartlesville comments if I were from say New York/Portland/San Fran? Is it just cause I'm not a Tulsan or is it because Bartlesville is some sub-class of city and therefore all it's residents un equal to the likes of Tulsans. Please tell me because as a non-native of either, I would like to know.

Wow, you derived all that from my post?  Must be an inferiority complex.

And don't be so sure it's a compliment.  You have not mastered 'speculation without citation' yet.

Oh, but to clarify, why don't you look at some of my replies to sauerkraut, especially while he wasn't living here (I still have no proof that he does live here).  I don't care where you are from, don't front yourself as a Tulsa resident if you aren't.  And while you are closer than most, the last I checked...this wasn't called Bartlesville/UncleFrank Now.

I'm also equally as snarky to those posters from down the pike.  They get a special level of snark for that alone.

 ;D

Thanks for the compliment  ;)

And just so I'm straight, would I still be getting the snarky Washington County/Bartlesville comments if I were from say New York/Portland/San Fran? Is it just cause I'm not a Tulsan or is it because Bartlesville is some sub-class of city and therefore all it's residents un equal to the likes of Tulsans. Please tell me because as a non-native of either, I would like to know.

It's not you, he's like that to everyone who offers diversity in opinion.  When he can't attack a position, he attacks the poster.  He'll start following you around now and blowing rasberries.  Get used to it.

It's not you, he's like that to everyone who offers diversity in opinion.  When he can't attack a position, he attacks the poster.  He'll start following you around now and blowing rasberries.  Get used to it.

So wait, it's okay that I'm "paying" for viagra for Bob Dole, but when it comes to birth control....  ::)

July 16, 2008 06:30 PM
Jack Cafferty: Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice"
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/07/17/jack-cafferty-viagra-is-for-a-medical-condition-birth-control-is-a-lifestyle-choice

McCain Adviser (edit: Carly Fiorina) Attempts to Clarify Viagra vs. Birth Control Comments
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5355748&page=1#.T1lpvfmo-M8

(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420576_317952048259926_111892553_n.jpg)

Perhaps some are assuming that Bob Dole was wanting viagra in order to just have sex,,, no no no, he needed it so that he could have children.   Having sex in order to have children is not a "lifestyle choice"  (Or is it?), having sex for intimacy or pleasure alone IS a "lifestyle choice".

Having sex in order to have children is not a "lifestyle choice"  (Or is it?),

Back to the "Paying for rubbers", I'd just like to reset the conversation so I'm clear. If we just remove the whole incedent of Rush having foot in mouth disease, what is the big uproar about anyways?

I get so confused with this issue. Again, how is it free when its part of an insurance premium that you, or your employer, or both are paying? If the employer includes it in his insurance plan, it is still part of the benefits package he uses to compensate employees.

So, where does the "free" come in?

I get so confused with this issue. Again, how is it free when its part of an insurance premium that you, or your employer, or both are paying? If the employer includes it in his insurance plan, it is still part of the benefits package he uses to compensate employees.

So, where does the "free" come in?

I get so confused with this issue. Again, how is it free when its part of an insurance premium that you, or your employer, or both are paying? If the employer includes it in his insurance plan, it is still part of the benefits package he uses to compensate employees.

So, where does the "free" come in?

The thing you're missing is that contraception delays or eliminates the need for them to pay for one of the most expensive conditions a person can have: pregnancy.

Moreover hormonal birth control is often prescribed for medical conditions like ovarian cysts and dysmenorrhea.

The other point I heard the guy make was that having things "for free" causes moral hazard. Women will likely not care the cost of the product, which may lead to even higher costs for the consumer. It's been shown to occur in other instances, why not here?

The thing you're missing is that contraception delays or eliminates the need for them to pay for one of the most expensive conditions a person can have: pregnancy.

Moreover hormonal birth control is often prescribed for medical conditions like ovarian cysts and dysmenorrhea.

Heard an interesting take on this.

Generally speaking you purchase insurance in order to hedge the financial risk associated with whatever. I purchase health insurance (well through my company in my case) so that I am protected financially (not health) in case of unlikely health related events. Same with auto & life.

How long will it be till Oklahoma passes a law that says any one using insurance to cover their birth control methods will have to be drug tested and shown pictures of unfertilized eggs?

November, unfortunately.

I hope you Democrats put up someone I could vote for.

I feel the same way about Republicans, unfortunately.  Last one I voted for was Largent.  Had McCain not selected Gotcha McGovernor, I might have voted for him in 2008.

A woman’s right to choose is also compromised in Oklahoma. (Are you starting to recognize a pattern?) Women wanting to terminate a pregnancy in the Sooner State likely need to travel, as there are only six abortion doctors in the entire region. Once they’ve traveled, they’ll also have to wait a full 24 hours after their first visit to the doctor, where they will only be allowed to have a sonogram and hear details about the fetus. They’ll have to wait until the next day to have the procedure, which their health insurance won’t be covering. There’s also a sizable chance they won’t have health insurance anyway, as 1 in 4 women are without coverage. What’s more, the share of women in the Oklahoma legislature is a pitiful 12.8%, and there are no women in its Congress.

What’s more, the share of women in the Oklahoma legislature is a pitiful 12.8%, and there are no women in its Congress.

They made the whole basis of this supposition on how easy it is to terminate a pregnancy here?  I’ve never heard my mother, wife, or daughters complain what an awful state this is to be a female.  What a load of complete BS. One in four women in Oklahoma don’t have health insurance?  I call more BS.

I guess the author doesn’t realize we have a female governor who won a female/female race for that seat and was one of our U.S. representatives prior to becoming said governor.

I also don’t recall anyone throwing up a stink that health insurance didn’t pay for abortion prior to a few years ago.  I find it difficult to believe that $250 or $300 for a uterus vacuuming is that big a hardship to come up with the $$.

Gotta look at both sides.  Oklahoma conservatives can post all the great things they do here too.

That’s a really lame way to pass it off as if that’s the only criteria by which a woman would choose a place to live.

Top 5 Worst U.S. States for Women

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/23/top-5-worst-u-s-states-for-women/#2-oklahoma (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/23/top-5-worst-u-s-states-for-women/#2-oklahoma)

Oklahoma is ranked #2 in this article.  Mississippi wins again.

Should have been titled "Worst State to be Democrat Woman"

Just to be clear, because I feel like everyone on here is a man, there are women who believe abortion is wrong too. This is not just some man trying to keep the woman down thing.

Based on Sally Kern alone, she’s a good argument as to why we don’t need more women like her in our state congress ;)

I feel like everyone on here is a man,

While reproductive rights, birth control and health care access dominate the headlines, our investigation has brought these issues home to where women live. In creating our rankings, we analyzed health care and reproductive rights as well as economic success, access to affordable childcare, female representation in government and educational attainment. We wondered: Which states are getting things right and really helping women? And which states still have a learning curve on these issues?

The Lowdown
A woman’s right to choose is under attack in Oklahoma, a state where there are few women in politics.

The Good News
Oklahoma offers family planning medical assistance (contraceptives and reproductive wellness exams) for families of three earning up to $35,000 a year, a higher threshold than that federal law stipulates. Roughly the same group qualifies for childcare assistance and the state has no waiting list for help.

The Bad News
Nearly 25 percent of women lack health insurance -- that’s one out of every four women. Not coincidentally, Oklahoma women also rank among the worst in the nation when it comes to Pap smear and mammogram rates. Healthy weight and healthy diet are also an issue -- Oklahoma women have the nation’s worst record when it comes to eating five servings of fruits and vegetables a day.

Choice is extremely limited in Oklahoma, where 96 percent of counties have no abortion provider and there are only six such doctors in the entire state. Health insurance companies are banned from covering the procedure (except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life). Women seeking an abortion have to wait 24 hours after undergoing a sonogram where they will be offered a chance to view the fetus and are required to listen to a description of the image on the screen. The state legislature is working to limit choice even further. The state Senate recently passed a Personhood bill that gives legal personhood rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization. The bill is awaiting action in the House. A “Heartbeat” bill requiring doctors to tell women they have the right to hear the fetal heartbeat before ending a pregnancy passed the state Senate in early March and is awaiting action by the House. If passed, both bills will likely be signed by anti-choice Gov. Mary Fallin.

Finally, politically the state has one of the lowest percentages of women in its state legislature -- a mere 12.8 percent and there are no Oklahoma women in Congress.

Hear Us Roar
One-time U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick was from Duncan, Okla. And Anita Hill, whose testimony at the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings ignited a national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace, hails from Morris, Okla.

Should have been titled "Worst State to be Democrat Woman"

Just to be clear, because I feel like everyone on here is a man, there are women who believe abortion is wrong too. This is not just some man trying to keep the woman down thing.

Wow...that speaks volumes about your ideology.  To me, anyway.

You need to brush up on your English usage.  It's "Worst State to be a Democratic Woman."  

I just don't want you to sound like a redneck, is all.  

No I meant Democrat, the political party not the form of government (didn't want to confuse the two). I don't see how the sentence is incorrect, they are both singular. In all honesty, I was a math person, not English. So I could be incredibly wrong.

Then please take it from me, I was an English person.  It's Democratic.  The party and type of government have the same form when being used as an adjective.  Otherwise you risk sounding uneducated.  Not to mention disrespectful.  And I know you don't want to be either. 

So should we call you folks "Democratics?" instead of Democrats?

Lets make it easy. . .we'll be shirts, you guys can be skins.

The ranking came from iVillage, which is an established webzine for liberal women.  According to the introduction to the series on their website: (http://www.ivillage.com/best-worst-states-for-women-ky-wv-ar-ok-ms/8-a-436881)

The full Oklahoma entry reads:

So:  they took several things into consideration when ranking states; for Oklahoma, while they seem to have used the same basket of metrics, they chose to highlight the lack of access to women's healthcare and abortion services.  Oklahoma is one of the states most interested in restricting access to legal abortions -- hence we get (rightly) nailed for that. 

Access isn’t restricted, women can have it done legally in Oklahoma.  Oklahoma law may well have some different hoops to jump through prior to getting the procedure.  It’s no different than gun restrictions various municipalities and states impose on guns over federal law. 

The fact that there are only a handful of doctors doing the procedure is not a reflection of restrictions or the laws in Oklahoma.  To my knowledge there is no restriction on the number of doctors who may do the procedure and no restriction on the number of abortion clinics which may exist in the state. 

That's a terribly simplistic view. You can't look at the body of law that is intended to reduce access to abortion services and conclude that the legislature isn't attempting to run all the abortion providers out of the state.

That's a terribly simplistic view.

No one is denied access to it who needs it.  You can’t compel doctors to perform this procedure who have an ethical issue with it.  What would we say about it if there were no doctors in the United States who were willing to do it because of professional ethics?

I love it when you respond with that.

Better than using a quote from a Nazi to bolster your argument against reasonable gun control laws.

Then please take it from me, I was an English person.  It's Democratic.  The party and type of government have the same form when being used as an adjective.  Otherwise you risk sounding uneducated.  Not to mention disrespectful.  And I know you don't want to be either. 

Then please take it from me, I was an English person.  

Nope, Democrat works perfectly.  Unless you're using it as an attributive adjective.  In which case you could say "we vs us is a Democratic kind of guy."   

It's like saying "erfalf is a Republic kind of guy."  It's incorrect usage.

Rush Limbaugh is fighting accusations by the National Organization for Women that he has been degrading the opposite sex. How? By starting his own group: “Rush Babes for America.”

With a logo featuring a female silhouette similar to those seen on 18-wheeler mud flaps, Limbaugh’s National Organization for Rush Babes aims to counter NOW’s “Enough Rush” campaign, which is putting pressure on advertisers to stop supporting the political shock jock’s conservative radio talk show.

Limbaugh drew the ire of women’s groups earlier this year for calling Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute” because of her health insurance birth control advocacy. A CEO at radio company Cumulus admitted this week that boycotts of Limbaugh’s show over his comments had cost millions in canceled advertising.

Limbaugh has blamed “Femi-Nazis” for trying to tell women how to think. “The National Organization of Women is not a female organization,” said the talk show host. Maybe Rush thinks you have to have the word “babes” in your name for it to count.

Apologies if I missed this earlier, but does this lady have a valid complaint about a doctor refusing to provide emergency contraception to a rape victim based on personal bias?

http://www.news9.com/category/116601/video-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7337429

I think we have discussed in TNF whether a health care professional should be forced to perform procedures or otherwise act in contravention to their religious beliefs. If nothing else, I'm sure my position is known on that issue.

This might be a standing point if it was an ER and a rape victim.  If the doc wants to only treat for things that don't offend her religious sensibilities, then she should stay in her own office.

This is a tough issue, believe me. When I worked in an ER many years ago, I saw lots of sexual assault victims come through. This was before SANE and all these EC medications.

Still, I think what is confusing here is what is "treatment" for sexual assault? Is it just the direct treating of the medical and psychological injuries/complications of the victim or is it more? If it is more, what is it? Is terminating pregnancies or prophylactics part? And what about making treatment recommendations and questions posed by victims. Should all ER doctors as part of their informed consent process be required to discuss with the victim the pros and cons of carrying a baby to term or to terminate a pregnancy? Are ER docs now sexual assault and family planning counselors? Point is, ER docs are ER docs. Heaping on the very difficult decision of advising a woman who has just suffered perhaps the most dehumanizing injury her potential pregnancy options is simply unworkable and unfair to all.

I am not to the point where you throw the baby (the physician) out with the bathwater (the ER) over this one issue which statistically is a VERY small part of the emergency room experience. Now, if docs start objecting to numerous other procedures on religious grounds, we can revisit. This is largely about pro-life issue, though, so naturally it's going to be controversial. As I see it, in America, a woman presently has the right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy with some limitations. There is nothing that I am aware of that requires anyone to assist a woman with following through with that choice to terminate her pregnancy. Again, this is a tough issue--but I will side with the legislature on this one.

And cust, instead of Integris where this took place it was St. Francis. Would you want that Catholic affiliated hospital to be required to write scrips or give EC?

She should have at the very least medically treated her for the abuse, and recommended her to a GP for the prescription.

Were EC not rather time sensitive, I might agree with that. It could be that the hospital is the only place to get it at a given hour. Not so much here in Tulsa, but there are still plenty of places in this state where there is no way to get EC at night or on weekends except at the hospital. The manufacturer of Plan B states that it is most effective when taken within 12 hours.

Were EC not rather time sensitive, I might agree with that. It could be that the hospital is the only place to get it at a given hour. Not so much here in Tulsa, but there are still plenty of places in this state where there is no way to get EC at night or on weekends except at the hospital. The manufacturer of Plan B states that it is most effective when taken within 12 hours.

She should have at the very least medically treated her for the abuse, and recommended her to a GP for the prescription.

Didn't know that.  Why is it prescription only?

And cust, instead of Integris where this took place it was St. Francis. Would you want that Catholic affiliated hospital to be required to write scrips or give EC?

What does any of that have to do with a physician's conscience-based decisions? You gonna force them to act in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs because of where they live?

They (and Integris - Baptist) put themselves in the secular world with their decision to go out amongst the masses to do good.  And get massive tax breaks from that secular world for doing the good they do.  So, they should conform to that part of the secular world view - going along with what the various legislatures say.  In Oklahoma, that should be no big deal, since we are so heavily oriented toward a state theocracy in our legislature.

Furthermore, it is lunacy to impose on an emergency room physician the responsibility to provide family planning/counseling services to a patient--which is what that physician would be doing by explaining in detail what the physiological/philosophical effects associated with this sort of medication.

Medical practice/health care is not Burger King. You do not get to have it your way. You, as a patient, do not get to go to see a physician and decide what the physician prescribes you or your course of treatment. That's the doctor's job. Period. And that includes whether or not the physician decides he/she will not prescribe EC or even tell a patient where to go and get it. If you don't like it, go to another facility or get a medical degree. Problem solved. I am sorry to be blunt, but that is simply reality.

Furthermore, it is lunacy to impose on an emergency room physician the responsibility to provide family planning/counseling services to a patient--which is what that physician would be doing by explaining in detail what the physiological/philosophical effects associated with this sort of medication. Seriously, a traumatized woman comes in after being raped and leaves with a prescription for a medication she takes without knowing the emotional impact it may have 10 years down the road? Will she think she killed her baby? Will she think she acted impulsively? Women who know they are pregnant struggle with the decision for days/weeks/or even months before deciding on an abortion. This victim is having to decide in hours with folks like you expecting an ER physician already elbow deep in blood or working a code to drop those emergent situations and assist with that victim's decision.

Finally, as for those tax breaks which somehow means a physician is apparently legally prohibited from holding religious convictions ::), please tell me about the tax breaks this particular doctor got which led to her allegedly refusing to examine that rape victim. Because to me, that point is a massive:

(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZIxMeyNMqoUjmHPTTkyDSfCV4slBqcy6W3XqlZNJn4gPnj6Cs)

Prescribing medication is not the same thing as providing family planning services. For example, birth control is often dispensed without family planning advice to women who take it for reasons other than contraception. Moreover, if Plan B required that much counseling, it wouldn't be available OTC for most women.

You seem to think that everyone shares the Catholic view on contraception. The vast majority of us don't mourn the loss of our sperm or eggs and have no problem with contraception. (The same goes for Catholics, actually)

Lastly, SB1891 does not apply by the plain meaning of its words. I thought there was another law that allowed pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives?

No need to bother Guido.  All the men in here have infinitely more experience in what it is to be a woman, especially one with a problem pregnancy than any woman does.

I mean we all know pregnancy is simply a binary problem.  On or off, no repercussions, no responsibility.  ::)

No need to bother Guido.  All the men in here have infinitely more experience in what it is to be a woman, especially one with a problem pregnancy than any woman does.

Nate, you do not know what you are talking about. You have no idea what the process is for prescribing medication, the minimum amount of information which needs to be provided to a patient, or any other part of the physician-patient process other than your personal experience. You certainly have displayed ZERO awareness as to the standards of care for emergency (or any other ER personnel for that matter) in this thread but rather solely seek to suggest your own inexperienced and irrelevant opinions are correct.

You say much, but manage to say nothing of substance. If you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to provide facts. I like facts. I don't care much for pointless bluster about what you've done or not done. That tells me nothing useful. It is useful when you share what you know, rather than just sharing your conclusions. It also makes for more interesting conversations.

I have already told you what the issues are and you choose not to listen. Notwithstanding whatever world you operate, in the realm of medicine, a doctor simply does not pick up a prescription pad and writes down what the patient wants or what you expect the physician to write. That is the end of the story. You can muse about "what ifs" or "damn those theocrats" or ponder the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It is meaningless. If you want to debate whether doctors should check their religious beliefs at the door, then I'm done. I'm pro-life and your pro-choice.  :P There's no changing our minds.

A physician in this state has statutory protection for their conscience-based decisions and I have told you how providing the sort of care you expect (or that mother) is perhaps inconsistent with the standard of care. Do you know what the standard of care is for emergency room physicians? Because what I am reading are the opinions of a person who has perhaps scanned a prescription insert. 

No need to bother Guido.  All the men in here have infinitely more experience in what it is to be a woman, especially one with a problem pregnancy than any woman does.

I mean we all know pregnancy is simply a binary problem.  On or off, no repercussions, no responsibility.  ::)

Interesting way to flip that.  You think all men should lay off women's medical care?

I can see how that would make sense.  No men, including anyone in the government, clergy, etc can make decisions for women's medical.  Only women can make the decisions?

Maybe I’m simply tired of hearing the “War On Women” meme which primarily seems to come from men.

The problem is that the medical decision was made based on a religious bias, not medical. 

creation of religious intolerance.

You mean because the doctor was religious she couldn't tolerate the correct treatment?

Are you suggesting that giving EC is part of giving the "correct treatment" following a sexual assault/rape?

So your opinion is it's wrong to do it?

because something is not wrong does not render the opposite correct. It's just different.

I think any victim should have the right to all possible treatment regardless of a doctor's religious choices.  (it was in Western OK.  It was because of religion.)

I cannot disagree with that statement at all.

And now we open the bourbon.

JFC!  You made me wait until 3:45 to do that?

It's tough to harness my massive intellect if I start much earlier.

I'd hate to explode the minds on here.

It's tough to harness my massive intellect if I start much earlier.

I'd hate to explode the minds on here.

Narcissist.  It’s always about YOU and YOUR intellect.  Ne’er mind that some of us start to DT about 2pm.

Narcissist.  It’s always about YOU and YOUR intellect.  Ne’er mind that some of us start to DT about 2pm.

I've been telling you all along there are some real selfish and thoughtless people in here but you NEVER listen. Now, start at 1pm.

I was a local mad cow expert...

I've been that person many many times after having a few more than I should have... :o

A physician in this state has statutory protection for their conscience-based decisions and I have told you how providing the sort of care you expect (or that mother) is perhaps inconsistent with the standard of care.

Um, actually, unless you provide a citation to a different law, said physician does not have statutory protection for refusing to provide care for religious or moral reasons. Unless the Supreme Court decides it's opposite day the day they hear a case asking them to decide what (in effect, I don't have the window open right now) "abortion does not include contraception" means.

Oh, what, bourbon?

You are aware you are arguing with someone whose spouse, in fact, IS an ER physician, right?

His spouse could be God incarnate and it wouldn't change the fact that the law he cited does not state what he claims it states. OSCN could be wrong or there could be another section of law that does in fact do what guido claims it does. That's why I asked for clarification.

I understood what he claims regarding EC to be true based on previous news reports, but then I looked and found that that the cited section only applied to abortion and the handling of in vitro embryos. Go look it up, if you like.

I’ll take the experience of the pros over the interwebz, thank you.

Better to believe one person's unelaborated opinion than the text of the law, I guess?

During a heated debate on the floor of the Michigan state House, Rep. Lisa Brown made an impassioned speech against a bill that seeks to put new regulations on abortion providers and ban all abortions after 20 weeks.

Brown, a Democrat, argued that her Jewish faith allowed for therapeutic abortions when the mother's life is in danger without regard to length of pregnancy.

"I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?" she said. But what came next is what got her in trouble: "And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no.'"

The Detroit News reports today the House Republican leadership did not allow Brown to speak on a bill about the retirement of school employees.

The News reports:

"'What she said was offensive," said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. 'It was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.'

"Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas, R-Midland, determined Brown's comments violated the decorum of the House, said Ari Adler, spokesman for the Republican majority."

Brown called a press conference, today, the Detroit Free Press reports. She defended her use of the word "vagina," saying it is the "anatomically medically correct term."

"If they are going to legislate my anatomy, I see no reason why I cannot mention it," she said according to the Free Press.

"Regardless of their reasoning, this is a violation of my First Amendment rights and directly impedes my ability to serve the people who elected me into office," Brown added in a statement released by her office.

Brown was not the only woman silenced on the floor today. Rep. Barb Byrum was also not allowed to speak on the floor.

"Byrum, D-Onondaga, caused a disturbance on the House floor Wednesday when she wasn't allowed to introduce an amendment to the abortion regulations bill banning men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life," the Detroit News reports.

OKLAHOMA CITY - Hobby Lobby Stores and its founders have filed a federal suit challenging the federal Affordable Care Act’s mandate that its corporate health insurance policy cover certain kinds of birth control as a free preventative service for employees.

ACORN whistle-blower on Akin-gate: Women ‘are the new pawns in this political game’

http://dailycaller.com/?p=3328441

ACORN whistle-blower on Akin-gate: Women ‘are the new pawns in this political game’

Seriously?  The Daily Caller?  That's like liberals posting stuff from HuffPo New York Times or DK NBC on here.

TW FB Post:

Yes, all women are pawns.  3.5 billion pawns.  They will all be used for politics.  They have no ability to not be pawns.  So they will be pawns.

Fixed it for you.

But seriously, does it warrant complete ignorance of the story?

You know, the criticism is of the politicians, not the women.

Figured that story would get some play in here.

(http://gifs.gifbin.com/042009/1239955217_kinky_stewie_and_brian.gif)

Fixed it for you.

But seriously, does it warrant complete ignorance of the story?

Christian owned and operated Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. filed a  lawsuit today in U.S. District Court challenging a mandate in the Obama administration’s health care law that requires most employer health insurance plans to provide coverage for contraception and the morning after pill without requiring a co-pay.

There are about 27 lawsuits challenging the mandate, and Hobby Lobby, which owns about 500 arts and crafts stores across the country,  is the largest for-profit business to do so.
Several of the lawsuits filed by nonprofit entities have been dismissed, because the rules governing those entities are undergoing revision and won’t take effect until later next year. But Hobby Lobby as a for-profit enterprise, has  to comply with the mandate by January.

“Assuming that a court agrees to hear the case, and doesn’t dismiss it on procedural grounds, it will be an early opportunity to hear not only the plaintiffs arguments about why their religious beliefs are burdened but for the government to explain its decision not to exempt these and other employers from the rules,” says Robert W. Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University Law School.
“Our faith is being challenged by the U.S. government,” said Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO David Green in a conference call today.  He said the company opposes having to provide  ”abortion causing drugs” that go against his family faith. “We cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with the mandate.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which  is representing Hobby Lobby Stores,  argues that the Obama administration’s policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  ”Religious liberty is the birthright of every American whether they are running a business, sitting in a church or operating hospital,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund.
The administration’s health care law  exempts only churches and religious orders from the mandate.

Tuttle believes the claim of a for-profit business would  be more difficult to prove, because courts have been generally less sympathetic to claims of religious liberty by commercial entities, but he did note a recent case — Newland v. Sebelius – in which a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

No more so than when the screeching right complains when some on here source the aforementioned outlets.  Including your corrected ones.  Not sure why you felt the need to correct them, as they all four lean left.  But then again, I'm never sure of what your point is most of the time.  You might be ADD.

Fixed it for you.

But seriously, does it warrant complete ignorance of the story?

Of course.  What's your point?

Well, let's try it again.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CmkbShVqNA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy6odnqyLeU[/youtube]

She's an Aunt Tom.  Doesn't count.

Ashley and Jessica evidently made up one-fifth of the total crowd!

And on the subject of Fluke...Dennis Miller goes thermonuclear:

I definitely second the motion - and raise you the "old white guys" insurance paid prescription for viagra.

No, a straw man would be talking about how men can afford Viagra without insurance because they make more money, on average. Bringing up how pills for one gender's sexual health are not covered while pills for another gender's sexual health are covered is not a straw man. It's a direct comparison.

No its not and stop it. If we were talking about sexual dysfunction in women and medication

Both are used to treat medical conditions, bucko.

No its not and stop it. If we were talking about sexual dysfunction in women and medication, then we have a comparison. Now, if we were talking about insurance paying for vasectomies and not women BC...

Nice try at misdirection and deflection, but..."insert strawman here"....

Don't know about today, but in very recent decades, insurance has paid for vasectomy.

Both are used to treat medical conditions, bucko.

Insurance didn't pay for mine.  Not sure if i didn't ask, but I didn't figure it was up to someone else to pay for my chosen form of birth control.  Having everyone else pay for my chosen proclivities is a new concept on me.  I guess I'm not into being a moocher.

Don't know about today, but in very recent decades, insurance has paid for vasectomy.  As was tubal ligation.

Insurance didn't pay for mine.  Not sure if i didn't ask, but I didn't figure it was up to someone else to pay for my chosen form of birth control.  Having everyone else pay for my chosen proclivities is a new concept on me.  I guess I'm not into being a moocher.

Then make that the argument. Using ED drugs as a comparator to BC is a straw man and distraction.

You do realize that, on average, everyone pays more in premiums than they get in medical care? That's how for-profit insurance works. If you didn't pay, on average, more in premiums than you got in care your insurer wouldn't be your insurer for very long...they'd go bankrupt. Unless you're on Medicaid, you're paying your own way by paying the premium.

With that much muddle minded bullshit coming from you guys, who are brighter than most, it's a wonder our country still exists.

guido, you still labor under the impression that BCP is used only for contraception?

Do you understand the concepts of bankruptcy and personal responsibility?  Apparently not.  Just expect someone else to keep giving until they are utterly broke because you can't prioritize BC pills over a couple of Pie Hole Pizzas a month...sheesh.

With that much muddle minded bullshit coming from you guys, who are brighter than most, it's a wonder our country still exists.

Ok, I'll tell the women I know that take BCP for medical reasons other than birth control that you said they should take responsibility for themselves and not expect other people to pay for their medicine. It's like you think that because it has something to do with lady parts that it's inherently about sex.

I bow to your superior intellect. ::)

Arguments from authority are always good ones. Especially when the authority you claim has love all to do with the point at hand, which was actuarial, not sales-related.

What the heck is the difference if it's for other reasons or not. Should I expect people to pay for my legit pain medications? or for everyone's medical prescriptions?

A great many people have health insurance which includes prescription drug coverage, so yeah, a great many people expect the insurance company to cover prescription drugs under the policy the patient pays for. Why is this even in question?

Because I don't expect them to be paid for. If I find insurance that does, great. But I cannot demand a service provider provide me a service for what I want to pay for it. It just doesn't work that way, thank goodness.

You obviously don't understand the difference between a coconut and a pineapple.

Ok, I'll tell the women I know that take BCP for medical reasons other than birth control that you said they should take responsibility for themselves and not expect other people to pay for their medicine. It's like you think that because it has something to do with lady parts that it's inherently about sex.

I bow to your superior intellect. ::)

Arguments from authority are always good ones. Especially when the authority you claim has love all to do with the point at hand, which was actuarial, not sales-related.

One would hurt more than the other.

(A little late but I thought I'd throw that out there.)

Doesn't matter if it's for birth control, acne, or making sure Aunt Flo shows up at the same time every month.  Why is $30 to $50 a month such a hardship for people?  I don't expect someone else to pay for my maintenance meds (which these days are nothing more than ibuprofen or Benadryl.)  Insurance has become so expensive because it's being used as a buyer's club instead of what it was originally supposed to do and that was to cover major issues.  I don't have a problem with insurance paying for chemo or expensive life-saving or life-enhancing therapies.  It should do that.  I simply don't see a good reason for people to expect it to pay for BC, sniffle pills, or ED pills.

Uh, what you posted isn't a difficult actuarial concept.  ::)

Why is $30 to $50 a month such a hardship for people? 

And from that, we can tell how long it has been since you worked for $12 an hour....  LONG time!

I think it would be great if the drug companies would stop price gouging us so maintenance meds wouldn't be bankruptingly expensive when still-under-patent drugs are medically required.

guido, you still labor under the impression that BCP is used only for contraception?

I still prioritize my spending, though as any responsible adult should, regardless of income.

If scrip plans and the gov't are the biggest payment sources to them though you would think they could pressure prices much lower, but that's not happening.

It's been a while since I've looked at an EOB, but I'm pretty sure that the copay+insurance reimbursement is significantly lower than the cash price. Medicare, sadly, is not allowed to negotiate prices under Part D. That's what happens when you have a revolving door between the legislature and drug company lobbying organizations. :(

VA is allowed to negotiate pricing and pays about half what Medicare does under Part D.

Like TSA, another Bush bone-headed move.

Better to blame Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Representative who put that turd in the bill and shortly thereafter ended up working for PhRMA. Sometimes I think there ought to be a mandatory waiting period or something.

I think they should boot ALL special interest groups off K Street.  I know..wishful thinking.

The time has come for the pill to be available over-the-counter, the nation's leading group of obstetricians and gynecologists says.

Why? "There's a 50 percent unintended pregnancy rate in the U.S., which is extremely high for a resource-rich country," says Dr. James T. Breeden, president of the American Congress of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. Easier access to oral contraceptives could go a long way to bringing that number down, he tells Shots.

The argument for the switch was just published in an ACOG policy statement. But don't expect to see the pill next to acetaminophen or cough syrup on drugstore shelves anytime soon.

The Food and Drug Administration would have to agree that the benefits to women outweigh the risks from taking the pill without a health professional's guidance.

The feds have approved switches for some allergy pills, heartburn medicines and even allowed nonprescription sales of the emergency contraceptive Plan B to adults. But the FDA has rejected the switch of some common cholesterol drugs called statins to OTC sale.

The clearest path to nonprescription status the pill would be for a drugmaker to push the case with the agency. ACOG would support a move like that, Breeden says, but it's not the group's place to lead the commercial charge.

What are the risks? The biggest worry is blood clots. They're rare, but the risk rises for women who smoke or are over 35. Uncontrolled high blood pressure would also boost the risk for trouble. But, Breeden says, "It is much worse to have a women who is hypertensive be pregnant that to be on birth control pills."

It's also possible that women would skip some visits to their doctors.

Other over-the-counter medicines also carry risks, though. Aspirin can lead to serious bleeding problems, and overdoses of acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) are a leading cause of liver failure.

Breeden is confident women could adequately screen themselves before deciding to start oral contraceptives. They might even do a better job than doctors at that, he says.

"All in all, it would be a major benefit" for women to be able to buy the pill prescription free, he says.

Is the pill A-Dicktive?
Again I know, I'm juvenile.  ;D

Please explain why I should trust your assessment over that of actual doctors? I seriously doubt the adverse effects of hormonal BCPs are any worse than the adverse effects of aspirin on the very young or acetaminophen on anyone. An entire month's worth of modern BCP probably has less hormones in it than a single pill did in the 70s.

The irony is that if they just called it a dietary supplement, they could sell as much of it as they want over the counter and nobody could say boo. I'm pretty sure you're OK with that. St. John's Wort kills many people every year from drug interactions, yet nobody is foaming at the mouth about it.

This is a "news item." 

What isn't a "news item" when it's in the news?

This is a finding from the American Congress of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. 

I know.  I still find it very stupid.  Many of the articles cite the fact that other countries allow OTC birth control, and somehow imply that we are behind.  India has OTC birth control, they also have OTC antibiotics and as a result, all kinds of new and terrible multi-antibiotic resistant bacterial infections, including some amazing zygomycotic necrotizing fasciitis.   You can go to the pharmacy and buy antibiotics by the pill, no need to take a whole dose or have a physician even determine if your infection is covered in the spectrum.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean it's SMART to do so.

This is birth control.  Antibiotics aren't being pushed for over-the-counter by the American Congress of Obstetrician and Gynecologists.  At lease not in this article.

They would be clever to get out from under it by becoming an OTC drug.  That way they can charge retail prices.

I would be willing to bet that the drug companies are behind this.  With BC becoming a popular target "gubment" program, they have a lot to lose if their primary reimbursement is to come from a negotiated exchange or an eventual single payer system.  They would be clever to get out from under it by becoming an OTC drug.  That way they can charge retail prices.

I'm willing to bet it won't be too long before other drugs see a push for the same.  ;)

Given how cheap generic BCP is already,

A few months ago you were telling us how many women cannot use the cheap stuff.

Indeed, many can't. Most can, especially now that the low dose 3 step combined pills are off patent. Some may still need the brand name, but that's got love all to do with what we're discussing right now.

Supposedly, price is one advantage of any drug going OTC.  You are now saying that the generic price is cheap enough for most women where before you were saying that most women could not afford contraception.  Where is the advantage of going OTC?

Moreover, I never said "most" women cannot afford contraception. I have said that insurance companies should be required to cover it the same as they would any other medication, regardless of their (or a group plan sponsor's) feelings on the matter, since it is often used for the treatment or management of medical conditions.

I sure got the impression that you thought the reason it should be covered was due largely (but not entirely) to the cost.

It is around $100 a month if a particular individual can only tolerate a patent protected drug, but it's not really about the money. Either offer prescription drug coverage or don't. Anything else is discriminatory.

It is around $100 a month if a particular individual can only tolerate a patent protected drug, but it's not really about the money. Either offer prescription drug coverage or don't. Anything else is discriminatory.

I'm surprised that you haven't had the experience of watching someone die over a period of days from liver failure brought on by an acetaminophen overdose if you've seen someone nearly killed by a blood clot caused by BCP. (You probably never saw the person with seratonin syndrome from St. John's Wort unless you were an EMT..they went straight to the morgue) Should we put that behind the counter? There are lots of countries that don't sell it OTC like we do. It kills over 450 people a year in the US alone.

So, being financially responsible for your own healthcare is discriminatory. Check!

I might have read the rest of your post had you not started off with this gem.

Probably a good thing.  No time for sock puppets today.

He probably accidently saw where you wrote that you were an EMT and decided not to jeopardize his position by reading your post.

I might have read the rest of your post had you not started off with this gem. What is discriminatory is offering prescription drug coverage for only some prescriptions. As I said, either offer it or don't. It's not discriminatory if you don't offer it, and it's not discriminatory if you cover everything (or at least every class of drug, if not every individual drug). It is discriminatory if you refuse to cover some medications that only ladies need. And yes, some women do in fact need hormonal BCP. And not in the "oh god, gotta have my viagra to get it up" way.

He probably accidently saw where you wrote that you were an EMT

That made me wary of EMT's.

Possibly where he learned to BBQ.

Do you find it discriminatory that female-specific cancers seem to garner more attention than male-specific, or that it's virtually ignored that men do get and die from breast cancer?

men enjoy a much higher overall cancer rate and cancer mortality rate than women. 

The paranoia, it burns.

Drink more fluids, you're probably just passing one.

I seriously doubt the adverse effects of hormonal BCPs are any worse than the adverse effects of aspirin on the very young or acetaminophen on anyone. An entire month's worth of modern BCP probably has less hormones in it than a single pill did in the 70s.

 I have always been lucky to only have very small stomach upsets from aspirin, no adverse reaction yet from acetaminophen, and have been hospitalized after very short term, light use of both ibuprofen and naproxen sodium - significant stomach bleeding...  sucks to react badly to NSAIDs.

That's precisely my point. We accept some risk from any drug being OTC.

http://jezebel.com/5947420/the-most-conservative-states-have-the-pregnant+est-teenagers?tag=hypocrisy

Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arizona also bear the dubious distinction of being living monuments to how abstinence-only education and restricted access to abortion and birth control translates to more young single parents, more poverty for young women, and the corresponding greater expense to the state that comes with providing services to those families.

The number of women who have used emergency contraceptive pills has increased dramatically in the past decade, according to the latest government data.

A study by researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics found that 11 percent of "sexually experienced" women between the ages of 15 and 44 said they had used one of the four brands of emergency contraceptive pills approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2010. In 2002, only four percent said they had.

The survey, which is the first of its kind to look specifically at use of the pills, also found that most women aren't using them as a substitute for regular birth control. Of those who reported having used emergency contraception between 2006 and 2010, 59 percent said they had used it only one, and 24 percent twice. Only 17 percent said they had used it three or more times.

Use of emergency contraception, however, varies widely by age and other demographic distinctions, according to the study, which was part of the NCHS's National Survey of Family Growth.

Users of emergency contraception were most likely to be between age 20 and 24 (23 percent), never married (19 percent) and have at least some college education.

By contrast those least likely to have used emergency contraception were older. Only five percent of those ages 30-44 reported having taken the pills. Only 6 percent of current or formerly married women reported having used the products, and only 6 percent of those with less than a high school education said they had used it.

Those who did use emergency contraception, however, were about evenly divided between in their reasons, with about half reporting a need due to failure of another contraceptive method and half due to unprotected sex.

Meanwhile, in a separate study based on the same set of data, NCHS researchers found that "virtually all women of reproductive age in 2006 to 2010 who had ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method at some point in their lifetime."

That number — 99.1 percent of women ages 15-44 — includes methods such as natural family planning that involves periodic abstinence and withdrawal.

But the survey also found that 87.5 percent of women who had ever had heterosexual sex used what the researchers termed a "highly effective reversible method" of contraception, including the birth control pill, contraceptive patch, injectable drug such as Depo-Provera, or an intrauterine device.

And Catholic women reported using artificial birth control in smaller numbers than women of other religions, that use was still fairly widespread. According to the study, 89 percent of Catholic women reported having used a condom with a male partner, compared to 95-97 percent of Protestant women. Similarly, about 76 percent of Catholic women said they had used the birth control pill, compared to 86 percent of Protestant women.

includes methods such as natural family planning that involves periodic abstinence and withdrawal.

I believe those couples are often called parents. 

includes methods such as natural family planning that involves periodic abstinence and withdrawal.

Yeah, I think that'd be an after effect of lack of education.

Attorney and activist Sandra Fluke has lost her bid for a seat in the California state Senate.

Fluke captured the national spotlight in 2012 when conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" after she testified at a hearing on the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. Fluke, then a student at Georgetown Law School, responded to the controversy by continuing to speak out on women's health issues, and spoke at that year's Democratic National Convention.

Fluke lost to fellow Democrat Ben Allen, a Santa Monica-Malibu school board member, by over 21 points. As The Huffington Post's Paul Blumenthal reported last month, real estate mogul Bill Bloomfield poured $1.3 million into independent expenditures backing Allen's campaign, an enormous amount for a state Senate race. Both Fluke and Allen raised over $1 million for their respective campaigns.

Fluke loses election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/sandra-fluke-election-results_n_6106634.html

Fluke lost to fellow Democrat Ben Allen, a Santa Monica-Malibu school board member, by over 21 points. As The Huffington Post's Paul Blumenthal reported last month, real estate mogul Bill Bloomfield poured $1.3 million into independent expenditures backing Allen's campaign, an enormous amount for a state Senate race. Both Fluke and Allen raised over $1 million for their respective campaigns.


For a real estate mogul in the Malibu area, $1.3M is chump change.  It's probably about the same as a starter home in the area.   I'm sure Bloomfield will get much more return than that on his money.

Fluke lost to fellow Democrat Ben Allen, a Santa Monica-Malibu school board member, by over 21 points. As The Huffington Post's Paul Blumenthal reported last month, real estate mogul Bill Bloomfield poured $1.3 million into independent expenditures backing Allen's campaign, an enormous amount for a state Senate race. Both Fluke and Allen raised over $1 million for their respective campaigns.


For a real estate mogul in the Malibu area, $1.3M is chump change.  It's probably about the same as a starter home in the area.   I'm sure Bloomfield will get much more return than that on his money.

Oprah Winfrey has a house somewhere in that area - just asked another guy who was there, too - Montecito, near Santa Barbars.  Was talking with a contractor a couple years ago, with a crew that had worked on that house.  She dropped over $3 million on a bathroom in the place - came in and saw that she didn't like it, so they tore it out and started again.  Spent over $4.5 the next round.  Bathroom....

Oprah Winfrey has a house somewhere in that area - just asked another guy who was there, too - Montecito, near Santa Barbars.  Was talking with a contractor a couple years ago, with a crew that had worked on that house.  She dropped over $3 million on a bathroom in the place - came in and saw that she didn't like it, so they tore it out and started again.  Spent over $4.5 the next round.  Bathroom....

I snorkeled with the kids in front of her house(s) in the Bahamas.  She has two of them right next to each other.  One for Oprah and one for Oprahs friends.

Was curious,  so went to Zillow and looked at Malibu.   There are 17 results in the immediate area.  Starting from $2.4M (nice place in the woods, on a .28acre lot), to $27.5M (.3 acre, but on the ocean side of the highway.)

From the "You have got to be kidding" file.

(https://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/fluketweet.jpg?w=430)

Revolutionary thinking.  Of course today's GOP understands absolutely fu*kall about fiscal conservatism.

Imagine this:

Decriminalize MJ, tax it, regulate it, and commute minor drug sentences not related to violent or significant property crimes.

Pay for this program with the gain in tax revenue and savings from fewer inmates, and you end up preventing people from ending up on the government dole and in a cycle of poverty or eventually from becoming a guest of the DOC because they are stuck in a cycle of poverty.

Makes far too much common sense to come from the GOP-led OK legislature or as a national initiative.

Revolutionary thinking.  Of course today's GOP understands absolutely fu*kall about fiscal conservatism.

Imagine this:

Decriminalize MJ, tax it, regulate it, and commute minor drug sentences not related to violent or significant property crimes.

Pay for this program with the gain in tax revenue and savings from fewer inmates, and you end up preventing people from ending up on the government dole and in a cycle of poverty or eventually from becoming a guest of the DOC because they are stuck in a cycle of poverty.

Makes far too much common sense to come from the GOP-led OK legislature or as a national initiative.

edit/ I had skimmed over this in the first read of the story.  It is estimated for each dollar spent on the program, it saved $5.85 on the state’s Medicaid program.  An ROI of 5.85:1??  

Decriminalize MJ, tax it, regulate it, and commute minor drug sentences not related to violent or significant property crimes.

The unions will fight it with every public safety and asset forfeiture dollar they can lay their hands on.

GOP in CO says they won't fund it further - even though the program showed an $80 million reduction in just Medicaid costs alone.  Literally - if you give me $25, I will give you $80 back.  And the CO GOP says no...they don't want that!


Sounds like OK GOP.  Or any GOP nationwide.  They get their way - dramatic reductions in abortions, but say no because it was something good thought up by someone with a more progressive thought process - actually a thought process as opposed to the RWRE no-thought process.

That is the other part which makes no sense whatsoever.  It is proven to reduce abortion rates.

The unions will fight it with every public safety and asset forfeiture dollar they can lay their hands on.

You lost me there. Why would a union oppose legalization?

You lost me there. Why would a union oppose legalization?

This really should have it’s own topic as this is common sense. 

The OP was about the the entitlement mentality of Sandra Fluke, that whiny Georgetown law school student who couldn’t keep her pants on.