Sandra Fluke Testimony

[Abrupt]

With all the challenges this nation faces ie staggering debt, stifling unemployment, stagnant housing markets, and the increasing chasm between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else, the U.S. Senate is acting like it's the 1950s.

Fluke's testimony came on the heels of the Senate defeated Blunt Amendment that was tacked onto a transportation bill of all things!  The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need. In effect, Senator Blunt of Missouri is using women and their rights as a tactic to try to undermine Obama and his national health care plan. I do not agree with Obama, nor do I agree with all pieces and parts of the Healthcare Reform Act, but it gets me very riled to see a woman's right to govern her own medical care, body, and reproductive system once again being used as a tool by a body consisting of [almost] 100% males.

As far as the statement about 'other things' can be used to control cystic acne, heavy bleeding, etc., that is true in some cases. But guess what? Those other modalities carry a staggering cost in comparison to birth control/hormones and many of them are horrid on the organs and can have longterm affects. Would you want YOUR wife, partner, daughter, or mother put at such great risk?

The  amendment had NO business being put forth to begin with, but what really galls me is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Insurers cover sex-aid medications for men and I'm not hearing any 'moral objections' from hypothetical employers. So it's acceptable for men through medical insurance to get aid in sex, but not for women to control when or even if they get pregnant? It seems as if the conservatives have not bothered to consider the consequences of no birth control. We cannot feed a great percentage of adults and they now want to add more babies to the 'mix'?! Why am I NOT hearing a corresponding cry for affordable child care?
 

It is odd how you present the Blunt Amendment as: "The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need" when it simply would allow employers to opt out of the coverage requirement for things they had moral objection to.  I agree that women are being used as a tool, and it is by the Democratic Party.

As an analogy to "right to choose" I would like to put forth this question to you.  If I forage through your larger for my food, can I then accuse you of infringing upon my "right to choose" what food I want to eat simply because you don't stack your larder with what I like?

I ask you why these 'other things' are more costly in their single specific form then they are when tacked onto a product that has nothing to do with them?  Wouldn't it be best served to have a product that is designed for its purpose to be cheaper and better at that than a product that isn't designed for that purpose?  This seems like some sort of scam to me.

Insurers should be allowed to cover what ever they want to, and I echo what sigmapi1501 said in that regard.  I think it is ridiculous for insurance to cover sex-aid medication as well.  Most people should never need insurance.  Those that purchase it, 99% of the time, should expect to pay out and never use it.  It is an emergency luxury item that should cost more in total than it pays out in total and if it is anything else but that then it is unstable and a sham.  I said this before and will repeat it, most peoples opinions regarding health insurance is the same as if I felt like my auto insurance should cover the cost of fuel.  Such thoughts of insurance make it no longer insurance and entirely wealth redistribution.  

In response to your "consequence of no more birth control" I ask you, should we give free crack and heroin and other drugs to those that use them?  Just think of the consequences for all the crimes they commit because we don't.  Why don't we hire underage Asian prostitutes for all the Pedophiles out there too while we are at it.  I tell you now that you cannot hold me responsible for another persons crime and it is pathetic and ridiculous to even suggest that.

I am opposed to the entire Unconstitutional health care act/bill/crime.  I will not participate and will not be forced to either.  Anyone that tries to force me to do this and attempts to take away my freedom is likely to wind up with a severe case of dead.  I imagine that might sound like crazy talk to some, but it isn't.  It isn't angry talk either.  It is the cold honest truth.  Nobody is going to make me into a slave and anyone that has ever felt their freedom in jeopardy will understand exactly what I mean.  There are far worse things in life than not having all the rubbers you can use for 'free'.

[jaymz462]

Again, where does she say anything about her sex life?  I linked to the transcript, surely you can just copy and paste it here?

When she mentions the cost of contraceptives.  One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.

I think your reading comprehension is clouded by desire to paint her as an evil Democrat.  She said "Without insurance coverage, contraception can  cost   a woman  over $3,000 during law school .   For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s  practically  an  entire  summer’s  salary . "

She doesn't say she's paying $1000 a year for contraceptives.  She says $3000 is an entire summer's salary.  And as has been noted elsewhere on this thread, contraception does not equal sex.

And for all your protestations otherwise, you are parroting the exact arguments that Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh are spouting.  What remarkable odds.

Equating the health care bill with slavery and threatening murder is...hmmm, yeah, I'd have to say pretty crazy.

[Abrupt]

Again, where does she say anything about her sex life?  I linked to the transcript, surely you can just copy and paste it here?

When she mentions the cost of contraceptives.  One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.

I think your reading comprehension is clouded by desire to paint her as an evil Democrat.  She said "Without insurance coverage, contraception can  cost   a woman  over $3,000 during law school .   For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s  practically  an  entire  summer’s  salary . "

She doesn't say she's paying $1000 a year for contraceptives.  She says $3000 is an entire summer's salary.  And as has been noted elsewhere on this thread, contraception does not equal sex.

And for all your protestations otherwise, you are parroting the exact arguments that Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh are spouting.  What remarkable odds.

Equating the health care bill with slavery and threatening murder is...hmmm, yeah, I'd have to say pretty crazy.

The average length of time for a full time student in law school is three years and I will let you do the math from there. 

Something isn't adding up.  For 3000 dollars you can buy over a 27 years supply of the pill from walmart or target.  For condoms you can get them in bulk for about .50 each and that would be enough for 6000 condoms and would require intercourse averaging over 16 times per day to expend them in that time at that price.  You can also go to any clinic and get either free if you choose. 

What is the purpose of a contraceptive?  The purpose is to the prevention of fertilization of the egg by the sperm.  Egg + sperm = sex, unless artificial insemination but then why would you be using a contraceptive.  Men can also use a contraceptive in the form of a prophylactic commonly known as a condom or rubber.  Its purpose is the exact same purpose as any other contraceptive.  Any additional effects added to oral contraceptives for women have no bearing on contraceptives in general and are disqualified from discussion since their purpose is not contraception.  If you are confused look up the definition of contraceptive.

You use Fox news like it is an insult but it only reveals your bias.  I challenge you to show me where my words parrot Fox News or Rush.  You have accused me and your charge is false unless you can clearly prove it.  If your charge is false then you are likewise false and simply following the will of your liberal masters.  It should be such an easy thing to prove since you make dual comparisons with such certainty.  I am calling you out on this, prove it or be discredited.

I didn't suggest murder as I have a Constitutional right to defend my freedom from oppression.  Actually it is an obligation and not simply a right.  Nobody will bind me in chains over this bill and since I will not pay any money for this they have little choice but to choose so brash an action to try to enforce it.  This bill is slavery for both those that would be forced to pay it and those that would receive the benefits of it.  Slavery is being bound to a master and that qualifies for both of those.  The government would be the master in this matter.  Even the unborn have no defense against it as they become criminal at birth until they pay these fees.  The bill would effectively make every American born from now on no longer free.  If you are not free you are either a prisoner or a slave.  You must think very simply to not see this.  You think of the 'free' stuff you would get.   I would gladly trade my life for your freedom and yet here you seem more than willing to trade everyone's freedom for your box of condoms....

[jaymz462]

Arguing with people like you is pointless, Abrupt, because you don't accept facts if they get in the way of your ideology.  Judging from your rants, you seem pretty unhinged too, which makes it even more pointless.

But go ahead and consider me discredited, at least I have my liberal masters to console me 

[Abrupt]

Arguing with people like you is pointless, Abrupt, because you don't accept facts if they get in the way of your ideology.  Judging from your rants, you seem pretty unhinged too, which makes it even more pointless.

But go ahead and consider me discredited, at least I have my liberal masters to console me 

I present clear facts.  Just because the disinformation you were fooled into believing (and that you so naively repeated) doesn't agree with the facts doesn't make the facts any less true.  The facts are plainly visible to you in my post and they do not lie.  Yet you dismiss them and insult me where it is obvious to anyone reading this that if you were telling the truth you could provide proof.  Since you cannot back up your rhetoric, you stoop to the traditional liberal tactic of insult and ridicule.

It is indeed pointless for people like you to argue with people like me as you are poorly equipped to engage in a contest of honest wit and debate.

[jaymz462]

I question your "facts."  And no matter what proof I presented to you, you wouldn't believe it.  So why should I bother?  Besides the amusement, of course.

You talk about disinformation and naivety, and yet you think Fox is a legitimate news source and call the health care bill the equivalent of slavery.

And yes, when someone holds positions as crazy as yours, they do deserve ridicule.

[Abrupt]

I question your "facts."  And no matter what proof I presented to you, you wouldn't believe it.  So why should I bother?  Besides the amusement, of course.

You talk about disinformation and naivety, and yet you think Fox is a legitimate news source and call the health care bill the equivalent of slavery.

And yes, when someone holds positions as crazy as yours, they do deserve ridicule.

It isn't simply about me and you, their are other readers too.  If you feel you are correct, then to Hades with me and what I think.  You should want to reveal to the reader the truth.  If it amuses you then you just can't beat free entertainment and that can also be a good enough reason. 

You challenged me on where I came up with $1000 a year and I clearly indicated it with real data.  You claimed contraception does not equal sex and I showed you were wrong by giving you the definition/purpose of a contraceptive and pointing out the only other case where the use of a contraceptive could still do its job and not be considered sex and explained why it would be contrary to the intention of the act and thus irrelevant (i.e. using a contraceptive during artificial insemination).  I practically begged you to show your implied parroting and you tacitly refused.  I brought facts and you brought rhetoric, accusations, and insults.

Every new source tends to show some bias these days (and in fact I think that would likely be true even going back in history).  I don't know what issues you have with Fox News.  They often have the other News agencies playing catch up because of news stories they cover that they others try to bury in order to protect agendas and ideologies.  I have said before (in another thread) that I will tend to watch a news media that is contrary to the standard positions of whoever wields the most power in Washington.  I do this because one of the most important jobs of the media is to hold our elected officials accountable and I don't want to listen to a bunch of yes men.  Since the other media is in the tank for Obama I will default to Fox News, but I also cover my bases and take in others as well.  You seem to simply adhere to the tendencies of confirmation bias.

The health care law is slavery.  It is likely of the type of Bonded Labor, or Forced Labor, or a combination of the two.  The politicians require people to obligate a debt they have not accumulated and they have no choice in the matter.  This debt is generational being passed on to any future citizens and children born into America and they become criminal if they do not pay these 'debt'.  That is a textbook definition of a type of slavery.  Show me the error in my reasoning?  There is no disinformation in what I have shown.  It is the pure truth of the matter.  Naive, would be the person who cannot see this for what it is, or that does and ignores it for that vile abomination most often referred to as "the greater good".

You are more then welcome to ridicule me all you wish, it will not hurt my feelings (remember I am a conservative, I don't have feelings).  You should realize, though, that while you throw pies into your own face and point and laugh my way, that the laughs you hear echoing around you might not be directed at me.

[jaymz462]

You challenged me on where I came up with $1000 a year and I clearly indicated it with real data.

No I didn't.  My original point was in regards to you claiming that Sandra Fluke was testifying about her sex life, which she wasn't.  You claimed she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives.  Again, that's not true.  She never said what she's personally spending, and was only using generalizations.  But since you don't like her points, you use those generalized numbers to "prove" that she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives, and is therefore a *bleep*.  That's your real point, that she's a *bleep*.  You don't like the message so you shift into character assassination.  And hey, that's exactly what Limbaugh did!

You claimed contraception does not equal sex and I showed you were wrong by giving you the definition/purpose of a contraceptive and pointing out the only other case where the use of a contraceptive could still do its job and not be considered sex and explained why it would be contrary to the intention of the act and thus irrelevant (i.e. using a contraceptive during artificial insemination).

A main point of Fluke's testimony, which is what this entire thread is about, was about women using contraceptives not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat other conditions.  Your symantical games are nice, but irrelevant. 

Every new source tends to show some bias these days (and in fact I think that would likely be true even going back in history).  I don't know what issues you have with Fox News.  They often have the other News agencies playing catch up because of news stories they cover that they others try to bury in order to protect agendas and ideologies.  I have said before (in another thread) that I will tend to watch a news media that is contrary to the standard positions of whoever wields the most power in Washington.  I do this because one of the most important jobs of the media is to hold our elected officials accountable and I don't want to listen to a bunch of yes men.  Since the other media is in the tank for Obama I will default to Fox News, but I also cover my bases and take in others as well.  You seem to simply adhere to the tendencies of confirmation bias.

The issue I have with Fox is that it's a blatant progaganda network pushing conservative viewpoints while pretending to be "fair and balanced."  Here's Chris Wallace, a Fox host, admitting that Fox isn't:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-20-2011/fox-news-channel---fair---balanced.  Skip to the 2:00 mark.

There's just one example.  And since I find most current conservative ideas abhorent and the entire movement extreme and dangerous, I don't like Fox.  Simple.

And from your comment it's safe to assume that you didn't watch Fox while Bush was president, since Fox wasn't contrary to his standard positions?

The health care law is slavery.  It is likely of the type of Bonded Labor, or Forced Labor, or a combination of the two.  The politicians require people to obligate a debt they have not accumulated and they have no choice in the matter.  This debt is generational being passed on to any future citizens and children born into America and they become criminal if they do not pay these 'debt'.  That is a textbook definition of a type of slavery.  Show me the error in my reasoning?  There is no disinformation in what I have shown.  It is the pure truth of the matter.  Naive, would be the person who cannot see this for what it is, or that does and ignores it for that vile abomination most often referred to as "the greater good".

I'm required to buy car insurance and have no choice in the matter.  I guess I'm already a slave.

I find your understanding of what the health care law does and doesn't do, and your visceral reaction to it, to be ...odd.

You are more then welcome to ridicule me all you wish, it will not hurt my feelings (remember I am a conservative, I don't have feelings).  You should realize, though, that while you throw pies into your own face and point and laugh my way, that the laughs you hear echoing around you might not be directed at me.

Are the voices laughing at you again, Abrupt?  Here, have some pie- it's coconut cream.

[GramPolly3]

<<<<SIGH>>> :BangHead:Sounds like the 50's all over again. The attack on women's health issues is ridiculous--and serves to divert attention from the real issues that need to be addressed. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and yes, all the money that buys candidates for the highest office in the land. Let's not forget the saber rattlers either drumming up another war...

[Abrupt]

No I didn't.  My original point was in regards to you claiming that Sandra Fluke was testifying about her sex life, which she wasn't.  You claimed she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives.  Again, that's not true.  She never said what she's personally spending, and was only using generalizations.  But since you don't like her points, you use those generalized numbers to "prove" that she's spending $1000 a year on contraceptives, and is therefore a *bleep*.  That's your real point, that she's a *bleep*.  You don't like the message so you shift into character assassination.  And hey, that's exactly what Limbaugh did!

I extrapolated the gist of the argument to the finality of the subject matter and I don't even consider that taking liberties with the argument.  The argument was a counterpoint to religions freedom regarding forced coverage of contraceptives and morning after pills.  She was talking about contraceptives which serve one single purpose in order to qualify as a contraceptive and that purpose is to directly counter the fertilization of the egg by the sperm during sex.  She suggested the cost to be over $3000 for contraceptives during law school and then made a direct link with that statement to herself regarding the amount of work she must perform to cover the cost.  She was intentionally playing the victim of some imagined crime.  That is what I dislike.  I dislike the smoke and mirrors and fallacious arguments she made.  She is attending a top 14 law school that costs well over $100,000 for tuition and she is guaranteed a starting salary of over 160,000 a year in her first year of graduation and she is begging me for money?  I don't make 160,000 in three years.  Considering the fact that she and every example she cited (and she had the audacity to present them as victims of some imagined crime) can get contraceptives for free now I am definitely outraged over this theater put before us.  She was representing the voices she was supposedly speaking for and thus she represents the habits of the situations and the sexual connection since she drew a personal connection of it to herself.  You cannot play a sympathy/victim card and at the same time expect to be disassociated from that.  The argument was presented that it could cost $3000 for contraceptives to someone during a stay at law school and this absolutely means $1000 a year for contraceptives.  She was making the argument and thus in order to be voluntarily arguing it she must agree and represent it as truth.  If you put your face on something in such a way you become that something.

I didn't call her a *bleep*, you did (through your interpretations of the imagery I presented).  I imagine most people would consider having sex 16 times a day to be a good indicator of what may constitute a *bleep* -- but hey I leave that to the reader. 

A main point of Fluke's testimony, which is what this entire thread is about, was about women using contraceptives not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat other conditions.  Your symantical games are nice, but irrelevant. 

And that is another reason why her argument was BS.  Contraceptives serve one purpose and that is to prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg.  I know people that use rubbers for water balloons (since they are free and you can get as many as you want) but that doesn't mean they are kids toys.  I have blue ray in my truck but that doesn't make it an entertainment center.  Show me a contraceptive that only treats these other conditions and doesn't prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg.  Show me just one single contraceptive that does that.  Oh wait, you can't do that as then it wouldn't be a contraceptive.  So who is playing games now?  You try to present a contraceptive as exclusively performing a task that has nothing at all to do with the purpose of a contraceptive and the purpose of the objection from the Catholic Church.  They don't object to women treating these other conditions they object to the use of contraceptives to prevent the fertilization of the egg by the sperm.  What are you and Fluke arguing though?  Tell me again about playing games...

The issue I have with Fox is that it's a blatant progaganda network pushing conservative viewpoints while pretending to be "fair and balanced."  Here's Chris Wallace, a Fox host, admitting that Fox isn't:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-20-2011/fox-news-channel---fair---balanced.  Skip to the 2:00 mark.

There's just one example.  And since I find most current conservative ideas abhorent and the entire movement extreme and dangerous, I don't like Fox.  Simple.

And from your comment it's safe to assume that you didn't watch Fox while Bush was president, since Fox wasn't contrary to his standard positions?

Wait he stated that Fox actually shows the other side instead of a single side and suddenly you have proof that it isn't fair and balanced.  So you are saying that showing one side only as the other news media tends to do is somehow fair, but Fox showing both sides isn't?  Oh I know you are trying to suggest that he is saying they only show one side, but an incomplete sound bite on a comedy show would not qualify as proof.  You are aware that comedy shows are not news programs aren't you?  Now I understand why you are confused, you get your news from "family guy" (I am not trying to be mean to you here, just being silly and bring humor to the reader.  Think about what you did, you presented an incomplete sound bite from a liberal comedy show as you evidence and that makes you look naive and foolish).

Yes it is safe to assume that I didn't get the bulk of my news from Fox while Bush was president.  I could not stoop to watch msnbc though and I did try once or twice but I felt that it could be causing me brain damage.  I did also watch Fox though, just as I watch cnn/cbs/abc/nbc news also now as well as various online sources.

I'm required to buy car insurance and have no choice in the matter.  I guess I'm already a slave.

I find your understanding of what the health care law does and doesn't do, and your visceral reaction to it, to be ...odd.

You are not required to buy car insurance.  If you own a car and wish to drive it on the road (and in many states to register and pay taxes on it) you are required to buy car insurance.  If you are simply alive and don't own a car you are not required to buy car insurance, and in order for your comparative analogy to work that would have to be the case.  Also States have authority in that matter and some states sill do not require car insurance.

Please share your insight into my understanding of the health care law.  I am as curious as how you can determine them as well as how you equate my reasoning into the matter to be emotionally contrary to what my logic dictates.

Are the voices laughing at you again, Abrupt?  Here, have some pie- it's coconut cream.

I like pie and have some coconut cream pie in the fridge and some key lime in the freezer.  Mmm pie.

[Abrupt]

<<<<SIGH>>> :BangHead:Sounds like the 50's all over again. The attack on women's health issues is ridiculous--and serves to divert attention from the real issues that need to be addressed. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and yes, all the money that buys candidates for the highest office in the land. Let's not forget the saber rattlers either drumming up another war...

Show me these attacks on women's health please.  I wasn't around in the 50's so I would also like to see the attacks on women's health then as liberals have erased much of the history and some of it is difficult to find anymore.

The real issue that needs to be addressed, that is the root of all the problems you hint at, is personal responsibility.  If everyone demonstrated personal responsibility 99% of those other issues you indicate would vanish.

[jaymz462]

I give up, the reality you inhabit is simply too bizarre to deal with.

I like pie

I do too, so at least we can agree on something.

[Abrupt]

I give up, the reality you inhabit is simply too bizarre to deal with.

I like pie

I do too, so at least we can agree on something.

See we are not totally opposed on every issue.

Don't give up, you present good arguments.  It is simply that I believe you are stuck in an illusion of what the issue is and are not seeing the truth behind the show that is being put on stage for you.  It could well be that I am the one being deceived.  Leave that issue for the reader and present your best arguments.  I like to have debate and have some familiarity with it but I make my share of mistakes in my arguments.  I keep my points honest (they could still be wrong though) but I do like to add a little extra energy into some descriptions and sometimes use a poetic tone.  I argue as if to the reader and not simply the opposing view and find that is a useful tool to help bring clarity to a contended point.

[floorlady]

I see both sides of the issue presented by Ms. Fluke. While I believe if *bleep* is covered through some medical insurance then why shouldn't birth control be, I also see the point that the government should have little say when it comes to private insurance companies. I think this is the real issue that is being missed. We are getting more and more government in our private lives and it is doing nothing but taking our rights away. 

[sigmapi1501]

*bleep* is covered because it "cures" erectile dysfunction. Its apples and oranges.