Conservatives still hate Sandra Fluke

[Foolmewunz]

@Wildcat,

You have insurance at work? Check the policy and I bet you dollars to donuts (okay Chicago-style pizza to Pattay Beignets) that birth control and contraception are covered.

You know very well what this move by the social conservatives is all about - it's about penalizing pre-marital sex, as much of their fundie moves are all about. They want people going back to abstinence. This is not, as has been pointed out, about fiscal issues. It's much more expensive to cover a pregnancy, obstetrician, pre-natal care, maternity ward, and post-natal care... not to mention the expense of the child-rearing, itself. This is another morality play.

How long before one of them proposes (and we all laugh temporarily) that we de-fund obstetric and pre-natal care for sinful singles who get pregnant?

 

[Hawk one]

I'm well aware of that, but it's mandatory for all, not just those with the conditions you describe.

The mandate is for those using it for birth control.

If you really were aware of that, then why the heck did you ask

So what disease do birth control pills cure?

in the first place? If you were really "well aware" of this, then you'd never have to ask that question. So forgive me if I don't believe you when you're saying you were well aware of it.

And as my links showed, the statement

And that [doctors prescribing birth control for other reasons than preventing pregnancy] isn;t the issue here, is it?

is also false. People are also denied coverage for use of birth control for other reasons than preventing pregnancy. That's what much of the whole Sandra Fluke testimony has been about all along. Why do you keep pretending it isn't? Again, putting up the quote here:

Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy.

Again, if you'd followed the actual case instead of just repeating the soundbytes you're being fed, then you wouldn't have to say stuff like that, would you?

And finally:

And you keep proving my case - money that could be paying for life-saving drugs for those who cannot affords them is being spent instead on birth control pills for middle and upper class women who could easily afford them without the mandate.

False again. RandFan showed you studies how we save a lot of money on this in total. Hey, guess how we could spend some of those money we just saved! How about... life-saving drugs?

 

[Molinaro]

She said the poor widdle scions of privelige are going broke trying to buy enough birth control at college and that it costs three grand according to some study she supposedly did.

Which is horsecrap and pulled out of her arse.

That's an inaccurate description of what she said.

She said ".. up to $3000 .."

There's a difference. There are different types of pill costing different amounts, and different costs depending on where you live.

 

[R.A.F.]

The very best thing about Sandra Fluke is that she (without even trying) made Limbaugh look like a fool who had a grade school understanding of womens reproductive systems.

His irrational response to Fluke's testimony also resulted in listeners turning Limbaugh OFF.


I'd call that a "win, win".

 

[applecorped]

Poor Rush. Hasn't he suffered enough?

 

[A'isha]

Poor Rush. Hasn't he suffered enough?

That's what the Oxycontin is for.

 

[Travis]

@Wildcat,

You have insurance at work? Check the policy and I bet you dollars to donuts (okay Chicago-style pizza to Pattay Beignets) that birth control and contraception are covered.

You know very well what this move by the social conservatives is all about - it's about penalizing pre-marital sex, as much of their fundie moves are all about. They want people going back to abstinence. This is not, as has been pointed out, about fiscal issues. It's much more expensive to cover a pregnancy, obstetrician, pre-natal care, maternity ward, and post-natal care... not to mention the expense of the child-rearing, itself. This is another morality play.

How long before one of them proposes (and we all laugh temporarily) that we de-fund obstetric and pre-natal care for sinful singles who get pregnant?

According to my parents there was not a whole lot of willful abstinence going on back in the 50's and 60's. So what they are really hoping for is that for the first time ever people will choose abstinence.

I doubt that would happen.

So it's not mandatory that insurance pay for 100% of the birth control for women seeking birth control?

Ah, yes it does. I thought you were saying women were mandated to take it.

Well yes, but that's not what the law says, does it?

You don't think having birth control being 100% covered will lead to increased use of said birth control?

 

[RandFan]

Because we know that birth control is cheaper than pregnancy. Therefore, a "fiscal conservative" such as yourself ought to know when he sees a good deal.

Or not.

Studies have shown that it saves money and it is good for society. Still a no brainer.

 

[R.Mackey]

You know very well what this move by the social conservatives is all about - it's about penalizing pre-marital sex, as much of their fundie moves are all about. They want people going back to abstinence. This is not, as has been pointed out, about fiscal issues. It's much more expensive to cover a pregnancy, obstetrician, pre-natal care, maternity ward, and post-natal care... not to mention the expense of the child-rearing, itself. This is another morality play.

No, no, no no.

Republicans are not all about abstinence. That's a dirty lie spread by the Left, trying to make them look like no-fun poopyheads.

Republicans are all about the traditional family. And when I say traditional, I mean really traditional. That includes traditions that have been going on in the backwoods and hollers of rural Red States since the days of Andrew Jackson, and maybe before. Such traditions as surprise pregnancies, introduction to daddy's shotgun, and good ol' fashioned teenage weddings. Best of all, you chain 'em down while they're young, and they'll burn off all that youthful energy trying to feed themselves rather than go to commie schools and learn witchcraft and study Marxism. They'll stick to the old ways that keep America strong.

People like this Sandra Fluke person are obviously rejecting the hard-earned wisdom of her great-great-grandfathers only because someone filled her head with crazy ideas. Had she been on her sixth child by now, she'd probably never have been exposed to such nonsense in the first place.

 

[Kaosium]

Studies have shown that it saves money and it is good for society. Still a no brainer.

Maybe it would save (even more!) money if college students bought their own contraception?

I missed this whole thing, so I had to look it up. Would this be a fair summation of the controversy? If that's accurate, or even a passable representation, it sounds like Rush made a total and complete ass of himself and it doesn't look like he ever actually apologized.

However, I don't understand why the Dems would want to bring this back up, the issue itself is a loser. If it's just to give her a platform to hit back harder at Rush, that might be fun and fair, but I'm just guessing the vast majority of people who think 'Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot' can be safely placed in the Obama camp already and would look kinda odd to the non-partisan swing voter.

I also wouldn't think it likely to be a winner with parents of many political stripes who'd rather the government wasn't ensuring their children who just left the nest were being provided with contraception. This may come as a big surprise, but there's parents out there who'd at least like to hope their children will fall in love and get married and then start worrying about that sort of thing. It may not turn out that way, but I suspect you'd be surprised how many would like to at least encourage that sort of thing and not have the government making it easy to do it another way.

Then the entirely inexplicable attempt to insist religious institutions of a traditionally Dem constituency to provide that which is against their beliefs. That's just dumb for something as minor as this. Why force a church-state issue over condoms or IUDs?

 

[DavidJames]

I also wouldn't think it likely to be a winner with parents of many political stripes who'd rather the government wasn't ensuring their children who just left the nest were being provided with contraception. This may come as a big surprise, but there's parents out there who'd at least like to hope their children will fall in love and get married and then start worrying about that sort of thing. It may not turn out that way, but I suspect you'd be surprised how many would like to at least encourage that sort of thing and not have the government making it easy to do it another way.

Children who just left the nest, CHILDREN? They are not "provided" with contraception. The "children" must make an effort to obtain the contraception. What you're saying is the kids bare no personal responsibility for their actions? It's the government fault? So because some parents fail to install their values in their children, everyone else must suffer?

 

[Molinaro]

Maybe it would save (even more!) money if college students bought their own contraception?

I missed this whole thing, so I had to look it up. Would this be a fair summation of the controversy? If that's accurate, or even a passable representation, it sounds like Rush made a total and complete ass of himself and it doesn't look like he ever actually apologized.

However, I don't understand why the Dems would want to bring this back up, the issue itself is a loser. If it's just to give her a platform to hit back harder at Rush, that might be fun and fair, but I'm just guessing the vast majority of people who think 'Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot' can be safely placed in the Obama camp already and would look kinda odd to the non-partisan swing voter.

I also wouldn't think it likely to be a winner with parents of many political stripes who'd rather the government wasn't ensuring their children who just left the nest were being provided with contraception. This may come as a big surprise, but there's parents out there who'd at least like to hope their children will fall in love and get married and then start worrying about that sort of thing. It may not turn out that way, but I suspect you'd be surprised how many would like to at least encourage that sort of thing and not have the government making it easy to do it another way.

Then the entirely inexplicable attempt to insist religious institutions of a traditionally Dem constituency to provide that which is against their beliefs. That's just dumb for something as minor as this. Why force a church-state issue over condoms or IUDs?

I find it quite strange that you seem to be equating a forcing of health plans to cover contraceptives with a forcing of people to take contraceptives.

 

[Kaosium]

Children who just left the nest, CHILDREN? They are not "provided" with contraception. The "children" must make an effort to obtain the contraception. What you're saying is the kids bare no personal responsibility for their actions? It's the government fault? So because some parents fail to install their values in their children, everyone else must suffer?

I was referring to the report of giving convention time to this issue, as there are those who'd likely be opposed to it that you'd think the Dems would be trying to attract at this juncture.

 

[Kaosium]

I find it quite strange that you seem to be equating a forcing of health plans to cover contraceptives with a forcing of people to take contraceptives.

I'm not, I'm just saying it seems odd to give convention time to someone promoting trying to force those health plans to cover contraceptives, it seems like very little upside with significant potential downside.

 

[Virus]

Condoms cost nothing.

 

[RandFan]

Maybe it would save (even more!) money if college students bought their own contraception?

I missed this whole thing, so I had to look it up. Would this be a fair summation of the controversy? If that's accurate, or even a passable representation, it sounds like Rush made a total and complete ass of himself and it doesn't look like he ever actually apologized.

However, I don't understand why the Dems would want to bring this back up, the issue itself is a loser. If it's just to give her a platform to hit back harder at Rush, that might be fun and fair, but I'm just guessing the vast majority of people who think 'Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot' can be safely placed in the Obama camp already and would look kinda odd to the non-partisan swing voter.

I also wouldn't think it likely to be a winner with parents of many political stripes who'd rather the government wasn't ensuring their children who just left the nest were being provided with contraception. This may come as a big surprise, but there's parents out there who'd at least like to hope their children will fall in love and get married and then start worrying about that sort of thing. It may not turn out that way, but I suspect you'd be surprised how many would like to at least encourage that sort of thing and not have the government making it easy to do it another way.

Then the entirely inexplicable attempt to insist religious institutions of a traditionally Dem constituency to provide that which is against their beliefs. That's just dumb for something as minor as this. Why force a church-state issue over condoms or IUDs?

Given the fallout from the Komen fiasco I don't think it's a loser. Not even close. The "religious institutions" aren't churches, they are performing secular services. And many must provide the services to comply with state law or they provided it already and didn't even know it. It's a silly complaint. Obama handled brilliantly IMO. I respect your opinion and don't think you are without a point. It's just that strategically I think the Dems finally showed a back bone (for once) and stood up to religious silliness.

FTR: I think John Stewart provided the best case.

The Vagina Ideologues

Culture War Update - The Dividening of America - Dana Perino vs. Free Birth Control

 

[RandFan]

Condoms cost nothing.

One more time missing the point.

 

[mikedenk]

Sandra Fluke draws the ire of the right because she has managed to wrap numerous annoying qualities into one person. Here are a few:

- She is a perpetual student studying a bunch of useless crap, e.g. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. She is seemingly a student for the sake of being a student, wasting time and taxpayer dollars. Her continued interest in useless departments encourages the very existence of these departments, which are in themselves a total waste of resources.
- She is a professional agitator. Possessing no real skills or experience, Fluke goes through life without actually contributing anything other than the occasional shrill screed. She decided to attend Georgetown University, in part, to agitate against their religious decision not to cover contraceptive services.
- She pretends to be a victim, when in fact she lives for attention of any type, especially criticism. Being called a slut by Rush Limbaugh was undoubtedly the absolute pinnacle of her "career". Without it, she would've eventually been stuck trying to find work with her useless degrees.
- She possesses an entitled attitude and is a moocher of the highest order.
- She is happy to live her life as a political tool.

 

[Morrigan]

@Wildcat,

You have insurance at work? Check the policy and I bet you dollars to donuts (okay Chicago-style pizza to Pattay Beignets) that birth control and contraception are covered.

Speaking for myself, every employer health insurance I've ever been on covered the pill, IUDs and Depo. Of course, this is in socialist, commie Canaduh...

That's what the Oxycontin is for.

But is it covered? It's not like it's treating a disease or saving him from death... xD

Condoms cost nothing.

Huh? What?

 

[tyr_13]

Sandra Fluke draws the ire of the right because she has managed to wrap numerous annoying qualities into one person. Here are a few:

- She is a perpetual student studying a bunch of useless crap, e.g. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. She is seemingly a student for the sake of being a student, wasting time and taxpayer dollars. Her continued interest in useless departments encourages the very existence of these departments, which are in themselves a total waste of resources.
- She is a professional agitator. Possessing no real skills or experience, Fluke goes through life without actually contributing anything other than the occasional shrill screed. She decided to attend Georgetown University, in part, to agitate against their religious decision not to cover contraceptive services.
- She pretends to be a victim, when in fact she lives for attention of any type, especially criticism. Being called a slut by Rush Limbaugh was undoubtedly the absolute pinnacle of her "career". Without it, she would've eventually been stuck trying to find work with her useless degrees.
- She possesses an entitled attitude and is a moocher of the highest order.
- She is happy to live her life as a political tool.

Yes, her seeing something she considered wrong that directly related to her chosen field of study causing her to work diligently and successfully to fix the problem proves that her field and degree is useless, that she has no real skills, and hasn't contributed anything.

You might have a different opinion on what her 'attitude' consists of, and of what 'pretending to be a victim' entails, but what you'll not have is any support for that opinion. She's conducted herself remarkably well through all of this. That your man Rush said something monstrously stupid and got called on it doesn't mean she was trying to be a victim. You've made several other calls about her character, attitude, and motivations that you'll have no support for because you know hardly anything about the woman. She's not exactly an open book well known public figure of long standing.