Conservatives still hate Sandra Fluke

[thaiboxerken]

Well, no. Most people aren't so stupid to get pregnant just because contraceptives aren't free. They either pay for them out of pocket, demand their partner get them or look for other ways to get them low/no cost.

I don't think it has to do with intelligence so much, but education and convenience. Conservatives seem to fight against both. You also seem to give a message about money, that only those who can afford to should have sex....or enjoy life.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you don't think the population would explode if we let insurance companies stop providing contraceptives? Or if we had that Rubio Blunt amendment that allowed employers to refuse those provisions based on their own "moral" values?

Your failures continue apace.

The situation you describe of employers being able to buy insurance without contraceptive coverage is actually the status quo. And yet, the US population has not been exploding. If we maintain that status quo, why would anyone think that the US population would suddenly start exploding?

So once again, what population explosion? It's a simple question, why are you unable to provide an answer?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think it has to do with intelligence so much, but education and convenience. Conservatives seem to fight against both. You also seem to give a message about money, that only those who can afford to should have sex....or enjoy life.

I've really struggled to understand the opposition on this. We have the numbers. We know that assisting women with birth control will reduce unwanted pregnancies and will save money but Conservatives will freak about it anyway. God forbid, all they can see is someone getting "free stuff" when in fact we are talking about co-pays and it's paid for by the insurance company. It's no more free than your insurance company paying for your doctor's visit for a check-up.

This "the sky will fall" mentality when it comes to providing social services is so silly and so anti-science and anti-reality that it beggars belief. I've become convinced it's a religious like belief.

 

[Ziggurat]

No she didn't. She spoke to a Democrat meeting.

Let me elaborate on this for people unfamiliar with what actually happened.

Congressional Democrats wanted to include Fluke in a list of people called on to testify on the subject of religious exceptions to proposed health care rules before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The chairman of the committee, Issa, blocked her inclusion on the panel that Democrats wanted to include her in, and she never testified before the committee. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee then held their own meeting where they invited Fluke to talk.

So you're technically wrong, Virus: she did address Congress, or more specifically, a congressional committee. But it was a partisan committee, and not the committee whose role it was to oversee these sorts of regulations, and that is worth pointing out. So what was the point of her testimony if it wasn't addressed to the committee responsible for this issue? The entire point was to publicize her testimony as widely as possible to try to put pressure on the Republicans. I don't find it credible that Fluke didn't understand this. I think she knew she was stepping into the public limelight on a controversial issue, and did so willingly. Her subsequent speech at the DNC strongly suggests that she is very much interested in raising her own public profile.

 

[thaiboxerken]

L

Congressional Democrats wanted to include Fluke in a list of people called on to testify on the subject of religious exceptions to proposed health care rules before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The chairman of the committee, Issa, blocked her inclusion on the panel that Democrats wanted to include her in, and she never testified before the committee. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee then held their own meeting where they invited Fluke to talk.

How many women did Issa allow to testify?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The situation you describe of employers being able to buy insurance without contraceptive coverage is actually the status quo.

Evidence, please. Also, is there a provision in the status quo to allow them to do so based on "moral" objections?

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidence, please.

Fluke's own testimony. You really can't get anything right in this thread, can you? The entire Democratic argument was that the status quo needed to change, and Fluke's testimony was supposed to be examples of problems with the status quo. But whatever the merits of that argument, it sure as hell wasn't founded on the notion that some population explosion needed to be, or would be, prevented.

Which reminds me, what population explosion?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Did you have evidence of this status quo, or just more claims about it? It seemed to me that almost 50% of the USA already had the provision of requiring insurance companies to include contraceptive coverage.

 

[RandFan]

It would have hurt nothing to have let Fluke testify. The Democrats should be able to pick who it is that represents their view point. Instead Issa looked like a monumental ass and made Fluke's testimony heard by more people than would have ever heard of her had she simply been allowed to testify. And because of that she helped drive Romney's polls with women to record lows.

 

[thaiboxerken]

actually, i think that Limbaugh brought her to national attention. I'm glad too, people need to know what the conservative attitude is towards women.

 

[Ziggurat]

actually, i think that Limbaugh brought her to national attention. I'm glad too, people need to know what the conservative attitude is towards women.

Indeed. I mean, just look at the sort of misogynistic behavior they direct towards women, especially if they're liberals:

It's simply inexcusable.

 

[RandFan]

Limbaugh is an ass.

actually, i think that Limbaugh brought her to national attention. I'm glad too, people need to know what the conservative attitude is towards women.

To think I was a long time fan. Regardless of your position on mandating that insurance companies eliminate co-pays for contraception and the ramifications this discussion has on religious liberty, the guy is an ass. Don't get me wrong, I get his satire (hell I was a died in the wool ditto head who used to record his radio show on VHS tape (too long for cassette) when I knew I was not going to be able to listed to the radio. I bought two of his books and many in my family still think I'm a big fan (I've gotten t-shirts and mugs for Christmas) (sorry for the long and nested parentheticals).

Anyway, my point.... uh, oh yeah, the guy can be absolutely classless at times and I do agree that there is an anti-woman mentality among a significant portion of the GOP.

Dinosaurs that won't be with us long. Thank god for younger generations. I can't remember who said it but sometimes social progress happens though attrition (idiots die and idiotic ideas often die with them). The greatest generation were great for many things but they had (on average) some serious deficits when it comes to tolerance of women's rights.

 

[Neally]

I don't think it has to do with intelligence so much, but education and convenience.

Neither of which has anything to do with whether insurance pays for it or not. Just because it's covered in your policy doesn't mean they hand deliver the contraceptives to your door and instruct you on their proper use.

You also seem to give a message about money, that only those who can afford to should have sex....or enjoy life.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[dc1971]

Again, what population explosion?

Take a look at this report, and pay attention to where it says NATIONAL POPULATION:

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/

Now take a look at this report:

http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/us.html (i.e. 27 million, give or take, less than in 2010)

Now take a look at this report:

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen1990.html -- 32,712,033 less than in 2000.

Now take a look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_Census -- an increase of 11.7 in the population since 1970.

And since we're talking about 1970, the population census was at 203,184,772. 23,361,033 less than in 1980.

Altogether, since 1970, the population has increased a whopping 105,560,766 more heads to count.

 

[dc1971]

You're right! Limbaugh is a total ass!

To think I was a long time fan.

I'm right there with you.

I was actually listening today and heard him tell a caller that he [Rush] really "does not like people".

Still trying to figure out why this guy is even still on the radio. Maybe some of the other conservatives here can enlighten me.

 

[dc1971]

Indeed. I mean, just look at the sort of misogynistic behavior they direct towards women, especially if they're liberals:

[qimg]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/12/06/favreaujonwashpost44.jpg[/qimg]

It's simply inexcusable.

What makes you think the people in those pictures are "liberals"?

Did you also notice the woman in the background?

 

[dc1971]

Sorry, I have to chime in on this again:

Indeed. I mean, just look at the sort of misogynistic behavior they direct towards women Cardboard cut-outs!

Oh gee! God forbid! That cardboard really looks like it's suffering!

BTW Zig, FTFY!

 

[Ziggurat]

Altogether, since 1970, the population has increased a whopping 105,560,766 more heads to count.

And that counts as an explosion? I consider that hyperbole, but whatever. OK, let's examine that growth in more detail:

Which 5-year age bracket has the most people in it, dc? Is it the 0-4 bracket?

No, it is not. It's the 50-54 age bracket. We have never had a 5-year span with more children born than 1956-1960, the period that cohort was born. But when they were born, there were fewer older people than younger people, so even with a constant total birth rate, the population will continue to increase until that cohort reaches their end of life, at which point the population would stabilize (again, if the total birth rate remained constant, and it's close to that), if we ignore immigration. But in fact, the total birth rate has NOT been constant. It's gone down. So absent immigration, we're actually facing a population decrease in the very near future.

Ever since 1960, our population growth has been driven by a change in our demographic structure (more old people) plus immigration. The demographic structure changes can only drive population growth over about 1 lifetime (and we're reaching towards the end of that). Beyond that, it's going to be only immigration-driven.

But our policies on insurance coverage of contraception doesn't affect immigration. So your position still makes no sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

What makes you think the people in those pictures are "liberals"?

My statement was grammatically ambiguous, but I meant that they're especially misogynistic towards women who are liberal. Hillary counts as a liberal, right? I'm not being presumptuous about that, am I?

 

[dc1971]

And that counts as an explosion? I consider that hyperbole, but whatever. OK, let's examine that growth in more detail:

[qimg]http://flatrock.org.nz/static/frontpage/assets/money_politics_law/boom1.jpg[/qimg]

Which 5-year age bracket has the most people in it, dc? Is it the 0-4 bracket?

No, it is not. It's the 50-54 age bracket. We have never had a 5-year span with more children born than 1956-1960, the period that cohort was born. But when they were born, there were fewer older people than younger people, so even with a constant total birth rate, the population will continue to increase until that cohort reaches their end of life, at which point the population would stabilize (again, if the total birth rate remained constant, and it's close to that), if we ignore immigration. But in fact, the total birth rate has NOT been constant. It's gone down. So absent immigration, we're actually facing a population decrease in the very near future.

Ever since 1960, our population growth has been driven by a change in our demographic structure (more old people) plus immigration. The demographic structure changes can only drive population growth over about 1 lifetime (and we're reaching towards the end of that). Beyond that, it's going to be only immigration-driven.

But our policies on insurance coverage of contraception doesn't affect immigration. So your position still makes no sense.

Zig...

Show me anywhere, anyhow, any way you can of ME mentioning "population EXPLOSION"?

I bet ya can't?