Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Thank you Sandra Fluke !

Posted 12 years ago on March 2, 2012, 4:47 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

110 Comments

110 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

Let's just pretend for a minute that sex is a healthy, natural function that a man and a women can engage in without being stoned to death. From that sane perspective isn't the issue more about health and quality of life? Just because you haters see sex as something nasty and irresponsible doesn't mean the rest of us haven't evolved past your social hang-ups.

[-] 3 points by Thinkforonce (7) 12 years ago

Great, now pay for it yourself. Think you can manage that or are we so fucked up at this point that even that is too much to ask?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

Unless you are a Catholic bishop it really isn't any of your business, is it?

How long have you been a bishop? Why have you been providing exactly this type of coverage in several of your schools and hospitals for a long time and not providing it in others? Isn't this discrimination against your employees and students in some of your businesses? How can you justify that? Since this doesn't cost you a nickle more to provide this coverage that it does to leave it out, how can you justify leaving it out, when virtually all of your employees want or need it? Do you believe that your adult members don't have the right to decide for themselves whether to use these products? If the government doesn't get to prohibit their use, why do you get to?

You probably love voucher programs. If you give your employee a voucher for the kind of coverage you want to offer, they can use it and fully pay for the kind of coverage that they want. How about that?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Of course sex is nasty
thats why WE never do it
and EVOLUTION is just a theory

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

One has to wonder where Rick Santorum's kids come from??

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

I'd be more worried about where they are going.
They were home schooled to believe the world is 6000 years old???
Were the taught how Noah got the kangaroos to Australia?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

It sounds like they'll have booming careers as Republican politicians! I see your point.

[-] 1 points by Thinkforonce (7) 12 years ago

By making someone else pay for it like you liberals demand? Is that what you mean? LOL.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

I think you posted this to the wrong comment. Or you're just really whacky.

[-] 1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

how did this get off track? Fluke and her lawyer buddies can go to Target and for $9 a month buy oral contraception. Maybe get it free at PP. This is w/o insurance for both. So what exactly is her beef? She join a Catholic University at her own free will, was she that dumb, that she didn't know that they did not cover contraception. so what is more important religious freedom (mandating the church to do something against core belief) or for Fluke to get free contraception from the University (remember she can get free elsewhere or $9/month from Target)?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

Maybe it was about the principle of the thing.

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

Very true, for Fluke it was about her values and principles. it's the same for the church, their values and core beliefs. Who is right? i think the church , others think Fluke. If it goes to the supreme court i think that the church would win as they have in similar issues.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Rational thought? I too share your dream of it's becoming reality, HitGirl. :-)

The good lord didn't give us something called a sex drive so that we could "sit around with an aspirin placed between our knees."

We were also infused with things called "free will" and high-functioning brains. We "figured out" that sex is pleasureable and physical intimacy is an important component of one's general well being. What we also figured out was that there are many reasons for wanting to prevent a pregnancy that is sometimes the result of following a biological urge. We figured out that reprodution was something that could be managed. We figured out a relatively safe and effective way of managing human reproductivity, and it's in the form of a pill and a sub-dermal implant. Something that's more reliable than an IUD, diaphram or "rhythm method."

We've also learned that there are beneficial womens health "side effects" that have been discovered. Birth control pills serve as preventative medicine. Contraceptive pills do indeed have great benefit for women, families and society. I don't think God would want us to be stupid. God gave us an evolving intelligence. Here's to progress!

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

Thanks for saying all that. Yes, we have all these blessings and so many people try so hard to reject them in favor of some simple formula. Sex is proven to be healthy, especially for the heart. People only really come to God when they get beyond there own absurd notions. But really I'm more about rational thought than religion and I'm grateful for enlightened people like you.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Thank you for your kind words, Hit Girl.

In yet another Limbaugh thread I just recently replied to Gillian, asking if it's perhaps ingrained in us to catagorize others based on own own desire to "streamline" our process of wanting to simplify the world. Are we fighting our own instincts in spending our time trying to understand the positions held by others; trying to comprehend factors that influence the decisions of others? Is that some "liberalist" notion?

I've written of this elsewhere: While I realize that I'm older than most others here, is it an antiquated idea that to live in the "melting-pot" that is America, and for America to realize her best potential, we as citizens must recognize that there is great benefit in embracing American's population diversity?

Embracing the fact that many ideas are brought to the table is something to cheer. Not too long ago much of what passes as "normal" today would have been seen as something unAmerican; corporate influence, US companies manufacturing overseas to the detriment of so many of their fellow citizens, etc. That "old" version of America is the one that I pledged my allegiance to. Would you think me naive?

Regarding "morality" some (many) would have us turn the clocks back to 1959. I think they see all societal problems as stemming from the liberal 1960s and 70s. It seems like many extreme conservatives have spent the last 30 years trying to "get the genie back in the bottle." That would deny a great deal of progress, IMO.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

who has said anything about banning anything? no one, i repeat no one is proposing banning contraception. You have fallen for the Democrat operatives technique of making that the issue. the issue is religious freedom and to stop forcing religious institutions having to pay for contraception in their insurance policies. if you feel that someone is trying to ban contraception please show me some vetted proof.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

My point was that once you put it into perspective and the issue is one of women's health and quality of life, isn't it just the logical and responsible thing to provide contraception. You wouldn't complain about breast cancer screenings, would you?

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

Hold up. If all of these things are rights, why not just tax the businesses and have the government provide them automatically to women, employed or not? This method is less likely to cause a stir, and much more effective, I don't see what is wrong with it.

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

Have you been talking to JuanFenito ?

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

I have seen him around here. I'm pretty sure he is a troll, but actually I did see him mention this point. Not sure if he was being sarcastic or not, but I am serious about it. So, what do you think? I think it would be a lot less controversial and thorough.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The real difference here is that I believe, as a society, we should make healthcare available to all our citizens by creating a public insurance system like we did for Social Security...And you don't. And your way is costing us millions and millions in emergency room abuse and chaos.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

When did I say that??

I just said it would be preferable for the government to handle birth control completely, through taxation, then try and make employers offer it. What about this sounds like a disagreement with government run health care?

And what is "my way"?? Can we please discuss without using straw man arguments?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

So, just for the purpose of clarification, you are for a universal, single-payer, government run healthcare system?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

Yes. Why is that surprising? Also, it really doesn't need clarifying since it is not part of this discussion. And what did I say that indicated I am against it?

[-] 0 points by Breadwinner (33) 12 years ago

Do you think that the new "Health Care Reform" that got rammed down our throats is saving us money or costing us as much or more money than before it was enacted?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

Frankly it is too early to tell. Also you provided no clarification. Are you talking about health-care costs or just tax payer expenditures.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

tell the bishops not me. I support freedom of religion and the right of religious institutions to not be forced to go against their core beliefs supersedes a 'right' to have contraception for health reasons. if you freely choose to work for a religious institution you can use planned parenthood or other contraception specialized organization for your health needs in that area.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

So you will defend Muslim core beliefs too?

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

very good question. the U.S. isn't prepared to deal with Muslims and Sharia law and all of the baggage that comes with terrorism. I personally won't defend Muslim core beliefs because i don't see Islam as a religion but as a political system. i don't think that Jewish laws should be recognized by our courts either. when a religion like Islam threatens our country, they may have their 'rights' curtailed.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

I do believe the American government should, whenever possible, try to accommodate the religious beliefs of it's citizens and I do realize there is a certain prejudice in this country for Christian religions. And being a Christian myself I'm not complaining.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

I think that's why we separate the practical matter of government from church, which is involved in spiritual matters.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

exactly, it works both ways. The government can't encroach on religious freedoms and a church or religion can't established itself as an official religion Islam is a violent and a threat to the U.S. , not paying for contraception isn't really a threat to anyone.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

First off, I don't know that Islam is a violent and a threat to the U.S. And, like it or not, the government can and has encroached on religious freedoms and done so to save lives.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

Islam is definitely a violent religion, but its threat to the US is overplayed.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 12 years ago

in regard to islam http://therelgionofpeace.com/
have you read the 1st ammendment? the govt CANNOT encroach on religous freedom. it is prohibited by the 1st amendment.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Now is there any part of that amendment, except respecting an establishment of religion, our government hasn't violated? Please point it out.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 12 years ago

carl,..the left wing dimwits on this site either cannot or will not understand what fluke is about. they have their agenda and they're not going to change.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

true, B76RT, they do not see anything but what the femi-nazi's and Democrat operatives are telling them.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

The face of the GOP!!!!

Ben you have a very clever dad.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Yep.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by slinkeey (244) 12 years ago

Pay for your own contraceptives.. What will you be asking for next? Free cosmetics? Free Starbucks coffee?

Whatever happened to self resonsibility?

We are not talking about diabetic needles here.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4203) 12 years ago

The answer is male birth control pills (they still over-all get paid more than woman so they can afford it) That way insurance won't have to cover woman anymore at all. That or they can keep their leg's closed don't men know having sex is a choice and that they could easily prevent pregnancy without those "evil contraceptives".

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DayumShame (148) 12 years ago

Thank you FIRST!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

welcome

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 12 years ago

How did this photo post - I can't post photos ???

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4203) 12 years ago

How did you get a photo to Post ? ? ? ??

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 12 years ago

this wasnt about sex,...................... its about the taxpaying citizens paying for her birth control. and yes she was a plant,...her "testimony " was not given before a congressional committee, it was given at a pelosi set up press conference.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Her testimony was given there because DEAR DARYL would not let her testify. All house committees are CHAIRED by republiclans and the role of CHAIRMAN is only slightly less powerful than a dictator. REGARDLESS- OUR BANTER DOES NOT ALTER THE FACTS -
DAVID BOIES, one of America’s leading constitutional experts

There isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this issue.
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion.
That is you can’t have the government saying you are going to have to follow certain religious beliefs, and it guarantees free exercise. That means everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer. The minimum wage, safe working conditions, workman’s compensation, age restrictions.
You could have a religion that says we believe that everybody when they are 60 years old must retire. That doesn’t give that religion an exemption. This is just simple labor law. There are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don’t exempt religious employers just because of their religion.
You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal laws that every employer has to comply with. The law wouldn’t say to a Catholic hospital, that you have got to do these acts that are contrary to religion, perhaps an abortion or something like that. They would, however, say to that hospital, you’ve got to treat your employees consistent with the law. And you’ve got to give him health insurance like you’ve got to give him workman’s compensation.
The NY law, for example, has the same exemptions as the federal law, that is the exemption for church employees, not hospital employees. If a Catholic Church owns a restaurant, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a hospital, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a university, those employees aren’t exempt.

We had a religious-based practice outlawed in this country.
Polygamy was outlawed in the 1878 by the United States Supreme Court because the Constitution has never prohibited Congress or the state legislatures from imposing limits that applied to everybody. In other words, you may have religion that believes in sacrificing animals - that doesn’t mean you are going to get an exemption from the anti-cruelty to animals laws.
As long as you have laws that apply across the board, and they are reasonable related laws the state has the right to impose those and you don`t get a pass just because you form or have a religion that has a sincere belief to the contrary.

Now, this is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception.


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS:
The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


Sister Carol Keehan has been frequently cited by the mainstream media as the ultimate authority on Catholic health care. She has consistently been in the top tier of “The 100 Most Powerful People in Healthcare.” She became president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in 2005, a position she still holds. Under her leadership, the CHA — a trade association of hospitals, nursing homes, surgical centers and clinics — has been a powerful influence in shaping health-care policy in this country, Nevertheless, Sister Carol supported Obama’s initiative, saying: “The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.” The LCWR sisters followed suit with a statement of their own in support of the “compromise.”


This is why most of religion’s “blue” laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
If you are a sincere Catholic who disagrees with this decision,
I respect your opinion - for you.
But please do not cite political hacks and liars to support your position.
The law of the land is the law of the land.
America is a nation of people, not churches

So if you want to argue with the LCWR, the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol, David Boies, and the Constitution of the United States and The Supreme Court – be my guest!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 12 years ago

I think there was a typo. I dont think there is an "L" in her last name.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 12 years ago

Thank you Sandra. We need more sex crazed sluts in the world that will pay for the protection. I'm a lazyand poor liberal male and need YOU to take on the protection responsibility. Whats your phone number?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 12 years ago

Never know what whores you can find when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park. JC

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

You must do that a lot.

It's the only way you'll ever get any..........:)

[-] -1 points by RushForPres (-61) 12 years ago

Sandra Fluke is a floozy and so are you bendsdick

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

I love you too, sweetheart

[-] -1 points by MsStacy (1035) 12 years ago

Fluke has managed to successfully shift the debate from the employer's first amendment right to worship as they wish to some strange controversy over sex and who pays for what. Limbaugh muddied things up and made it worse.

Get back to the point. Does any practicing Catholic (that happens to be an employer) have the constitutional right to worship according to their faith? That means they don't hand out birth control pills or pay for abortions. The employee may do as he or she wishes, but you shouldn't be allowed to force an employer to violate their religion.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Read the first amendment!
EMPLOYERS have no first amendment rights
CHURCHES have no first amendment rights

Rs

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 12 years ago

Thank you BensDad! You are on a roll!

CORPORATIONS have no first amendment rights!

UNIONS have no first amendment rights!

RICH PEOPLE have no first amendment rights!

WHITE PEOPLE have no first amendment rights!

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

(cuss word), please read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Also the First Amendment 'prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, through the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.'

[-] -1 points by MsStacy (1035) 12 years ago

Sorry I assumed that employers are people. In fact the amendment doesn't say anything at all about people, like most of the Bill of Rights it lists what Congress is forbidden from doing. In this case, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It has been argued that a regulation forcing devout Catholics to purchase birth control and abortion services against the teaching of their faith prohibits them from the free exercise of their religion. It has nothing to do with anyone's sex life. Flukes sad little story is a distraction from the point.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Nothing forces catholics to PURCHASE anything

[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 12 years ago

The new health care law does. That's what makes it a constitutional question, the government has passed a law requiring the purchase of an insurance policy. The required contents of that policy violate Catholic teachings. So any devote Catholic is forced against his or her religious beliefs to support abortion and contraception when they pay for that policy.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

DAVID BOIES, one of America’s leading constitutional experts

There isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this issue.
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion.
That is you can’t have the government saying you are going to have to follow certain religious beliefs, and it guarantees free exercise. That means everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer. The minimum wage, safe working conditions, workman’s compensation, age restrictions.
You could have a religion that says we believe that everybody when they are 60 years old must retire. That doesn’t give that religion an exemption. This is just simple labor law. There are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don’t exempt religious employers just because of their religion.
You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal laws that every employer has to comply with. The law wouldn’t say to a Catholic hospital, that you have got to do these acts that are contrary to religion, perhaps an abortion or something like that. They would, however, say to that hospital, you’ve got to treat your employees consistent with the law. And you’ve got to give him health insurance like you’ve got to give him workman’s compensation.
The NY law, for example, has the same exemptions as the federal law, that is the exemption for church employees, not hospital employees. If a Catholic Church owns a restaurant, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a hospital, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a university, those employees aren’t exempt.

We had a religious-based practice outlawed in this country.
Polygamy was outlawed in the 1878 by the United States Supreme Court because the Constitution has never prohibited Congress or the state legislatures from imposing limits that applied to everybody. In other words, you may have religion that believes in sacrificing animals - that doesn’t mean you are going to get an exemption from the anti-cruelty to animals laws.
As long as you have laws that apply across the board, and they are reasonable related laws the state has the right to impose those and you don`t get a pass just because you form or have a religion that has a sincere belief to the contrary.

Now, this is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception.


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS:
The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


This is why most of religion’s “blue” laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
If you are a sincere Catholic who disagrees with this decision,
I respect your opinion.
But please do not cite political hacks and liars to support your position.
The law of the land is the law of the land.
America is a nation of people, not churches.
If a Druid hospital did not believe in fire extinguishers, could they have a hospital without fire extinguishers?


If you are silly enough to argue with David Boies and The United States Supreme Court and Sister Carol Keehan who heads the Catholic Health Organization - argue with them.
She said Obama's compromise “has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.’’

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 12 years ago

Yes I remember David Boies, he held an opinion regarding the 2000 election also, so I can doubt his infallibility. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be. I simply think I know how the Catholic Church feels about the issue. They feel the "free exercise thereof" part of the amendment is being violated when the government tells devout Catholics, that happen to employ people, that they have to violate the teachings of their faith and purchase what they see as morally objectionable services for their employees.

Sister Carol may be a nice person and is entitled to her opinion, but she doesn't speak for the Catholic Church in the US, the Council of Bishops does. I wouldn't accept Regina Benjamin as speaking for the government over President Obama, either.

This isn't something with the disruptive potential of polygamy, we're talking about an elective procedure in most cases, and a drug used primarily for personal reasons a majority of the time. The Catholic church's position on birth control hasn't been opposed by a majority in our society the way polygamy was. Blue Laws forced employers to stay closed supporting a christian belief of not working on Sunday, they were, rightly, found unconstitutional. However, that is the opposite of this birth control issue. A better comparison would be if a law forced Christian store owners to be open on Sunday against their religious principles.

If neither the Church nor the administration back down then the Supreme Court will likely get the case and we'll have the only opinion that matters. Personally I don't care one way or the other I just feel I understand the Church's position. Ms. Fluke is trying to alter the debate to fit her own agenda and god only knows what or even if Limbaugh was thinking at all.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 12 years ago

well said.

[-] -1 points by bemindful (23) 12 years ago

If a woman can't afford to pay for her own birth control then she shouldn't be having sex. Why? Because no form of contraception is 100 % effective and if you can't afford to pay for contraception then you sure cannot afford a child.

Birth control pill has a 8% failure rate Diaphragm 16% failure rate Sponge is 16% to 32% failure rate Morning after pill 11% to 25% Condom 15% IUD or hormone implant has 1% Permanent sterilization 1%

This is a responsibility issue just as much as it is a religious freedom issue, and an entitlement issue. What it isn't is a "woman's health" issue, as contraceptives are readily available. at any planned parent clinic, pharmacy, etc.

Contrary to Ms Flakes No one is responsible for Ms. Fluke's and the "Girls of Georgetown Law" extracurricular activities but themselves.

I am really angry and actually sickened by Ms. Fluke's testimony at the House hearing. Only a lawyer could make herself a victim over this issue. When I first saw her speaking I actual thought it was a Saturday Night Live skit. She sounding like she was mocking herself, but when I realized that she was actually serious I was angry. In our society everybody is a victim, even a oversexed coed at a prestigious, expensive law school.

News Flash - no one owes you free birth control. Its not a right.

And, why all of a sudden is this even an issue? Why, after women have been paying their own birth control for years and when the country is broke, is Obama and his women of Georgetown demanding the government cover this?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

You are a man right? or a EUNUCH? Definitely an Rs

[-] 0 points by bemindful (23) 12 years ago

No, I am a woman, I am a nurse practitioner who cares for patients who have serious health problems, and I have also cared for women in labor and delivery and women with high risk pregnancies and their babies so I am sorry but I find it hard to take Miss.Flukes victimization, woe is me attitude seriously. At her hearing she states "When I look around my campus I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage" and "especially the past week .....they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically"... 40% of the students told us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy"

Her "testimony" was ridiculous and manufactured. Just how do the faces of these suffering women look as they wander around campus? This woman is already getting a scholarship- what? its not enough that her education is paid for, she want free birth control too? And, I stand by my post, if we as women are not in a secure enough place in our life that we can't afford to pay for our own birth control, then we need to consider the reality that perhaps having sex at that time in our life is not the most responsible thing to do, because no birth control method is 100% effective. (and it doesn't cost $3000 over three years- that would be over $80.00 a month)

Method Effectiveness Cost Per Year Birth Control Pills 95 percent $160 to $600 Birth Control Patch 95 percent $160 to $600 Cervical Cap 77 to 83 percent $35 to $60 Condoms 85 percent $150 Diaphragm 85 percent $60 Fertility-Awareness 75 to 88 percent Free IUDs 99 percent $100 (varies) Shot (Depo-Provera) 99 percent $220 to $460 Sterilization 99 percent $30 to $200 (varies) Vaginal Ring 95 percent $160 to $600 Vaginal Sponge 68 to 84 percent $500 Abstinence 100 percent Free

Its a matter of how devastating a pregnancy would be and how effective the rate of the method is. Since birth control pills are the most common method, it also depends and how diligent a woman is about taking her pills. Less than 1 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they always take the pill each day as directed. But about 5 to 9 out of 100 women will get pregnant each year if they don’t always take the pill each day as directed. I pushing this issue because I've taken the histories of hundreds of women and given positive results of pregnancy tests to women in college (and out) who were on the pill or using other forms of birth control and were devastated by the news, because no way could they afford a child and it meant either a huge disruption in their academic plans or their career or an abortion. If Miss Fluke is bothered by her classmates faces she needs to see the faces of the women I see, along with the faces of people with true financial and emotional suffering from catastrophic illnesses. And BTW, In all the women I have cared for in this situation, not once did they every say that they were pregnant because they couldn't afford or didn't have access to birth control, and I have worked in Harlem and in rural towns in California and the women always had access to birth control. So from my first hand experience seeing these realities, I think this woman and her argument is ridiculous. She is not entitled to BC and the government shouldn't be forcing insurance companies to pay for anything. Pregnancy isn't an illness. The way I see this, it just the Obama Administration and the media trying to deflect attention away from his failed policies and dividing the country once again. (and I am not an Rs) but even if i was why would that be a problem for you?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

And you belive that the government should not force insurance compa nies to pay for DPT shots for children?


DAVID BOIES, one of America’s leading constitutional experts

There isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this issue.
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion.
That is you can’t have the government saying you are going to have to follow certain religious beliefs, and it guarantees free exercise. That means everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer. The minimum wage, safe working conditions, workman’s compensation, age restrictions.
You could have a religion that says we believe that everybody when they are 60 years old must retire. That doesn’t give that religion an exemption. This is just simple labor law. There are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don’t exempt religious employers just because of their religion.
You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal laws that every employer has to comply with. The law wouldn’t say to a Catholic hospital, that you have got to do these acts that are contrary to religion, perhaps an abortion or something like that. They would, however, say to that hospital, you’ve got to treat your employees consistent with the law. And you’ve got to give him health insurance like you’ve got to give him workman’s compensation.
The NY law, for example, has the same exemptions as the federal law, that is the exemption for church employees, not hospital employees. If a Catholic Church owns a restaurant, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a hospital, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a university, those employees aren’t exempt.

We had a religious-based practice outlawed in this country.
Polygamy was outlawed in the 1878 by the United States Supreme Court because the Constitution has never prohibited Congress or the state legislatures from imposing limits that applied to everybody. In other words, you may have religion that believes in sacrificing animals - that doesn’t mean you are going to get an exemption from the anti-cruelty to animals laws.
As long as you have laws that apply across the board, and they are reasonable related laws the state has the right to impose those and you don`t get a pass just because you form or have a religion that has a sincere belief to the contrary.

Now, this is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception.


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS:
The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


Sister Carol Keehan has been frequently cited by the mainstream media as the ultimate authority on Catholic health care. She has consistently been in the top tier of “The 100 Most Powerful People in Healthcare.” She became president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in 2005, a position she still holds. Under her leadership, the CHA — a trade association of hospitals, nursing homes, surgical centers and clinics — has been a powerful influence in shaping health-care policy in this country, Nevertheless, Sister Carol supported Obama’s initiative, saying: “The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.” The LCWR sisters followed suit with a statement of their own in support of the “compromise.”


This is why most of religion’s “blue” laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
If you are a sincere Catholic who disagrees with this decision,
I respect your opinion - for you.
But please do not cite political hacks and liars to support your position.
The law of the land is the law of the land.
America is a nation of people, not churches So if you want to argue with the LCWR, the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol, David Boies, and the Constitution of the United States and The Supreme Court – be my guest!

[-] 1 points by bemindful (23) 12 years ago

Hi Bensdad,

I am by no way a constitutional expert and I appreciate you information, but I was always under the impression that most people respected and provided people the right to practice their religion as indicated by the "rules" or tenets of that religion. I realize that no one is forcing anyone to use contraception but this law is forcing Catholic institutions to (for lack of another word), collude with others in a practice that is against their religion. If they can force them to provide birth control, whats to stop them from forcing them to do abortions. Any hospital I have worked at has never forced nurses or doctors to perform abortions if its against their morals. And, I don't like the government forcing an industry to give away something for free? If they can do this, what is stopping them from forcing any other industry to give away its service or product. Clearly, people are divided within this controversy within the Catholic church and outside the church. I notice a lot of people think that all women would be for others -either the government or insurance co. paying for their birth control just based solely on their gender, just like people think all Catholics will have the same opinion. As far as the government force insurance companies to pay for DPT shots for children, I've never head about that in any health care setting I have worked, I'd have to check into that. I suppose it has to do with preventing communicable diseases, but you have my curiosity up. I am just against the idea that women are entitled to have their birth controlled paid for by the government or a company. I am against the government forcing churches to go against their conscious. I am not anti democrats or anti liberals, but I am really tired the ways the Obama, Eric Holder etc (the administration) is wielding power in ways that seem to me like they are breaking laws left and right. Just my personal opinion. I don't think I cited any "political hacks".

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

But these Catholic institutions have been providing exactly this coverage to some of their schools and some of their hospitals. Why do you suppose their rules are sacrosanct in some cases and not in others? When the coverage and the protestations are so arbitrarily invoked, do you wonder why people don't take your "concerns" very seriously? Also bear in mind that your institution has been responsible for more sexual abuse of children and women than any institution in the world, so your selective protestation represents pattern of hypocrisy that we are all familiar with.

If you are an insurance company and the savings of a medication or treatment to you is as great or greater than its cost, and almost all of your policy holders have demonstrated their preference for using them, how can you justify withholding them? How can you justify charging more for them when they actually lower your cost?

So you are protecting bishops from moral choices they have already made of their own volition. And you are protecting the insurance companies from saving money and pleasing their customers. Oh, and you are protecting taxpayers from not paying for anything that they weren't paying for.

So, as I understand it you are just against women having the right to use birth control in any circumstance that you don't approve of. Does that make you an interfering busybody?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

If owned a store & I was in the "Followers of Christ Church" in Oregon City, Oregon -
my faith dictates faith healing only
Should my employees, a Catholic, a Baptist and a Jew not be entitled to health care insurance because their employer does not believe in health care????
google Followers of Christ Church Oregon

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

women havent been paying,, they use family planning that the government pays for.. this law would shift that expense to private companies.. are you stupid

[-] -2 points by incomeforall (64) 12 years ago

Yes! I want to pay for your contraception because you can't keep your pants on!

[-] 4 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Yes I want to pay for your war because you are addicted to petroleum profits.

Make Love, not War.

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 12 years ago

The first federal income tax in 1861 was a LAW to provide funds for WAR,,,, not LOVE. Seems like history does NOT suggest anything about petroleum profits,,,, unless you can find that in the first income tax law somewhere..... please post if you can firnd it.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

The amount of deficit spending the second Bush and Obama administration have added to the overall deficit is what I am talking about.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

in days of yor

a surf was born to work the land and pay a fief to the lord

[+] -5 points by incomeforall (64) 12 years ago

Equating sport fucking with national security?

[-] -1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

Why wear pants? They restrict freedom.

[-] -3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

strange response .. unless your gay

[-] 0 points by FartBottom (8) 12 years ago

strange response... your grammar sucks

[-] -3 points by mediaauditr (-88) 12 years ago

Look at the insanity our society has reaped upon itself. We have stooped so low as a country, our media is focusing on a woman claiming to be poor because she's over-sexed. God help us all.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

I know this may be a stretch but- ifs like a small number of monsters like david & charles & grover & alec who have workd so hard to take so much using the fox machine and the Rs to lie to us...............
AND
then theres the 99% lemmings THAT LET THEM DO IT
until OWS shined a very bright light on the truth
WE are making a difference

[-] -3 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 12 years ago

Absolutly amazing! I don't give a damn about Limbaugh. He isn't the issue. Why am I as a tax payer supposed to pay for that sluts birth Control?

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

As a tax payer you aren't paying for 'her contraception'. This is about insurance coverage, you know the stuff the individual pays at least half of?

Jeez.

[+] -6 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 12 years ago

And as we all know Obama care will do away with insurance companies in health care. But the real issue is a religious institution ( Georgetown) paying for that sluts fuck meds.

[-] 5 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Chugwanka, you are a rude individual. If I were your mother you'd have better manners.

And no it is not the religious institution paying for anything beyond health insurance at the rate of 50% of a group policy. The remaining 50% is payed by the individual.

[+] -4 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 12 years ago

The monetary amount has nothing to do with it. Forcing a religious institution to pay for something against its beliefs is wrong. You Marxists are anti religious and I understand that. But most Americans are not and they value religious liberty. I don't expect the enemy to understand that. And if you were my mother I'm sure I would a hopelessly fucked up Twinkie hell bent on destroying freedom anywhere I found it.

[-] 4 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

You surely make a lot of assumptions, claiming I am a Marxist...my my!

I doubt very much you could be any more fucked up than you current are no matter who your mother is, was or could have been.

I, however, did insure my own children had manners, did not insult people they did not know or had never communicated with in any fashion, and listening to a TV or radio program is NOT communication.

You assume I am anti-religious and yet at the same time you neglect the possibility of spirituality, perhaps not having any of your own. If that is the case, you have my sympathy.

Getting hung up on the religious angle of this issue is a mistake. One that it is obvious many people are making.

[+] -4 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 12 years ago

Getting hung up on the religious angle is the WHOLE fucking point of the issue you bimbo! Religious liberty is the issue here! Got damn you are stupid!

[-] 4 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

If you actually LOOKED at the mandate, you would see that the actual religious organization is exempt. The businesses they OWN are not.

There is a difference.

And damn you are rude. I have said nothing derogatory about you, I have not cast doubt on your intelligence, no matter how much I PERSONALLY choose to doubt it and you feel you have the right to say such things to me and the right to say rude and insulting things about someone you have not even written to nor received any form of communication from.

No wonder this country is in such turmoil.

Since you are presenting the image of religiosity, I suggest you sit down with your Bible and read large portions of the New Testament.

I will no longer respond to you.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Which slut is that? Your mommy?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

Nobody asked or told you to, it is free. Back under the rock.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 12 years ago

Fluke is a Georgetown law student, with her it's still that Catholic church paying for the pill and abortion issue. She's successfully muddied the waters with some emotional anecdote. It isn't about her rights, it's about the right of any Catholic employer to worship as they please.

For you and I paying for services, it's a done deal, we're stuck with whatever our representative decide.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 12 years ago

sandra fluke oughta pay for her own swinging life style. I'm not subsidizing her to buy lots of supplies for her multiple encounters

[-] 5 points by JuanFenito (847) 12 years ago

Well, I see that you hate women. I pity bigots like you.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 12 years ago

No hatred..stop w the lib ploy of name calling, you stoop to...when you can't deal w/ the concept of personal responsibility.. let sandy pay for her own sex supplies period... mr. name caller

[-] 2 points by JuanFenito (847) 12 years ago

Hater!!! bigot!!

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 12 years ago

now now...don't resort to name calling...evidence of no logical position :)

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 12 years ago

What makes you think a woman should have to pay for her own recreation?????? The only logical possibility is that you hate women. Period.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 12 years ago

he juan.. guys buy condoms right?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 12 years ago

I guess they do sometimes. I don't know. What's your point? That they should be covered on health plans? Nonsense.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 12 years ago

no....everybody should pay for their own. I don't want to pay for you...:)

[-] 0 points by dantes443322 (148) 12 years ago

I don't know if this is true or a parody. And that is a sad reflection on our Republic.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

Dear TryingForAnOpenMind You did not try hard enough

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 12 years ago

sorry you feel that way...ms fluke wants our tax $$ to go towards gender reassignment procedures too..

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

Thomas Carroll, an analyst who covers health insurance companies for Stifel Nicolaus, said that, "in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a material cost to be added to the managed care company or the employer."

[+] -5 points by nytefury (-57) 12 years ago

Sandra Fuck,errr Flucke,mmm,Fluke is an Obama tool. Just like Stephie is when he brought up contraceptives in the GOP debate,just out of the blue. This is all a Democrap manufactured issue meant to take the headlines off of the Obama loser economy and distract people from what's important.

Looks like it is working. OWS is down with the Bamster big time.