Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex … We’re going broke buying birth control - Page 28

ellipsis2 · #**406** Mar 3, '12, 6:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamrefreshed

Thank you for the clarification. It is clear to me now that you speak from neither the point of Catholic teaching or the US Constitution so your opinion is useless to me. However, you are entitled to your opinion as is this young lady. Have at it.

Are you asking yourself a question? Whom are you addressing?

DeniseNY · #**407** Mar 3, '12, 6:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

If these are true, my conclusion is that this whole episode is a power play to force the Church and the faithful to knuckle under.

It also has the benefit of distracting the people from the failures of the administration's economic policies for the past three years.

In order to get re elected, Obama needs the votes of college students and women. This is all concocted to try to get these two groups on his side again.

Luna Lovecraft · #**408** Mar 3, '12, 6:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecoclimber

When I first heard about this debate, my thoughts centered around the fact that she chose to attend a Catholic University and therefore, should accept the consequences of her decision. No one forced her to attend.

Then I read many of the comments concerning purpose of her testimony centered around promiscuous sex, condoms, the amount of times someone was having sex per day based on the $3000 amount per yearly costs, immoral sexual intercourse etc.

I must admit I don'tt know much about women's reproductive issues but her testimony centered not around women having access to condoms but to costly reproductive medicines that could effectively treat serious reproductive issues such as endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome etc. with fertility medicine. I don't know if this is a smoke screen or not but many of the comments on here are from people who probably never listened to her testimony.

Does she have a point concerning medical treatment in these cases, I don't know but it gives me a different perspective then some of the comments on this thread. The transcript and her testimony are here:

Video Testimony of Sandra Fluke

Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reproductive health care

There are many here who prefer their attitudes not be influenced by actual information. They prefer their world views and opinions filtered through Rush.

Luna

PaulinVA · #**409** Mar 3, '12, 6:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft

There are many here who prefer their attitudes not be influenced by actual information. They prefer their world views and opinions filtered through Rush.

Luna

Actually, the real compromise exists in Sandra Fluke's testimony.

Don't make the Church or religious organizations pay for contraceptives for contraception, but we will pay for contraceptives for therapeutic reasons, and make the approval process easy.

Bubba Switzler · #**410** Mar 3, '12, 7:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

If these are true, my conclusion is that this whole episode is a power play to force the Church and the faithful to knuckle under.

It also has the benefit of distracting the people from the failures of the administration's economic policies for the past three years.

Of course it was, but interestingly, I think the net of this has been to return focus to the absurd demand of free contraceptives that underlies there HHS mandate. The Democrat objective has been to reframe this debate as one of providing "access" to contraceptives but the absurdity of Fluke's demands have been so outrageous that it looks to have backfired on them and now they are simply playing the victim card to make the best of the situation.

Yet another skirmish in the culture war.

sedonaman · #**411** Mar 3, '12, 7:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

Actually, the real compromise exists in Sandra Fluke's testimony.

Don't make the Church or religious organizations pay for contraceptives for contraception, but we will pay for contraceptives for therapeutic reasons, and make the approval process easy.

This sounds like just another "to-save-the-life-of-the-mother" loophole that you could fly a 747 through.

sedonaman · #**412** Mar 3, '12, 7:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft

There are many here who prefer their attitudes not be influenced by actual information. They prefer their world views and opinions filtered through Rush.

Luna

There are many here who prefer their attitudes not be influenced by actual information. They prefer their world views and opinions filtered through their Dear Leader.

PaulinVA · #**413** Mar 3, '12, 7:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

This sounds like just another "to-save-the-life-of-the-mother" loophole that you could fly a 747 through.

Absolutely not!

Women really do take contraceptives for medical conditions, and the Church approves of it.

The Church has no valid argument to deny hormone therapy to a sick women because the treatment is a *gasp* birth control pill.

MarcoPolo · #**414** Mar 3, '12, 7:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft

[font="Century Gothic"][size="3"]There are many here who prefer their attitudes not be influenced by actual information. They prefer their world views and opinions filtered through Rush.

There are some people who have no idea what Rush Limbaugh said on the matter who still are against the government forcing private religious entities to provide services they consider immoral. If Fluke was seriously interested in just getting contraceptives provided only for medicinal purposes, such as to treat ovarian cysts, then why did she argue for contraceptives for free on demand from institutions morally opposed to such things. I'm sorry, but her testimony reeks.

sedonaman · #**415** Mar 3, '12, 7:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

Absolutely not!

Women really do take contraceptives for medical conditions, and the Church approves of it.

The Church has no valid argument to deny hormone therapy to a sick women because the treatment is a *gasp* birth control pill.

So? They are cheap enough. Why don't' they pay for the pills themselves? It's like demanding free aspirins.

PaulinVA · #**416** Mar 3, '12, 8:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

So? They are cheap enough. Why don't' they pay for the pills themselves? It's like demanding free aspirins.

No! You are killing our side's argument with your intransigence.

Pay for drugs used to treat disease conditions. Simple. Since it's a flash point for the left, REALLY simple. Disarm their arguments without giving ground.

Bubba Switzler · #**417** Mar 3, '12, 8:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

There are some people who have no idea what Rush Limbaugh said on the matter who still are against the government forcing private religious entities to provide services they consider immoral. If Fluke was seriously interested in just getting contraceptives provided only for medicinal purposes, such as to treat ovarian cysts, then why did she argue for contraceptives for free on demand from institutions morally opposed to such things. I'm sorry, but her testimony reeks.

A lot of people are frothing at the mouth mad at Rush Limbaugh for mocking Fluke but it's also worth considering how this testimony was intended to be viewed, and how it likely would have been reported.

Fluke presented herself, and was cast by Pelosi, as a meek little coed who just wanted to expose the "need" for mandated contraception (e.g. for the 40% of sexually active coeds at that Catholic institution).

This was all supposed to be a solemn, and routine, testimony. We were all supposed to shake our heads at this injustice and back the administration's HHS mandate.

Rush may have gone a bit overboard but his mockery blew this script apart. He legitimized the "hell, no!" response. This, and not the supposed character assignation of Fluke, is what has Democrats so upset.

Yes, her testimony reeks but it is a small part of a much larger reeking agenda and modus operandi.

SVP · #**418** Mar 3, '12, 8:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by iloveangels

http://mrctv.org/videos/shocking-vid...ederal-mandate

Oh, BTW, Target sells pills for $9/month. That's the price even without insurance. This woman probably spends more every month on fancy coffee drinks during her political meetings than she does on birth control.

Maybe she really needs all those contraceptives. at $9/month x 12 months x 4 years =$432.....a far cry from $3000.

She would have us believe that the typical female student would be spending $375 each month (every month for 4 years) on contraceptives? Even if the cost were for specialised medications, they would not be considered typical.

stevegravy · #**419** Mar 3, '12, 8:09 am

Well to me I question if the government can order a company to give away it product for free, (the Obama Compromise) why cannot the government order the recipients to have sex for free with whom ever the government sends? If there are no personal property rights there are no rights at all. If government is the source of your rights then individuals are the slaves of the government accepting whatever the bureaucrats dish out.

It seems to me it is always the failure to start with first principles and extend out to the ultimate conclusion is where our dear leaders fail when they "make policy."

Havard · #**420** Mar 3, '12, 8:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

Absolutely not!

Women really do take contraceptives for medical conditions, and the Church approves of it.

The Church has no valid argument to deny hormone therapy to a sick women because the treatment is a *gasp* birth control pill.

And Georgetown does offer the pill for medicinal purposes.

The only reason there's a "bureaucratic barrier" is because the school needs to be able to verify the the medicinal purpose to satisfy conscience concerns.

She could have offered suggestions to speed up the process while also maintaining its purpose and integrity. I didn't hear any suggestions.