You are both wrong. She never talks about needing pills because she's having so much sex. First of all, her entire testimony was about a friend who needed the pills to prevent cysts from forming on her ovaries and how she was denied the pills and lost an ovary. This was by her PRIVATE INSURANCE through the university. So saying that this is about the govt giving your tax dollars to women so they can have sex is wrong. 2nd, you have to take birth control regularly for it to work, whether you are having sex or not. You don't just pop a pill before you have sex. That's why the morning after pill was such a big deal.
Why would someone elect to go to a Catholic university and expect to be able to get birth control. There are plenty of non-Catholic universities she or her friend could attend. I believe this has a lot more to do with trying to force a Catholic university to give birth control which everyone knows is against their beliefs.
Right, she wants everyone in her insurance risk pool to pay for it, in the form of higher premiums. And is there any doubt she would want this mandated by law rather than some choice by the university health care provider?
By that logic, shouldn't the insurance company screen out people who are likely to require costly medical care down the road. Maybe they can start doing DNA tests to make sure only people who are low risk are on the plan. Frankly, paying for women to have birth control covered is cheaper for everybody than these women ending up pregnant, keeping the babies, and then adding more people onto the plan who aren't paying into the plan.
OK, serious question. When was it ever said tax payers would be footing the bill or that the government would be paying for it? The whole controversy arose because employers are the ones being required to cover it. If I have high cholesterol or diabetes or some other condition that my doctor writes me a prescription for, I'd be covered. I'd even be covered for Viagra. But nobody would say the government/taxpayers were paying for my boner pills because it wouldn't be true. So how is it different with contraceptives?
Not a matter of screening out, just assessing risk and setting a commensurate premium. Just like car insurance. Dang, why didn't the insurance companies think of this and add it to their coverage? They would save a ton of money. They should hire you. Or you could just force them to cover it, since your analysis says it's cheaper. Paying for toothbrushes in the long run will be cheaper since it prevents cavities. We should force insurance companies to buy them for all of us. Floss too. Use of toilet paper has been shown to prevent the spread of disease. Let's add that to insurance mandates as well. It will save money!
Apparently you are very ignorant about birth control. The pill needs to be taken once a day, and is often taken for medical issues with women that have nothing to do with contraception. Trying to figure out how many times a day she has sex based on the price of condoms is laughable. Nothing she has said, or or has been brought forward indicates she's a slut. But it figures that it's people like Rush and Tal that would make ignorant suppositions and then assume there is only reason for a the price mentioned in her testimony. Typical that some people would rather attack the poor woman.
Based on what? There was nothing in her testimony that indicates she was a slut. She was a witness who was denied access to testify and then got her chance. Not one thing in her testimony indicated she was sleeping with countless men multiple times a day. I expected it from the likes of tal, but I you usually seem more reasonable. The woman has done nothing to anyone, and nothing to portray herself as a slut.
Then if you did know that why call a women concerned about health issues a slut with ZERO evidence to say she was one?
She would expect it because it can prevent ovarian cysts. She didn't think the Catholic University would want its students to get Ovarian cysts and lose an ovary.
haha sorry...it was kinda a joke or as an insult to her for causing all this ruckuss for political reasons. Calling her slut in this case was not meant that she sleeps around cause you are right I have no clue. It's more just throwing an insult like how people use the word 'gay' as an insult. Just seems to me like she's trying to milk every ounce of publicity and draw every bit of attention to herself as possible. That to me is an attention w**** (slut).
Yes, the evil people at Georgetown have been trying to make sure all of it's female student get ovarian cyst. And to think they would of gotten away with it if this poor young lady wouldn't have brought it to the nations attention. Shame on them.
She testified. It got a decent amount of attention, largely because she was denied a spot at the first, all-male hearing. And it would've faded away if Limbaugh hadn't started reminding everyone of what a vile human being he is. That's what's blown up the story and kept it on the front page. I didn't hear a peep out of Fluke from the time she gave testimony to the time she was directly asked about her response to Rush's comments. That's hardly being an attention w****. That's the media giving her more attention as a direct response to what Limbaugh said.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...luke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/ You lefties need a better mole than this Fluke!
