Quote:

---

Sandra Fluke: Opposing the Contraception Mandate Is Just Like Opposing Leukemia Coverage

What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny their employees particular types of healthcare.

Now if you take a step back and think about that, that's--you know, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions, or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to.

So the folks who are still objecting have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee healthcare in this country.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2013/02/01/sandra-fluke-opposin
g-the-contraception-mandate-is-just-like-opposing-leukemia-coverage-n1503446

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

If Sandy thinks that one can contract Leukemia in much the same way one can 'contract' a baby, then she's doing it wrong.

VERY wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

If Sandy thinks that one can contract Leukemia in much the same way one can 'contract' a baby, then she's doing it wrong.

VERY wrong.

---

It's not about contraception solely as birth control. It's also used as a medical treatment for a number of women. Something as banal as severe menstrual cramps can be treated by taking contraceptive pills.

---

Quote:

---

It's also about the fact that some religions object to much more than mere contraception when it comes to medical care, so ruling that they have a right to dictate that to their employee via coverage may have larger implications than the assumption that the only thing religions care about is birth control.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
It's not about contraception solely as birth control. It's also used as a medical treatment for a number of women. Something as banal as severe menstrual cramps can be treated by taking contraceptive pills.

---

Which I agree, should be available for women to purchase, on their own, whether it's covered by HC or not.

---

Quote:

---

Different thing, but still the same position for men's " E.D." pills. If you're not actually trying to conceive, then that cost for pills to get Mr Happy at attention shouldn't be covered under HC insurance.

---

Quote:

---

This whole thing is primarily about paying for birth control, and make no mistake about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
How asinine can you get? Oh, wait, silly me, Rap can get MUCH more asinine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Like some libs here, the Nazi U-boats attacked their enemy in packs during WWII. It worked for a while. They licked their smug chops in glee as they congratulated themselves on their obvious superiority. When the tide of war shifted the other way they scarcely had any idea of what was happening to them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Put on your protective aura whites and I'll lead you back into the light of truth and good.

---

Tell that to the action figures.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Like Jong here, Baltar allied himself with the fascist Cylons until he suddenly got his head cut off for his trouble (theatrical SENSURROUND version).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

If Sandy thinks that one can contract Leukemia in much the same way one can 'contract' a baby, then she's doing it wrong.

VERY wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And for the record, it's possible to 'contract' leukemia through HTLV-1.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And for the record, it's possible to 'contract' leukemia through HTLV-1.

---

I did not know that! That's for the information, kiki.

---

Quote:

---

They may not be coming for your guns, but they might be coming for your birth control pills if this ever manages to gain any momentum. Radio host Kevin Swanson believes that birth control pills result in “these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.”

Um, what? Anybody who’s been through high school-level human biology, or even a halfway decent sex-ed course or health class, knows that a fertilized egg implants onto the lining of the walls of the uterus, which is shed each month in the form of that most annoying blood women hate dealing with when there is no implanted egg. So there are no “little tiny fetuses” that stick to the inside of the wombs of women who take the pill.

In fact, hormonal contraception does three things: prevents ovulation, thickens cervical mucus (to make it harder for sperm to pass through), and makes uterine lining too thin for implantation should ovulation and subsequent fertilization occur anyway.

Furthermore, it’s generally accepted in the medical community that pregnancy doesn’t begin until an egg is implanted in the uterine lining. As much as 50% of all fertilized eggs in women fail to implant in the uterus, and no pregnancy occurs. The uterine lining is shed as it would be during any menstrual cycle, and the fertilized egg goes along with it. Oftentimes, a woman never knows she had a fertilized egg to begin with. This can happen whether a woman is on the pill or not; every fertilized egg does not result in implantation.

So, again, there are no “little tiny fetuses” embedded inside the wombs of women on the pill.

Other “lolwut” moments (or headdesk/facepalm moments) regarding women’s biology include:

Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that women take birth control pills based on how often they have sex. This was the Sandra Fluke story; he accused her of wanting taxpayers to pay for her birth control, because she couldn’t afford enough pills for all the sex she was having.

Back in October 2012, Limbaugh also said that women on the pill feel sexier, and, alluding to the apparent sex appeal of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are therefore more likely to vote Democratic. Of course, this speech was full of odd contradictions, such as the idea that ovulating women feel sexier, so women on cycles regulated by hormonal contraception are more likely to vote Democratic because of heightened sexual feelings. Given that women on the pill generally don’t ovulate, and don’t experience those hormonal fluctuations that come with ovulation, this makes no sense. In fact, one of the potential side effects of hormonal contraception is a reduced sex drive.

There is also, of course, Todd Akin’s famously ridiculous notion that when it’s “legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Because an egg and a woman’s cervix can distinguish between sperm that came from rape and sperm that came from consensual sex.

Similarly, back in 1995, Henry Aldridge of North Carolina said that rape victims don’t get pregnant because “during an attack, the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant.” Like others, he named an unspecified group of authorities in the medical field who supposedly had solid research to back this claim up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You'd think that a Georgetown Law student would know how to make a better argument than THIS!

Wow.

Quote:

---

Sandra Fluke: Opposing the Contraception Mandate Is Just Like Opposing Leukemia Coverage

What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny their employees particular types of healthcare.

Now if you take a step back and think about that, that's--you know, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions, or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to.

So the folks who are still objecting have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee healthcare in this country.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2013/02/01/sandra-fluke-opposin
g-the-contraception-mandate-is-just-like-opposing-leukemia-coverage-n1503446

---

If Sandy thinks that one can contract Leukemia in much the same way one can 'contract' a baby, then she's doing it wrong.

VERY wrong.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Sadly, yes, for a while there I really respected Jong, after we discovered we agreed on a lot of things. I came to look at him AS a reasonable conservative, but his repeated, nasty non sequiturs and almost-Rap-like snarks have forced me to put him back in the original category, which really does sadden me.

---

Quote:

---

Rappy is thick skinned enough to keep coming here and starting threads. I wouldn't think he cries himself to sleep at night over comments on FFFnet

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:


As for Fluke, she didn't say anything wrong. There are, believe it or not, all sorts of religious restrictions on all sorts of medical care by all sorts of religions. I cited two examples - using real facts - in my first reply. If one religion can deny one kind of care based on their particular beliefs, why not other religions and other kinds of care - like transfusions or leukemia treatment? That was her point, and it’s an intelligent and valid one.

---

Quote:

---

Facing a wave of lawsuits over what government can tell religious groups to do, the Obama administration is proposing a compromise for faith-based nonprofits that object to covering birth control in their employee health plans.

Some of the lawsuits appear headed for the Supreme Court, threatening another divisive legal battle over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, which requires most employers to cover birth control free of charge to female workers as a preventive service. The law exempted churches and other houses of worship, but religious charities, universities, hospitals and even some for-profit businesses have objected.

The government's new offer, in a proposed regulation, has two parts.

Administration officials said it would more simply define the religious organizations that are exempt from the requirement altogether. For example, a mosque whose food pantry serves the whole community would not have to comply.

For other religious employers, the proposal attempts to create a buffer between them and contraception coverage. Female employees would still have free access through insurers or a third party, but the employer would not have to arrange for the coverage or pay for it. Insurers would be reimbursed for any costs by a credit against fees owed the government.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:0

Some evangelicals seem to think this isn't enough. It'll be interesting to see what the Catholic Church says.

---

Quote:

---

The virtue of France's system is that it treats them all equally under the law.

---

Quote:

---

Just because it's YOUR deeply felt rationalization doesn't make it a rule that all must follow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
France thinks that by prohibiting people equally, they're practicing equality, and being free. I disagree. I think it's a flawed attempt to not show favouritism to any religion, but in doing so they are in fact showing favouritism to secularism.

---

Quote:

---

And there's the rub. What age? What things? What depth of freedom?

If you are raised from birth to think that your duty -

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
France thinks that by prohibiting people equally, they're practicing equality, and being free. I disagree. I think it's a flawed attempt to not show favouritism to any religion, but in doing so they are in fact showing favouritism to secularism.

---

But isn't that only logical, since the French state is a secular state?


I'm not saying they aren't taking certain things too far, like banning scarves for students and such, but in general I like the idea of strictly separating the secular and the religious sphere. Religion is and must always be private, civil life must be as equal as possible and making it strictly secular is as equal as it can be. The secular state is what all French people have in common, and keeping it neutral in that way is an understandable goal.

This may be my inner atheist speaking, but I see very little harm in putting up barriers to certain aspects of religious expression in the public sphere. But then, I'm also for banning unnecessary circumcision on infants, which many would label as anti-muslim or anti-semitic when in reality I see it as an issue of physical integrity. *shrug*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
France thinks that by prohibiting people equally, they're practicing equality, and being free. I disagree. I think it's a flawed attempt to not show favouritism to any religion, but in doing so they are in fact showing favouritism to secularism.

---

But isn't that only logical, since the French state is a secular state?


I'm not saying they aren't taking certain things too far, like banning scarves for students and such, but in general I like the idea of strictly separating the secular and the religious sphere. Religion is and must always be private, civil life must be as equal as possible and making it strictly secular is as equal as it can be. The secular state is what all French people have in common, and keeping it neutral in that way is an understandable goal.

This may be my inner atheist speaking, but I see very little harm in putting up barriers to certain aspects of religious expression in the public sphere. But then, I'm also for banning unnecessary circumcision on infants, which many would label as anti-muslim or anti-semitic when in reality I see it as an issue of physical integrity. *shrug*

---

Quote:

---

Agreed. I view organized religion as a pox on humanity, myself - so, as long as they can privately practice as they like, Ive zero problem with restrictions upon public practice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I hate circumcision. I think it is barbaric. Especially when they do it before the child can even have a say.

But I don't think I can stop the practice of it, personally or by law. That seems to me to just drive the practices underground, and when you do that, the more extreme and fundamentalist beliefs tend to win out.

---

Quote:

---

I think a society has to be able to openly acknowledge all the separate beliefs within the border, without showing favouritism. (This is why democracy is flawed as well, as it shows favour to whatever belief is the majority).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:


Does no one else see that supporting either side potentially undermines a right if that side wins, and that it could bite you all in the ass later?

---