Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex …

A little off topic, but does anyone know if a basic college health plan covers all prescriptions? And will Obamacare basic policies cover all drugs in the future?

It is a pretty sure bet Obamacare will cover Plan B and contraceptives.

And pretty good odds that they will also cover RU-486.

White House misrepresents its own contraceptive mandate « Vox Nova

Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”

Response: False.The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects. RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.

Immie

This Administration has one thing going for it. The Stupidity of It's bought and paid for Herd of Jack Asses. Flock of Jack Asses. :lol: :lol: :lol:

whats really frightening here is, and I mean htis truly , the msm will play dumb on the abortifacient drug issue.

Their greatest lies are lies of omission, example-
do you know they were, with hostile coverage like I mean immediately ( and they were wrong to do it to, its a PRIVATE Foundation) all over the Komen Foundation dropping their funding for PP but they waited 10 days till they simply had to, to cover this OC issue ala religious inst. and birth control?
 
whats really frightening here is, and I mean htis truly , the msm will play dumb on the abortifacient drug issue.

Their greatest lies are lies of omission, example-
do you know they were, with hostile coverage like I mean immediately ( and they were wrong to do it to, its a PRIVATE Foundation) all over the Komen Foundation dropping their funding for PP but they waited 10 days till they simply had to, to cover this OC issue ala religious inst. and birth control?

You don't take on big abortion.

Big abortion is a multibillion dollar industry. Huge amounts of money, and along with money, politicians, are part of big abortion. Komen took a stand that was harmful to the cash flow of big abortion, when done - it was war.
 
So nearly $200,000 for a three-year stint at Georgetown University as one ramps up to become one of the most presitigious and highly paid lawyers in the country.

And she is whining about $3000 worth of condoms. She did say "protected sex", so that's condoms.

How many condoms is $3000 worth of condoms anyway?

Hmmm.

Here is 60 condoms for $16.00.

So $3000 worth of condoms is...11,250 condoms.

Three years is 1095 days.

This chick would have to fuck literally more than 10 times a day, with no days of rest, to use that many condoms in three years! :eek:

Is that how she is paying her tuition?

Doesn't leave much time for learning about lawyering!

Why are you referencing condoms?

OH, I see! So you can tear down Fluke's character and possibly act on the psychology of future testimonies of other women by letting them know that they will become targets of character assiination attacks if they give arguements against your position.

Really good propaganda, if the average american was a turnip, that is.

Stop this process of attacking, since it only distract from the main issue at hand, religious freedom, and forces the issue from a Democratic perspective. It is an easy political win, why is the GOP fighting with a blindfold and hands tied behind their back?
 
Last edited:
Fuck off. She is trying to force a Catholic school to purchase birth control for her and her friends, while they flip the church the bird.

If she didn't want it to be about character, perhaps she should show she has some.
 
So nearly $200,000 for a three-year stint at Georgetown University as one ramps up to become one of the most presitigious and highly paid lawyers in the country.

And she is whining about $3000 worth of condoms. She did say "protected sex", so that's condoms.

How many condoms is $3000 worth of condoms anyway?

Hmmm.

Here is 60 condoms for $16.00.

So $3000 worth of condoms is...11,250 condoms.

Three years is 1095 days.

This chick would have to fuck literally more than 10 times a day, with no days of rest, to use that many condoms in three years! :eek:

Is that how she is paying her tuition?

Doesn't leave much time for learning about lawyering!

Why are you referencing condoms?

OH, I see! So you can tear down Fluke's character and possibly act on the psychology of future testimonies of other women by letting them know that they will become targets of character assiination attacks if they give arguements against your position.

Really good propaganda, if the average american was a turnip, that is.

Stop this process of attacking, since it only distract from the main issue at hand, religious freedom, and forces the issue from a Democratic perspective. It is an easy political win, why is the GOP fighting with a blindfold and hands tied behind their back?

Awww, wuzza wittle girls fwightened by the big, mean mans?

Get over it. You put yourself on the national stage, you open yourself up for attack, and trying to hide behind the skirts and powder puffs just makes these so-called "feminists" look even whinier and more hypocritical than they normally do. If you're too girlie and vaporish to handle what is completely routine, and virtually uncommented on, for men, then leave the politics to those who can deal with it.

Stop this process of dissembling. "I can say whatever I want, and you can't answer back, because I'm a girl that's 'attacking' me" is bullshit.
 
Fuck off. She is trying to force a Catholic school to purchase birth control for her and her friends, while they flip the church the bird.

If she didn't want it to be about character, perhaps she should show she has some.

The school does not purchase the birth control. It is purchased out of insurance premiums collected BY the school FROM the students.

How hard is that for you to understand?
 
It doesn't matter. The school is a Catholic school and doesn't want to participate in free contraceptives for all, and they shouldn't be forced to by grasping law students who think a Catholic university has an obligation to condone and facilitate behavior the church has always stood against.
 
Fuck off. She is trying to force a Catholic school to purchase birth control for her and her friends, while they flip the church the bird.

If she didn't want it to be about character, perhaps she should show she has some.

The school does not purchase the birth control. It is purchased out of insurance premiums collected BY the school FROM the students.

How hard is that for you to understand?

And those students are free to purchase their insurance elsewhere. But it's cheap. Hence the money saved can be used to buy birth control pills. How hard it that to understand?
 
Some of this argument sound like this to me. A young lady goes out and buys a car to get to school. Then she is all upset to find out the parking permit the school requires doesn't allow her to park in faculty spots.
 
Last edited:
Lordy, lordy, just keep talking, wingnuts. We Libs just love the sound of both your feet being inserted into your big yaps simultaneously.
 
Libs are wanting this to be a woman's rights issue. It is not, it is a first amendment issue. It is trying to impose a government mandate on a religion. A mandate the goes against a religions belief system. Thus the government is saying, no real religious freedoms, unless we grant them.

It is wrong, it is a violation and try as you nuts might, it isn't about birth control, it is available to rich and poor at clinics for no money or very little money. There is no need to involve a religious entity.
 
That's why they will not accept an apology from Limbaugh, nor will they talk about a religion's rights under the Constitution. The only way they would back down is if it where Muslims wanting an exemption. Which I am sure they do.
 
I don't think Rush apologized to libs. I think he apologized to his own listeners.

People who want to shit on the first amendment and pretend it's about women's rights are scum and deserve our disdain. I think he caused more flap by apologizing than he would have just to ride it out, but who knows...one assumes he knows best what is appropriate. Personally, I could give a shit. Someone who is attempting to force teh church to conform to the will of lesbian whores doesn't deserve much respect, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the chick's feelings were hurt any. it prolonged her moment in the spotlight and got her a seat on the View, I'm sure....this is about her making a name for herself as an attorney...not about any "rights" real or imagined. It's just about shitting on the constitution, and stoking her ego.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Rush apologized to libs. I think he apologized to his own listeners.

No matter who he apologized to, it was a tactical mistake.

People who want to shit on the first amendment and pretend it's about women's rights are scum and deserve our disdain.

Which is why he should NEVER have apologized. I don't listen to the guy, but this was dumb on his part.

I think he caused more flap by apologizing than he would have just to ride it out, but who knows...one assumes he knows best what is appropriate. Personally, I could give a shit. Someone who is attempting to force teh church to conform to the will of lesbian whores doesn't deserve much respect, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the chick's feelings were hurt any. it prolonged her moment in the spotlight and got her a seat on the View, I'm sure....this is about her making a name for herself as an attorney...not about any "rights" real or imagined. It's just about shitting on the constitution, and stoking her ego.

Good post. :clap2::clap2:
 
I don't think Rush apologized to libs. I think he apologized to his own listeners.

People who want to shit on the first amendment and pretend it's about women's rights are scum and deserve our disdain. I think he caused more flap by apologizing than he would have just to ride it out, but who knows...one assumes he knows best what is appropriate. Personally, I could give a shit. Someone who is attempting to force teh church to conform to the will of lesbian whores doesn't deserve much respect, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the chick's feelings were hurt any. it prolonged her moment in the spotlight and got her a seat on the View, I'm sure....this is about her making a name for herself as an attorney...not about any "rights" real or imagined. It's just about shitting on the constitution, and stoking her ego.

Ummmmm............why would a "lesbian whore" need birth control? They wouldn't get pregnant in the first place.

Oh.........I got it...........more hyperbole and vitriol from our resident Christian.
 
Whores can get pregnant regardless of their sexual preference.

Models get pregnant all the time, and I think a healthy 2/3 of them are lesbian, lol.

doesn't Pelosi have kids?

You get my point. The term "REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE" is her slogan, her vision, her mission....I have no idea what horse she has in the race, but it is the race she has chosen.
 
Whores can get pregnant regardless of their sexual preference.

Models get pregnant all the time, and I think a healthy 2/3 of them are lesbian, lol.

doesn't Pelosi have kids?

You get my point. The term "REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE" is her slogan, her vision, her mission....I have no idea what horse she has in the race, but it is the race she has chosen.

Got any proof that 2/3 of the models, or Nancy Pelosi are lesibans, or is this more partisan hack rhetoric from our very own hate filled Christian?

Prove that 2/3 of the models are lesbian.

Prove that Pelosi is a lesbian.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
 

Forum List

Back
Top