Slut Or Not??

[Scout]

The problem comes when the government presumes to dictate what will be covered.

Well, someone is going to. Seriously, what difference does it make to your argument whether it's the government or a private company that does the dictating? The decision still has to be made, and the arguments presented here are mostly criticizing a specific decision (to cover or not cover contraceptives), rather than who is making the decision. The critique of the government setting standards for health insurance really has nothing to do with the question of whether contraceptives should be covered and, quite honestly, shouldn't even be brought up; that's for a different topic.

You still haven't established any significant difference between covering contraceptives and covering, say, blood-pressure medication. Both are prophylactics, intended to prevent undesirable conditions (pregnancy on the one hand or the various complications from high blood pressure on the other). On what basis COULD you make that distinction, except in terms of wanting to discourage unmarried sex?

Well said.

 

[Scout]

A sexually active Georgetown Law Student that is in her early to mid 20s is a slut.
Most women in their early to mid 20s that are not married are sluts.
Glad we can clear that up.

I can't seem to locate where she testified about her own sex life, assuming as a law student she has one, which is unlikely. She testified about a woman who needed the pill for a medical problem and who had to have an ovary removed because she couldn't get it.

Scratch that. Here is her testimony. All 5 minutes of it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWNh_4QAAk]Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube[/ame]

Exactly, she never said a word about taking birth control herself or if she was sexually active......

 

[Katzndogz]

Ya' know, Dave....we have to give credit where credit is due...

the Obama strategy of spotlighting this fake contraception issue- hundreds of posts on the subject....
...has kept the conversation far away from the flops and failures of the Pretender of Pennsylvania Avenue.


Kudos, Barack!

I dont know. Most folks I know are focused on life sucking, not rubbers paied for by insurance companeys.

apparently not on the left. They're worried about getting free condoms over the economy.

Today free condoms. Tomorrow a free Volt.

 

[Scout]

Like it or not Websters defines "slut" as a promiscuous woman. What do you call an unmarried woman who testifies before congress about wanting taxpayers to pay for her escalating cost of birth control?

Birth control is used for things other than to prevent conception. Where do you get that her needs for birth control were escalating, or that she had any birth control needs at all?
She referenced in her testimony a person who needed the pills for something other than contraception. Likely the operation to remove the woman's ovary cost more than many years of the pill.

Fluke eventually testified before a House Democratic panel, telling a sad story about a female friend who lost an ovary because Georgetown's student insurance would not cover the birth control she needed to treat a medical condition

Read more: Meet The Georgetown Law Student Rush Limbaugh Called A 'Slut' - Business Insider

Meet The Georgetown Law Student Rush Limbaugh Called A 'Slut' - Business Insider

There are many women on the pill who are not sexually active at all, and there is no indication that she is, at least not from what I read. I've been to law school, and I know the demands on time. So, if she is, more power to her, she would be quite a woman to have much of any life at all outside law school.

I think Limbaugh has crossed a line here, which is deeper than any line he has crossed previously. If republicans have any sense, they will distance themselves from him. Who is he to talk anyway. He got caught coming back from the Dominican Republic with Viagra that had someone else's name on it.

He is nothing but an entertainer no different than a hell fire and brimstone televangelist.

Oh BTW: the VA pays for Levitra for vets.

Did Rush Limbaugh make someone else pay for his viagra? Shoud possession of viagra be a crime? Liberal democrats may want conservatives to distance themselves from him, or condemn him. That's democrats, clearly if democrats don't realize by now that he's fully supported by conservative republicans there is something wrong with the democrat cognitive abiityl

Ms. Fluke never asked anyone to pay for anyone else's birth control.....try again

 

[Scout]

A sexually active Georgetown Law Student that is in her early to mid 20s is a slut.
Most women in their early to mid 20s that are not married are sluts.
Glad we can clear that up.

I can't seem to locate where she testified about her own sex life, assuming as a law student she has one, which is unlikely. She testified about a woman who needed the pill for a medical problem and who had to have an ovary removed because she couldn't get it.

Scratch that. Here is her testimony. All 5 minutes of it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWNh_4QAAk]Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube[/ame]

With all her sexual escapades... when does she have time to study law?

Yet another rightwinger who forgot to learn anything about the subject before showing himself ignorant thru his remarks.

 

[Scout]

Like it or not Websters defines "slut" as a promiscuous woman. What do you call an unmarried woman who testifies before congress about wanting taxpayers to pay for her escalating cost of birth control?

When I see one do that, I will think about it. But she never did that....and had you actually read the transcript or watched the testimony, rather than just listening to Rush, you'd have know that. DUH.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe those who can't afford to buy contraceptives shouldn't enroll at pricey Jesuit or Catholic university and choose a more modestly priced university that does have that in their insurance coverage? Is that so difficult a concept?

 

[Scout]

He learned politics in Chicago. Nothing is ever as it seems.

 

[Scout]

Ms. Fluke wants her insurance, for which she pays premiums, to pay for birth control. She didn't ask anything of the school financially. Please watch testimony before you comment on it.

Wouldn't that correctly be "for which everyone pays premiums"?

Perhaps our friend is under the same illusion that fools people into believing that anything the government provides to them is free. It would logically follow that if the insurance company covers prescriptions for contraceptives, that would also be free.

Unfortunately, for those of us who actually pay insurance premiums and taxes, we know that nothing is really free other than what God or the universe itself provides for us.

Did she claim insurance is free?

 

[Scout]

I don't give a flying shit if she is a slut or not. I DO care that the Obama administration is blaspheming the First Amendment, though.

He does that a lot.

Since a college is not a religion, there is no conflict with the First Amendment.

In case you haven't heard, Georgetown University is not only private, it's Jesuit - founded and run.

As I said, COLLEGE is not a religion. First amendment applies to religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because I don't view women as "cats." You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."

And dear, that "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote. I'd say I hope you use it,
but DAMN, I'm torn. On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you, and on the other, you don't quite seem to know what all that struggle and bloodshed and death was FOR. In all honesty, you don't deserve it.

You don't. Really you don't.

Still, its yours.

I really hope you choke on it.

1." "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote."
Hardly.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. "You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."
I've learned that when others attempt to put words in my mouth, that means they know that they've lost the argument.
I'm guessing that that would be you.

3. "On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you...."
So, which one, Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony endorsed free condoms and promiscuity?
I suspect that neither would enjoy being identified with someone like you....do you?


4. "I really hope you choke on it."
I'm certain that when you recover from the 'barbs' I've put into you, you'll want
to apologize for that comment.
When someone gets angry enough to comment like that, it usually means that they realize that what I've said is true.
You do, don't you.

Nope, feminist PAP made that possible.

Nope, I'm pretty sure I read you right.

Nope, you're projecting, and doing a really shitty job at it.

And, NOPE, hell if i will, or ever would.

You should be ashamed of your attempted subjugation of your sisters. You should really rethink your whole attitude. And yes, I really do hope you choke on every one of your words. I do, yes I do, and HELL YES I DO.

I really do. You're reprehensible, appalling, and you suck big huge sweaty balls of sepsis.

It is what it is.

You blow.

I find it amusing that Liberals demand that one accept any behavior just because.
I don't.
"... attempted subjugation of your sisters."
This is bizarre to the point that I worry about your sanity.

You are the one trying to silence me....I don't want to prevent you from saying...or acting...in whatsoever manner you find acceptable.

Look at how angry you are...because you feel that you have made your bed...and now you have to lie in it.

I'm who I am. You, who you are.
I see the goal as Modesty. Restraint. Understanding and adhering to the kinds if behavior that most benefits the individual and the society.
Fine...disagree. But I will, in a public forum such as this, tell you that you are wrong.

I'm not impressed with your character, or your language.
In real life, you're not the kind of person with whom I'd have any interest in interacting.

Now, if you say the same about me, so be it.
No prob.

Now, a note on the subject that you attempt to use as a cudgel...feminism.

1. The single largest factor in the advances that women have made, after the right to vote and the right of wives to hold property in their own names, is technology. Prior to the many time saving and work saving housework devices, there was no possibility that a women could have both a family and a career.

2. Radical Feminists refuse to recognize the accomplishments of conservative women. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, none could be recognized or honored. Apparently there are men, women, and people who might otherwise have qualified as women but have chosen to be Republicans instead.

3. Your 'feminism' is not my feminism. Given the aspiration to remake humanity, the movement must be totalitarian.

a. Gender equality requires an assault on hierarchies.

b. The enormous increase in government that would be needed to produce the changes in humanity has to obliterate the boundaries between public and private, and between the emotional and the intellectual.

c. The result must of course be anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist, anti-family, anti- religion, and anti-intellectual. This is the feminism of the Left....the variety that demands that any morality must be accepted, and, in fact, everyone must pay for it. It encourages 'sluts' just because they are women.
These are not my 'sisters.'

4. Women should be prepared for events such as divorce and widowhood, marriage and family may reduce opportunities for outside work or education. But the solution, according to you 'sisters' like Simone de Beauvoir, who, in an interview with Betty Friedan, said “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.
Your sisters....not mine.

a. Like all totalitarian movements, the goal is not to give more freedom, but to take away choice.

Your perspectives would be a joke if they weren't so pathetic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Like it or not Websters defines "slut" as a promiscuous woman. What do you call an unmarried woman who testifies before congress about wanting taxpayers to pay for her escalating cost of birth control?

When I see one do that, I will think about it. But she never did that....and had you actually read the transcript or watched the testimony, rather than just listening to Rush, you'd have know that. DUH.

But it is we taxpayers who also pay the premium for our insurance policies. Every government mandate regarding insurance makes those policies more expensive. Requiring anybody to include contraceptives will do the same. So the principle is relevant even though she didn't specifically say 'tax payers'.

It boggles the mind that some here seem to think a private company should not be able to provide the product the public wants at a price the public can afford or that the public should not be able to order a product with the specific components they want and without the components they don't want if such a product is available.

Somebody tell me why that iis unacceptable.

 

[Scout]

When the government mandates it to a religious organization, it doesn't make it evil, rather it's a violation of the First Amendment.

You know better Si, you do. You pay attention to whats going on. And honestly, the first was not to be used as an excuse to deny this.

1. This isn't denying women any rights at all. If they want to work for a religious based organization or contract their services, then they know full well going into it what to expect. There are many other organizations offering the same services or for whom they could work.

2. The First Amendment is there to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. That is NEVER a one-way street. Without the integrity of the first, the gains in women's rights would crash and burn. (It reminds me of folks in recovery who put their sobriety first and always - without that, nothing else is possible for them.)

If you want to work for a religious based organization, then once you collect your wages and benefits, the gov't should protect you from that religious organization's attempts to control how you spend it.

 

[Dragon]

I doubt it will disappear, some women will always act like sluts.

The behavior that you call being a "slut" will always exist, but if no one thinks there's anything wrong with that behavior, no one will call such women sluts. And that is why the word will, eventually, become archaic.

 

[Dragon]

I don't give a flying shit if she is a slut or not. I DO care that the Obama administration is blaspheming the First Amendment, though.

He does that a lot.

Since a college is not a religion, there is no conflict with the First Amendment.

In case you haven't heard, Georgetown University is not only private, it's Jesuit - founded and run.

A college does not become a church merely because a church owns it.

Now, if Georgetown were to be turned into a seminary, restrict its enrollment to Catholics, and declare its mission to prepare aspirants for the priesthood or other holy office, then it would arguably be due First Amendment protection. But as long as it is a general-curriculum institute of higher education, it's not -- regardless of who or what it's owned by. EDIT: Except, of course, insofar as the First Amendment also protects free speech and right of assembly and petition, and that applies to everyone.

 

[Si modo]

Since a college is not a religion, there is no conflict with the First Amendment.

In case you haven't heard, Georgetown University is not only private, it's Jesuit - founded and run.

A college does not become a church merely because a church owns it.

Now, if Georgetown were to be turned into a seminary, restrict its enrollment to Catholics, and declare its mission to prepare aspirants for the priesthood or other holy office, then it would arguably be due First Amendment protection. But as long as it is a general-curriculum institute of higher education, it's not -- regardless of who or what it's owned by. EDIT: Except, of course, insofar as the First Amendment also protects free speech and right of assembly and petition, and that applies to everyone.

I never said it did.

However, churches and religious organizations, which Georgetown is the latter, are exempt from following EEOC laws, FOR the reason that if a Catholic school wants to discriminate against an employee because their lifestyle is contrary to their teachings, the religious organization can.

For example, if a Catholic school wants to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried, they can and the EEOC can do shit about it.

And being exempt from some EEOC laws is exactly because of the First Amendment.

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe those who can't afford to buy contraceptives shouldn't enroll at pricey Jesuit or Catholic university and choose a more modestly priced university that does have that in their insurance coverage? Is that so difficult a concept?

They do it simply to force a change. LIke the gay guy who enrolls his adopted son in a pricey Catholic private school and then demands gay sensitivity training.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

In case you haven't heard, Georgetown University is not only private, it's Jesuit - founded and run.

A college does not become a church merely because a church owns it.

Now, if Georgetown were to be turned into a seminary, restrict its enrollment to Catholics, and declare its mission to prepare aspirants for the priesthood or other holy office, then it would arguably be due First Amendment protection. But as long as it is a general-curriculum institute of higher education, it's not -- regardless of who or what it's owned by. EDIT: Except, of course, insofar as the First Amendment also protects free speech and right of assembly and petition, and that applies to everyone.

I never said it did.

However, churches and religious organizations, which Georgetown is the latter, are exempt from following EEOC laws, FOR the reason that if a Catholic school wants to discriminate against an employee because their lifestyle is contrary to their teachings, the religious organization can.

For example, if a Catholic school wants to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried, they can and the EEOC can do shit about it.

And being exempt from some EEOC laws is exactly because of the First Amendment.

I believe the organizations' primary purpose needs to be religious for this to be true. Georgetown is first an academic institution.

1. Religious Organizations

Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion.[42] The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.”[43] That determination is to be based on “[a]ll significant religious and secular characteristics.”[44] Although no one factor is dispositive, significant factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include:
•Do its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose?
•Are its day-to-day operations religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion)?
•Is it not-for-profit?
•Is it affiliated with or supported by a church or other religious organization? [45]

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization.[46] However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion.[47] The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on protected bases other than religion, such as race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.[48] Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races. Similarly, a religious organization is not permitted to deny fringe benefits to married women but not to married men by asserting a religiously based view that only men can be the head of a household.

Compliance Manual Section 12 - Religious Discrimination

 

[Si modo]

A college does not become a church merely because a church owns it.

Now, if Georgetown were to be turned into a seminary, restrict its enrollment to Catholics, and declare its mission to prepare aspirants for the priesthood or other holy office, then it would arguably be due First Amendment protection. But as long as it is a general-curriculum institute of higher education, it's not -- regardless of who or what it's owned by. EDIT: Except, of course, insofar as the First Amendment also protects free speech and right of assembly and petition, and that applies to everyone.

I never said it did.

However, churches and religious organizations, which Georgetown is the latter, are exempt from following EEOC laws, FOR the reason that if a Catholic school wants to discriminate against an employee because their lifestyle is contrary to their teachings, the religious organization can.

For example, if a Catholic school wants to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried, they can and the EEOC can do shit about it.

And being exempt from some EEOC laws is exactly because of the First Amendment.

I believe the organizations' primary purpose needs to be religious for this to be true. Georgetown is first an academic institution.

1. Religious Organizations

Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion.[42] The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.”[43] That determination is to be based on “[a]ll significant religious and secular characteristics.”[44] Although no one factor is dispositive, significant factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include:
•Do its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose?
•Are its day-to-day operations religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion)?
•Is it not-for-profit?
•Is it affiliated with or supported by a church or other religious organization? [45]

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization.[46] However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion.[47] The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on protected bases other than religion, such as race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.[48] Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races. Similarly, a religious organization is not permitted to deny fringe benefits to married women but not to married men by asserting a religiously based view that only men can be the head of a household.

Compliance Manual Section 12 - Religious Discrimination

Let me repeat that; Catholic schools can shitcan non-married and pregnant employees without any ramification from the EEOC.

Just for example.

So, these exemptions exist exactly for the reason of protecting First Amendment rights of religious organizations. Exemptions have been done before for that protection, and they can be done again.

Georgetown is run by the Jesuits, and the primary purpose of the Jesuits is religion.

 

[Gadawg73]

Contraceptives being asked to be included is no different than including marriage counseling, dental insurance, mental health, addiction therapy such as smoking and drinking, youth counseling, etc.
They are all in there.
Very few objections to any of those.
Add in the elective surgeries such as store bought ta ta's and all that goes with it and there you have it.
Hell, folks now are demanding pet health insurance.
Group health insurance paid for by the employer has ruined American health care.