Sandra Fluke's Protection Racket

Reproductive freedom does not mean free birth control.

On his radio show last Friday, Rush Limbaugh complained that Democrats try to "impugn and discredit the people who disagree with them." That was two days after Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she disagreed with him about the Obama administration's regulation requiring employers to provide health care plans that cover contraception.

By Saturday, facing criticism from fellow Republicans and desertions by advertisers, Limbaugh was apologizing to Fluke for his "insulting word choices," implausibly claiming he "did not mean a personal attack." Whatever his intentions, Limbaugh's sexist tirade reinforced a narrative that depicts resistance to the contraceptive mandate as part of "a systematic war against women," as Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) put it last week. But that narrative remains false, no matter how many stupid jokes Rush Limbaugh makes.

Mikulski was responding to a bill, narrowly rejected by the Senate, that would have exempted employers and insurers from medical coverage mandates to which they object on moral or religious grounds. "The Senate will not allow women's health care choices to be taken away from them," declared Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

It's a mystery how revising a mandate that has not yet gone into effect takes any kind of choice away from anyone. But for Fluke, who spoke to a group of House Democrats last month on behalf of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, free birth control at someone else's expense is a straightforward matter of gender equality.

Although Fluke chose to attend a Jesuit university knowing that its student health plan did not cover contraceptives, she believes it is unfair that she has to live with the consequences of that decision. "We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health," she said, "and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women."

Fluke claimed that "without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," which translates into $1,000 a year, or about $83 a month. Even taking into account the cost of a medical appointment, that estimate seems high, since you can buy a month's worth of birth control pills for less than $20 online or pay $9 for generic versions at Walmart. Condoms are about 50 cents each in packs of 12, and the amortized cost of a diaphragm, according to Planned Parenthood, averages about $2 a month.

Yet Fluke reported that two-fifths of female law students at Georgetown are "struggling" to pay for birth control, while some cannot afford it at all. If so, abstinence is always an option.

Cost aside, the essence of Fluke's argument is that reproductive freedom requires free birth control. By the same logic, religious freedom requires kosher food subsidies, freedom of speech requires taxpayer-funded computers, and the right to keep and bear arms requires government-supplied guns.

If you do not agree with this reasoning, according to a recent fundraising appeal from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, you are joining "Republicans' disgraceful assault on women’s rights." I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican, but Fluke's idea of "reproductive justice"—compelling other people to pay for her contraceptives, even when they object to that requirement for religious reasons—strikes me as decidedly unjust.

Last week Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said "the Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss." Yet her boss not only retained the market-distorting, price-inflating tax policies that create an artificial incentive for employer-provided health insurance; he made the connection between employment and medical coverage mandatory, then decreed exactly what it would include, thereby precipitating this whole controversy. If President Obama does not want employers involved in medical coverage, why is he forcing them to be?

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter.

© Copyright 2012 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I'm calling shenanigans on this whole thing.

  • Land enTITLEment is a racket||

    Deregulate artificial borders to restrict free movement of people to hunt and gather a free lunch.

    Gambol lockdown is a protection racket for the profits of the agricultural city-Statists.

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Deregulate artificial borders to restrict free movement of people to hunt and gather a free lunch.

    Hunting and gathering isn't a free lunch, it's work, as you would know if you ever did any.

    Gambol lockdown is a protection racket for the profits of the agricultural city-Statists.

    I grow much of my own food. I could grow all of it if I wished. Nobody stops me. What's stopping you?

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

    You were free to gambol on my dime and didn't even consider taking it.

  • Fibertard Bullshit Offers||

    You lie.

    North America is completely under control of the agricultural city state. People have tried what you're fraudulently offering, and have been arrested and had their children taken out of teepees and put in foster homes.

    Living out in the woods alone is NOT the same as living in a Non-State socipolitical typology with:

    • a tribe of people who know the land
    • knowledge of the land handed down by ancestors
    • a landbase not destroyed by civilization.

    Fibertard. Fraud. Oh, shucks, those are redundant terms.

  • Shorter White Indian||

    Don't bother me with your story. I have goalposts to move!

  • sociopolitical typology||

    Never studied it, have you, stupid Fibertard?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....l_typology

  • ||

    He's not lying. You can grow your own food. The reason you don't is because if you choose to do so you will work much more for the same food you can obtain by trading whatever it is you are skilled at for food produced by someone skilled at that. It's called the division of labor, and you are completely free not to participate, although you won't be gamboling much if you don't. You will be in the same boat as all of the farmers that fled that back breaking life for 'sweat shops' in the industrial revolution, or in China, or Indonesia, etc today.

    And on that note I must issue heartfelt congratulations that you have proven that even an idiot whose only skill is to mix bold, caps, and italics meaninglessly into a sentence can find employment. Someone values textual incoherence more than the staples they produce. A miracle of economics, surely.

    Truly we are not as bad off as I had feared.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "People have tried what you're fraudulently offering, and have been arrested and had their children taken out of teepees and put in foster homes."

    That tends to happen when you starve your children and deprive them of medical attention because you're a sollipsistic jackoff.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Or a solipsistic one

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    Please starve the attention whore.

  • Da, Comrade Political Officer||

    Ignore the dastardly Enemies of the city-State!

    Fibertard told me so!

  • GILMORE||

    You're not an enemy of anything. You're a useless troll who wastes their time being a juvenile twat on the internet. Way to go with that social revolution.

  • Fibertarians = Juvenile Twats||

    ...on the internet. Way to go with that social revolution. What are you up to now, a couple dog catchers?

    (I'm not promoting social revolution like you are. I'm just waiting for your city-Statism (civilization) to collapse and destroy itself. As it always does.)

  • Sleeping Dog||

    ...And at which point Statists like me will come along to raze, rape, and kill until we own everything of value. As we always do.

  • Fibertard abandons NAP.||

    So funny.

  • Sleeping Dog||

    What, you think you're the only non-libertarian here?

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Besides, libertarianism is functionally impossible in the state of anarchy you keeping finger banging yourself to. Liberals like your self would be at an extreme disadvantage in such a situation since A). you're used to relying on others and B). your distaste of violence is useless when the barbarians are at the gates.

  • Sleeping Dog||

    So sorry, did I forget to mention that I'm HUNGARIAN? That makes me descendant from one of the not very nice non-statist tribes. We hunted and gathered all right, we hunted every human in sight for SPORT and gathered up everything in a big pile to BURN! Where exactly does it say that a non-statist has to be "enlightened" or "noble"?

    'Cause let me tell ya, being a NOMAD and riding with Attila The Scourge of God was just fuckin' FUN until we all settled down and became statists.

    I miss the good old days...

  • Edie Kain||

    And he has a right perty mouth too.

  • Fibertarians = Juvenile Twats||

    (I'm not promoting social revolution like you are. I'm just waiting for your city-Statism (civilization) to collapse and destroy itself. As it always does.)

    After which I'll be hunting down every Twinkie in existence like Woody Harrelson.

  • Egalitarianism is Murder||

    Phony "enemy of the state" is actually an agent of the TAX-EXTRACTORS and supporter of the WarState.

  • Egalitarianism is Murder||

    Gamble Lockout: Billionaire casino owning Chieftains in the big OBAMA 2012 moneypot.

  • JBlooze||

    Hilarious!I loved it.

  • ||

    Yup Scruffy, shenanigans.
    Sandra Fluke did NOT testify before congress or anyone else. The whole thing is Kabuki theater of the highest order.

    The congressional hearing was about the contraception mandate on religious institutions. I will say that again; the hearing was about a mandate issued by the POTUS, unconstitutionally, requiring people to act against their conscience. They were investigating Obama’s violation of the first amendment.

  • ||

    Religious leaders were to testify. The Democrats who were in the minority on the panel had asked for Rev. Barry Lynn [head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State]. At 4:30 pm on the afternoon before the hearing the Dems changed their minds and wanted Sandra Fluke to testify. Senate rules require a 72 hr vetting period before testimony. Issa, chairman of the hearing denied ( rightfully so ) Fluke as a witness, as no one knew her credentials or status as an ‘expert’.

  • ||

    The Democrats objected and walked out of the hearing. What you saw Sandra Fluke doing was not testifying under oath before congress. What you saw was a press conference set up to look like testimony before a congresssional panel. It was PURE THEATER. A FAKE.

    The democrats have successfully diverted attention away from an egregious constitutional violation by the president. Now sex seems to be the topic. Who ever dreamed the SoCons would be so easily distracted by sex?

    The SoCons better wake up. They need a cold shower and to pull their heads out of their asses. Evil people are plotting against us and are getting away with it because so many cant quit talking about who or how much other people are diddling. Personally, if Sandra Fluke wants to hump herself to exhaustion, that is fine with me. She will be too tired to hump us.

  • wareagle||

    this whole thing is bullshit cast as mean old Rush attacking some poor defenseless waif. No, she is a looter wanting someone else to underwrite her needs and wants.

    The socons will be the death of the Repub Party and I'm not sure that is a bad thing as they represent statism in different form. Their presence has leeched down to the local level where bible-thumping self-righteous moralists want to control prescription meds, slot machines, and a host of other things that people CHOOSE to do.

    Liberals are pretty blunt about wanting to curb personal freedoms. Socons are more dangerous in that they talk the limited govt talk, but walk in the opposite direction.

  • ||

    A couple of days ago I joked that Limbaugh is a paid employee of the DNC.
    But the more I think about it the less I think it's a joke.

    I mean, this guy has been making a living (and then some) in political talk radio for many years. But he falls face-first into an obvious political trap laid by an obvious liberal political activist? And does so in a fashion that confirms all of the most ridiculous stereotypes that liberal feminists smear men with?

    I know, I know, tinfoil hat blahblahblah. But there's some strange shit going on.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    I think Rush just knows his audience and was giving them what they want. His ego caused him to overstep a bit with his advertisers, though. He certainly cares about advancing his preferred brand of conservatism, but he cares even more about being in the spotlight.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I think Rush just knows his audience and was giving them what they want. His ego caused him to overstep a bit with his advertisers, though.

    I think it's a lot more likely that people within those companies were looking for an excuse to disassociate themselves from him, but couldn't justify it on the fiscal merits alone. Advertising on his show is good exposure since he's listened to by both libs and cons. Beck was pulling crazy numbers even after his sponsors were basically limited to GOLD! hucksters, so it's not like people are going to stop listening to a guy based on who pulls their advertising.

  • Sickly Sweet||

    You couldn't make me scrog that goat ugly Fluke with your weenus. And you expect me to believe she needs birth control past enough light to see her?

  • Bruce Majors||

    So she was late! That girl does have a troublesome twat. I say mandatory hysterectomy needed to lower health care costs to society.

  • FAILtastic||

    Is kabuki anything like bukkake?

  • Injun Joe||

    Ask yer mom!

  • Federal Dog||

    "I'm calling shenanigans on this whole thing."

    To say the least.

    What is telling about this person's extended and loud display is that it proves beyond any doubt that the purpose of the federal takeover of medical insurance was to entrench and dramatically expand the class of such free-riders.

    One of the purported reasons for that takeover was to stop the problem of free-riders. Yet here is a person in her thirties, still in school, banking on tax money to be there, PLUS making an extended public display of her loud demand that other people additionally be forced to pay for her medical needs too.

    Sandra Fluke is an in your-face free-rider of the first order. Parasites like her are properly given the back of our hand.

  • WTF||

    So I guess if I don't want to be forced to pay somebody else's vet bills I'm engaging in a war against dogs.

  • invisible furry hand||

    Yes. And the fluffy little kittens who will die without government intervention and your tax dollars. How do you sleep at night, you monster?

  • Silver Fox||

    Subsidising rawhide bones and catnip. Can't be any worse than what the American government's already done with your money.

  • WTF||

    Well, it would be better than spending it on 'Piss Christ'.

  • Old Salt||

    See, that's where my inner anarchist gets so pissed off at Uncle Sam.

    I wouldn't get upset at paying taxes if the government actually did something PRODUCTIVE with its blood money!

  • ||

    Sandra Fluke is your typical American bitch with a gigantic sense of entitlement coupled with victimhood. She will not be voting for Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Oh, no!

  • Bruce Majors||

    She's not that ugly. For DC, especially among leftovers (Donna Brazile, Barbara Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Anne Lewis, Debbie Washrag Schulz) she's a beauty.

  • wef||

    Just contemplate that photo of the whining vagina monologue.

    She is the servile face of the daddy-yearning masses.

  • WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO....||

    ...protect our _________ rights.

    If you're an over-domesticated agricultural city-Statist, insert things like "property," "reproduction," "housing," etc.

    See how self-styled libertarians are just as servile to power as team red or team blue?

  • WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO....||

    to prevent people from growing crops and living in cities, otherwise how will we prevent our hunter society from vanishing away ?

  • Fibertard idiot demonstration||

    Can you show me a single example of a hunter-gatherer society with state-level politics (government?)

    No?

    Lying city-Statist twat. That's you, Fibertard.

  • Fibertard idiot demonstration||

    Any minute now I will explain how my hunter society will ensure that people do not grow crops and live in cities and thus ensure a better life for all.

  • Non-State Society||

    Non-State Society isn't a fabled "unknown ideal" taught by evangelists like Ayn Rand and Reason Foundation.

    It is a now well-studied, widely-documented millions-of-years long reality.

    But Fibertards can't deal with reality.

  • Non-State Society||

    I will not answer the very simple question on what I will do with those that grow crops and want to live in cities, I will rather change the topic to something completely different.

  • Fibertard changes topic...||

    ...to protect their profits which are protected by agricultural city-Statist initiation of violence.

  • Fibertard changes topic..||

    I will now prove how I did not change the topic by answering the original question. Actually no, I can't answer the question, so I will try to accuse others of dodging the issue instead.

  • Fibertard ignores answer...||

    ...because Fibertard ignores reality as effectively as a young-earth Creationist.

  • Fibertard ignores answer...||

    The answer on what will happen to those that grow crops and want to live in cities is...

    Actually no I still can't answer, so will resort to ever more pathetic answers like calling people creationists and pretend I answered the question.

  • What happens to Aggressors?||

    They collapse and die. Every time. Don't blame me, I'm just watching.

    Babylon.
    Mayans.
    Western Civilization.

    Yours is The Final Empire.

    The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and the Seed of the Future
    William H. Kötke
    www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/

  • What happens to Aggressors?||

    I will be watching it on my wide screen tv, drinking mountain dew.

  • Enjoy the dark.||

    We're already well past "G."

    1. Pre-Industrial Phase [c. 3,000,000 BC to 1765]
    A = Tool making begins (c. 3,000,000 BC)
    B = Fire use begins (c. 1,000,000 BC)
    C = Neolithic Agricultural Revolution (c. 8,000 BC)
    D = Watt's steam engine, 1765

    2. Industrial Phase [1930 to 2025, estimated]
    E = Industrial Civilization is defined to begin in 1930 when the leading-edge value of energy-use per person reached 37% of its peak value.
    F = Peak of Industrial Civilization, c. 1978: confirmed by historic data published by BP, IEA, USCB, UN, etc.
    G = World average energy-use per person continues to fall, 1996
    H = Industrial Civilization is defined to end when energy-use per person shrinks to 37% of its peak value, forecast to occur by 2025. Life-expectancy (X) is estimated to be less than 100 years.

    www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/olduvai.htm

  • Enjoy the dark.||

    This time is different, all those old predictions about the world ending were not scientifically correct, my theories however use the latest technologies of civilisation that prove that civilisation is about to collapse.

  • Fibertard thinks MAYANs exist.||

    Apparently. The stupid is strong here.

  • BigT||

    H = Industrial Civilization is defined to end when energy-use per person shrinks to 37% of its peak value, forecast to occur by 2025. Life-expectancy (X) is estimated to be less than 100 years.

    So energy efficiency will kill us all. Better fire up those Hummers!

  • Energy Efficiency BULLSHIT||

    n economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

    Besides....

    1908 Ford Model T - 25 MPG
    2008 EPA All Cars - 21 MPG

    Oooooopppppsss!

  • Henry Ford||

    You do realize that I didn't invent the automobile and that there where PLENTY of competing models when I started?

    Oooooopppppsss!

  • CHICO||

    You complete me.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "It is a now well-studied, widely-documented millions-of-years long reality."

    Yeah, and your ideal society has been antiquated for a few thousand years.

    Also pretty damn desperate to try and strengthen your belief by comparing early homineds to modern man.

    I don't want to bore you with reality, but there's this thing called "evolution" . . .

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    He feeds on attention. Please starve him.

  • Da, Comrade Political Officer||

    Say nyet to Enemies of the agricultural-city-State!

  • anarch||

    Although Fluke chose to attend a Jesuit university knowing that its student health plan did not cover contraceptives, because she believes it is unfair that she has to live with the consequences of that decision.
  • Life's Unfair||

    Libertarians believe it is unfair that they have to live with the consequences of the decision to support agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Please feel free to exit civilization. Big deal. I call that vacation.

  • LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT?||

    That puts the NEO-CON in FIBERTARD.

  • Life's Unfair||

    Libertarians believe it is unfair that they have to live with the consequences of the decision to support agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)

    That's right, it's YOUR fucking fault I'm addicted to sugary soft drinks the way a baby is to mother's milk! It's YOUR fucking fault I can't walk past the pantry without grabbing a snack cake, and its YOUR fucking fault that I treat pizza like a food group!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Libertarians believe it is unfair that they have to live with the consequences of the decision to support agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)"

    These "consequences" include extended life expectancy due to not dropping dead of disease, starvation or exposure like flies.

  • Silver Fox||

    Shorter Fluke: My sexual decisions should be someone else's responsibility!

  • Shorter Fox||

    My food strategy should be somebody else's responsibility!

    Send em on a trail of tears!

    ~Fibertarian agricultural-city-Statist

  • Shorter Fox||

    Because you libertarians always talk about getting food for free you know !

  • FREE STATISTS||

    WE JUST WANT OUR STATISM FOR FREE.

  • FREE STATISTS||

    This logically proves that libertarians want food for free, my logic is undeniable.

  • Fibertards want food NOT free||

    No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key—and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because if the food wasn’t under lock and key, who would work?

    “What these founders of our culture fundamentally invented for us was the notion of work. They developed a hard way to live—the hardest way to live ever found on this planet. Their revolution wasn’t about food, it was about power. That’s still what it’s all about.”

    ~Daniel Quinn

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    He feeds on attention. Please starve him.

  • Fibertards want food NOT free||

    All those people that grow and eat their own food, they do not exist.

    When the hunter spent the whole day hunting his food and some stranger came along at the end and decided to take it, there would have been no problem, the hunter would shrug and say that he will hunt another one instead. I welcome all strangers into my home and give them all the food they demand.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key

    Really. Name a culture that doesn't protect its food source.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    He doesn't want to debate. He just wants attention. Please starve the beast!

  • Really Fiberard dumbshit. DOBE||

    Despite a low annual rainfall (6 to 10 inches), Lee found in the Dobe area a "surprising abundance of vegetation". Food resources were "both varied and abundant", particularly the energy rich mangetti nut- "so abundant that millions of the nuts rotted on the ground each year for want of picking". The Bushman figures imply that one man's labour in hunting and gathering will support four or five people. Taken at face value, Bushman food collecting is more efficient than French farming in the period up to World War II, when more than 20 per cent of the population were engaged in feeding the rest.

    [...]

    In this they are like the Bushmen, who respond to the neolithic question with another: "Why should we plant, when there are so many mongomongo nuts m the world?"

    The Original Affluent Society
    Marshall Sahlins
    www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

  • Really Fiberard dumbshit. DOBE||

    Bushmen food collecting was so efficient, that is why they so heavily outnumbered the French population.

    Bushmen have such tranquil lives, that is why they look so young compared to others when they turn 30, oh wait...

  • Toolbag||

    If you are as enamored with a hunter gatherer life why do spend hours on the internet instead of pursuing it? If you believe the Gov. won't allow it you are quite wrong. I know a number of people who live in a wooded area near me. No gov. officials have hassled them. The answer to my above question is that you are in fact a fraud.

  • Toolbag's Bullshit revealed||

    Living out in the woods alone is NOT the same as living in a Non-State socipolitical typology with:

    • a tribe of people who know the land
    • knowledge of the land handed down by ancestors
    • a landbase not destroyed by civilization.

    You're an intellectual fraud, and here's why:

    You don't want freedom. You WANT the agricultural city-State.

  • Toolbag||

    I have chosen my way of life honestly. I believe people should own land. I believe people should be allowed to pursue a way of life as they choose. I do not live one way and then advocate something entirely different. You are not part of a tribe of people who know the land. I ma part of a family that knows the land that we have owned for generations. Some of us have stayed and others were free to pursue other interests. They were not chained to subsistence farming or hunting. As someone who has hunted I understand exactly how hard a life that is. By your posts you have revealed how little you know of it. You would deny people the right to live as they choose. The old ways were a prison of there own and that is why they have disappeared.

  • KDN||

    You're an intellectual fraud.

    There has never been a clearer case of takes one to know one.

    Or does copypasta = expertise?

  • Toolbag||

    If you are as enamored with a hunter gatherer life why do spend hours on the internet instead of pursuing it? If you believe the Gov. won't allow it you are quite wrong. I know a number of people who live in a wooded area near me. No gov. officials have hassled them. The answer to my above question is that you are in fact a fraud.

  • Why shouldn't ALL LAND be free||

    Oh, because Fraudulent Fibertard is actually a city-STATIST.

  • Toolbag||

    Also you never answered my original question. Continue to evade and prove what a fraud you are.

  • I've answered your question.||

    You're an intellectual fraud for not acknowledging it.

  • Toolbag||

    I asked why you did not choose the life you advocate and spend your time on one of the pinnacle creations of a civilization you claim to abhor. Take your family to a plot of land live on as you wish. Oh, and don't forget tribal peoples fought wars for territory.

  • KDN||

    He didn't choose it because he can't get anybody to do it with him and nobody taught him from age 5 to make spears and nets (i.e. he doesn't have the natural aptitude and lacks the drive to learn, AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!). Also, he's most likely a figment of someone's fevered imagination and doesn't actually believe any of this shit.

    If he were serious he would move to Africa and attempt to live with the Bushmen. Since they're oh so hospitable they'll surely take him in provided he can pull his weight (which, as referenced above, he can't).

  • If Fibertarians were serious..||

    ...they'd move to Somalia for a...

    REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION!
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

    Anyway, KDN, why shouldn't we be free right here? Eh?

    You're really not for freedom, are you? What a fraud Fibertarianism is.

  • Toolbag||

    So your answer is that you can't. You are not capable of living the life you want because of everyone else, and yet their are people doing exactly like that in this country and others. Your problem is that you don't want people to choose any other life but that of a hunter gatherer. You are the one who would deny people the freedom to pursue a life of their choosing. I fully support the life you wish to live and encourage you to pursue it. When you continue to post you prove that you do not in fact have any desire to leave your comfy home with your flashy computer.

  • KDN||

    ZOMG SOMALIA!

    DRINK!

  • Maxxx||

    If you are as enamored with a hunter gatherer life why do spend hours on the internet instead of pursuing it? If you believe the Gov. won't allow it you are quite wrong. I know a number of people who live in a wooded area near me. No gov. officials have hassled them. The answer to my above question is that you are in fact a fraud.

    Parse his answer it is obvious that he wants to be a moocher in his fantasy tribe. The dumbfuck apparently doesn't realize how primitive humans dealt with parasites.

  • KDN||

    Parse his answer it is obvious that he wants to be a moocher in his fantasy tribe. The dumbfuck apparently doesn't realize how primitive humans dealt with parasites.

    Yep. That and the fact he's more likely to be a character for his/her own bizarre griefer amusement rather than an actual person.

  • Toolbag||

    Last time I baited a troll it got the post over 1K replies.

  • Guinness Book||

    Not all records are worth having, ya know?

  • If it isn't...||

    ...put under lock and key, it will get stolen.

    Do YOU have locks on the doors of YOUR house? Or do you have to keep buying new stuff after every break-in?

    We know you have a computer, Godesky. Surely you have other property.

  • Toolbag||

    Locks, alarm systems, and a gun. Just as tribal peoples had warriors to protect them from animals and rival tribes. Nice try learn the history. Nature is not kind to creatures that will not protect themselves.

  • Injun Joe||

    I thought it was using a cursed totem pole to troll the net?

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Anyone here ever watch "Guns, Germs, and Steel"?

    I can't decide if it would either make White Indian banana cream his panties or blow his brains out all over the fucking wall!

  • Toolbag||

    I have to be the annoying hipster here and say that I read it. Also I think the same author wrote Nemesis that expounds on similar concepts of the cyclical nature of civilization to rise and fall.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key"

    *Except every culture that has practiced feudalism or communism.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Who is really shocked that Rush Limbaugh said something outrageous? He's made a living doing exactly that for 25 years. This is not "new", nor "news".

    It's a distraction to prevent you from thinking about how Obama is pushing us into a war with Iran, how gas prices are exploding, how millions are unemployed, how voting hasn't changed "The Agenda" from DC in the last 30 years, how we're inflating the money supply, how we can't afford to pay off our national debt, etc...

    Getting upset at something Rush Limbaugh said is akin to getting angry over how Jerry "The King" Lawler calls a WWE wrasslin' match.

  • wareagle||

    the key word here is distraction, which is the administration's MO. They toss out red meat like the contraception thing so people will stop looking at a languishing economy, stop questioning why Keystone was blocked, stop questioning the sanity of gimmicks like the payroll tax cut, and and and.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Rush stepped in it and gave them an opportunity. He also calls Andrea Tantaros Andrea Tarantula. He likes making fun of gals because younger not supposed to do so. He should restrain the impulse.

  • ||

    So, let me ask a question, by Ms. Fluke's standards, does she have an obligation to make her dorm room available for Sunday (or Friday and Saturday night) revival meetings? I honestly can't see by what standards not, if not.

  • Shorter Bill||

    So, let me ask a question, by Mr. Dalasio's standards, does she have an obligation to make his living room available for Sunday (or Friday and Saturday night) revival meetings? I honestly can't see by what standards not, if not.

  • Why, Godesky?..||

    Do you want to take a shit in Bill's living room?

  • Sleeping Dog||

    There was an orgy in the bathroom?

  • ||

    Well, presumably, you meant "does he have an obligation...". Otherwise the entire response makes no sense. And the answer to that is clear. No. My standards are that I have an obligation to provide neither my living room for the revival nor the funding for Ms. Fluke's contraception. My standards are that her right to choice is a right to choice on her own dime.

  • ||

    By the way, in what sense was your response shorter?

  • ||

    So, let me ask a question, by Ms. Fluke's standards, does she have an obligation to make her dorm room available for Sunday (or Friday and Saturday night) revival meetings? I honestly can't see by what standards not, if not.

  • ||

    "Reproductive freedom does not mean free birth control."

    Any more than freedom of the press means free printing. But there are always people who believe that freedom means that they are owed a living.

  • Shorter Schofield||

    "Economic freedom does not mean free police to protect what you took from others."

  • ||

    If you don't want any police force, feel free to try it. I'm not a huge fan of the cops. I simply suspect that, as a fifty-ist man with gout and bad teeth, that a society with marginally out-of-control cops (like ours) is marginally preferable to anarchy.

  • LimitTheGov||

    Smoke and Mirrors - TheOtherSomeGuy got it right, deflecting attention from the real issues. The Gov and Media have done this for years, get the people focused on some (really not important issue - Rush for instance) while the important stuff is ignored. We used Russia and the Cold War for a long time, then terrorists, now Rush L.

  • LimitTheConspiracyTheory||

    The real issue is that you took the Land, and still occupy it with government force.

  • LimitTheConspiracyTheory||

    I have on the other hand given back my land that I stole 400 years ago to the rightful owner.

  • Don't spout Fibertard Bullshit||

    ...about how "free-market" the prison of agricultural-city-Statism is.

    I call it like it is. You whitewash the violence that is used every day to perpetuate the agricultural-city-Statist system.

  • Don't spout Fibertard Bullshit||

    Because everyday libertarians are stealing other peoples land. Selling and buying land is such a violent act.

  • Trading in stolen goods=free||

    ...to a Fibertard.

  • Trading in stolen goods=free||

    We are all guilty of the original sin, no matter how many generations you are apart, you will always be found guilty by what those that came before you did wrong.

    I follow the old testament form of justice you see.

  • Your NAP is fraudulent shit.||

    It takes daily violence to hold Land enTITLEments from the agricultural city-State.

    Yes, it took violence 400 years ago to invade the land.

    But don't forget, it takes daily government aggression to own it today too.

    Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

    ~Derrick Jensen
    Endgame
    http://www.endgamethebook.org/.....emises.htm

    That includes holding your privation property.

  • Your NAP is fraudulent shit.||

    I prefer the idea of letting people go where they want, when they want, so while I am wanking off, I make sure everyone is free to walk about.

    Thats why the Native Americans had no problem when people wandered around on their burial sites, you see the land was owned by nobody and thus perfectly acceptable to piss on the graves.

  • Fibertard knows NAP = bullshit||

    But still wants to piss on peoples graves. Cuz that's libertarian, ya know.

  • Fibertard knows NAP = bullshit||

    Why you upset about pissing ? People need to do this, even your hunters, since one can go where one wants, why object to pissing on burial sites, its nobodies land after all ?

  • Angry ur NAP is found wanting?||

  • Angry ur NAP is found wanting?||

    So you don't mind me pissing on ancient burial sites. I am free to roam where I want and I have to answer the call of nature.

  • Honey Bucket||

    I ain't gonna just take a piss, I'm gonna eat Taco Bell for a year and dig latrines all over burial grounds until the ghost of Injun Joe himself shows up to beg me to stop!

  • That's Fibertarian behavior.||

    Which is why you get 0.26% of the vote on a lucky year.

  • Injun Joe||

    Still more votes than my people manages to get...

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Thats why the Native Americans had no problem when people wandered around on their burial sites, you see the land was owned by nobody and thus perfectly acceptable to piss on the graves."

    Don't forget all the wars they fought over territory, and their use of enemy captives as slaves.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    He feeds on attention. Please starve him.

  • Da, Comrade Political Officer||

    Say NYET to Enemies of the city-State!

  • Mother Russia||

    If these guys where Russian like you're insinuating, then there wouldn't be a SINGLE Native left for you to jerk yourself off over!

  • Don Coyote||

    I have on the other hand given back my land that I stole 400 years ago to the rightful owner.

    Cool. I'd like either quadracentarian's contact info and birth certificate please. I'm looking to write an article on the Children of Methuselah.

  • Silver Fox||

    We're assuming this is desirable land he gave up and not the basement he was evicted from?

  • Fibertards living in cellars||

    I can see they're psychologically projecting again.

  • Fibertards living in cellars||

    I can see they're psychologically projecting again.

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Yeah, I live in a cellar but it's a cellar smack dab in the middle of some Sioux burial ground!

  • ||

    Like Ms.Fluke, I'm seeking reproductive justice now. That means I want some women to put out for me - preferably two blondes under the age of 25. I demand it! They'd better be hot too, because I'm not going to put out for the unattractive-but-perfectly-servicable equivalent of $8 Wal Mart generic prescriptions. You are obligated to provide these women because I'm not terribly attractive and it'd be a tough pull, plus I don't have the money to just pay for some hookers right now.

    You aren't against me receiving my reproductive justice are you?

    No justice, no piece.

  • WTF||

    Anyone who disagrees with JoeBlow is engaging in a war against men.

  • ||

    I like this line of reasoning. If she gets to have her reproductive health covered at our expense, we should be able to $%*& her one time.

  • Number 2||

    No, Fluke is not a slut, she is worse: one of that repugnant class of people who believe that they have a perpetual claim on my wallet and yours.

    And let's be clear: the free contraceptives mandate is a payoff to the feminist lobby, and is further proof of the boondoggle that is Obamacare.

  • Fibertards = repugnant class..||

    ...of people who believe that they have a perpetual claim to what was taken from those on the Trail of Tears.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    He feeds on attention. Please starve him.

  • Da, Comrade Political Officer||

    Say NYET to Enemies of the city-State!

  • Anarchy||

    NEIN!

  • Derek||

    I'm so sick of this whole controversy...everywhere you look it's all about these health care plans that cover contraception...

  • Silver Fox||

    And spoken of as if it were one of the greatest medical emergencies of our time, no less.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    Wouldn't be an issue if government didn't give special treatment to "employer provided" health insurance.

  • ||

    And in exit polling from last night's super-vote, the most important issue for voters is
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Gas Prices!
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo.....day-issues

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    WI is off his meds again.

  • Silver Fox||

    Probably couldn't get Georgetown to foot the bill.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    He feeds on attention. Please starve him.

  • Da, Comrade Political Officer||

    Say NYET to Enemies of the city-State!

  • invisible furry hand||

    and you do have to starve him, cos he sure as fuck isn't starving himself

  • I'm not Jason. Or rather.||

    Or any other bullshit you idiotic Fibetarian grabasstic pieces of amphibian shit call me.

    Can't really address any issues dear to your heart, can you, without lashing out at the questioner.

    Lame as a Commie Bitch.

  • 655321||

    Retarded cunt claims to be different retarded cunt. Remains retarded cunt.

    Who fucking cares? You are a griefer piece of shit either way.

  • 654321ZERO||

    no, I'm a real freedom advocate catching grief from the fraudulent fibertarians

  • Injun Joe||

    You stand for freedom?

    The freedom to live outside and die from bad health by the time your thirty?

    You may call that FREEDOM but *I* call that being a HOBO!

    The fuck do you think I built all those casinos for?

  • Brother Grimm||

    Right. Just Jason. Your brand of batshit crazy is unique and not shared by any others. ANY others.

  • ||

    Thanks for linking to that. I almost gagged on my bagel.

  • BASEMENT BUNKER FIBERTARIAN||

    This is really what we excel at. Dragging people down to our own level. The basement.

  • Bunker Keeper||

    The basement is where all the firewater is stored!

  • Injun Joe||

    I'll drink to that!

  • Spoonman.||

    It would be more honest if the government would just hand out free birth control.

  • They hand out Land enTITLEment||

    ...so why not other enTITLEments?

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    Starve the attention whore, please.

  • Da, Comrade Political Officer||

    Say NYET to Enemies of the city-State!

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    For years, I have advocated putting BC in the water. Many problems would be solved if you had to take a pill to get pregnant, rather than the other way round.

  • MNG||

    Someone said early on this is largely all due to this strange system we have where, due in large part to government taxation policy, we in the US expect to have our health care through our employer.

    I have to ask though, why is it so objectionable for the employer to pay for a plan which includes options for the employee they might not like, but no so objectionable for the employer to pay taxes which will then be used to make the same options available to the employee?

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    Both of the options you mentioned are objectionable. Where did you get the idea that one of them wasn't?

  • MNG||

    Not to the Catholic Church it seems, that is my point.

  • NotSure||

    The Catholic Church would object to its taxes being used to pay for birth pills, even a non Catholic should know this.

  • MNG||

    Really? Do they object with the same strength as to this policy to go through employers?

    I brought this up because many here have said that a less objectionable way would have been to just pay for it via taxes.

  • ||

    And....I think the majority here think a less objectionable way to deal with this is for us not to pay for it at all.

  • NotSure||

    It is easier to obfuscate and hide things via taxes, if however you are made to pay directly is is much easier to see where your money is going and obviously more objectionable. If people started getting bills to pay for bullets used to kill people, I would suspect people would be less willing to support big army budgets.

    Who here said it is less objectionable to pay via taxes ?

  • ||

    Because the 'pro-lifers' see this particular option as outright murder. Whether it is or not is not the point, but the sacredness of their consciences and the violation of that by the shit-bag democrats is.

  • ||

    The Catholic Church doesn't pay taxes, of course, so "its" taxes wouldn't be used to pay for free contraception.

    So, the Church can at least argue consistently (if perhaps too narrowly) that a mandate that it pay for contraception violates its 1A rights, but a tax that does not apply to it that is used to pay for contraception does not.

  • Anna||

    Um, yeah. What about private businesses owned by Catholics?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Neither is acceptable. Birth control is not a necessity of life and should be privately funded. The entry of third parties into private sexual conduct is unwarranted and unwelcome.*

    *standard male fantasies notwithstanding

  • MNG||

    There are two arguments I hear put forward for public subsidization of birth control:

    1. It's a right to plan your pregnancies, and like the right to counsel it is a good thing to make it more accessible to all regardless of ability to afford it. I realize libertarians can't buy this, but most non-libertarians don't have an automatic hang up about the slightest bit of coercion and so it seems not as objectionable.

    2. It promotes the public welfare and saves money in the long run, better to subsidize birth control than to deal with the public consequences of unwanted births.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    1. As opposed to the right to counsel, birth control is not a defense against the actions of the state.

    2. That's a long slippery slope. As opposed to general education, providing funds is direct involvement in a personal decision.

  • MNG||

    Well, your opposition to number one is because you have a premise-that there are no positive rights that should be publicly supported-that most people who buy one don't accept.

    I'm not saying you're wrong there, but if you get that you can at least see where the proponents are coming from.

    What they say is "a woman cannot live anything like a decent life without control over their reproduction, and the ability to live a decent life should not be dependent on whether one can afford birth control or not, therefore it should be publicly provided."

  • ||

    We get it....its the false premise that they cant afford it that gets us....we are funny like that.

  • wareagle||

    mng,
    no one is against birth control; I believe Mitt was on the money with that issue - it's working fine, leave it alone. The question here is this moocher's belief that her pills should come at someone else's expense which is bullshit.

    Birth control is a necessary thing; so are personal responsibility and restraint. Fluke should exercise both which will make her ability to purchase the pill much easier. My 21 year old has figured that out, and without going to a la-de-da law school.

  • Mr. FIFY.||

    That's because there ARE no "positive rights", MNG. That's a fictional construct our Constitutional-expert president likes to gab about now and then.

  • ||

    What they say is "a woman cannot live anything like a decent life without control over their reproduction,

    Oddly, women can control their reproduction without using birth control at all.

    and the ability to live a decent life should not be dependent on whether one can afford birth control or not, therefore it should be publicly provided."

    Of course, if a woman is unwilling to control her reproduction by abstinence, she can do so by using cheaper birth control that anyone can afford (rubbers, Norplant, generic pills).

  • ||

    "a woman cannot live anything like a decent life without control over their reproduction, and the ability to live a decent life should not be dependent on whether one can afford birth control or not, therefore it should be publicly provided

    Substitute "vision care," "anti-acne treatments," "toothpaste" etc. for birth control, and you can see where this is headed.

    But I'm sure people will keep bitching about how unfair it is that their insurance premiums are going up relentlessly, year after year. Gol' durn insurance companies and their evil profits!

  • cynical||

    Also, the right to counsel does not obligate the government to provide you with hotshot celebrity lawyers or what-have-you. Fluke wants government to force insurers to make the $50 pill and the $5 pill cost the same to the patient. Given how much she has misrepresented herself so far, if I was a right wing journalist, I'd be checking for ties to Pfizer.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    The "right to counsel" IS limited to those who can't afford it and applies only in criminal cases. Contrast with the universal "right" to free birth control being promoted here.

    We can debate whether handing out free shit promotes public welfare (as to which we have an ever-growing body of debt and evidence that you are dead wrong), but do you really think that unwanted births are the result of economic inability to buy condoms? Not to mention that your leftist eugenics are again showing. "Better to medicate those poor women than to have them breeding." Just admit it already.

  • ||

    i think paying drug addicts to get sterilized is excellent policy

    not excellent PUBLIC policy (for a # of reasons) but if a private company offered something like

    "we will pay for your hysterectomy and give you $1,000 cash" to drug addicts, that would greatly benefit this nation

    i could not care less if people want to spend their lives doing their drug of choice. i would prefer they not bear children, though, if they are addicted to certain drugs.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    I'd prefer it too, but it's not up to me, and banning it through government action is far worse than letting them have the kids. Of course, the rise of the modern welfare state has a lot to do with our rampant unwanted baby problems to begin with. We might start by stopping the stupid things we are now doing as opposed to continuing them but adding free birth control.

  • ||

    right. im saying as a PRIVATE option this is excellent.

    the crack whore gets an easy 1k and doesn't have to worry about birth control.

    and we are saved another baby born to a drug addicted mother and an absent baby daddy

    win/win

  • wayne||

    +10, you eugenicist!

    Seriously, I like the idea a lot, but whoever proposes it will be skewered much more brutally than I jokingly did above.

  • ||

    "...more accessible to all regardless of ability to afford it."

    Horseshit. It is available to all and cheaply so.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Also, abstinence is free and 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. This issue is 100% about subsidizing lifestyle choices for the middle class and above, i.e., by paying for their access to conseqence-free sex, and eugenics, i.e., to keep undesirables from breeding. Pelosi et al will never admit this, of course, but it's been an undercurrent of "progressive" thinking for decades.

  • ||

    Not so. I vaguely remember some years back a woman got pregnant by having cyber-sex.

    (apparently sperm had sequestered itself in her uterus for years and her cyber-sex orgasm released it somehow.)

    or how about this one.....
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/W.....1dvt5jlAQI

  • Old Salt||

    Fellatio, cunninlingus, and sodomy never got anyone knocked up.

    Assuming, of course, that she swallows and he doesn't pull out!

  • ||

    But this isn't "public" subsidization of birth control. It's force private subsidization of birth control.

    It's the government making PRIVATE CITIZENS pay for insurance, making PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS buy insurance, and then demanding that insurance policy include things they find abhorrent.

  • ||

    exactly. like i said, i think that it greatly benefits society if people who want syringes and birth control, have ready access to same. free

    we don't need govt. to pay for it, nor do we need insurance companies (although insurance companies certainly CAN BY CHOICE cover this stuff)

    charity works.

    for fuck's sake, i guarantee that just here in king county, gates foundation could provide birth control to every woman who wants it for free, and syringes for everyone who needs it and it would probably cost them less than their annual budget for paperclips.

  • Privation Property is FORCED..||

    ...subsidization of artificial borders to restrict the free movement of Non-State people to hunt and gather a free lunch.

    You're all for initiation of force when it profits you, Duphny.

  • Privation Property is FORCED..||

    ...subsidization of artificial borders to restrict the free movement of Non-State people to hunt and gather a free lunch.

    You're all for initiation of force when it profits you, Hazel.

  • Injun Joe||

    So am I!

  • Socialism is Murder||

    Anti-PRIVATE is anti-PRIVACY.

    Anti-PRIVATE proponents support hi-tax GOVT Surveillance and door-busting cop departments. And spy on and report their neighbors.

  • Joe||

    There is zero evidence to support #2.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "1. It's a right to plan your pregnancies"

    If you want to sit here and bullshit that this is a right then you better also be willing to accept that the practitioners must be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, the way we do every other Constitutional Right.

  • ||

    i am pro-choice, but birth control (unless used for stuff other than actually preventing pregnancy) is not "health care" any more than plastic surgery is. it doesn't treat a condition, disorder, disease, etc.

    frankly, i feel the same way about birth control as a i do about syringes. it should be readily available and free because people who need it and don't use it (or in the latter case - share needles etc.) cause themselves and society far more costs. abortion is way more expensive than BC pills, not to mention the fact that a fetus must be destroyed.

    given the WOD, people should still have access to needles because the spread of hepatitis, plus abscesses etc. create massive health care costs, etc.

    it shouldn't be GOVT. paying for it, of course.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    frankly, i feel the same way about birth control as a i do about syringes. it should be readily available and free...

    it shouldn't be GOVT. paying for it, of course.

    What do you mean by it should be "free". Someone must pay for it. Usually when people say something should be "free" they mean taxpayers should pay for it through the government. Who do you think should pay for "free" syringes and BC?

  • ||

    ummm, in this case the government -- or taxpayers, if you like -- are not paying for it. The insurance companies would be paying. Not a dime of tax money would pay for it.

    And it is paid for by the reduced expenses for the insurance companies by saving payouts for health care for unwanted pregnancies.

  • WTF||

    Well if it really reduces costs for the insurance companies, there would be no need for a government mandate now, would there?

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    That's great, Nathan, I presume you are going to be running Cigna, seeing as how you understand their cost structure and can save them money by expanding coverage. All those stupid insurance experts just never thought of this! It took the Top Men in the government to realize it.

  • ||

    Maybe, or it might be paid for by higher insurance premkiums on everyone else. Insurance premiums which they would be FORCED to pay.

  • ||

    The insurance companies woult be paying with money they got from.........?

  • ||

    ummm, in this case the government -- or taxpayers, if you like -- are not paying for it. The insurance companies would be paying. Not a dime of tax money would pay for it.

    This argument either constitutes a miraculous discovery of how to implement any social program without burdening anyone who matters, or is a complete shell game.

    You decide.

  • ||

    i will say it again.

    CHARITY

    charities provide all sorts of stuff to people (food, shelter etc).

    needles and BC should be on that list.

    granted, i don't see catholic charities (and they do a substantial %age of charitable giving in these parts) jumping on that train though :)

  • Brendan||

    What if it's not the cost that bothers you.

    A religious organization might be happy to pay for pregnancies, while finding birth control to be offensive.

    It makes sense if you realize that money isn't the only reason to support or oppose something.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    As others have pointed out, costs would be socialized among all health insurance recipients (according to ObamaCare this will include everyone).

    But also, taxpayer dollars would be spent enforcing this mandate.

  • mgd||

    Fuckin' actuaries, how do they work?

  • ||

    That's a good idea, like the SPCA providing free spay and nuetering - church groups and Planned Parenthood, or even start your own charity "Pills for Sluts" to provide free birth control to men and women who want to get their freak on.
    http://www.mdspca.org/petcare/spay.html

  • ||

    that's exactly what i mean. charities provide free food at soup kitchens. many private org's help people get free needles via needle exchange, etc.

    my point is, as a libertarian, i don't think GOVT should be paying for it, but i think private charities, churches, philanthropists etc. could make a great contribution to society by helping ensure that ANYBODY who wants needles or BC can get them... FREE

  • ||

    At least as far as birth control goes, then, we're covered.

    Google up "Planned Parenthood free birth control".

  • ||

    maybe you should tell this fluke person to do this!

  • ||

    well, it doesn't treat any health situations except excessive acne, heavy periods, endometriosis, uterine polyps and -- let's face it -- preventing pregnancy.

    I mean, if pregnancy is not a health issue then why do pregnant women go to doctors and give birth in hospitals?

  • shorter Nathan||

    Moar free stuff!!

  • Like Land enTITLEment handout?||

    It takes a Trail of Tears, but Fibertarian theives don't give a shit about initiation of violence that helps them.

  • Crazy Horse||

    You think I gave a shit about the violence *I* initiated to help myself?

  • Just another example that...||

    Fibertarian thieves don't give a shit about initiation of violence that helps them.

  • Injun Joe||

    I'm a libertarian? When did that happen? Must have been when the Spanish taught me how to SCALP the French and English!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "-Trail of Tears-"

    Take a drink.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Let's assume that pregnancy is a "health issue" as you say. How does that help your argument, since the women who want this free shit are NOT PREGNANT, want to stay that way, and therefore do not have the "medical condition" to which you refer?

  • ||

    people go to medical doctors for all sorts of stuff that aren't health issues.

    think breast implants. or hair implants.

  • Esteban||

    Those are not medical conditions, those are cosmetic issues.

  • ||

    thanks for the tip, captain obvious

  • MJL||

    I've read that the United States spends more per year per woman on health care than on men, yet woman live something like six to eight years longer. Where are those egalitarian sentiments??? Doesn't seem "fair" to me...

  • ||

    You lost me dunphy. Readily available and free?
    Nothing is free. If you dont want govt to pay for it then who?

  • ||

    free to the end user.

    have you ever heard of CHARITY? i give lots to charity. i support charities. charities provide free food for example, at soup kitchens, etc.

    charities also help in some communities with needles exchanges

    as a libertarian, i oppose govt. paying for this stuff, because govt. gets their money by FORCE

    charities do not

  • wareagle||

    dunphy,
    charity stopped being charity when the govt usurped that role in society. Same with churches. Ever notice how so many are little more than sprawling campuses of nice buildings? It's because their previous role is now govt-run, so they have a lot of money and not much good to do with it. Of course, nothing stops them from creating their own initiatives but that's another point.

  • ||

    charity is still out there, every day , in the trenches , doing god's/SCIENCE's work

    often quietly, and without fanfare.

  • Brendan||

    You're pretty dense.

    I support a lot of things and believe they should be free to the end user and provided and paid for by PRIVATE CHARITY.

    I too donate to private charities that do these things.

    I do not support government using tax dollars to do these things.

    From what I gather, dunphy and I are on the same page. Birth control provided by charitable donations to those who desire it at no cost to them. I'd get behind that.

  • ||

    yup. and if there are two, easy cheap things that can help a lot of individuals and society in general it's

    1) birth control (condoms, pills and morning after pill for those that want them)

    and

    2) syringes

  • ||

    let's also remember this woman goes to a catholic university. did she never watch monty python? is there any sentient being on earth who doesn't know they oppose contraception?

    mandating a catholic institution to pay for birth control would be like mandating a quaker college to pay for ammunition or mandating brigham young to pay for field trips and tickets to matt and trey's book of mormon

    and patty murray, often regarded as the dumbest person in congress (quite a feat) makes the typical liberal locus of control canard (which sowell amongst others eviscerates SO well) , the one that says if govt. (or in this case, a private institution being forced by govt) doesn't pay for something, that something is no longer a "choice?"

    this is like those morons that said that govt. had banned fetal stem cell research, when all they did was ban federal FUNDING of same?

  • WTF||

    She actually went there because it is a catholic university, and she wanted to undertake political activism to try to force them to provide birth control.

  • ||

    "....mandating a catholic institution to pay for birth control would be like mandating a quaker college to pay for ammunition or mandating brigham young to pay for field trips and tickets to matt and trey's book of mormon."

    Yep. That is exactly the point of all this, to force us to do as we are told. This is Obama whipping the mule.

  • ||

    "the Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss."

    no, it doesn't. if that was the case a woman and doctor could decide that she gets all the oxycontin and ketamine she wants for recreational purposes. why is it when it comes to birth control/abortion, liberals pretend to be libertarians and pretend that govt. shouldn't have control over what we do with our bodies, when govt. regulates everything from our ability to buy transfat in NYC, happy meals in san francisco, drugs (everywhere), and won't let us sell our organs?

  • WTF||

    "the Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss."

    I fail to see how how not requiring her boss to pay for contraception equals the boss making her medical decisions.

  • ||

    Why is it liberals pretend to be concerned about those things? Cuz they dont give a shit about them, thus pretending. What they care about is making you do as you are fucking told to do.

  • Tonio||

    When you say things like that you open yourself up to claims that you only "pretend" to care about issues important to you.

    IOW, unhelpful and contributing nothing of value to the discussion.

  • Mr. FIFY.||

    Suthen is right... plus, those in power on the left are not in it for altruistic reasons - they do it to get into office or, once there, to build their power base.

    It's that cut-and-dried, Tonio.

  • Brendan||

    Liberals "care" about these issues because it lets them pretend they're different than conservatives.

    One of the few real choices that liberals support is whether or not a person can get an abortion. The only reason they do that is to separate themselves from the other side.

    If a huge federalist and/or libertarian faction took over the conservative movement and they support abortion right, you can bet the left would start supporting some other choice, and quite possibly turn against abortion freedoms.

  • JBlooze||

    That's just delusional.

  • ||

    You think what Limbaugh said was jokes? Your bias is showing.

  • shorter Nathan||

    Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a twat and a cunt, however, HILARIOUS!!!11!!

  • Ralph Wiggum||

    Bill Maher is funny but not "ha ha" funny!

  • Peabo||

    Sarah Palin is a public figure that accepted scrutiny when she ran for vice president. Sandra Fluke is a college student that was asked to come answer some questions.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Scrutiny=calling crude names. Got it.

    Perhaps Sandra should have claimed that birth control should have cost $6000 over the course of law school, since she should be free from "scrutiny."

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    If Fluke didn't want to be held up for public scrutiny, then she shouldn't have made comments she knew would be controversial in fucking public.

    Just say what everyone knows you really mean; it's acceptable for Bill Maher to do it because he's a Lefty.

  • vlewell||

    She may not be a prostitute, but as a politcally (and sexually?) experienced 30 year old, she hardly fits the typical profile of "third year law student" evoked by media reports. Since she lives off a scholarship and now wants subsidized contraception while at the same time working against the well-being of her Georgetown "host," Fluke seems more of a parasite.

    http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=10126

  • JBlooze||

    You know, people get and live off scholarships usually because they excel academically but can't afford it. Her success pays back into the system by making her a better employee or self employed person. ie. not a burden on the system... That's why gov and mostly private citizens grant them.

  • ||

    If the Establishment Liberals really want Rush to stop saying mean things about them, they need to stop squawking so entertainingly when he does. And their egos are far too tender for that.

  • Fibertard egos seem tender...||

    ...'round these parts.

  • Sleeping Dog||

    I thought I told you to keep yo' hands out my pants?

  • Those are Ron Paul's.||

    GYNO check.

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Then get yer finger out of me bum!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    I never should've listened to the little Dutch boy about the dyke.

    . . .

    And now I've got me finger stuck in me bum!

  • ||

    Sullum says, "Fluke claimed that "without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," which translates into $1,000 a year, or about $83 a month. Even taking into account the cost of a medical appointment, that estimate seems high, since you can buy a month's worth of birth control pills for less than $20 online or pay $9 for generic versions at Walmart. Condoms are about 50 cents each in packs of 12, and the amortized cost of a diaphragm, according to Planned Parenthood, averages about $2 a month."

    Sullum---like Rush Limbaugh---focuses only on contraception as a measure for the prevention of pregnancy. But he doesn't realize that many women, especially those with extraneous medical problems cannot use the cheap contraceptive tools described---which includes women who use birth control pills strictly for purposes other than conception prevention.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Usage of birth control pills for hormone management is not birth control and should be covered under a standard insurance policy, unless it is an off-label use.

  • Juice||

    Insurance plans usually differentiate between coverage for contraceptive prescriptions and therapeutic prescriptions for the same drug. Maybe Gerogetown's doesn't.

    Anyway, there isn't a Walmart within a 25 mile radius of Georgetown that I'm aware of, at least not one with a pharmacy.

  • ||

    There are Planned Parenthood offices, though.

  • Peabo||

    Maybe Georgetown doesn't?

    Heck, if Blue Cross Blue Shield doesn't, I doubt Georgetown does.

  • ||

    So? Employers shouldn't be required to put anything in their company policy they don't want to.

    If you don't like your employer provided health insurance, buy your own, pay for things out of pocket, or work for someone else. You have many options.

    Just because your employer-based plan doesn't cover something you want doesn't mean they are "denying you access to health care". It just means they are exercising their right to compensate their employees in a manner they deem fit.

  • boomshanka||

    Of course in Fluke's case she does pay for her own insurance. An the Georgetown employer based plan actually covers contraception for factulty and staff.

  • Hazel Meade = CityStatist Cunt||

    You have many options.

    Wrong, bitch.

    People in an agricultural city-Statist hell have one choice:

    Work for one of the elite, or starve to death.

    That's the whole purpose of Privation Property: Take away the ability of free people to hunt and gather a free lunch.

  • No HUGS for citySTATIST THUGS!||

  • That's a little extreme...but||

    ...I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

  • Honky Injun||

    But I got nowhere else to go!

  • Correct. ||

    Today less than 0.001 per cent of the world's people live outside of the direct control of state societies.

    Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.

    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf

  • Why...||

    should your "statistic" be considered a bad thing?

  • Paying 4 your own imprisonment||

    It's Libertarianism, dammit!

    “The world of the Takers is one vast prison, and except for a handful of Leavers scattered across the world, the entire human race is now inside that prison.”

    “Naturally a prison must have a prison industry. It helps to keep the inmates busy. It takes their minds off the boredom and futility of their lives. Our prison industry? Consuming the world.”

    ~Daniel Quinn

  • Why...||

    should anyone care what Crackpot Quinn writes for dumb fucks to buy so he can be rich and live a very statist life style?

  • boomshanka||

    Exactly. Sullum obviously couldn't be bothered to read Fluke's testimony, or he would already know this. The fact that he doesn't he address it tells me he's misinformed or intentionally deceiving his readers.

  • ||

    Or perhaps he has read it and sees it for the disingenous bullshit that it is.

    Come on. We both know what would happen if the insurance companies said, "Okay, we'll provide the pill for free if the patient provides documentation from her physician that she has a verified medical need for it."

    The Left would go mad with rage. How dare the insurance companies intrude on the woman's reproductive freedom rights by requiring her to prove a legitimate medical need?

    It not only must be free, it must be no questions asked. We all know that is what is being demanded here.

  • boomshanka||

    "Okay, we'll provide the pill for free if the patient provides documentation from her physician that she has a verified medical need for it."

    Ummm, you mean like... prescriptions?

  • ||

    No. As I'm sure you know, for some conditions it takes more documentation than that.

    I've had to provide more documentation for treatments. Sometimes the insurance company declined to pay and I had to go out of pocket.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Georgetown has a medical exemption. So your point is moot.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    So, tadcf, are you willing to concede that coverage should not be mandated in cases where birth control pills are to be taken merely to prevent pregnancy? Because that is what seems to be the issue, not the far more isolated cases of therapeutic use. Or is it that you're just trying to change the subject?

  • Maxxx||

    Sullum---like Rush Limbaugh---focuses only on contraception as a measure for the prevention of pregnancy.

    Definitions - What are they?

  • unlabeled use, what are they?||

  • ||

    Unlabelled use of a contraceptive would not be for contraception (since that is the labelled use), that's for sure.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    But he doesn't realize that many women, especially those with extraneous medical problems cannot use the cheap contraceptive tools described---which includes women who use birth control pills strictly for purposes other than conception prevention.

    And when Fluke brought that up in her "testimony" with her nonsense anecdote about the "friend" who had ovarian cysts, she was being fundamentally dishonest.

    Georgetown's health plan has a medical exemption, so Fluke's motivation is still the same--get someone else to subsidize her lifestyle.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "But he doesn't realize that many women, especially those with extraneous medical problems cannot use the cheap contraceptive tools described---which includes women who use birth control pills strictly for purposes other than conception prevention."

    What? Didn't notice the part about how cheap and accessible the pill is?

  • Melvis||

    I'd do her... If someone else paid for the condom.

  • ||

    Cost aside, the essence of Fluke's argument is that reproductive freedom requires free birth control. By the same logic, religious freedom requires kosher food subsidies, freedom of speech requires taxpayer-funded computers, and the right to keep and bear arms requires government-supplied guns.

    No, this is diferent, women are paid 73 cents to the dollar of a man for the same work, so equaality demands free birth control.

  • Coeus||

    You flubbed it. Should've added something about justice and the patriarchy.

  • Brendan||

    So the solution to inequality is more inequality?

    Perhaps the energy spent defending this idiocy would be better spent dealing with unequal pay.

  • Almanian||

    Yes

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "So the solution to inequality is more inequality?"

    Not even, considering the pay ratio that Susan offers is a long debunked lie only kept alive by select Liberals and feminists.

  • JBlooze||

    1) what pay ratio that is not equal acceptable for you? and 2)You have evidence for that claim? What is the current rate of inequality to your knowledge based on actual data?

  • Tonio||

    Sure, we can have this discussion on the merits of free stuff, but it's going to take months (at least) for the kerfuffle of Limbaughs comments to die down. Right now the only discussion the public wants to have is about Limbaugh.

    And I'll grant that the comments made by Maher et als about Palin and Bachmann are also offensive. But a separate issue.

    Socons: one reason we can't have serious discussions.

  • wareagle||

    Socons: one reason we can't have serious discussions.
    --------------------
    and liberals are another reason, tonio, since they are the ones using Rush as a distraction from the real issue, that this woman is a moocher. She wants someone else to foot the bill for her wants, and THAT is a problem. That is THE problem.

  • WarEagle is a moocher.||

    Agricultural city-Statism (civilization) relies on initiation-of-violence, every day.

    That is THE problem.

    Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

    ~Derrick Jensen
    Endgame
    www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

  • Tonio||

    The fact that people are emotional actors more than rational actors is the problem.

    Also, STFU, WI.

  • Emotional Actor?||

    I see you don't have that "rational actor" shtick down yet.

  • JBlooze||

    Did you not see the testimony at all? The real issue is also that Rush lied about her testimony from word 1.He wasn't and isn't just a mean human being but he's a liar. Look at the testimony and look at his report of it and they are two seperate events. One happened in reality and one in Rushality and he's not a distraction, he's a problem. And we should be discussing what Sandra Fluke was actually talking about and not just the bullshit version because that is THE problem.

  • Pip||

    I think she should pay for the contraceptives. I had to pay for the dinner, the movie, the flowers...

  • Len||

    Too many comments to read through, but??? has it been said yet? Isn't that face birth control enough?

  • Joe||

    She's doable, after about 10 beers.

  • Old Salt||

    Doggie style was invented to be not only FUN but also for UGGOS!

  • ||

    My right to have sex is violated when my employer does not supply me women to fornicate.

  • Chief Wiggum||

    The town charter SAYS that the "Chief Constable" SHALL be provided with "two comely lasses of virtue true" once a year!

  • Almanian||

    More like a {VEG]ina Mono[LOGUE], from all the {VEG]etables forced on this poor [SLUT] by the City [STATISTS] through coercion and [POW]er of the [AGRI][STATIST][VEG]ocrats.

    Amirite or amirite?

  • Dadgum Dadgum Dadgum Dadgum||

    GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT
    GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT
    GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT
    GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT
    GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT
    GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT GUMMIT

  • Gadianton||

    Ever been out walking your dog, and a squirrel runs across the sidewalk and up a tree? The dog goes nuts! It's very entertaining to watch your dog try to climb a tree to get the squirrel, but eventually you have to yank the dog back onto the sidewalk and get back to the walk.

    The whole contraception kerfuffle is a squirrel. Let's get back to the real questions:

    1) Does the government have the authority to force a private company to give something away for free to it's clients?

    2) Does the government have the authority to force a religious organization to violate its beliefs and provide to its employees something which it holds to be sinful?

  • gov't has authority to force||

    YOU THINK SO.

    When it comes to Gambol Lockdown.

    You just mewl when the force isn't in your favor.

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Isn't that what you're doing?

  • Michael||

    "We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health," she said, "and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women."

    They can put a man on the moon!

    A MAN!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    I LOL'd.

  • Michael||

    Also, and I suspect someone's already mentioned it, isn't this supposed to be about women's "health"? If so, then why is the emphasis here on birth control pills and not condoms? Wouldn't the latter protect a woman's health far more effectively than the former?

  • ||

    They're more effective (obviously) in preventing STDs, but generally less effective in preventing pregnancy.

    But yeah, it's ridiculous that condoms would not be covered, for women *and* men, under this mandate.

  • Tony||

    Yeah this is definitely a chicken you guys want to keep fucking.

    You'll win the ideological battle in your dogmatic little brains, but lose the country to Democrats forever, as women abandon all the other options.

  • We are the 0.26% of voters||

    We'll win in 2016.

  • Honky Injun||

    We'll win in 3016!

  • Mr. FIFY.||

    Oh, great. Another one-party-rule fool.

    Ask a Cuban ex-patriate how well that works out, Tony. Or a North Korean, if you can find one who managed to escape the tender mercies of Kim Jong Il.

  • Tony||

    I've never said I liked having one sane party. It's simply the reality of things. I'm not gonna advocate for the occasional rule of ignorant theocratic warmongers just for the sake of the virtues of multiparty rule.

    Though my claim was that behaving as if it's 1935 with respect to women's role in politics will result in this outcome, not that I endorsed it.

  • ||

    warmongers? tony, are you really this dense?

    history has well established that both major parties are plenty warmongerish.

    the dems are AT LEAST AS bad as the repubs on this front.

  • Tony||

    Absolute evil bullshit. Just because they engage in some warmongering doesn't mean they are AS bad. When they start a war based on lies and get 5000 Americans killed for no purpose, talk to me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, less bad is better just because it's less bad... never mind that NO bad would be preferable.

    Anything to prop up Team Blue, eh?

  • JBlooze||

    Less bad is better. That would be the definition of less bad. There is no system of government (and definitely no unregulated corporation) that involves humans that can be NO bad. We can only strive towards it so yeah, less bad is better. PS - and someday if team red figures out that less bad is better that's good.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    In other words, in Tony's enlightened world:

    -- women want free shit
    -- Democrats wilo give it to them
    -- ergo, women will vote for Democrats.

    Who is the cheauvanist (sp?) here?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    *ahem*

    "lose the country to Democrats forever"

    Freudian slip, perhaps. I'll give you that much leeway.

  • ||

    Who is the dumber: Fluke (an appropriate name, n'est ce pas?) or Patty Murray?

  • ||

    it has to be patty murray. it would be very difficult to go broke betting that any sentient being (for a very loose definition of sentient) was more intelligent than murray

    i don't say that because she's a dem. there are lots of people i disagree with who are smart

    but murray is really cosmically stupid.

  • Tony||

    Look, White Indian is correct that libertarians are total, 100% hypocrites. They aren't against state violence, coercion, or "free stuff," they are just against people with needs that differ from their own getting it. Yes, the entire libertarian platform is a joke. In fact, among the few things libertarians are OK with the state doing are overt acts of violence (to protect their precious property rights).

    So, that's settled, everyone should stop being libertarians because it's ridiculous. But nobody wants to live in a situation where the last example of such had a life expectancy of 25. We are a civilization and we aren't going to stop being one until we're forced by some calamity. So wouldn't it be best to learn how to get along in a sustainable way?

  • Mr. FIFY.||

    *yawn*

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Look, "Tony", Libertarianism (like Democracy or Republicinism) is simply the best of a group of bad choices. You show me something that will result in society getting shit on less and we'll talk. Until then, I hang out with the Libertarians because society is still coherent enough to frown on my little Anarchists heart!

  • ||

    This must be a spoof Tony. "Everyone should stop being libertarians"? Really?

  • Mr. FIFY.||

    The line "precious property rights" is one of Legit Tony's favorite insults, so I'm assuming the post is also his.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    So wouldn't it be best to learn how to get along in a sustainable way?

    _________________

    In other words, I want to use government coercion to force you live as I prefer you to love, which to my mind is no different than the mere protection of property rights, so STOP RESISTING. A little bit of government justifies endless government.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good summation of Tony, KC.

  • ||

    So wouldn't it be best to learn how to get along in a sustainable way?

    My point exactly.

    Of course, no society is sustainable if its economy is unsustainable. And no economy is sustainable if it is built on the accumulation and compounding of debt.

    And no one has yet created an economy that had open-ended entitlements and wealth transfers that didn't also have the accumulation and compounding of debt.

    So, from where I sit, what looks unsustainable is a soceity built on entitlements and wealth transfers. And I'm agin' it. The question is, if sustainability is so important, why aren't you?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, White Indian is full of shit.

    I am embarrass that I didn't catch your paean to WI earlier. Not on my game lately.

  • ||

    Maybe insurance coverage of contraception wouldn't be so costly or even necessary at all if there were fewer insertions of dictates.

  • Old Salt||

    Let me tell ya, I've inserted some dictates in my day!

  • mgd||

    Or fewer insertions of something, at any rate.

  • ||

    "without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,"

    wow, how does she find the time to study?

    maybe she should stop screwing around and focus on her academic career. my birth control cost a lot less than that!!

  • JBlooze||

    You don't even know how well she's done in her academic career. There's no evidence that she hasn't focused on it.You don't go to law school because you're dumb. She was allowed to give testimony before congress. Anyway, I have an idea; Why don't you go down and submit your own testimony.I think it could really help. I would love to hear you expand on your theories in that style of public forum.I think you should.

  • Ring||

    Why shouldn't the government force some third party (whether it be health or auto/life insurance companies) to pay for my motorcycle helmet? Surely there is a public good in keeping a parent alive, and it will save in insurance costs?

    Would the government rather I jump out of a plane without a third party buying a parachute for me?

    This is actually a good argument for abstinence, although one I am sure the GOP is avoiding, but it is a good one since it is based on fiscal issues as opposed to moral.

  • ||

    If said "poor" college girl cant "afford" "birth control" then maybe she should stick to swallowing.

  • Peabo||

    For anyone that thinks the cost comes from condoms and thinks she's having sex three times per day, get your head out of your butt. The cost is for "the pill", a perscription medication that you have to take everyday regardless of how much sex you have. Some women start taking the pill even while they are abstinate in order to combat ovarian cysts or decrease the magnitude of their period.

    The cost of the pill can be very expensive, depending on the brand, and they work very differently. Even with insurance, it can cost $20 per month for some of the highest quality medication with ingredient adjustments to avoid alergies.

    In the end, the cost of birth control is not dependant on the amount of sex you have. Quit being stupid.

  • ||

    The point being, of course, that if the pill is too damn expensive for her to pay for herself, perhaps she should look into cheaper alternatives.

    And, since there are cheaper alternatives, why should we have to pay for her "cadillac" birth control?

  • Peabo||

    First of all, you aren't being asked to pay for it. Employers are being told that they have to provide insurance that will provide coverage for birth control.

    Second of all, i don't think women are asking for "cadillac" birth control, just adequate birth control for their personal situation. For some people, that costs more than $9 per month.

  • Peabo||

    And if people should be expected to pay for anything but the bare bones out of their own pocket, do you expect insurance to stop paying for casts when a splint will do? Should they stop paying for tendon surgey when you cna just not use that arm? Should they stop paying for CAT scans when guessing will do fine? Should they stop paying for hand reconstruction surgery when its cheaper to amputate?

  • ||

    Since your employer is paying for the premiums, it's the employer who decides if he wants to pay for COVERAGE of casts vs. splints, tendon surgery, CAT scans, and so on. If it's in the contract the insurer is legally obligated to pay for it. If not, the insurer has no legal obligation to pay for it.

    It's that simple. And if the employer doesn't want to buy expensive comprehensive insurance plans, they shouldn't have to. If you think your employer's coverage is inadequate, but supplemental coverage or buy your own policy. Simple.

  • ||

    No matter "who" pays other than the recipiant, then "we" are all paying. Because "insurance" is just a way to lumps "us" all into one big pot.

    Or did you never grow up enough to see that.

  • ||

    Bleating about theraputic uses of hormonal birth control is disingenuous bullshit, given that Georgetown has an exemption for such things.

    Bleating about the expense of brand-name hormonal birth control is, likewise, disingenuous bullshit, given that the generics contain exactly the same hormones and are amenable to exactly the same degree of fine-tuning. Moreover, even if the expense was prohibitive -- it's not, but let's pretend for the sake of argument -- there are relatively inexpensive non-hormonal alternatives such as IUDs and cervical caps.

    Bottom line, birth control is widely and inexpensively available. A woman who wants it but fails to get it is some combination of lazy, cheap, stupid, entitled, and infantilized.

  • Coach Edison||

    Agree, but it's also worse that that.

    Democrats cynically raised a non-issue to an issue by deliberately pushing yet another entitlement:

    The right for woman to have other people pay for her opportunity to have a raw dog jammed into her burning snatch with low risk of getting knocked up.

  • Coach Edison||

    Bam Bam and his minions (Stephanopolous, Pelosi, Fluke, etc) cooked this up to:

    1. Distract from the economy
    2. Maybe get Santorum nominated (easier to beat than Romney)
    3. Paint Republicans as woman-hating, bed-policing puritanical, sex-hating perverts.

    So as much as I like to talk about hot horny co-eds getting rammed into headboards without the distraction of a condoms, and getting to feel raw dogs throb out loads and giving them creampies dripping out onto their dormroom beds....it's just not what the election is about.

    It's about getting rid of the greatest menace to the world economy since WWII: Barack Stalin Obama and the parasitic Senate Democrats who gave us Obamacare, the Stimulus, and Dodd-Frank megaturds.

    Let's send them packing, so they can pack their own fudge instead of the fudge in the asses of 300 million Americans.

  • ||

    Can't tell if serious comment, or porn-bot advertisment

  • Coach Edison||

    Indignant vulgarity. A habit by now. Civility has been gone since the Clarence Thomas hearings. We are at war with Statists, if you didn't notice. You need a strong stomach, and a sharp blade.

  • JBlooze||

    Oh yes, just indignant vulgarity.. like you didn't just write all that crap out and didn't notice. A habit all along I suspect.So you spew that venom proving that you can be really offensive and we should put our trust or time into what you have to say? What a great way to introduce people to libertarians.. I need a strong stomach for sure. For almost everything in this comments section.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    On the one hand, birth control pills are not taken solely so women can screw around without risk of pregnancy - there are some legitimate medical conditions, some of which are life threatening, they're used for, as well.

    That said, Sandra Fluke is an idiot liberal who doesn't want to take responsibility for her own decisions, in this case, her choice to attend a Jesuit university, regardless of how good its reputation (there are other law schools that aren't Jesuit that are just as well respected, if not more so).

    Rush Limbaugh is an even bigger idiot, though. Tirades like his do more to make people sympathetic to people like Fluke than they do to win them over to his side, regardless of whether his base point is correct or not.

  • ||

    Believe me: the Jesuit "brand" has lost quite at bit of its cachet, especially at the "Big G." I would sooner send one of my kids to Penn State's law school (formerly Dickinson). Cf- Mr. Justice Thomas' wise counsel on the matter of allegedly "top-tier" law schools.

  • Scruffy McDoo||

    Gender equality?!? Ever since my bum fight gig was outlawed, Scruffy can't afford shit. If she deserves free birth control, I deserve free prostitutes. Who'll look after Scruffy! Not Marie Antoinette Fluke, that's for damn sure.

  • Coach Edison||

    Harrumph on that. I also deserve slut services for a rigidity condition I tend to get at night time. Do you know how much it costs me to pay for my own prostitutes?! It puts me under financial duress! Where's the compassion? I feel oppressed by a matriarchal society that values women's reproductive pleasure over mine. Studies show that men have a higher sex drive than women, so where's the fairness?

    I want my government allocated sex now!
    Hey Hey!
    Ho Ho!
    Blue Ball Fridays got to go!

  • Ayn R. Key||

    You know, if you're paying $3000 a year in birth control, you're either a REALLY bad shopper or you're a party favor.

  • Daniel||

    Little skank knows damn well how much birth control costs at Wal-Mart, she's just an activist ho looking for attention and sympathy. Democrats always do this victimhood shit. They know nothing else.

  • ||

    Well written article with a rare lucidity. I appreciate the rational approach that is not hogtied to the knee jerk limbic affiliation of Red Vs Blue.

  • JBlooze||

    Can we get an article about what the testimony actually was because there is a lot of people here who don't seem to know any more than Rush and he just made the whole thing up. And good luck and hang in there to all the people actually trying to make valid points and arguments on both sides without all the hate that is all over this website. I just found this site and it's quite unbelievable.

  • ||

    A lot of the commentators and lurkers come for the fight and occasionally pay attention to the hockey game.

  • ||

    fluke is not just a patsy she is an obama sluut

  • ||

    "Condoms are about 50 cents each in packs of 12, and the amortized cost of a diaphragm, according to Planned Parenthood, averages about $2 a month."

    Have you forgotten AGAIN that she wasn't prescribed birth control pills only to prevent pregnancy? She was prescribed these pills in order to prevent ovarian cysts.

    For those who consider $83 per month to be pocket change, congratulations. You're rich. The rest of us fucking work for a God Damn living.

  • Rod Hug||

    What does Fluke have to do with Obamacare and its repurcussions for freedom? And why bring Limbaugh into it? Goverment control of all healhcare is the basis of many avenues of control and cancellation of personal freedom. That, not just that it will cost so much, is why it must be repealed.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement