dumbass? ya think. That's like calling water wet. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dumbass...she isn't talking about condoms...she is referring to the > pill...sheesh... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 10:00 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Limbaugh is voice of GOP majority? > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> between this and the state ultrasound initiatives, I am starting to >> wonder if the GOP platform isn't best summarized as "Girls having sex! >> ZOMG!" I realize that this sounds to most of us like it could be a lot >> of fun, so let's emphasize: to them this is a *problem*. > > Is that the one where planned parenthood, who performs internal ultrasound > before every abortion, testified that being required to perform an internal > ultrasound before an abortion is equivalent to rape? > > >> In this particular instance the sexual angle is sheer sensationalism >> and unnecessary in any discussion of whether contraceptive insurance >> coverage is good public policy. The staying out of bedrooms argument >> is superficially persuasive, but fallacious in context. Where the >> government actually enters the bedroom is when it singles out a drug >> and says oh but this involves sex so we won't cover it. The burden is >> then on the patient and provider to demonstrate that the use is for >> one of the other legitimate medical uses in women's health, and that's >> where the invasion of privacy comes in. Would you *really* want a >> committee reviewing records about your sexual organs? > > See this is so fuuuuukin stupid. The argument is why a university needs to > provide $1000 a year for contraception. It has nothing to do with the real > argument of health issues and birth control pills. After all doesn't PP > already dish out free taypayer funded condoms? > >> Nor is the "it's sexual behavior" argument legitimate, as insurance >> companies have uncomplainingly been covering Viagra. Their issue is >> not that a behavior is sexual. The *real* problem is that some insured >> institutions fundamentally believe that the place of women is to be >> barefoot and pregnant, and object to contributing to anything that >> works against that state of affairs. > > Does the government mandate that insurance companies cover Viagra? > No. Then why are we even discussing this? > > . > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347919 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
