How come Republican leaders don't denounce Rush?

Did even half the people commenting regarding the law student's testimony even listen to it? She never mentioned the government buying condoms or getting FREE birth control pills. She wants coverage for birth control pills under the insurance plan at her school. Withour the insurance coverage some birth control pills cost over $1000/year. And she said in her testimony that she is not asking for Herself but for other women.
 
So if insurance covers the pills then the cost magically goes away? That's flippin sweet. Now it make perfect sense.
wtf.gif
 
George Will had a great line about Boehner this morning after Boehner had said that Rush's comment was "inappropriate:"

"Using a salad fork for your entree is 'inappropriate.'"

If George Will is calling out the Republicans, you don't stand a chance.

Hook'em!!!
texasflag.gif
 
I agree w/ cmtsip that Blimpbaugh's apology - to whatever extent it is one - is a good thing, forced upon him by his ad $$ leaving his bottomless pockets.

If you think you're going to get a sincere, heartfelt apology abt what he said......ain't gonna happen.

He is a selfish, soulless, ego-maniac.

And Pres in perpetuity of the He-Man Women Haters Club.
 
I think the government should make employers cover contact lenses also.

If you can't afford BC pills:

1) Use condoms which are basically free from pubic health clinics. Just grab a whole bucketful like it's Halloween.

2) Go to school or work for an employer who's insurance covers BC pills...probably not a Catholic/Jesuit institution.

3) Crazy idea here, if you can't the pill and don't want to get pregnant (and don't want to use a condom), then take responsibility for your actions and don't have sex until you can afford the pill.

Also, making companies/organizations cover the cost of BC pills with the hope that it will reduce unwanted pregnancies is awfully optimistic. Professional women who have health plans from their employers (like this Georgetown law student) aren't the types who get unwanted pregnancies or are in a poor financial or socio-economic situation to deal with a pregnancy. It might make pills even more expensive for those who buy their own insurance (such as part-time workers).

And you know what...the cost of other people's irresponsibility is the cost of liberty. Sometimes liberty sucks. That's why we need to work on raising responsible children...not trying to trick ourselves into reducing the costs (a mirage) of making bad choices. If you don't like paying for unwanted pregnancies, then you can go to China.
 
there's nothing constitutional about contact lenses or birth control pills...both of which you can get covered by insurance. Not really sure how this compares to the liberty that you enjoy.

Hook'em!!!
texasflag.gif
 
I don't think he hates them, he just thinks they are sluts. If according to her the cost per year she pays for condoms she is having sex 3 times a day for 365 days out of the year. I believe I agree with Rush on this one.

I don't know if this point has been specifically addressed, but the poster who penned the above mentions condoms, where the actual discussion was regarding birth control. The cost of birth control pills can approach $100/month, so over the span of three years the cost can reasonably approach $3,000. This is not Viagara or Oxycontin. The pill needs to be taken more often than just when one has sex.

So, for someone to attempt to frame the issue as the cost of condoms tells me that the poster is either grossly ignorant or is intentionally misleading other posters, which is getting close to lying. Unfortunately, this approach is par for the course in political discussions.
 
Posters have posted over and over in this thread and others that the insurance companies will SAVE money by offering free birth control( those who live in the real world know it is NOT free)
So any of you IF it would save insurance companies money why do you think they have never offered it? do you really thing insurance companies never considered it and if it really would save them money the companies just decided to not to offer it because insurance companies don't need to save money?

and for those who keep saying Birth control pills " can" cost up to $100.00 amonth How many young women actually need $100 a month pills versus how many will be perfectly fine on free or $9.00 a month pills?

these are weak to feeble arguments.
Reality is any woman can get birth control free or for the price of 2 lattes a month.

Much ado about nothing.
 
So any of you IF it would save insurance companies money why do you think they have never offered it? do you really thing insurance companies never considered it and if it really would save them money the companies just decided to not to offer it because insurance companies don't need to save money?

Anybody who follows this topic knows quite well the answer: because a lot of individuals will switch their insurance companies, thus laying the costs onto another insurance company.

Talk about a feeble argument. You speak as if people remain with the same insurance company for long periods of time, couching the issue as if it is near a single-payer type of system.
 
No, she's helping to reelect BO by driving a wedge between Republicans and women voters and she's keeping the public debate on social issues and off of the economy and the high price of gasoline.

She is not the one who is "driving" the wedge.

That would be the GOP.

Please pay attention.
 
This young lady tells the world that she has a lot of sex and she wants someone else to subsidize it.

You call that as you see it. I'd say she's a lawyer in training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top