Anonymous wrote:

this is also an issue for married couples who might just want to hold off on children until one of them finishes his/her law degree

Do you know what you are saying here? It is the same as if a married man knocks on my door and says to me, "I'm sorry, I don't want my wife to get pregnant. Could you chip in some money so I can buy birth control pills for her? Thanks, you are a chump, er sorry, I mean to say you are so kind."

Can you not see how obnoxious that is? If you don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex. And if you do then you pay the costs yourself rather than burden others.

This is not about strategy, it is about principles; that is, of people taking responsibility for their own actions rather than leeching off the labor of others for every little thing.

this is also an issue for married couples who might just want to hold off on children until one of them finishes his/her law degree

Anonymous wrote:She knew the school's policy before she enrolled. Enough said.

Anonymous wrote:keep your sex out of my wallet. deadbeat

Anonymous wrote:

But the people aiming to put more barriers between a woman and contraception would prefer to see contraception banned. This is the slippery slope

Contraceptives will never be banned.

And eople are not trying to "put more barriers between a woman and contraception" they are trying to avoid paying higher costs to
cover an unneceassary item: pregnancy prevention. It is a woman's choice to engage in activity that can lead to pregnancy therefore it is her responsibilty to pay the costs to prevent it. The same goes for botox injections, face lifts, and manicures.

Furthermore, this is a religious school. Sex is considered an activity that should be confined between a man and woman within the confines of marriage. An unmarried woman wanting others to pay for her birth control pills and morning after pills so she can be promiscuous is unacceptable from the religious school's point of view. It is almost as ridiculous as a woman demanding the school pay for her wine and vodka so she can party and have fun.

Imagine if people would follow the church's teachings concerning chastity? Unwed mothers, AIDS, human papilloma virus, herpes and other STDs would all be practically non-existent.

This is one of the reasons National Health Care is opposed by many. It is obscene to have to pay health care costs because of someone's immoral choices, or for the consequences of someone's harmful lifestyle activities such as smoking, gluttony, and drunkenness.

But the people aiming to put more barriers between a woman and contraception would prefer to see contraception banned. This is the slippery slope

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll ask again:

Men, do you really not see the benefit you gain by ensuring prescription contraception is widely available?

It is widely available, just not free.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he nailed that big fake. who picks a college based on birth control? she has been fighting the jesuits over free birth control for 3 years. she is a "reproductive activist" what the hell is that? what classes or degrees do you need to be designated a "reproductive activist"? Who can afford Georgetown but has so much sex that they can't afford birth control at walmart? sounds like a retard.

+1

You obviously both also have a reading and listening comprehension problem. The birth control pills were for ovarian cysts. Ugh, what is WRONG with you people?

That was for her "friend." I always love that one when someone is testifying at a faux hearing. "My friend's sister's brother's husband's aunt once told me......"

She never mentioned that SHE needed birth control for anything more than.....birth control.

Who gives a shit what she needs it for? All women who use birth control are sluts and prostitutes? Because if you have health insurance someone else IS paying for your pills.... And if you don't get subsidized bcps, you're still a slut for having sex and not wanting to have babies?

No, the point she was making is that the COST is a burden to her (and other poor law students) so she should receive birth control (for birth control purposes) for "free" from her insurance. She said the cost was $3000 for the three years of law school -- 3k that she, nor other female students have to cover these costs. That is a lot of money that goes towards birth control don't you think? One can extrapolate fo rher costs to be that high she must be having a lot of sex.

Even Rush didn't say that ALL women who use birth control are sluts/prostitutes. You are just making that up.

oh, okay. So just the women who can't afford birth control are sluts. Gotcha.

Um....again, no one said that. Is that what you think?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he nailed that big fake. who picks a college based on birth control? she has been fighting the jesuits over free birth control for 3 years. she is a "reproductive activist" what the hell is that? what classes or degrees do you need to be designated a "reproductive activist"? Who can afford Georgetown but has so much sex that they can't afford birth control at walmart? sounds like a retard.

+1

You obviously both also have a reading and listening comprehension problem. The birth control pills were for ovarian cysts. Ugh, what is WRONG with you people?

That was for her "friend." I always love that one when someone is testifying at a faux hearing. "My friend's sister's brother's husband's aunt once told me......"

She never mentioned that SHE needed birth control for anything more than.....birth control.

Who gives a shit what she needs it for? All women who use birth control are sluts and prostitutes? Because if you have health insurance someone else IS paying for your pills.... And if you don't get subsidized bcps, you're still a slut for having sex and not wanting to have babies?

No, the point she was making is that the COST is a burden to her (and other poor law students) so she should receive birth control (for birth control purposes) for "free" from her insurance. She said the cost was $3000 for the three years of law school -- 3k that she, nor other female students have to cover these costs. That is a lot of money that goes towards birth control don't you think? One can extrapolate fo rher costs to be that high she must be having a lot of sex.

Even Rush didn't say that ALL women who use birth control are sluts/prostitutes. You are just making that up.

OK the pill costs the same, whether you are having sex frequently, infrequently, or once in a blue moon. If you don't know this, you have no place commenting on the topic at all.

And insurance is something you pay for, so it's not "free".