Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'


Vanni Fucci
#451
I haven't looked through all the posts in this thread, so it may have been posted already, but this is some crazy shiit so I'm going to post it again...

Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons (external - login to view)

Quote:

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625 (external - login to view), which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.
Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (external - login to view), the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

This is a whole new level of crazy!!
 
Tonington
+2
#452
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

So what?

So 1 in 5 women are denied their prescription even with valid conditions for the policies exception. That's a problem. So what?

Quote:

What a crock of sh*t... You've morphed from an anomaly/problem with the insurance company to blaming all Catholics.

You're such a drama queen sometimes. The issue in this case is not religious freedoms? Pretty sure that's what you said it was.

Quote:

Nice little agenda there, but just for fun, please tell us how the Catholic Church conspired to harm this individual.

Why would I indulge your strawman? Grow up. Or act your age. You're being juvenile.
 
pgs
+1
#453
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So 1 in 5 women are denied their prescription even with valid conditions for the policies exception. That's a problem. So what?



You're such a drama queen sometimes. The issue in this case is not religious freedoms? Pretty sure that's what you said it was.



Why would I indulge your strawman? Grow up. Or act your age. You're being juvenile.

Why is a scientist that is interested in fish spend so much time and effort on the contraception issues
in another country.
And with the 30% subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer yet.
I think you have an agenda,were as before I only thought you a globull warming accolate.
Which union do you work for?
 
captain morgan
+1
#454
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So 1 in 5 women are denied their prescription even with valid conditions for the policies exception. That's a problem. So what?

I see.. Is that like the statistic that deems that 4 outta 5 dentists recommend Trident?

I'm really curious; where did you get this stat? Relying on the accuracy of Fluke's statement will make you look even more foolish.


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

You're such a drama queen sometimes. The issue in this case is not religious freedoms? Pretty sure that's what you said it was.

But you are full of sh*t (again).. No drama in that. And no, the issue in this case is Fluke being too stupid and too cheap to assume accountability for her own personal costs related to her sex life.

Does it even register with you that her testimony leans almost entirely on the word contraceptive and NOT women's health?.. In the end - you want to read something more tangible into Fluke's message than what actually exists, hence your blind faith that she is focusing entirely on ovarian cysts and has nothing to do with just plain ole birth control.


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Why would I indulge your strawman? Grow up. Or act your age. You're being juvenile.

As expected.. You have no argument and out comes the endless references to strawman... And I do like the grow up comment - it's especially hilarious coming from one that has shown little understanding of how the actual world works outside an academic setting.

Thanks for coming out
 
bluebyrd35
#455
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I know it's not a quote of mine. It's a quote of yours, where you accused me of saying something I have not said.

Ya, I can put a question mark at the end of a statement too. But I hate doing stupid things.

No, it should be assumed that I haven't offered an opinion. Anything you put forth is speculation.

Which is odd for someone who was whining about sticking to the facts.

Awesome, I never said women should keep their legs closed. All I did was correct your fallacious claim that women do not have access to contraception, as cheaply or easily as men.

I don't have to, watching you make an *** of yourself is entertaining.

Yes, I accused you of not being honest and still do. I asked you outright and having more curves than a slinky going downstairs, as usual you have nothing to offer. Soo...suck up the speculation. Such a master of red herrings would make a good con man.

Now as to that fallacious claim re access to contraception as cheaply or easily as men. Remember 1000 condoms available @ $69.00, allowing for working late a few times, or just plain tired, that comes to less than $25.00 having sex just about daily. Women MUST undergo a ******l exam - cost generally in the range of $250. For monthly renewal of prescription....$50.00 plus a month.

I make that $25.00 a year for a man, who can buy condoms either on line or over the internet, in contrast to $850.00 for a woman. I see your math and notion of easy, is much in the same category as your idea of honesty.

I just don't consider baiting, arguments with more curves than a snake winding it's way through dense underbrush, to my taste. So, I am taking a break from your idea of debate or discussion, and my opinion of the adult form of bullying.
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:51 PM..
 
lone wolf
+1
#456
Met your match, huh?
 
bluebyrd35
#457
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

Why is a scientist that is interested in fish spend so much time and effort on the contraception issues
in another country.
And with the 30% subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer yet.
I think you have an agenda,were as before I only thought you a globull warming accolate.
Which union do you work for?

What the hell????? Another old male fossil, I bet. Your opinions on the occupation, interests and questions about unions, have WHAT to do with women's contraceptives vs a scholastic institution trying to force Catholism on it's students through birthcontrol??

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Met your match, huh?

He certainly has.....

Me, I am off from the beach in Daytona when bike week finishes, heading for the Keys with family.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#458
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

He certainly has.....

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Met your match, huh?

Notice the selective reading and comprehension that she is famous for???
 
gerryh
+2
#459
Notice how she puts another one on ignore when she can't formulate a decent rebutle
 
lone wolf
+1
#460
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

What the hell????? Another old male fossil, I bet. Your opinions on the occupation, interests and questions about unions, have WHAT to do with women's contraceptives vs a scholastic institution trying to force Catholism on it's students through birthcontrol??

Do you hate everything with a pecker?
Quote:

Me, I am off from the beach in Daytona when bike week finishes, heading for the Keys with family.

Bike thieves?
 
gerryh
+1
#461
Also notice how Tonington is still insisting that it isn't a out restricting religious freedom.
 
Niflmir
+1
#462
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fine, you want to the gvt to mandate that coverage, that's all well and fine with me, but as you are most likely aware, the cost for that coverage gets passed directly along to Fluke et al, so really, what has she accomplished? In fact, if that policy change is mandated, the costs for those women that don't want/need birth control pills will also increase to pay for Fluke's demands - is that fair to them?

Yes, captain morgan, keep connecting the dots and eventually you will see my point. The point I am trying to make follows from exactly what you are now saying: that she will be the one paying for the pills (her premiums won't go up in fact, but that is irrelevant, so let us say that they will go up). Therefore she will be the one paying for her own sex, if one insists on looking at paying for birth control pills in that way.

And what do we call someone who pays for their own birth control? I don't know, a person? Definitiely not a prostitute. To insinuate that she is a prostitute in this case is clearly a tell of sexism.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Also notice how Tonington is still insisting that it isn't a out restricting religious freedom.

It isn't about restricting religious freedoms. It may place a mental burden on some religious stakeholders which may be unconstitutional, but it certainly does not interfere with their free exercise of their own religion. The enforceability of contracts is not a right after all, but a civil privilege extended to the population by the government so long as the contracts are not deemed unconscionable.

The issue in this case is that the government of the USA has decided that a contract for health insurance is unconscionable when it does not contain provisions for birth control, and some people are arguing that such unconscionability can be waived due to the religious beliefs of some people.
 
gerryh
#463
What it's about is the government forcing a catholic institution to go against a papal decree.
 
bluebyrd35
#464
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The doctor confirmed the medical necessity of the prescription...if the policy allows for medical exemptions, and the doctor confirmed that indeed the prescription was medically necessary because this woman was prone to cyst development, and the prescription still wasn't covered, it is not a correct application of the policy. She was denied repeatedly. She couldn't afford the prescription on her own, and she had to stop taking the pills. Then she was hospitalized when a cyst the size of a tennis ball formed on her ovary, and she needed surgery to have the ovary removed. Oh, and she's a lesbian. Now she's going through early menopause which onset after the surgery, at 32 years old.

Covering the birth control would have prevented a whole lot of cost to that insurance policy...and prevented a whole lot of unnecessary pain and debilitation. But at least no Catholics had to stop practicing denial of the oral contraceptive pill to women.

If you read her testimony she brings up a few other cases as well.

Don't hold your breath. Facts just get in the way of the religiously challenged here.
 
lone wolf
#465
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Don't hold your breath. Facts just get in the way of the religiously challenged here.

One of those FACTS is Georgetown is a Catholic/Jesuit university - where birth control is frowned upon. Perhaps if there wasn't some shyte disturbing going on and the medicine was called medicine instead of contraceptive, there wouldn't be an issue.

www.georgetown.edu/about/index.html (external - login to view)
 
Niflmir
+1
#466
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

What it's about is the government forcing a catholic institution to go against a papal decree.

Really, the pope decreed that they must force their students to pay for insurance? The university can avoid this whole problem by stopping the enforcement of the policy. Besides, the dogma between the university and the Vatican has nothing to do with the contract between the students and the insurance provider, except that in this case the university is trying to impose its own conditions on the private contract between the insurance provider and the student.

The University is third party in all of this, and the pope is a distant fourth.
 
karrie
+3
#467
Say what you will about policy and decrees.... each individual was blessed with a brain and given the responsibility to make choices for themselves, to live their lives in a way that is true to them. If the school is supplying health care, it should leave it at that, and not try to nitpick about what the individual decides to do with that health care. The room for interference with personal freedoms is too great. If it is that concerned that people are going to make choices with their health care that fly in the face of papal decrees, it should not be providing health care.
 
CDNBear
+1
#468
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Yes, I accused you of not being honest and still do.

More baseless accusations. You said contraception isn't as cheaply or easily available to women, as it is to men.

That is patently false. It most certainly is.
Quote:

I asked you outright and having more curves than a slinky going downstairs, as usual you have nothing to offer. Soo...suck up the speculation. Such a master of red herrings would make a good con man.

You would make a good con man, if you weren't so blatantly wrong, most of the time.

Quote:

Now as to that fallacious claim re access to contraception as cheaply or easily as men. Remember 1000 condoms available @ $69.00, allowing for working late a few times, or just plain tired, that comes to less than $25.00 having sex just about daily. Women MUST undergo a ******l exam - cost generally in the range of $250. For monthly renewal of prescription....$50.00 plus a month.

They Do Not have to undergo an exam to purchase condoms, or female condoms.

It's as simple as that.

Quote:

I make that $25.00 a year for a man, who can buy condoms either on line or over the internet, in contrast to $850.00 for a woman. I see your math and notion of easy, is much in the same category as your idea of honesty.

Speaking of redherrings. You should be famous for them.

Quote:

I just don't consider baiting, arguments with more curves than a snake winding it's way through dense underbrush, to my taste. So, I am taking a break from your idea of debate or discussion, and my opinion of the adult form of bullying.

Nice cop out. I'm not the one using fallacy, lying, or making unsupportable accusations.

That's all you.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Facts just get in the way of the religiously challenged here.

I knew you were religiously challenged. You admitting it, is good to see. Now work on it.
 
gerryh
+5
#469
For all those that have implied that one does not really have a choice in health plans when attending George town, this from their site.

"
Letter to Students Waiving the 2011-2012 Premier Plan

Dear Student:
You may waive the Premier Plan offered by the University during the Open Enrollment Period, if you have other adequate health insurance which meets the following criteria:
  • Coverage of at least $100,000 per illness and $100,000 per injury;
  • Plan in effect no later than the last day or your applicable Open Enrollment Period; and,
  • Plan will remain in effect for the remainder of your academic year.
Important considerations for waiving the plan are listed on in the Premier Plan Description of Benefits (external - login to view) brochure under "Checklist for Health Insurance Coverage." Please carefully consider if your other health care coverage is adequate coverage in the D.C. metropolitan area before waiving the Premier Plan.
The Premium Rate including administrative fees, Terms of Coverage dates, and applicable Open Enrollment Period dates are below. Eligible students are mandated and charged the student rate for the applicable Term of Coverage, as indicated below. Students who submit an approved waiver during the applicable Open Enrollment Period will have the entire student rate refunded on their Student Account.
Fall 2011-2012 Plan Year:

Term of Coverage: 8/15/2011 8/14/2012
Open Enrollment Period: 2nd week in July - September 15, 2011
  • $1,895 per student
  • $5,516 per student and spouse
  • $5,516 per student and child(ren)
  • $8,680 per student and family
Spring 2011-2012 Plan Year:

Term of Coverage: 1/1/2012 8/14/2012
Open Enrollment Period: 2nd week in December 2011 January 31, 2012
  • $1,209 per student
  • $3,454 per student and spouse
  • $3,454per student and child(ren)
  • $5,417 per student and family
Documentation of Other Coverage for the Entirety of Your Academic Year

Your other coverage must remain in effect through the earlier of:
  • The end of the Academic Year; or
  • Your graduation date.
In addition to submitting an online waiver, additional proof of coverage may be requested, such as a Certificate of Coverage written in English, which:
  • Indicates that the coverage will remain in effect for the entire academic year, beginning no later than September 15, 2011;
  • Indicates coverage for inpatient and outpatient treatment;
  • Separately itemizes coverage of at least $100,000 per illness and $100,000 per injury;
  • Clearly differentiates the required medical coverage from optional accidental death and dismemberment coverage;
  • Indicates coverage for non-emergent care in the D.C. area;
  • Indicates worldwide coverage or coverage in the United States; and
  • Specifically states coverage amounts in U.S. dollars."


NOTHING about contraceptives not allowed in a private insurance package.




It would also do well for those that feel that Georgetown should be treated as a non sectarian University, to go to the University web site and read through exactly what is expected of a student that applies to and is accepted by the University and how close the University is to the local Arch Diocese.




Regardless of how anyone, myself included, feels about Catholic Church doctrine, having the Government step in on this is the thin edge of the wedge. Changes to Church Doctrine are done through the Church, NOT the government.
 
Tonington
#470
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Also notice how Tonington is still insisting that it isn't a out restricting religious freedom.

It isn't a out? I'm not sure what you mean, but as far as religious freedom is concerned, from the start I've maintained that the US government can and does produce laws which lawfully limit religious freedom. The US Supreme Court allows laws which limit the practice of various religions provided the law passes certain requirements.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Regardless of how anyone, myself included, feels about Catholic Church doctrine, having the Government step in on this is the thin edge of the wedge. Changes to Church Doctrine are done through the Church, NOT the government.

The precedent was set a long time ago. The US government makes all kinds of laws that require hospitals, insurance providers, etc. to offer certain services. For instance, a hospital can't refuse to provide care to anyone requiring emergency care, regardless of citizenship, ability to pay, or legal status. The US government doesn't fund that particular mandate either.

The law doesn't require the Church to change it's doctrine. They can still believe whatever they want.
 
gerryh
#471
True to form, just comment on the "easy stuff".

Ya, I guess Captain Morgan was right.
 
pgs
-1
#472
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It isn't a out? I'm not sure what you mean, but as far as religious freedom is concerned, from the start I've maintained that the US government can and does produce laws which lawfully limit religious freedom. The US Supreme Court allows laws which limit the practice of various religions provided the law passes certain requirements.



The precedent was set a long time ago. The US government makes all kinds of laws that require hospitals, insurance providers, etc. to offer certain services. For instance, a hospital can't refuse to provide care to anyone requiring emergency care, regardless of citizenship, ability to pay, or legal status. The US government doesn't fund that particular mandate either.

The law doesn't require the Church to change it's doctrine. They can still believe whatever they want.

As a Canadian why would you care? You don"t even like America.
 
Colpy
+1
#473
Ann Coulter - March 14, 2012 - THE ****** DIATRIBES (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
+2
#474
Coulter. lol There's another one that's good for a laugh. She's right up there with Pelosi except on the other side of the fence.
 
Cannuck
+1 / -1
#475
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

And unfortunately for you, birth control is as easily and cheaply available to women as it is to men.

The fact that all you managed to do was embarrass yourself for me, aside. My PWN'ing you over and over, hasn't stopped you from posting. I blame your admitted stupidity.

But please stop embarrassing yourself. It's sucking all the fun out of it for me.

Maybe you shouldn't snip most of my posts in order to give the false illusion that you "PWNed" me. Aside from the fact that it doesn't fool anybody except those of lesser intellect, it really does make you look dishonest. While I don't personally feel you are dishonest, if you were, I would take full responsibility for it given your admitted disadvantaged position and my status as a Canadian.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

PSA is NOT covered. I have the bills to prove it ... and Ontario is in Canada last I checked.

Move to Alberta. It's covered here....but that's only because of our socialist provincial government.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The government will be paying for the new mandate imposed on private insurance plans?

Looks like a strawman. Colpy ignored that one too.

A fool once said, "The ideologues are all like that, they spew their propaganda and ignore everything else." I'm thinking he must have been talking to himself.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Good point, lemme correct that:

What you mean is good point, wait a sec while I move the goal posts....LOL...you're as bad as Das.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Now has always been obvious...... it is not only "not your problem" unfortunately, it didn't seem to have hindered you much re spouting your objections through how many pages, 14 or 15??

Cap's "problem" (as with all the other misogynists on this thread) is that the young **** wants to have sex. That is what bothers them so much.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Good Lord, for Gawd's sake read the blooming articles before making stupid objections that simply show total ignorance of the topic.

I don't think it would make much difference in his case.
 
Tonington
#476
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

Why is a scientist that is interested in fish spend so much time and effort on the contraception issues
in another country.

I'm not a scientist. I don't know what your job title is, but I'd bet money that your posts here aren't purely an extension of the role profile for your employment.

Irrelevant distraction. Or, red herring.

Quote:

I think you have an agenda,were as before I only thought you a globull warming accolate.
Which union do you work for?

Everybody has an agenda, to suggest otherwise would mean that you are an unthoughtful and unthinking automaton. Is that what you are? I work for a pharmaceutical corporation. There is no union where I work, nor do I want one. Do you have anything useful to add to the conversation, or are you just here to make noise?

Anyways, back on the actual topic, after the consultation process, which was ongoing when this whole ridiculous mess with Limbaugh began, preventative care will still be mandated. A church can object on religious grounds, as the bill was going to allow in the first place. And now institutions like Georgetown University will not be required to offer contraceptive services for all women, nor will they have to fund the additional cost to the insurance plan. The insurance companies will be required to pay for it.

I wonder what is left to bitch and moan about now from the people who disagreed with the mandate?

Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

As a Canadian why would you care? You don"t even like America.

Why do you care about posts people make about the US?

I'm now going to demand that you offer some kind of proof that I don't like America.

Take a long walk off a short peer troll.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I see.. Is that like the statistic that deems that 4 outta 5 dentists recommend Trident?

No, it's you saying so what to a significant number. If the health exception exists and isn't being implemented properly, then that's not a so what statement. I wonder if you would say the same thing about other prescriptions not being fulfilled?

Quote:

Relying on the accuracy of Fluke's statement will make you look even more foolish.

Well you've repeatedly referred to points she made in her testimony. I'm doing likewise. If you have better numbers, then post them.

Quote:

And no, the issue in this case is Fluke being too stupid and too cheap to assume accountability for her own personal costs related to her sex life.

That's your issue. You don't care to much about poisoning the well though. You'd rather start from a demonizing position.

Quote:

Does it even register with you that her testimony leans almost entirely on the word contraceptive and NOT women's health?

Well, I'll let you be the one who can't see the forest for the trees. Obsess over the word if you like, her testimony was clearly about woman's health. The pill is called a contraceptive pill. What euphemism would you prefer she choose?

Quote:

And I do like the grow up comment - it's especially hilarious coming from one that has shown little understanding of how the actual world works outside an academic setting.

According to you, but then according to you my car insurance should not be costing me less with time. According to you my Sun Life insurance should be going up in price too. Some people get wiser with age. What's your excuse?
 
CDNBear
+1
#477
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Maybe you shouldn't snip most of my posts in order to give the false illusion that you "PWNed" me.

I didn't snip anything. Point out how I snipped your posts to give this false illusion you now claim.

Quote:

While I don't personally feel you are dishonest, if you were, I would take full responsibility for it given your admitted disadvantaged position and my status as a Canadian.

While you're at it, maybe you could show where I admitted that.

Although I have no doubt, we'll all see you do everything and anything but. I blame your admitted stupidity.
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 18th, 2012 at 08:32 AM..
 
Cannuck
-1
#478
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I didn't snip anything. Point out how I snipped your posts to give this false illusion you now claim.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear
It is.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck
No it isn't...
And unfortunately for you, birth control is as easily and cheaply available to women as it is to men.
What was actually posted was...

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No it isn't, unless you only consider condoms which are not as effective .....

Apology accepted.

I know you won't publicly apologize for your dishonest and disrespectful behavior so PM me again if you wish to. I know how difficult it is for an egotistical blowhard such as your self to admit your failures. I do accept my role in that though. I am above all else, a Canadian and take full responsibility for your admitted situation.
 
CDNBear
#479
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

It is.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck
No it isn't...
And unfortunately for you, birth control is as easily and cheaply available to women as it is to men.
What was actually posted was...



Apology accepted.

I know you won't publicly apologize for your dishonest and disrespectful behavior so PM me again if you wish to. I know how difficult it is for an egotistical blowhard such as your self to admit your failures. I do accept my role in that though. I am above all else, a Canadian and take full responsibility for your admitted situation.

Oh, you mean where you moved the goalposts, to look right.

Ya, I often have to weed the useless shyte out of you fallacy filled posts. It's not as if I corrupted your post, like you do.

The point is, whether you use fallacy or not is, conception is available to women, as cheaply and easily as it is to men.

You just got ...



Again!

And you missed the proving your claims, that I've admitted to being disadvantaged.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Although I have no doubt, we'll all see you do everything and anything but. I blame your admitted stupidity.

I predicted all of this, as usual.
 
Cannuck
-1
#480
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Oh, you mean where you moved the goalposts, to look right.

No, I mean where you snipped my post. Trying to shift the focus onto somebody else in a feeble attempt to divert attention away from yourself never works you know. You really need to man up and accept what your admitted disadvantaged position is doing to you. It is the only way you can help yourself (I know, I know...helping yourself isn't something you are big on but hey...that's what I'm here for)
 

Similar Threads

217
Rush Limbaugh's ratings fall
by Icarus27k | Sep 21st, 2016
68
Rush LImbaugh's new conspiracy theory
by Tonington | May 4th, 2010
7
Oi, get the message!
by Blackleaf | Feb 8th, 2006
7
A Canada Day Message
by bluealberta | Jul 6th, 2005
no new posts