Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'


bluebyrd35
#241
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

... And you would be equally supportive if the gvt had planned to mandate religious ideals on the entire population 'for their own good'?

Careful what you wish for



This says a lot. Fluke targeted a school that did not meet her individual needs but chose it for the opportunity to push her agenda.

The way I see it, she chose her agenda ahead of both her education and well being.




Apparently the sex isn't any good unless they are gvt issued Trojans.

Maybe Fluke has some weird kink that she fantasies about screwing the gvt on their own dime

You've got that backwards. She first chose the University that met her educational needs, and had to accept inadequate insurance coverage. Remember , employees & students pay for this coverage, through salaries & tuition fees.

Fluke was the only witness who was gutsy enough to address the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee to plead a case in support of an Obama administration regulation requiring health insurance plans, including those offered by Catholic universities, to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives and sterilizations...

You see it screwing the gvt. on their own dime, but many see it as presenting the views of one woman's experiences of a particular situation on behalf of the recipients of a particular health insurance plan.

The fact is, what she is asking for, is some say in how her money is used in providing a product.
 
captain morgan
+1
#242
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

If she made the choice then why the push to have the government intervene?


Apparently Fluke's moral standard needs to be applied to everyone regardless of their beliefs.
 
Colpy
#243
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post




Fluke spoke to this in her testimony, and she did factor in the insurance coverage. She chose to place education ahead of the insurance plan.

Then she needs to STFU.
 
coldstream
#244
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Clearly you are ignorant of the Winnipeg Agreement.

I wish to hell those purporting to speak on behalf of their Church knew something about it.

I have never heard of it, and if it states that it has the right to supercede the moral authority of the Holy Pontiff and the Church's Magisterium (bishops).. then it is nothing but the ranting of renegades and heretics. It was probably an output of one of the feminist dominated rebel groups like Voice of the Faithful that continually attack the church. If a bishop or a priest supported this he would face de-frocking and ex-communication.

Quote:

The Winnipeg Statement leaves the question of contraception up to the conscience of individual Catholics in Canada. It has never been rescinded. You know that the vast majority (approaching 98%; references on request) of Canadian Catholics follow their own conscience by practising birth control. Why are you supporting Coldstream's ultra-conservative position?

As i said, some organization that is a shill for feminists or other New Age organizations.. they're everywhere in our modern world. The percentage of practicing Catholics who respect the Church's teachings on birth control is much higher than 2 %, but there are a significant group that ignore it. But they are still in contravention of the Church's teachings.
Last edited by coldstream; Mar 8th, 2012 at 12:59 PM..
 
Locutus
+1
#245
 
Tonington
+1
#246
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Then she needs to STFU.

That's Bull $hit Colpy. She made her choice, and that means what? She can't have an opinion now on a proposed rule change? Is that what it comes down to with you? Shut her down, tell her to shut her mouth because she made a choice? She shouldn't voice support for recommendations made by medical experts on how to prevent illness and lower long-term healthcare costs, because she chose to go to a Catholic university?

That is retarded, literally retarded.
 
Spade
+1
#247
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

I have never heard of it, and if it states that it has the right to supercede the moral authority of the Holy Pontiff and the Church's Magisterium (bishops).. then it is nothing but the ranting of renegades and heretics. It was probably an output of one of the feminist dominated rebel groups like Voice of the Faithful that continually attack the church. If a bishop or a priest supported this he would face de-frocking and ex-communication.



As i said, some organization that is a shill for feminists or other New Age organizations.. they're everywhere in our modern world. The percentage of practicing Catholics who respect the Church's teachings on birth control is much higher than 2 %, but there are a significant group that ignore it. But they are still in contravention of the Church's teachings.

It was a statement by the Canadian Council of Bishops. For xrist sake, read it!

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That's Bull $hit Colpy. She made her choice, and that means what? She can't have an opinion now on a proposed rule change? Is that what it comes down to with you? Shut her down, tell her to shut her mouth because she made a choice? She shouldn't voice support for recommendations made by medical experts on how to prevent illness and lower long-term healthcare costs, because she chose to go to a Catholic university?

That is retarded, literally retarded.

Retarded is the mild assessment.
 
Tonington
+1
#248
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

... And you would be equally supportive if the gvt had planned to mandate religious ideals on the entire population 'for their own good'?

Nope. The government in the US shall make no laws regarding the establishment of any religion...but they can legitimately make laws that conflict with beliefs and ideals. Depending on which Muslim leader you ask, honour killings are perfectly acceptable. Though US law would put them in jail for it. There's all kinds of religious beliefs and ideals that don't square with US law. That's kind of one of the founding principles of the US, that no one religion will impose it's will on anybody.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

When we are talking about a tenet that is NOT detrimental to any ones person........ yes it is.

So, how is a women's contraception detrimental to any other person Gerry?

Quote:

This says a lot. Fluke targeted a school that did not meet her individual needs but chose it for the opportunity to push her agenda.

Speculation. Georgetown is a highly ranked school. In the top 15 law schools in the US, and the number one ranked when it comes to clinical training. That is to say that law students at Georgetown have the best training when it comes to interviewing, counseling, and advising clients.

Someone for sure is pushing an agenda...maybe her agenda was to fight for change. So what?
 
gerryh
+1
#249
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That's Bull $hit Colpy. She made her choice, and that means what? She can't have an opinion now on a proposed rule change? Is that what it comes down to with you? Shut her down, tell her to shut her mouth because she made a choice? She shouldn't voice support for recommendations made by medical experts on how to prevent illness and lower long-term healthcare costs, because she chose to go to a Catholic university?

That is retarded, literally retarded.

She went to a Catholic University KNOWING that the Catholic faith does not allow contraceptive medications for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. Contraceptive medication for the treatment of illnesses IS allowed and IS covered by the medical plan.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Nope. The government in the US shall make no laws regarding the establishment of any religion...but they can legitimately make laws that conflict with beliefs and ideals. Depending on which Muslim leader you ask, honour killings are perfectly acceptable. Though US law would put them in jail for it. There's all kinds of religious beliefs and ideals that don't square with US law. That's kind of one of the founding principles of the US, that no one religion will impose it's will on anybody.

Equating contraception with honour killings shows who is the "retarded" one (your words).


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So, how is a women's contraception detrimental to any other person Gerry?

It isn't, and neither is not having it covered under a medical plan. There are other ways of preventing pregnancy besides the use of contraceptives only available through a doctor. Ever here of abstinence?


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Speculation. Georgetown is a highly ranked school. In the top 15 law schools in the US, and the number one ranked when it comes to clinical training. That is to say that law students at Georgetown have the best training when it comes to interviewing, counseling, and advising clients.

Someone for sure is pushing an agenda...maybe her agenda was to fight for change. So what?


IF, she is Catholic, she can fight that fight through her parish Priest, her Bishop, or even petition the Holy See. THAT is where she should be asking for the change. NOT asking the government to meddle in the moral prerogatives of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. If she is NOT Catholic, then it is none of her business and she should find herself another school.
 
Tonington
#250
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Contraceptive medication for the treatment of illnesses IS allowed and IS covered by the medical plan.

Not always.

Quote:

Equating contraception with honour killings shows who is the "retarded" one (your words).

Come now, I was using honour killings as juxtaposition. You yourself said it's fine for the government to interfere with religious practices that harm others.

And as for the 'retarded' comment, I said literal because I meant the definition that is synonymous with hindering, not the prejorative which used to refer to lacking mental development. Telling someone that they should keep their mouth shut is literally hindering debate. This is a debatable subject, and one that will probably be debated eventually in the Supreme Court.

Quote:

IF, she is Catholic, she can fight that fight through her parish Priest, her Bishop, or even petition the Holy See. THAT is where she should be asking for the change. NOT asking the government to meddle in the moral prerogatives of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The government was asked by Sandra Fluke? Wow, she has good connections apparently...maybe she did ask, and again, so what? The bill 'meddles' with nearly any insurance plan, not just the Catholics.
 
gerryh
#251
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Not always.

If a drug request was turned down, it was turned down by the insurance company, NOT the university. The fight would be with the insurer in that case.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Come now, I was using honour killings as juxtaposition. You yourself said it's fine for the government to interfere with religious practices that harm others.

and disallowing contraceptives for the purpose of preventing pregnancy does not harm others.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post


The government was asked by Sandra Fluke? Wow, she has good connections apparently...maybe she did ask, and again, so what? The bill 'meddles' with nearly any insurance plan, not just the Catholics.

Oh, she wasn't there asking for contraceptives to be included in the insurance policy? What exactly WAS she there for then?
 
Tonington
#252
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

If a drug request was turned down, it was turned down by the insurance company, NOT the university.

You can't possibly know that. Further, Fluke's own testimony accuses the school of being actively involved in her friends case.
Quote:

and disallowing contraceptives for the purpose of preventing pregnancy does not harm others.

Is that your faith, or your medical training talking?
 
damngrumpy
#253
Some interesting things come to light here, fir of all Rush who is offensive and abrasive and
outgoing is really a small insecure man inside. Almost all negative and really in your face
have similar problems. being negative isn't the problem the problem comes when these folks
attempt to drag everyone else down with them. On the other hand there are those who have
become feminazis as it were. They have pulled the choke rope to the other end of the scale
and have become totally defensive and negative to anyone who does not see their point of
view. The same rule applies many feel very insecure inside that is why there can be no room
for compromise.
Religion has the same people gathered round within its structure. No ours is the only way to
heaven and if you think differently than I do you will not be going to heaven. Little do these
folks know, the people who think differently don't want to go to a heaven filled with narrow minded
people who are negative about everything.
Over and over I have heard the left and the right make is a political spectrum issue, this is no a
political issue it is a behavioral issue and its an issue with those who can't find themselves inside.
There are dogmatic and insecure, immature people who have no affiliation to politics it is said somewhere
that mean people are just....mean.
The political divide is not about compromise or the refusal to compromise, it is really about societies
inability to elect well balanced people who seek solutions, instead we elect flamboyant children who
are more about themselves and their insecure baggage. If we don't elect them, we then make them
talk show hosts who can tell the world just how much they don't know about everything.
As once said it is better to be quiet and people think you know nothing than to open your mouth and
remove all doubt.
 
gerryh
#254
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post


Is that your faith, or your medical training talking?


Then you tell me how not having access to the "pill" or IUD's etc is detrimental to a woman's health, keep in mind that abstinence is always an option for the "unwed".

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Some interesting things come to light here, fir of all Rush who is offensive and abrasive and
outgoing is really a small insecure man inside. Almost all negative and really in your face
have similar problems. being negative isn't the problem the problem comes when these folks
attempt to drag everyone else down with them. On the other hand there are those who have
become feminazis as it were. They have pulled the choke rope to the other end of the scale
and have become totally defensive and negative to anyone who does not see their point of
view. The same rule applies many feel very insecure inside that is why there can be no room
for compromise.
Religion has the same people gathered round within its structure. No ours is the only way to
heaven and if you think differently than I do you will not be going to heaven. Little do these
folks know, the people who think differently don't want to go to a heaven filled with narrow minded
people who are negative about everything.
Over and over I have heard the left and the right make is a political spectrum issue, this is no a
political issue it is a behavioral issue and its an issue with those who can't find themselves inside.
There are dogmatic and insecure, immature people who have no affiliation to politics it is said somewhere
that mean people are just....mean.
The political divide is not about compromise or the refusal to compromise, it is really about societies
inability to elect well balanced people who seek solutions, instead we elect flamboyant children who
are more about themselves and their insecure baggage. If we don't elect them, we then make them
talk show hosts who can tell the world just how much they don't know about everything.
As once said it is better to be quiet and people think you know nothing than to open your mouth and
remove all doubt.


and in all of that blather you have not addressed the fact that the government is trying to meddle in the Church's business.
 
Tonington
#255
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Then you tell me how not having access to the "pill" or IUD's etc is detrimental to a woman's health, keep in mind that abstinence is always an option for the "unwed".

No, I won't keep abstinence in mind because nobody should have their health options limited based on another person's religious beliefs...

Not being an expert at much of anything, I consult expert opinions. So my advice is to read:
Report Brief - Institute of Medicine (external - login to view)
 
Cannuck
#256
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and in all of that blather you have not addressed the fact that the government is trying to meddle in the Church's business.

Should the government meddle in Muslim's business when it comes to Sharia Law?
 
gerryh
#257
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No, I won't keep abstinence in mind because nobody should have their health options limited based on another person's religious beliefs...


IT'S A CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. IF ANYONE CHOOSES TO GO THERE THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED AND WILLING TO FOLLOW CATHOLIC RULES. THEY ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO ATTEND SAID SCHOOL.


You do, of course, realize that having sex period is a health hazard. You run the risk of contracting any number of venereal diseases. Abstinence is the only 100% effective way of preventing these diseases and pregnancy. Now, you tell me, how is that a bad thing.
 
Tonington
#258
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

IT'S A CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. IF ANYONE CHOOSES TO GO THERE THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED AND WILLING TO FOLLOW CATHOLIC RULES. THEY ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO ATTEND SAID SCHOOL.

Ahh, so damn the health impacts from the contraceptive pill. It's a Catholic school anyways. I didn't think you would actually care about their health.

Yes, she could have gone to a non-Catholic school, and this Act still would have been passed, and this lame talking point about her being a student at a Catholic school would be beyond irrelevant.

Quote:

You do, of course, realize that having sex period is a health hazard.

And it also has benefits, besides potentially creating another human. Do you realize that?

Go read the report.
 
Icarus27k
#259
Rush Limbaugh’s advertising exodus (external - login to view) is deep into its second week, and despite the radio host’s claim (external - login to view) that the impact of 50 companies pulling their business has been negligible, listeners in the nation’s largest media market were treated to over five minutes of radio silence where Limbaugh’s advertisers once stood today.

There were four separate instances during this afternoon’s broadcast on WABC 770 AM in New York City where the network fell silent. During the lead in to the show, two and a half minutes of silence was broken up by a single, solitary ad before Limbaugh hit the air. Then, towards the end of the first hour of Limbaugh’s three hour program, a public service announcement was followed by an additional minute of silence before Limbaugh returned. Another minute of dead air came in hour two, and a fifth minute in hour three followed that. A spokesperson for WABC wouldn’t say whether the silence was caused due to a technical glitch or Limbaugh’s fleeing sponsors.


As Media Matters reports (external - login to view), of the 86 ads that made it on the air today, 77 of them were free public service announcements donated by the Ad Council. An additional seven ads were from companies that are in the process of pulling their spots from the show, leaving just two ads during the entire three hour broadcast that were purposefully paid to appear during the program.


Rush Limbaugh's Show Airs Over 5 Minutes Of Dead Air As Ad Boycott Continues (external - login to view)
 
gerryh
#260
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Ahh, so damn the health impacts from the contraceptive pill. It's a Catholic school anyways. I didn't think you would actually care about their health.

Yes, she could have gone to a non-Catholic school, and this Act still would have been passed, and this lame talking point about her being a student at a Catholic school would be beyond irrelevant.



And it also has benefits, besides potentially creating another human. Do you realize that?

Go read the report.


Sorry, the report does not support your contentions. Read your link, read the recommendations.


and if this act IS passed with the ability to impinge on the Catholic Church's rights, it is one more reason for me to place the u.s. where I have placed them.
 
TenPenny
#261
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

She went to a Catholic University KNOWING that the Catholic faith does not allow contraceptive medications for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. Contraceptive medication for the treatment of illnesses IS allowed and IS covered by the medical plan.

What's their reasoning for covering Viagra and Cialis, I wonder?
 
gerryh
#262
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

What's their reasoning for covering Viagra and Cialis, I wonder?


Viagra and cialis are not contraceptives.
 
Colpy
+1
#263
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That's Bull $hit Colpy. She made her choice, and that means what? She can't have an opinion now on a proposed rule change? Is that what it comes down to with you? Shut her down, tell her to shut her mouth because she made a choice? She shouldn't voice support for recommendations made by medical experts on how to prevent illness and lower long-term healthcare costs, because she chose to go to a Catholic university?

That is retarded, literally retarded.

Let me put it to you this way:

I am a believer in the advantages of government supported health care.........it has literally saved my life.

However it is increasingly used not to provide for the needs of the citizenry, but as an excuse to interfere with their freedom of choice (in Canada)........and now their freedom of religion (in the USA). And yes, to tell a Catholic institution they must provide for contraception and morning after pills IS interfering with legitimate religious freedom.

And if government health care is to be used as a cudgel with which to beat us all into line.....I say dump it, do away with it....down with health care!

This idiot woman made a choice, she said so herself. She sacrificed one thing for another.......good for her.

Now she should quit whinning about the need to destroy the religious foundations of the institution she chose to provide her with the best possible education....

She needs to STFU and buy her own pills.....
 
Tonington
+1
#264
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Sorry, the report does not support your contentions. Read your link, read the recommendations.

What are my contentions Gerry? As for the report:
Quote:

The IOM defined preventive health services as measures—including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling—shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition.

And that included...access to contraceptives, which was recommendation 5.5 for Preventative Health Care Services for Women that Should be Considered by the US Department of Health and Human Services: The full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.

Dig a little further, or take your Cardinal tinted glasses off...
 
gerryh
#265
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

What are my contentions Gerry? As for the report:


And that included...access to contraceptives, which was recommendation 5.5 for Preventative Health Care Services for Women that Should be Considered by the US Department of Health and Human Services: The full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.

Dig a little further, or take your Cardinal tinted glasses off...


The contraceptives are to prevent pregnancy...that's it... that's what we are talking about. I know some purport that pregnancy is a disease and that the baby is nothing more than a benign growth, I and the Catholic Church do not look at pregnancy in that way.

Like Colpy says, she wants contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, go buy rubbers. I'll also suggest spermicidal jelly for an added precaution. OR, she can put all her energy into getting her education rather than splitting it between education and getting laid.

Oh, and BTW, it was Pope Paul VI, not a Cardinal that wrote the HUMANAE VITAE (On The Regulation Of Birth).
 
bluebyrd35
#266
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Apparently Fluke's moral standard needs to be applied to everyone regardless of their beliefs.

Rather a silly comment. It is the insurance company and University that are applying their moral standards to all Christians, Catholic or not. She wants the option provided in the insurance policies, that the students & employees pay for, not the insurance company nor the University. Viagra is subsidized but not every man needs to take advantage of it.

Most Catholics of child bearing age, ( between 97, 98%) use birthcontrol. So exactly who's moral standards are being forced on students and employees in this case??, not Sandra Fluke's.

If one buys car insurance, the one paying the premium gets to choose the options they wish to pay for as a group. What if those doing the dickering for the group are hasidic Jews rather than one of the many other Jewish groups?? Do those Hasidic Jews have the right to forbid pay outs on accidents occurring on the Sabbeth to all Jews, Christians or non-believers in the group? Bet your life they don't. There would be the greatest uproar. However, the control of women's uteruses seems to be an obsession of many here.
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Mar 8th, 2012 at 09:39 PM..
 
gerryh
#267
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Rather a silly comment. It is the insurance company and University that are applying their moral standards to all Christians, Catholic or not. She wants the option provided in the insurance policies, that the students & employees pay for, not the insurance company nor the University. Viagra is subsided but not every man needs to take advantage of it. Most Catholics of child bearing age, ( between 97, 98%) use birthcontrol. So exactly who's moral standards are being forced on students and employees in this case??, not Sandra Fluke's.

If one buys car insurance, the one paying the premium gets to choose the options they wish to pay for as a group. What if those doing the dickering for the group are hasidic Jews rather than one of the many other Jewish groups?? Do those Hasidic Jews have the right to forbid pay outs on accidents occurring on the Sabbeth to all Jews, Christians or non-believers in the group? Bet your life they don't. There would be the greatest uproar. However, the control of women's uteruses seems to be an obsession of many here.


I know she can't see this.....but..... are you fu cking stupid??????????????? It's a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY. Not a non denominational, or some other Christian sect, or Hasidic Jew, It's CATHOLIC! You want to go to a Catholic school, then you play by the Catholic rules.
 
Tonington
#268
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

And yes, to tell a Catholic institution they must provide for contraception and morning after pills IS interfering with legitimate religious freedom.

Your opinion, which apparently is unaware of a few things. Religious freedom is not absolute. The US cannot makes laws against beliefs, but they can against the practices. Nobody is forced to give up their religious belief that contraception is wrong. The US has banned polygamy, which some early Mormons unsuccessfully challenged. Anyone can hold that belief that polygamy is OK, the practice however is not.

As said many times already, there is a long list of beliefs that adherents to various religions cannot actually practice.

Having an employee or student with an insurance policy that includes contraceptive medicine will not inhibit anyone from believing anything. The law would prevent them from denying employees and students access to approved healthcare.

Quote:

And if government health care is to be used as a cudgel with which to beat us all into line.....I say dump it, do away with it....down with health care!

Beat into line...you do love the drama don't you? The vast majority of women use contraceptive pills, because it offers a number of health benefits, besides just preventing ovulation. It's a bona fide health benefit that should be at the discretion of a Doctor and their patient. Further, there is significant scientific evidence that birth control such as the oral contraceptive pill, offers a benefit for women's health. It significantly reduces healthcare costs.

Quote:

This idiot woman made a choice, she said so herself.

Yeah, irrelevant. Things change. She should speak up if that's what she believes.

Quote:

Now she should quit whinning about the need to destroy the religious foundations of the institution she chose to provide her with the best possible education....

More drama...jesus you're worse than the politicians in Ottawa.

Quote:

She needs to STFU and buy her own pills.....

She doesn't need to do anything that she isn't already doing. That's a celebrated part of American democracy. She certainly doesn't need your advice. She's promoting preventative medicine...
 
gerryh
#269
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post


The vast majority of women use contraceptive pills, because it offers a number of health benefits, besides just preventing ovulation. It's a bona fide health benefit that should be at the discretion of a Doctor and their patient. Further, there is significant scientific evidence that birth control such as the oral contraceptive pill, offers a benefit for women's health. It significantly reduces healthcare costs.


Still waiting for you to prove this assertion that you have bolded this time.
 
bluebyrd35
#270
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Let me put it to you this way:

I am a believer in the advantages of government supported health care.........it has literally saved my life.

However it is increasingly used not to provide for the needs of the citizenry, but as an excuse to interfere with their freedom of choice (in Canada)........and now their freedom of religion (in the USA). And yes, to tell a Catholic institution they must provide for contraception and morning after pills IS interfering with legitimate religious freedom.

And if government health care is to be used as a cudgel with which to beat us all into line.....I say dump it, do away with it....down with health care!

This idiot woman made a choice, she said so herself. She sacrificed one thing for another.......good for her.

Now she should quit whinning about the need to destroy the religious foundations of the institution she chose to provide her with the best possible education....

She needs to STFU and buy her own pills.....

What bullcrap you spout. Religious freedom is the right to pratice a religion,it is not about inflicting a particular belief on anyone else. So perhaps, since you are not of child-bearing age, nor female, you should follow your own advice and STFU.
 

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