Despite Sandra Fluke’s Plea Before Congress – Georgetown Will Not Pay For $9 a Month Birth Control Pills

Georgetown women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke went before a Congressional panel last month to demand free birth control pills. The Target up the road from her school sells the pill for $9 a month.

But before she went before Congressional leaders to demand $9 a month birth control, she took a lavish trip to Europe with her boyfriend.

Here the two lovebirds are roughing it late at night in Barcelona – drunk.

Despite her public plea before Congress, Georgetown University released a statement this week that said the university will still not pay for a student’s $9 a month birth control pills.
The Huffington Post reported:

Georgetown University’s health insurance received national attention after Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke attempted to testify about it in front of a congressional committee.

But despite the uproar that resulted — Fluke was denied a chance to speak, then called a “slut” by radio show host Rush Limbaugh — Georgetown announced Thursday that it wouldn’t make any changes to its contraception coverage.

“After thoughtful and careful consideration, we will continue our current practice for contraceptive coverage in our student health insurance for the coming year, as allowed for under the current rules issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services,” wrote Georgetown President John DeGioia in a release to the university.

Under its current practice, Georgetown, which is a Jesuit university, denies students coverage for contraception if it is used for birth control. DeGioia said that Thursday’s decision was “consistent with our Catholic and Jesuit identity,” echoing commentary by conservatives who have termed the battle over contraception coverage a religious freedom issue.

The statement mentioned that the current policy “does provide coverage for these prescriptions for students who require them for health reasons unrelated to birth control, as determined by a physician.” But much of Fluke’s testimony centered around the difficulties of Georgetown students in receiving such exemptions even when medical needs demanded they use birth control.

Miss Fluke announced her engagement this week. Maybe her boyfriend will be able to pay for her $9 a month birth control pills now.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • FU#K OBAMA

    Romneycare funded abortions for only $50. If Obama jr wins there is nothing to worry about Ms. Fluke.

  • Kate

    I really don’t think it helps the cause of those who want everything free from the government to have an arrogant, rich nimrod as their spokesperson. Gee, these socialists are truly stuck on stupid.

  • Pingback: Despite Sandra Fluke’s Plea Before Congress – Georgetown Will Not Pay For $9 a Month Birth Control Pills()

  • Pingback: Despite Sandra Fluke’s Plea Before Congress – Georgetown Will Not Pay For $9 a Month Birth Control Pills | Born Conservative()

  • dunce

    For the safety of the gene pool maybe we should pay to have her tubes tied as a precaution.

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    Fluke’s testimony was exclusively about women who need the hormonal adjustments caused by birth control for non-birth-control reasons. E.g., the woman who would have been absolutely fine had she been able to afford birth control, but ended up needing surgery to fix damage to her ovaries caused by a hormonal imbalance. The fact that Fluke herself is rich is immaterial. The fact that “Walmart sells $9 birth control” is immaterial, because that generic stuff does not have the requisite hormonal doses necessary to treat non-birth-control problems.

  • I hope she doesn’t expect us to pay for the wedding.

    #1 Before you lay all the blame for “Romneycare” at Romney’s feet, I invite you to consider this:

    http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/04/13/deval-patricks-romneycare/

    Romney may not be the ideal candidate, but it seems he deserves some more credit than he gets (and no matter what, he would be far better than the current occupant of the White House).

  • Me

    So in other words nothing changed. To Huffpo that = news. The left are quite a humorous herd to observe.

  • anti-bho

    But the fact that she wants something for nothing is NOT immaterial.
    Let her pay for the upkeep of her own playground.

  • Pingback: Despite Sandra Fluke’s Plea Before Congress – Georgetown Will Not Pay For $9 a Month Birth Control Pills|Politifreak()

  • FU#K OBAMA

    #7 you can stop drinking the RINO koolaide:

    More on Obama Jr, aka Mittens:

    http://fathersymeon.blogspot.com/2012/04/mitt-romney-socialist.html#!/2012/04/mitt-romney-socialist.html

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    #9

    Have you even read her testimony?

    She says “this policy prevents women who need contraception pills for non-contraception reasons from getting them.”

    Frankly, the inability of people to understand English sentences is alarming. English should be the national language! And when someone says “women who need birth control for non-reproductive reasons aren’t getting it,” that’s what they mean.

    Viagra is sometimes used as a heart medication (indeed, that’s what it was originally developed to treat). If God forbid a member of your family had a heart condition, and they couldn’t get the medicine they needed because the insurance plan said “We don’t cover that medication because it’s used for sex,” how would you feel? Happy that you’re not getting “something for nothing”? Or incredibly angry and upset about people applying moralistic standards where they clearly don’t apply?

  • dba…vagabond trader

    Doesn’t matter, it is no longer about affording BC, as cheap as it is. It is all about a free stuff “I’m special” entitlement mentality our schools are obviously instilling in the kiddies.

  • Pingback: Despite Sandra Fluke’s Plea Before Congress – Georgetown Will Not Pay For $9 a Month Birth Control Pills | Liberal Whoppers()

  • bg
  • SmallBusinessOwner

    #13

    As per my earlier comment, the $9 stuff doesn’t have enough of the hormones necessary to effectively treat the non-reproductive conditions that birth control is prescribed for.

    That stuff runs around $100/dose.

    I find this really, really curious. Fluke’s testimony said, in plain English, “if birth control is not covered by insurance, women can’t afford the birth control necessary to treat non-reproductive problems.” I said, in plain English, “the $9 stuff from Walmart does not have the requisite hormonal doses necessary to treat non-birth-control problems.”

    Now either people can’t read English, in which case learn the national language or get out. Or, people don’t care about the actual substance of this issue and just want to use it as an excuse to rail against their ideological enemies.

    Which, if you want, fine, free country. But do everyone the courtesy of stating up front “I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE AND AM ONLY USING IT AS AN EXCUSE TO RAIL AGAINT IDEOLOGICAL ENEMIES.”

  • Nunya

    @smallbusinessowner

    You are in no position to comment on the ability of others to read English. Georgetown’s policy prohibits contraception coverage ONLY for the purpose of birth control. Women who needed coverage for reasons other than birth control, e.g., hormonal imbalances, are NOT affected by Georgetown’s policy.

    Fluke’s “friend with ovarian cysts,” if such friend exists, had an issue with the insurance provider, not with Georgetown. There aren’t enough facts on the table to know whether said friend exists, and if so why said friend may have been denied coverage by the insurance company. But Georgetown’s policy was NOT the reason coverage was denied.

    And Jim, Fluke did not go before a Congressional Panel. It was a staged media event by the Democratic party, a trap into which Rush Limbaugh stepped.

    Facts are stubborn things.

  • FurryGuy

    #12 April 27, 2012 at 11:04 am
    SmallBusinessOwner commented:

    She didn’t didn’t testify before Congress, she gave hper-partisan talking points at a press conference.

    Just because she said something doesn’t automatically give credence to her words. Her reasons for wanting to become a student at Georgetown spin any credibility she might have had as her being the point for pushing an agenda, and you swallowed the lie whole. Her actions after the media event simply reinforce the whole mess was propaganda.

  • Patty

    The event–billed as “A Conversation with Sandra Fluke on Contraception Access”–was closed to “outside press” and to the public. I’m not surprised they tried to keep it secret…they know very well that they are wrong.

  • Patty

    OT

    Obama Gives Out Home Addresses Of Romney Donors, Asks People To Burn Down Their Houses

    http://patdollard.com/2012/04/obama-gives-out-home-addresses-of-romney-donors-asks-people-to-burn-down-their-houses/

  • Patty

    OT…..#20 continued

    Not quite – real headline: Obama Wages War On Romney Donors – but it’s just about the next step after this unprecedented and vicious attack on private, law-abiding U.S. citizens by the alleged POTUS himself…

    Excerpted from The Wall Street Journal: Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

    Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

    Are you worried?

    Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

    Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

    These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    Nunya,

    The insurance company looks to deny coverage because that’s what Georgetown wants. It’s because of the Georgetown policy that their insurance provider investigates birth control use. These people wouldn’t be denied the health care they need if not for Georgetown’s policy. Additionally, Georgetown provides its own denial of noncontraceptive uses of birth control by interrogating people who come into the University clinic. Georgetown is entirely at fault here.

    As for her whether her friend “really exists”: for pete’s sake. I hope you bring that same level of scrutiny for other sources of information you think you have reason to doubt (eg, Fox News). But it doesn’t really matter for her argument, because this is a real phenomenon. Google Kimberly Dudley, for starters.

    Furryguy,

    It wasn’t her fault her testimony wasn’t in front of a Congressional subcommittee. She wanted it entered into the Congressional record. That aside, what did she say that was inaccurate?

    Just in general,

    I hope everyone of whatever ideological or religious affiliation can appreciate the larger point that non-contraceptive uses of birth control need to be covered by insurance. Many states don’t currently require them to be.

  • tommy mc donnell

    if someone else has to pay for it, its not for free!

  • tommy mc donnell

    #20…would one of those “less than reputable” romney donors be jon corzine?

  • bg

    ++

    eh, the following fits in here as well..

    “Democrats Have One Mission in Life: to Abort Children”

    you don’t understand their mind set, you see..

    FOR MOTHER GAIA TO SURVIVE AND ASSURE THEIR HEIRS GODLY RULE OVER PLANET EARTH, THE KILLING OF UNNECESSARY FUTURE LIFE IS A NECESSARY EVIL.. (scroll thread & click for much more)

    [you = generic]

    ==

  • FurryGuy

    #22 April 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    a whiny jackass brayed:

    Yes, her “testimony” was absolutely inaccurate and totally one-sided. Her whole goal was to forward an agenda, not fact-finding as a real Congressional hearing would have provided. She was a willing participant in a propaganda-driven sham from the start. She lied willfully about why she chose Georgetown so her credibility is nil and void. Her subsequent actions after the Progressive talking points press conference only give further credence to her utter duplicity and lack of character.

    You’re barking up the wrong tree if you think people will just roll over and play dead with you citing lies as facts. You are going to get as soundly thumped for prevarication as Ms. Fluke deservedly was.

  • Nana

    Have you seen Oprah with no make up? That’s how Mooch looks like with no makeup.

  • Nana

    Opppsss…sorry folks, I am in wrong thread, too bad no edit button!

  • Tim in Cali

    It’s not a question of financing the contraception.Who’s going to pay for the “10 foot pole ” I’m going to need and the hazmat team to cleam me up after touching this ….thing.

  • TiminPhx

    Flash forward just a few years and there will be a huge deal going on because the Government isn’t paying for people’s “Medical Weed.”

    And the majority of those people will have it for stress. Said stress most likely wondering how they are going to pay off their ten cents-on-the-dollar, student loans.

  • Lenore

    I do not want to know what goes on in someone elses bedroom and
    I don’t want to pay for it either. Privacy and personal responsibility.

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    Furryguy,

    She was going to read the same thing in front of Congress. She wanted to do it. The reason she didn’t is because of Issa.

    I still don’t see a refutation of any of the argument here. If contraception isn’t covered by insurance, people who need it for non-contraceptive reasons can’t get it. Google the numbers: nearly all people who take birth control do so for reasons in addition to contraception, and 15% of people (7.5 million in number) do so exclusively for non-contraceptive reasons. Why are you willing to condemn those people to unnecessary suffering? If you had a heart condition and needed Viagra, would you be happy or enraged that your insurance company didn’t provide coverage for it?

    Lenore,

    Hope it’s obvious the above applies to your concerns as well. Additionally, are you upset by the fact that Viagra is sometimes covered by insurance? If not, why not? If so, do you think that the people getting upset about contraception but not Viagra are hypocrites?

    TiminPhx,

    I’m not adverse to slippery slope arguments. But we’re not talking about people faking asymptomatic illnesses to get high, here. We’re talking about people having to get their reproductive systems yanked out because of a hormonal imbalance. It’s hard to see how steps to fix the latter problem are going to result in the former.

  • #11

    I am not RINO and, for the record, Romney was never my first choice. I am, however, a realist that accepts Romney is the only alternative we now have to Obama and will gladly embrace that alternative (just as I would gladly embrace any random name from the phone book over Obama). I would rather focus on beating Obama than sniping at our own side, hence my website.

    As Breitbart said in his CPAC speech, you are either in the trench fighting against them or you are on their side.

  • FurryGuy

    #32 April 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    a brain-dead idiot drooled:

    She said she would have testified, her word. Get it through your thick skull her credibility was nil because of her actions. The whole affair from start to finish was a sham, political agenda theater, and she was a willing participant in it all. Her entire purpose was being an agitator and “community organizer” and the Dems in Congress played along by giving her a soapbox to spew her lies.

    But why bother offering you FACTS since you so willfully will swallow any lie when it fits the agenda you want to push.

    Epic FAIL, dude. You need to give up, you are only beating air in your trolling.

  • donh

    Maybe this wannabe Margaret Sanger throw back flapper girl can get a job modelling Coca Cola…There should be some catchy jingle in there like Sandra Fluck… Thirst Asks Nothing More….The Pause that Refreshes…> http://www.icollector.com/images/1686/21566/21566_0059_1_lg.jpg

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    FurryGuy,

    If that’s your standard, then I guess we can’t trust anything Fox News or O’keefe ever tells us, because of the various manipulations they’ve done, right? Wrong. That’s ridiculous. We can judge their arguments for ourselves. As we can Fluke’s argument.

    But in any case, forget Fluke, ok? What part of “people who need contraception for non-reproductive purposes can’t get it and that situation needs to be rectified” do you disagree with?

  • SturJen

    Shall I, or Shouldn’t I? … Oh I Shall!
    I’m unable to have children now thanks to those birth control pills so easily prescribed for every female ailment given. As a young lady, I had issues with the monthly flow and went to the doctor. He prescribed those pills for ‘therapeutic’ use that SBO so touts. I paid for them myself. Yes, I am Catholic also, and the Church allows for such use because it was therapeutic.

    So, about 5 or so years later and the issues aren’t going away but getting worse, and all the Dr. does is a pap smear and a larger-dose bc pill. To this day I’m still trying to figure out how he missed that mass, but he did. Until that one day I doubled over with such intense pain that I thought I was going to die.

    You see, what my doctor failed to spot was that hormone-producing uterine tumor. That bc pill made it grow slower, yes. BUT it did eventually perforate the wall. A two hour operation and any hopes for children are gone. Oh I thought about suing the doc, suing those stupid bc pill manufacturers, but that’s not going to get me pregnant, will it?

    Those birth control pills …. I’m sick of hearing how great and wonderful they are. Every time some woman reports menstrual irregularities, they just shove that stupid case of pills at her and say that it will cure everything. It doesn’t. It sometimes makes things markedly worse. And now, instead of talking about the freedom of my religion NOT to pay for those things, we’re talking about giving them for free to every female from the age of 10 onward.

    I’m tired of hearing about these stupid effing pills. I’m tired of every freaking lib woman screeching like a harpy when someone even WHISPERS that they might not be good for them. I’m sick of every doctor thinking that those stupid pills ‘fix’ us. I’m not broken, and maybe I would still be able to have kids if it weren’t for that mind-set.

    Sorry to rant, but it’s personal for some of us ladies.

  • SmallBusinessOwner,

    What part of Target “sells the pill for $9 a month” don’t you understand?

  • Nunya

    @smallbusinessowner

    I think you are what Stalin referred to as a useful idiot.

    Everything in your response to me is pure conjecture. Fluke, a reproductive rights activist, read prepared “testimony” while conveniently not under oath to a sympathetic panel in a media event staged deliberately to confuse useful idiots like yourself into believing that it was testimony to a Congressional Panel. It wasn’t.

    You have no idea whether Fluke’s “friend” exists, whether she had ovarian cysts, whether her doctor confirmed this to the insurance company, or whether or why the insurance company denied the claim.

    The only fact on the table here is that Georgetown’s policy does NOT prohibit the prescription of contraceptive drugs for women who need them for reasons other than birth control. Yet you persist in blaming Georgetown. The mind boggles.

    If Fluke’s story is accurate, which I doubt, then her “friend” has an issue with the insurance company which denied the claim.

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    SturJen,

    I’m sorry to hear about your ordeal. (I hope I’m not out of line to say you’ll be in my prayers; I can’t imagine going through that myself). Thank you for writing about it, because I do think what you say is important: birth control pills are vastly overprescribed for certain symptoms. (Most medications are, actually, but obviously the consequences are rarely as severe as what you experienced.) And I completely agree with you that this is not being talked about nearly enough; in most every discussion on this issue – in the media, from government officials, in blogs, everywhere – the fact that birth control pills are not a panacea for irregular menstrual cycles, that other factors besides hormone imbalances may be causing them, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive account of reproductive health that the reliance on birth control masks, never gets mentioned.

    I’ll just note that the over-reliance on birth control doesn’t change the fact that millions of people have ailments (ovarian cysts, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, endometriosis, etc) for which birth control is an effective treatment, and sometimes the only treatment.

    Ryan,

    I won’t blame you for not reading previous comments, because the thread is kind of long, but this is now the third time I’ve said that the $9 birth control isn’t powerful enough to treat the ailments I list above.

    Nunya,

    I will blame you for not reading previous comments, because you posted early in the thread, but to re-iterate (and everything I’m about to write is a re-iteration):

    – Whether Fluke read her argument in front of a press conference or in front of a Congressional committee has no bearing on the merits of the argument. If you want to take this standard, then no Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute press conference can be believed, and no Fox News or O’keefe investigation can be trusted, either. Fluke’s argument stands or falls on its merits, not where it was enunciated.

    – On the merits: the policy of not believing anything that comes out of anyone’s mouth that isn’t analysis of anonymized data is a solid one, I guess, if not one that can possibly be adhered to. But let’s say we do. Let’s say we think every anecdote out of Fluke’s mouth is a lie. What follows? Does this mean that there aren’t millions of people for which birth control is an effective treatment of illnesses? Does this mean that no people are denied birth control for non-reproductive reasons? No. Fluke cited a survey carried out at Georgetown that found 20% of people who needed birth control for non-reproductive reasons weren’t re-imbursed for it. Don’t believe that survey? Great! Find evidence that it’s wrong. But until you do, you can’t possibly just blithely assume it’s not true, can you? If you can, how?

    – I don’t want this point to get lost: millions of people don’t even have the coverage that Georgetown promises, which is that non-reproductive uses of birth control get re-imbursed. Millions of people have coverage which outright denies reimbursement for non-reproductive uses of birth control. Now, is this fair? Does this make any sense, at all? Can there be a legitimate defense of that?

    – Finally, the issue of Georgetown’s culpability. Of course Georgetown is responsible. The reason the insurance company is not re-imbursing birth control is because Georgetown doesn’t want it to. That was the policy it wanted from its insurance company. And this is what you get when insurance companies look for reasons to exclude people from coverage. The insurance company looks to deny coverage because that’s what Georgetown wants. It’s because of the Georgetown policy that their insurance provider investigates birth control use. These people wouldn’t be denied the health care they need if not for Georgetown’s policy. Additionally, Georgetown provides its own denial of noncontraceptive uses of birth control by interrogating people who come into the University clinic and making mistakes there. Georgetown is entirely at fault here.

    Finally: this issue has been in the news for what, two months now? More? Think about the stuff I’ve said that you might not have known. That $9 Target birth control can’t treat the illnesses birth control gets prescribed for. That millions of women have these ailments which require non-reproductive uses of birth control. That millions of people have insurance plans which don’t provide re-imbursement for birth control as medical treatment.

    If you didn’t know any of that, maybe ask yourself why you didn’t, and think about if you’re being exposed to a wide-enough array of news sources.

  • tommy mc donnell

    #40…sen. john iselin had the democrats storm out of the hearing on some trumped charge about a hearing on contraception without women present. it was a hearing on the violation of religious freedom not contraception. sandra fluke would have a hard time testifying at a hearing on religious freedom when she doesn’t believe in it. if she did she never would have gone to georgetown for the reason she stated. she is another leftist oppressor of people with religious beliefs.

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    tommy mc donnell,

    Whether Fluke read her argument in front of a press conference or in front of a Congressional committee or in Switzerland has no bearing on the merits of the argument. If you want to take this standard, then no Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute press conference can be believed, and no Fox News or O’keefe investigation can be trusted, either. Fluke’s argument stands or falls on its merits, not where it was enunciated.

  • anti-bho

    digressing much, sbo?

  • bg

    ++

    re: #25 April 27, 2012 at 1:21 pm bg

    if the likes of Fluke are in the majority,
    this is looking better and better.. /s/

    ==

  • Beachluver

    Woo Hoo Georgetown…being a commie lib left wing institution……..you actually GREW A PAIR and did not cave to this IDIOT!!!! Hope Odumbo called to soothe her damaged EGO!!!! Well Done!!!!!

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    anti-bho,

    Not sure what you mean, since I just copied and pasted my earlier response to the same issue that tommy mc donnell raised. Isn’t that the opposite of digressing?

    If you mean “you’re trying to argue about the actual issue of people who need birth control for treating illnesses but can’t get reimbursed by their insurance company, instead of just saying what an evil rich atheist liberal snob Fluke is”, then, well . . . guilty, I guess. I don’t care if Fluke is a saint or a whore or if she chose to attend Georgetown in order to institute sharia once and for all. I care about people who get sick and can’t pay for their treatment.

  • bg
  • bg

    ++

    SmallBusinessOwner

    there are other Universities..

    if one cannot afford $9 a month for BC pills, then surely, irrespective
    of their religious beliefs, they cannot afford to attend such universities
    in the first place, yes, no??

    ==

  • bg

    ++

    history repeats itself..

    because we learn nothing..

    [But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. After all, did not Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao say that. . . . In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.

    What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state’s instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the family.]

    scroll for a bit more here..

    ==

  • Spike

    Sandra stick to your most probable expertise…bj’s no need for contacetive expenses

  • Spike

    Contraceptive, that is

  • tommy mc donnell

    #42…no matter how many times you try to change the subject, it was about religious freedom not contraception.

  • bg

    ++

    is the Obama mandate being forced upon Muslim Universities
    & Madrasas?? surely they have ill women who are in need of
    “contraception” coverage.. /s/

    ==

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    bg,

    This is now the fourth time I’ve addressed the $9 point. Those $9 birth control pills are not powerful enough to serve as treatment for illnesses. Pills which are powerful enough are around $100/month.

    With regard to “go to other universities”: this assumes that someone 1) got into other universities, 2) won’t face a significant drop-off in educational quality (which is highly likely, since it’s Georgetown) and 3) has the same kind of financial aid packages waiting for them at other universities. These concerns can’t just be shunted away with a glib “you’re free to go elsewhere.”

    So. You got into Georgetown! Congratulations. But, like most of America, you can’t pay for the $170,000 cost. So you take out loans, find what work you can, and you’re scraping buy and doing well in classes. Suddenly, you get an ovarian cyst, which is eminently treatable with $100/month birth control. Which the Georgetown insurance, that you paid for, covers. But, like 15% of Georgetown students who apply for non-reproductive uses of birth control, your claim for reimbursement is denied. Where do you get the money? You’re already working, you’ve already gotten all the loans/scholarships you can possibly get, you already tapped your parents. The hell do you do?

    To anyone who’s been reading all of this: I’ve had to make the same points over and over again and haven’t been engaged *at all* in the merits of the argument. Why is that? Why aren’t people actually making arguments as to why I’m wrong? Months after the issue was first raised?

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    tommy,

    I understand that Issa’s hearing was on religious freedom. I don’t care, because I don’t care about Fluke. She’s an atheist whore that wants to institute sharia, fine. I don’t care.

    What I do care about is – surprise! – what I’ve been talking about, which is: this policy has demonstrably large and negative public health effects. A large number of people have illnesses and ailments that birth control treats. This treatment is expensive to pay for out-of-pocket, but trivially inexpensive to insure. Why shouldn’t it be covered through insurance? This is the issue. Anything else is a distraction. What does it matter that some stupid snobn and Nancy Pelosi cooked up a way to heighten their press conference? Who gives a crap? There are millions of people who have serious ailments that are easy to treat, but they have to pay for treatments that are expensive out-of-pocket but extremely cheap to insure because insurance plans that cover viagra won’t cover their treatment. Why is this ok? Why are people focusing on some stupid press conference and drunken phone pics instead of this important public health issue?

  • tommy mc donnell

    just because sandra fake is a student at georgetown doesn’t mean she has to use the medical insurance georgetown university provides. if she doesn’t like the coverage purchase insurance with the type of coverage she wants. the same goes for her girl friend.

    the catholic church doesn’t belive what you believe. you are the typical liberal, you refuse to allow anyone to do anything that you don’t approve of, everyone should be forced by the government to do what you want. why shouldn’t the chuch be allowed to purchase the type of insurance it wants and other people be able to purchase the type of insurance they want? ans. because liberals are tyrants and oppressors and everyone should be forced to do what they want, and it they won’t do it then the government(the institution that was organized to serve us)should force them to do what liberal america wants.

  • tommy mc donnell

    #55…the condition your concerned about is covered by insurance, the church does not want to purchase that type of insurance because they feel it violates their religious convictions. the church not purchasing it does not stop you or anyone else from purchasing it. the tyrannical nature of the liberal does not allow for anyone to do anything except what the liberal wants and their insistence that someone else pay for what they want.

    who pays for what liberal america wants, the liberal or someone else, is the major bone of contention in american political life. and is the major threat to the freedom of the american people. to voluntary work for someone else is charity, to be forced to work for someone else is slavery.

  • SmallBusinessOwner

    tommy,

    Thanks for (kind of) engaging the actual argument.

    Ok. Georgetown says “here, students, this is the insurance coverage you are entitled to purchase as a student of Georgetown”, and then students purchase the insurance . . . when does the Catholic Church ever buy anything? They are not giving money to any entity. They are just selecting what insurance plan other individuals may purchase with their own money.

    How is the Catholic Church “being forced to purchase insurance?” What they are doing is preventing their students from purchasing a specific type of insurance.

    Now, this doesn’t make any sense. Because as you say, the Church doesn’t stop students from purchasing their own individual insurance policies that have contraception coverage. And they’re not purchasing anything when they tell students “this is the insurance coverage you may purchase as a student.” When do they purchase something? When is their religious liberty being curtailed? What Catholic doctrine or practice would be violated by requiring them to choose an insurance policy Georgetown students may purchase that covers birth control?

    Now, a student at Georgetown has a lot of limitations in just purchasing an individual plan outside of the university. The plans that insurance companies offer through universities are often cheaper, more convenient, and are the only ones that scholarship or financial aid money will pay for. In order to decide to purchase individual insurance outside of the university system, then, someone would have to have 1) the money to pay for a more expensive plan, 2) the time to go to an out-of-the-way place to get health care, and 3) the money to make up the contributions that scholarships/financial aid could have made to a university-selected plan but don’t make to an individual, unrelated plan. High hurdles to clear. And they would have to be made in anticipation of getting an illness or ailment that birth control could treat, since once people get it insurance companies only very rarely let them purchase insurance plans. So by saying “just buy another insurance plan”, you’re really saying “take on an incredible burden of time and money that could be more onerous than the out-of-pocket expense of $100/month birth control on the off-chance that you could someday need insurance to cover the $100/month birth control to treat an illness or ailment.” That’s not serious advice.

    Now, I’ve tried in my previous comments to illustrate how large of a public health issue this diseases and ailments that birth control is an effective treatment for are. Millions of people have them. The vast majority of people take birth control for non-reproductive reasons. It’s a big deal, is what I’m saying. And America has always always always made religious institutions conform to important issues regarding the public good. Mormons can’t be polygamist. Quakers have to pay taxes that fund wars. Christian Scientists have to pay taxes that fund hospitals. Etc. Now, this issue isn’t even close to being as contradictory to the Catholic faith as those respective issues are to those faiths. Because no-one is forcing Catholics to completely change their social structure, or to purchase something that is completely antithetical to their doctrine. All they’re being required to do is to allow their students to purchase insurance policies that cover treatment for a significant public health issue at very little cost to the insurer. There is no. way. that this doesn’t fall squarely into the long-established practice of requiring religions to contribute to the public good.

    Finally, I want to try and look at the larger picture of what the Catholic Church is doing. They’re not purchasing anything. They’re not being forced to buy anything. All they’re doing is selecting an insurance plan that students at a university can purchase with their own money by virtue of being students.

    Now, let’s try and construct an analogous situation: a religious institution has no other reason for denying a specific type of important service to a specific population, other than “it doesn’t want to.” It’s not being compelled to do something against their doctrine; they just don’t want to be associated with a certain group or act. Fair enough, that’s what’s happening here, right?

    So: can BYU just not admit black people? (Black people were officially, doctrinally, sanctioned by God, considered to be a lower class than whites up until the 1970s). Can a hospital run by a Latino sect of Christianity refuse to treat whites? Can Notre Dame refuse to hire female janitors? If not, what makes the Georgetown insurance scenario different?

  • bg

    ++

    SmallBusinessOwner #54 April 27, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    no logical answers, ergo, makes
    own argument against self.. 😆

    ==