RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod

RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 1:16:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: I wanted to address this in part because some people who post here are entirely comfortable in using the term "feminazis" and in my opinion this piece is an example of why that word is wrong. Did VAA ever give the promised rationale of why that term is no longer permitted here? Oops; I did not know it was disallowed. I am not online as much as I used to be. Oh, not the way you used it; we're not allowed to use it to refer to other posters.

kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 1:48:13 PM)
Rather than reading what Sandra Fluke actually said, looks like Rush based his comments on this: Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate ...At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?) Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn't cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know). And, that’s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical. Besides, maybe, these female law students could cut back on some other expenses to make room for more birth control in their budgets, instead of making us pick up the tab. With classes and studying and all that sex, who's got time for cable? And, let's not forget about these deadbeat boyfriends (or random hook-ups?) who are having sex 2.74 times a day. If Fluke's going to ask the government to force anyone to foot the bill for her friends' birth control, shouldn't it be these guys?

angelikaJ -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 2:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Rather than reading what Sandra Fluke actually said, looks like Rush based his comments on this: Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate Why should anyone let facts get in the way of going on sensational rants? edit fix format

angelikaJ -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 5:59:54 PM)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rachel-maddow-rush-limbaugh-birth-control-sandra-fluke_n_1318354.html?ref=mostpopular

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 6:37:00 PM)
Not yet, but it is on her to do list. She has had some other things come up that take priority. Apologies for the delay. To state again, the term femnazi used against another member is consider a personal attack. Thank you all for being a part of CollarMe, VideoAdminGamma quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: I wanted to address this in part because some people who post here are entirely comfortable in using the term "feminazis" and in my opinion this piece is an example of why that word is wrong. Did VAA ever give the promised rationale of why that term is no longer permitted here?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 2:55:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama She's in her THIRD year of law school. Hellova commitment for a plant, dontcha think? So, her interviews where she stated her reasons for going to Georgetown were faked? She's getting an education. She's getting a law degree. If she was to push this out 2 years ago, would it have mattered much? No, at this point we were still being told that we have to pass it [PPACA] to find out what's in it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 3:26:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/ Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives. So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance. Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it? And exactly why would you think that a law school ( or any other entity) has any right to an opinion in the private contract between an insurer and their customer, and a patient and their doctor? We actually do agree on this, farglebargle. However, I think you made a mistake in it's application. The agreement is between the insurer and the one paying the insurance. That is the customer. Georgetown is the customer. The University said it isn't going to cover what it isn't going to cover. I'm sure that's part of their private contract. Along comes a woman who doesn't agree with it, so she decides to attend there and challenge it. Georgetown didn't get between a patient and doctor, either. Georgetown didn't tell the woman she couldn't get the pill, just that they weren't going to pay for it. See? G-town wasn't doing anything wrong. Looks like you might want to find another tree to bark up.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 3:32:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: BTW - the place I first saw this 23 year old shit was in fatso's remarks, so find a listener to apologize for his error, if it even matters. When I google "sandra fluke 23 years old" all I find is quotes from the piece saying "This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along." I couldn't find anything on WHO reported that, except for this: quote: MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman But couldn't find an Ann Williams on MSNBC.com or any mention of Sandra Fluke being 23. For what it's worth, here's Yahoo Answers: When, exactly, was Sandra Fluke described as a 23 year old? Conservatives, in their desperate attempt to save face, are now saying Ms. Fluke is a liar because she's actually 30 years old and not 23. From everything I've seen in the news she's only been described as a 3rd year law student. With no mention of her age. I guess conservatives got confused since she was supposed to testify on February 23rd Not to mention, how does any of this justify Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut"? I knew that guy and his link were bullshitting......... Is it safe to assume that I am that guy? quote: Again........when republicans run out of issues,.......they go for plan 'b'.......call woman whores........ This extremism shows no sign of letting up.....as soon as cons get stung.....and lose.....they double down like degenerate gamblers...... Do you think kalikshama,that when the republicans lose the election,that they`ll blame themselves and this kind of conduct or will they fall back on the old standard "liberal media bias" cop-out? Barring her age not having been stated as 23 until Limbaugh let loose his lips, does the rest of the article not have any impact?

tazzygirl -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 5:23:32 AM)
quote: She's getting an education. She's getting a law degree. If she was to push this out 2 years ago, would it have mattered much? No, at this point we were still being told that we have to pass it [PPACA] to find out what's in it. Reconciliation, look it up.

tazzygirl -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 5:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/ Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives. So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance. Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it? And exactly why would you think that a law school ( or any other entity) has any right to an opinion in the private contract between an insurer and their customer, and a patient and their doctor? We actually do agree on this, farglebargle. However, I think you made a mistake in it's application. The agreement is between the insurer and the one paying the insurance. That is the customer. Georgetown is the customer. The University said it isn't going to cover what it isn't going to cover. I'm sure that's part of their private contract. Along comes a woman who doesn't agree with it, so she decides to attend there and challenge it. Georgetown didn't get between a patient and doctor, either. Georgetown didn't tell the woman she couldn't get the pill, just that they weren't going to pay for it. See? G-town wasn't doing anything wrong. Looks like you might want to find another tree to bark up. And our legal process allows for her to question that. Pursuit of Happiness and all that jazz. Are you now saying she is not entitled to access the legal system when she disagrees with something?

kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 5:39:56 AM)
quote: So, her interviews where she stated her reasons for going to Georgetown were faked? Links please.

kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 5:48:22 AM)
quote: does the rest of the article not have any impact? The video to which this article links is not on point. The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of Georgetown’s policy on contraceptives is another matter entirely. In several interviews, especially following Rush Limbaugh’s attack, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of Georgetown’s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown’s insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status. I'm not going to go through the article point by point - the thrust of it is that she is a plant, which is ridiculous, given what she must accomplish to be in the third year of this prestigious, selective school. Georgetown Law is one of the most prestigious institutions of legal education in the United States.[3] The Law Center is one of the top ten most selective law schools in the United States,[4] as well as one of the 14 law schools that consistently rank at the very top of U.S. News and World Report's annual rankings.[5]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 7:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: does the rest of the article not have any impact? The video to which this article links is not on point. The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of Georgetown’s policy on contraceptives is another matter entirely. In several interviews, especially following Rush Limbaugh’s attack, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of Georgetown’s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown’s insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status. I'm not going to go through the article point by point - the thrust of it is that she is a plant, which is ridiculous, given what she must accomplish to be in the third year of this prestigious, selective school. Georgetown Law is one of the most prestigious institutions of legal education in the United States.[3] The Law Center is one of the top ten most selective law schools in the United States,[4] as well as one of the 14 law schools that consistently rank at the very top of U.S. News and World Report's annual rankings.[5] Of course you're not going to go through the article point by point. Why would you? It would only display what I know to be true. I never, not even once, stated that she's a plant. I did agree with the article that the reason she chose Georgetown was so she could challenge the Hoya policy. From the article I linked to on The Blaze: quote: But what if she not only decided to attend the university anyway, but decided to attend specifically so she could fight this battle? Consider this passage from an early Washington Post story done on Fluke before she was permitted to testify: quote: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy. I'm not saying she was a plant. I'm not saying she wasn't a student. I am supporting the idea that she went to a very prestigious university with full knowledge that they did not cover contraception. I am supporting the idea that she went there to get an education from a prestigious university and to continue her activism. Her age being mis-reported, not reported and misquoted, or whatever fubar went on, is but a tertiary topic. You can continue to run down that alley if you'd like, but it doesn't change the story.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 8:09:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/ Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives. So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance. Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it? And exactly why would you think that a law school ( or any other entity) has any right to an opinion in the private contract between an insurer and their customer, and a patient and their doctor? We actually do agree on this, farglebargle. However, I think you made a mistake in it's application. The agreement is between the insurer and the one paying the insurance. That is the customer. Georgetown is the customer. The University said it isn't going to cover what it isn't going to cover. I'm sure that's part of their private contract. Along comes a woman who doesn't agree with it, so she decides to attend there and challenge it. Georgetown didn't get between a patient and doctor, either. Georgetown didn't tell the woman she couldn't get the pill, just that they weren't going to pay for it. See? G-town wasn't doing anything wrong. Looks like you might want to find another tree to bark up. And our legal process allows for her to question that. Pursuit of Happiness and all that jazz. Are you now saying she is not entitled to access the legal system when she disagrees with something? This has nothing to do with the legal system. She went up the hierarchy within the university and they decided to not change their policy. Instead of accepting that Georgetown has the right to negotiate the health insurance they are paying for, she continues to push for them to cover what she wants them to cover. According to farglebargle, she does not have that right. She is not the insurance company's customer, Georgetown is. She is more than welcome to purchase her own insurance policy that covers everything she wants covered.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 8:15:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: She's getting an education. She's getting a law degree. If she was to push this out 2 years ago, would it have mattered much? No, at this point we were still being told that we have to pass it [PPACA] to find out what's in it. Reconciliation, look it up. PPACA was passed in the House of Representatives on March 21st, 2010. President Obama signed it into law after his promised 5 days for us Citizens to review, on March 23rd, 2010. Thus, it was not yet passed 2 years ago. And, if you take into account that this is the second half of the school year, she could have brought it up in the first half, which would have been before the Senate passed PPACA in December of 2009. But, I'll look up reconciliation, for shits and giggles.

kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 8:23:04 AM)
quote: Instead of accepting that Georgetown has the right to negotiate the health insurance they are paying for If you are stating that Georgetown is currently exempted from the 2000 EEOC ruling that contraception must be included when other prescription coverage is provided, please give a link.

Raiikun -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 8:44:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Instead of accepting that Georgetown has the right to negotiate the health insurance they are paying for If you are stating that Georgetown is currently exempted from the 2000 EEOC ruling that contraception must be included when other prescription coverage is provided, please give a link. Is Fluke employed by Georgetown? Because my understanding that EEOC ruling applies to Title VII in regards to Employer provided insurance.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 12:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Instead of accepting that Georgetown has the right to negotiate the health insurance they are paying for If you are stating that Georgetown is currently exempted from the 2000 EEOC ruling that contraception must be included when other prescription coverage is provided, please give a link. Is Fluke employed by Georgetown? Because my understanding that EEOC ruling applies to Title VII in regards to Employer provided insurance. Raiikun, it only applies to employer-employee benefits, but only when it doesn't cross up a liberal agenda. When it would cross up a liberal agenda, it is understood to apply to the liberal agenda, regardless. It also applies to the liberal agenda unless George Bush can be blamed. /sarcasm

Owner59 -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 1:09:01 PM)
Where does it mention "liberal agenda" in the Title VII rules?

mnottertail -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/5/2012 1:13:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Instead of accepting that Georgetown has the right to negotiate the health insurance they are paying for If you are stating that Georgetown is currently exempted from the 2000 EEOC ruling that contraception must be included when other prescription coverage is provided, please give a link. Is Fluke employed by Georgetown? Because my understanding that EEOC ruling applies to Title VII in regards to Employer provided insurance. And it does which is doubly shitbreatherish of Limbaugh, students of GTU pay their own if they have any. He ain't paying shit, as usual. Now, not having employer provided insurance is not a reason to not testify on the necessity of including oral contraceptives for women (as she is one, so an expert on that end of it) , since as I have pointed out, they are not just for sluts, including sluttish grandmothers past menopause that take them, they are prescribed for other conditions, and in the end game, it doesn't matter why they are doled out anyway.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625