The joke was clearly a reference to a bygone era to a time when the best birth control was abstinence. I guess a woman could have asked her partner to boil his nuts prior to having sex but I am not so sure that at that point he would have not suffered from erectile dysfunction… probably yields about the same results as aspirin.  
http://scienceline.org/2007/08/ask-peck-sperm/

At any rate I have to congratulate progressives for their framing the argument on this whole issue of birth control.  Immediately they have been successful in framing the issue as a woman’s right to contraception, which is not at all what this fight is really about.  Women already have access to contraception, what the fight is really about is the expansion of the federal government’s reach through such liberal interpretation of the constitution that if successful it could possibly lead to lifting most all checks on federal power…  It is also interesting that the democrats in congress do not seem to be bothered by the expansion of the power of the executive we are seeing provided to the president under the Affordable Health Care Act…  

The democrats have successfully framed this debate as a fight for a woman’s right to contraception but for me it is about something else entirely, it is about a Post Constitutional America.

I can’t believe that one Mediaite poster said that her mom, aunt, & grandmother all used to practice this sort of “birth control” when they went on dates. I think her name was sid_id or something like that.

Excellent. Best assessment on this I’ve read all morning.

 There was one Janet Graham suggesting something along the same lines.

No Jack, this is a battle over the First Amendment Freedom of Religion which ensures that the government won’t pass laws that force one religion’s interpretation of the Bible on everyone else at gun point via the law. The settlers of America didn’t come here because a secular government wouldn’t allow them to worship God at all, but because one faction of religion was using the government to prevent others from living their lives according to their own faith and conscience. Just because condoms and the pill are available or forced to be available doesn’t mean that in and of themselves they are dangerous. You know… like guns.  So your arguments about gun control apply equally to contraception. You don’t like it, don’t use it, but don’t use the law to prevent employees who don’t agree with the Pope from access.  THAT is the violation of the first amendment.

I’ll admit that the war is really about healthcare mandates (which the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and the Catholic Church) all supported. But we have to remember that it’s only because of the mandates that a compromise could be reached. Because off the mandates, the Catholic Church could deny their female employees basic healthcare coverage & the employees will still have a way to obtain their birth control. If the argument is against mandates, then the Republicans concede the “war on religion” because the Catholic Church supports the mandates & the mandates are the reason the church will not have to provide these services to its own employees.

And I suppose that if he’d made an old joke about lynching a black man, we’d all have been told to lighten up. It is just an old joke by an old man who doesn’t REALLY think blacks should be hung.

Dems successfully framed this debate because it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Especially considering the fact that 28 states already require insurance companies to cover contraception.

Not to mention that fact that several GOP politicians leading this current charge against such mandates had no problem voting for them in the past in their own state (see Scott Brown who voted for a similar mandate while a state congressman in Mass, but who is currently co-sponsoring the bill to overturn this current mandate).

And conservatives still try to claim that this isn’t an entirely manufactured and opportunistic pushback by the GOP.  I think the GOP needed a new “big issue” to attack Obama on, they saw this and seized on it, but didn’t think it through entirely and now it’s going to come back and bite them by costing them women and independents votes (See also: Terry Schaivo). 

It was not at all uncommon, either as a joke nor as a lesson to young girls.  I’d related it yesterday to an old Leave it to Beaver episode I’d seen when I was a child about Beaver wanting his dad to teach him how to shave, and Dad readily agreed but cautioned him if he shaved even once he’d have to every day for the rest of his life – that scared Beaver off wanting to learn.  Its absurd but its also a guide on how the child is expected to behave, the legs/closed aspirin between the knees is the same.  It may have made sense in the 50′s – not at all now.

Kind of sad that conservatives actually defended that statement. Goes to show how much they lack understanding of this issue.

So was this a joke or not? You guys are giving mixed signals. This is why people are thinking that this is what Friess & Santorum actually believe.

Totally agree. It’s almost like it was a deliberate trap, set, knowing that once the republican fringe and bat shit crazy right wing base start talking about this kind of stuff (religious freedom, women’s rights, contraception, abortion etc.), they CAN NOT STOP until they decend into a puddle of goo.

All I can say is, yay. Please don’t stop.

Since you can’t even find the “reply” button, I wouldn’t expect you to understand religious freedom. (smh)

Where in the constitution do you find the clause which speaks directly to women’s health. or that her employer be made responsible for her health?  Remember that the constitution is a charter of enumerated powers…  so where did the framers address the conditions where an employer be held responsible for a woman’s or for that matter anyone’s health issues.  If you do not see this as an expansion of federal power then well….  It matters not what the states are doing as the constitution puts no limit upon the states other than to subordinate them to the enumerated powers of the federal government, all power not given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states.  I would question the states power to mandate that a church organization provide contraception, but that is up to the churches to settle in the court system if they choose to do so, but it has no bearing on what the federal government has the right to do…  

I have read some opinion from those on the left that this will come under the commerce clause but to my knowledge health insurance companies do not sell across state lines.  Insurance companies incorporate in each state and are regulated by state regulatory commissions.  

Time will tell, but it does seem that opposition is finally beginning to properly frame the argument, the left has done a great job of making this a woman’s issue, but conservative opposition is beginning to frame it for what it is, the expansion of the federal government.  Personally I think that women need access to birth control, and that it serves a positive purpose in our society…  I do not think that the government has the right to tell employers that they must pay for it nor do I see how the federal government derives the power to make such mandate.  I can also see the support from the left that making American employers assume more and more responsibility for making all our lives better is a good thing, but in my mind it is not  constitutionally sound. 

There was another drug they use to use back in the day for birth control and it worked 100% of the time. The name of the drug was called Noassatall.

It was a joke, but it may also have had the double meaning of his opinion (if it is) that the preferred method of contraception is abstinence.

What the fight is about is a right to my F’n wallett.
They have fun.I pay.

Obama the Candyman most generous person alive with other peoples money.

You are either less than smart or purposefully misunderstanding my point.  The first amendment says the government shall not pass laws that inhibit the religious rights of others. You can’t pass laws that say because MY religion doesn’t believe in USING contraception we will forbid them from offering it to others. If these groups take federal funds and thus those funds are used to fund insurance, you can’t impose what can’t be offered through that plan for religious reasons.  If the law forced you to use something THAT would be a violation, but preventing access to it is imposing one religion over another in the law.  And THAT is a violation of the constitution. Or do you want the catholic Church’s views on divorce to be the law of the land as well? 

We tried it and its certainly cheep and seems to be working.  It has inspired us to try out new positions. 

Nice sheeple, good sheeple.

Baaaaaaaaa……….

You know if the president was a republican and a similar issue affected the muslim faith the same way.The left would be going haywire…and I’d be with them.

Thats what these moonbats don’t get.Its going to get shoved up there ass some day and they will be the ones to set the precedent.

More Sheeple…

Baaaaaaaa…..   Baaaaaaaa…..

You have got it right.  Liberals are always the most generous with other peoples money.  The concept and pratice of Personal responsibility is considered to be racist, sexist, bigotted and homophobic.  The enemies of out society infiltrated the institutions that once taught the true right from wrong and now this country is going bankrupt paying for those who will not be responsible for their own actions.

who is preventing access? or do you mean get it for free

No.  It is you who lacks the understanding of the issue of Person Responsibility.  You apparently approve of those who are responsible, pay the cost for those who are not.  Just another liberal air head.

 That is total BS and you know it.

Abstinence for women but men have to grow pubes and get pu ssy as soon as they learn to walk.

Chuck, please tell us you were happy to hold hands with your first date under her moms watch in the living room.

Do you have daughters, Chuck?

But apparently you agree that government should be able to force the Church affiliated organizations to pay for those contraceptives.  Think about it.  Do you really think that the Insurance Companies are going to pay for the contraceptives.  They will just raise the cost of the premiums that the Church organizations will have to pay.  Liberals have pulled the wool over your eyes.  Slight of hand. 

Nice sheeple.  Good sheeple.   Baaaaaaaaaa…..

Where do you get that the federal funds are being used to fund insurance? I am not so clear on that… it would seem to me that those funds are being used to provide services to the communities, not insurance for employees… The funding that you speak of is just a part of the funding for the schools, hospitals, and Universities that the Churches provide… I would hope that the Churches would consider closing these institutions before succumbing to federal control.

But hey that is just me… I do however believe that you make assumptions about the use of federal dollars that are untrue. If you are right and those institutions are completely federally funded then they should be shut down and the federal government should look for other partners in the community. But if on the other hand they are like Planned Parenthood claims to be, that the funding only supports a small percentage of what they do then the federal claim to the right to mandate is not so absolute.

I would ask again as you have taken me off on a tangent that is wholely irrelevant. where does the federal government derive the authority to mandate to employers what will be covered under private insurance policies… if you can’t answer this then how can you call me less than smart?

Women are taking personal responsibility by taking birth control. Do you want to pay for child care when they can’t afford to raise a child themselves? You conservative fascists want to force women to have children they can’t afford & then turn your backs on them when they need financial support for the children. Hypocrites.

Is that what you say to your girlfriend when you bang her?

Come on Tomy, even you must have known this was a joke. However, Alex Wagner is another story.

Republicans aren’t principally concerned with solving problems; their goals are ideological.
The right believes programs like abstinence only education work, even when they don’t work, so long as ideological goals are being met. Real-world implications are meaningless.

I agree they do not see the danger in the precedents being set here….  and there will come a day under republican control, when they find the government doing things that they will see as being unconstitutional, but hey, they will have to live with the fact that the constitution no longer has any relevancy as precedents have already been set.  

 The joke about aspirin may bomb as a   prescription   for birth control, but it seems a pretty fair check for  a sense of humor.  Any adult who doesn’t get it needs an immediate humor transplant.

How is it government intervention to promote the health and welfare of ALL of its citizens?  Is it any different than speed limits, or building safe roads, or upgrading air traffic control systems?  Do you believe that children growing into adults should be left to their own devices as they go through puberty and become sexual beings?  And do you want YOUR country (and MY COUNTRY) to be burdened by the additonal costs associated with contraceptives NOT being available to EVERYONE?  And aren’t we ALL equal under the Constitution?  Thus shouldn’t EVERYONE have access to EVERY measure that is reasonable for their health and well being?

Health Insurance companies add nothing to the delivery of health care.  They add nothing tangible to our GDP or our society as a whole.  They suck money and energy and peoples health from us, and make it even more difficult to compete in today’s world economy.  The mandate of health insurance companies is profit.  NOT the health and welfare of those paying  for their “coverage”.  And they take that profit and pay obscene amounts to executives who do NOTHING that is to the benefit of our country or our economy.  ”We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men (IMHO it includes WOMEN) are created equal….”

There is your post Constitutional America!

How demented is the liberal mind that you could equate abstinence with lynching?  You’re sick… I know that you deserve all that the world has to offer and some rich sob should be paying for it…  right?  I mean, someone not paying for your birth control pills that you could pay for yourself is equatable to hanging people in their front yards?

Sicko!

If you were to take a look at the amount of money spent, wasted, stolen during the Bush II years I think, if you were honest, you would NOT be saying anything about Obama.  IF you can read, and IF you can do simple math, even YOU can figure out that you are simply wrong.  So if you want  to continue to prove how uninformed or how inaccurate your “factual” statements are, then please continue.  Otherwise take a deep breath, do some research, then come back and aplogize, offer a retraction/correction, or a mea culpa.  Also re the COST of contraceptives, if you do a little research you will find they end up SAVING money for taxpayers.

and liberals only care about making someone else pay for them

Yes and profit is such a bad word…

Let’s see just how was it that insurance companies came into being? Maybe because a medical condition could spell economic ruin for an individual or possibly denial of medical services back in the day.. So some bright people came together, did the math, and started to protect individuals from such ruin by assuming their risk for a premium… and it served our society well for generations.. but now progressives have once again intervened and decided that all is wrong with capitalism and insurance companies are all evil, and profit again is becoming a dirty word…

The rest of your garbage about traffic lights speed limits and safe roads is deflection, only a liberal mind suggests that any challenge to governmental overreach is a condemnation on the government as a whole.

And as to your question… No the government should not mandate that everyone should have access to every thing that it sees lacking in our society, we are not a totalitarian state, and the last time I read the constitution it set forth a government of limited powers and was written to restrict the governments authority to do specifically what you call for. I would ask you where does one’s personal responsibility to provide for one’s self and his or her family begin and end… what should the government not provide for us? Is there a limit to what the government should be responsible for and where would you draw the line?

The majority of posters here (myself included) have made attempts at humor. One-liners, word play or snark, we have tried. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Often a failed joke is part of the confirmation bias we all possess.

I won’t be voting for Santorum and of course cannot vote for Friess but I’m willing to give them a pass on this one. And since it is Friday (meatless for many), there are bigger fish to fry.

 Baaaaaaaa is what his girlfriend says while he is banging it.

Is anyone surprised that a Republican/Tea Party person would find out the lies and half truths that they have been taught when they stepped out of their bubble into the real world. I wonder how many  “gifts” were received knowing nothing about birth control.

Is it true that Tommy Christopher is having a trans gender operation or has he already had it???

I guess I misunderstood too. I thought Foster was the joke, along with Bone heads running for President.

I agree the clause does include women, now show me the clause that says that someone has to pay for my healthcare and birthcontrol…

Requiring all to obey the Affordable Health Care Act does not infringe on anyone’s constitutional freedom of religion. The First Amendment does not apply more to religious leaders and institutions (including churches) than to individual citizens, so is the plan to give exemptions to all Catholic/Mormon/Fundamentalist employers?

Requiring the health insurance companies to provide care without charging either the patient or employer means the extra cost will be picked up by everyone else. This would require all the rest of us to subsidize religious institutions. That would be clearly unconstitutional.

A Supreme Court ruling long ago explained that the constitutional religious guarantee is for beliefs and opinions and governmental laws control actions. Nobody is supposed to be above the law. If this is allowed to slide by, we will also be required to allow the FLDS leaders to have more than one wife at the same time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

“So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

My wife and I tried it yesterday, and she said it was distracting having to concentrate on holding the aspirin between her knees; I thought it added slightly more friction.

Still it works for the man, too… put 4 of them into his left shoe, and it will make him limp.

All of this hubbub over a silly joke that was told in grade school classes back in the 50s  is silly and drummed up hogwash by Progressives to get the heat off their asses for the economic destruction of America…..but of course Progressive Dan Abrams….under the orders of George Soros has 5-6 stories on it here at Mediaite Matters
What a raft of shit.

 That this ignorant guy from our party made a joke of such a serious topic plus the joke was just so beside the point of the topic being discussed, and it had no advice for the man to keep his pants zipped so he obviously felt it was all the woman’s problem.  But he seems so old that maybe he is truly as ignorant as he sounds OR he is jst a dirty ol,d man! m Pregnancy without marriage is a serious topic and ot turn it into the mundane, stupid level is a terrible reflection on how little this goof cares fou our young people.  He is definitely not my kind of Republican!

Is is true you made that lame joke to compensate for not having a penis?

Funny how conservatives are always so fluent in sheep.

The fact that you would insist on turning the subject of “an old joke about aspirin between the knees” into a racist accusation shows just how shallow you are.  Is there anything that liberals won’t do or say to slam anybody who doesn’t think as they think?  You should be ashamed of yourself, but you won’t because you honestly think what you wrote is clever.

You brought up the subject, so I’ll give you a free history lesson concerning race relations in this country.  The Democrats in the souther states owned slaves and were for slavery.  The Democrats living in the northern states, who later became Republicans, were against slavery. 

After the War Between the States ended, any lynching that took place was done by members of Jackson’s Democratic Party.  And these same type of liberal Democrat Party lynchings went on beyond the middle of the 20th century. 

You should have known this fact, but even if you did, you would have painted members of the Republican Party with the same racist paint brush that Democrats have always used to slam people who don’t think as they think.

You’re right, but if the Dems want the rest of the population to pay for free birth control, then I say we should lobby for free condoms and free vasectomies. (I suspect that Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz perform castrations for free on a daily basis!)

It’s as though the GOP has been infiltrated by the Democratic Party so that President Obama can have a second term. I’ve never seen such incompetence by a major political party. It all began when McCain selected Sister Sarah… Then Bachmann… Trump… The 999 godfather… (Arrogant) Moon man Newt… Santorium (from the middle ages…

It just goes on and on…

Fin for at least a decade!

How are you paying? This is about private health insurance paid for by employers. 

They’ll probably pay MORE without contraception being included because that will mean a big boost in pregnancies and female reproductive-disorders that will need to be addressed… at a much greater cost for everyone.

What I want to know is when companies became moral agents and when their moral agency trumped those of individual human beings.

If this was about a Jehovah Witness owned business refusing to fund blood transfusions, I suspect the song would be a lot different from the right…

That must be why “red” states have higher rates of government assistance than “blue” states… 

At what point does “profit” become greed? 

Very few people have a problem with people or company’s enjoying a profit, but when we’re talking about a product or service that literally saves lives becoming so expensive that many hard working, law-abiding, tax paying people can’t access it anymore — while those at the top enjoy massive profits, we’ve moved beyond a reasonable profit.

Given how many illnesses can/do result from non consensual exposure to environmental toxins, the issue becomes even more urgent, IMO. Remove a woman’s ability to afford contraception and the ability to access medical care grows once again.

I don’t understand how laws which make individual liberty more possible are being called evidence of a “totalitarian state,” but laws that restrict the ability of individuals to experience liberty as being called “freedom.”

Ultimately — what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing, because this isn’t about government making tax payers pick up the bills for anything. It’s about employers making sure that all of their employees have access to their full range of legal medical options.

If people aren’t supposed to look to the government for assistance accessing medical care and employers can pick and choose which medications and therapies its employees will have covered… how are we supposed to get the care we need?

What other medications or treatments would you be comfortable seeing removed from YOUR insurance coverage? 

I thought my penis was in your mouth???

It didn’t make sense then, either. 

A friend of my mother once told me about how ignorant she was about sex and what horrible advice she was given by her parents. It wasn’t just her, though. After she’d gone on a double date with friends, her girlfriend burst into hysterical tears, confessing that she knew she was pregnant and was going to have to marry the boy.

Mom’s friend said she didn’t know a lot about sex, but she knew that what her girlfriend and her sweetie hadn’t done anything that should lead to a pregnancy. They’d just kissed.

But the girl’s mom had told her never to let a boy put anything in her body… and they’d French kissed, which she assumed meant she was pregnant.
Yeah, the good old days. Why ever did we leave them behind?

Duh. Obviously. And given how important this issue is to real woman (and real men in relationships with women), it wasn’t a funny joke.

Married people should not be forced to abstain unless they are open to pregnancy. No woman should be denied hormone treatment for reproductive disorders. No adult woman should be told she can abstain or get pregnant. 

If Catholic owned companies want to abstain from sex, great. Companies shouldn’t be having sex with each other to begin with. But the people who work for those companies should be allowed to exercise their moral and religious values and not need to justify themselves to their employers. 

You clearly don’t even understand the medication that you’re opposing so enthusiastically. 

Any other medication or conditions you think employers should be able to refuse to cover? 

Actually, some of the earliest settlers came here precisely to oppress people of other faiths or traditions. There were people killed for not worshiping a specific way. Read up on the history of Providence, RI, among other east coast areas. 

Fortunately, when we broke from British rule, the ability to do that was removed. Now these traitors want to bring it back.

So, now it’s not a First Amendment issue? It’s an issue of whether or not an employer should offer the full range of legal medical treatments to its employees?

The Constitution doesn’t talk about a lot of things we’re dealing with now: automobiles, space travel, pollution, interracial marriages, disability issues, veterans benefits, etc. That doesn’t mean we don’t have rights regarding those things, just that they aren’t mentioned specifically. 

If our employers can just refuse us coverage and our government shouldn’t be allowed to help in that area… then what? How are people supposed to take responsibility for their health by working with a healthcare professional so that they can continue to be tax payers and fully functioning citizens?

It seems that any time this president tries to help individuals, it’s a huge sin in the eyes of the GOP… but those eyes are utterly blind to the harm that happens when you give companies more rights than people.

But the people who work for those [religious] companies should be allowed to exercise their moral and religious values and not need to justify themselves to their employers.

No, religious institutions should not be compelled by the government to violate their central doctrine.  As a matter of fact, there’s an amendment to that effect deem so important it was listed before all the others.

You act as if this is something being taken away, it is not this argument is about something that does not yet exist..  for me the argument is not about contraception…  hey I’m all for contraception and if you can find an employer and I am sure that they are out there that provide it you should work for them…  What I do not support is that the government grants itself the authority to enter the private sector and define benefits to be provided by employers to employees..  I do not see that they have the constitutional authority to do so.  Nor has the federal government ever before regulated health insurance that has always been done at the state level.  

How about if in a couple of years they decide that abortion be included, maybe that may not bother you it is hardly much of a step from what is now occurring.

Or maybe if they decide that you have to have one of those smart thermostats installed in your home and they shut down your electricity for several hours each day because you have too large of a carbon footprint.  Next they may decide that since you don’t have children the auto you drive must average 65  miles to the gallon…

The point I am making is that this may seem right and a good deal for you now, but once you open the door this wide there is no closing it…  you may or may not like this president and this congress or the prior congress, but you may not like future presidents and congresses by too late, you have given them unprecedented power to effect your life in ways that you may disagree with.  

The appropriate term would be “without a copay.”

Nobody on “the left” has said a copay would be unacceptable. It’s the Bishops who say that no matter who pays what, it shouldn’t have to have anything to do with this particular form of medical treatment. Period. End of story. 
The Bishops are saying that no matter how much a woman would be willing to pay toward her contraception, it won’t allow her to do so via its selected plan. She’ll have to go out of the plan and pay for the entire amount out of her own pocket.

I don’t think “the left” would feel any differently if it were a Muslim owned company refusing to cover any specific medication or treatment.

Ironically, this hatred of contraception might be something that radical Christianists and radical Muslims agree on!

What I’m hearing is that Sharia is bad, but the Christian equivalent is just fine in the USA.

Free contraception is going to save insurance companies a lot more money than a nation of unhappily pregnant women will. Not to mention, women who find themselves pregnant will likely also find themselves unemployed, which I guess solves the insurance problem since they won’t have any… 

Condemning women to unwanted pregnancies and untreated reproductive diseases isn’t too much different from a slow motion lynching, actually. 

How many of us will die from pregnancies or easily treated diseases all because a church full of men willing to cover up for centuries of child molesters has decided that THIS is the issue they won’t budge on… 

Yes, yes… and after the war, people jumped parties based on the slavery issue, with the Republicans becoming the anti-civil rights party and the Democrats picking it up as a plank.

Although some still don’t seem to know it, the Civil War is over. The North won and politics has never been the same since.

How do you consider forcing someone else to pay for what is a personal responsibility to be about personal liberty.. Honestly, when did birth control become a god given right, That is just dishonest! Nobody is stopping you from accessing birth control..  that is not what this fight is about, it is more about meeting egalitarian societal goals which was never provided for in the constitution. 

I don’t argue against health care reform, personally I have a pre-existing condition and need reform to occur more so than many people do, but that does not mean that I support subordinating what I consider to be legitimate constitutional concerns for the benefit I may receive from this particular health care legislation that I think is over reaching.

I was raped several times as a teen who needed to hitchhike home from work 5 nights a week. 

Should I just have kept an aspirin between my knees? Would that have solved all my problems?

Tommy should’ve read the other threads on this one before regurgitating more bile with his post to see that many Dems, even, view this Freiss thing as a nothing story – and that most debate had in those threads quickly move off the main subject and onto the typical exchanges between partisans.

Now he has all the appearance, in doggedly attacking again with this slanderous contraception-as-proxy-for-religious-conscience meta-angle, of a metaphorical axe wielding madman cheered only by those progressives who – metaphorically – have a walk-in closet full of slasher films.

Please do not mistake my opposition as a blind allegiance to the republican party, GW was hardly different than is president Obama…  

It should be the states making these changes, that is what the constitution directs, and that is where insurance has been regulated up to this point…  it will matter little as you and I are having an academic argument and it will be the SCOTUS that will decide this issue in the end…  right now the president is only trying to protect votes, otherwise he would simply tell the churches to shove it, and people such as myself he already could care less about. 

Are you suggesting to me that you don’t already have access to birth control.  Please don’t be hyperbolic.  And yes I think that the analogy really, really sucks.

JFK and Bill Clinton are banging young interns – nothing said by scumbag press– Santorum backer makes a joke- all hell breaks loose!!

sexual intercourse vs making fun of female contraception are two entirely different things.

In reading your statement, you make the point that we, no matter what most “obey” the law as written by man, you further make a statement that if exemptions are given to some that such actions would be considered unconstitutional, as the rest of us would have to pick up those costs. 

So you then agree, from your own admissions, the entire healthcare mandate should be ruled as unconstitutional due to all the waivers that have been issued by HHS, thus forcing the “rest” of us to pay their share?

Sorry but you can’t have it both ways. 

FYI- Just remember that had the decision be made to use birth control measures or heaven forbid, abort you, you would not be on this earth. Please pick up the phone and give thanks that you are alive.  

I’m sorry that you had to in dear such horrible experiences in your teen years. I pray that you have been able to move forward with your live to it’s fullest. 

It appears that the pain you spoke of in earlier postings is still very raw within your being. There are many issues that should be brought to this discussion. Yes the Church (and most of society) has a blame for past actions (or in-actions) in allowing harm to come to those that are most at risk. But what many are not doing within the postings, blogs or other outlets of information are allowing true discussions to take place, whether it’s raising ones voice, using unproven or fault facts or the basic closed mind method not listening to the other person. The people of the world (not the governments) will never be able to solve these and other issues that continue to short people on having a full life experience. 

If the United States used Sheria law you as a women would not be allowed to share your view point. Any women should understand that Sheria Law would take them back to the stone age, I prefer a system, even though not perfect, allows my wife and kids to have freedom to disagree with me and others that would like to control them. 

To call a Christian a radical for not believing in contraception is really out of line, and to equate them to Radical Muslims is truely a misunderstanding as to what a Radical Muslim (NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE RADICAL) goal in life, that is to kill anyone that is not Muslim. 

Federal fund could be considered grants to hospitol for the usage of experimental drugs and other government sponsored programs. Or if you really wanted to muddy the waters Medicare Payments to the states. Now that is a slippery slope. 

And what is wrong with people paying for their own lifestyle choices? 

So should they not also take personal responsibility and not have sex too? Taking birth control is not a perfect method to avoid creating life. Not only can you still conceive a life but could be exposing themselves to other health issues. Maybe education, real education, at home first, then in the schools explaining not only the health but Psychology issues associated with sex. The “arguing” as to who should have the rights to tell everyone else what to do is not allow the true problem here, Education!!!

You could have made better case had you not came off as the liberal fascists!

No 1, Actually Bayer Does make birth controll. I don’t know where she searched at but she don’t look hard enough. No2, he retold an old joke. Let it go it’s not new and it’s just like all the other stupid things people say like if you hang up side down after sex you won’t get pregnant. 

My
argument was that to be constitutional all employers must be required to follow
the same rules, including churches, (not only institutions affiliated with
them, such as schools and churches). Health insurance policies cover prevention
all the time: the phone company plan I had covered dental prevention, for
example, even fluoride treatments for my children (at no cost to the employee).
Thus a conservative argument that insurance has always been to cover events not
likely to happen, is not valid: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/12/but-contraception-isnt-part-of-health-care-insurance/

The
Obama Administration stated that it is cost neutral, therefore it won’t cost
anyone more. Apparently that hasn’t been carefully analyzed, but some insurers
agree: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/insurers-not-totally-sold-on-contraceptives-coverage/2012/02/17/gIQAbBpjJR_blog.html

Although
the Roman Catholic Church has changed its position on many things, even since I
was a child when eating meat on ANY Friday was taboo, mass was on Sunday
morning and eating was prohibited until after it, and sex should never be
enjoyed, apparently even they recognize that contraceptives are prescribed for
things other than contraception: http://thecatholicletter.com/birth-control-abortion-article-subjects-40/100-the-catholic-birth-control-a-sex-faq#3
During its history, their priests have not always been required to be celibate
and their policy on when life begins has varied: http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm.
Of course the bible says nothing against abortion: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/index.htm
(There was a reason for prohibiting women from being educated for so long.)

Why
would the reason for a doctor’s prescription be an employer’s business? The
right to privacy is questioned only when it women’s privacy? http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_PrivacyIndex.htm

Some men
have always fought equity for women, usually not even recognizing the inequity:
http://www.cluw.org/contraceptive.html
(Of course some women have gone along with it, believing the biblical rules of
subservience for women, but of course men wrote those books! Some of the early Suffragists understood:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/wb/)

Family
planning is a health issue. Full-term pregnancies are 14 times as likely to
cause death than abortions: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2012/01/23/abortion-safer-for-women-than-childbirth-study-claims.
Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921 because she
was so upset at her mother’s poor health and early death from having so many
children. She was against abortions because in the olden days they were often
forced upon women by husbands and boyfriends (and of course, often caused death
or sterility because of the unsterile conditions and illega ones were often
done by quacks). Many of us do not want to go back to that!

Your FYI at the end
is laughable. I was born in 1940, the fourth of six children born at home on
the farm. A few months after the sixth was born in 1945, our mother was
hospitalized for severe depression for which shock treatments worked (until
after menopause when she was healthier than most on lithium carbonate for
thirty years until her death at age 90). The doctor advised against having more
children right away and fitted her for a diaphragm. You’re telling that I
should be morning the potential siblings which were prevented, or do you mean
they somehow should object to their not being? Give me a break!

Sorry, I didn’t get all the typos corrected before it posted.  For example, I know the difference between morning and mourning. 

LOL you’re telling people to not have sex & you’re calling me a fascist? Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Conservatives take responsibility for their actions instead of murdering our offspring like the bunch of little Hitlers known as the pro-abortion(pro-choice) crowd does. Progressives devalue life just because the life is in development. Progressives are clueless when it comes to responsibility.  Just a bunch of selfish hedonists. I challenge every pro-abortion individual to write something on why your mother had a right to kill you while you were in her womb. You probably could do it since libs are a bunch of self-hating people.