Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Birth control pills should be treated no differently than any other prescription medication. Once a woman and her doctor have determined that it is advisable for her to use such medication, IT'S NOBODY ELSE'S DAMN BUSINESS WHY SHE NEEDS IT.
Perhaps you missed the part where Limbaugh said that he wanted Ms. Fluke to make a video of sexual acts for his entertainment purposes. That is the type of "criticism" to which one exposes herself by making public statements?  Limbaugh's comments would be out of bounds if the subject of his pathetic rambling were the Secretary of State or the Governor of Alaska.
Do you ever tire of making moral equivalences? Why should what anyone else did justify the perversion demonstrated by Rush Limbaugh? Are you really taking the position that she deserved what Limbaugh dished out? |
I'll answer your questions when you bother to answer mine. I will say this: the left wants to make this all about a woman's "medical needs.". That's the farthest thing possible from the truth. Ms Fluke was singled out specifically by Pelosi and company becuase:
- She attends a Jesuit University, and part of what is on trial here are the Church's teachings about sexuality and procreation.
- She is an activist. She's not an activist regarding public health. She's an activist about reproductive rights. Why the hell she chose Georgetown - she had to know about the institutions beliefs going in - and then became a Chairperson while at Georgetown of a "Reproductive Rights" activist group - doesn't strike anyone else as just a bit odd?
- While she's careful to throw out some red herrings about fellow students and their medical need for birth control pills, she makes clear that it's a big strain on her budget - while dishing out $100K per year for tuition, books, fees, room and board at a rather expensive University - to come up with $3K per year to keep from getting knocked up. She's pissed at The Jesuits for not footing the bill so she can have sex without consequence? That doesn't strike anyone as a bit tone deaf?
Sorry. I can't feel too sorry for this rather insensitive and self-centered human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Would your position be different if the person testifying was a married mother of two children, who worked and struggled to make ends meet and whose family is in no position to add another person? Those individuals would also be denied access to this prescription medication if their employers got the special treatment they seek.
Bottom line: there is a prescription medication that prevents pregnancy. Pregnancy is a condition that requires medical treatment - and can change the course of one's life. This is a condition that only affects women. By what moral authority do you or anyone else have the right to single out this medication for exclusion from all other medications available to enhance the health of individuals?
|
Bottom line, this ain't about access to prescription medication, at least not for Ms Fluke. This is about Ms Fluke, and her handlers in the Democrat party, taking a private religious institution to task a Congressional hearing for not picking up the tab for a student to act in a manner that goes against that institutions religious beliefs. Can't get much more plain than that, counselor.