Poor Sandra Fluke Can’t Afford to Buy Her Own Birth Control, But She Can Spend $100K On This…
 

Sandra Fluke was catapulted to Democrat stardom after she testified before Congress on the woes of having to pay for her own birth control. She contended that she could not afford the $3,000 a year cost for birth control, so the taxpayers should provide it for her.

 

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/29/poor-sand...k-on-this/

---

That was then. Now, because she was successful in furthering her education, she has a decent job.


This seems like a pointless story.

---

Pretty sure nowhere in her testimony did she say that she personally couldn't afford it.  Just that there were other students who couldn't.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

My question is does she really need it?

---

My question is does she really need it?

Looks like she carries it with her everywhere!!

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Maybe it's just me, but she actually looks like she just may be a pimple on Rosie O'Donnell's butt.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Pretty sure nowhere in her testimony did she say that she personally couldn't afford it.  Just that there were other students who couldn't.  

 

Stop it, you're ruining their fun. Some folks will never let facts get in the way of a good punch line, especially when the target is someone with less than super model looks. One wonders how willing these amateur comics would be to offer up pictures of themselves for comparison.

 

In other news, Hobby Lobby will not offer insurance coverage for IUDs and morning after pills, but will allow coverage of Viagra and vasectomies.

 

[Fluke] essentially says that she must be paid to have sex—what does that make her? It makes her a [BLEEP], right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
 

- Rush Limbaugh

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Premise:  Abortion is bad/evil and kills people that do not have a say in their own life choice

 

Rhetoric:  The poor should not have access to birth control unless they can pay for it on their own.

 

Policy:  Adults should abstain from sex until they are married/financially stable.

 

Anyone else see problems with this?

---

Stop it, you're ruining their fun. Some folks will never let facts get in the way of a good punch line, especially when the target is someone with less than super model looks. One wonders how willing these amateur comics would be to offer up pictures of themselves for comparison.


In other news, Hobby Lobby will not offer insurance coverage for IUDs and morning after pills, but will allow coverage of Viagra and vasectomies.

So what hobby lobby is private company it's up to them what they'll cover and what they won't

---

Premise: Abortion is bad/evil and kills people that do not have a say in their own life choice


Rhetoric: The poor should not have access to birth control unless they can pay for it on their own.


Policy: Adults should abstain from sex until they are married/financially stable.


Anyone else see problems with this?

Yea I see a problem with your flawed statements. No ones rhetoric is the poor shouldn't have birth control. The argument is it's up to companies what they cover. Since when did birth control become a right?

---

Yea I see a problem with your flawed statements. No ones rhetoric is the poor shouldn't have birth control. The argument is it's up to companies what they cover. Since when did birth control become a right?

 

Well, you are correct.  There is not right or entitlement granted to anyone.

 

However...

 

We do live in the USA.  So there are certain things that we get to decide.

 

That's why I laid out the premise, rhetoric, policy theorem.

 

As a society, we are presumed to have a say one way or another regarding decisions that are not unanimous.

 

Regarding birth-control...  It's never been clearly established what is what...  Even though ROE V WADE did a great job of actually laying down the foundation of why a woman's decision should be the primary factor.  

 

But here we are, discussing the foundation that was the basis of RvW.  The Supreme Court in that decision found that a person is not founded based on conception.  Therefore a woman who carries is still a whole citizen and get's to decide how to proceed.  

 

This brings us back to my "Premise"

 

Abortion is bad/evil and kills people that do not have a say in their own life choice



 

So if that's the premise, how does a society reduce this?



 

Abstenence?  Reduction of cheap birth control?



 

Seems like a really bad policy

---

Well, you are correct. There is not right or entitlement granted to anyone.


However...


We do live in the USA. So there are certain things that we get to decide.


That's why I laid out the premise, rhetoric, policy theorem.


As a society, we are presumed to have a say one way or another regarding decisions that are not unanimous.


Regarding birth-control... It's never been clearly established what is what... Even though ROE V WADE did a great job of actually laying down the foundation of why a woman's decision should be the primary factor.


But here we are, discussing the foundation that was the basis of RvW. The Supreme Court in that decision found that a person is not founded based on conception. Therefore a woman who carries is still a whole citizen and get's to decide how to proceed.


This brings us back to my "Premise"


Abortion is bad/evil and kills people that do not have a say in their own life choice



So if that's the premise, how does a society reduce this?



Abstenence? Reduction of cheap birth control?



Seems like a really bad policy

I get what you are saying.

---

Well, you are correct. There is not right or entitlement granted to anyone.


However...


We do live in the USA. So there are certain things that we get to decide.


That's why I laid out the premise, rhetoric, policy theorem.


As a society, we are presumed to have a say one way or another regarding decisions that are not unanimous.


Regarding birth-control... It's never been clearly established what is what... Even though ROE V WADE did a great job of actually laying down the foundation of why a woman's decision should be the primary factor.


But here we are, discussing the foundation that was the basis of RvW. The Supreme Court in that decision found that a person is not founded based on conception. Therefore a woman who carries is still a whole citizen and get's to decide how to proceed.


This brings us back to my "Premise"


Abortion is bad/evil and kills people that do not have a say in their own life choice



So if that's the premise, how does a society reduce this?



Abstenence? Reduction of cheap birth control?



Seems like a really bad policy

It's not a policy.


And you can't have it both ways, if you want to tell me it's a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's society's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.


That's the whole irony I find with the pro choice crowd. It's no ones business what happens once a women's pregnant but it's society's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant and if she does and can't afford an abortion were responsible to pay for it.

---

It's not a policy.


And you can't have it both ways, if you want to tell me it's a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's society's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.


That's the whole irony I find with the pro choice crowd. It's no ones business what happens once a women's pregnant but it's society's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant and if she does and can't afford an abortion were responsible to pay for it.

 

You say,

 

"...if you want to tell me it's a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's society's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

 

But someone else would say, "if you want to tell me it's not a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's not society's responsibility to help her make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

 

After all, can't we eliminate most abortions by eliminating unwanted pregnancies?  If abortions are evil and undesirable, then why not undertake an effort to provide women with birth control?  

 

The policy, no birth control and no abortion, is one that condemns women to having babies they don't want and/or cannot support.  We have lots and lots of babies born to unwed poor mothers, and that is a huge drain and drag on society.   The women drop out of school, go on welfare, the children wind up in prison because of the lack of a father at home, etc etc etc.   So why do you not want these people to have birth control? 

 

I know your answer already.   You want them to use birth control, you just don't want the government to provide it or mandate it in insurance plans.   But to me, this is the perfect place for the government to step in and do something to reduce a huge cost to society: unwed mothers, young men that wind up in prison because of the lack of a father, or, worst of all to the religious people, ABORTIONS. 

 

The answer is birth control, and we should be pushing it on people, not making it more difficult to get. 

---

You say,

 

"...if you want to tell me it's a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's society's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

 

But someone else would say, "if you want to tell me it's not a women's choice what to do once pregnant don't turn around and tell me it's not society's responsibility to help her make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

 

After all, can't we eliminate most abortions by eliminating unwanted pregnancies?  If abortions are evil and undesirable, then why not undertake an effort to provide women with birth control?  

 

The policy, no birth control and no abortion, is one that condemns women to having babies they don't want and/or cannot support.  We have lots and lots of babies born to unwed poor mothers, and that is a huge drain and drag on society.   The women drop out of school, go on welfare, the children wind up in prison because of the lack of a father at home, etc etc etc.   So why do you not want these people to have birth control? 

 

I know your answer already.   You want them to use birth control, you just don't want the government to provide it or mandate it in insurance plans.   But to me, this is the perfect place for the government to step in and do something to reduce a huge cost to society: unwed mothers, young men that wind up in prison because of the lack of a father, or, worst of all to the religious people, ABORTIONS. 

 

The answer is birth control, and we should be pushing it on people, not making it more difficult to get. 

 

No one's making it difficult to get, it's at every store even some gas stations. What you're asking is for me to pay for my neighbors sex habit and using the threat of force to do so. 

 

Outlaw Abortions, I'll be the first to sign up for tax payer funded birth control. But that will happen about the same time we see spending cuts in relation to tax increases.

 

Bottom line, there is NO constitutional authority for government to come into a private ran business and say you must pay for _____ medical procedure. If you want the government to have that authority then be ready for a single payer system because it doesn't stop at birth control and most business's can't afford to pay for every possible health procedure under the sun. 

 

That's ultimately the goal of this game, push the cost up so we have to default to single payer. You think health care sucks now? Just wait until everyone's on the equivalent of VA or Medicaid. 

---

No one's making it difficult to get, it's at every store even some gas stations. What you're asking is for me to pay for my neighbors sex habit and using the threat of force to do so. 

 

 

Absolutely that's what I'm asking you to do.  But the threat of force should not be necessary, because you should want to do it.  

 

"Pay for my neighbor's sex habit..."  Do you really think people will stop having sex if they don't have birth control?   I have news for you, people have sex, and they have sex a lot, and your paying for their birth control has nothing to do with it.  Your choice is to either pay for their birth control or for there to be lots and lots of abortions, legal or illegal, and lots and lots of unwed mothers going on welfare, and lots and lots of young men committing crimes because they didn't have a father growing up.  

 

Yes, you should absolutely want to pay for their birth control.   It's a part of protecting life and liberty, yours, hers, mine, and the unwanted, unplanned babies who get aborted.  

 

For gosh sakes, I cannot understand the logic of wanting to reduce abortions but not wanting to make every effort to provide people with birth control.   Pro-life people talk about a MILLION MURDERED BABIES A YEAR, and yet these same people do not want to do the one simple thing that would reduce that: GIVE PEOPLE BIRTH CONTROL.  

 

GIVE IT TO THEM.  Don't even charge them for it.  Have the taxpayers provide it for free!  Because right now, the choice is between the small cost of providing everyone with birth control, or having lots and lots of abortions and out of wedlock babies.  

 

This kind of thing makes me wonder if politics has anything at all to do with solving problems.   These days, it seems like it has more to do with raising money and keeping politicians and their employees employed, think tanks funded, advocacy groups in business, news channels and websites making money.  If we actually solved problems, a whole political industry would shrink. 

---

Absolutely that's what I'm asking you to do.  But the threat of force should not be necessary, because you should want to do it.  

 

"Pay for my neighbor's sex habit..."  Do you really think people will stop having sex if they don't have birth control?   I have news for you, people have sex, and they have sex a lot, and your paying for their birth control has nothing to do with it.  Your choice is to either pay for their birth control or for there to be lots and lots of abortions, legal or illegal, and lots and lots of unwed mothers going on welfare, and lots and lots of young men committing crimes because they didn't have a father growing up.  

 

Yes, you should absolutely want to pay for their birth control.   It's a part of protecting life and liberty, yours, hers, mine, and the unwanted, unplanned babies who get aborted.  

 

For gosh sakes, I cannot understand the logic of wanting to reduce abortions but not wanting to make every effort to provide people with birth control.   Pro-life people talk about a MILLION MURDERED BABIES A YEAR, and yet these same people do not want to do the one simple thing that would reduce that: GIVE PEOPLE BIRTH CONTROL.  

 

GIVE IT TO THEM.  Don't even charge them for it.  Have the taxpayers provide it for free!  Because right now, the choice is between the small cost of providing everyone with birth control, or having lots and lots of abortions and out of wedlock babies.  

 

I would add a dimension to this.  Offer career welfare mothers the option of receiving free tubal ligation procedures.  Everything paid for, including child care during recovery and follow up treatments.  Many of these women are too irresponsible to maintain a birth control regimen and too broke or apathetic to seek abortions.  Given the choice I bet many would take advantage of it. 

 

On the other side of the coin, if a dead beat dad wants his plumbing snipped, give him the same option.  It's a quick outpatient procedure with minimal recovery time.  No charge.

---

I would add a dimension to this.  Offer career welfare mothers the option of receiving free tubal ligation procedures.  Everything paid for, including child care during recovery and follow up treatments.  Many of these women are too irresponsible to maintain a birth control regimen and too broke or apathetic to seek abortions.  Given the choice I bet many would take advantage of it. 

 

On the other side of the coin, if a dead beat dad wants his plumbing snipped, give him the same option.  It's a quick outpatient procedure with minimal recovery time.  No charge.

I doubt that would work very well. Career welfare mothers wouldn't want to give up their source of income. Another baby = more freebies.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Birth control cost that much?  

---

Birth control cost that much?  

 

Not much at all.  That's why it is so cost effective to provide it free of charge.  

---