Tenth, Spot-on editorial on the topic: RUSE: Obama mandate: Not a women’s issuehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/2/obama-mandate-not-a-womens-issue/
Thank you TGP for the opportunity to clear up some comments.Somebody claiming to have common sense seems to be missing some. The Pope is the one who wants to block access to birth control medical coverage, not the Roman Catholic inspired institutions. And since Pope cannot force them, and he has been trying unsuccessfully, so he is trying to make the United States Government force them. You know, government interference?For those of you so unfamiliar with the Roman Catholic Church, but are hell bent on adding your two cents worth, here's something to chew on. The Pope in Rome trying to force his will on private Catholic institutions is like the President of China telling all the Chinese restaurants in the U.S. to stop serving sweet & sour pork.Remember, the private Catholic tradition institutions are NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church in the same way the individual parishes are subservient.
Somebody needs to go to confession. The Washington Times should never be confused with The Washington Post.Sun Myung Moon owns and controls the content of the Washington Times, a VERY unreliable news source.Case in point: The actual CNN report mentioned in the Washington Times' link of the first comment says exactly the OPPOSITE of what actual article says from the actual CNN website. Check it out yourself.http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/19/birth.control.iom/index.html
...still waiting for Sepp to tell us why pregnancy in NOT a health issue for women. Sepp?You know that you can't avoid answering me.Sepp, the data please.
Posse Members- don't you just LOVE the conversation about birth control, religious freedom, misogyny and sluts? I do. The longer the once-Grand Old Party consumes itself with these losing issues, the higher Obama moves in the polls.Let's keep these subjets going as long as we can.Who believe that the pill is just for recreational sex?Who thinks Rush was right on the slut comment?Who believes the church is being impugned by the Obama mandate?Which of you believe that a woman's role is in the kitchen?
Where did I say that pregnancy was not a health issue? Or was that YOU saying that for me? Take your ass on back and reread what I said.Then perhaps you and the alpha-bat can bedazzle us with your views on rights and responsibility.I'm especially curious as to which "right" you supposedly have that anyone other than you is responsible in providing for you?
Hey Alpha-bat, didn't you also deem another news source as "very unreliable" that happened to break the Fast and furious scandal?
Sepp wrote, Vasectomies and viagra aren't "health issue items" anymore than free BC pills are.to which I asked:So, Sepp, you are stating that birth control pills are not in the category of 'health items?'There you go, Sepp.Now, what's your answer [5th time]?
I'm saying that birth control pills aren't a lifesaving drug anymore than viagra is. For all your shills saying that women will die without them is pure bunk.Now, since we've gone over your question...for the 5th time...answer the question I've been asking you for years,Which "right" do you supposedly have that anyone other than you is responsible in providing for you?
Sepp states: For all your shills saying that women will die without them is pure bunk.So your final statement, Sepp, is that birth control pills are NOT a health issue and that women would not die if they do not take them.Is this what you 'believe?'Yes or No?[I will be away from a computer until late this afternoon.]
Please tell me what life is saved by birth control pills.
Mud,You giant imbecile. Any sex not resulting in propagation of the species is recreational. I can't believe you even asked such a stupid question.Having cleared that up, the wife and I recreate quite often, but we are done propagating. We use an intra-uterine device, paid for by money out of my pocket. If I remember correctly, it cost $375 about three years ago.Engaging in sex is a choice that two people make. No one else has anything to do with it. Can that act result in health issues? Yes. Should anyone else be REQUIRED to help pay for those health issues? No. But lots of people donate willingly to help. Give to charitable organizations; let them help the AIDS victims and teen mommas. Keep Uncle Sam out of it.
Sepp wrote: "Hey Alpha-bat,..." Hey Einstein, the provider of this blog assigns that moniker when I post. I don't even know if it assigns the same moniker to other posters as well. And is "bat" supposed to be an insult? Sepp wrote: "...didn't you also deem another news source as "very unreliable"..." I stated that the particular news source cited was widely known for inaccuracies (actually, outright lies). I then proceeded to point out that the facts stated in the cited news source article were totally false and I provided the link to the original source of the information for confirmation.Sepp wrote: "...that happened to break the Fast and furious scandal?" In that particular case, I pointed out that the facts presented as "true" were actually half truths at best. Sepp then proceeded to twist the half truths into outright lies. A very little research of accredited sources would have yielded the true facts associated with this story.1. The head of the department was actually hired by Bush's Attorney General2. Operation Fast and Furious was not officially part of Operation Gun Runner3. Operation Fast and Furious was actually the third attempt of the exact same operation, with the first two happening while Bush was President.4. Operation Fast and Furious was a local operation in the Phoenix office and hidden from some higher ups in Washington.And there is much more, but Sepp always answers with some "Red Herring" to confuse the issue, not answer the question, and then accuse the questioner of not answering. Nice gig if you can get it.
TPG, just read your reply regarding contraceptives. The question isn't about who should pay, the question is should they be legal. Think of health insurance as pay ($) and what your employer includes is part of your pay.Insurance is a way of spreading around the risk that someone might need expensive medical care. The problem with leaving it to charities, as was done in the past, is that some charities pick and chose who they'll help. What if one of your children needed expensive medical care, but the charities viewed YOU as not worthy? Is that fair? You piss me off at times, but damn if your kids need medical care, they damn well better get the best available with no strings attached! And that really goes for you and your wife as well.
Jeff,When you get a speeding ticket, does my auto insurance go up? No, it doesn't. Why should I be forced to pay for bad decisions made by other people? Your analogy doesn't wash.If a charity doesn't want to help Barney Frank with his AIDS medication because they are repulsed by the lifestyle that Barney has chosen, tough break for Barney.If one of my children, God forbid, needs some medical treatment for an illness, not an injury, I believe most charities will work with me to help get the treatment needed. If one of my children, God forbid, wants to turn themselves into Chaz Bono, God forbid, then I would think most charities would view that as an option, not a necessity. There is a huge difference, and insurance or charity shouldn't be required to provide for the latter.As for pregnancy being a health issue, it really isn't. Pregnancy is a choice. It may be the result of a bad choice, but it is a choice. If you engage in a monogamous relationship, all of the hazards associated with sex disappear. Funny, but monagamy is most often pushed by faith based organizations.Thank you, however, for your concern for my children's health. I do believe you are legitimately concerned, even though I think you are misguided.
Thats odd, I seem to recall that you were in complete denial of the story of the scandal.Those half truths and lies as you called them sure did blossom into full truths and why's during testimony."Sepp always answers with some "Red Herring" to confuse the issue, not answer the question, and then accuse the questioner of not answering."Are you referring to that question I've been asking about "responsibility"?I can see why that would confuse you.
"Thats odd, I seem to recall that you were in complete denial of the story of the scandal."Close, but no cigar. I merely pointed out the story as you told it was pretty much all fantasy."Those half truths and lies as you called them sure did blossom into full truths and why's during testimony."Once again you're fibbing. Shame on you. If you had done even minimal research on the subject and actually listened to ALL the testimony* you might have learned the truth. Instead, you chose to keep passing the same fibs.Here's a challange for you: Who actually hired the person in charge and why?All that aside, I find your views on gun control in complete contrast to your views on the Fast & Furious operation. Now that I find confusing.* Why is it that you never followed up with what's going on regarding the Gunrunner and Fast & Furious operations?
So, Sepp fails to answer my challenge. Figures. All blabber no balls.
I did answer your question muddy...now YOU answer mine.
Oh, Sepp, I must have missed it. So sorry. Please do me a favor. Could you copy/paste one of the following sentences into a reply:I, Sepp, believe it makes NO difference to the health of women if they use or do not use birth control pills.I Sepp, do NOT believe that using or not using birth control pills affects the health of women.Thanks for clarifying your position.
How about the answer I'd given in the first place?How about answering the question I've been waiting for you to answer?Dodge, weave, evade and then accuse the other guy.How typical.
Caught in a web of ignorance, right Sepp? You said a dumbass, stupid thing and now you aren't man enough to admit it.Birth control pills have many advantages for women beyond preventing conception:1. Protection against uterine (endometrial) cancerand ovarian cancer is probably one of the mostimportant health benefits of oral contraceptives.Using the pill for 1 year or more considerablyreduces the risk of developing endometrialcancer. The risk of developing ovarian cancer isreduced with only 3 to 6 months of OC use.Protection against these cancers increases withcontinued pill use and is thought to continue forat least 15 years after pill use is stopped. 2. The pill is also useful in treating endometriosis, a condition in which tissue resembling the uterine lining occurs abnormally in various locations in the pelvic cavity.3. The risk of developing ovarian cysts is greatlyreduced for OC users because the pill helpsprevent ovulation. An ovarian cyst is a fluid –filled growth that can develop in the ovary duringovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary).4. Fibrocystic breast changes occur when the milkproducingglands in the breast become thick andform non-cancerous breast lumps often causingdiscomfort and alarm and sometimes surgicalintervention. This condition is less common in pillusers than nonusers.5. Heavy and irregular menstrual bleeding patternsare significantly improved on the pill, which alsodecreases the risk of iron deficiency anemia.6. Oral contraceptives have been found to reduceincidence of PID (pelvic inflammatory disease), aserious bacterial infection of the fallopian tubesand uterus that can result in severe pain andpotentially, infertility.7. Oral contraceptives also reduces the risk ofectopic pregnancy, a potentially seriousemergency. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when afertilized egg develops outside the uterus, ofteninside one of the tubes.So, Sepp, you are dead wrong, but your pride won't allow you to admit it.
Idiot. All of those conditions are reduced by the 9 months of pregnancy hormones, except the breast lumps, which are reduced by breastfeeding.Man has still not been able to beat God's own design.
Idiot? Are you looking in the mirror, Tenth?It is so sad that folks like you, Sepp and Anti are so wed to Limbaugh that you have to sell your very soul to the Devil to protect that moron.You really can't be THAT stupid, Tenth. Or are you?Wow! What a moronic wasteland your blog has become!
Where have you seen me protecting Rush? You are a fucking idiot.
Wow, I wonder how women ever made it past 25 years old before 1965?Then we have a few minor side effects directly associated with taking the pill...Weight gainReduced or increased acneSlight nauseaEmotional sensitivity right before your periodMood swings throughout your cycleIrregular bleeding or spottingBreast tendernessDecreased libidoIncreased risk of cervical and breast cancersIncreased risk of heart attack and strokeMigrainesHigher blood pressureGall bladder diseaseInfertilityBenign liver tumorsDecreased bone densityYeast overgrowth and infectionIncreased risk of blood clottingHigher risk of stroke after age 40Just like any other prescription drug, there are downsides.Although, in all my years I have NEVER met a woman who's decision to take the pill was based on ANYTHING muddy listed as beneficial in doing so.That aside, muddy, my statement was that the pill does not cure any disease.Is the pill administered to cure a disease?Nope.
I used to be married to a woman who took the pill to help control her raging menstrual cycles. Didn't really seem to work.
That is why moonbats love the pill...one week a month it turns 50% of the population into raving moonbats!My ex-wife would go on insane rants, stomp out of the room in a frenzy...and return a minute later wondering why everyone looked so shocked as if the minute before had never happened."May cause severe mood swings" on the warning label might have been a hint to heed.
Although, in all my years I have NEVER met a woman who's decision to take the pill was based on ANYTHING muddy listed as beneficial in doing so.Obviously the 'data' you have collected in 'all of your years' is conclusive. Wow. Such a grand experience you've had, Sepp. All of those women and not a single one, not one had any of the problems I listed.What, Sepp, was your 'sample' for this survey? 100? 1000? 10,000?Two?Remarkable ignorance, Sepp, just remarkable.It reminds me of that other sampling experiment in which a woman wades into the ocean with a glass. She dips it in and looks at it: no fish. She does it a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time. No fish.Conclusion? There are no fish in the ocean.Idiot.
Idiot? Answer for the side effects I listed...Weight gainReduced or increased acneSlight nauseaEmotional sensitivity right before your periodMood swings throughout your cycleIrregular bleeding or spottingBreast tendernessDecreased libidoIncreased risk of cervical and breast cancersIncreased risk of heart attack and strokeMigrainesHigher blood pressureGall bladder diseaseInfertilityBenign liver tumorsDecreased bone densityYeast overgrowth and infectionIncreased risk of blood clottingHigher risk of stroke after age 40A fool will take a drug that has "potential" to inhibit the problems you listed while accepting the well known side effects.Thanks muddy.I've always wonder who was the moron that saw "death or, suicidal thoughts" as an acceptable side effect risk to peeing regularly for old men over 60.