We're providing you a new service, so we're raising your price by $12.
The new service is morally objectionable to us. Our moral objection extends to us paying for someone else to use the service. Please DO NOT provide the service.
OK, fine, we'll give you the new service for free. By the way, the cost of some other service went up by $12.
That's what you're asking the Catholic Church to agree to. If you don't think the Church should have the religious liberty to not provide a product its teachings prohibit, then come out and say it, and defend THAT argument. But don't pretend that "oh, we'll give it to you for free and raise the cost of something else" is a reasonable solution.
Re-reading your comment, it is true, you didn't say her being 30 disqualifies her as referring to herself as a student. Sorry I missed that -- I've suddenly seen her age mentioned a lot the last few days, and save for this instance every other time I've seen that it was in the context of "she's not a student/co-ed, she's a 30 year old woman!".
For the record, initial media reports called her a 23 year old undergraduate senior. Being 30 disqualifies her from being 23. "They are lying to make her seem more sympathetic" where "they" means either her, her Democrat handlers, or the media doing the reporting is probably what you saw.
Since she is an activist, it seems entirely possible that she may have chosen to attend Georgetown in hopes of making an effort to reform their policies.
The solution to disagreeing with a Catholic institution about its Catholic based policies is to go to a different school. It's not like Georgetown makes a secret of being a Catholic institution. Also, part of her testimony was that she was "shocked" to find out (while already a student) that her Georgetown health insurance didn't cover birth control. Since she has said she went to Georgetown SPECIFICALLY to challenge this policy, that means that she lied in her press conference.
I'm not sure on what basis she qualifies as a democratic "plant", though. Is it just because she agrees with them on this issue, or are you saying the Democratic Party has been paying for her education so they could use her just in case an issue like this came up? That seems unlikely to happen in large part because it seems unlikely to be necessary -- plenty of liberal women agree with her positions without needing to be paid off.
She graduated from her undergraduate school at 22 with a degree in Gender Studies. She then used that degree to become a paid lobbyist for liberal pro-abortion and pro-government paying for birth control groups. At this point, she was a professional activist. Then she went to Georgetown to challenge this policy and get a law degree. Presumably she will continue in the field of professional activism for liberal causes once she graduates. Is her old job paying for the degree? I don't know. I know that the company I work for has a tuition repayment program, so it's entirely possible, and not even that shady.
Also, I'm a slashdotter, so I've got no experience buying birth control
FTFY. Seriously, though, you've never bought birth control? In the circles I travel in, a guy is a douche (and probably also a moron asking for drama) if he doesn't provide his own condoms. A box of Trojan Magnums costs $7 for a pack of 3. Oral contraceptives for women cost $12 per month without charity or insurance. Fluke said it would cost $3000 over her law school career, which is a lie.
but if the woman Fluke testified about who lost an ovary could have easily afforded birth control, I have to imagine she would have obtained it.
I've heard it reported that Georgetown's insurance covers "off-label" use of birth control (i.e. to treat a disease and not just for contraception.) Most of what Fluke said in her press conference is provably misleading or an outright lie. Because it's Fluke talking about "a friend of hers" and not giving any other specifics than that, it's hard to see this either way.
At any rate, to the extent cheap birth control is available, it is often only available via Planned Parenthood and Title X funding.
Again, oral contraceptives cost $12 per month without charity (e.g. Planned Parenthood or a Student Health Center) or insurance. When she said it costs $3000 over three years, Fluke was lying.
help Obama turn our country into a Muslim theocracy!
While we're on the topic of lies told by liberal women (and you are alluding to a lie), Hillary Clinton's campaign started this. No credible Republican has ever accused Obama of being either a Muslim or Kenyan.
Note to Republicans and Rushbots: slut-shaming women for exercising their right to weigh in on issues that directly affect them is *not* a winning election strategy.
Slut shaming? Are you kidding me? All I said was that she falsely implied that she was an average college student and not a plant who works for the Democrat party. Getting into bed with the Democrat party (no pun intended) does NOT make her a slut. Everyone's got to pay the rent. She lives in a house that costs $500,000. I don't begrudge her a paycheck for being a liberal activist. But part of being a shill is getting called on your bullshit
If YOU think accepting money to advance a political agenda makes someone a slut, I've got bad news for you...
Sometimes it can be costly and it is used for reasons other than contraception. But if the medicine has a contraceptive use then some religious organizations do not want their insurance providers to allow it even if the medicine is used for other purposes.
That's not quite the case. My fiancée actually has one of the conditions you are alluding to, and she takes oral contraceptives for that reason. It's my understanding that most conditions that off-label use of oral contraceptives will help respond just as well to the generic as they do to the brand name.
Also, there's quite a few insurance plans offered by Catholic institutions that cover "off-label" (i.e. anything other than contraceptive) use of oral contraceptives to treat this kind of condition, but don't cover using contraceptives for birth control.
If people want to counter the substance of Fluke's argument, then they should do so. Simply claiming she's a grown woman and acting like that renders her incapable of also being a student is a red herring and and very stupid one at that.
I was originally replying to Hatta, who claimed that Fluke is the kind of person who would be affected by this, and so she should be allowed to testify. I never said she wasn't a student. I just said that she's NOT the kind of person who would be affected by this. If this was really a problem, they would have been able to find someone who was actually affected by this, as opposed to a Democrat plant who went to Georgetown and not Yale SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE Georgetown insurance doesn't include contraceptives, and she wanted to hassle them over it.
I also attacked her on substance in a different comment. Specifically, it doesn't cost $1,000 a year for birth control. Oral contraceptives can be purchased for $12 per month with no insurance and no charity. Either of those would be able to lower Ms. Fluke's cost if she qualified for them, which she doesn't because she's well off financially. THE SYSTEM WORKS!
Not to mention it insultingly implies that all female students are just little girls.
OK, bub. I'm not the one claiming that women are either too stupid or helpless to be able to take care of themselves. Come to think of it, I think that was Ms. Fluck.
You're kidding me, right? The law requires Georgetown's insurance company to offer free contraceptives. It does not prevent the insurance company from raising the cost of another line item to pay for the free contraceptives. Which is EXACTLY what will happen. Asking Georgetown to play along with this dishonest scam is shameful, which is why the Church doesn't want to do it.
Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.
OK, you lost me on this one. Georgetown University doesn't BAN contraception, it just doesn't include it in its insurance plans. If you want contraceptives, you have to pay for them yourself. (Cost: $12 per month without insurance. Cheaper if you get it from a charity or have insurance.) What are they forcing Fluke to do?
Actually, there were two women that testified to the panel that day. They weren't in the room when the idiot Democrats pulled their little stunt because they were scheduled to testify in the afternoon, and so didn't come until lunchtime.
Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.
The Democrats had originally asked for Rev. Barry Lynn (head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) to be invited, and the Republicans invited him. The Democrats changed their minds and told Lynn not to show up, because they'd rather make an issue out of Fluke being denied. Shame on you.
A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.
Fluke is a 30 year old woman. She lives in a $500,000 house, which she can afford because she has a career as a liberal agitator. She went to Georgetown specifically because she wanted to hassle the Catholic institution over the teachings of the Church on birth control. She's EXACTLY the kind of woman who should be paying for her own birth control.
Here's a BETTER citation, for what ACTUALLY happened.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-dems-played-games-over-sandra-fluke/408036
In short, the Republicans decided on having this hearing, so they told the Democrats it was happening and asked the Democrats who to call as a witness. Being the minority party, they get one witness. The rule is that the Democrats had until three days before the hearing to come up with their witness so they have time to prepare questions and whatnot. The day before the hearing, the Democrats say that they want two witnesses, Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans for Separation of Church and State, and Fluke. The Republicans say they can't have both, so they pick Rev. Lynn. Then the Democrats tried to switch their choice back to Fluke, and THAT what was denied.
Issa would have let her testify if the Democrats had given the committee time to prepare questions to ask her, like they were supposed to.
Okay, he was on the "right" side of this one issue (OPEN)
Which is ALL I said.
But no. You feel the need to take a swing at the guy because he has an R next to his name while simultaneously defending the current administration for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels because they've all got D's next to theirs.
People like you are what's wrong with this country.
Sorry, I used to live in California and I can tell you that Issa is no good guy.
Of course you think that. You're a crazy liberal who's defending Fast and the Furious on another thread today. I'm normally not a Rob Wyden fan. But Issa and Wyden are supporting something good, and should be praised for it. Who knows? Maybe they'll keep it up.
SOPA would never have gotten out of committee without a majority of Repugs supporting it, it never would have gotten to the floor without John "Corruption Is My Middle Name" Boehner's support. THR conveniently leave that fact out of their reporting
SOPA never made it out of committee to the floor in the House. That's probably why THR didn't report any of that.
Facts are a terrible thing when they disagree with a liberal.
Gingrinch [sic] was wrong in saying that Clinton should be impeached for doing the same exact things as Gingrich himself at the time was doing.
Gingrich was lying under oath? Or obstructing justice? Because THAT is what Clinton was impeached for.
By the way, Clinton WAS impeached. (Impeached roughly means "indicted by the House of Representatives, so that there will be a trial.") The Constitution says that the President can be removed from office by the Senate if he commits "high crimes or misdemeanors" and is impeached for them by the House. Gingrich said that Clinton should be brought up on charges because he felt that lying under oath is an example of a "high crime or a misdemeanor."
Also, Clinton was cited for contempt of court in connection with the original case. He was fined $90,000 and had his license to practice law suspended.
There have been plenty of evil Socialist (thus also Atheist; under socialism, worship of the State is supposed to supplant traditional worship) regimes that have killed people over their religious beliefs.
Note that I'm not trying to conflate Atheism with evil, or even with Socialism. It's perfectly possible to be an atheist and not a Socialist. But you can't say that there's absolutely NO evil atrocities committed by any atheist ever.
Budgets don't work like that. You can't assume that passengers will leave behind $400,000 because then if they read TFA and are more careful with their change next year and you only make $100,000, you're $300,000 in the hole and need to ask to borrow/tax more. When it comes out that the shortfall comes from "fewer people leaving behind change at TSA checkpoints," you'll look like an ass.
In NJ a few years back, the Turnpike authority (which at the time had jurisdiction over the two major toll roads in the state) had a budget shortfall in the millions of dollars*. When auditors or the newspapers or somebody asked why, it was because they were calculating that about 10%* of drivers would cheat the tolls and have to pay a fine. They were including the fine money in their budget. When only 2%* of drivers cheated the toll, there was a shortfall. And outrage.
That's why you can't budget on the money. Your assumption that TSA will just get the money out of the budget anyway assumes that Congress will give them whatever they ask for, which isn't exactly true either. (It's too close to true for my taste, too.) But if they ask for something dumb, Congress CAN tell them to pound sand, which is what Miller is counting on.
*The numbers may be off. This was a decade ago, and I never drove on any of the roads in question, so I didn't follow this story too closely.
Is there anything that makes this "grandstanding" other than the fact that the Representative in question is a Republican and you're a liberal?
Because how I see it, this Congressional oversight of an Executive branch agency. The Executive branch agencies are only allowed to spend the money appropriated by Congress. They're not supposed to go out of their way to get money in other ways. Taking the money away from them and giving it to someone else removes their incentive to get money outside the appropriations process. In terms of being non-controversial (outside of this thread, that is), the USO is a decent "someone else" to give it to.
Slashdot Mirror
We're providing you a new service, so we're raising your price by $12.
The new service is morally objectionable to us. Our moral objection extends to us paying for someone else to use the service. Please DO NOT provide the service.
OK, fine, we'll give you the new service for free. By the way, the cost of some other service went up by $12.
That's what you're asking the Catholic Church to agree to. If you don't think the Church should have the religious liberty to not provide a product its teachings prohibit, then come out and say it, and defend THAT argument. But don't pretend that "oh, we'll give it to you for free and raise the cost of something else" is a reasonable solution.
Re-reading your comment, it is true, you didn't say her being 30 disqualifies her as referring to herself as a student. Sorry I missed that -- I've suddenly seen her age mentioned a lot the last few days, and save for this instance every other time I've seen that it was in the context of "she's not a student/co-ed, she's a 30 year old woman!".
For the record, initial media reports called her a 23 year old undergraduate senior. Being 30 disqualifies her from being 23. "They are lying to make her seem more sympathetic" where "they" means either her, her Democrat handlers, or the media doing the reporting is probably what you saw.
Since she is an activist, it seems entirely possible that she may have chosen to attend Georgetown in hopes of making an effort to reform their policies.
The solution to disagreeing with a Catholic institution about its Catholic based policies is to go to a different school. It's not like Georgetown makes a secret of being a Catholic institution. Also, part of her testimony was that she was "shocked" to find out (while already a student) that her Georgetown health insurance didn't cover birth control. Since she has said she went to Georgetown SPECIFICALLY to challenge this policy, that means that she lied in her press conference.
I'm not sure on what basis she qualifies as a democratic "plant", though. Is it just because she agrees with them on this issue, or are you saying the Democratic Party has been paying for her education so they could use her just in case an issue like this came up? That seems unlikely to happen in large part because it seems unlikely to be necessary -- plenty of liberal women agree with her positions without needing to be paid off.
She graduated from her undergraduate school at 22 with a degree in Gender Studies. She then used that degree to become a paid lobbyist for liberal pro-abortion and pro-government paying for birth control groups. At this point, she was a professional activist. Then she went to Georgetown to challenge this policy and get a law degree. Presumably she will continue in the field of professional activism for liberal causes once she graduates. Is her old job paying for the degree? I don't know. I know that the company I work for has a tuition repayment program, so it's entirely possible, and not even that shady.
Also, I'm a slashdotter, so I've got no experience buying birth control
FTFY. Seriously, though, you've never bought birth control? In the circles I travel in, a guy is a douche (and probably also a moron asking for drama) if he doesn't provide his own condoms. A box of Trojan Magnums costs $7 for a pack of 3. Oral contraceptives for women cost $12 per month without charity or insurance. Fluke said it would cost $3000 over her law school career, which is a lie.
but if the woman Fluke testified about who lost an ovary could have easily afforded birth control, I have to imagine she would have obtained it.
I've heard it reported that Georgetown's insurance covers "off-label" use of birth control (i.e. to treat a disease and not just for contraception.) Most of what Fluke said in her press conference is provably misleading or an outright lie. Because it's Fluke talking about "a friend of hers" and not giving any other specifics than that, it's hard to see this either way.
At any rate, to the extent cheap birth control is available, it is often only available via Planned Parenthood and Title X funding.
Again, oral contraceptives cost $12 per month without charity (e.g. Planned Parenthood or a Student Health Center) or insurance. When she said it costs $3000 over three years, Fluke was lying.
Right, because the cost to provide a service and the cost charged for that service are required to be tied to each other. Riiiight.
help Obama turn our country into a Muslim theocracy!
While we're on the topic of lies told by liberal women (and you are alluding to a lie), Hillary Clinton's campaign started this. No credible Republican has ever accused Obama of being either a Muslim or Kenyan.
Note to Republicans and Rushbots: slut-shaming women for exercising their right to weigh in on issues that directly affect them is *not* a winning election strategy.
Slut shaming? Are you kidding me? All I said was that she falsely implied that she was an average college student and not a plant who works for the Democrat party. Getting into bed with the Democrat party (no pun intended) does NOT make her a slut. Everyone's got to pay the rent. She lives in a house that costs $500,000. I don't begrudge her a paycheck for being a liberal activist. But part of being a shill is getting called on your bullshit
If YOU think accepting money to advance a political agenda makes someone a slut, I've got bad news for you...
Sometimes it can be costly and it is used for reasons other than contraception. But if the medicine has a contraceptive use then some religious organizations do not want their insurance providers to allow it even if the medicine is used for other purposes.
That's not quite the case. My fiancée actually has one of the conditions you are alluding to, and she takes oral contraceptives for that reason. It's my understanding that most conditions that off-label use of oral contraceptives will help respond just as well to the generic as they do to the brand name.
Also, there's quite a few insurance plans offered by Catholic institutions that cover "off-label" (i.e. anything other than contraceptive) use of oral contraceptives to treat this kind of condition, but don't cover using contraceptives for birth control.
If people want to counter the substance of Fluke's argument, then they should do so. Simply claiming she's a grown woman and acting like that renders her incapable of also being a student is a red herring and and very stupid one at that.
I was originally replying to Hatta, who claimed that Fluke is the kind of person who would be affected by this, and so she should be allowed to testify. I never said she wasn't a student. I just said that she's NOT the kind of person who would be affected by this. If this was really a problem, they would have been able to find someone who was actually affected by this, as opposed to a Democrat plant who went to Georgetown and not Yale SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE Georgetown insurance doesn't include contraceptives, and she wanted to hassle them over it.
I also attacked her on substance in a different comment. Specifically, it doesn't cost $1,000 a year for birth control. Oral contraceptives can be purchased for $12 per month with no insurance and no charity. Either of those would be able to lower Ms. Fluke's cost if she qualified for them, which she doesn't because she's well off financially. THE SYSTEM WORKS!
Not to mention it insultingly implies that all female students are just little girls.
OK, bub. I'm not the one claiming that women are either too stupid or helpless to be able to take care of themselves. Come to think of it, I think that was Ms. Fluck.
You're kidding me, right? The law requires Georgetown's insurance company to offer free contraceptives. It does not prevent the insurance company from raising the cost of another line item to pay for the free contraceptives. Which is EXACTLY what will happen. Asking Georgetown to play along with this dishonest scam is shameful, which is why the Church doesn't want to do it.
Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.
OK, you lost me on this one. Georgetown University doesn't BAN contraception, it just doesn't include it in its insurance plans. If you want contraceptives, you have to pay for them yourself. (Cost: $12 per month without insurance. Cheaper if you get it from a charity or have insurance.) What are they forcing Fluke to do?
Actually, there were two women that testified to the panel that day. They weren't in the room when the idiot Democrats pulled their little stunt because they were scheduled to testify in the afternoon, and so didn't come until lunchtime.
Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.
The Democrats had originally asked for Rev. Barry Lynn (head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) to be invited, and the Republicans invited him. The Democrats changed their minds and told Lynn not to show up, because they'd rather make an issue out of Fluke being denied. Shame on you.
A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.
Fluke is a 30 year old woman. She lives in a $500,000 house, which she can afford because she has a career as a liberal agitator. She went to Georgetown specifically because she wanted to hassle the Catholic institution over the teachings of the Church on birth control. She's EXACTLY the kind of woman who should be paying for her own birth control.
Issa would have let her testify if the Democrats had given the committee time to prepare questions to ask her, like they were supposed to.
Okay, he was on the "right" side of this one issue (OPEN)
Which is ALL I said.
But no. You feel the need to take a swing at the guy because he has an R next to his name while simultaneously defending the current administration for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels because they've all got D's next to theirs.
People like you are what's wrong with this country.
Sorry, I used to live in California and I can tell you that Issa is no good guy.
Of course you think that. You're a crazy liberal who's defending Fast and the Furious on another thread today. I'm normally not a Rob Wyden fan. But Issa and Wyden are supporting something good, and should be praised for it. Who knows? Maybe they'll keep it up.
The bill is sponsored in the Senate by Rob Wyden (D-OR) and in the House by Darrel Issa (R-CA).
SOPA would never have gotten out of committee without a majority of Repugs supporting it, it never would have gotten to the floor without John "Corruption Is My Middle Name" Boehner's support. THR conveniently leave that fact out of their reporting
SOPA never made it out of committee to the floor in the House. That's probably why THR didn't report any of that.
Facts are a terrible thing when they disagree with a liberal.
Or at least that it used to be...
I came to this movie because it was Watchmen, not because I wanted to, you know, watch men.
MS has been out of MSNBC for quite a while. I'm on my phone or I'd link you to the MSNBC wikipedia article, but it says when they got out there.
You should try reading a book written after the bronze age, for once.
You should try reading my post. I wrote four sentences, and you apparently only read one. The next three sentences answer all your questions.
By the way, Clinton WAS impeached. (Impeached roughly means "indicted by the House of Representatives, so that there will be a trial.") The Constitution says that the President can be removed from office by the Senate if he commits "high crimes or misdemeanors" and is impeached for them by the House. Gingrich said that Clinton should be brought up on charges because he felt that lying under oath is an example of a "high crime or a misdemeanor."
Also, Clinton was cited for contempt of court in connection with the original case. He was fined $90,000 and had his license to practice law suspended.
Note that I'm not trying to conflate Atheism with evil, or even with Socialism. It's perfectly possible to be an atheist and not a Socialist. But you can't say that there's absolutely NO evil atrocities committed by any atheist ever.
"Clinton needs to be impeached!!!" while Gingrich himself was screwing around on his second wife.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for anything he did with Lewinski. But nice revisionist history.
In NJ a few years back, the Turnpike authority (which at the time had jurisdiction over the two major toll roads in the state) had a budget shortfall in the millions of dollars*. When auditors or the newspapers or somebody asked why, it was because they were calculating that about 10%* of drivers would cheat the tolls and have to pay a fine. They were including the fine money in their budget. When only 2%* of drivers cheated the toll, there was a shortfall. And outrage.
That's why you can't budget on the money. Your assumption that TSA will just get the money out of the budget anyway assumes that Congress will give them whatever they ask for, which isn't exactly true either. (It's too close to true for my taste, too.) But if they ask for something dumb, Congress CAN tell them to pound sand, which is what Miller is counting on. *The numbers may be off. This was a decade ago, and I never drove on any of the roads in question, so I didn't follow this story too closely.
No. But they shouldn't be keeping it either. Maybe they should give it to charity.
Because how I see it, this Congressional oversight of an Executive branch agency. The Executive branch agencies are only allowed to spend the money appropriated by Congress. They're not supposed to go out of their way to get money in other ways. Taking the money away from them and giving it to someone else removes their incentive to get money outside the appropriations process. In terms of being non-controversial (outside of this thread, that is), the USO is a decent "someone else" to give it to.