Wonder who’s getting screwed?

CONTRACEPTION MANDATE: Actually a payoff to Big Pharma? “Completely ignored is the more fundamental problem: this mandate is not only about the bedroom, it’s about the boardroom. You’ve heard of crony capitalism? Well this is America’s first example of crony contraceptives. Forget for a minute the religious question and look at who wins big here: Big Pharma. This mandate is not really about condoms or generic versions of ‘the pill,’ which are available free or cheap in lots of places. This is about brand-name birth control drugs and other devices that some consumers swear off because they are too expensive. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all ‘FDA approved contraceptive methods.’ It does not insist on generics. And it does not offer any cost containment. . . . It’s important to point out that among President Obama’s biggest financial backers are precisely the Big Pharma companies who benefit from the mandate.”

In my opinion, this whole kerfuffle is about distracting voters from the economic disaster Obummer has overseen during his term and certainly the media has enthusiastically joined him in that effort. Still, if his scheme also enriches his fat cat contributors well, that’s a lovely lagniappe.

61 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

61 responses to “Wonder who’s getting screwed?

  1. Walt

    Dude –
    Kerfuffle? KERFUFFLE!!! Do you write this drivel just to piss me off? WELL DO YA PUNK!! Dirty Harry Dude!! And it’s WORKING!!
    And then you follow up with the “lovely lagniappe”? Almost BRILLIANT I SAY!! I AM PUKING READING THIS STUFF!! Do I need to wear a dribble bib just to read this blog? Require eye bleach after every agonizing sentence?
    I have news for you, my friend. There won’t be any Pulitzer on your mantle anytime soon. Stick to pissy. It’s what you do best!!
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  2. Inagua

    Forcing all health insurers to provide the Pill to all women without a deductible or a co-pay or a generic alternative is obviously a less than efficient allocation of resources. But making the Pill free to as many women as possible is a good idea because it will reduce uwanted pregnancies. In an ideal world this would be done by private organizations, but that is not the world we live in. Bottom line: I don’t like the way Obama did it, but it is good public policy. Now…………how can we get high school girls on the pill? Can it be mixed into the free meals?

  3. AJ

    I think your opinion is 100% dead on. That’s exactly what wedge issues are all about — divide and conquer. Sort of like arguing with the flight attendent over what beverages they’re serving while the plane is nose diving straight into the ground, or what kind of wallpaper you should have put in the bedroom as your house is about to be foreclosed on. The odd thing is that the citizenry is so dumbed down that it works almost every time. Though I’ll bet most people can recite the latest Hollywood scandal chapter and verse.

  4. Inagua

    AJ – So what if this is a political winner for Obama. The question about the policy remains: Do you or do you not favor free Pills? Why?

  5. The New Normal

    why don’t we just provide free sterilization to all “undesirables?” that’s good policy too….

  6. AJ

    Inagua, I see you have been distracted. The answer is who gives a shit. There are 600 trillion dollars of unregulated derivatives out there, and our government seems to be bent on covering the losses at full face value. They’re setting up check points on highways all over the country so that TSA rent-a-cops can stop you in your car and stick their hands down your’s and your children’s pants. I haven’t been paying attention to the pill issue, but I don’t think they’re going to be handing them out like candy; I think they’re talking about it as being part of an insurance policy, and I don’t know, is that free? As far as to whether or not insurance provided by religious organizations be required to provide you with pills: I don’t think so, but as a US citizen you’re required to do all sorts of things you may not believe in. I don’t think birth control pills are that expensive so I don’t know what everybody is fighting over. Sort of like fighting over who’s going to get to pick up the dime that several people see laying in the street. Again it is a wedge issue meant to divide and conquer as all wedge issues are. Vote for Ron Paul: if he gets elected we can begin to end all this nonsense, and if not, maybe send a message to Washington and start a movement towards what’s right.

  7. Reader

    Inagua- Milton Friedman said there is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as a “free pill”. Someone is paying for it. The moral failing of that Georgetown Law student is not her sexual activity, but her desire to have the rest of us pay for it. I don’t want to pay for her law books, her clothes, her wine, or her contraception. If she wants to use the pill, she can buy the pill.

  8. Anonymous

    First, i agree it is an issue of distraction! This is issue always amazes me. No one debates the horrible ramifications that these unborn children get when they are conceived in an unwanted situation. I suggest anyone against this needs to take a walk through the Bridgeport social services depts and schools and police stations to get an idea of what they are really talking about. Reproduction and sex and quality of life are quite mixed up during these debates. I love children but once you have seen the impoverished and hopelessness of these unwanted children you realize that it is ok to have children in a responsible fashion. For disadvantaged women closing the option for birth control is a clear sentence. I thought it made more sense to give people opportunity to be self sustaining through education and work and health. Furthermore, our country needs all the help it can get for our citizens to be self sufficient and successful. ‘Screwing’ the poor and the young isn’t the way to do it.

  9. Anonymous

    True someone is paying for it and the derivatives issues are of greater concern.
    By the way insurance covers GYN visits. If I have a penis can I morally object that I am paying for something I am not using?! Or, is it something that is an actuarial decision based on cost/ benefit analysis. Inexpensive to provide and prevents big costs……We could go through a lot of CPT4 codes that insurance covers that don’t apply to all – It is all in the way you use it.

  10. AJ

    Oh, it’s that law student thing. Since it takes two people to have sex unless she’s having sex with herself, then maybe she can get her partner(s) to pay — sort of a user’s fee. After all if her friend gets her pregnant, he’s going to be on the hook for a lot more than the cost of the pill. And if she’s into same-sex sex, well then, she doesn’t need the pill. But if we’re (the taxpayer) going to pay for her pill, why stop there? Why not buy her a cell phone: it’s necessary to get in touch with someone before you can have sex, and why not a new car just in case she needs to do a little wining and dining before she hops in the sack.

  11. Crazy Cat lady

    You are absolutely wrong. The costs of birth control for every single woman is far, far less than the costs of prenatal care, birthing babies (high hospital/medical costs), and raising healthy children to adulthood, especially if it is an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. This attitude is extremely short-sighted and sexist. Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting despicable human being.

  12. Inagua

    “If she wants to use the pill, she can buy the pill.”

    Reader – That would work in a perfect world with perfectly rational inhabitants. But we live in this world where many women won’t pay for birth control; they would rather risk unwanted pregnancy. You are familiar with Friedman’s position that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Are you also familiar with his position on neighborhood effects as a justification for such things as mass education and urban parks? I submit that widely available free (to the user) Pills is justified as a desirable neighborhood effect, ie. a reduction in unwanted pregnancies.

    I share your disapproval of this woman, and there is no reason for us to pay for her books, clothes, or wine, but there is a reason why it is in our interest to pay for her Pills. Unfortunately.

  13. Crazy Cat lady

    Gee, AJ you sound just exactly like the kind of jerk I would dearly love my daughters to stay a million miles away from………..we are talking about for the greater societal good here. And I will add you to my list of disgusting despicable human beings. ALL OF OUR tax dollars are ALREADY paying for all of the unwanted pregnancies and illiteracy and welfare and Medicaid and domestic and child abuse in this country!!!!

  14. Anonymous

    whining and dining is more like it!

  15. Reader

    The Wall St Journal’s Best of the web column has an article that refers to the “Sandra Fluke kerfuffle”. If there ever was an issue that is a kerfuffle, this must be it.

  16. Greenwich Gal

    The issue is INSURANCE! The pill is not “free” in this argument as it is part of an insurance policy which someone is paying for in some way or another. Contraception should be part of a medical package provided to women. Just because some backwards religions don’t agree with it does not mean women don’t have a right to it. After all most Catholic women have had birth control in one form or another. Sometimes for actual birth control sometimes for something else entirely. Sometimes I think we are really stepping back into the middle ages. Santorum is scaring me too. Unbelievable. Do you really want the Catholic church to be able to pick and choose their employees health care options because they have an “ethical issue” with some of them! Really???? Have we just stepped back into the 16th century?

  17. Anonymous

    Wait until AJ has a teen age daughter. Maybe she goes to high school parties or college frat parties. Or, a lawsuit b/c AJs son forgot to bag it and has a paternity test to prove it. Anyway, this is all just shifting money from the front pocket to the back and missing the point. This is a public health concern not a moral concern. What happened to discussing the economy?

  18. Walt

    Dude -
    Gotta agree with you on this one.
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  19. Greenwich Gal

    I have thought about it long and hard and at first I agreed with you. However, many employees of Georgetown – for example – are not Catholic. They may want and or need birth control. They have insurance which is provided to them by their employer, the Catholic Church. Why should women not have the opportunity to excercise the full freedoms provided to them? It is a freedom and a right provided to them under the laws of this country. Just because the Catholic church does not subscribe to this freedom does not mean they should not have to provide it. True believers – if there are any, actually besides that nut case Rick Santorum – don’t have to partake.
    If we take what you believe at face value – does that mean that religious groups can pick and choose their coverage? So, let’s take for example people who might be beholden to the Church of Scientology – No psychiatrists at all or epidurals during labor? If you are a 7th Day Adventist – no Saturday appointments? If someone should get hurt while working at the Church of Scientists – should they not have to cover the medical assistance because they don’t believe in medicene? Should religious groups be able to pick and choose what they will or will not cover? What if your religious sect believes in clitorectomy and female genital mutilation? – Should we cover that just because it is “their religion?” I have to tell you THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW IN THIS COUNTRY – Thank God.

    • Their employers aren’t denying them the right to birth control or blood transfusions. If you choose to work at a religious institution that you know opposes blood transfusions then you shouldn’t expect them to provide you with insurance that will pay for that procedure. Decline the coverage and either buy your own policy of pay your own medical bills yourself. I have a 2nd Amendment right to own and carry a gun – if I worked for the Brady organization it wouldn’t be against the law for them to bar me from bringing a gun to work or even, I suspect, refusing to give me time off during the work week to head off to the practice range. You want coercion, how about these employers who fire workers for smoking, even when they aren’t on the job and are in their own homes? They justify that on the grounds that the organization’s health insurance costs will be lower if non of their employees smoke. Why not just deny coverage for emphysema and call it a day?

  20. Inagua

    GG is a perfect example of why Obama is right on this issue. GG believes that a product available at Wal-Mart and Target for $9 a month should be paid for by an insurance policy. This is as absurd as thinking an automobile insurance policy should pay for gasoline. But the reality is that many women think like GG does, and some of those women will not use birth control unless someone else pays for it. For his next trick, I hope Obama figures out a way to get the Pill to high school girls. It would be a great use of tax dollars.

  21. Crazy Cat lady

    Really?? How about NO INSURANCE for Viagra?????? What a complete waste of resources, and male sexist boondoggle……… Let’s get into the 21st Century!!!! Birth control is an essential social need for the entire world population, and NOT a religious free-for-all……..Santorum is a creepy guy and I sure do not want him running my country! Stay away from my reproductive freedoms. And yes, I am proudly part of the 1%, but the part that worked very hard up from nothing (and not in the financial world), and did not pillage and plunder the economy and populace to get there!

    • Why on earth should Viagra be covered? But if you want to get into a theological argument, I suppose I could point out that enabling someone to obtain an erection says nothing about whether that tumescence will be employed for wedded procreation or immoral, “sex for the hell of it” fun. hey – I’m not here to defend Catholic doctrine, but a distinction between the two drugs can be made.

  22. AJ

    Anonymous @ 5:20, this is a public health concern? Since when do birth control pills protect you from STDs. Like since never. I don’t think any taxpayer should have to pay for her unshielded desire for (assuming she’s not married) promiscuity so that they can end up paying for her aids treatment. I had to work summers to pay my way through college even though my parents could easily have paid my tuition. I think it had something to do with building character. Since she has the wherewithal to put herself through law school she shouldn’t expect the taxpayers to pay for her recreation. If she can’t afford birth control she should learn how to say no, and if she’s too stupid to do that, she should withdraw from law school before she does damage to any future clients because she would certainly be too stupid to pratice law. If all you morons who think that taxpayers should pay for someones night out on the town are serious, then get together and start a fund or a foundation. If you really think it’s a good idea then you should pay for it, and not expect someone else to. But on the other hand why don’t we just put something in the water. I vote that she pays for her own birth control or learns to control her emotions — very important for a lawyer — and keeps her pants on. And yes this is a distraction from much more important things. What about all the people who have lost their houses and their jobs and their life savings and are living in the street? Why don’t you ask them what they think of this silly student’s demand for free birth control pills?

  23. Inagua

    >>why don’t we just provide free sterilization to all “undesirables?”<<

    Why limit it to undesirables? Sterilization for anyone who wants it should be free. It would be a great use of taxpayer dollars.

  24. Greenwich Gal

    GO CRAZY CAT LADY!
    Inagua – in the past I have admired your acumen, but not here, dear. You are so wrong! Perhaps it is some deadly testosterone-brain disorder that has the men on this blog thinking like Neanderthals!
    In many instances, birth control is a MEDICENE and often has nothing to do with reproductive issues but with hormonal ones. Quite frankly it is the business of the doctor and the patient. It is not the GD business of the employer! Whatever private medical issues come between a patient and his or her doctor – it is not the business of some religious institution or otherwise to interfere. IT IS A BASIC RIGHT TO PRIVACY! Inagua – if my doctor and I decide on a procedure – whatever it may be – I don’t want my employer to have any hand in this whatsoever. I should have the right to choose whatever healthcare options are available to me. It is no one’s business but my own. I also firmly believe that an organization may spout opinions but you cannot keep another citizen from excercising theirs.
    You want to see some crazed American women? Just watch – The Republican party is losing them in droves as we speak as we listen to such idiots as Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum.

  25. Greenwich Gal

    Where are EOS and Delving Eye – sensible ladies both – when I need them?

  26. Greenwich Gal

    By the way, AJ the birth control is NOT FREE! It is part of a health care package! Helloooooo! She is advocating for it not to be excluded. It is not excluded for most women in America. The Catholic Church does not want to pay. Because, of course, they are taking the “moral high road” in spite of being behind the systematic abuse and rape of thousands of children all over the world. Please.

  27. Digler

    Inagua is right regarding the fact that providing birth control is just good public policy. Clearly, many people will not take it if it is not provided for free so it is in all of our common interest to avoid unwanted pregnancies since these create many problems for society.
    On the other hand, nobody’s forced to go to a given college, and so a Catholic institution is not automatically forcing Catholicism upon everyone else. It’s a choice to attend such schools, and it’s a choice for those schools when it comes to their policies.
    Imagine if the Federal Government forced jewish and muslim private schools to sell pork in their cafeterias, the left would be crying out against this religious bigotry. However, because we are attacking a Christian organization, well I guess that’s just kosher for this White House.

  28. Crazy Cat lady

    Amen Greenwich Gal……these guys have their heads in their pants.
    And yes, Viagra IS covered by many health insurance policies….how ridiculous and sexist is THAT??

  29. Rude Poster

    Greenwich Gal, it is your right to sign up for any kind of insurance that you want. It should be the right of the provider to provide whatever kind of insurance that meets their criteria. If the policies do not fit your needs then you should be able to shop around and find something more suitable. In a free country, there is NO reason that you or the government should be able to dictate what kind of services are provided to you. How do you NOT understand this basic concept?

  30. Inagua

    GG – I think it is sound public policy to make Pills, condoms, abortifacients, etc. available free of charge to any woman who wants them. So far Obama has only figured out how to do this for women with health insurance, but I hope he can soon figure out a way to extend this to high school students as well. I know of no other medical products or services that are required by law to be subject to neither an insurance deductible or co-payment. It is a great first step.

    I believe that our only disagreement is that you seem to think it is a matter of privacy, personal rights, and freedom; while I see it as an economic matter. No one in denying any woman access any of these products; the disagreement is over who should pay. For example, I personally think that any woman who can afford to pay her monthly cell phone bill should be able to pay the $9 a month that Wal-Mart and Target charge for for the Pill. But I accept that many women are unwilling to do that. So I say, “Fine, let the rest of us pay.” I think it is silly, selfish, undignified, immature, and irresponsible, for a woman to want the rest of us to pay for her Pills, but I am happy to do it.

  31. Rude Poster

    Crazy Cat Lady,

    (1) What does being in the 1% have to do with birth control? (2) If you are in the 1% you may not want to advertise that to the world. Things are going to get very ugly and you will just make yourself a target. It is also obnoxious and gauche. (3) Are you sure that you did not pillage and plunder the economy and populace to get where you are? You said you are not in finance. Most people realize that over the last 20 plus years the finance industry made (and continues to make) mincemeat out of the US economy. IF you own a ancillary business that has benefited from your proximity to this crowd then you have been paid with stolen money. Do you really know how your husband makes his money??

  32. Inagua

    “It should be the right of the provider to provide whatever kind of insurance that meets their criteria.”

    Rude – This is precisely what ObamaCare forbids. ObamaCare is essentially regulation of the health insurance industry. And with respect to birth control, Obama has decreed that these products and services must be provided and must be paid for in full, with no deductible or co-pay.

  33. Crazy Cat lady

    I sure do know how he earns our living…..in a respectable, honorable professional ethical way.

  34. AJ

    An employer is not required to offer the gold plated executive policy to lower tier employees; they are not required to offer you coverage for a private hospital room. In fact many, if not all (I’m not completely familiar with US law as it stands now) companies are not required to offer you insurance of any kind at all. If she’s asking for more than a condom, then she’s asking me to pay for her pleasure. And a religious organization is not required to offer you insurance coverage for medical proceedures they don’t believe in (policies can be tailored to suit the buyer, in this case the employer). When you apply for a job you may ask what the benefits are, and if you don’t like them you don’t have to take the job. I don’t know of any employer that allows you to choose or write your own insurance policy. This is not a sexual discrimination issue because male birth control is also available for those who want it, and I believe the employer at issue doesn’t offer male birth control either.

  35. AJ

    Inagua @ 8:09, I did not know that current law requires insurers to provide birth control. But if that’s the case rather than forcing religious organizations that don’t believe in birth control who offer insurance to employees, the government can offer a tax credit to those who wish to buy birth control. But again pills don’t protect against STDs and there is certainly no guarantee that people who have the pill will remember to take them or that people who have condoms will choose to use them. There’s much too much social engineering going on.

  36. Rude Poster

    Righto! That is what they all say. He is probably a lawyer. At least we are square on one thing……………..someone else is bringing home the bacon.

  37. Greenwich Gal

    Rude poster – I Do very much understand the concept. And when this debate first started I sided with the Catholic Church. However the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was wrong. There are many religions out there. And they should not be able to pick and choose rights that all Americans have. If a person wants to adhere to some weird religious beliefs, fine, but when it comes to issues of health and privacy – those doors should remain open for other options.
    Like I said – should some Scientologists who open a car dealership not have to cover psychological services? Or anesthesia? Where do you draw the line? Which religions are ok and which ones aren’t? Who decides that?

  38. Anonymous

    I nominate Rude Poster as the official idiot of the FWIW blog. Do yourself a favor and keep your mouth shut. What a buffoon. You even make Dollar Bill look smart.

  39. Greenwich Gal

    Oh, Anon at 12:35 – are you new to this blog? Yes you are right about Rude Poster – but hardly the first buffoon to fill space on this blog! There have been many! Usually CF humiliates them so they run away….

  40. Rude Poster

    @ Greenwich Gal,

    You still do not get it! You have the right to use birth control. Your insurance provider (unless ObamaCare has taken away that right according to Inagua) has the right to provide different types of coverage. It is not your right to get free birth control nor is your right to demand that someone provide them to you under an insurance plan. Find a plan that suits you but do not assume that all providers share the same values as you even though we all share the same laws.
    Certainly a church has the right to follow the rules they believe in. For instance, If they believe that marriage is between a man and a women then they should NOT have to marry anyone else in their church. If you do not believe in that church’s teaching then you do not have to attend that church. To quote you, “It’s all about freedom baby.” People like you want it both ways whenever it suits them (and they want someone else to pay for it). It is just this kind of thinking that driven our country to the edge of bankruptcy and has filled our society with a bunch of whining, entitled miscreants.

  41. Rude Poster

    Anonymous @ 12:35,

    My self appointed job is to stir the pot a little bit NOT to write things that you agree with. Check out the first amendment of the US constitution and then go crawl back into your hole.

  42. Greenwich Gal

    Yes I DO get it – Rude Poster – God, what a pen name – I understand your point, you simply do not understand mine. If an organization is going to provide insurance, they should provide the best healthcare options available and not be able to pick and choose coverage for whatever bullsh** religious reasons they might have. If an INDIVIDUAL so chooses to abide by this religion it is their choice. Your way is ripe for corruption, malfeasance, whatever. An organization could potentially save millions if they decide that – “Hey, we’re Catholic, now!” Or “we don’t believe in that, after all it is against our (insert new made up religion here)”
    Like most Americans I believe that the rights of the individual and the right to privacy trump this.
    Free America should not be held up by Religion. Should women who are Muslim not be able to drive? Are we supposed to hold up that backwards belief as well? After all it is their “Religion!!”
    So Rude Poster, surely you can try to understand my point and maybe not be such a “rude poster” and we can change your name to “Reasonable Man.”

  43. Greenwich Gal

    Meanwhile – I give up on this. I feel I have said my piece and I am seriously outnumbered by the right winger males here. Jeez.

  44. Anonymous

    Rude Poster, you are even dumber than I thought. If you had ever read the First Amendment and had even half a brain, you’d know that what I said had nothing to do with it.

    And it is not that I disagree with you, it is just that you are stupid. I’m certain more right wing than you, but, unlike you, I am rational. Your 7:52 post is absurd. “Stolen Money.” Unbelieveable. That just shows a plain lack of either knowledge or intelligence. I certainly agree with the substance of your argument against GG, but even a broken clock is right twice day.

  45. Rude Poster

    @ Anonymous d-bag, Unless, of course, it is a digital clock that shows the am and pm designations and then a broken clock would be correct only one time per day. You have not been correct once.

    RE: Stolen money. I will give you just one example.

    The mortgage backed securities market. The entire sell side knew that they were selling junk. Investment bankers that got the deals, research analysts that covered the deals, the ratings agencies that were basically in their pocket, and the salespeople and traders (movers) that sold that toxic garbage to the buy side…..they were all in on the joke. Many of these same games were played in the first tech bubble and are being played again. This is criminal behavior and this is especially criminal when the risk is taken out of the equation, a few people are enriched at the expense of society at large and when the taxpayer is on the hook for it. Were the politicians crooked too? Hell yes. Was social engineering and failed liberal policies (i.e. fanny and freddie) responsible for this too? Hell yes. Were the mortgage companies that gave anyone that could fog a mirror a loan guilty? Hell yes. Was the home buyer that lied about his income or did not understand his loan guilty? Hell yes. Let’s not even get into the rise of the hedge fund industry and the amount of insider trading (i.e. trading on information that is not available to the public) that goes on every day. By the way, most people at the SEC give the financial industry a free pass since that is where they are looking for their next job. There was (and is) a hell of a lot of white collar criminal behavior (and what constitutes in my book “stolen money” since I will have to pay for it) and to my knowledge very few people that participated in this massive fraud have gone to jail. Does this mean that they are not guilty or that money was not stolen? No, it just means that the system is broken. Believe me there are plenty of guys in suits and ties riding the train to the city every day who hide behind respectability that are nothing but criminals and we all have to pay for it. This is wrong!

  46. GG and Crazy Cat Lady, my dear sisters — I’m late to this post because I just got to it.

    And, while I applaud you and agree with you on many levels, here’s the thing. Just because I’m a strong proponent of women’s health, including birth control (whether used for reproductive purposes or hormonal ones) and wish every woman on this planet had access to it (and to abortion, btw) DOESN’T mean that employers/gov’ts have to PROVIDE such coverage. They should, however, allow me ACCESS to it.

    Case in point: In the ’80s, when companies were just beginning to debate whether or not to drug-test employees (there had been a slew of fatal accidents at the hands of drivers/conductors/et al. who, it turned out, had drugs in their systems), I took part in a focus group around that issue. The argument went back and forth between me and a liberal-leaning male, who argued that an employer had no right to drug test any employee because it was an invasion of privacy. I argued that if you’re driving an 18-wheeler or doing any job that puts others at risk, your employer has the right to test you. Additionally, I said, if an employer made drug-testing mandatory as a condition of hiring, than an applicant had the right to look elsewhere. My opponent argued that was a slippery slope toward Big Brother.

    So, where to draw the line? That, I believe, is the crucial issue.

    To the question of religions or any employer having the right to pick and choose health benefits, I believe they do. On the other hand, it is my right to have ACCESS to medical treatment — including birth control, abortion and even bad plastic surgery. If that means it’s on my own dime, so be it. And btw, things like liver transplants for someone who’s been an excessive drinker all his/her life belong in that same pay-for-it-yourself category.

    Now GG, before you blow your brick s***house stack or your Ferrari struts, history shows that pressure from enough people can change policy and even thinking. As you pointed out, women are in the majority. With time and pressure applied intelligently (think of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and her female cohort who got their men to put down their swords by withholding sex), we CAN change the world.

  47. AJ

    Rude Poster, you forgot to mention carbon credits, the next wave of toxic derivatives, and step three on the road to finacial armageddon with perpetual indebted servitude for all of us but a handful of elites. Too bad it’s not working out for them the way that they planned.

  48. Inagua

    Delving,

    Everything you say makes eminent sense. But it fails to take into account human nature. While virtually every American woman wants access to contraception, many are not willing to pay for it. Hence the need for the rest of us to pay for it so it will be “free” to those frugal feminists. Not perfect, but there it is. The alternative is to let these women risk unwanted pregnancy, and who wants that? Obama’s policy is the lesser of two evils. (The best policy would be private womans health advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL to step into this breach, but they are so far unwilling to do this to the best of my knowledge.)

    With respect to the Catholic Church’s objection to being forced to underwrite something that goes against its teachings, I say, “Sorry, get out of the education or hospital or charity business if you do not want to abide by the majority decision on contraception.” I do not believe that ObamaCare reaches into the Church itself to force the local parish to provide birth control to the parish seretary because small organizations are exempt.

  49. Anonymous

    Keep going dodo. It is fun to watch you reveal your ignorance.

  50. not so anonymouse

    Viagra is pro life, aborificants are not. That’s a big difference. Catholic schools have a right to protect their values through their policies. Ms. Fluke took the Jesuit school on deliberately to conquer their refusal to cover medical coverage for behavior that is in stark violation of their sexual moral principles. Should they not be allowed to do that? Would I go to a Muslim University and agitiate for gender free housing options? Perhaps there could be a private group of likeminded students that band together nation wide from religious schools and create a seperate ( non) reproductive health policy for themselves? In any case, it’s about the ” free” part.

  51. Greenwich Gal

    Delving Eye – glad you are here. A well thought out post. By the way – don’t you worry one bit about my brick ***t house. It is firmly in place.

  52. C. Aveman

    With holding sex will just cause your man to seek it elsewhere. Women have already done enough to change the world which is why we are on the road to doom and why this particular post is so popular. Women like to argue especially when it concerns trivial things. There are real issues facing our country but instead you all want to debate a non issue while Rome is burning. You all got him elected last time. He fooled you all once and now he is fooling you again.

  53. Ah yes, Inagua, that sticky wicket, Human Nature. There aren’t enough laws to cover that one — and there shouldn’t be. I’m for more personal responsibility. Then again, that would imply people doing for themselves more and depending on government less. It also implies fair laws that apply to everyone — perhaps the stickiest wicket of all!

  54. Inagua

    Delving,

    Personal responsibility is so yesterday. Today’s woman faces many financial demands, and Obama understands that asking a woman to pay a whole $9 a month for contraception is just not fair. So he stepped into the breach and ordered all insurance companies to provide contraception at no out of pocket cost.

    You sound like a mean Republican who is against women’s rights.

  55. Crazy Cat lady

    Religion, politics, emotion aside…….it is cheaper, healthier (for people and the planet and our finances) and more responsible to encourage/provide the use of birth control for everyone across the population, then to pay for abortions, prenatal care, preterm babies, healthy deliveries, well-baby care, HeadStart, food stamps. welfare, education, social services, domestic abuse, healthcare for a generation (or more) of human beings on this planet!!! It simply gets down to that. Period. And if Viagra is covered by health insurance, then birth control should be covered as well. End.