Conservatives: Does it piss you off that Rush's asinine approach is discrediting a valid point?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Caracatacus

On the one hand, I think there is a good argument to be had that is similar, more or less, to what Fluke was trying to say (even though I still don't really agree with it). I found it amusing, however, that Fluke used the stories she did about her friends and acquaintances unfortunate situations as arguments for the need for free contraception. What she did would be the equivalent of me going before a political board to argue that abortion should be legalized, and letting my main argument consist of several examples of women who had become depressed after their abortion and so committed suicide. Such references, just like Fluke's, are indeed tragic--all they do though is cloud a serious topic by using pure emotions rather then political and moral reason. I'd be willing to bet that now, after having seen Fluke's speech, thousands of people out there will conjure those stories up in their mind when debating this in their respective circles, and because Fluke had basically been inferring that the people that refused to give her and her friends free contraception were deliberately putting her body and life at risk to save a buck, all of her nationwide supporters will have a tendency to slap the same caricature onto any dissenters.

Furthermore, I don't quite understand how it can be reasoned that because the government, or otherwise, universities, are not forcing taxpayers to pay for contraception, that they are responsible for health risks involved. If this is really the sort of attitude that Fluke and friends had, then they wouldn't be waving the "free contraception" flag. They'd be waving the, "free oil heating for families who are poor, free water, free basic groceries, etc etc" because all these, much more easily then contraception, can be said to be directly linked to the well-being of people's bodies. This country isn't Socialism-R-Us; not always extremely convenient for any and all, but regardless, we have chosen, and are more or less still choosing, to put the value of individual economic freedom and capitalism over having all of our needs supplied by the government.

...and on a personal note...if you can't spend a few bucks a week on contraception...then your personal finance priorities probably need a re-evaluation.

Did she argue it should be free , or diod she simply argue that it should be covered by insurance and the school should not be able to get an exemption?

[DianaG]

Reading stuff and knowing wtf you're talking about is for liberal weenies, cosmodan.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Caracatacus

I love how people are saying they should pull Limbaugh, but will then go watch Family Guy, and see Seth Mcfarlane making fun of the period of the vietnam war when John Mccain was captured and tortured, and think that its just good television.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but... what bugs me about this line of response (people bringing up Bill Maher, or Louis CK, or Seth MacFarlane) is the extent to which none of those people are even remotely comparable, in their position and influence and importance, to Rush Limbaugh. There's a clip The Daily Show plays from time to time of country singer Ted Nugent ranting to a crowd about how he wants to take a gun and stick it in Obama's mouth and pull the trigger, and then about how he should have invited that bitch Hillary to ride it (the gun) out of town (I may have the quote somewhat wrong). And you know what? No one really cares. Because Ted Nugent is not an influential godfather of one of the two major political parties the way Rush Limbaugh is, and the way Bill Maher, Louis CK and Seth MacFarlane are distinctly not.

Now, that's not to say that it's somehow automatically the case that every republican in the world is responsible for, and should apologize for or repudiate, everything that Rush says. But there's a scale of "how much this person can be said to speak for this group of people", with someone like Obama (well, Obama himself, there's obviously on one else "like Obama") rating pretty high for Democrats, and Ted Nugent and Bill Maher rating basically zero. Rush Limbaugh rates WAY higher on that scale than any entertainment or media personality on the left, and that's why this all is a legitimate story.

(An interesting side question might be who IS the most influential and important news or media personality who is clearly on the left... I think the answer might be Jon Stewart, and the next time the head of the DNC has to go grovelling back to StewBeef because he wasn't sufficiently deferential, let me know.)

[CJJ*]

Yeah, conservatives are only trying to defend religious freedom. It's not really about sex and contraception at all, and the nasty liberals are simply using Rush Limbaugh to bash conservative values, which are of course noble and not at all about controlling women.

Oh, wait:

The (Arizona) Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

She laughingly goes on to say that this bill is OK because "we live in America, we don't live in the Soviet Union". Right, because the Soviet Union never had a policy of prying into private medical records to satisfy a political agenda.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Pretty much this (although I support this more to reduce abortions than to "decrease the number of poor people"). People don't have a natural/God-given right to social security, welfare, jobs, unemployment benefits, education, Internet, etc. but if not everyone can have it and it hurts the people, than the government can provide minimal coverage-not as a right but as a privilege.

Fuck that. All rights not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the people. We can make it a right if we want to, and I think we should. Privileges can be revoked at will.

[Anaamika]

This thread is full of the crazy. I think it's hopeless, but I would once again like to remind everyone that being on the Pill or other forms of birth control are not just for sex. If that was the case, yes, we could all get by with condoms.

The Pill has a great deal of other uses health-wise. It would be like if Viagra not only gave men erections but also corrected a multitude of other health problems but everyone just kept shouting "IT'S JUST SO YOU CAN GET BONERS!!!!"

To say we are all begging for them to finance our sex lives is ignorant and willfully blind.

: leaves the thread with absolutely no hope that anyone heard :

[Whambulance]

The fact that what he said even became that controversial in the first place is just a testament to the heft of his opposition (and I'm not even a fan of his). Many equally inflammatory things are said by the left and middle on a daily basis - but why he is held to a higher standard is a different discussion all together.

In my opinion it just detracts from the more serious issue that someone paying (or not paying) for an education should somehow feel entitled to others footing the bill for their contraceptives.

There are, in my opinion, far more important things for 'me' to be spending my own money on.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

The fact that what he said even became that controversial in the first place is just a testament to the heft of his opposition (and I'm not even a fan of his).

So calling a woman a "slut" shouldn't be controversial?

Originally Posted by Whambulance

In my opinion it just detracts from the more serious issue that someone paying (or not paying) for an education should somehow feel entitled to others footing the bill for their contraceptives.

There are, in my opinion, far more important things for 'me' to be spending my own money on.

And if she suffers serious injury* or death, well she's a mere woman and doesn't matter, right?


*Such as the woman who lost an ovary, the subject of Fluke's comments.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

Yeah, conservatives are only trying to defend religious freedom.

You wish. They are very particular about which specific religious freedom is to be protected, the rest get constitutional banning amendments.

To hold a bigoted viewpoint and press its practice in law by claiming protection as a religious freedom is nonsense.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

The fact that what he said even became that controversial in the first place is just a testament to the heft of his opposition (and I'm not even a fan of his). Many equally inflammatory things are said by the left and middle on a daily basis - but why he is held to a higher standard is a different discussion all together.

In my opinion it just detracts from the more serious issue that someone paying (or not paying) for an education should somehow feel entitled to others footing the bill for their contraceptives.

There are, in my opinion, far more important things for 'me' to be spending my own money on.

Does the fact that she never asked for taxpayers to pay for anything mean that the Limbaugh and his friends at Fox sucessfully distorted the issue and you accpeted thier falsehoods as facts.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

There are, in my opinion, far more important things for 'me' to be spending my own money on.

Might I suggest that you spend it on some form of reading material that would help you to understand the issue at hand? Oh, never mind... you could learn about it for free, if you cared.

If there were a pill that cured intellectual laziness, I'd be happy to contribute to your purchase of it for the public good.

[gamerunknown]

If the main argument for contraceptive coverage is "it's my own damn business if I take birth control pills or not, and not the company's business", I don't think coming up with special cases to convince people that these pills are in fact some times medically necessary bolsters the main argument, which is that women shouldn't need to give any explanation of why they are taking them.

If I'm not mistaken, for some reason she had to stick to very theologically narrow grounds so that she didn't offend some Catholics somewhere and get excommunicated. So, with that kept in mind she did an excellent job and Rush Limbaugh probably alienated quite a few centrist Catholics (those that may not like big government, dubious about contraception but would benefit personally from redistribution).

[Bemused]

While I'm not conservative, I don't believe that Limbaugh's vile commentary discredited anything except Limbaugh.

[Docta G]

Originally Posted by Polerius

Are there any conservatives (or even non-conservatives) that think that Rush Limbaugh's underlying point about insurance coverage of birth control is valid, but he is discrediting the whole argument by his asinine approach of ugly personal attacks?

LOL

[filmore]

Just because contraception is not covered doesn't mean that BC pills can't still be covered in certain situations. There are medications which are or aren't covered by your insurance depending on how they are going to be used. Steroids are usually covered by insurance when they are used as a treatment for naturally low steroid levels. They will not be covered if they are used for muscle enhancement. So even if BC pills are not covered for contraception, that doesn't imply that they won't be covered for medically necessary reasons.

Would the mandate mean that all contraception is covered? BC pills may be the most convenient, but it's one of the more expensive. Could the insurers provide free diaphragms, which may be only $50, and limit contraception coverage to that?

[Whambulance]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Does the fact that she never asked for taxpayers to pay for anything mean that the Limbaugh and his friends at Fox sucessfully distorted the issue and you accpeted thier falsehoods as facts.

Take a good look at what I said and then a good look at what you said. Agenda much?

Regardless of the context, she is specifically asking that OTHER people pay for her care - an able bodied individual capable of supporting herself.

Whether they are tax payers or not, 'other' people (the subset of people that are not her) include me and my family and yes, I feel that I have better things to spend my money on. Where do you think that money comes from? We live in a closed system. Are we going to just print some more or borrow it from somewhere else?

It's amazing how successful this whole culture war is at drumming up attacks against proponents of personal responsibility .. if your hand is not in my pocket and my hand is not in someone elses then we must be some of those crazy money hungry right-wingers.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

Take a good look at what I said and then a good look at what you said. Agenda much?

Regardless of the context, she is specifically asking that OTHER people pay for her care - an able bodied individual capable of supporting herself.

No; she was talking about someone who could not afford the needed medicine and lost an important internal organ because of it.

Originally Posted by Whambulance

It's amazing how successful this whole culture war is at drumming up attacks against proponents of personal responsibility .. if your hand is not in my pocket and my hand is not in someone elses then we must be some of those crazy money hungry right-wingers.

"Personal responsibility" is code for "screw you, I've got mine". It is a position held by people who want to take and take from society without ever giving back, all the while pretending to be "rugged individualists".

Which is a contradiction in terms by the way, there's no such thing as a rugged individualist; individualists are weak by nature; societies exist in the first place largely because of how weak individuals are. That's why "individualism" of that sort is encouraged, it makes people into better victims.

[Ca3799]

Concentrating on the "asinine" part of this conversation- Rush has hired a crisis manager:

"Brian Glicklich has been acting on Limbaugh's behalf since at least March 8. Glicklich is a former vice president at Premiere Radio Networks, and currently heads the firm How Handy Is That, which specializes in reputation and crisis management and "gadfly defense." He previously worked as counsel to a firm that provides crisis management to clients like David Copperfield and Paris Hilton. Glicklich also has an extensive relationship with Glenn Beck, and is thanked in the acknowledgements of several of Beck's books.

The website for Glicklich's firm, How Handy Is That, describes his work:

My clients often find themselves under attack from outside advocacies or pressure groups. Sometimes these groups are little more than an individual Gadfly with strong digital organizing knowledge. Often, my client has previously underestimated their opposition, to their detriment, before calling me.

Effective management of these situation is based on a multiplex analysis of the opposition's business and reputational influence power, the strength of our position vis a vis our opposition, opposition research for motivation and weak spots, and a number of other factors. "

Rush is also giving away a new iPad every day, but promises to not announce the names of the winners on-air.

[gamerunknown]

The entire point of insurance is that people recognise that there are points where they are not capable for paying for their own care, despite how hard they may work, so they contribute to a social fund (which can be skimmed by the unscrupulous) in order to forestall that eventuality (and willingly pay for the healthcare of others).

Conservatives should hold that insurance is a socialistic scam, give their money to people actually engaged in production and job-creation and if they or their family members eventually become gravely ill with something they can't afford to pay out of pocket, chalk it up to natural selection.

[Whambulance]

This is exactly the type of culture war I'm talking about. I make about 20k a year and pay around $500 a month out of pocket for health insurance for a family of 3, but a stranger whom I don't know (the beneficiary of a comparatively expensive education) would like for me, a fellow policy holder, to pay for an additional part of her healthcare so that she no longer has to.

When I question your socialistic pack mentality on this I'm met with:

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

"Personal responsibility" is code for "screw you, I've got mine".

Demonize me ..

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It is a position held by people who want to take and take from society without ever giving back,

Isolate me ..

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

all the while pretending to be "rugged individualists".

Belittle me ..

I'm just saying, if you are genuinely compassionate about this individuals health, why go about this argument with such an agenda based precision? Why not discuss her plight and not how evil I am?... and if you were genuinely compassionate about her cause, why not mine? I'm just a guy having a hard time paying my own way. As a fellow policy holder, will her having to pay less not affect me? Who will pay the difference?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

I make about 20k a year and pay around $500 a month out of pocket for health insurance for a family of 3, but a stranger whom I don't know (the beneficiary of a comparatively expensive education) would like for me, a fellow policy holder, to pay for an additional part of her healthcare so that she no longer has to.

Translation: She should just crawl off in a corner and die so you can have a few extra cents in your bank accounts.

Originally Posted by Whambulance

Why not discuss her plight and not how evil I am?... and if you were genuinely compassionate about her cause, why not mine?

I am; you are just ignoring it because it underlines how amoral and selfish your position is. You don't want to admit that ultimately, you are talking about condemning people to suffering, permanent harm and death so you can keep a tiny bit more money. And you are trying to demonize my side; talking about "culture wars", about how we are insulting and demonizing you by daring to argue that you actually owe something to the rest of humanity, and trying to pretend that this is about people being unwilling to pay, instead of unable.

[gamerunknown]

Did you read my post Whambulance? Insurance is a combination of the following: gambling that you won't get ill (where the insurance company stands to gain if you remain healthy), donating to the fund for insurance company CEOs and to a degree, paying for other people's healthcare. That's a community based, socialistic practice.

If you're unhappy that your money is going to be used to pay for something you disagree with, try campaigning for a democratisation of the insurance system, perhaps a majority of customers would hold the same opinion. Both of us would agree that insurance companies are not accountable to the people they insure.

If you're unhappy with the social contract in toto (in that a majority may reach the opposite conclusion as you), teach yourself how to practice medicine and buy your own provisions. If you don't want people to belittle you for practicing "rugged individualism", that is.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

I'm just saying, if you are genuinely compassionate about this individuals health, why go about this argument with such an agenda based precision? Why not discuss her plight and not how evil I am?... and if you were genuinely compassionate about her cause, why not mine? I'm just a guy having a hard time paying my own way. As a fellow policy holder, will her having to pay less not affect me? Who will pay the difference?

It honestly took me until graduate school to really grasp that the conservative mindset, upon experiencing or reflecting on their own hardship, is not to ask "How can we change this to make it so others don't suffer in the same way that I have?" but to say "I went through this, everyone else should too."

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

When I question your socialistic pack mentality on this I'm met with:



Demonize me ..



Isolate me ..



Belittle me ..

A pack of one? So what do you think of all the other posters? Some of us don't even read said posters posts let alone agree with him on much.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

I make about 20k a year and pay around $500 a month out of pocket for health insurance for a family of 3, but a stranger whom I don't know (the beneficiary of a comparatively expensive education) would like for me, a fellow policy holder, to pay for an additional part of her healthcare so that she no longer has to.

Because that's how insurance works. By definition she's also footing the bill for your healthcare, and it's not her fault you're poor.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Did she argue it should be free , or diod she simply argue that it should be covered by insurance and the school should not be able to get an exemption?

Wasn't she arguing that the government should mandate contraception coverage? Then the counter argument is that this mandate is requiring some who have a moral objection, such as the Catholic church, to pay for it?

[gamerunknown]

Then the counter argument is that this mandate is requiring some who have a moral objection, such as the Catholic church, to pay for it?

I've watched the testimony and she mostly discussed legitimate uses for contraception within Catholic theology. There was already a stipulation that religious institutions do not have to provide the coverage if they don't employ non-Catholics IIRC, or if they were not performing a secular service (churches as opposes to schools and hospitals). That's the impression I got from reading the accompanying material in the thread, anyway.

[sugaree]

Originally Posted by hoopified

Wasn't she arguing that the government should mandate contraception coverage? Then the counter argument is that this mandate is requiring some who have a moral objection, such as the Catholic church, to pay for it?

To which I say so what. Jehovah's Witnesses have a moral objection to blood transfers, but I don't see anyone arguing that JW employers should have the right to exclude their company's insurance from paying for any transfusions.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by sugaree

To which I say so what. Jehovah's Witnesses have a moral objection to blood transfers, but I don't see anyone arguing that JW employers should have the right to exclude their company's insurance from paying for any transfusions.

Firstly, wouldn't you agree that there is a quantifiable difference between blood transfusions and birth control? Secondly, birth control of all kinds is readily available without having somebody else pay for it. To couch the debate in terms of health concerns is disengenuous at best, which goes to the larger issue of government mandates anyway.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by hoopified

Firstly, wouldn't you agree that there is a quantifiable difference between blood transfusions and birth control?

Not with regard to the religious freedom argument. If Catholics can object to birth control, JWs can object to blood transfusions. There is no difference if you support absolute religious freedom.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Not with regard to the religious freedom argument. If Catholics can object to birth control, JWs can object to blood transfusions. There is no difference if you support absolute religious freedom.

That's utter nonsense. In every way one can use the word.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by hoopified

Firstly, wouldn't you agree that there is a quantifiable difference between blood transfusions and birth control?

Other than the fact that hormonal birth control is typically a maintenance medication, while transfusions generally aren't, no. Why, what difference do you perceive?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by hoopified

That's utter nonsense. In every way one can use the word.

Disagree. The comparison seems apt to me.

Why do you allow the government to compel the JW business owner to pay for something he finds morally objectionable, but want to allow the RC business owner not to pay for something he finds morally objectionable?

Do you really want the government in the business of deciding which religious moral objections are valid and which aren't? That's the whole point of separation of church and state: we don't want a government commission saying, "Your religion is 'mainstream,' but yours is a 'fringe cult.'"

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by hoopified

That's utter nonsense. In every way one can use the word.

Let us count the ways. You go first.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Other than the fact that hormonal birth control is typically a maintenance medication, while transfusions generally aren't, no. Why, what difference do you perceive?

this should answer some of the questions below as well.

Because the government, in its truest form (whether or not it iexists in that form is another disucssion) has a responsibility to defend its citizens. The question is not which religion should be protected, the question is which practice - birth control or blood transfusions - should be allowed, or subsidized, or whatever.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by hoopified

The question is not which religion should be protected, the question is which practice - birth control or blood transfusions - should be allowed, or subsidized, or whatever.

That is a question, but it is not the question we are considering here: Do religious organizations other than churches have the right to limit benefits they have a moral objection to? If the answer is yes, the government cannot then decide which benefits are subject to religious exemption without violating the First Amendment.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

That is a question, but it is not the question we are considering here: Do religious organizations other than churches have the right to limit benefits they have a moral objection to? If the answer is yes, the government cannot then decide which benefits are subject to religious exemption without violating the First Amendment.

Yes it is the question we are considering. If the organization's moral objection, like birth control, does not put another in harm then they most certainly do. Or should.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by hoopified

this should answer some of the questions below as well.

Because the government, in its truest form (whether or not it iexists in that form is another disucssion) has a responsibility to defend its citizens. The question is not which religion should be protected, the question is which practice - birth control or blood transfusions - should be allowed, or subsidized, or whatever.

You didn't answer my question, let alone any below.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by hoopified

Yes it is the question we are considering. If the organization's moral objection, like birth control, does not put another in harm then they most certainly do. Or should.

So the federal government should decide if a religious organizations moral objection puts another in harm? What is the nature of harm? Couldn't that be applied to contraception, which is used to prevent harm (such as ovarian cysts) in many cases?

[hoopified]

So the federal government should decide if a religious organizations moral objection puts another in harm

It does for everything else, and religious groups make up a part of societal fabric, so that bit of intrusion is certainly reasonable.

What is the nature of harm?

I meant physical harm.Serious harm. And could even mean mental harm, though I would have a much tougher time with that.

Couldn't that be applied to contraception, which is used to prevent harm (such as ovarian cysts) in many cases?

In this case, no. If someone wants contraception as a remedy for that potential illness, they are certainly welcome to get it. I don't hear of the RCC wanting to outlaw contraception, they just don't want to pay for it. That's a reasonable distinction to make.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by hoopified

If someone wants contraception as a remedy for that potential illness, they are certainly welcome to get it. I don't hear of the RCC wanting to outlaw contraception, they just don't want to pay for it. That's a reasonable distinction to make.

So why can't JWs say they won't pay for blood transfusions? Patients are welcome to get them, so long as they pay for them. No harm, and the JWs aren't forced to pay for something they are morally opposed to.

It is the same thing.

[gamerunknown]

If someone wants contraception as a remedy for that potential illness, they are certainly welcome to get it.

But what if they can't afford it, as per the example given in Sandra Fluke's testimony?

I don't hear of the RCC wanting to outlaw contraception, they just don't want to pay for it.

If I read the thread correctly, the Church doesn't have to pay for it unless they're employing non-Catholics for earthly matters (academic institutions, hospitals). Then, they still have the option of either employing fewer than 50 people or just not providing insurance.

[filmore]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Couldn't that be applied to contraception, which is used to prevent harm (such as ovarian cysts) in many cases?

The medication would not be considered contraception when used for ovarian cysts. There are many medications which may or may not be covered depending on how they are used. For example, steroids will typically be covered when prescribed to treat low testosterone levels but not when prescribed to a bodybuilder to bulk up.

If estrogen pills are prescribed for ovarian cysts, the doctor will not code them as contraception to the insurance company. But if the patient comes in to get birth control pills, they will be coded as contraception. So even if the church objects to BC coverage, they can still be prescribed as long as it's not for contraception reasons.

There are many procedures which could be considered contraception (hysterectomy, testicular cancer treatment, etc). The church could not say they object to any procedure which prevented the person from having children.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So why can't JWs say they won't pay for blood transfusions? Patients are welcome to get them, so long as they pay for them. No harm, and the JWs aren't forced to pay for something they are morally opposed to.

It is the same thing.

Sorry, it seems like a significant distinction to me. You must disagree. There's one thing to pay for contraception that has as it's purpose to abort a baby and as a corollary purpose remedying the potential of ovarian problem. It's another that a blood transfusion is a direct and singular response to an illness.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

But what if they can't afford it, as per the example given in Sandra Fluke's testimony?



If I read the thread correctly, the Church doesn't have to pay for it unless they're employing non-Catholics for earthly matters (academic institutions, hospitals). Then, they still have the option of either employing fewer than 50 people or just not providing insurance.

Oh come on. A condom is a dollar. And they can be had for free most anywhere. So Sandra Flukes example is ridiculous.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by hoopified

Sorry, it seems like a significant distinction to me. You must disagree. There's one thing to pay for contraception that has as it's purpose to abort a baby and as a corollary purpose remedying the potential of ovarian problem. It's another that a blood transfusion is a direct and singular response to an illness.

But if it is OK to make patients pay for contraception for medically necessary conditions, why isn't it OK to make patients pay for transfusions? They are both medically necessary, without which the life of the patient life is in danger.

Honestly, you have not made a persuasive case for any difference between the two.

[gamerunknown]

contraception that has as it's purpose to abort a baby

No contraception works like this. The Catholic Church even acceded that the morning after pill was contraception and not an abortion (while still a mortal sin, it's just a less mortal sin).

So Sandra Flukes example is ridiculous.

Her friend's insurer didn't cover the pill, so her friend lost an ovary. I'm glad that you think it's ridiculous and that a condom could somehow prevent that though.

[CJJ*]

He's at it again. A caller on Rush's show asked if Romneycare would be "null and void" if the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional (yes, really; that's the level of constitutional scholarship you should expect from his callers). Rush said no--adding the usual "laboratories of democracy" clap-trap to the terxtbook answer--then said this:

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

"There might be some fallout on free birth control pills. In fact, there will be. If Obamacare is held unconstitutional and college co-eds could face personal expenses, what do we hear, $3,000, a thousand dollars a year to have protected sex. So free birth control pills would go by the wayside, and who knows, a number of other things."

He's clearly learned nothing from his most recent experience. Not that I'm surprised...