Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."

And that is the balance part? I guess to a liberal Democrat not having Planned Parenthood come over to your house with a pregnant teenager and do an abortion on your dining room table and give you the bill on the way out, is what they call a balanced compromise.

Please remember to spay or neuter your Liberal Democrat.

We will be paying for all the 'free' thing the govt mandates. TANSTAAFL!

Women in the US are getting ripped off.

Big Time.

The cost of the pill in the US is more than double what it costs in Canada and is 20 times higher than many other parts of the world.

To add insult to injury social conservative shit-stains have lobbied aggressively in the US to make BC as difficult to obtain as possible.

So now freakin' Viagra is covered by most medical plans but simple BC is not.

Stiffy pills = Necessary medicine.

Birth Control = Not worth covering.

You can't explain that.

Obama makes a good move here particularly in light of all the "Concerned about the economy" teatards showing their real stripes after 2010 in terms of pursuing their war on women.

A woman who votes for the GOP these days is kinda like a Log Cabin Republican in Spud's "Big Book of Silly Things Found on Earth"

Volume XII

Be Well.

#3 | Posted by dethspud

Shouldn't you be ice fishing on some thin ice?

#3 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-21 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag: .

Got a link to back up those lies you freak?

rwd

Got a link to back up those lies you freak?

Is your Google broken again?

You really should get someone in to fix that, ya know.

^__^

Be Well.

"Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday."

Good. Obama does something right for a change. The more contraceptives the better.

6 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-21 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Google ain't broken. You're a liar you pitiful freak.

rwd

#7 | Posted by nullifidian

You forgot to add the lib mantra "As long as other people pay for it."

Please remember to spay or neuter your Liberal Democrat.

This could work out well for the right though.

The WSJ did an article in 2001 that made a convincing case that if not for Roe v Wade, Gore would have easily gotten enough votes to take Florida and another state or two. It based its premise on the fact that 80% of folks vote like their parents and that young people are more likely to vote Democrat. (I shamefully admit my first election in '76 O vpted fpr Carter). More liberals were getting abortions then. IOW, the winning votes needed in 2000 were aborted starting in the mid '70s. As we all know, it would not have taken many votes for Gore to have had Florida. Just a couple of thousand. And there were tens times more than that aborted.

I don't think that this BC thing is the same exactly, but you never know.

The more contraceptives the better.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian

DRUGS!

Women in the US are getting ripped off.

Big Time.

The cost of the pill in the US is more than double what it costs in Canada and is 20 times higher than many other parts of the world.

So now freakin' Viagra

Obama makes a good move here particularly in light of all the "Concerned about the economy" teatards showing their real stripes after 2010 in terms of pursuing their war on women.

#3 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-21 04:02 PM | Reply |

See the contradiction, deadpotato. Obungler caring about women? Maybe he cares about the drug industry more.

And as far as I'm concerned, I shouldn't have to support you or anyone else to get up your "little stiffy" or your "dead potato".

And besides, if we didn't support the viagra "tax", we wouldn't have to have as many dawlings taking BC.

///beat off

and

Be well.

If I ever decide to run for office I am going to make the cornerstone of my campaign free government beer and porn. My only concern will be the quality of the product once government takes control. My guess is the beer the government would produce would taste like Old Milwaukee drank out of an ashtray and the porn actresses would have such a strong union that seniority would rule and only the women over 60 would get the good acting jobs. Think Harry Reids balls bouncing off Nancy Peloisi's forehead as they go at it in a 69 position and you will understand my dilemma.

More contraceptives equals fewer abortions. You would think rtards would be overjoyed.

The WSJ did an article in 2001 that made a convincing case that if not for Roe v Wade, Gore would have easily gotten enough votes to take Florida and another state or two. It based its premise on the fact that 80% of folks vote like their parents and that young people are more likely to vote Democrat. (I shamefully admit my first election in '76 O vpted fpr Carter). More liberals were getting abortions then. IOW, the winning votes needed in 2000 were aborted starting in the mid '70s. As we all know, it would not have taken many votes for Gore to have had Florida. Just a couple of thousand. And there were tens times more than that aborted.

I don't think that this BC thing is the same exactly, but you never know.

#10 | Posted by goatman at 2012-01-21 04:34 PM | Reply |

And as I've so adroitly posted before, the irony is that blacks as a smaller % of the population have a larger % of abortions proportionately then other ethnic groups. Since 90%+ vote demorat, can you imagine the problems we'd be inflicted with today if abortion wasn't the law of the land?

See the contradiction, deadpotato. Obungler caring about women? Maybe he cares about the drug industry more.

Great point, mats. The left was screaming that Perry was courting the Merck when he required that all girls in Texas get the cervix cancer vaccine (sorry, the name of it escapes me). But when Obama mandates drugs for women, it is for altruistic reasons.

Go figure.

More contraceptives equals fewer abortions. You would think rtards would be overjoyed.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2012-01-21 04:49 PM | Reply |

Doubt it because the rtards getting abortions are making stupid decisions in the first place and you think they're smart enough to walk over to the dresser drawer to plop a pill in their mouths. Heck you're a walking example for us.

But when Obama mandates drugs for women =

But when Obama mandates free drugs for women

The left was screaming that Perry was courting the Merck when he required that all girls in Texas get the cervix cancer vaccine (sorry, the name of it escapes me).

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2012-01-21 04:53 PM | Reply

I believe it was "Gardasil" ---I believe that's the trade name.

See the contradiction, deadpotato.

You don't actually know what a contradiction is, do you?

the irony is that blacks as a smaller % of the population have a larger % of abortions proportionately then other ethnic groups. Since 90%+ vote demorat, can you imagine the problems we'd be inflicted with today if abortion wasn't the law of the land?

So now yer in favor of abortion cos in your mind "more black people" = "more problems"?

Okaaaaay.

Good luck w/ that in 2012.

Ah, the GOP, they just never learn, do they?

Be Well.

#13 | Posted by Dirk

The Government could really screw up beer but they have a lot of experience fucking the folks so the porn thing will be likely be fine.

I like the 'free' part.

Bending up the cost curve yet again. BHO LIAR in chief!!!

But when Obama mandates drugs for women, it is for altruistic reasons.

Allowing women to get it free is not the same as mandating it.

Gender differences in health costs

women are spending more than 30 percent more than men per year on health care expenses: $5,989 versus $4,541. Performing more sub-category analyses by age group and type of health care service sheds light on why this vast difference exists.

Studies show that women pay 25-85 percent more than men on health care premiums for comparable health care coverage. The upper end of this spectrum seems exorbitant seeing as women’s overall spending on health care per capita is approximately 30-35 percent more than men’s.

On the other hand, does it make sense that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 prohibits third party payers from charging varying premiums based on gender? In other cases of differential health care spending among subcategories of the insured, such as age, premiums are permitted to vary, but are limited to a ratio of 3 to 1 between the most costly and least costly subcategories.

this is good. there is no downside.

this is good. there is no downside.
#25 | Posted by BruceBanner

Just one more step towards single payer health care and the government controlling your life from the cradle to the casket. The lib socialist utopia in the making. Banner once again putting on the Dunce Cap of the "useful idiot".

This is a good move. Any insurer that wasn't already covering birth control is incredibly stupid. What costs more to insure -- birth control or pregnancy and delivery of a child?

"This is a good move. Any insurer that wasn't already covering birth control is incredibly stupid. What costs more to insure -- birth control or pregnancy and delivery of a child?"

Sure. You should pay for some woman's birth control so she doesn't end up on Maury's I am testing the 22nd man...

What costs more to insure -- birth control or pregnancy and delivery of a child?

It's not about the money with these guys.

They would gladly bankrupt the country if it would only let them indulge in their slut-shaming tactics one more year.

It is rather amusing watching the radical social conservatives lose their shit over this pragmatic and obvious in hindsight decision.

Be Well.

... birth control or pregnancy and delivery of a child?

Not to mention normal health care issues as long as the child is on the parent's policy.

I never figured that one out either. I asked my insurer 25 years ago why they wouldn't cover my $400 vasectomy and cited the $4,000 they had paid a year earlier for my son to be born.

This is a good move. Any insurer that wasn't already covering birth control is incredibly stupid. What costs more to insure -- birth control or pregnancy and delivery of a child?
#27 | POSTED BY RCADE

There was a time when insurance companies could adjust their rates according to actuarial risk. This is one more regulation that increases the power of the police State.

Just one more step towards single payer health care and the government controlling your life
#26 | Posted by paneocon

This is a good move.
#27 | Posted by rcade

.......when looked at provision by provision, each part of Obamacare is superior the wild-west coverage that was in effect before.......

........the opposition to it, was generated by bought politicians, preaching irrational propaganda, to an undereducated, religous, and reactionary population......

........just like Medicare and Social Security, Obamacare will take its place as a pillar of American social equality........

Sure. You should pay for some woman's birth control so she doesn't end up on Maury's I am testing the 22nd man...
#28 | Posted by crispee

.....this is the same thinking that keeps the Saudis from letting women drive.......

......congratulations Crispee, your thinking has reached 7th Century levels.......

I always wonder. Do Liberals want to live like Cubans or any other third world impoverished society? Because that's where all this cradle-to-grave socialism is going.

".....this is the same thinking that keeps the Saudis from letting women drive.......

......congratulations Crispee, your thinking has reached 7th Century levels......."

HTF does me not wanting part of my insurance premium going to pay for your birth control akin to Saudi women? Are you drunk this early or simply high on somehtng?

HTF does me not wanting part of my insurance premium going to pay for your birth control akin to Saudi women?
#35 | Posted by crispee
......you linked birth control to female promiscuity........the Saudis link driving to female promiscuity.......you are both wrong....

me not wanting part of my insurance premium
............it's not really any of your business what the medical needs of other people in the insurance pool, are,.....if you want to bring judgemental crap into it, then it's equally valid to say that no man who ever ate at a McDonalds should be covered for heart disease......but that's not what an insurance pool is....

but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

The government does not have the right or power to force these institutions to provide these procedures.

But then again, the dems, the party of bigger government and less freedoms love this shit.

#34 | Posted by Ray

I think some do. I suspect that most liberals have lived a life free of consequences. Didn't have to work their way through school, never created a source of income on their own. You can see it in their "ends justifies the means" attitude and the constant assumption that someone else will always pay for these programs. Perpetual kicking the can down the road.

#38 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

Notice. Libs won't answer that question or even think about it. This site has been a real awakening experience.

I always wonder. Do Liberals want to live like Cubans or any other third world impoverished society? Because that's where all this cradle-to-grave socialism is going

Spud always wondered. Do Conservatives want Americans to live like Chinese Foxconn workers with 8 people sleeping in a tiny room in between 24 hour shifts making x-boxes with a corrupt brutal police state and a dangerously degrading environment? Because that's where all this this union busting, deregulating, neo-fascism is going.

Be Well.

Notice. Libs won't answer that question or even think about it. This site has been a real awakening experience.

Tell Spud all about it, Rip van Winkle.

Be Well.

/Psssst, see post 40.

Gee. All these mandates. I wonder why insurance premiums keep going up?

Anyone not on a very high-deductible policy is a retard. And I've read that ZeroCare is taking aim at those too. If they get shut down, I'll just go without. Screw it. I'll sign up after I get sick, like that new libbie hero out in California who let her insurance lapse, got sick, then signed up under her old rates. It's genius.

In fact, isn't that the responsible thing to do anyway? Why throw money away paying premiums, until you get sick or have an accident? Under this idiot, you're just wasting money.

"Gee. All these mandates. I wonder why insurance premiums keep going up?"

Insurance premiums have gone up every year since RiR was born, and now suddenly it's because of mandates?!?

What is the logic in telling insurance companies to eliminate co-pays on just one class of drugs and not all drugs?

I want the co-pay eliminated on my scripts too.

And I want free electricity and free food, and free internet and a free car.

This is just Obama's way of eliminating the largest private competitor to socialized medicine, the Catholic health care system. He is going to pay dearly at the polls for it as will the entire Dem party.

Notice. Libs won't answer that question or even think about it. This site has been a real awakening experience.

#39 | Posted by Ray

that is because your question is a strawman.

You should be asking yourself what value the health insurance industry provides you. They take 30 to 40% of your health care dollar and provide what service?

They do the exact same thing that you say would happen if the federal govt got involved, ration and control YOUR health care.

To anyone with a functioning brain, this should be a non-issue.

There's no reason to entertain the idiotic banter coming from the religious right.

We will be paying for all the 'free' thing the govt mandates. TANSTAAFL!

#2 | Posted by MSgt

Lunches aren't free, but trillion dollar wars are.

The Right

You'd think the anti-abortion crowd would be glad about this, but nooooo

The Catholic hospitals are considering closing the sections that deal with pregnancy because of this 'service' they must provide.

I already know some areas that, if this occurs, there isn't another hospital nearby that provide pregnancy care once the Catholic ones close.

The Catholic Church has already begun to withdraw instead of fight.
The services they once offered will be missed.

If your against abortions...don't get one!

Now wasn't that easy?

A zygote is no more a person than an acorn is a baseball bat.

A zygote is no more a person than an acorn is a baseball bat.

Then why the federal laws about destroying California Condor eggs?

Oh no! Let's all express feigned outrage that birth control is covered by insurance!!

All this socialism is cutting into our fascism!!

And Goatsy, there's no mandate for women to buy birth control any more than there is for any other drug covered by health insurance.

A zygote is no more a person than an acorn is a baseball bat.

Then why the federal laws about destroying California Condor eggs?

#55 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Good question, why do so many pro lifers eat eggs?

Good question, why do so many pro lifers eat eggs?

1) they are not fertilized
2) the ones they eat are not protected by law like the california condor's
3) they are tasty.

Obviously you failed that test, clownshack.

But since you stepped in those waters (and your own dick) if a zygote is not the thing it becomes, why can you go to jail for destroying the egg of a california condor, but not a 22 week old fetus, clownshack?

#58

So, you should be pro birth control since (if taken on a regular basis) it prevents the ovary from being fertilized. Kinda like the eggs you eat.

As far as the condor (I'm assuming you're playing devils advocate and not being serious) it's as simple as counting. Biology states a fertile egg will hatch to produce offspring. (you are clearly aware of this as you pointed out in your unfertilized eggs are tasty comment). The condor population is very low, in order to achieve a desired raise in their population we must allow their eggs to develope and hatch so a new condor can be born. It has nothing to do with the religious ramifications of a soul and more to do with a desire to prevent their extinction.

As far as the human embryo, the argument is abortion kills the child's soul. When does the soul enter the body? Is it ok for a woman to have to birth her rapist's baby? Or to birth a baby even though the mother has no job/place to live/family assistance? Pretty much ruining her life and the unborn's future life because some guy unloaded in her in 30 seconds?

I am an anti abortion pro choicer.

I will allow you to decide what you choose to do with your life, just keep your opinions from forcing me to live the life you think I should be. (this isn't directed at anyone, it's just my life motto)

#58

Also, my dick isn't big enough for me to step on. But, thanks for the complement.

Pretty much ruining her life and the unborn's future life because some guy unloaded in her in 30 seconds?

can you explain that?

Also, my dick isn't big enough for me to step on. But, thanks for the complement.

So you'd rather talk about your dick than answer my question? Seriously -- why is it a federal crime to destroy a fresly laid california condor egg, but not a human 22 week old fetus? Neither are what they will be according to the left.

#61

This was the complete thought:

Or to birth a baby even though the mother has no job/place to live/family assistance? Pretty much ruining her life and the unborn's future life because some guy unloaded in her in 30 seconds?

Let me know if you need further explanation.

#62

Dude! Seriously? Read #59. You trying to converse or troll? Why are you responding to my joke response (#60)??

Why are you responding to my joke response (#60)??

Because it was a response to my question before it and I wanted you te expound.

-Let me know if you need further explanation.

I was basically referencing the 30 seconds. would it be different if was 3 minutes?

are you referencing a casual relationship that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy?

It just seems humans are more precious than birds. That's all

I thin the 'Goatweasel' is on his DRUG.

Eberly,

I'm saying there are girls that become pregnant that aren't ready to be. Should they be forced to raise the child because you think so?

I thin the 'Goatweasel' is on his DRUG.

You thin so, huh?

#67

That's all? Alright.

Well, when the seven billion human population falls to under a hundred I'm sure there will be measures taken to protect the zygote.

-Should they be forced to raise the child because you think so?

ME? hell, I couldn't get very many of them to sit on my face when I wanted them to. I don't think I could talk any of them into raising a child they didn't want to. I'm not THAT good of a salesman.

or are you accusing me of being someone who wants to criminalize abortion rights?

Zy-Goat-Man

73 ff I haven't heard that one. I may have to borrow it.

#72

No, I was just trying to clarify my statement.

Though, I seem have misunderstood, and only now understand what you were getting at :D

Yes, sometimes 30 seconds is all the energy I got! But by the time she figures that out, I'm done and asleep. :)~

#74

All yours buddy. It really created itself, I just delivered.

It's all good Clown.

nite all...

More contraceptives equals fewer abortions. You would think rtards would be overjoyed.

That's because (I belive) it has more to do with the demographic shift in this country than it has to do with morality.

Assessing DOD's New Strategic Guidance

* a corresponding shift toward advanced capabilities including Special Operations Forces, new technologies such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and unmanned systems, and cyberspace capabilities.

#79 | Posted by paneocon

Sorry wrong thread. Need more coffee!

#35 Crispee...

Your argument is retarded...

Why the fuck should I have to pay part of my insurance premiums to pay for the prenatal, delivery, post natal and health care of your little brat???

I would think that as a conservative you might see the fiscal benefit of free BC; lower insurance premiums all around, fewer abortions, etc...

But, in true GOTP form you miss the forest for the trees... again...

"Why the fuck should I have to pay part of my insurance premiums to pay for the prenatal, delivery, post natal and health care of your little brat???"

Why should I pay for some ugly skank who hasn't been laid in a decade, yet still keeps her BC prescription? WTF can't they pay cash, and need insurance to pick up the costs?

Sorry if that hits close to home, but you pay for your sisters needs yourself...

always reminds me of this statement

if you think health care is expensive now, wait until its free...

#82 Crispee...

As soon as as you pay for your own Viagra and off-spring, I will urge my sister to pay for her own Birth Control...

Until then, I think you are getting the better end of that deal...

And, I would challenge ANYONE to argue differently...

And, though I ask this of you GOTPers in utter futility, please try to limit your arguments to something, at least somewhat, coherent and on topic...