Derp!!!

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

I am LOVING this scandal because of how it's exposing how many on the right view women.

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And the same crowd also yells how ED is a real disease!

[spamwarrior.livejournal.com]

I would vastly prefer for my insurer to pay for my birth control, rather than rely on government assistance for it.

[spamwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm not disagreeing with her, I'm aware the cartoon is posted in mockery - I did, after all, read the post.

[spamwarrior.livejournal.com]

No big! It does seem to be difficult to determine if people honestly believe the shit that's coming out of their mouths. I stumbled across a conversation with a co-worker this week that exposed her as someone who honestly believes it's a woman's fault if her husband cheats; I didn't know people like that really truly existed.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Religious FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!

/meaning of the Judeo-Christian sort

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

Gross

[msretro.livejournal.com]

*headdesk forever @ all of the "I want to see the videos" comments*

You are NEVER entitled to sexual gratification from someone.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Dittoheads. I mean, that's what they call themselves.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

100% yes. This distraction is a separate issue.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

OMG THAT IS THE BESTEST PICTURE EVAR

(that pic is so great I have to go have a cigarette)

[sophia-daniels.livejournal.com]

i think it's a defense mechanism against having to cope with the possibility that you yourself could end up in that situation regardless of what you do.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

You call it "distraction", I call it something that specifically affects women's health care.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It has a minimal impact on it, sure. But the mandate, unfortunately, would not have ever become an issue had a religious exemption been put in place to begin with. This became a bigger issue because of the religious issue, and that's what the hearing was about, and that's what the opponents care about. The left can't win that argument, so the end result is to ignore the Constitutional issue and play gender politics again.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

the left can't win that argument? About allowing religious exemptions?

Um, scuse me but
1) we're talking about a service that employer's provide access to, not something a person can pick and choose from
2) WHY is it the employer who gets the religious consideration? why not the employee?
3) the religious argument has been thoroughly exposed as a smokescreen of BULLSHIT. If someone would have a religious objection to helping to fund birth control, then that exact same objection would apply to several other optional medical practices and prescriptions such as viagra
4) the POINT is that its not right for congress to allow the employer to decide what health care their employee can get based on THEIR religious conviction. Employees pay for the insurance too.
5) going back to #3, since ONLY women's medical practice/prescriptions are being discussed for outlawing then clearly this IS a gender politics thing. The exemptions they are asking for ARE NOT broad-based on sexual activity, they are based on taking exception to WOMEN's sexual activity
6) like abortion, birth control is not ONLY for contraception. Just because other uses are not the majority does not negate the very important non-contraceptive uses of birth control. Those prescriptions need to be available for ALL Uses whether you like them or not.

I know you will say I didn't "win" that argument but it isn't about "winning", its about freedom and privacy and health.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

the left can't win that argument? About allowing religious exemptions?

Yes.

we're talking about a service that employer's provide access to, not something a person can pick and choose from

No, we're talking about a service that employers give as a benefit and pay for most, if not all of.

WHY is it the employer who gets the religious consideration? why not the employee?

Why not the employee? You're not wrong, but I don't see how it works in the opposite direction.

the religious argument has been thoroughly exposed as a smokescreen of BULLSHIT. If someone would have a religious objection to helping to fund birth control, then that exact same objection would apply to several other optional medical practices and prescriptions such as viagra

Okay, and the problem with that is what?

the POINT is that its not right for congress to allow the employer to decide what health care their employee can get based on THEIR religious conviction. Employees pay for the insurance too.

And employees are still able to buy the legal medicine they wish to buy, just not through their employer-funded insurance. No problem.

going back to #3, since ONLY women's medical practice/prescriptions are being discussed for outlawing then clearly this IS a gender politics thing. The exemptions they are asking for ARE NOT broad-based on sexual activity, they are based on taking exception to WOMEN's sexual activity

Actually, it's only the topic right now because the mandate was expanded to contraception for women recently. If it was expanded to condoms last month instead, we'd hear the same thing.

like abortion, birth control is not ONLY for contraception. Just because other uses are not the majority does not negate the very important non-contraceptive uses of birth control. Those prescriptions need to be available for ALL Uses whether you like them or not.

What I've heard is that approvals were already okay for non-contraceptive use. It's a strawman, in any regard - it's still something that can be bought outside of insurance very affordably.

I know you will say I didn't "win" that argument but it isn't about "winning", its about freedom and privacy and health.

And a religious exemption preserves all three for everyone.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't see where I'm being dishonest.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't really need to convince myself. The evidence is quite clear - if this was actually an issue about women, the complaint would not be about the mandate, but about the mere existence of birth control, which supermajorities accept at this point. This idea that contraception is an issue is wholly manufactured.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not forgiving the name calling, but you're confusing two things now.

1) The mandate goes into place, and the right rightfully starts talking about religious freedom.

2) The GOP runs a religious freedom panel in Washington, the Democrats start crying "but where are the women on a panel about birth control?" which was factually false. They then trot out a professional partisan for her own thing, and people made bad jokes and comments about her.

The second part is related because the Democrats made it about something it's not. It does not forgive the commentary one bit but the two are only related because the Democrats insisted on distracting from the issue of religious freedom.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

let me put this in terms you use all the time:

No, you're wrong. On several things you're absolutely wrong. SUch as "What I've heard is that approvals were already okay for non-contraceptive use. It's a strawman, in any regard - it's still something that can be bought outside of insurance very affordably."

What you've heard is incorrect. It's not a strawman. Non-contraceptive use of birth control pills is usually far more expensive than standard birth control. Clearly, you haven't bought birth control pills because you don't know much about it. So, you're wrong.

Nobody would bitch about "exemptions for condoms" because they're dirt cheap and CAN BE HAD WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION therefore they are not PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE durp durp durp

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But here is the thing, people are no longer talking about religion and the freedoms for it when you are starting to become derogatory to women.

Indeed. The Democratic distraction was successful.

When this comes into play, as it has been and as it is continuing to do so, you(general you) no longer care about the topic of religion but you care more about shaming women and being gross about the things you say.

If you think saying "We shouldn't have to pay for your contraception" is shaming women, you're being as extreme as those who are making crude comments.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What you've heard is incorrect. It's not a strawman. Non-contraceptive use of birth control pills is usually far more expensive than standard birth control. Clearly, you haven't bought birth control pills because you don't know much about it. So, you're wrong.

"Far more expensive" is still affordable. Even PP puts the high end cost at $50/month. If you have a job that can afford to give you insurance at all, this isn't really an issue.

Nobody would bitch about "exemptions for condoms" because they're dirt cheap and CAN BE HAD WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION therefore they are not PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE durp durp durp

So, in other words, there is cheap, affordable, over-the-counter contraceptives already available? Thanks for proving our point that this isn't necessary!

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

what the hell are you talking about - if this was actually an issue about women, the complaint would not be about the mandate, but about the mere existence of birth control, which supermajorities accept at this point-

at this point?

If you're talking about birth control being legal, that fight was already won and yes, it very much was a women's issue. Certain religion DO complain very much about the existance of birth control they just pretty much don't bother taking that complaint to congress, because they already lost that battle and they know it. What the hell supermajorities have to do with anything, I do not know.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Talk about distractions. This isn't what I was talking about and you know it. Stop stooping to dishonest levels.

Yes, you have it in your head that a guy on the radio is somehow representative of the thought process. It's not.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

f you're talking about birth control being legal, that fight was already won and yes, it very much was a women's issue. Certain religion DO complain very much about the existance of birth control they just pretty much don't bother taking that complaint to congress, because they already lost that battle and they know it. What the hell supermajorities have to do with anything, I do not know.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Supermajorities mean it's utterly uncontroversial except for a select fringe.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

not to mention the astoundingly obvious fact that every time a woman has contraceptive-protected sex, a man does too