"Obamacare"

[Kat Kid]

Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people?  That's rough ridin' classic.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control

A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.

The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.

The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.

Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.

[SdK]

Clown suited!

[Stellarcat]

And then there is Salina...

http://ksn.com/2014/06/10/saline-co-commission-votes-down-iud-grant/

[SdK]

Men. Pffft.

[06wildcat]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.


Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?

Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.

None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.

Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.


Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?

Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.

None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.

Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.

If you're ok with the federal government demanding that an employer purchase an employee's birth control just for the privilege of doing business, if that's really the government you want, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

You seem to have a very low opinion of women though. I personally think they're capable of buying their own birth control if they want it. But maybe theres a whole lot of "Julias" out there I haven't met.

[06wildcat]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

Please explain. This should be fun.

[Emo EMAW]

I'm dead serious that the government should provide free birth control and health care. And yeah, it probably would reduce the welfare rate. Teen pregnancies especially ruin the finances of people.

A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.

The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.

The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.

Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.

Have you ever been in a hobby lobby?  All the women working there are well beyond their fertile years.

[06wildcat]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

Please explain. This should be fun.

The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

Please explain. This should be fun.

The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.

Ok, so if I have this right, once a person decides to incorporate his business, he loses all freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) that might be exercised through that corporation, and the government can mandate that that person purchase or do anything it damn well demands even if it goes against that person's religion. Yup, that sounds as American as Apple Pie!

You know, this all came about because George Bush signed that damned Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It's just so sad that one person - the evil business owner - can use his right to freedom of religion as an excuse to trample on the rights of his employees - the right to free birth control...

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

Please explain. This should be fun.

The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.

LOL, wut?

I think 06 has convoluted a piercing argument into his qualms with the Courts interpretation of religious freedom. Do yourself a favor and delete that HuffPost favorite; it's dumb enough without imparting a child's reinterpretation.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people?  That's rough ridin' classic.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control

A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.

The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.

The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.

Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.

An anecdote and some conjecture rolled up into a self serving and self promoting snippet. It's nice that these 14 year old girls can get IUD without parental consent, though. Nothing disturbing about that.

Question, are all teens low-income or are all low-income teens?

[michigancat]

vox and their stupid cards, my god

[06wildcat]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

Please explain. This should be fun.

The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.

Ok, so if I have this right, once a person decides to incorporate his business, he loses all freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) that might be exercised through that corporation, and the government can mandate that that person purchase or do anything it damn well demands even if it goes against that person's religion. Yup, that sounds as American as Apple Pie!

You know, this all came about because George Bush signed that damned Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It's just so sad that one person - the evil business owner - can use his right to freedom of religion as an excuse to trample on the rights of his employees - the right to free birth control...

This answers my original question.

[06wildcat]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

Please explain. This should be fun.

The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.

LOL, wut?

I think 06 has convoluted a piercing argument into his qualms with the Courts interpretation of religious freedom. Do yourself a favor and delete that HuffPost favorite; it's dumb enough without imparting a child's reinterpretation.

I didn't know corporations had inherent religious beliefs. What form do I check at the SOS's office to find out if a vendor is properly religious for my needs?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.

Please explain. This should be fun.

The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.

LOL, wut?

I think 06 has convoluted a piercing argument into his qualms with the Courts interpretation of religious freedom. Do yourself a favor and delete that HuffPost favorite; it's dumb enough without imparting a child's reinterpretation.

I didn't know corporations had inherent religious beliefs. What form do I check at the SOS's office to find out if a vendor is properly religious for my needs?

It's right next to disclosure box for "donates to ____ PAC", below the "y/n permit freedom of assembly on premises" and above the "y/n we dont hire mormons that wont work on sunday" questions, you rough ridin' dork.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Seriously though, you can get a list of every shareholder who owns more than 5% of the corporations stock, so that should be a good start to discover their "inherent beliefs"

[slucat]

Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people?  That's rough ridin' classic.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control

A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.

The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.

The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.

Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.

An anecdote and some conjecture rolled up into a self serving and self promoting snippet. It's nice that these 14 year old girls can get IUD without parental consent, though. Nothing disturbing about that.

Question, are all teens low-income or are all low-income teens?

I don't think many docs are putting IUD's into children, IUD's are mostly given to women who have already given birth.

[ednksu]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.


Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?

Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.

None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.

Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.

If you're ok with the federal government demanding that an employer purchase an employee's birth control just for the privilege of doing business, if that's really the government you want, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

You seem to have a very low opinion of women though. I personally think they're capable of buying their own birth control if they want it. But maybe theres a whole lot of "Julias" out there I haven't met.

I really enjoy it when neocons, who argue that the government shouldn't be in your personal life, advocate for big business to get into your lives. 

Also how about that whole only 4 types of birth control working out now?  LOL equal protection unless you have a vagina.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.


Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?

Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.

None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.

Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.

If you're ok with the federal government demanding that an employer purchase an employee's birth control just for the privilege of doing business, if that's really the government you want, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

You seem to have a very low opinion of women though. I personally think they're capable of buying their own birth control if they want it. But maybe theres a whole lot of "Julias" out there I haven't met.

I really enjoy it when neocons, who argue that the government shouldn't be in your personal life, advocate for big business to get into your lives. 

Also how about that whole only 4 types of birth control working out now?  LOL equal protection unless you have a vagina.

Again, let me paraphrase your idiotic "big business is intruding into my privacy" talking point...

"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."

Are you getting this? You're free to do what you want in the bedroom, just maybe don't ask that evil Christian-based "Big Business" (that pays double the minimum wage for moral reasons) to pay for it.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Isn't business (except HL, nonprofits, thousands of other specially exempted companies) required to provide health insurance to its male workers that covers birth control, IUDs, etc.? Yes, yes they are.

That's "equal protection" to a perverted and wasteful degree not known until now. It's a good thing the Fed has commandeered big insurance to make sure men are provided these necessary coverages. When everyone plays the game, everyone gets paid.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

For all their anti big business rhetoric, the left sure does spend an awful lot of time and energy channeling money to big - business.

[ednksu]

Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer.   

[ednksu]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.