It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sandra Fluke - Advocate for Mandatory Health Coverage for Sex Changes

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
The current generation and the next's obsession with SEXUALITY and PHYSICAL "corrections" because they weren't born the "right" way and are "suffering" is so sinsterly lustful and self-loathing, period.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I agree my friend but guess what having this thread prove that is somebody is winning.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


It does seem that she is quite more than how she was portrayed and introduced to the media. If Obama is planning on running for re-election on his Healthcare Plan.......... he needs to get new advisors.

I find it equally disgusting how both sides of the polictial spectrum feel totally at ease putting up shills for them them to speak for them on these social issues. If anyone thinks that Ms. Fluke (what an appropriate name) is just some average college women that was chosen "at random" to speak before Congress, then you get what you deserve come election time. I bet some more investigative reporting will find out more details.....



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


She's a law student and women's rights advocate. I'm sure she has ideas and opinions on lots of issues. But they are just that - ideas and opinions. She's educated and experienced on these issues, just because she weighs in on one topic - women's contraceptive rights - doesn't mean she can't also have other ideas and opinions. Or that she is a threat to the American insurance industry, mom, baseball and apple pie.

edit on 6-3-2012 by KillerQueen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by KillerQueen
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


She's a law student and women's rights advocate. I'm sure she has ideas and opinions on lots of issues. But they are just that - ideas and opinions. She's educated and experienced on these issues, just because she weighs in on one topic - women's contraceptive rights - doesn't mean she can't also have other ideas and opinions. Or that she is a threat to the American insurance industry, mom, baseball and apple pie.

edit on 6-3-2012 by KillerQueen because: (no reason given)


She's a slut and a prostitute.......for the administration and obamacare.

-Sour



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Since this admin started there has been serious activity regarding this fringe group of people who are unhappy with the body they came into life with, to the point of trawling Internet forums pushing their ideas around through whatever means necessary to get support. They will stop at nothing to get from society that which they believe they deserve. I have seen people like this force their way into conservative chatrooms with the express agenda of convincing people that they will commit suicide if people don't accept their need for transgernderism. THey say things like, "What does it hurt anybody for (fill in the blank)?"
From the standpoint of reincarnation, these souls may have been a woman in many lifetimes and feel uncomfortable playing the man's role. But this is the hand they were dealt, and the board of spiritual overseers approved their incarnation. That's looking at it from a spiritual standpoint, and my own opinion based on my understanding of reincarnation.
Perhaps it would be better for them to embrace the role they were intended to play in this lifetime instead of rebelling and forcing society to pay for it.
In today's society, there are ways of embracing both the masculine and feminine roles without changing your gender. For instance, today women can become CEO's and can take martial arts training(although wing chun was actually designed by a female and women in China embraced martial arts for centuries).
In the 1700's men wore frilly laces and collars and velvet coats, and by today's standards that's too girly. It is a matter of social trends. Trends in clothing today pioneered by Guess Jeans and other designers allow floral patterns in men's shirts. Why can't we let men experiment without changing their gender?
In the news we see women going back to their feminine appeal after decades of having to pave their way wearing stiff men'swear business suits.
I have read that we all have 60/40 or 40/60 feminine energy. In the woman it's 40 male and 60 female and in the man, it's vice versa.
Can we not balance out our lives by embracing that other part without sacrificing one or the other?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


1 can see her point to want to remain secure in the fashion of life she lives yes

1 can see the importance of SAFE sex and also that safe sex and birthcontroll ARE NOT THE SAME

Safe sex includes STD prevention/spread Birth control includes prevention of birth but not STD


So what 1 observes in the argument is Birth control should be paid for by h.insurance but what about STD prevention (is that not important anymore).

It seems the argument is more related to the behavior of user of the STD prevention/CONDOMS or birthcontrol/ implants -injects -pills ect

STD prevention covers health and unexpected birth

Birth control covers birth prevention why permitting unprotected sex which may cause more infections to occure if it is as simple as allowing others to pay then the responsibility then falls away from the individuals participating in the sex acts. [color=cyan] (which means more sick from STDs =more health insurance needs=$$$$$$ somebody shall pay) Who may of thought twice about having unprotected sex if they had to foot the bill. But since no bill it sends message its ok to have unprotected sex JUST AS LONG AS YOU DONT GET PREGNANT. So 1 isnt sure its a good idea to give it free as it may influence more unprotected sex which may spread more disease. But @ the same time does agree that STD prevention and counsling may be worth some funds.

1 understands the gifts involved with birthcontrol as opposed to STD prevention and wonders is this the base of energy for the argument for some to have unprotected sex how they like most w/o considering the payment of health risk.

I dont have issue with the femal who is infront of this topic I just wonder is she considering the STD prevention more then the birthcontrol/unfruitfulness or just the ease of having "it" paid for to behave as she may wish sexually w/ unprotected sex acts.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
After viewing Ms Fluke's testimony, I was baffled why she got her feelings hurt when a political commentator made a series of remarks.
She is 30. She is an activist and a college student. I was 10 when I realized if I opened my mouth and said controversial things, people would come back at me.

Then, of all things, our president has to call the woman and fix the boo-boo? I heard what he told her.

I do not understand why someone can say things, then gets comforted (by the president) when someone comes out and makes radio fodder out of it.

Now that I know she is only an activist, it all makes sense.

Here's what no one is saying, so I will:
Under the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, the birth control pill has always been ok to take if there is a medical condition (as diagnosed by a medical doctor) that warrants it. In the 1970's one of my friends had to take it for an illness. And insurance will pay for it, always has.

Having an illness is different from choosing to have sex. So, people get to have their sexual choices paid for. If they get VD from those choices, will THAT be paid for? Herpes? AIDS? And who pays?

Now, the pill can have really bad side effects and CAN cause problems down the road. I choose to take the pill for 20 years, then later I have reproductive problems. Who pays for that?

I cannot believe women 's lib fought for "choice" but now they want someone to take care of the choices for them. Sounds like my gender is not as independent as we think we are. We still want someone to take care of us.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Is it true that viagra does not cross any moral code and insurances will cover? Just wondering because I never had that problem in my two marriages.

You guys should be happy that there are women like Fluke willing to protect herself and you from any responsibilty you don't want. I am 61 years old if you believe abstinence is the answer, you just have not lived long enough. The catholic church tried the celibacy experiment and it failed.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Right what a load of crap haven't heard anyone on here say anything about Georgetwon being


Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States. Jesuits have played a significant role in the growth and evolution of Georgetown into a global research university deeply rooted in the Catholic faith. Georgetown’s Jesuit tradition also promotes the university’s commitment to spiritual inquiry, civic engagement, and religious and cultural pluralism. The Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, an international religious community which was founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century. Today, Jesuits continue to enrich the university through their work as scholars, researchers, administrators, chaplains and counselors.


www.georgetown.edu...

First Amendment issue and she didn't like the policy or anyone else they can choose to go somewhere else.

Everything about Miss Fluke is a fraud and a shill for the current adminstration.

Sex changes why stop there haven't to comment about people using the viagra defense as well

Do tell how many georgetown or any college student between 20-30 who need viagra.

What a complete joke.
edit on 6-3-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
ok- WAIT A SECOND Y'ALL....
Health insurance is NOT TAX DOLLARS.
It's your own damn money you put in, just like with car insurance, home insurance, etc etc....
So why the hell are people bickering about this like it's THEIR TAX DOLLARS paying for someone else's coverage???

Am I missing something?!
I feel like I must be because I still don't understand why all of this has SUDDENLY become an issue after 50 years...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ltinycdancerg
 


Because right now you are getting a preview of what the Republican agenda is. To take us back to 1950 sans the 1950 's tax rates. Unless you support Ron Paul in which case he is not trying to take us back to 1950 he wants to takes us back to 1900.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by katfish

Under the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, the birth control pill has always been ok to take if there is a medical condition (as diagnosed by a medical doctor) that warrants it. In the 1970's one of my friends had to take it for an illness. And insurance will pay for it, always has.

Having an illness is different from choosing to have sex. So, people get to have their sexual choices paid for. If they get VD from those choices, will THAT be paid for? Herpes? AIDS? And who pays?

Now, the pill can have really bad side effects and CAN cause problems down the road. I choose to take the pill for 20 years, then later I have reproductive problems. Who pays for that?



All of your mentioned examples should be covered, however in the real world, many may not be depending on the exclusions and riders contained in each individual policy. Therein lies the problem,

With the current system, if your policy fails to provide the coverage that you require, you have the option to drop it or self pay. Under Obamacare you're forced to maintain coverage, potentially paying for services you don't need and receiving no coverage for things that are important to you and your family. If I'm going to shell out a huge portion of my income for medical coverage, I want to make sure that it covers that which is important to me.

Many people have no problem with policies covering Viagra and other "get it up" drugs, but we need to ensure that while the guys reap the benefits of their newly rediscovered virility, the ladies have the coverage to prevent unwanted pregnancy and other complications. Religious beliefs shouldn't have any bearing on the issue. If Catholic Americans choose to abstain rather than use birth control I fully support their effort, however I don't want to see a religion that is followed by 20-25% of the population dictating legal policies based on religious dogma rather than what the majority of Americans want or need. They're free to practice their religion, but not to dictate sweeping policies that affect the majority who don't subscribe to their religious doctrines. (That's my biggest problem with Rick Santorum)

Back on topic, while sex change surgery is considered "creepy" by many and considered totally elective, I believe that under a mandatory insurance scheme, it needs to be covered. There are children born every day with ambiguous genitalia and other intersex conditions, and excluding any type of genital normalization procedure could adversely affect their proper care and treatment. That aside, even those who choose to transition between genders later in life should be afforded that coverage once proper psychological screening and prerequisites are met. Considering the small number of people who actually endure gender reassignment, the costs would be minimal when compared to the long term negative side affects associated with non-transition. It's not about money... companies like Aetna are making BILLIONS of dollars in profit annually... it's about making sure that everyone has the medically prescribed treatment that they need, barring only elective cosmetic procedures.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 
HA!
Rush was right. She is a whore. Just a whore for subsidized healthcare.




(that's right. I went there)

ETA; SourGrapes went there before me

edit on 6-3-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


While I hardly agree with this woman.
I think there is so little you understand. You can sit around and rant about "This generation" all you want, but prior generations were no better. Blacks? Separate but equal. Rape victim? Well, she should have pulled her skirt down a bit more now shouldn't she? Gays? Mentally ill.

I find the older generations to be more screwed up and hateful than anything this generation could prove to be.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
This is typical politics at work here.

We were led to believe that she ws just a stdent with uncontrollable sex drives, who needed free condoms bcause she couldn't afford law school AND condoms.

Now mandated sex change operations in insurance packages. (yes, I said packages,
)

Who pays for all this?

Oh, let me guess! The government will step in to save the day and subsidize it with our tax dollars.

Bill Shakespeare once had a saying about lawyers.
edit on 6-3-2012 by beezzer because: My grammur is failing!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
There is no hope. This girl was no shill. You are on a typical witch hunt
because your sweaty pill poppin' man got angry over something
he knows nothing about, nor how it works.

I know y'all hate Obama, hippies & cities over 300k.
Oh and that women and minorities vote.
So how about we give you guys Texas, Arizona, Mississippi,
Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, Virginia, the Dakotas, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Florida, Kansas and the Carolinas as a start?

Just imagine....
All Christian, all white, no birth-control or abortions.
Don't let the door hit y'all on the way out.
(yep I'll have to move from Texas) I'll miss Rick Perry...
But history says you'll be in great company.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
There is no hope. This girl was no shill. You are on a typical witch hunt
because your sweaty pill poppin' man got angry over something
he knows nothing about, nor how it works.

I know y'all hate Obama, hippies & cities over 300k.
Oh and that women and minorities vote.
So how about we give you guys Texas, Arizona, Mississippi,
Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, Virginia, the Dakotas, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Florida, Kansas and the Carolinas as a start?

Just imagine....
All Christian, all white, no birth-control or abortions.
Don't let the door hit y'all on the way out.
(yep I'll have to move from Texas) I'll miss Rick Perry...
But history says you'll be in great company.


Puh-leeze! I've seen more believable script/story lines on Jerry Springer!


She's not a shill, she's a plant. She's an activist and a player. And it is a phony, transparent move.

And please leave colour out of the discourse.

Also, if you have to segregate, just take California and New York. Just as long as you don't come back. (we'll build fences!)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



It's so typical though.
Rush calls a woman a whore and y'all get mad at her.
And I know you may not feel that way Beezer but many do.

Oh and no need to build fences.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by beezzer
 



It's so typical though.
Rush calls a woman a whore and y'all get mad at her.
And I know you may not feel that way Beezer but many do.

Oh and no need to build fences.
Can't really listen to Rush where I am located. So what he said was moot.

But

He brought it (via the news and ATS) to my attention. So I read. I read about a 30 year old activist attending a Jesuit University who wants free condoms because she can't afford school AND sex.

Then she shows up on The View, and espouses her desires to see sex-change operations subsidized by insurance companies. (Last time I checked, getting a sex-change was elective not a life-saving treatment.)

Since I'm conspiracy-minded, I see an agenda. Someone who would endorse Obama's healthcare plan and paint those that don't want it as bigots and people who don't want transgender folks to get their privates rearranged.

And instead of fences, we'll jut build grape arbors. (great wine and we'll electrify the tastfully decorated wood
)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join