Is Sandra Fluke Coordinating with the White House?

reply to post by SourGrapes


I just spit up my Pepsi

Obamacare that covers birth control will also cover abortion. The MSM isn't even mentioning abortion because they are feeding this to the public in low doses.

I do not believe that the Catholic church will accept this. To drive a person to get an abortion is a grave sin. Paying for it makes you an as guilty as the abortionist.

Yeah, the Church stands to lose alot here: the likelihood of thousand of closing parochial schools, high schools, and universities and millions of hospitals beds. Think of all the teachers and healthcare professional out of work.

If you think it will not impact the taxpayer and the patient guess again.

Every year when I pay my real estate taxes I note that a huge chunk goes to the schools. Not one dime of taxpayer money paid for my kids education. If the Catholic schools close the taxes are going to skyrocket.

It is estimated that 1/6 of our budget will be needed to pay for Obamacare and that figure does not take the cost of school and hospital closings.


We will see what comes down the pike.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

Obamacare that covers birth control will also cover abortion. The MSM isn't even mentioning abortion because they are feeding this to the public in low doses.

And another blatant lie

By law no federal funds can be used to fund abortions, not even once the new HCB comes into effect. You're repeating a lie conservatives keep on repeating over and over again...when in reality all people have to do is actually bother looking up the laws instead of repeating total nonsense!

It is estimated that 1/6 of our budget will be needed to pay for Obamacare and that figure does not take the cost of school and hospital closings.

Why on earth would they close?

Again, contraception is CHEAPER than unwanted pregnancies...so making insurance companies cover it will actually result in net savings. Whether or not insurance companies pass on those savings is a whole other story...but it's factually cheaper.

reply to post by SourGrapes


Rush? Is that you?

If Georgetown Univeristy was Islamic instead of a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY this would not even be talk about.

So yeah she is coordinatiing with the White House do tell how many college students gets the presidents ear and Pelosi's?

Pretty damn clear to me.

Originally posted by neo96
If Georgetown Univeristy was Islamic instead of a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY this would not even be talk about.

So yeah she is coordinatiing with the White House do tell how many college students gets the presidents ear and Pelosi's?

Pretty damn clear to me.

Because Obama is a secret Muslim, right?

Comon' you can't seriously believe the garbage you just wrote above

Doesn't matter which religion it is, in the US religion can't dictate public policy. Separation of State and Church ftw

You've been watching FOX NEWS, which claimed this morning that Sandra Fluke is being coordinated by President Obama in order to distract from the economic issues.

Big thing here - firstly, economy is improving, and secondly, if this was a big White House conspiracy, Rush Limbaugh would have to be involved, neck deep with the Obama White House.

Hardly a likely scenario. Unfortunately, FOX NEWS faithful will lap this up as another "news" item, despite zero evidence backing up the story.

"I heard it on Fox News - it must be true" - is about as reliable as "I read it on Wikipedia".

reply to post by MrXYZ


Whatever quote where i said that this is about a Catholic University and about A STUDENT not employees who is looking for more than one way to "get a free ride".

Ain't that something some of the best schools in the country own owned and operated by "bible thumpers".

Originally posted by MrXYZ

And another blatant lie

By law no federal funds can be used to fund abortions, not even once the new HCB comes into effect. You're repeating a lie conservatives keep on repeating over and over again...when in reality all people have to do is actually bother looking up the laws instead of repeating total nonsense!

Actually, the Hyde Amendment allows for Medicaid (federal and state) funding of abortions in the case of life endangerment, rape or incest. So federal funds can be used to fund abortions. Federal funds can't be used, however, for family planning if the plan is to abort.

From what I understand, Title X can't be used to fund abortions under any case.

/TOA

reply to post by xuenchen


This is a very transparent attempt to divert the topic of Obama being the first President to start stripping us of our religious freedom. Nobody is being fooled. Even those siding with Fluke and who are opposed to religious freedom know.

Fluke likely contacted the White House through back channels and the whole thing is orchestrated from the start.

This Limbaugh thing is irrelevant. Anything he did has nothing to do with why she is out there.

How about three thousand of us get together, put in a dollar each and send it to her to pay for incredibly expensive contraceptives. She must be one busy young woman to need that much; I wonder how she finds time to study? Does she have a website with pictures?

As I understand it, birth control pills cost less than $400 for three years worth and you can get them for free from lots of locations. Knowing that, this certainly has nothing to do with what she is saying. These folks are getting so cocky and dishonest their methods are becoming very sloppy and transparent. They don't even care how ridiculous their lies are anymore.

I say the answer to give me, give me, give me and let me control your behavior and life, should be a resounding eat dirt and go away you bother us.

Have pity on whoever marries her and even more pity on whoever hires her. No doubt she will end up in politics. She could move to SF and replace Pelosi.

Oh the joys of election years What next, a gang of fake psychics saying if we don't elect Obama, the world will self-destruct?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Obamacare that covers birth control will also cover abortion. The MSM isn't even mentioning abortion because they are feeding this to the public in low doses.

And another blatant lie

By law no federal funds can be used to fund abortions, not even once the new HCB comes into effect. You're repeating a lie conservatives keep on repeating over and over again...when in reality all people have to do is actually bother looking up the laws instead of repeating total nonsense!

It is estimated that 1/6 of our budget will be needed to pay for Obamacare and that figure does not take the cost of school and hospital closings.

Why on earth would they close?

Again, contraception is CHEAPER than unwanted pregnancies...so making insurance companies cover it will actually result in net savings. Whether or not insurance companies pass on those savings is a whole other story...but it's factually cheaper.

edit on 7-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

By law no federal funds can be used to fund abortions

www.prochoice.org...

The Supreme Court has held that the Hyde Amendment restrictions are constitutional and that states participating in Medicaid are only required to cover abortion services for which they receive federal funding rather than all medically necessary abortions.

Obamacare and abortion:

www.pop.org...
www.nationalreview.com...
www.lifenews.com...
www.bookwormroom.com...

Why on earth would they close?

Well, if you are going to call me a liar I might just say you are clueless about this issue. That's alright. That's why I post here.

news.investors.com...

Under the mandates, he wrote, Catholic hospitals and other institutions will face a choice of selling themselves to non-Catholic groups, paying "exorbitant annual fines" until going bankrupt, breaking with the local bishops and their oversight, or simply closing down.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Your information is outdated

Since H.R. 3 was introduced last month, reproductive health advocates have seized on a provision that tightens federal regulations to only allow government-funding for abortion for pregnancies in which the mother’s life is endangered, or that are the product of incest or “forcible rape.

LINK

Not that the old laws weren't clear...

Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970,the Title X family planning program is the only source of federal funds dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health. The provision provides coverage for contraceptives, pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling, and basic infertility counseling, among other provisions. Title X programs provided family planning services to 5 million women and men through 4,500 community-based clinics in 2008, according to the Department of Health & Human Services.

By law, no Title X funds can be used for abortions.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Your information is outdated

LINK

Not that the old laws weren't clear...

Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970,the Title X family planning program is the only source of federal funds dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health. The provision provides coverage for contraceptives, pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling, and basic infertility counseling, among other provisions. Title X programs provided family planning services to 5 million women and men through 4,500 community-based clinics in 2008, according to the Department of Health & Human Services.

By law, no Title X funds can be used for abortions.

edit on 7-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

You're the one that called me a liar and said federal funds have never been used for abortions. I never said title 10 funds were used for abortion and now you are talking about how federal funds are being used:

Since H.R. 3 was introduced last month, reproductive health advocates have seized on a provision that tightens federal regulations to only allow government-funding for abortion for pregnancies in which the mother’s life is endangered, or that are the product of incest or “forcible rape.

Did you happen to hear Ron Paul say Plan B for true rape victims only. Why did he say true? How many women claim to have been raped so they don't have to pay for the abortion?

Roe v Wade was based on a lie. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) claimed to have been raped, but later admitted it was a lie. BTW she is a Pro-Life speaker now.

Jump in a lake.

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Pfft,Who gives two flying flicks about this stupid topic?

Does every topic we discuss have to be life or death? Apparently quite a few people are interested in talking about this topic. If you're not, find the door. It's not serious political discourse, if that's what you mean. No one is claiming that it is. It's unimportant and will be forgotten in a week. It's political theater at best. But some people ENJOY talking about it. Is that OK with you?

I love how people get so mad at Sandra Fluke for just giving her views. It's hilarious.

reply to post by The Old American


Condoms do not help women with endometriosis, ovarian cysts, etc. The hormones in birth control do. But you just keep your head in the sand and think that this is a bad thing. Women that have to use the products for a legitimate reason other then birth control have to pay ridiculous amounts because currently it is not necessary to be covered by insurance. My Ex had to take a pill for medical issues and it cost us $75 a month and we had insurance. That is crazy.

You know, I read the first three pages of posts on this thread and no matter where you stand on this issue one thing kept Pi**ing me off. I can't even afford to fix the suspension on my truck and have been walking to work everyday for the past 6 months. Yet this Fluke chick wants ME!!!! to pay for her sexual activity?!?!?! Now why the H*ll should i do that? Who the h*ll does she think she is to take money out of my wallet by federal mandate to pay for her sex? I don't care if its an issue about contraception or healthcare, I'm sick and tired of everyone fighting to spend MY MONEY when i can't even fix my own F**kin truck. this whole thing makes me sick...wake up people! I don't go to congress and ask them to tax YOU and pass laws and FORCE YOU to fix my truck do i ?!!!! makes me sick.....

reply to post by roaland

I think if women have hormonal imbalances that can be proved by a doctor and tests, then these conditions should be covered. If you suffer from College Dorm Hornyitis, they should not. If you want to use the argument that it saves money from less pregnancies, aka subsidize my collge dorm screwfest, then men should get subsidized beer. If more men were too drunk to screw, there would be less pregnancies. Voila! Problem solved! Oh and since you (not you roaland) love this emote so much, this is for you

Is this why Sandra Fluke went public?
www.wnd.com...

reply to post by Surfrat


Well, well, well, yet another connection for the innocent Ms. Fluke.

In a Politico article two weeks ago titled “2012: The year of ‘birth control moms’?” Lake was quoted as saying Obama’s stance on contraception is enough to “really irritate” independent suburban moms and “re-engage” young, single women who haven’t tuned into the campaign so far.

Lake said that she and other Democrats see the strong Republican opposition to contraception as a way to win women back after they swung right in 2010, even though they backed Obama in big numbers in 2008.

Politico also quoted Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University, as warning of a major female backlash if the Republicans overreach on contraception.

Lake, quoted by Politico, is no bystander on the contraception debate.

WND has found that her Lake Research is one of the driving forces behind the progressive strategy to use contraception as an election.

www.wnd.com...

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by roaland

 

I think if women have hormonal imbalances that can be proved by a doctor and tests, then these conditions should be covered.

edit on 7-3-2012 by iamconcerned because: (no reason given)

I agree with this 100% because that would be considered a medical problem and am surprised this isn't already covered by insurance companies or other various programs that are floating around out there. But again it sounds more like a Regulatory Law then a Federal Mandate and as such a Regulatory Law would cost Tax payers minimal Tax $'s, but a Federal Mandate of Government paid-for and provided-by Government, Birth Control would cost well into the billions of $'s. There's more ways then just The Pill that's used for Birth Control if that's the issue and none of it should be "freely" provided for by the Government because nothing the Government does is Free, we all pay for it one way or another.