Robert, this is the biggest issue here, in my opinion.
The Republicans are NOT trying to deny "fair access to healthcare". They simply want to prevent Obama from forcing religious-based institutions to supply a healthcare program that allows certain procedure that go against their beliefs.
And it's important to remember that these church-based groups had been providing health insurance for many decades, but may be dropping their coverage altogether rather than succumb to this ridiculous NEW rule.

We're not even talking about "Healthcare" per se anyhow.
This is contraceptives.

At what point in our history have we determined that this needs to be MANDATED coverage?

As someone who had to pay out of pocket for various issues with my family (basically fertility clinics), I find this offensive.
I had a choice back then. To pay on my own, or to get another insurer, or to not have the procedures performed.

Why is this suddenly the responsiblity of uncle sam??

Buncha friggin losers need the goverment to do EVERYTHING for them. It's pathetic, and we're doing nothing more then enabling them when we call it "fair access".
That's pure BS.

Obviously you're a Neanderthal who doesn't realize that healthcare and highspeed internet are basic human rights that the government MUST provide.

Jerk.

I agree that this is a church v. state issue and a separate birth control issue. I have never known birth control to be federally mandated as part of health care and health insurance. The issue of whether this should become mandated coverage has not been determined. What the substantive issue here is, is the first time the issue has been publicly/publicly addressed. FWIW, I don't think PRIVATE religious health insurers who administer their own plans and pay claims out of their own pocket with their own money- should have to provide birth control when it is contradictory to their beliefs. Separation of church and state on that one. I doubt birth control, at this time, trumps freedom from state intrusion into religious institutional policies. but, that shouldn't preclude civil discourse. Now, is birth control a universal health right? That is an issue of federal and/or state constitutional rights. No final opinion from me yet as this is the first time this issue has been brought to my attention, and then only topically. I can tell you, however, that I see absolutely no problem with women having access to birth control- although I recognize that others, such as the Catholic Church disagree with me...

Robert........NOONE has a problem with women having access to birth control. Let them pay for it themselves......

You're missing some of the point here by asking the wrong questions. Or at least mis-worded questions. (perhaps on purpose? You sneaky lawyer!)

"Is birth control a universal health right?"
This is not in the discussion.
People can choose birth control, or not.
We're talking about WHO PAYS?

You say "I can tell you, however, that I see absolutely no problem with women having access to birth control"
Again, NOT the issue.
The church isn't blocking access. They are against it, and don't want the insurance they provide to pay for it.
That is blocking access as much as they're "blocking access" to me getting a new car. I mean, what the hell? Why won't they pay for my new car?? They are BLOCKING MY ACCESS TO A NEW CAR!
That's how silly this discussion is. The wrong words are being used, and the anger is misdirected. I say it's on purpose, because the truth isn't so newsworthy. And it wouldn't cause someone like Rick Santorum to put his foot in his mouth.


Personally, I find it ridiculous that the church is against birth control.
But I've never been angry at the church for not providing it.

Ummm...no.

There is a 72-hour rule when it comes to testimony. Dems pulled their submitted speaker and replaced them with Fluke, with less than 72-hours notice. In short, they (again) were trying to break the rules. The rule is there so that committe menbers have enough time to a) vet the speaker, and b) form questions to ask.

So the republican chairperson said: no. Obey the rules.

So the Dems went stamping off like little children, and had their OWN committe.

This whole thing was yet another democrat ploy, and Fluke as a law studen is a complete sham. She was a plant, and now they;re discovering she's had ties to the White House. So Robert, you're being scammed.

Try voting for someone next time who isn't a Deomcrat reprobate, OK?

Wrong.

I love the term: womens' "fair" access to healthcare. Yeah, that whole "fair" thing is a real hoot. Fair is what someone wants to make of it.

Is it "fair" for Catholics to pay for someone else's contraception, when it is against their doctrine?

Is it fair that my tax dollars pay so that Fluke can screw like a jackrabbit, and not have a care in the world about getting pregnant (I mean, up until the contraception fails)?

Is it "fair" for Democrats to break the rules of the house committe to put Fluke up there in the first place.

I personally think it is fair that I get a 10% portion of Fluke's post-graduate income for my own personal use. And frankly, my interpretation of "fair" is far more "fair" than anyone else.

No one has denied anyone any access to contraceptives, period. And it certainally isn't "fair access" when my pocket is picked - with kids and a wife to support - so that some thougless sleeze can bang as many men as she wants while she "attends" law school. The best form of contracaption is free: keeping her legs crossed. It is also 100% effective.

I guess Fluke's priorities are more about sex and less about becoming a lawyer. And for that reason I think is is only "fair" that she be expelled from Georgetown.

And Robert, I think it is only fair that you stop purposly blurring the facts and misleading people about what the issues are. Fair access to healthcare? What a joke!

Catholics aren't being asked to pay for contraception.

Your tax dollars are not nor will they go toward paying for her contraception.

She has not ever talked about her sex life, nor does her sex life have anything to do with this, nor is it anyone's business. She did not say too much sex, nor did she talk about sex.

She never presented herself as 23.

There has been no evidence to suggest she is a whore, slut or prostitute.

She did not say it costs her 3k a year for bc pills, she said with the insurance offered by Georgetown it costs 80/month or around 1k a year over 3 years of law school.

She was not complaining nor talking about rubbers.

She is not asking someone else to pay for her contraception any more than you are paying for my prescriptions over my co-pay.

It was not just two words, it's the entire rant and dozens of insults he threw her way while totally misrepresenting (ie lying) about her and her testimony. Conservatives need to learn context.

She did not write a 600+ page article, she edited one for the Georgetown law review. It is long because you and other addle minded conservatives with ADD are not the audience.

If you don't know or don't care what acronyms mean, why even bring it up?

Spelling absurdity 'Obsurdity' is hmmm, absurd?

And it's fun watching the 'take responsibility' 'conservatives' point at someone else and say, but mom!! He said it first.

Other than that, you guys are spot on.

Oh, really?

You mean when a Catholic employer who pays for health insurance for their employees, and that insurance is MANDATED to cover contraception costs, they're not paying for contraception?

Really?

Are you really THAT stupid?

You know, places like Catholic Social Services...who has employees...and is run by...um...Catholics?

Just who, specifically, do you think RUNS Catholic Social Services? The Scientologists?




Yes, because Kathleen Sebelius annoucing that a ruling that all insurance carries MUST cover contraception is not your tax dollars at work.

Because Health and Human Services is not a government entity.

And your participation in a health insurance program is not mandatory...as it is detailed under Obamacare.

And if you choose not to participate, you won't be forced or fined by the government to pay.

Nice try Fuzz. However you'll need something better than a sledgehammer to try and split that hair...




Yes, because contraceptives are know for curing the common cold.

And frankly, at the ripe old age of 30 years old, it's not at all surprising that she's hit menopause.

(The pill, because it is a hormone, is commonly used to treat estrogen loss in post-menopausal women).



She's a leftist lib. What more do you need?



Keeping her legs crossed is free, and 100% effective.



No. Rubbers would have been cheaper.



That's the beautiful part. Before Idi Amin Jr. got into office, I didn't pay for your perscriptions. You didn't pay for mine.

Now we do - it is mandated by the federal government. So that gives me the right to deny you coverage. Because someone as dumb as you should be denied healthcare.




The context is that she was there lobbying for free access to contraceptives, and she used a lot of made-up information to try and make her point.



Wish we could say the same about you...

“ “Leader [Nancy] Pelosi,members of Congress,good morning. And thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. Sandra Fluke,a Georgetown University Law student,testifies before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on the importance of contraceptive coverage for students and employees at religious-affiliated institutions. Last week,Fluke was denied the opportunity to speak before the House Oversight Committee hearing on women's reproductive health. Instead,an all-male panel of religious leaders testified on why they should be allowed to deny women contraceptive coverage. SOURCE: C-Span.org Read more: Sandra Fluke draws attention to financial & health burdens women suffer without contraceptive coverage “My name is Sandra Fluke,and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today. (Applause) “We,as Georgetown LSRJ,are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. “I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional,and medical burdens as a result,employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. “We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. “Simultaneously,the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions. “When I look around my campus,I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.

“And especially in the last week,I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis,I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer,and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage. “And so,I’m here today to share their voices,and I want to thank you for allowing them –not me –to be heard. “Without insurance coverage, contraception,as you know,can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who,like me,are on public interest scholarships,that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy. “One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. “Just last week,a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice. “And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately,that’s just not true. “Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service,but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented,these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need. “How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.),[Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis,particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics? “These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people. “In the worst cases,women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.

“A friend of mine,for example,has polycystic ovarian syndrome,and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. “Unfortunately,under many religious institutions and insurance plans,it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs. “When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body. “In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms. “For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation,she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor,her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her. “After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket,she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore,and she had to stop taking it. “I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible,excruciating pain. She wrote to me,‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’ “Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result. “On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony,she was sitting in a doctor’s office,trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe. “Since last year’s surgery,she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old. “As she put it,‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause,no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ “Now,in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age –increased risk of cancer, heart disease,osteoporosis –she may never be able to conceive a child. “Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were “One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis,but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication –the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis. “Recently,another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. “Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy,she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August. “I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously. “Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity,isn’t a priority. “One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped,she didn’t go to the doctor,even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections,because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that –something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. “As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ “These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder. “In the media lately,some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school? “We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally,to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. “We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ –to care for the whole person –by meeting all of our medical needs. “We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students,they would help us. “We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for –completely unsubsidized by the university. “We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere. “And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university,we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century,anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women. “Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need. “The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon. “Thank you very much.” ”

Sham as in that she is NOT a law student, doesn't attend class and isn't going to get a law degree? Sham as in the D's and the R's frame the issues differently. Sham as in some Dems wanted to hear what she had to say? You are 100% right this was nothing but a Democrat sham to get Rush to open his mouth. Eureka- it worked!!! But for Rush, no one would have ever known anything about the Dems listening to whatever she had to say.

We needed a superhero like you to come to our rescue to explain to us that "fair" is a subjective term. Where would we be without your absolute brilliance? And, it is OK for you to call her a whore and a slut just because she opines differently than you on this issue? Would your wife or daughter be whores and sluts if they disagreed with you and agreed with what Fluke had to say? Bet they would love being called that and you would be oh so proud to do it! What a guy. Please remind me to respect you for the way you treat others!

"... I don't think PRIVATE religious health insurers who administer their own plans and pay claims out of their own pocket with their own money- should have to provide birth control when it is contradictory to their beliefs. Separation of church and state on that one. ... I can tell you, however, that I see absolutely no problem with women having access to birth control. ..."




You must have misunderstood or misread what I wrote.#-o

Understood it perfectly......The accessibility has ALWAYS been there, now they want it covered by health insurance.

Why shouldn't health insurance (not religious-based, self-insured and self-administered plans) cover birth control?


BTW, My wife has been out of college for 20 years. Either her employers or myself have paid for her health insurance. It has always been with big insurers like BCBS and United HealthCare. She said that birth control pills have ALWAYS been covered.

Health insurance should cover whatever the insurer and the insured agree upon. Isn't that the whole purpose of contracts? Government shouldn't even be involved in this stuff, unless it is a court settling a contract dispute.

Health Insurers deny all sorts of medications prescribed by doctors because they simply don't want to pay for it. This happens all the time. Would this situation Fluke is discussing be more acceptable if that was the given reason or is the problem the fact that the call was based on religious grounds?

I'm quite certain that she'd find something to bitch about...even if it was a perfect world!