Text 35805, 147 rader
Skriven 2016-08-12 00:44:54 av timothy richardson
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Re: No Restrictions
===========================
On 8/9/2016 11:47 AM, Earl Croasmun wrote to Timothy Richardson:

-> 
MSGID: 1:261/38.0 1e748762
-> 
REPLY: 1:2320/100 585bd42d
-> 
TZUTC: -0500
-> 
CHARSET: LATIN-1
-> > No....`the whole point' is they are pushing `artificial birth control' on
-> > organizations who's mores and tenets are against it. They HAVE to
-> > make it about `birth control' and FORCING a religion who's teachings
-> > are against it....to participate in it anyway!
-> 
-> If that was the whole point inside your head, why didn't you just exp
express that
-> opinion without all of the factual mistakes and falsehoods? When you po
posted
-> your version of the testimony, I offered to bet anyone on its factual a
accuracy.
-> Unfortunately no one wanted to bet that you were accurate.

So...you're now making the claim that it wasn't `about' forcing religious 
organizations that are against participating in artificial contraception and
abortion?

That what it was about Earl. Did you miss part of it?

(Sigh!) Once more from the top:

Nancy Pelosi dragged Sandra Fluke before a `congressional *panel*'...
NOT a `committee' of members of BOTH sides...but a *panel* of all
democrats!

Here are some of Fluke's own words:

"I'm also a past president of `Georgetown Law Students for reproductive
Justice', or LSJR."

`Reproductive Justice'? Left-speak for `abortion'.

Further:

"blah blah blah....I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide 
contraceptive coverage in it's student health plan."

Easy solution: Leave that law school and go to one that DOES provide it!

Further:

"blah blah blah....And just as we students have faced financial, emotional 
and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated 
hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burden
burdens."

Now...how she would know that is not explained, but...

Further:

"Blah blah blah....When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the 
women affected by the lack of this coverage."

How did she *know* those `women'? Did they have a special mark on 
their chin? Or maybe a teardrop tattoo from one eye? Maybe they each
carried a sign?

Further:

"And especially in the last week, I heard more and more of their stories."

What! So suddenly all women on her campus who `suffer' this lack of coverage,
flock
coverage, flocked to HER in the same week and poured all this grief out
on her?

To continue (here comes the good part, Earl):

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
woman over $3000 during law school."

She was `during law school' at the time she said that. So...yeah, she was
also talking about herself! 

Wait a minute! What does `contraception' have to do with going to `law
school' anyway?

They're supposed to be studying LAW...not having sex!

And then she goes on to make claims about women who are in danger
of their health because they can't get insurance coverage for 
contraception....yadida yadida.......

Now...the *ISSUE* was Obamacare FORCING religious organizations...
universities....employers....etc etc..to pay for `birth control'.

Suddenly the subject morphs into all this other stuff affecting `women's
health' needs that `birth control' is needed for.

A couple of things, Earl:

First...people who are in `law school' supposedly are intelligent. 

Engaging in sexual activity when you are:
a. in college
b. not married

is not a very intelligent thing to do!

Second...if this `contraceptive medication' is taken for some other health
reason...why is the issue "birth control? The issue should be "some other heal
health reason". 

Which they can go to their own physician and get prescriptions for.

And the `but they need health insurance to cover it for them' goes out
the window as *Obamacare* was supposed to take care of that for all. 

So...what they're ACTUALLY doing here is trying to force insurance companies t
companies to pay for something THEY can easily buy themselves over
the counter! Not just ANY insurance companies...insurance companies
of *religious organizations* that have strong policies against artificial
birth control and abortion!

THAT was the issue. They couldn't do it in front of a regular Congressional
committee...so they tried it in front of a bunch of `democrats' where no
republicans would raise any objections.

it was about breaking that hurdle down. Period.

And they're still at it against various religious organizations over that.

BTW....Fluke also throws `endometriosis' into the mix...along with `polycys
`polycystic ovarian syndrome'....

Nice terms....but the `subject' was `birth control' not paid for by health
insurance companies the religious organizations offer students and emplo
employees.

 And `forcing' them through act of law (Obamacare) to do so against
their religious faith.

so much for`freedom of religion', eh?

 


  
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: LiveWire -=* Louisville, KY USA *=- LiveWireBBS.Com (1:2320/100)