PDA

View Full Version : Bill introduced to regulate men's reproductive health



Rockntractor
03-11-2012, 09:40 PM
By Jackie Borchardt, Columbus Bureau Updated 11:53 PM Saturday, March 10, 2012

COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared.

Heartbeat bill sponsor Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, said comparing his bill to Turner’s would be like comparing apples to bananas. The Heartbeat bill would prohibit abortion once a heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

“I understand some women think my bill is a personal affront,” Wachtmann said. “Protecting the unborn — to compare this to Viagra is not even related.”

Under Senate Bill 307, men taking the drugs would continue to be tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about “pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”

“Even the FDA recommends that doctors make sure that assessments are taken that target the nature of the symptoms, whether it’s physical or psychological,” Turner said. “I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”

States passed a record 92 abortion-related bills in 2011, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that focuses on reproductive health. At the same time, fewer than one in four state legislators nationwide are women — they number 23 percent in Ohio — according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html

m00
03-12-2012, 02:00 AM
Like, I get that it's a "protest bill" that is designed to make a point rather than get passed. But seriously, don't these people have better things to do? Can't we table the whole social issues thing until the economy works again?

JB
03-12-2012, 03:28 AM
I am OK with this. With the amount of money GM spends on Viagra each year for its union pukes, I have absolutely no problem with this going forward. And then watching the fallout.

JB
03-12-2012, 03:30 AM
Can't we table the whole social issues thing until the economy works again?Can't m00. The Dems can't afford to have the economy talked about. Too damaging. They have to keep the focus on keeping the Pope out of the White House.

linda22003
03-12-2012, 08:56 AM
Like, I get that it's a "protest bill" that is designed to make a point rather than get passed. But seriously, don't these people have better things to do? Can't we table the whole social issues thing until the economy works again?

Mitch Daniels didn't get a good reception when he called for a "truce" on social issues. I think there should be one, too. Permanently.

fettpett
03-12-2012, 09:18 AM
Mitch Daniels didn't get a good reception when he called for a "truce" on social issues. I think there should be one, too. Permanently.

no, Daniels only wanted that to fix the economy, however it wouldn't have worked because the LEFT wont let there be one.

linda22003
03-12-2012, 10:21 AM
no, Daniels only wanted that to fix the economy, however it wouldn't have worked because the LEFT wont let there be one.

He definitely got pushback from both sides. It's true it won't work; the question is whether women have been (fairly or not) "alerted" to social conservative issues on reproduction and whether that will work against Republicans in November.

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 11:48 AM
It's intelligent design and god's will until the penis malfunctions; then it's call a doctor and fix this time. Maybe your penis stopped working because your procreation days are supposed to be over. Golden Girls did so much damage to the morals of old people.

Lanie
03-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Seems a little bit intrusive.

However, in light of all the intrusiveness toward women, calling them sluts over the birth control issue (by conservatives who probably didn't wait until marriage), insurance companies paying for Viagra (which can cause a heart attack), but not birth control.

MY GIVE A FLIP IS BUSTED. Sorry. Too bad. So sad. Let's see how the men like it for a while.

Apache
03-12-2012, 12:30 PM
It's intelligent design and god's will until the penis malfunctions; then it's call a doctor and fix this time. Maybe your penis stopped working because your procreation days are supposed to be over. Golden Girls did so much damage to the morals of old people.

unless you know what you're talking about, princess, STFU.... BEOITCH!

Apache
03-12-2012, 12:37 PM
Seems a little bit intrusive.

However, in light of all the intrusiveness toward women, calling them sluts over the birth control issue (by conservatives who probably didn't wait until marriage), insurance companies paying for Viagra (which can cause a heart attack), but not birth control.

MY GIVE A FLIP IS BUSTED. Sorry. Too bad. So sad. Let's see how the men like it for a while.

ah yes! how'd i guess you'd trot this crap out?

1)it was A woman, not women (plural)... and she brought it on herself....

2) there is no intrusiveness towards women by anyone...


take off the blinders lanie and join reality...

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 12:46 PM
unless you know what you're talking about, princess, STFU.... BEOITCH!

It's true, my penis still works. So tell me why I should subsidize Viagra for yours.

fettpett
03-12-2012, 01:21 PM
He definitely got pushback from both sides. It's true it won't work; the question is whether women have been (fairly or not) "alerted" to social conservative issues on reproduction and whether that will work against Republicans in November.

Only reason he got push back from the right is that they know it wont work.

again, you and Lanie here have it wrong, it's not a matter of "reproduction issues" it's a matter of GOVERNMENT FORCING companies/orgainzations to pay for birth control and abortions against that organization's beliefs, Which is infringing their Rights.

fettpett
03-12-2012, 01:22 PM
Seems a little bit intrusive.

However, in light of all the intrusiveness toward women, calling them sluts over the birth control issue (by conservatives who probably didn't wait until marriage), insurance companies paying for Viagra (which can cause a heart attack), but not birth control.

MY GIVE A FLIP IS BUSTED. Sorry. Too bad. So sad. Let's see how the men like it for a while.

I see you completely ignored every FACT to the case that has been presented to you.

Apache
03-12-2012, 01:31 PM
It's true, my penis still works. So tell me why I should subsidize Viagra for yours.

excuse me? did i say anything about buying me viagra, butt-banger? read what's written princess, not what you want to see...

linda22003
03-12-2012, 01:38 PM
Pay for all drugs, or no drugs. Period. Have a copay if you want, but don't do the "not this one", "not that one", "oooops, NOT that one" thing.

Starbuck
03-12-2012, 01:46 PM
Pay for all drugs, or no drugs. Period. Have a copay if you want, but don't do the "not this one", "not that one", "oooops, NOT that one" thing.

I'll buy that. Play with the copay if you must, but if a drug is legal, it's legal.

It would help a lot if my insurance company were forced to compete with yours, and I could buy from either.

Apache
03-12-2012, 01:53 PM
Pay for all drugs, or no drugs. Period. Have a copay if you want, but don't do the "not this one", "not that one", "oooops, NOT that one" thing.

i can agree with that. what i don't agree with is forcing organizations to pay/sell/distribute something they disagree with.

Chuck58
03-12-2012, 04:06 PM
i can agree with that. what i don't agree with is forcing organizations to pay/sell/distribute something they disagree with.

That's the Fluke thing. She CHOSE Georgetown U, a Jesuit run school and then CHOSE to complain when this Catholic, Jesuit University wouldn't provide her with contraception to have sex 8 or 10 times a day.

My simple question, that I guess nobody bothered to ask a the hearing, Why didn't she just leave and go to a school where she could spend all day in bed?

Maybe she ought to resign from Georgetown and try to enroll at Oral Roberts U, in Oklahoma. Ya think they'd be more liberal toward her requests?

Rockntractor
03-12-2012, 04:10 PM
Maybe she ought to resign from Georgetown and try to enroll at Oral Roberts U, in Oklahoma. Ya think they'd be more liberal toward her requests?

Most likely they would, Richard was the result of Oral sex and he just got arrested for drunk driving!http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/confused/confused002.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 04:59 PM
Pay for all drugs, or no drugs. Period. Have a copay if you want, but don't do the "not this one", "not that one", "oooops, NOT that one" thing.

As close as I can tell, the "co-pay" is the whole pay for most drugs. My insurance company wastes millions of dollars and a couple of forests every year sending me reports, updates, and summaries of what I have spent, what they spent, and what magically disappeared due to "discounts" or "negotiated prices". It looks something like

What was billed $4150.00
What you paid: $240
What we paid: $110
Discounts applied: $3800

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 05:03 PM
excuse me? did i say anything about buying me viagra, butt-banger? read what's written princess, not what you want to see...

I really don't mind subsidizing your Viagra if it gives you something to do and perhaps raises your self esteem so you'll stop worry about other people bidness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q96-e042bk

Apache
03-12-2012, 05:32 PM
I really don't mind subsidizing your Viagra if it gives you something to do and perhaps raises your self esteem so you'll stop worry about other people bidness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q96-e042bk

that's right princess, you fling that purse...

Retread
03-12-2012, 07:51 PM
I am OK with this. With the amount of money GM spends on Viagra each year for its union pukes, I have absolutely no problem with this going forward. And then watching the fallout.

Maybe they'll quit giving it away in the prisons as well.

Chuck58
03-12-2012, 09:09 PM
Most likely they would, Richard was the result of Oral sex and he just got arrested for drunk driving!http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/confused/confused002.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Another don't do as I do, do as I say type, huh?

AmPat
03-12-2012, 10:19 PM
It's intelligent design and god's will until the penis malfunctions; then it's call a doctor and fix this time. Maybe your penis stopped working because your procreation days are supposed to be over. Golden Girls did so much damage to the morals of old people.
We used to live to the ripe old age of 40. Now, through the miracle of better-longer living brought to you by pharmaceuticals, we live longer. We also live healthier (despite MOOchelle's unsolicited intrusion into our kitchens).

Those drugs that you and the rest of the libertards are attempting to politicize are used for physical problems. That means, something that used to work doesn't, unless you take this little pill. That is quite a different situation than taking a pill to prevent a normally functioning organ from working.

Seems a little bit intrusive.

However, in light of all the intrusiveness toward women, calling them sluts over the birth control issue (by conservatives who probably didn't wait until marriage), insurance companies paying for Viagra (which can cause a heart attack), but not birth control.

MY GIVE A FLIP IS BUSTED. Sorry. Too bad. So sad. Let's see how the men like it for a while.Insurance companies have factored in the cost of Viagra and programmed that into their premiums. That means that if a man wants that drug, he ultimately PAYS FOR IT! He does not get government to do it. Insurance did not get a government mandate shoved down their throat to pay for men's erections on demand. They also weren't ordered to pay for something that violates their morals.
You do know the difference between choice and force?

NJCardFan
03-12-2012, 10:43 PM
Seems a little bit intrusive.

However, in light of all the intrusiveness toward women, calling them sluts over the birth control issue (by conservatives who probably didn't wait until marriage), insurance companies paying for Viagra (which can cause a heart attack), but not birth control.

MY GIVE A FLIP IS BUSTED. Sorry. Too bad. So sad. Let's see how the men like it for a while.

Yeah because we all know that getting Viagra is the same as allowing women to have innocent children to be slaughtered.
http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv182/mikkirm/megaeyeroll.gif

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 11:47 PM
We used to live to the ripe old age of 40. Now, through the miracle of better-longer living brought to you by pharmaceuticals, we live longer. We also live healthier (despite of MOOchelle's unsolicited intrusion into our kitchens).



Another limpo heard from.

AmPat
03-13-2012, 12:03 AM
Another limpo heard from.
It must be terribly frustrating for you to be a beautiful Princess in your swollen head when actually your'e closer to an HR Puff-n-Stuff impersonator. http://i39.tinypic.com/352htok.jpg

You are as disgusting as Bahknee Fwank.
http://i40.tinypic.com/33wy0jm.jpg

Apache
03-13-2012, 01:34 AM
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0018.gif
Another limpo heard from.

oh goody! princess thinks he's the only one that can get hard... isn't that sweet http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0018.gif

linda22003
03-13-2012, 07:58 AM
Yeah because we all know that getting Viagra is the same as allowing women to have innocent children to be slaughtered.


Uh, no. Birth control is supposed to prevent the "slaughter of innocent children", as you dramatically characterize it.

Bailey
03-13-2012, 08:53 AM
Uh, no. Birth control is supposed to prevent the "slaughter of innocent children", as you dramatically characterize it.

That is until they say we have to pay for the morning after pill.....

AmPat
03-13-2012, 09:18 AM
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0018.gif

oh goody! princess thinks he's the only one that can get hard... isn't that sweet http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0018.gif

The horrible thing is, I believe I'm his target of affection.:vomit:
This is one instance where I don't want ANYONE paying for his Viagra.:frown-new:

Novaheart
03-13-2012, 11:53 AM
The horrible thing is, I believe I'm his target of affection.:vomit:
This is one instance where I don't want ANYONE paying for his Viagra.:frown-new:

That's alright, I have no desire to live in some intellectual sump in Colorado with an aging idiot.

Novaheart
03-13-2012, 11:55 AM
That is until they say we have to pay for the morning after pill.....

What is the difference between the morning after pill and "the pill"?

Rockntractor
03-13-2012, 01:02 PM
What is the difference between the morning after pill and "the pill"?

One prevents a pregnancy and the other one kills it.

AmPat
03-13-2012, 01:03 PM
That's alright, I have no desire to live in some intellectual sump in Colorado with an aging idiot.
I had no idea your smarter twin brother lived here.

linda22003
03-13-2012, 01:21 PM
That is until they say we have to pay for the morning after pill.....

The morning after pill is just a larger dose of regular birth control pills. Back in the day, if I missed pills and had to abandon the cycle, I was told to triple up on the bc pills for the "morning after" effect.

linda22003
03-13-2012, 01:22 PM
One prevents a pregnancy and the other one kills it.

It prevents implantation IF a pesky sperm has actually reached an egg.

Rockntractor
03-13-2012, 01:31 PM
It prevents implantation IF a pesky sperm has actually reached an egg.

That differs some how from what I said?

linda22003
03-13-2012, 01:52 PM
That differs some how from what I said?

You said "one kills it" as if conception had definitely taken place. It's really just insurance.

Rockntractor
03-13-2012, 01:56 PM
You said "one kills it" as if conception had definitely taken place. It's really just insurance.

Interesting, so if I were to push someone off from a building I wouldn't be killing them, it would be the ground, far removed from me.

linda22003
03-13-2012, 02:16 PM
Interesting, so if I were to push someone off from a building I wouldn't be killing them, it would be the ground, far removed from me.

If you think a few divided cells are the absolute equivalent of a grown person. Apparently you do. I don't, and the law does not, so that's really as far as we can go with the discussion.

m00
03-13-2012, 09:34 PM
If you think a few divided cells are the absolute equivalent of a grown person. Apparently you do. I don't, and the law does not, so that's really as far as we can go with the discussion.

The law also says that corporations are people, and that congressmen sitting on financial committees don't have a conflict of interest when they own stock in a company that the committee is ruling on, and a lot of other stuff I disagree with. But if one can end any moral or philosophical argument with BUT THE LAW SAYS X then there is not much point to debating anything, is there?

AmPat
03-13-2012, 10:23 PM
The law also says that corporations are people, and that congressmen sitting on financial committees don't have a conflict of interest when they own stock in a company that the committee is ruling on, and a lot of other stuff I disagree with. But if one can end any moral or philosophical argument with BUT THE LAW SAYS X then there is not much point to debating anything, is there?That's when I stopped responding and started rolling my eyes. I thought. " i bet a lot of people are glad we didn't buy this when slavery was outlawed."

JB
03-14-2012, 03:33 AM
If you think a few divided cells are the absolute equivalent of a grown person. Apparently you do. I don't, and the law does not, so that's really as far as we can go with the discussion.That's if you think women should have the right to vote. Apparently you do. I don't, and the law does not, so that's really as far as we can go with the discussion.

/my reply to a post of yours on August 17th, 1920.

txradioguy
03-14-2012, 03:55 AM
Interesting, so if I were to push someone off from a building I wouldn't be killing them, it would be the ground, far removed from me.


Gotta love those frightening peeks into the mind of a RINO that Linda #'s gives us.


Kinda helps one understand why the GOP is in the mess it is today.

fettpett
03-14-2012, 07:42 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/12/premeditated-murder-of-newborns/?page=1

SMITH: Premeditated murder of newbornsEthics askew when dispatching babies seen as morally equivalent to abortion By Rep. Christopher H. Smith
-
The Washington Times
Monday, March 12, 2012

Late last month, two bioethicists - Alberto Giubilini (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/alberto-giubilini/) and Francesca Minerva (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francesca-minerva/) - published an outrageous “paper” in the Journal of Medical Ethics justifying the deliberate, premeditated murder of newborn babies during the first days and weeks after birth.
Mr. Giubilini (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/alberto-giubilini/) and Ms. Minerva (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francesca-minerva/) wrote “when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
If a newly born child poses an economic burden on a family, is disabled or is unwanted, that child can be murdered in cold blood because the baby lacks intrinsic value and, according to the professors, is not a person.
Mr. Giubilini (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/alberto-giubilini/) and Ms. Minerva (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francesca-minerva/) wrote, “Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of.”
As any parents - especially moms - will tell you, children in general and newborns in particular require enormous energy, money and boatloads of love. If any of these are lacking or pose what the authors called a “threat,” does that justify a death sentence?
Are the lives of newborn babies so cheap? Are babies so expendable?
The murder of newly born children is further justified by Mr. Giubilini (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/alberto-giubilini/) and Ms. Minerva (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francesca-minerva/) because newborn infants, like their slightly younger sisters and brothers in the womb, “cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing.”
In other words, no dreams, no plans for the future, no “aims” that can be discerned, recognized or understood by adults means no life.
This preposterous, arbitrary and evil prerequisite for the attainment of legal personhood is not only bizarre, it is inhumane in the extreme. Stripped of its pseudo-intellectual underpinnings, the Giubilini and Minerva (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francesca-minerva/) rationale for murdering newborns in the nursery is indistinguishable from the motive of any other child predator wielding a knife or gun.
The authors say the devaluation of newborn babies is inextricably linked to the devaluation of unborn children, and is indeed the logical extension of the abortion culture. They “propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus. … Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.”
These anti-child, pro-murder rationalizations remind me of other, equally disturbing rants from highly credentialed individuals. Princeton University (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/princeton-university/)’s Peter Singer (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/peter-singer/) suggested a couple of years ago, “There are various things you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status [to a child] after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years.”
James Watson (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/james-watson/), Nobel laureate for unraveling the mystery of DNA, wrote in Prism magazine, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”
In like manner, Francis Crick, who received the Nobel Prize with Mr. Watson (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/james-watson/), said, “No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live.”
The dehumanization of newborns isn’t new but it’s getting worse.
Mr. Giubilini (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/alberto-giubilini/) and Ms. Minerva (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/francesca-minerva/)’s article must be a wake-up call. The lives of young children - an unprotected class - are under assault. Hard questions need to be asked and answered, and defenders of life must mobilized. We have a duty to protect the weakest and most vulnerable from violence.





This is what we get for the last 40 years of Roe v Wade, devaluing of human life. These are things that the likes of Hitler and Stalin supported.

linda22003
03-14-2012, 08:33 AM
The law also says that corporations are people, and that congressmen sitting on financial committees don't have a conflict of interest when they own stock in a company that the committee is ruling on, and a lot of other stuff I disagree with. But if one can end any moral or philosophical argument with BUT THE LAW SAYS X then there is not much point to debating anything, is there?

And as I SAID, "this is really as far as we can go with the discussion."

AmPat
03-14-2012, 10:51 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/12/premeditated-murder-of-newborns/?page=1



This is what we get for the last 40 years of Roe v Wade, devaluing of human life. These are things that the likes of Hitler and Stalin supported.And yet in the face of historical evidence, libruls insist there is no slippery slope to their ideas. They seem to miss the definition of "progressive.":rolleyes:

JB
03-14-2012, 03:24 PM
And as I SAID, "this is really as far as we can go with the discussion."Nice try but you framed your statement around the law.

That is, "the law is the law and that's that so this discussion is over" when what you really meant was "I don't have a problem snuffing out the unborn but you do so we should just leave it at that".

linda22003
03-14-2012, 03:44 PM
Nice try but you framed your statement around the law.

That is, "the law is the law and that's that so this discussion is over" when what you really meant was "I don't have a problem snuffing out the unborn but you do so we should just leave it at that".

I don't have a problem with the morning after pill, which was what was specifically being discussed. I think equating that with a late term abortion is ludicrous. Your results may differ.

JB
03-14-2012, 04:06 PM
I don't have a problem with the morning after pill, which was what was specifically being discussed. I think equating that with a late term abortion is ludicrous. Your results may differ.That's just a matter of timing. If you're a "life begins at conception" person than snuffing out that life anywhere across the timeline is ludicrous. Since no one has ever said when life begins and human beings tend to err on the side of caution...conception is a pretty good place to start.

But this is a pay for the blue pill out of your own pocket thread. And I would love to see the Dems take that road. I support them. I encourage it. I say go for it. I am behind you.

So, for the sake of the thread I'm not going to entertain an abortion discussion much longer.

m00
03-14-2012, 05:43 PM
Well, fortunately with the electorate focused on reproductive issues the economy will continue to collapse around us and this will cease being an issue.

Adam Wood
03-14-2012, 07:05 PM
Seems a little bit intrusive.

However, in light of all the intrusiveness toward women, calling them sluts over the birth control issue (by conservatives who probably didn't wait until marriage), insurance companies paying for Viagra (which can cause a heart attack), but not birth control.

MY GIVE A FLIP IS BUSTED. Sorry. Too bad. So sad. Let's see how the men like it for a while.Do you actually know what viagra is for?

Hint: it's a heart medication.

linda22003
03-15-2012, 09:05 AM
Do you actually know what viagra is for?

Hint: it's a heart medication.

Right. Maybe we should make men prove they're using it as heart medication and not for the woody side effect. :biggrin-new:

Adam Wood
03-15-2012, 09:57 AM
Right. Maybe we should make men prove they're using it as heart medication and not for the woody side effect. :biggrin-new:I have absolutely no problem with that. If an insurance policy covers Ortho tri Cycline only for regulation of menstruation and not for the purposes birth control, then I think it's absolutely fine for that same policy to say that they will only cover Viagra for angina or whatever it is that Viagra is targeted to and not for the purposes of getting it up.

txradioguy
03-15-2012, 10:30 AM
However, in light of all the intrusiveness toward women, calling them sluts over the birth control issue (by conservatives who probably didn't wait until marriage),

First off the whole contraception thing wasn't started by the Republicans. It was by a Dem political op posing as a reporter during a primary debate.

Secondly...what exactly DO you call someone...besides someone that you would like to get to know better...who gets before a microphone and makes the statement that she and other female students at Georgetown Law are having so much sex they are going broke paying for contraception? Even my 16 year old daugher called her a slut when she heard Fluke comments.

You DO realize the whole thing was a set up right? Or are you really that gulliable that you buy the whole "war on women" meme?


insurance companies paying for Viagra (which can cause a heart attack), but not birth control.

You just told an out and out bald faced lie right there Bridget. Do you enjoy being such a tool for the political left?? I'm guessing the answer is "yes" since you'll say anything to further the Libtard meme no matter how false the statement or premise.

linda22003
03-15-2012, 11:14 AM
I have absolutely no problem with that. If an insurance policy covers Ortho tri Cycline only for regulation of menstruation and not for the purposes birth control, then I think it's absolutely fine for that same policy to say that they will only cover Viagra for angina or whatever it is that Viagra is targeted to and not for the purposes of getting it up.

And who's going to do all the checking on that? :biggrin-new:

Adam Wood
03-15-2012, 11:56 AM
And who's going to do all the checking on that? :biggrin-new:The doctor. They already do.

linda22003
03-15-2012, 12:26 PM
The doctor. They already do.

And they'll write it so it qualifies.

Adam Wood
03-15-2012, 12:34 PM
And they'll write it so it qualifies.Some will, some won't. Nothing will change.

AmPat
03-15-2012, 03:47 PM
Right. Maybe we should make men prove they're using it as heart medication and not for the woody side effect. :biggrin-new:

First off, the drug in question isnt merely nor primarily for erectile disfunction. It is a heart medicine that has the added benefit and doubles as an ED medicine. It is used to overcome erectile DISFUNCTION. That means the drug is used to assist an organ with PROPER FUNCTIONING!

Birth Control is used to PROHIBIT the proper functioning of a NORMALLY FUNCTIONING organ.

One might say that a good http://i41.tinypic.com/s6536a.jpg is good for the heart and it does one's heart good to have a good http://i39.tinypic.com/25zrx1l.jpg
You really ought to stop with the idiocy now, you're usually much more careful in your posts.

linda22003
03-15-2012, 03:48 PM
It is used to overcome erectile DISFUNCTION. That means the drug is used to assist an organ with PROPER FUNCTIONING!

Birth Control is used to PROHIBIT the proper functioning of a NORMALLY FUNCTIONING organ.



Okay, so you're willing to fund the problem, but not the solution. :biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

AmPat
03-15-2012, 05:38 PM
Okay, so you're willing to fund the problem, but not the solution. :biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

My wife has approved my application to the local monastary. This is both problem and solution.:redface: