Obama Calls Sandra Fluke to Console Her

[....lybob]

And what medical hardship does no access to birth control cause?

 

Oral contraceptive pills are used to treat endometriosis.

[Fingon]

"You must provide a benefit to workers that runs counter to your doctrine" sounds pretty inhibitory to me. It's telling the Catholic Church that they are not, in fact, free to practice their own doctrine.

 

And marijuana shouldn't be illegal for Rastafarians. I consider that a First Amendment violation as well.

It may inhibit free practice of religion, but the law's primary purpose isn't to force the Catholic church to provide contraception. It's merely a consequence of the law. Which means that it passes the Lemon test.

[Rob's House]

The Supreme Court has ruled that a law may encroach upon religious freedom if it meets the 3 criteria:

 

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

I don't see where this law violates any of those rules. It's clearly constitutional for the same reason that marijuana is still illegal for Rastafarians.

Just because the Supreme Court decides to misconstrue the constitution doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't mean we should stand for it. The authority by which the Feds assert their will is based on the power to regulate interstate commerce, which really has nothing to do with Rastas smoking pot unless they're taking it across state lines. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court interpreted interstate commerce to mean not just interstate commerce but anything and everything that could have a remote and indirect impact on any aspect of anything involved in interstate commerce. The SC is not the sole arbitor of constitutionality and all branches have a duty to interpret and uphold it. So if your argument is that the SC will let this mandate stand then you're probably right. if you're arguing that it's constitutional that's another story.

[DC Tom]

Oral contraceptive pills are used to treat endometriosis.

 

That's not birth control, that's a prescription for a medical condition. I don't think even the Church is arguing against treating endometriosis.

 

 

 

And why is the government requiring that endometriosis treatments be free, anyway?

 

It may inhibit free practice of religion, but the law's primary purpose isn't to force the Catholic church to provide contraception. It's merely a consequence of the law. Which means that it passes the Lemon test.

 

Of course, in a 2500-page law, arguing it has any primary purpose is specious. You may as well argue that my detainment without due process is legal, because the primary purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is national security, and the abrogation of my Fourth Amendment rights is merely a consequence. By that standard, virtually no law is unconstitutional, because nowadays virtually no law passed by Congress has a discernable primary purpose.

[Fingon]

That's not birth control, that's a prescription for a medical condition. I don't think even the Church is arguing against treating endometriosis.

 

 

 

And why is the government requiring that endometriosis treatments be free, anyway?

 

 

 

Of course, in a 2500-page law, arguing it has any primary purpose is specious. You may as well argue that my detainment without due process is legal, because the primary purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is national security, and the abrogation of my Fourth Amendment rights is merely a consequence. By that standard, virtually no law is unconstitutional, because nowadays virtually no law passed by Congress has a discernable primary purpose.

You can come up with whatever hypotheticals that you like, but the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on constitutionality, and that is the test they came up with.

[IDBillzFan]

Oral contraceptive pills are used to treat endometriosis.

As do pregnancy or a hysterectomy, especially in extreme cases. Maybe they should all be free. I mean, the Democratic issue is obviously "the war on women's health," right? Then shouldn't ALL women's health care be free? And if it's free for all women, shouldn't it be free for all men? And if it's free for all women and men, shouldn't it be free for all children?

 

So shouldn't ALL health care be free for everyone?

 

Now if only there were a way to abolish the concept of money...

[Booster4324]

As do pregnancy or a hysterectomy, especially in extreme cases. Maybe they should all be free. I mean, the Democratic issue is obviously "the war on women's health," right? Then shouldn't ALL women's health care be free? And if it's free for all women, shouldn't it be free for all men? And if it's free for all women and men, shouldn't it be free for all children?

 

So shouldn't ALL health care be free for everyone?

 

Now if only there were a way to abolish the concept of money...

 

Look, don't get wrapped up in that, the key fact is she is a slut.

[B-Man]

Look, don't get wrapped up in that, the key fact is she is a slut.

 

 

 

LOL......you accidently hit it.

 

The ONLY facet of the episode that the media wants to emphasize is the name calling.

 

If you want to discuss the actual point of government over-reach, well then the Left quickly tries to get back to "faux outrage"

 

 

Its a good thing that nothing important is going on in the Mid-East, with Gas prices, U.S. economy or communities hit by tornados,

 

so our President has time to contact 30 year olds with hurt feelings.

 

Why don't we start a pool as to who he will call next.

 

.

[Booster4324]

LOL......you accidently hit it.

 

The ONLY facet of the episode that the media wants to emphasize is the name calling.

 

If you want to discuss the actual point of government over-reach, well then the Left quickly tries to get back to "faux outrage"

 

 

Its a good thing that nothing important is going on in the Mid-East, with Gas prices, U.S. economy or communities hit by tornados,

 

so our President has time to contact 30 year olds with hurt feelings.

 

Why don't we start a pool as to who he will call next.

 

.

 

 

So you understood nothing of the debate. Awesome.

[....lybob]

That's not birth control, that's a prescription for a medical condition. I don't think even the Church is arguing against treating endometriosis.

 

 

Well you see Tom one of the treatments (probably the most well tolerated) are Oral contraceptive pills (estrogen and progesterone in combination) with the only difference being that with endometriosis you skip the placebo portion of the cycle- now endometriosis can be suspected based on the woman's pattern of symptoms and generally treatment is given and if the symptoms go away treatment is continued if symptoms continue then other pelvic disease is looked for- while endrometriosis is diagnosed and treated on self reported symptoms only surgery (laparotomy or Laparoscopy) gives a definitive diagnosis- maybe the pharmaceutics makers will just market the same pill and label them both ways- of course any smart women could just fake the symptoms of endrometriosis but we will beat them by making them all get the surgery at a cost of $2000 to $5000.

 

As do pregnancy or a hysterectomy, especially in extreme cases. Maybe they should all be free. I mean, the Democratic issue is obviously "the war on women's health," right? Then shouldn't ALL women's health care be free? And if it's free for all women, shouldn't it be free for all men? And if it's free for all women and men, shouldn't it be free for all children?

 

So shouldn't ALL health care be free for everyone?

 

Now if only there were a way to abolish the concept of money...

Finally you are making sense - universal coverage is the way to go.

[DC Tom]

Well you see Tom one of the treatments (probably the most well tolerated) are Oral contraceptive pills (estrogen and progesterone in combination) with the only difference being that with endometriosis you skip the placebo portion of the cycle- now endometriosis can be suspected based on the woman's pattern of symptoms and generally treatment is given and if the symptoms go away treatment is continued if symptoms continue then other pelvic disease is looked for- while endrometriosis is diagnosed and treated on self reported symptoms only surgery (laparotomy or Laparoscopy) gives a definitive diagnosis- maybe the pharmaceutics makers will just market the same pill and label them both ways- of course any smart women could just fake the symptoms of endrometriosis but we will beat them by making them all get the surgery at a cost of $2000 to $5000.

 

 

Finally you are making sense - universal coverage is the way to go.

 

Yeah...that's not birth control, that's a prescription for a medical condition. So they're the same medication. So what? The Church is against use as a contraceptive; I haven't yet heard them say they're against it for treating medical conditions.

 

And why is it free anyway? My cholesterol medication isn't - I have to pay a co-pay. Tell me THAT isn't the democrats pandering to the base.

 

You can come up with whatever hypotheticals that you like, but the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on constitutionality, and that is the test they came up with.

 

Oh, really? That's the Supreme Court's function? I had no idea.

[LeviF]

Oh, really? That's the Supreme Court's function? I had no idea.

It might not be their primary or original constitutional function (hell, let's be honest, they got that job through an extremely activist court ruling), but that doesn't make what he said any less true. The Supreme Court has become the place where highly contested constitutional and federal questions go to be answered once and for all. (Edit: It just came to me that you might have been being sarcastic. I need more sleep.)

 

Back on topic, how's this for a federal program: mandatory birth control for all adolescent females, except not only does the BC have hormone treatments, but also small doses of some sort of benzo.

Edited March 5, 2012 by LeviF91

[3rdnlng]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gingrich-Limbaugh-contraception-Fluke/2012/03/04/id/431320?s=al&promo_code=E530-1

 

I'm not supporting Gingrich, but his take on this is pretty spot on.

[DC Tom]

It might not be their primary or original constitutional function (hell, let's be honest, they got that job through an extremely activist court ruling), but that doesn't make what he said any less true. The Supreme Court has become the place where highly contested constitutional and federal questions go to be answered once and for all. (Edit: It just came to me that you might have been being sarcastic. I need more sleep.)

 

Back on topic, how's this for a federal program: mandatory birth control for all adolescent females, except not only does the BC have hormone treatments, but also small doses of some sort of benzo.

 

Yeah, I was being sarcastic, dipshit.

[Adam]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gingrich-Limbaugh-contraception-Fluke/2012/03/04/id/431320?s=al&promo_code=E530-1

 

I'm not supporting Gingrich, but his take on this is pretty spot on.

Yes, but Limbaugh is the media. We may not like that, but it's become the way it is.

[3rdnlng]

Yes, but Limbaugh is the media. We may not like that, but it's become the way it is.

 

 

Adam, Limbaugh is a radio talk show host. Granted, the most successful ever, and maybe now what has become the "media". I say that in jest but the MSM is so biased that Rush has become more of a reporter than they are. Isn't that sad?

[Adam]

Adam, Limbaugh is a radio talk show host. Granted, the most successful ever, and maybe now what has become the "media". I say that in jest but the MSM is so biased that Rush has become more of a reporter than they are. Isn't that sad?

I don't know which is more sad- that he is considered media or that he is given credibility. Few conservatives think like him, yet they are portrayed as if they do.

[3rdnlng]

I don't know which is more sad- that he is considered media or that he is given credibility. Few conservatives think like him, yet they are portrayed as if they do.

 

Actually most conservatives agree with him. Take away the bombastic proclamations and he's normally spot on. He's a true conservative with a showman's way of presenting his views. He's kept to his principles and still made a ton of money. He's a .1%er.

[Adam]

Actually most conservatives agree with him. Take away the bombastic proclamations and he's normally spot on. He's a true conservative with a showman's way of presenting his views. He's kept to his principles and still made a ton of money. He's a .1%er.

most of my conservative friends consider him a blow hard and don't even think he believes half of what he says on the air. In fact, I know a lot more liberals who listen to him than conservatives.

[3rdnlng]

most of my conservative friends consider him a blow hard and don't even think he believes half of what he says on the air. In fact, I know a lot more liberals who listen to him than conservatives.

 

I guess I just don't believe that. What would be interesting is if you could come up with a bunch of his statements that were wrong. Make sure they are in context. If you choose not to do this, it's cool. Just means that you aren't that committed to your position.