More Sexist Jokes on "Sic et Non"

[_Kishkumen]

I mean, eating a dozen donuts a day is a foodcapade, if you will, but very few would try to get a person's heart disease treatment defunded by their insurance on the basis of it being the natural result of the person's lifestyle choices.

No kidding. You would think LDS people might be capable of something more than a negative understanding of the WoW. It seems that all they can stay awake long enough to consider is the prohibitions, and then only those that they agree with.

[_palerobber]

"Butt out, it's my choice / Oh, by the way, you're paying for it" does strike me as something of a contradiction of principles. [...] Fund your own sexcapades.

universal coverage is not at issue -- the right has already lost that battle. the only question before us with Fluke is whether women will receive the same standard of care that men do. you apparently think they should not. you're entitled to that unpopular opinion, but don't pretend it's out of some concern for individual responsibility.

by the way, how much are "you" paying anyway? it must be a lot from the way you talk.

[_Kishkumen]

You're entitled to that unpopular opinion, but don't pretend it's out of some concern for individual responsibility.

I am pretty sure that, if Jack says she does something for a particular reason or out of a certain motivation, she means it.

I may not agree with her, but she is anything but disingenuous.

In this case, I very strongly disagree with her, but I do not question her honesty.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Anyone notice how bland Dan’s commentary is? I was just checking his blog out and there really isn’t much going on in terms of content. It is mostly boiler plate offerings of well worn ideas.

[_palerobber]

You're entitled to that unpopular opinion, but don't pretend it's out of some concern for individual responsibility.

I am pretty sure that, if Jack says she does something for a particular reason or out of a certain motivation, she means it.

I may not agree with her, but she is anything but disingenuous.

In this case, I very strongly disagree with her, but I do not question her honesty.

i can only respond to what she wrote, not to her reputation.

[_Kishkumen]

i can only respond to what she wrote, not to her reputation.

You were accusing her of being dishonest, not just reading her writing.

[_MsJack]

the only question before us with Fluke is whether women will receive the same standard of care that men do. you apparently think they should not.

Elective birth control is not a matter of "receiving the same standard of care that men do." There is little comparison to men here because no hormonal methods can be used by men (and if hormonal contraceptives for men ever do make it to the market, you can be sure I'll be opposed to mandating coverage of elective use of those in health insurance plans, too). When women's health is evaluated on its own (as it should be), receiving elective birth control is not essential to it. The decision to have sex at all and the decision to not want to have children as a result of sex is all up to the woman. That's why it's "elective."

A lot of health insurance plans already refuse to cover elective options such as teeth caps, bridges, implants, plastic surgery, etc. Nobody is raising a fuss about that.

you're entitled to that unpopular opinion

How magnanimous of you. I wasn't aware it was an unpopular opinion though, what with 56% of likely voters in favor of repealing the health care mandate and similar divides in polls on the matter of the contraception mandate, but maybe your definition of "unpopular" is different than mine.

but don't pretend it's out of some concern for individual responsibility.

Wow, what's with the ad hominem? I think it's sad that I'm trying to have a civil discussion about ideas and you're attacking me personally. I'm pretty sure Sandra Fluke (whom I find to be thoughtful and articulate, even though I disagree with her) wouldn't approve of that.

by the way, how much are "you" paying anyway? it must be a lot from the way you talk.

I don't see how that's any of your business, but I don't mind telling you. In the 8.5 years since I've been sexually active, I've paid at least $2100 for birth control methods that insurance would not cover---and that's buying the cheap stuff and only being on it off and on. That includes at least $700-$800 spent on birth control that was prescribed for medicinal, non-elective reasons because BYU's student health insurance refused to cover birth control of any kind, which is why I said that I support having health insurance companies cover birth control that's prescribed for medicinal reasons.

[_Kishkumen]

A new poll released Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute, a non-partisan research group whose board members include a number of religious leaders who have supported progressive causes, found that a majority of Americans - including 58 percent of Catholics - support a requirement that health insurance plans provide free birth control. A slight majority of Catholic voters, 52 percent, said religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should also have to provide that benefit.

See this article.

Then there is this:

The PPP survey found that 56 percent of voters — and 53 percent of Catholic voters — support the administration’s birth-control mandate. By roughly the same margins, voters and Catholic voters agreed specifically that women employed by Catholic universities and hospitals “should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Here is the Fox News Poll:

Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). June 3-5, 2012. N=907 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.


"The new Obama health care law requires that employer health plans provide birth control coverage as part of preventive services for women. Most Catholic and other religious-affiliated hospitals and universities don't do that and are fighting the new requirement in court because they say it violates their religious rights under the Constitution. Overall, who do you believe is right in this situation: the Catholic Church or the government?"

41% (Church) 47% (Government) 12% (Unsure)

[_sock puppet]

Anyone notice how bland Dan’s commentary is? I was just checking his blog out and there really isn’t much going on in terms of content. It is mostly boiler plate offerings of well worn ideas.

Sounds like he may, then, be tapped to be a GA--doesn't that describe a GC speech to a T?

[_MsJack]

A new poll released Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute, a non-partisan research group whose board members include a number of religious leaders who have supported progressive causes, found that a majority of Americans - including 58 percent of Catholics - support a requirement that health insurance plans provide free birth control. A slight majority of Catholic voters, 52 percent, said religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should also have to provide that benefit.

See this article.

Then there is this:

The PPP survey found that 56 percent of voters — and 53 percent of Catholic voters — support the administration’s birth-control mandate. By roughly the same margins, voters and Catholic voters agreed specifically that women employed by Catholic universities and hospitals “should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Yeah. In my book, a 56-44 split doesn't make one position "popular" and another "unpopular." It would take something like a 70-30 or 80-20 split before I would start to think of things in those terms.

56-44 is pretty normal on controversial social issues.