Bevets-

I've never said this to another man before, but I want to fark you. In the butt. I promise I won't use a condom, either, because I know how much that would upset you.

And before you tell me that my turgid man-love for you is a sin, I just want to say that I can't help that God made me this way.

/santorum

Debeo Summa Credo: What is this I don't even...

I'm having a slow day today - What, exactly, is she trying to counter with this proposal? Is it the opposition to the birth control mandate? That would be a completely false analogy unless she was proposing that employers not be required to cover vasectomies unless medically necessary. I'd suspect those people who are opposed to the BC mandate would be in agreement with her proposal to not mandate coverage of vasectomies.

Or is she protesting against proposed restrictions on abortion? That would also be a false analogy, because vasectomies don't kill something with a beating heart.

So, it looks to me like this is an embarrassing swing and miss for this lady.

You slow?

namegoeshere: I would like for a female to explain why they will be voting Republican in the next election. Anyone?

GOP version of the Buffett rule.

Pro-life women who want to apply their morality on others.

ecl: Debeo Summa Credo: What is this I don't even...

I'm having a slow day today - What, exactly, is she trying to counter with this proposal? Is it the opposition to the birth control mandate? That would be a completely false analogy unless she was proposing that employers not be required to cover vasectomies unless medically necessary. I'd suspect those people who are opposed to the BC mandate would be in agreement with her proposal to not mandate coverage of vasectomies.

Or is she protesting against proposed restrictions on abortion? That would also be a false analogy, because vasectomies don't kill something with a beating heart.

So, it looks to me like this is an embarrassing swing and miss for this lady.

*WHOOOSH*

Right over your head.

Pleasee explain it to me then. I admitted I'm having a slow day and something else went over my head earlier, but I'm really missing the point this lady is trying to make.

kbronsito: I'm no expert... but when deciding on sterilization, don't a lot of couples discuss the merits of vasectomy vs. tubal ligation. Plenty of men don't want to have their balls cut into, but have to admit that a vasectomy is an easier, less invasive procedure. But if this lady starts to throw vasectomy roadblocks, then some women that may have been able to avoid a tubal ligation may find themselves without that choice.

Way to screw over your fellow women in favor of guys who don't want to get a vasectomy, lady. I only wish there was an ever bigger hero tag.

You look so cute flopping around on the deck like that.

CaptainCliche: quatchi:
Oh yeah, Bevets is here.

*makes popcorn*

The FARK authority has issued a force 3 Troll Warning for the Politics Tab and outlying areas of the business and entertainment tabs. Additionally a troll watch is in effect until sundown Friday for the main page. Expect sustained Derps coming from the southeast peaking at about 70 Herps per hour. Residents in the immediate vicinity of Bevets, EviroDude and greater DarthBrooks should brace for torrents of buttmad, with occasional wharrgarbl that may reach up to 20 inches.

*golf clap*

Bravo

Not that I don't appreciate this woman's intent, but I'm not sure how effective her piece of sarcasm-based troll legislation will be. Republicans aren't known for recognizing that kind of thing for what it is...as I'm sure Stephen Colbert would agree.

gimmegimme: Debeo Summa Credo: gimmegimme: Bevets: Yesterday Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis County) filed HB1853, which would only allow a man to have a vasectomy when doing so would protect him from serious injury or prevent his death.

Ah, the legislation's on the other set of genitalia now.
Rep. Newman -- whom I'd like to nominate for Hero Squad right here and now -- has been frustrated with the recent political debates over birth control access and reproductive health. The legislation is her pointed way of combating the idea that family planning is something only women have to worry about.

The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

I'm glad we agree: single-payer health care would fix this whole (Catholic Church)-created mess.

Well, single payer would fix it. But the mess isn't created by the Catholic Church as much as you'd like to think it is. It is created by the government mandating that employers pay for something that the government should pay for, if it wants people to be provided ...

Is the Catholic Church a church or a company?

Depends. If is a place of worship it is a church.

If it is a charity administered and paid mostly by church donations, I would say church.

If it is a hospital and or clinic to make a profit, it is a business.

As long as we allow men to sign away their rights and thus any obligations to any unintended pregnancy they may have caused.

And why is it that covering viagra means you should require female birth control coverage but covering female birth control doesn't require covering male birth control?

She should have taken it a step further and wrote legislation about men with ED. Also, maybe pass some laws preventing men from going shirtless in public. Heck while we are at it ban men wearing tank-tops and shorts as they show to much skin.

Yeah, it all sounds ridiculous when talking about men but conservatives seem to think it is fine when we are dealing with the lesser sex.

A few weeks ago when the Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood thing hit the news, I was pleasantly surprised to see that access to birth control - and Planned Parenthood itself - have so much support in the United States. I expected it from the Left. I didn't expect it from Independents and even some of the Right. But there it was.

And the GOP in its infinite wisdom took that slap on the hand and doubled down, taking ownership of the "war against contraception" and topping it off with a healthy dose of misogyny (I can just see our friends on the Right reading this and muttering "well they are sluts!"

You saw SGK get burned only about a month ago, and you're still going to touch the hot stove? Really?

DarthBrooks: She left out the part about forcing everyone to cover these procedures *free* as a requirement of their health insurance policy.

You know how I know you don't understand how health INSURANCE works?

namegoeshere: I would like for a female to explain why they will be voting Republican in the next election. Anyone?

Because Jesus and socialisms.

How dare you deny our god given right to discriminate against anyone we want!

namegoeshere: God Is My Co-Pirate: ecmoRandomNumbers: namegoeshere: I would like for a female to explain why they will be voting Republican in the next election. Anyone?

[i224.photobucket.com image 600x600]

I always feel a bit sorry when I see that pic. It doesn't look like she's at a rally. Maybe she's just a nice, if alarmingly obese, lady who took her grandkids to the park for some ice cream one day, and now she's the poster for the tea party.

It's her punishment for subjecting us to those pants.

Guntrification is a choice.

Debeo Summa Credo: What is this I don't even...

I'm having a slow day today - What, exactly, is she trying to counter with this proposal? Is it the opposition to the birth control mandate? That would be a completely false analogy unless she was proposing that employers not be required to cover vasectomies unless medically necessary. I'd suspect those people who are opposed to the BC mandate would be in agreement with her proposal to not mandate coverage of vasectomies.

Or is she protesting against proposed restrictions on abortion? That would also be a false analogy, because vasectomies don't kill something with a beating heart.

So, it looks to me like this is an embarrassing swing and miss for this lady.

The Why Not Guy: A few weeks ago when the Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood thing hit the news, I was pleasantly surprised to see that access to birth control - and Planned Parenthood itself - have so much support in the United States. I expected it from the Left. I didn't expect it from Independents and even some of the Right. But there it was.

And the GOP in its infinite wisdom took that slap on the hand and doubled down, taking ownership of the "war against contraception" and topping it off with a healthy dose of misogyny (I can just see our friends on the Right reading this and muttering "well they are sluts!"

It's so funny that not wanting to pay for birth control or not wanting fetuses to be killed automatically translates to misogyny for the loony left. I'm not pro-life, but I recognize that the catholic church and other religious pro-lifers are concerned about the killing of fetuses (or babies, in their parlance). It's not some sort of anti-woman position, no matter how much you want to fool yourself into believing that.

Liberals are becoming the ever present court jester of invalid comparisons in recent years. It's actually kind of pitiful.

Then again this is just another chapter in the campaign of lies and fear against an ignorant population perpetuated by liberals.

1) Nobody is telling you that you can't have contraception. If you want it then pay for it, if you have neither insurance nor the ability to pay for it yourself, don't have sex if you don't want children.

2) Vasectomies are not comparable to birth control pills no matter how you twist, turn, or manipulate it. Nobody is telling women they can't have their tubes tied if they want to so a "take that!" bill to restrict vasectomies is moronic showboating.

3) If she really wanted a valid comparison, she'd be proposing limiting condoms, but then it wouldn't "make a statement" and everyone would instantly and immediately see how completely stupid this argument is.

Will these entities that want to exclude coverage of contraception continue to cover ED pills for unmarried male employees?

"Verily I say unto thee, it is better for the unmarried man to remain flaccid than for Blue Cross/Blue Shield to be compelled to subsidize his sin and shame."

III Peter 3:16

randomjsa: Liberals are becoming the ever present court jester of invalid comparisons in recent years. It's actually kind of pitiful.

Then again this is just another chapter in the campaign of lies and fear against an ignorant population perpetuated by liberals.

1) Nobody is telling you that you can't have contraception. If you want it then pay for it, if you have neither insurance nor the ability to pay for it yourself, don't have sex if you don't want children.

2) Vasectomies are not comparable to birth control pills no matter how you twist, turn, or manipulate it. Nobody is telling women they can't have their tubes tied if they want to so a "take that!" bill to restrict vasectomies is moronic showboating.

3) If she really wanted a valid comparison, she'd be proposing limiting condoms, but then it wouldn't "make a statement" and everyone would instantly and immediately see how completely stupid this argument is.

1) If you can't afford it, TOUGH SHIAT!!!

2) Vasectomies are different, that's for men. Duh.

3) WTF are you talking about?

Poor, hungry baby's. It's the Christian thing to do.

kbronsito: I'm no expert... but when deciding on sterilization, don't a lot of couples discuss the merits of vasectomy vs. tubal ligation. Plenty of men don't want to have their balls cut into, but have to admit that a vasectomy is an easier, less invasive procedure. But if this lady starts to throw vasectomy roadblocks, then some women that may have been able to avoid a tubal ligation may find themselves without that choice.

Way to screw over your fellow women in favor of guys who don't want to get a vasectomy, lady. I only wish there was an ever bigger hero tag.

I agree. They should be shoving things up men's asses before giving them any viagra, instead. Then they should be forced to look at pictures of various people's diseased genitals and some weeping jesuses to help them be 'fully informed' about the consequences of choosing to have sex.

Uranus Is Huge!: Will these entities that want to exclude coverage of contraception continue to cover ED pills for unmarried male employees?

Birth control and ED are not the same thing, and many insurance companies cover female intimacy issues, therapy and such. The question should be why isn't male contraception coverage mandated. Many men have an interest in remaining family free and free from STDs.

Bevets: Yesterday Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis County) filed HB1853, which would only allow a man to have a vasectomy when doing so would protect him from serious injury or prevent his death.

Ah, the legislation's on the other set of genitalia now.
Rep. Newman -- whom I'd like to nominate for Hero Squad right here and now -- has been frustrated with the recent political debates over birth control access and reproductive health. The legislation is her pointed way of combating the idea that family planning is something only women have to worry about.

The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

The President created a reasonable accommodation to the concerns raised by the Catholic Church. Everybody has moved on with the exception of the US Catholic Council of Bishops (a blatantly political organization) and the Republican Party (which seeks to make something out of this politically since they have nothing else which to run on). Poll after poll after poll shows that actual Catholics either don't give a shiat, or AGREE that contraception should be covered.

The whole thing is just political posturing at this point.

randomjsa: 1) Nobody is telling you that you can't have contraception. If you want it then pay for it, if you have neither insurance nor the ability to pay for it yourself, don't have sex if you don't want children.

What about the millions of women who use it for medical conditions that aren't pregnancy?

Debeo Summa Credo: It's so funny that not wanting to pay for birth control or not wanting fetuses to be killed automatically translates to misogyny for the loony left.

I didn't say that, sugar.

But calling women who have sex "sluts" on national radio and holding congressional hearings on the topic without inviting any women to speak certainly counts as misogyny.

When you put words in my mouth, I let it slide as a mistake once.

DrewCurtisJr: Uranus Is Huge!: Will these entities that want to exclude coverage of contraception continue to cover ED pills for unmarried male employees?

Birth control and ED are not the same thing, and many insurance companies cover female intimacy issues, therapy and such. The question should be why isn't male contraception coverage mandated. Many men have an interest in remaining family free and free from STDs.

Yes, but the goal of Republicans, in this case, is to legislate their morality. They don't want to subsidize women's sex lives. I was using a different male analogy than the article used to display inconsistency.

My total out-of-pocket cost for a surgical vasectomy, including follow-up care and testing: $10

My wife's monthly out-of-pocket cost for BCPs (she is on them for other reasons): $60

Same insurance carrier.

And you wonder why the government is mandating that carriers can't financially screw-over women?

DarthBrooks: quickdraw: DarthBrooks: She left out the part about forcing everyone to cover these procedures *free* as a requirement of their health insurance policy.

Gosh I was hoping to have single-payer but heck your idea is much better. We shouldn't just have single-payer we should all, as citizens, have a financial stake in the insurance industry. I mean thats kind of taking Socialism to a whole new level but I see now what a visionary you are. Genius!

Oh I see- - the INSURANCE COMPANIES will pay for the free services, not the people who pay the premiums for the insurance. The money must come from a Magic Money Tree that every insurance company has in its tastefully-decorated lobby.

Yes because premiums will go down when the insurance companies pay for more pregnancies and child birth bills than they would by being gouged by the high cost of birth control pills

AlwaysRightBoy: Back-alley ballsnipper would be a good Fark handle.

Do you know how hard it is to find a group lesibian MDs to form a band willing to perform vasectomies while on tour?

namatad: namegoeshere: I would like for a female to explain why they will be voting Republican in the next election. Anyone?


GOP - old white men
GOP - old white women vote the way their husbands TELL them to vote
DEM - everyone else

/yes this is a simplification of voting. but this is fark

My dad shifted strongly away from republicans with bush jr. my mom keeps her head in the sand and votes republicans over social issues. Issues which include gays, pot, light bulb choice, etc. oddly, she's an environmentalist and like helping the poor. Sadly, she believes coal can be clean, greenhouse gases are make believe, and welfare programs don't help the poor, but mostly help the stereotypical welfare mom.

It amazes me that we agree loosely on so much, but once her alternate facts become her reality, she goes hard to the right. So she pretty much disagrees with everything republicans actually are these days, but doesn't believe it. I told her about the Trans vaginal thing, and she says, "bah, you are just making that up".

She watched one primary, disagreed with all the candidates (excepting the platitudes of Bachmann and others) and left the room with a muttering about how Obama is bankrupting us.

/frustrating.

Did I miss the bill saying insurance companies were not to cover tubal ligation? That's the same as a vasectomy.

People are upset at forcing companies to pay for "free" contraception, so not forcing insurers to cover condoms would be the apples to apples comparison... And half of states do not provide free condoms.

So what is the argument again?

Next up on the liberal docket, force car insurance to provide free oil changes and brake pads. It's cheaper to provide pads/maintenance than a car crash caused by bad breaks.

Jacobin: DarthBrooks: quickdraw: DarthBrooks: She left out the part about forcing everyone to cover these procedures *free* as a requirement of their health insurance policy.

Gosh I was hoping to have single-payer but heck your idea is much better. We shouldn't just have single-payer we should all, as citizens, have a financial stake in the insurance industry. I mean thats kind of taking Socialism to a whole new level but I see now what a visionary you are. Genius!

Oh I see- - the INSURANCE COMPANIES will pay for the free services, not the people who pay the premiums for the insurance. The money must come from a Magic Money Tree that every insurance company has in its tastefully-decorated lobby.

Yes because premiums will go down when the insurance companies pay for more pregnancies and child birth bills than they would by being gouged by the high cost of birth control pills

I don't see anything wrong with these retards expressing what they actually think. They don't want insurance companies to cover birth control for women because it's just subsidizing these sluts for having sex. Why sugarcoat it? This is what Republicans actually believe.

MyRandomName: than a car crash caused by bad breaks.

No amount of maintenance can compensate for bad luck.

Uranus Is Huge!: They don't want to subsidize women's sex lives. I was using a different male analogy than the article used to display inconsistency.

They don't want to pay for male contraception either. And I'm not aware of any legislation that mandates coverage for ED.

You think there are insurance policies that cover vasectomies but not tubal ligation.