If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Already accustomed to fighting losing battles, the GOP continues their battle against birth control   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 609
    More: Followup, GOP, birth control, Republican, The Republicans, Debbie Downer, Tammy Baldwin, Chuck Schumer, Claire McCaskill  
•       •       •

6428 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2012 at 1:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



609 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-16 06:13:58 PM  

ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: how are you defining "religious"? Are you limiting it to institutions which are directly affiliated with a religious organization?

I'm not defining religious employers, you did. You said you're a catholic and if you were providing insurance to employees, "would I not be required to cover birth control with the insurance plan I offered totally at my expense?" And the answer is no. You are not providing it, the insurance company is.


maybe that helps you. Although probably not. You do seem uncommonly stupid.
 
2012-03-16 06:16:46 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Lionel Mandrake: Mugato: And never one word about the insurance companies that cover boner pills.

THIS

Why the Hell? Any FARK independents care to answer?

Boner pills help MAKE babies. Birth control pills PREVENT babies.

See, what the world really needs right now is more people.


I used to joke that I wanted to become a socially responsible billionaire by inventing a combo BC/Bone pill, call it a blank gun, but I was just making fun of big pharma.

It would be interesting to see how a blank gun might split the current zealots.
 
2012-03-16 06:18:39 PM  

serial_crusher: ImpendingCynic: serial_crusher:
2011: Catholics not required to cover birth control.
2012: Catholics still not required to cover birth control.

FTFY.

Oh sorry. I meant to say, "catholics required to subsidize insurance plan which is in turn required to offer birth control." Totally different, my bad.


The Catholic's don't have to do a damn thing. Simply offer a health care plan to employees where it's 100% employee paid.

problem solved.
 
2012-03-16 06:20:33 PM  

skullkrusher: with the insurance plan I offered totally at my expense


lulz
 
2012-03-16 06:21:41 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: with the insurance plan I offered totally at my expense

lulz


the BC coverage, not the total plan of course.
 
2012-03-16 06:22:15 PM  
skullcrusher:

I haven't heard how mackscheck thinks they're the same

That's quite fair. Please tell me what you want me to speak of. I'll tell you. Fair enough? Mind you, you haven't come up with anything...
 
2012-03-16 06:23:26 PM  

Bevets: New polling shows a majority of Americans are so far unconvinced - they see the fight over access to contraception coverage as a women's health issue - not a matter of religious liberty. What's more, they don't think religious liberty is generally in peril.

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.


Yeah, and they should be allowed to burn witches too.
 
2012-03-16 06:24:48 PM  

skullkrusher: with the insurance plan I offered totally at my expense?

maybe that helps you. Although probably not. You do seem uncommonly stupid.


No that doesn't help. I already made the point that you pay the insurance company and they do a lot of things that could offend one's religious morals. You also pay taxes and those are also used to do things that could offend one's religious morals. You're free to be annoyed by the fact that the government is forcing you to do something you don't like - it happens to all of us. But you should not be getting an exemption purely for religious reasons.

You can reply if you want, but I'm not going to read it. I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion of disagreeing opinions. I don't tolerate pointless insults.
 
2012-03-16 06:25:10 PM  

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: with the insurance plan I offered totally at my expense

lulz

the BC coverage, not the total plan of course.


There's really no "at my expense" argument there - the insurance you offer is part of a mutually beneficial compensatory arrangement. You're no more offering it "at your expense" than the employees are offering you their labour "at their expense".
 
2012-03-16 06:32:02 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: with the insurance plan I offered totally at my expense

lulz

the BC coverage, not the total plan of course.

There's really no "at my expense" argument there - the insurance you offer is part of a mutually beneficial compensatory arrangement. You're no more offering it "at your expense" than the employees are offering you their labour "at their expense".


You might want to tell that to the President since his compromise shifts these non-existent expenses to insurers who sell policies to employers with a religious affiliation.
 
2012-03-16 06:33:20 PM  

ImpendingCynic: You can reply if you want, but I'm not going to read it. I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion of disagreeing opinions. I don't tolerate pointless insults.


"Why doesn't that offend you? Have you asked them if they have any gay employees?"

Right...
 
2012-03-16 06:38:24 PM  

skullkrusher: and we've gone full sarcasm. Good jorb, dumdum.


Ha ha. I was certain that you had gone full sarcasm first. But maybe you're serious. Let's see if I understand your thought process here:

If the CEO of your company was a Jehovah's Witness, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered blood transfusions. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Scientologist, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered psychiatric care. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Wahhabi Muslim from Saudi Arabia, he could refuse to pay for any insurance that allowed female doctors to see male patients, or male doctors to see female patients.

Yes, I totally agree that this is a good idea.

So, in the future, when a Christian Scientist takes over as the head of HR at the company you're working at, and they change your health care plan to one that only covers "Pray The Pain Away", that would be totally legal. That sounds totally like the kind of thing that I would like to have happen in the United States.
 
2012-03-16 06:42:44 PM  

serial_crusher: jso2897: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: lordaction: Jehovah's Witnesses believe that insurance is gambling and are exempt from all insurance requirements. Good try though.

??

Do you have a citation? I went looking, and the only thing I can find about JW's and insurance is that they'll take an insurance policy as a donation to their church... So either you're lying or they're HUGE hypocrites.

He's not "lying" - he probably heard it somewhere and thinks it's true. It's ridiculous, of course, but it's the sort of thing that will stick in a person's mind as a fact if they are inclined to agree with it. Not everyone who makes a false statement is intentionally "lying".

Snopes says the Amish could get away with claiming such an exemption.


So? The statement was that Jehovahs Witnesses can be exempted from legally required insurance because they object to the concept of insurance itself. It might exempt you from health insurance, under those guidelines - but it would not exempt you from auto insurance, or insurance required to be bonded for certain things, or a business that requires it. And as far as I know, JWs do not have any universal taboo against insurance anyway. So the statement I was actually discussing was, in fact, what we in the trade refer to as a "false statement". Claro?
 
2012-03-16 06:45:30 PM  

skullkrusher: You might want to tell that to the President since his compromise shifts these non-existent expenses to insurers who sell policies to employers with a religious affiliation.


Now you're getting it - the expenses were never an issue to these employers. Their reason for not wanting to pay wasn't the anticipated savings, but rather, the moral offense they took to the whole concept of birth control. In other words, these people are claiming a "right" not to make it any easier for their employees to obtain birth control regardless of how much it costs them specifically. The compromise too wasn't about offering these employers any financial relief, but rather, giving them a chance to wash their hands of the sinful taint of this transaction.

The actual expense vis-a-vis insurance plans, whether it be positive, nonexistent, or even negative (i.e., saving them money) was, and remains to be, completely besides the point.
 
2012-03-16 06:48:01 PM  

The Larch: skullkrusher: and we've gone full sarcasm. Good jorb, dumdum.

Ha ha. I was certain that you had gone full sarcasm first. But maybe you're serious. Let's see if I understand your thought process here:

If the CEO of your company was a Jehovah's Witness, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered blood transfusions. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Scientologist, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered psychiatric care. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Wahhabi Muslim from Saudi Arabia, he could refuse to pay for any insurance that allowed female doctors to see male patients, or male doctors to see female patients.

Yes, I totally agree that this is a good idea.

So, in the future, when a Christian Scientist takes over as the head of HR at the company you're working at, and they change your health care plan to one that only covers "Pray The Pain Away", that would be totally legal. That sounds totally like the kind of thing that I would like to have happen in the United States.


As it happens, I am a Rastafarian, and I operate a Pizza company I won at cards from some crazy American black man who really wanted to bang my sister.
Well, anyway, I'm happy to sell my employees "health insurance", and charge them the max the law allows, but be aware that I believe that all medical care should consist of nothing but the Lord's sweet sacrament. So you'll get a Medical Marijuana card. But I'm sure this will be cool with you folks - you are, after all, believers in religious freedom, right?
 
2012-03-16 06:48:36 PM  

Biological Ali: Their reason for not wanting to pay cover birth control wasn't the anticipated savings, but rather, the moral offense they took to the whole concept of birth control.


FTFM
 
2012-03-16 06:52:03 PM  

The Larch: skullkrusher: and we've gone full sarcasm. Good jorb, dumdum.

Ha ha. I was certain that you had gone full sarcasm first. But maybe you're serious. Let's see if I understand your thought process here:

If the CEO of your company was a Jehovah's Witness, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered blood transfusions. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Scientologist, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered psychiatric care. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Wahhabi Muslim from Saudi Arabia, he could refuse to pay for any insurance that allowed female doctors to see male patients, or male doctors to see female patients.

Yes, I totally agree that this is a good idea.

So, in the future, when a Christian Scientist takes over as the head of HR at the company you're working at, and they change your health care plan to one that only covers "Pray The Pain Away", that would be totally legal. That sounds totally like the kind of thing that I would like to have happen in the United States.


Well aside from the fact that a few of those things you mentioned are medical treatments which would have mandated coverage paid for by your employer under my "plan", essentially yes. They would have to offer you a plan or options on top of a plan which cover those things but would not be required to foot the bill for those coverages. You are aware that most people already pay for at least part of their coverage directly from their paychecks, right? Your employer has a great deal of leeway in terms of what portion of your premiums are paid. Often employers will compensate an employee in part via what it contributes to HC coverage.

But I know, people paying for stuff is very controversial
 
2012-03-16 07:00:43 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: You might want to tell that to the President since his compromise shifts these non-existent expenses to insurers who sell policies to employers with a religious affiliation.

Now you're getting it - the expenses were never an issue to these employers. Their reason for not wanting to pay wasn't the anticipated savings, but rather, the moral offense they took to the whole concept of birth control. In other words, these people are claiming a "right" not to make it any easier for their employees to obtain birth control regardless of how much it costs them specifically. The compromise too wasn't about offering these employers any financial relief, but rather, giving them a chance to wash their hands of the sinful taint of this transaction.

The actual expense vis-a-vis insurance plans, whether it be positive, nonexistent, or even negative (i.e., saving them money) was, and remains to be, completely besides the point.


I can't read minds but you'll note that this was not an issue under the EEOC ruling from 2000 which mandated coverage for BC if you offered script coverage. It was only when the law changed mandating that the employer pay for that coverage that it became noisy.

The compromise has been applauded by some Catholic groups and was cheered by the nun who precipitate much of it. Her name escapes me ATM. I'm ok with the compromise as long as it is extended to all employers and not just those with direct religious affiliation like churches and hospitals. I still find my suggestion cleaner but can't let the perfect, good, etc

Btw my "plan" is remarkably similar to HI state law do I can't pretend I thought of it first but it certainly not the unprecedented crazy talk the hand waving ninnies would like to pretend it is
 
2012-03-16 07:04:33 PM  

skullkrusher: I can't read minds but you'll note that this was not an issue under the EEOC ruling from 2000 which mandated coverage for BC if you offered script coverage. It was only when the law changed mandating that the employer pay for that coverage that it became noisy.


Have you considered the possibility that this noise is really just being motivated by religious fundamentalism and/or misogyny? That, perhaps, there might actually be no rational argument to be made in its defense?
 
2012-03-16 07:09:32 PM  

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: I can't read minds but you'll note that this was not an issue under the EEOC ruling from 2000 which mandated coverage for BC if you offered script coverage. It was only when the law changed mandating that the employer pay for that coverage that it became noisy.

Have you considered the possibility that this noise is really just being motivated by religious fundamentalism and/or misogyny? That, perhaps, there might actually be no rational argument to be made in its defense?


Well the fundamentalism is uncontested. Only a strict adherent to a faith would complain. I think that that is where it started. As I mentioned a nun is the one who complained to BO as she had been an influential supporter of his previously.

The GOP has hijacked the fight for purely political reasons and certainly has injected its own special brand of downhome womanhate with subsequent developments.
 
2012-03-16 07:11:41 PM  
I very much want to hear how these laws reach the Supreme Court about the same time of Jewish and Sharia laws.

You want to impose your laws? Let's see what happens when bacon, and what the heck, alcohol is illegal!

There were recent state debates outlawing appying religious laws as regards property and divorce arbtriations that only applied to Sharia-following Muslims. Now we have some applying to what women can do with their bits as applied to selective Chrisians..

Somehow, I'd rather the religious not drive the nation.
 
2012-03-16 07:20:57 PM  

skullkrusher: The Larch: skullkrusher: and we've gone full sarcasm. Good jorb, dumdum.

Ha ha. I was certain that you had gone full sarcasm first. But maybe you're serious. Let's see if I understand your thought process here:

If the CEO of your company was a Jehovah's Witness, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered blood transfusions. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Scientologist, he could refuse to pay for any health insurance that covered psychiatric care. Or, if the CEO of your company was a Wahhabi Muslim from Saudi Arabia, he could refuse to pay for any insurance that allowed female doctors to see male patients, or male doctors to see female patients.

Yes, I totally agree that this is a good idea.

So, in the future, when a Christian Scientist takes over as the head of HR at the company you're working at, and they change your health care plan to one that only covers "Pray The Pain Away", that would be totally legal. That sounds totally like the kind of thing that I would like to have happen in the United States.

Well aside from the fact that a few of those things you mentioned are medical treatments which would have mandated coverage paid for by your employer under my "plan", essentially yes. They would have to offer you a plan or options on top of a plan which cover those things but would not be required to foot the bill for those coverages. You are aware that most people already pay for at least part of their coverage directly from their paychecks, right? Your employer has a great deal of leeway in terms of what portion of your premiums are paid. Often employers will compensate an employee in part via what it contributes to HC coverage.

But I know, people paying for stuff is very controversial


I don't know how other people's insurance works in the real world, but in the world I have to live in, EVEN IF the employer provides 100% of the insurance coverage and it pays for everything and all that and whatever....and EVEN WITHOUT any religious restricitons and foolishness....what you pay for and what you get is ALREADY determined by your various conditions and needs anyway. If you have preexisting conditions, and you want coverage for them, you get to pay more out of your check than your colleagues who don't have them; and if you want your family covered you get to pay WAY more out of your check than your single coworkers. It's not like the current system gives everyone blanket uniform coverage at the same price anyway.

So I don't see how skullkrusher's option is any different than what's already in place, except for the religious part of the exceptions. Let fool employers opt out of providing certain parts of insurance if they feel they must. It's not that different than when my employer's insurance didn't have mental health coverage for preexisting conditions, and I STILL had to go to County for my meds.
 
2012-03-16 07:21:33 PM  

skullkrusher: But I know, people paying for stuff is very controversial


Well, if what you're saying is that you want to give employees the option to buy any coverage they want, independent of any desire of their employer, and force the insurance companies to provide that coverage at group policy rates?

Then your position is exactly opposite the position of the republicans, who would like your employer to be able to restrict the type of insurance available to you at group policy rates.

So, you agree with Obama and the Democrats. Very good.
 
2012-03-16 07:26:29 PM  
The term "slut" amuses me, because it's pretty much a term men use to degrade and control women. The really silly part is pretty much every guy is a "slut" because men are biologically programmed to fark as many things as possible.
 
2012-03-16 07:51:31 PM  

ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: how are you defining "religious"? Are you limiting it to institutions which are directly affiliated with a religious organization?

I'm not defining religious employers, you did. You said you're a catholic and if you were providing insurance to employees, "would I not be required to cover birth control?" And the answer is no. You are not providing it, the insurance company is.


The insurance company doesn't just provide crap for free, they raise premiums with every increase in coverage. If they dont raise the rates of church-affiliated employers, they raise the rates of everyone else. Pharmaceuticals are not manufactured, packaged and shipped for free.
 
2012-03-16 08:23:24 PM  

Lando Lincoln: o5iiawah: Because we cant run on:

Energy - no, you can't, since your party cannot fathom the idea of actually trying to conserve energy or move towards energy independence that doesn't involve drilling holes in the ground. You guys have a horrible energy record.

The only thing that pisses off democrats about the oil industry is that you dont control it. If private energy was dominated by wind and solar you guys would be screaming about all the oil under the ground and all the tax breaks needed to get it. Nevemind that GM and Chrysler got taxpayer money to produce such green vehicles as the durango, escalade, silverado, yukon, denali and charger to name a few, but GM also gets around $100k/unit worth of subsidies to produce the Volt, a car whose batteries tend to blow up and catch fire. Not to mention the $200M loan that Finnish company Fisker got to produce a $100k car that failed miserably in an independent test. If anything, these efforts to strong-arm our country towards green energy when the technology is not there is a larger failure.

debt - no, you can't, since your party has spent just as much if not more than the Democrats.

In other words, you cant defend your guy, so you play the Bush card. $6Tn to the national debt and counting.


deficit - no, you can't, since your party can't fathom the idea of raising taxes to help balance a budget.

A tax increase that might bring in 5% more to the treasury wont offset the budget without massive cuts the democrats are unwilling to make. Besides, the government already consumes 40% of GDP. Should it be 80%?
www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

a passed budget - see above.

the war in Afghanistan - I would love for you guys to run on this. Let's just talk about why Afghanistan is such an incredible clusterfark. Let's do that.

What exactly is the mission there again? We got Bin Laden. Lets get them the fark out.

military action in Libya and Uganda - no, you can't, since the Libya thing turned out pretty good and...Uganda? What the hell happened in Uganda?

It is the idea of the president mobilizing our armed forces without the authority of congress, something Bush actually bothered to do, i might add.....

$4 gas - this is your best bet, but anybody with half a brain can understand that oil prices are out of the control of just the United States.

Maybe if we are looking to reduce our dependence on oil, we should stop subsidizing the UAW to build durangos, escalades and yukons, etc.

Jobs - yes, let's talk about those jobs. How the 2010 GOP House was going to really get those jobs bills going. How's that going, anyway? Hm. Not too good. Lots and lots of anti-abortion bills, jobs bills...not so much. Meanwhile, Obama's jobs numbers are looking pretty good.


Actually, there are no anti-abortion bills and at last count, 28 Job bills are awaiting Senate action. Now, some of those bills actually require that Unions hold public elections and that Union bosses cant threaten employers for the personal information of employees but I could see where this might be a problem for you lefties that openly fellate the very institutions that destroyed our auto industry. There was no bill in congress for the Keystone deal, the president just killed it. As far as the unemployment rate, if you believe what the Bureau of labor statistics says, i have a bridge to tell you. Obama said he needed the bailout to keep unemployment from going over 6%. In 2004, John Kerry said that the 5.5% unemployment rate was a "jobless recovery" ..And we're supposed to be happy with an 8.3% unemployment rate which Gallup say is closer to 9% with a Labor force participation rate the lowest it has been in 40 years?

You know, it is okay to admit you are wrong every now and again....
 
2012-03-16 08:31:48 PM  

serial_crusher:
/ Will be interesting if they take the Senator in for a vagina lineup when they arrest you though.


I'm no Senator, but I'll take a look...
 
2012-03-16 08:33:56 PM  
I'm just trying to figure out how the fight against birth control will create jobs.
 
2012-03-16 08:35:12 PM  

gimmegimme: I'm just trying to figure out how the fight against birth control will create jobs.


More babies = more need for doctors to birth them.
 
2012-03-16 08:52:34 PM  
Jackson Herring 2012-03-16 02:08:06 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: Feline Lordosis behavior! NSFW

Come on, who hasn't seen that saucy tabby in that position before?


Where's Kittiepie when we need her



WHERE IS MY TEABAGGER HUNTING PERMIT!??

AND MY MOON LANDING DENIER HUNTING PERMIT!!??!?

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THEIR CONSTANT MINDWRECKING MORALE DESTROYING REPETITIVE SHIAT
 
2012-03-16 09:19:22 PM  

maxheck: I very much want to hear how these laws reach the Supreme Court about the same time of Jewish and Sharia laws.

You want to impose your laws? Let's see what happens when bacon, and what the heck, alcohol is illegal!

There were recent state debates outlawing appying religious laws as regards property and divorce arbtriations that only applied to Sharia-following Muslims. Now we have some applying to what women can do with their bits as applied to selective Chrisians..

Somehow, I'd rather the religious not drive the nation.


yeah, too bad my proposal wouldn't force anything upon anyone and would leave the options open and available for all. Your cries of Shariah weren't dishonest foolishness though.
 
2012-03-16 09:25:02 PM  

The Larch: Well, if what you're saying is that you want to give employees the option to buy any coverage they want, independent of any desire of their employer, and force the insurance companies to provide that coverage at group policy rates?


what I'm saying is exactly what I said. Several times.

The Larch: Then your position is exactly opposite the position of the republicans, who would like your employer to be able to restrict the type of insurance available to you at group policy rates.


yeah, I never said I took their position. You might've assumed but that's really your fault, isn't it?

The Larch: So, you agree with Obama and the Democrats. Very good.


except where it is markedly different. First rodeo?
 
2012-03-16 09:27:56 PM  

sweetmelissa31: I don't want to alarm you but I think Kittypie might be male.


This is the internet. We all might be male.
 
2012-03-16 10:02:50 PM  

abb3w: PsiChick: Well, to start with, hormonal BC has a 90% success rate. Condoms are somewhere around 40%.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]smeegle: This issue can be resolved quickly. Ladies, your sex store is now closed. See how fast your husbands start making calls.

I am expecting this to become a genuine widespread movement before the November elections.
Though there's some irony to referring to a movement to keep the knees together as "widespread"....


It's what I learned in health class.
 
2012-03-16 10:03:39 PM  

KatjaMouse: PsiChick: Well, to start with, hormonal BC has a 90% success rate. Condoms are somewhere around 40%

Actually the failure rate of the Pill is less than 5% and male condoms are less than 14% (but that's in general, if we went with 1 or 2 favorited brands the number would likely be much smaller).


Already mentioned it's what I was taught in health class. Given that it was an Aventa course, however, I freely admit the details may be wrong, but the general principle is the same: The Pill works better than male condoms.
 
2012-03-16 10:06:24 PM  

BeesNuts: Rwa2play: smeegle: Geotpf: Find some Republican-leaning women and ask them about this

Agreed. My co-worker who is Catholic, called Santorum a Catholic Taliban. They have eight children, I know right! Now the wife uses contraception. Seems reasonable, after eight kids. He is hopping mad at the GOP, Santorum and the Pope thrown in for good measure.
He is voting for Obama in November in order to quote, "Stop the Catholic Taliban."

Too funny.

Heh; The Republicans (once again) haven't thought their cunning plan through.

Meh, the Catholic base is one of the most poorly understood bases around. You *have* to pay lip service to them. But being a good Catholic is all about farking up and telling your priest about it. Not living by the creed 24x7. The humility and grief and regret you feel when you recognize that you are farking up opens your heart to the Lord.

So tell em you're pro-choice. Tell them you believe in abstinence education. Tell them that stem cell research is a dangerous, slippery slope.

But don't tell them you're going to make abortion illegal, or that you are going to defund PP and stop teaching kids about condoms, or that you want to put a moratorium on any and all research involving stem cells.

Catholics. Change is scary and if I don't have someone or something to be angry at, I'm going to have a hard time getting my ass out of bed on Sunday.

Not to mention that Pope Benedict XVI is no Pope John Paul II.


As a former Catholic (now Spiritual Agnostic), I got a kick out of that. :)
 
2012-03-16 10:12:38 PM  

Lando Lincoln: this is your best bet, but anybody with half a brain can understand that oil prices are out of the control of just the United States.


The Cato Institute the other day said the price of gas isn't the President's fault.
 
2012-03-16 10:13:09 PM  

PsiChick: KatjaMouse: PsiChick: Well, to start with, hormonal BC has a 90% success rate. Condoms are somewhere around 40%

Actually the failure rate of the Pill is less than 5% and male condoms are less than 14% (but that's in general, if we went with 1 or 2 favorited brands the number would likely be much smaller).

Already mentioned it's what I was taught in health class. Given that it was an Aventa course, however, I freely admit the details may be wrong, but the general principle is the same: The Pill works better than male condoms.


Only because a) pills aren't prone to leakage, and b) pills don't slip off mid-thrust.

IF the condom is properly used and properly made, it is 99% effective like all other forms of birth control; but given that men can't hit the toilet that accurately, well...
 
2012-03-16 10:22:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: IF the condom is properly used and properly made, it is 99% effective like all other forms of birth control; but given that men can't hit the toilet that accurately, well...


they tend to hit you in the butt? ;)
 
2012-03-16 10:23:22 PM  

PsiChick: It's what I learned in health class.


From what I recall from mine, your numbers are not especially accurate. What I remember is closer to the numbers KatjaMouse quoted. A quick search turns up a table (with source citation) suggesting the typical one-year failure rate runs at about the geometric mean between the two, with the "perfect" (error-free etc) use lower than either set of numbers.

I've not given the methods significant experimental testing myself. =)

PsiChick: Given that it was an Aventa course, however, I freely admit the details may be wrong, but the general principle is the same: The Pill works better than male condoms.


Ah. Now that point, the data I'm aware of supports.
 
2012-03-16 10:49:46 PM  

Gyrfalcon: ... but given that men can't hit the toilet that accurately, well...


Wouldn't be a problem if the damned thing would just stay still.
 
2012-03-16 10:57:06 PM  

Janusdog: Where did that come from?


It's a facebook page, gaining strength. I was asking my husband about a sex strike a couple weeks ago, wondering how long it was going to take for one to show up here in the US. Evidently, not long.
 
2012-03-16 11:01:12 PM  

abb3w: PsiChick: It's what I learned in health class.

From what I recall from mine, your numbers are not especially accurate. What I remember is closer to the numbers KatjaMouse quoted. A quick search turns up a table (with source citation) suggesting the typical one-year failure rate runs at about the geometric mean between the two, with the "perfect" (error-free etc) use lower than either set of numbers.

I've not given the methods significant experimental testing myself. =)

PsiChick: Given that it was an Aventa course, however, I freely admit the details may be wrong, but the general principle is the same: The Pill works better than male condoms.

Ah. Now that point, the data I'm aware of supports.


I suspect the two of you are younger than me and I'm wondering: do todays' health classes still show that film called Birth Control: Hope is Not a Method and Neither is Withdrawal?
 
2012-03-16 11:07:25 PM  
This mad behavior by the GOP shows that they need to lose, and lose badly, and lose for a number of years.

These losers are so incensed at gaining power that they're robbing people of their rights just so they can keep their seats. What is needed now is twofold action: get rid of all Republicans in positions of power, and publicly shame them so they never, ever seek power again. The second one will be the hard one, as we have seen they will stop at nothing to ruin everything for the power of the dollar.

And that's the real issue here: the Republicans are desperate and blind and willing to sell out everybody but old white men to keep their power. They can't even keep their own base without slutting themselves out to these pathetic ideas that nobody but the ignorant will back.

If the Republicans had common decency, they would resign en masse. They no longer serve a purpose at all in American Politics, and should consider themselves lucky they aren't held in custody and left to rot in Greenland which is far, far less than what they deserve.
 
2012-03-17 12:54:36 AM  

Lunaville: I suspect the two of you are younger than me


I'm probably not much younger. I just behave like an overgrown juvenile delinquent.

That said, I don't recall any movies in the sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll class I was in.
 
2012-03-17 02:07:00 AM  
GOPers want to repeal the 20th century.
 
2012-03-17 02:08:44 AM  

quickdraw: keylock71: Is this the 19th century I'm watching on TV?

Yes but without the awesome hats.

[www.fashion-era.com image 400x264]

[29.media.tumblr.com image 400x412]


great, now i want to buy a top hat
 
2012-03-17 02:17:43 AM  

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: IF the condom is properly used and properly made, it is 99% effective like all other forms of birth control; but given that men can't hit the toilet that accurately, well...

they tend to hit you in the butt? ;)


If it was the butt they were aiming at, we'd have 100% failure!
 
2012-03-17 03:35:17 AM  

kimwim: Janusdog: Where did that come from?

It's a facebook page, gaining strength. I was asking my husband about a sex strike a couple weeks ago, wondering how long it was going to take for one to show up here in the US. Evidently, not long.


My wife was way ahead of you all. By, like, two years.
 
2012-03-17 04:43:44 AM  
This website is a piece of shiat. fark you, Drew.
 
Displayed 50 of 609 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report