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.

(MLive.com)   Despite the ability to "shut that whole thing down," Republicans propose women buy rape insurance   (mlive.com) divider line 374
    More: Sick, Republicans, Whitmer, Michigan Legislature, Rick Snyder, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

4855 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 10:27 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-03 12:19:14 PM

Parthenogenetic: Dear policyholder,

We regret to inform you that your recent claim filed under your rape insurance policy (#█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ -█ █ █ █ ) has been deemed ineligible for coverage, after review of the case by our expert team of adjusters.

Per the terms of your policy, you may opt to submit a disputation of this judgement to a third party mediator of our choosing.  The terms of the mediated arbitration are binding and final, and are subject to the laws of the state of appropriate jurisdiction.

Statistical analysis of claims for rape insurance indicate that over 50% are deemed ineligible for a claim, for a variety of reasons. We suggest that you contact your broker to discuss improving your coverage by adding a slut insurance policy.  Information on slut insurance is also available on our website, www.█ █ █ █ █ █ █ .com.


Oy. I just thought of all the hassle a private company would put a woman through investigating a rape claim. The cops are bad enough, but they have laws they have to abide by. But a private corp, only caring about its bottom line? *shudder* I've been raped and it was bad enough just trying to go to the cops. . .
 
2013-12-03 12:19:15 PM
www.bartcop.com
 
2013-12-03 12:19:44 PM

Graffito: Tricky Chicken: Graffito: runin800m: Tricky Chicken:

You are asking questions that I don't know the answer to.  I live in Ohio and I knew someone who the victim of a horrible sexual assault and stabbing.  She was trying to get some money from the vic comp fund to help her with rent because she couldn't work (as a waitress) when she was recovering from her wounds.

 I can't even begin to describe the mental anguish that she was in so some relief from the threat of being evicted would have helped a lot.
She only received a small amount of money (a couple thousand) and it was years later.  We're not talking about medical expenses, but money to help out with all things like therapy, rent, cab fare - kind of like an AFLAC policy for crime victims.


In a case like this, I (this is just me now) would have to accept that rent and the other stuff are direct results of her attack, and should count toward making her whole. And yes, I think tax money should be used to cover all this.  I think it is far more important than an extra missile or filling a pot hole.  Because we as a society owed her a safe place to live, and we as a society failed.
 
2013-12-03 12:19:51 PM

mrshowrules: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: That there is some despicable big governmentin' but Im pretty sure most women who have abortions aren't aborting rape babies. I could be wrong. I don't have a vagina.

There are stats on that.  Keep in mind that any women under the age of consent is a victim of statutory rape.  I think it accounts for nearly half if not more of abortions.

True. False. Dunno but sounds bullshiat.

How is statutory rape not rape?

I'm not sure about the stats but I am talking about a percentage of elective abortions, not including abortions protecting the health of the mother.


Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape
 
2013-12-03 12:21:20 PM
you know the old saying... You rape what you sew...

cltampa.com
 
2013-12-03 12:21:56 PM

mrshowrules:
For any woman under the age of consent, abortion is because of rape.


Isn't that a pretty big exageration? If it isn't, I feel really bad for American teens.
 
2013-12-03 12:23:26 PM

parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.


It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.
 
2013-12-03 12:23:40 PM

skullkrusher: I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.


And to be honest, I am not sure how the attempts of Right to Life of Michigan to prevent abortion from being subsidized by the ACA is anything but an attempt to punish sexually active women and, in admittedly rarer cases, to punish women who have sex forced upon them.

If it's an issue of cost rather than morality: I don't have the hard numbers, I confess, but I'd wager that subsidizing abortion is probably pretty inexpensive when we're subsidizing health care related to cancer, obesity, and other highly common health issues.


Just because I will never endure a rape pregnancy does not mean I feel stepped upon for helping support for those that do.
 
2013-12-03 12:24:04 PM

skullkrusher: Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape


I'm not an expert, but are there not generally exceptions that make a statutory rape law a bit more sensible?  For example, allowing an age difference of 3 years... so that it would be legal for a 16 year old and an 18 year old to have sex... but not a 16 year old and a 40 year old.
 
2013-12-03 12:24:10 PM

cman: Thats one beautiful lady


Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?
 
2013-12-03 12:27:01 PM
I see my question was answered before I even asked. Never mind.
 
2013-12-03 12:27:33 PM

I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.


Well, the thing is, pregnancy is a fairly unique situation--it  can happen unwillingly to a woman, and that means either people would have to buy in case of rape--and according to the CDC, one in five women  are raped--or run the risk of being crippled by a medical bill if that happened. While this is a misogynistic bill overall, I can see why the rape thing was the first to cause a reaction.
 
2013-12-03 12:27:57 PM

balloot: I love Republicans.  I can't think of ANY circumstance where mentioning rape in any context has turned out well for them.  Yet they consistently feel the need to do it every few months, apparently in some grand quest to be the first political party with absolutely zero female votes in an election.



It amazes me how many women still vote for them, it is pretty sad.
 
2013-12-03 12:27:58 PM

formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?


Let it go. Cman is on a quest to say colossally stupid things on a daily basis.  He sprinkles in a few reasonable comments now and again to throw of the mods.
 
2013-12-03 12:28:12 PM

formerfloozy: cman: Thats one beautiful lady

Wow, that is entirely inappropriate and creepy. What the fuk does it matter what she looks like?


guys comment on women's looks, welcome to earf.
 
2013-12-03 12:29:04 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

I'm not an expert, but are there not generally exceptions that make a statutory rape law a bit more sensible?  For example, allowing an age difference of 3 years... so that it would be legal for a 16 year old and an 18 year old to have sex... but not a 16 year old and a 40 year old.


Varies by state afaik. Age of consent is 17 in NY. 7 if the parties are related in KY
 
2013-12-03 12:29:30 PM

Headso: you know the old saying... You rape what you sew...

[cltampa.com image 528x333]


dafuk?
 
2013-12-03 12:30:13 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

And to be honest, I am not sure how the attempts of Right to Life of Michigan to prevent abortion from being subsidized by the ACA is anything but an attempt to punish sexually active women and, in admittedly rarer cases, to punish women who have sex forced upon them.

If it's an issue of cost rather than morality: I don't have the hard numbers, I confess, but I'd wager that subsidizing abortion is probably pretty inexpensive when we're subsidizing health care related to cancer, obesity, and other highly common health issues.


Just because I will never endure a rape pregnancy does not mean I feel stepped upon for helping support for those that do.


All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?
 
2013-12-03 12:30:40 PM

skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.


so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long
 
2013-12-03 12:32:14 PM

I_C_Weener: serial_crusher: palladiate: I_C_Weener: Having now read the article, it is a "Let's not let abortion be standard in our insurance plans" not a "buy rape insurance" bill.

It's actually "No insurance company can provide this coverage by default in Michigan, not even for cases of rape" bill. It specifically prohibits insurers from offering this coverage in their plans. You'll have to buy a rider if they're even offered, which by the by, aren't cheap.

How do you come to the "aren't cheap" conclusion? Does the bill specify prices?
I could see an insurance company deciding its cheaper to pay for your abortion than it is to pay for your baby, offering it as a free add-on.

True.  But my insurance was happy to "fix" me because I wanted a vasectomy.  But they don't like paying for "fixing" women without a medical necessity.  I don't understand their reasoning.


As I recall, it is more complicated and more dangerous procedure. They would rather have an IUD or something installed.

Insurance companies do like offering birth control and abortion services. They are good for the the plan holder (more options, potentially reduced premiums), the insurance company (less costly, more attractive plans due to options, and can reduce premiums), and society (less unwanted children, particularly in poor families that rely on government support). That is why these guys want to pass a law to stop them.
 
2013-12-03 12:32:27 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: Well, aside from the ridiculousness of considering consensual sex between a 18 year old and a 17 year old as falling into the same category as violent sexual assault, not all pregnant underaged teens were victims of statutory rape. Sex between two 16 year olds is not statutory rape

I'm not an expert, but are there not generally exceptions that make a statutory rape law a bit more sensible?  For example, allowing an age difference of 3 years... so that it would be legal for a 16 year old and an 18 year old to have sex... but not a 16 year old and a 40 year old.


There are major legal differences from state to state on it... because you know, "states' rights." And even in states where the rules are hard-17 or hard-18, judges have occasionally been known to throw out charges of statutory rape (usually filed by parents) when both parties claim mutual consent.

Underage pregnancy in the case of consensual sex between 16- or 17-year-olds probably shouldn't be counted in the same data set as raped adult females... but unless the law specifies otherwise, it is. That's what makes the data so difficult to analyze.

Of course, including underage pregnancy also opens up the sexual education argument... but the GOP doesn't want to talk about that.
 
2013-12-03 12:32:53 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: Just because I will never endure a rape pregnancy


This is the 21st century.  Anything can happen.
 
2013-12-03 12:33:17 PM

Aidan: serial_crusher: Do they do that for tubal ligation or are you referring to the pill as a "fix"? Not a fair comparison between one-time surgery and a daily prescription.
But if it's actually the surgeries, the only excuse I can think of is that girl parts are more expensive to operate on. The vasectomy happens right there in the doctors office, right? Snip snip and you're done. Tube tying is a full on surgery. (Probably still cheaper than a baby or abortions though)

IIRC my tubal (in Michigan in about 2006) was about $4000. With insurance it was about $30, but I doubt anyone's gonna get that kind of deal. It was a full-on hospital bed, hot feeling in the arm from the anasthetic, wheel me in and so forth deal.

Also, from what I've heard on the Farks, many doctors refuse to do tubals for young women (like under 70) or women who haven't had kids.


That is definitely the case. My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal. It still makes me salty just thinking about it.
 
2013-12-03 12:33:23 PM

parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.

so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long


I was talking about the legislator in the article
 
2013-12-03 12:34:46 PM

give me doughnuts: Needlessly Complicated: mainstreet62: SurfaceTension: It's all good, I've got rape insurance!

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 749x472]

OH GOD WHY DID YOU BOTH POST CONSECUTIVELY! NOW I SEE FLO WEARING PANTIES!!!

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

What? She's not *ugly.* And the panty woman has flat abs. So settle down there, Studman.


Yowza.
[t.fod4.com image 480x270]


I would totally let her give me a big discount on my insurance rates, ifyouknowwhatimean...
 
2013-12-03 12:35:12 PM

skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.


When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.
 
2013-12-03 12:35:57 PM

I_C_Weener: [www.afcaforum.com image 300x225]Well, there's your problem.


MOMMY!!  MOMMY!!

That's my favorite one.  The look he gives the camera is priceless.
 
2013-12-03 12:36:25 PM

formerfloozy: Aidan: serial_crusher: Do they do that for tubal ligation or are you referring to the pill as a "fix"? Not a fair comparison between one-time surgery and a daily prescription.
But if it's actually the surgeries, the only excuse I can think of is that girl parts are more expensive to operate on. The vasectomy happens right there in the doctors office, right? Snip snip and you're done. Tube tying is a full on surgery. (Probably still cheaper than a baby or abortions though)

IIRC my tubal (in Michigan in about 2006) was about $4000. With insurance it was about $30, but I doubt anyone's gonna get that kind of deal. It was a full-on hospital bed, hot feeling in the arm from the anasthetic, wheel me in and so forth deal.

Also, from what I've heard on the Farks, many doctors refuse to do tubals for young women (like under 70) or women who haven't had kids.

That is definitely the case. My doc even wanted a meeting with my ex husband to ensure he was down with me getting a tubal. It still makes me salty just thinking about it.


I got a vasectomy at 32 and the doc wouldn't do it unless my wife signed a paper saying she was OK with it.

/best present I ever gave myself
 
2013-12-03 12:36:37 PM

skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?


I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?
 
2013-12-03 12:36:42 PM

Bennie Crabtree: It is not hyperbolic. It is spelling out one of the things that the insurance would be covering and, in the absence of public services the bill would create, it is quite accurate. insurance would be the solution to pregnancies that result from sexual assault. it would even shift the pregnancy away from a health issue and away from a criminal issue and into the territory of insurable accidents. The pregnancy would become a tort and if insurers could cover it, that means the woman is paying for the coverage and therefore basically taking on partial responsibility for the damage done by rape itself.


It's slightly  hyperbolic in the sense that it's not quite as literally 'if women want protection from rape, they should get insurance like anything else' stupid as the term 'rape insurance' might be read to imply.

However, other than that, you're quite right.
 
2013-12-03 12:37:02 PM

skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.

so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long

I was talking about the legislator in the article


yes - i got that - my apologies
you post well and i'm having a really rotten day

mea culpa
 
2013-12-03 12:37:15 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.


Splitting hairs?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:39:46 PM
Current head of the GOP

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
Ab3
2013-12-03 12:40:11 PM
if I had a choice between voting for a Republican or a Sontaran I would take the Sontaran every time.
 
2013-12-03 12:40:29 PM

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?


Is that a pubic hair joke?
 
2013-12-03 12:40:34 PM
RepubliCare
 
2013-12-03 12:40:57 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?


Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!
 
2013-12-03 12:42:28 PM

parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: parasol: skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: Yet, here, it is a Democratic female bandying about rape like the political football it has become.

I just re-read the article for evidence of Whitmer somehow exploiting or misrepresenting this issue, but failed to find it.  Could you please provide evidence of such?

By saying a rider for abortion coverage is "rape insurance". It's like what the entire article is about. A tiny fraction of abortions are necessary as the result of rape. As such, it's "unplanned pregnancy insurance" FAR more than it is "rape insurance". Not sure how it could be anymore clear.

again?
women already have/had unplanned pregnancy insurance
which the GOP has long tried to deny access to

women don't need rape insurance at additional cost - they need birth control - including the morning after pill - which would further reduce that "tiny fraction" you mentioned above.

It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases. Ergo calling it "rape insurance" is to use a loaded emotional term which doesn't accurately reflect what it is. A stupid law argued against by a stupid person.

so the premise is women need to pay an additional insurance cost to cover a procedure that the GOP is actively working to deny access to

please don't call me stupid - i've been at the "avoiding rape/paying for reproductive choices" far too long

I was talking about the legislator in the article

yes - i got that - my apologies
you post well and i'm having a really rotten day

mea culpa


Hope it gets better dude/ette
 
2013-12-03 12:42:31 PM

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?


Do you insist on carrying this charade of pretending to lack the ability to infer broader meaning from hyperbolic terms further?  I'll understand if you're doing it for the sake of splitting hairs in a meta-debate about Responsibility in Descriptive Terms.
 
2013-12-03 12:43:23 PM

Dansker: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: It's not "rape insurance". It's unplanned pregnancy insurance of which rape causes a tiny fraction of cases.

When everything is retarded, splitting hairs is important.

Splitting hairs?

Is that a pubic hair joke?


No, that's "spitting hairs"
 
2013-12-03 12:43:28 PM

Mercutio74: I just don't get it.  If I ran an insurance company (thankfully I don't have that kind of soul killing job where you have to choose profit or principles) I would be falling all over myself to offer abortion procedures to anyone who wanted them (even men, just to be safe).  If you force a woman you're covering to have an unwanted baby, that baby becomes a dependent...  basically, a liability to your bottom line.



This legislation is like forbidding an auto insurance company from covering brake repairs in hopes that it encourages people to drive less frequently.

Nothing good can come from it for the insured or the insurers.
 
2013-12-03 12:43:35 PM
What I don't understand and what really ticks me off, is how can this tiny sliver of the Michigan population have this much influence.

I understand if you have enough signatures that the legislature would have to take a look at your suggestion and/or consider it, but to make it so that it also bypasses the governor completely is just insane.

That's less than 3% of our population and somehow that's enough to say its the people's will?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:43:38 PM

Ab3: if I had a choice between voting for a Republican or a Sontaran I would take the Sontaran every time.


static2.wikia.nocookie.net

Today... These weird American's known as RE-publicans and their fascination with the vaginial system....
 
2013-12-03 12:43:47 PM

skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.


Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?
 
2013-12-03 12:44:23 PM

skullkrusher: Snatch Bandergrip: skullkrusher: All may be true but I suppose you see why she was being a dumbass?

I can concede that labeling unplanned pregnancy insurance as rape insurance is hyperbolic.

But given Republican ambivalence to rape, and an unsettling drive to control and regulate women's reproductive health, can one really be judged for drawing that conclusion?

Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity. The law is absurd on its face, it is contrary to everything the GOP pretends to stand for in terms of small government and business regulation and places an unnecessary burden on private commerce. I know! let's call it rape insurance to help deflect from the fact that the law is a piece of shiat!


And by the time you are done explaining why the law is idiotic everyone you are talking to has tuned you out, calling it rape insurance gets people's attention. "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.
 
2013-12-03 12:44:56 PM
The idea behind health insurance was not pick and choose procedures.
 
2013-12-03 12:45:20 PM

Pinner: parasol: That reminds me of hurricane insurance as offered by Citizen's in Florida. You pay for it, and when the worst happens and you make a claim, somehow (gasp) you find your options are "deal with it by yourself"

If you can't prove it was really rape they can always deny your claim.

So, rape is an act of God?


Is your name Mary?
 
2013-12-03 12:46:11 PM

Headso: "conservatives" are always very concerned about democrats not taking the high road for some reason.


It's a Stop Hitting Yourself Mobius Strip of Sh*theadedness.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:47:04 PM

monoski: The idea behind health insurance was not pick and choose procedures.


...except when the GOP doesn't agree with them.

It's like their laissez faire economic stance that they so strongly believe in... until the market turns and it's against them, then they want regulations regulations regulations.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-03 12:49:22 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: Yeah. Republican stupidity doesn't justify Democratic stupidity.

Are you calling rape Democratic stupidity?


I love what passes for reasoning today.  Wanting to regulate insurance companies that have the ability to inflict millions of dollars of harm on individuals is Democratic stupidity?

There is one reason only to believe that, and that is that you believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want at any time to any one.
 
Displayed 50 of 374 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report