Rush calls for sex videos.

[granfire]

I dont think its a question of the company having rights as much as does the Govt have the right to force a company to provide a serivce free of charge.

well, it's a health care service. If you allow one to be excluded on moral grounds, why not another?
You know, like expensive viral treatments etc.

 

[ballen0351]

well, it's a health care service. If you allow one to be excluded on moral grounds, why not another?
You know, like expensive viral treatments etc.

Should the Govt have the right to even force health care to begin with? I say no but That will be for the Supreme Court to decide.

 

[billc]

I look at a lot of threads, even yours. No reason to bait your thread.

 

[elder999]

Meanwhile, in other news, there's an Internet/email campaign to Rush's sponsors to get them to drop his program.

Just today, three of them have done so.

There is also a campaign directed towards radio stations that carry his program.]

Interesting.

 

[billc]

Been there done that, they keep trying to get him off the air, it used to be the feminists and orange juice, we'll see how this goes as well. Careful elder, this thread is about corporations and personhood, you may be warned about that by the thread police...

 

[billc]

Rush reacts to the fake outrage over fluke...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks

I want to go back and get this out of the way 'cause I'm sure that there is voluminous tune-in today to hear about this controversy that has arisen with my blunt talk about Sandra Fluke. We've run some numbers on this. According to Planned Parenthood -- and they should know -- birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month. So, at most, that would be $600 a year. What is Sandra Fluke buying? We then -- I didn't do this, but a member of the staff well-versed in these matters went to Amazon to check the purchase of condoms. And essentially what we found is that you could buy the equivalent of using five condoms a day for $953, and if you paid for it at once you could get free shipping. And everybody's in a hurry here. So free shipping would matter. Nine hundred fifty-three dollars. So Planned Parenthood, $600 bucks a year. Condoms, $953 a year.
Up on Capitol Hill at Pelosi's hearing, thousands of dollars a year. But they want it free. They want the contraception free. I know condoms are free, if you know where to go get 'em. I don't know where to go get 'em free but Snerdley assures me that they're free. (interruption) There is an iPhone AP to find free condoms? For New York City. Well, cool, okay, there you go. So we're not even talking $953 with free shipping. Keep that in mind while we're listening to this thousands and thousands of dollars in taxpayer dollars to satisfy the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown.

Now, here's the story that started all this. It's by a guy name Craig Bannister at Cybercast News Service: "A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage. Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke's research shows." And of course what's sex if the ends aren't meeting?
But Fluke presented research to the committee: four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception. Have you heard of anything more ridiculous? This is flat-out thievery. It's outright ridiculous that taxpayers should pay for the personal sexual desires and habits of everybody, including women, at Georgetown Law. Fluke reported: "Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception)." The poor babes have to buy their own pills. What has gone wrong with our country? What has happened to our country where law students have to buy their own contraceptives? What has happened to us, folks? What have we done with our hearts? How did we become so cruel?

How did we become so heartless? Require each other to pay for the contraceptives of the women law students at Georgetown? Sandra Fluke reported to Pelosi: "It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations. 'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,' Fluke told the hearing. ... That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex -- and, she wants us to pay for it." Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex. She wants us to pay for her sex, and she went to a congressional committee to close the sale.
It's the right place to do that. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from health care insurance premiums that everybody else pays. There isn't anything free. "'For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary,' she complains." A thousand dollars, $3,000, practically an entire summer salary that they now have to spend on sex. So she earns enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex, and they're full years because she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.
Well, that's what the numbers add up to! We've run 'em here: $953 for condoms on Amazon. That's a year. That's close to a thousand bucks. Why aren't condoms provided free by this stupid policy? Why only birth control pills? No, I'm not advocating. I'm just asking the question. At $1 a condom, if she shops at CVS pharmacy's website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms or a thousand of them a year. We've done all kinds of research on this. And what about these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day? While in law school.

And to the real problem with the fake fluke controversy...

Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from health care insurance premiums that everybody else pays. There isn't anything free.

 

[granfire]

Should the Govt have the right to even force health care to begin with? I say no but That will be for the Supreme Court to decide.

But that is a different issue.
Personally I think yes. But again, it's a different matter from the one I am aiming at.

 

[granfire]

Rush reacts to the fake outrage over fluke...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks





And to the real problem with the fake fluke controversy...

Nope, not this topic.
Rush is being crude, rude and pretty much disgusting in this matter.

The question I was asking was about the institutions, not his lack of manners.

 

[WC_lun]

The problem is letting a corporation, which by its' nature has the first concern of profits, determine the morality of medical treatments for its' employees. What if the corporation has Scientologist that are opposed to any form of drugs for mental diseases? Jehovah Witness as a CEO that believe surgery is against God's will? This creates a huge loophole that cooporations can and will exploit.

I do find it ironic that many of those companies that are having such issues paying for birth control for women, which often have other beneficient effects other than the actual birth control, have and still do pay for erectile dysfunction drugs for men. Which have only one use. I guess no man would use those type of drugs to increase thier ability to have sex outside of marriage.

Rush is just being Rush. He has a right to spout the nonsense...just as others have a right to call him a douchebag when he does and hold his advertisers accountable for enabling him to practice his "free speech."

 

[crushing]

Actually not worth of any more airtime, considering who we are talking about.

Actually, it SHOULD NOT be worth the airtime it is getting, but it is worth every bit of airtime for the political establishment.

First, Limbaugh asks a rhetorical question; does asking other people to subsidize one's sexual activities make the person receiving the benefits a slut or prostitute. Later in the same stupid rant he says that indeed he does not think that Fluke is a slut. The sensational media story becomes "LIMBAUGH CALLS WOMAN A SLUT"

By taking this AM radio shock jock and making a huge news story out of his rather stupid rhetorical questions, the media is able to manufacture a figurehead for the Democrats to run against this election year. Inflating this story also serves as a distraction from the real news that wouldn't be so kind to the politicians in charge. Why else would the media resurrect a long gone Limbaugh and spin his comments as they have?

Turning his into a big story does follow nicely with the narrative that has been created after the hearing that was specifically about religious freedom, but misrepresented in the media as a "hearing about birth control" complete with its staged picture.

By the way, has anyone been able to produce one bill, or even an elected politician or candidate for office that as a matter of public policy wants to ban birth control? I know Santorum has made comments where he thinks birth control pills may be dangerous, and that he wouldn't support denying people birth control as a matter of public policy. That's about the most negative thing said about birth control by anyone.

http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/08/...d-yasmin-linked-to-increased-blood-clot-risk/

 

[shinbushi]

no health care should cover condoms. Can't pay for them don't have sex. If i ever provide health care for my employees it will NOT cover stupid crap like this. as is i have mostly 1099s and 1 employee.

 

[granfire]

no health care should cover condoms. Can't pay for them don't have sex. If i ever provide health care for my employees it will NOT cover stupid crap like this. as is i have mostly 1099s and 1 employee.

Why not?
it's a quarter well spend, considering the follow cost for STDs and pregnancies.

 

[shesulsa]

Yeah, that "quarter between the knees" theory has worked oh so well for so very many millenia.

 

[granfire]

Yeah, that "quarter between the knees" theory has worked oh so well for so very many millenia.

a quarter?
High class area you are from. Around here it's a penny...

 

[oftheherd1]

well, 'this case' being how on grounds of believes BC shall be kept exempt from healthcare plans because the church objects to it.
But this is more about the institution's rights to object to it, vs an individual right to conscientious objections.

I am curious if you have any moral beliefs that you would object to the state mandating you to violate?

Do you consider members of a church part of a corporate entity, or individuals who collectively have a right to determine how their contributions to a church are spent? Or something else?

Do you think a church has to subject itself in all cases, to the morals of the Federal Government?

 

[granfire]

I am curious if you have any moral beliefs that you would object to the state mandating you to violate?

Do you consider members of a church part of a corporate entity, or individuals who collectively have a right to determine how their contributions to a church are spent? Or something else?

Do you think a church has to subject itself in all cases, to the morals of the Federal Government?

Federal government has no morals.

church is a tricky one. But in general, there is a huge divide between the people in the church and the overhead, the institution.

Maybe my morals are steeped in practicality, but off the top of my head I can't tell you a personal moral issue government could force me to violate.
There might be one, not sure though. I will let you know when I get to it.

 

[shesulsa]

Morality cannot be legislated, even if we want it. When the "morality" of one prohibits the health choices of another, rights are violated.

 

[oftheherd1]

Federal government has no morals.

I don't know if we're on the same page. I was asking if there are any moral values you have, that you would object to the government passing a law which required you to go against that moral belief. The government is not a person, but elected officials are allowed, in agreement with the constitution, to pass law which its citizens will be required to adhear to. In that sense, I guess you could say the government has moral values. But again, that wasn't my question. I think you may have answered my question in your third paragraph however.

church is a tricky one. But in general, there is a huge divide between the people in the church and the overhead, the institution.

In the sense that there may be people who attend a church to fulfill social or spousal obligations, or searching for a morality they can agree with, that may be. But I think one normally thinks that church members attend because they agree with the moral precepts of the church they attend. Else, why would they attend, and more importantly, why would they support that church monetarily? And isn't it reasonable that they should expect their church to defend those precepts? Otherwise, why have them to begin with?

Maybe my morals are steeped in practicality, but off the top of my head I can't tell you a personal moral issue government could force me to violate.
There might be one, not sure though. I will let you know when I get to it.

So what are you saying? Are you saying that there are moral issues you believe in such that if the government passed a law requiring you to give up that moral belief, you would fight that law? Or are you saying that you have no real moral belief that you can't give up if the government requires you to do so?

Just trying to understand.

 

[oftheherd1]

Morality cannot be legislated, even if we want it. When the "morality" of one prohibits the health choices of another, rights are violated.

Morality is a system of values. Legislation is codification of values that are to be enforced. Rights are entitlements. "Morality cannot be legislated," may work in certain contexts, but in fact, it's usually just a catch frase when you don't have a viable argument against proposed legislation. Legislation sets the moral standards of the jurisdiction for which they are legislated. They may be less stringent than higher government entities, or equal. They may agree with some religious beliefs or oppose them.

Anyone's religious morality may disagree with another religion, or the personal belief of any person. But there is no right unless the government over a set of people grants it. Until a government grants a right to receive contraceptives, or have abortions at government expense, there is no such right. What you consider a right of health choice, another may consider a moral abomination. In the USA, the government has held that abortion is the mother's choice. It is therefore a right whether or not you or I agree. It is not a requirement. Contraceptives at government (therefore yours and my) expense is not yet a right. Neither is it a requirement yet.

Whether or not a corporate or religious entity has rights normally given to individuals is another question. It seems our laws and their interpretation are leaning more and more that way. At least for business corporations.

Interestingly, the so called separation of church and state, seems to be more restricted, and generally a one way street. The church cannot meddle in the state's business, but the state can meddle in the church's business. Thus this thread and discussion.

 

[oftheherd1]

I am now putting on my flame suit and entering my secret underground bunker. :uhyeah: