An observation on free student birth control.

Meow!

I refer you to Bremen’s post #36 in this thread.

I remind you that birth control pills prescribed by a doctor for* health reasons* (as opposed to contraception) are all ready covered by most insurance.

You should calculate other monthly expenses and compare them to birth control and you’ll see that birth control pills are not that expensive.

$9.00 per month 3 miles from her campus for birth control pills.
That is $108.00 per year.
That means she is spending $892.00 additional dollars on condoms, presumably to protect her from all the diseases that she expects to encounter as a result of living the life of a slut.

Even if she is just as stupid in economics as she is in her lifestyle decisions so she does not buy her wheelbarrows full of condoms in bulk but pays a dollar a piece from the gas station bathroom that she has sex in, that is still 892 separate sexual events per year.

That is an average of 2.4 sexual encounters per day with “partners” who she has no idea of their sexually transmitted disease status every single day of the year.

She is a prostitute or a gutter skank (or both) but she is no doubt a Demoncrat that all Demoncrat’s will be proud of and emulate.

She is the Rosa Parks of Communist Whores.

This ‘person’ is making a decision to do an act. It is HER responsibility to pay for it. That simple.

The point, C1, of comments regarding the price of condoms and spermicidal creams is that there are less expensive alternatives to “The Pill”. Not only has she chosen a lifestyle that necessitates contraceptives, but she has also evidently chosen the most expensive non-surgical means of contraception from the most expensive sources. And she insists that others pay the $$ costs of her choices.

Or maybe, as RET suggests, her $$ numbers are so over the top that the $$ numbers point to either “professional expenses” or that she is an Olympic-Class Mattress Polo “athlete”. And she insists that others pay her professional//work-out expenses.

There is one other alternative which I find more likely (and more disgusting), given the available information: that she deliberately perjured herself before congress in the name of advancing the ‘liberal’ agenda.

So she is either a criminal democrat propagandist or a nasty ‘ho’. You pick which one you find easier to believe…

… that she deliberately perjured herself before congress in the name of advancing the ‘liberal’ agenda.

About the cost of “The Pill”? Or her sex life? I’m sure that if one tries, one could find a means/source that will cost more than $1000 a year.

I do not believe that there is any woman who must pay, for any combination of reasons, $1000/ yr for effective birth control. If I am mistaken in that belief, then the exceptions are more rare than honest politicians. That is to say, there may be one on planet earth, but I’d expect to find unicorns and dragons first…

But I can accept that she’s just a nasty ‘ho’ who needs to spend that much money on condoms: she’s a democrat, after all, and they celebrate hoishness.

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:46, topic:33773”]
The point, C1, of comments regarding the price of condoms and spermicidal creams is that there are less expensive alternatives to “The Pill”. Not only has she chosen a lifestyle that necessitates contraceptives, but she has also evidently chosen the most expensive non-surgical means of contraception from the most expensive sources. And she insists that others pay the $$ costs of her choices.

Or maybe, as RET suggests, her $$ numbers are so over the top that the $$ numbers point to either “professional expenses” or that she is an Olympic-Class Mattress Polo “athlete”. And she insists that others pay her professional//work-out expenses.
[/quote]It looks like she is fairly indiscriminate who she does the horizontal hulu with.

Perhaps she should try to write this off on her tax forms.
Call it a business expense. :slight_smile:

The thing I don’t like about making this a religious issue is that NO ONE should be forced to provide free birth control. I don’t see it in any way as a religious issue but a basic freedom issue. I shouldn’t be subject to being plundered by government just because I’m not religious enough.

When she tried to send me the bill for her birth control, she gave me the right to have an opinion on her use of that birth control.

Question, what about issues you oppose that you’re forced to pay for through taxes? Do you “judge” people who advocate that or is that different?

No, I completely agree that businesses nor individuals nor any private institutions should be forced to provide birth control.

What exactly is the argument for employers providing birth control in the first place? I think that back in 2000 the EEOC ruled that providing insurance but not birth control was discriminatory, but that just makes no sense. Or maybe a little sense, I don’t know. Seems like a stretch to call not providing birth control discrimination.