The principal of this has nothing to do with contraception, it’s people and their fucking entitlement issues. His problem is not with the BC, it’s with this lib-cunt trying to make other people (Catholic institution) pay for it… I’m for BC, I’m not for fucktards like her standing up demanding a college pay for it.
I’m actually a little confused on the issue, can someone clarify this? Does Obama want to force the actual religious institutions to pay for the BC or just that the insurers do? And what was this girl advocating?
In my opinion birth control is a form of cost control because it prevents abortions and unwanted pregnancies, but obviously I don’t want to force religious groups to support them.
Whether its preventative or not is irrelevant. Why don’t the government provide health club memberships to prevent illnesses? The whole point is that contraception is not a right. You have a right to your life and your liberty, but no one has a right to the fruits of anothers labor. Read the constitution.
^Whether its preventative or not is irrelevant. Why don’t the government provide health club memberships to prevent illnesses? The whole point is that contraception is not a right. You have a right to your life and your liberty, but no one has a right to the fruits of anothers labor. Read the constitution.
Guys, she’s not asking the government to pay for it, the government is requiring all places that offer insurance to include birth control in their plans, even if that happens to be a religiously affiliated organization. Georgetown is refusing to have it’s insurance plan cover it because it is religiously affiliated. This has nothing to do with tax dollars or government subsides, its requiring insurance companies (who cover viagra prescriptions) to cover the pill as well. My bc would be like $250 for 3 months without insurance, and since it also helps with a myriad of other health issues, it should be covered.
Well the imposter in chief has said that catholic universities would not purchase the pill, the insurance companies would, however, if the insurance pays for it then the university premiums for that insurance plan will be higher thus basically meaning the university still pays for it regardless.
TXKD, no personally I don’t care if women use birth control, I have a huge problem with people that feel that they are entitled to health care or birth control. And no Catholic institution should be forced to cover something that it does not believe in, and finds morally wrong
Bear in mind that this broad can manage to pay for three years of Georgetown Law but is somehow $2.79 short when it comes time to pay for her absolute essential medication.
So on top of loaning this bitch 70k so she can join us in the 1% she now wants you to pay for her birth control.
1. Calm down. I’m not a liberal, I don’t like Obama, I’m not a whore, and I usually find Rush entertaining.
2. I’m fairly certain that she has student loans and not paying for law school in full out of pocket.
3. This is not a healthcare entitlement issue and just because the president supports this doesn’t automatically make it a clandestine socialist plot to destroy America. People pay for their own insurance every month, not the government, so asking for birth control to be included on an insurance plan that she pays for is not feeling entitled to get it for free or at a subsidized rate. Almost all companies/organizations etc. include birth control, and it’s just a little ridiculous to have to pay $1000+ on top of whatever else she already pays for her own insurance. No tax dollars would be going towards this. I’m a little bit surprised that yall don’t want girls to have easier access to the pill no matter where they work.
Especially since Georgetown is affiliated with a religion that technically doesn’t support birth control. Yet this scumfuck thinks she’s entitled to birth control from an institution that doesn’t believe in it, yet is giving her student loans to attend.
Jesus it is ridiculous that so many of you are getting worked up about something you clearly don’t understand without bothering to do ANY research to see what the facts are first. The argument isn’t that Georgetown University should have to foot the bill for contraceptives, it’s that letting an employer or ensurer selectively choose what medicines they can and can’t offer is fucked up. If an insurance company decides that cancer medicine is too expensive for them to provide, the blunt amendment would create a precedent that would let them say fuck it we don’t want to provide cancer drugs anymore, you have to pay for them.
Arkansas: I would love to, I always wanted to marry a conservative/libertarian man who actually puts thought into issues instead of regurgitating phrases they hear on Fox out of context
FuckLiberals69/Thumper: The constitution was created to ensure American’s had the freedom to do/say/think whatever they wanted to so long as it doesn’t hurt or affect other citizens. I’m a libertarian, and an obvious proponent of the constitution and the intent of the founders of this country, and denying people access to something that they already pay for themselves that doesn’t in any way, shape, or form affect others negatively is exactly the opposite of everything out country stands for. Pushing your convictions on others and denying them access to something that would benefit them, especially regarding things that are really none of their concern, is the exact opposite of everything the founding fathers wanted. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but please use your cognitive reasoning skills and look things up instead of quoting O’Reilly
Then is forcing Catholic institutions to provide a product against their code of beliefs not forcing your beliefs on someone? Libertarianism means the government would have nothing to do with the issue. Why should the government regulate what medical services an insurer provides? What products and services the insurer provides is not up to anyone but them. Just because birth control might benefit some customers does not mean that the insurance company is obligated to provide that service to them. Who are you to tell the company what services it should and should not provide? You may claim to be a libertarian but it sure doesn’t sound like it.
If your insurance company doesn’t provide birth control and you think they should, don’t go whine to the government. Just switch companies. It’s called a free market; you may have heard of it before. The constitution protects the rights of companies to choose what they sell to their customers, not the rights of customers to legislate what products are available to them.
You really have the idea of “not forcing beliefs on someone else” really twisted around.
Do you people not realize that the pill helps with much more than preventing pregnancy? The pill is not cheap to take (and even more expensive without insurance) yet can help with more issues than just unwanted pregnancy. I’m all for the government staying out of the way and not telling insurance companies/universities what they can and cannot provide but the girl has a point. Stop assuming she is taking the pill just to prevent pregnancy and actually educate yourselves.
I’m also a libertarian. If you want to collectively bargain with your employer to provide contraception in your health insurance, that’s completely acceptable. Although if the government requires insurance companies to provide contraception in your insurance plan, the price will inevitably be passed on to you through your premium. Furthermore, the pricing mechanism for contraception is destroyed, the product becomes inelastic, the price skyrockets.
Seriously Davy Crockett? I meant libertarian in the moderate sense, not the “everyone should own their own land, produce their own energy, grow their own food, and never ever ever pay taxes” extremist sense. The insurance plan in question does cover birth control, but the ensurer is leaving out birth control out and still making women pay the same premium. If you don’t support the usage of birth control, fabulous! Don’t use it. Don’t deprive others of taking the pill, which provides a myriad of health benefits for women besides being a contraceptive, purely based on your own convictions. Private medical matters are between the insured and the insurance company, and when employers and ensurers mess with it, it is a direct violation of the right to privacy. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives citizen the right to privacy. After Griswald v. Connecticut, this includes the usage of birth control. Please research and don’t accuse me of twisting logic when you use political rhetoric and buzz words like ‘free market’ out of context to support your own flawed and unconstitutional agenda. NaturalLight and whoever else doesn’t have their head shoved up their ass, thank you for actually researching and knowing what you’re talking about.
Hahaha spring break starts in approx. 48 hours, so the titties will have to stay under wraps til then so I can stop putting off my MIS homework by being a bitch on the internet.
TXKD, no one is forcing anyone attend a Catholic university or work for a Catholic institution. If they disagree with the Catholic moral code, they can’t expect those institutions to violate their morals to accommodate their wishes. So what if there are numerous health benefits or if it’s blatantly obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills that the Catholics are wrong. Those are their religious beliefs. Using the rule of law to hold a gun to their heads and force those institutions to violate their religious convictions is unconstitutional, and there’s no way around that. Catholic Church money is going to those insurance companies, and they don’t have to spend their money on what they don’t agree with. Women there still have access to birth control. No one is stopping them from spending their own money on it. You can claim that you have libertarian tendencies, but on this point, you are simply wrong.
^^(Not that it should, but) Of course Congress can “hold a gun” to the heads of the Catholic hospitals. The hospitals substantially relate to and affect interstate commerce, ergo it falls under Art. I, §8 grounds for regulation by Congress. Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Congress can’t step on First Amendment rights, but it does have police power authority to protect commerce; this anti-contraception law would place burdens on interstate commerce, therefore while it might not be what many may want, Congress has every right to enact it.
Your reference to Griswold v. Connecticut is misplaced friend. There, an activist Supreme Court came up with the idea that the Constitution has various “penumbras,” i.e., rights that, although nowhere within the Constitution, exist in order to make the Constitution what that specific Court thought it is supposed to eventually become. The right to privacy is not within the United States Constitution. In lieu of recognizing that, we ended up with penumbras and various rights that’s activist Judges made up in order to effectuate their end-goals. Your comment about the commerce clause and private business is even more ridiculous. Even Obama couldn’t come up with an argument that birth control is an issue of interstate commerce. I would tell you to lace ’em up, but you should read the Constitution first.
“Even Obama couldn’t come up with an argument that birth control is an issue of interstate commerce”
Trying to understand where you’re coming from…How would it not pass the substantial economic effect test from Wickard? The drugs are part of a nationwide market, people travel to Georgetown to visit, some of the drugs are shipped in from out of state…
TXKD, you need to leave politics to your fratdaddy/husband and keep on cooking. Your beliefs are offensive to the title “Libertarian.” Don’t try and justify it by saying you are moderate. You obviously don’t understand the right of companies to provide whatever products and services they please. So please, for the love of God and all that is holy, just stop. You’re embarrassing the rest of us who are true libertarians.
Davy Crockett, don’t resort to misogyny just because TXKD is a lot smarter than you are and showed you up. Sorry some girls are smarter than your dumb ass.
No, Davy Crockett is right. TKXD has misconstrued ideas of what a free market means even though he labels himself a libertarian. Why should the government regulate health care? Forcing birth control care on health care providers is just another way of socializing medicine. If you don’t like your plan, switch it. That’s the beauty of a free market, where people make their own decisions about what they want covered.
TKXD, I know you’re “that guy”, who blames all serious libertarians and conservatives of regurgitating Fox News, but you can’t argue with the basic concept of a free market.
“Brorak Flowbama,” log out of this website, leave the free internet cafe, go back to whatever project you came from, and go practice your jump shot or something. I hope to the Good Lord you don’t vote.
TXKD I completely agree with you. So typical that as soon as a woman stands up for herself and her beliefs some ignorant men get all worked up about it! Those who seem to think birth control is something that insurers shouldn’t cover must either not be having any casual sex at all, or relying on condoms (which people on this site seem to hate) or the super reliable rhythm method for contraception. Otherwise it’s pretty hypocritical to expect women to outright pay for something that benefits men just as much.
Birth control is something that should be worked out between the two consenting parties. It’s not necessarily the woman’s responsibility nor is it necessarily the man’s. That’s up to the two of them to figure out. And it definitely is not the insurance company’s responsibility. This discussion is very telling about the extent to which our society has devalued personal responsibility for one’s actions, be they economic, sexual, or otherwise.
I am a little troubled by your legal analysis. First, Congress does NOT have police powers outlined in the Constitution. Congress has tax and spend powers which have been expanded at times as an enforcement arm for purposes of the Commerce Clause. The several states, and ONLY the several states, have police power for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. See United States v. Morrison. Second, I am dying to hear how the economic effect test in Wickard in anyway, shape, or form can be applied to a university, a PRIVATE university, opting not to provide money for birth control to its student body. Is Georgetown now in the business of producing birth control for consumption across state lines and for the consumption of its student body? Is there now a volatile market for birth control?
A law passed under the Commerce Clause must relate to the following: 1) a channel of interstate commerce; 2) an instrumentality of interstate commerce; 3) an activity having substantial effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez.
Now please, keep outlining for finals soon and stop trying to impress everyone with your 1L knowledge. I hope to God you’re not wasting your money at some third tier toilet (TTT) of a law school.
Oh silly me, I thought libertarianism was about reverting government back to what was originally intended by the constitution (small federal government, free market, etc.) and not a giant puzzle to try to link everything ever in existence back to the free market and hate on the government. I would bet about 99% of libertarians would say some (very little) government is good. Did everybody else just blow off reading Lord of the Flies in middle school or something? Look, I love the free market! I get in arguments all the time with liberals over the Occupy Movement because it’s trying to destroy the free market and everything this country stands for. I agree with all of you that the ‘participation trophy’ generation is spawning a false sense of entitlement that fuels a vast majority of young adults in this country. That being said, the free market is not sovereign over the constitution. I can give you so many Supreme Court cases that prove this is not an issue of free market but an issue of employer violation of one of out most basic constitutional rights because of religious conviction. I didn’t hear any complaints when the federal government mandated Viagra, even for unmarried males, from religiously affiliated organizations. Why? Because constitutionally the state has the right to do so. This shouldn’t be different with the pill. So, in conclusion: I love the free market, but I love the constitution more (as any real libertarian should). I also have the ability to discern when things should be left up to the free market, and when the federal government is constitutionally obligated to step in. I’m sure yall are very smart boys, but I’m not an embarrassment to libertarians for being knowledgeable about what is constitutional and knowing where the free market does not apply (hint: not absolutely everywhere at all times, I’ve been referring to this phenomenon as ‘context’). I get it, I’m a girl, and nothing that I will ever say could make you see things from a different perspective (as evidenced by the redundant responses I’ve received). At the end of the day, everyone can be real tough and smart on the internet, but let me know if any of you are in Texas so we can have a real political debate in person where you can’t revert to Wikipedia or FoxNews.com for quick facts to throw around. That being said, I have one more homework assignment to turn in before I can start pregaming for spring break, so instead of fighting on the internet like the cool kid that I am, I will be with my fratdaddy (who obviously knows soooo much more than being, being a man and all) day drinking! Everyone have a fun and safe spring break and vote Ron Paul!
@JParksCaldwell1855 If contraceptive is a right then who has the responsibility to pay for it. No one is trying to stop her from paying for birth control. I think we can all agree (with the exception of scbro and the other dipshit liberals) that guns are a right. The government cannot force someone or some company to buy me a gun though. RIghts do not mean that you are entitled to that for free. It just means the government cannot prevent you from getting it.
Not supporting contraception would probably lead to fathering multiple children in college. NF.
14 years ago at 3:24 pm^this
14 years ago at 3:41 pmPutting it in her butt to prevent pregnancy. FaF
14 years ago at 3:47 pmThe principal of this has nothing to do with contraception, it’s people and their fucking entitlement issues. His problem is not with the BC, it’s with this lib-cunt trying to make other people (Catholic institution) pay for it… I’m for BC, I’m not for fucktards like her standing up demanding a college pay for it.
14 years ago at 3:50 pmI’m actually a little confused on the issue, can someone clarify this? Does Obama want to force the actual religious institutions to pay for the BC or just that the insurers do? And what was this girl advocating?
In my opinion birth control is a form of cost control because it prevents abortions and unwanted pregnancies, but obviously I don’t want to force religious groups to support them.
14 years ago at 4:04 pmWhether its preventative or not is irrelevant. Why don’t the government provide health club memberships to prevent illnesses? The whole point is that contraception is not a right. You have a right to your life and your liberty, but no one has a right to the fruits of anothers labor. Read the constitution.
14 years ago at 4:24 pmStop callin it BC. Y’all sound like chicks
14 years ago at 7:15 pm^ Name, classic.
14 years ago at 2:10 pmArgument flawless.
Doesn’t*
14 years ago at 12:28 pmUnderstanding English, FaF.
^Whether its preventative or not is irrelevant. Why don’t the government provide health club memberships to prevent illnesses? The whole point is that contraception is not a right. You have a right to your life and your liberty, but no one has a right to the fruits of anothers labor. Read the constitution.
14 years ago at 4:24 pm^ I agree sir. Great user name.
14 years ago at 5:08 pmFuck this mobile app. Im running.
14 years ago at 4:26 pm^
14 years ago at 12:10 amGuys, she’s not asking the government to pay for it, the government is requiring all places that offer insurance to include birth control in their plans, even if that happens to be a religiously affiliated organization. Georgetown is refusing to have it’s insurance plan cover it because it is religiously affiliated. This has nothing to do with tax dollars or government subsides, its requiring insurance companies (who cover viagra prescriptions) to cover the pill as well. My bc would be like $250 for 3 months without insurance, and since it also helps with a myriad of other health issues, it should be covered.
14 years ago at 4:56 pm^shut up whore. The government has no damn business telling insurance companies what should or should not be included in their plans.
14 years ago at 4:59 pm^ Couldn’t have said it better.
14 years ago at 6:03 pmSeems like a good time for, “RON PAUL 2012!!!!”
14 years ago at 12:12 amWell the imposter in chief has said that catholic universities would not purchase the pill, the insurance companies would, however, if the insurance pays for it then the university premiums for that insurance plan will be higher thus basically meaning the university still pays for it regardless.
14 years ago at 5:03 pmTXKD, no personally I don’t care if women use birth control, I have a huge problem with people that feel that they are entitled to health care or birth control. And no Catholic institution should be forced to cover something that it does not believe in, and finds morally wrong
14 years ago at 6:02 pm^
14 years ago at 7:33 pmBear in mind that this broad can manage to pay for three years of Georgetown Law but is somehow $2.79 short when it comes time to pay for her absolute essential medication.
So on top of loaning this bitch 70k so she can join us in the 1% she now wants you to pay for her birth control.
Fucking pathetic…
14 years ago at 6:08 pm1. Calm down. I’m not a liberal, I don’t like Obama, I’m not a whore, and I usually find Rush entertaining.
14 years ago at 7:26 pm2. I’m fairly certain that she has student loans and not paying for law school in full out of pocket.
3. This is not a healthcare entitlement issue and just because the president supports this doesn’t automatically make it a clandestine socialist plot to destroy America. People pay for their own insurance every month, not the government, so asking for birth control to be included on an insurance plan that she pays for is not feeling entitled to get it for free or at a subsidized rate. Almost all companies/organizations etc. include birth control, and it’s just a little ridiculous to have to pay $1000+ on top of whatever else she already pays for her own insurance. No tax dollars would be going towards this. I’m a little bit surprised that yall don’t want girls to have easier access to the pill no matter where they work.
^ will you marry me?
14 years ago at 7:29 pmIt’s about this fucking slut fuck liberal wanting us to pay for her recreational fucking and having the balls to call it a health care issue.
14 years ago at 7:30 pm^ Finally, it’s about fucking time! Thank you, Trumper.
14 years ago at 2:13 pmAnd TXKD, we will pay for it if Obamacare is passed by the supreme court.
14 years ago at 7:31 pmEspecially since Georgetown is affiliated with a religion that technically doesn’t support birth control. Yet this scumfuck thinks she’s entitled to birth control from an institution that doesn’t believe in it, yet is giving her student loans to attend.
14 years ago at 7:34 pm^Yes, Georgetown is so against birth control that their own health services even prescribed it to her.
14 years ago at 7:47 pmBut why should my premiums go up because she wants to have sex?
14 years ago at 7:50 pm^Alright, let’s make it so girls don’t want to have sex.
14 years ago at 8:17 pm^^I second the motion.
14 years ago at 12:13 am^
14 years ago at 8:30 pmJesus it is ridiculous that so many of you are getting worked up about something you clearly don’t understand without bothering to do ANY research to see what the facts are first. The argument isn’t that Georgetown University should have to foot the bill for contraceptives, it’s that letting an employer or ensurer selectively choose what medicines they can and can’t offer is fucked up. If an insurance company decides that cancer medicine is too expensive for them to provide, the blunt amendment would create a precedent that would let them say fuck it we don’t want to provide cancer drugs anymore, you have to pay for them.
14 years ago at 8:40 pmArkansas: I would love to, I always wanted to marry a conservative/libertarian man who actually puts thought into issues instead of regurgitating phrases they hear on Fox out of context
14 years ago at 8:41 pmFuckLiberals69/Thumper: The constitution was created to ensure American’s had the freedom to do/say/think whatever they wanted to so long as it doesn’t hurt or affect other citizens. I’m a libertarian, and an obvious proponent of the constitution and the intent of the founders of this country, and denying people access to something that they already pay for themselves that doesn’t in any way, shape, or form affect others negatively is exactly the opposite of everything out country stands for. Pushing your convictions on others and denying them access to something that would benefit them, especially regarding things that are really none of their concern, is the exact opposite of everything the founding fathers wanted. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but please use your cognitive reasoning skills and look things up instead of quoting O’Reilly
^Gentlemen, you may want to copy down TXKD’s rationale so you can use it once the male birth control shot or pill gets FDA approval.
14 years ago at 8:47 pmThen is forcing Catholic institutions to provide a product against their code of beliefs not forcing your beliefs on someone? Libertarianism means the government would have nothing to do with the issue. Why should the government regulate what medical services an insurer provides? What products and services the insurer provides is not up to anyone but them. Just because birth control might benefit some customers does not mean that the insurance company is obligated to provide that service to them. Who are you to tell the company what services it should and should not provide? You may claim to be a libertarian but it sure doesn’t sound like it.
If your insurance company doesn’t provide birth control and you think they should, don’t go whine to the government. Just switch companies. It’s called a free market; you may have heard of it before. The constitution protects the rights of companies to choose what they sell to their customers, not the rights of customers to legislate what products are available to them.
You really have the idea of “not forcing beliefs on someone else” really twisted around.
14 years ago at 8:57 pmmeant for TXKD
14 years ago at 8:58 pmSECGreek,do you really want to fuck a girl who afford too buy her own damn pills?
14 years ago at 9:18 pm*to
14 years ago at 9:23 pmI just find rush a bit hypocritical. He is against the birth control pill…….but he was quite happy when his viagra and oxy were covered.
14 years ago at 9:33 pmLiberals. NF
14 years ago at 9:42 pmYeah Rush is still a tool though.
14 years ago at 9:45 pmDo you people not realize that the pill helps with much more than preventing pregnancy? The pill is not cheap to take (and even more expensive without insurance) yet can help with more issues than just unwanted pregnancy. I’m all for the government staying out of the way and not telling insurance companies/universities what they can and cannot provide but the girl has a point. Stop assuming she is taking the pill just to prevent pregnancy and actually educate yourselves.
14 years ago at 9:51 pmI’m also a libertarian. If you want to collectively bargain with your employer to provide contraception in your health insurance, that’s completely acceptable. Although if the government requires insurance companies to provide contraception in your insurance plan, the price will inevitably be passed on to you through your premium. Furthermore, the pricing mechanism for contraception is destroyed, the product becomes inelastic, the price skyrockets.
14 years ago at 9:55 pmPolitical science AND an economics major? Very nice, sir. Well played.
14 years ago at 2:17 pmSeriously Davy Crockett? I meant libertarian in the moderate sense, not the “everyone should own their own land, produce their own energy, grow their own food, and never ever ever pay taxes” extremist sense. The insurance plan in question does cover birth control, but the ensurer is leaving out birth control out and still making women pay the same premium. If you don’t support the usage of birth control, fabulous! Don’t use it. Don’t deprive others of taking the pill, which provides a myriad of health benefits for women besides being a contraceptive, purely based on your own convictions. Private medical matters are between the insured and the insurance company, and when employers and ensurers mess with it, it is a direct violation of the right to privacy. The constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives citizen the right to privacy. After Griswald v. Connecticut, this includes the usage of birth control. Please research and don’t accuse me of twisting logic when you use political rhetoric and buzz words like ‘free market’ out of context to support your own flawed and unconstitutional agenda. NaturalLight and whoever else doesn’t have their head shoved up their ass, thank you for actually researching and knowing what you’re talking about.
14 years ago at 10:04 pmEnough bickering kids. TXKD, times to show us some titties.
14 years ago at 10:10 pmHahaha spring break starts in approx. 48 hours, so the titties will have to stay under wraps til then so I can stop putting off my MIS homework by being a bitch on the internet.
14 years ago at 10:21 pmTXKD, no one is forcing anyone attend a Catholic university or work for a Catholic institution. If they disagree with the Catholic moral code, they can’t expect those institutions to violate their morals to accommodate their wishes. So what if there are numerous health benefits or if it’s blatantly obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills that the Catholics are wrong. Those are their religious beliefs. Using the rule of law to hold a gun to their heads and force those institutions to violate their religious convictions is unconstitutional, and there’s no way around that. Catholic Church money is going to those insurance companies, and they don’t have to spend their money on what they don’t agree with. Women there still have access to birth control. No one is stopping them from spending their own money on it. You can claim that you have libertarian tendencies, but on this point, you are simply wrong.
14 years ago at 10:50 pmYes! We have a winner!
14 years ago at 2:19 pm^^ he gets it
14 years ago at 11:19 pm^^(Not that it should, but) Of course Congress can “hold a gun” to the heads of the Catholic hospitals. The hospitals substantially relate to and affect interstate commerce, ergo it falls under Art. I, §8 grounds for regulation by Congress. Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Congress can’t step on First Amendment rights, but it does have police power authority to protect commerce; this anti-contraception law would place burdens on interstate commerce, therefore while it might not be what many may want, Congress has every right to enact it.
14 years ago at 11:44 pmbut seriously what a slut
14 years ago at 11:46 pmYour reference to Griswold v. Connecticut is misplaced friend. There, an activist Supreme Court came up with the idea that the Constitution has various “penumbras,” i.e., rights that, although nowhere within the Constitution, exist in order to make the Constitution what that specific Court thought it is supposed to eventually become. The right to privacy is not within the United States Constitution. In lieu of recognizing that, we ended up with penumbras and various rights that’s activist Judges made up in order to effectuate their end-goals. Your comment about the commerce clause and private business is even more ridiculous. Even Obama couldn’t come up with an argument that birth control is an issue of interstate commerce. I would tell you to lace ’em up, but you should read the Constitution first.
14 years ago at 12:42 amFratCouples,
“Even Obama couldn’t come up with an argument that birth control is an issue of interstate commerce”
Trying to understand where you’re coming from…How would it not pass the substantial economic effect test from Wickard? The drugs are part of a nationwide market, people travel to Georgetown to visit, some of the drugs are shipped in from out of state…
14 years ago at 1:07 amTXKD, you need to leave politics to your fratdaddy/husband and keep on cooking. Your beliefs are offensive to the title “Libertarian.” Don’t try and justify it by saying you are moderate. You obviously don’t understand the right of companies to provide whatever products and services they please. So please, for the love of God and all that is holy, just stop. You’re embarrassing the rest of us who are true libertarians.
14 years ago at 2:01 amDavy Crockett, don’t resort to misogyny just because TXKD is a lot smarter than you are and showed you up. Sorry some girls are smarter than your dumb ass.
14 years ago at 2:19 amNo, Davy Crockett is right. TKXD has misconstrued ideas of what a free market means even though he labels himself a libertarian. Why should the government regulate health care? Forcing birth control care on health care providers is just another way of socializing medicine. If you don’t like your plan, switch it. That’s the beauty of a free market, where people make their own decisions about what they want covered.
14 years ago at 5:49 amTKXD, I know you’re “that guy”, who blames all serious libertarians and conservatives of regurgitating Fox News, but you can’t argue with the basic concept of a free market.
So I guess we are going to start forcing jews to eat bacon?
14 years ago at 8:25 am“Brorak Flowbama,” log out of this website, leave the free internet cafe, go back to whatever project you came from, and go practice your jump shot or something. I hope to the Good Lord you don’t vote.
This is you, isn’t it?
14 years ago at 9:41 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
TXKD I completely agree with you. So typical that as soon as a woman stands up for herself and her beliefs some ignorant men get all worked up about it! Those who seem to think birth control is something that insurers shouldn’t cover must either not be having any casual sex at all, or relying on condoms (which people on this site seem to hate) or the super reliable rhythm method for contraception. Otherwise it’s pretty hypocritical to expect women to outright pay for something that benefits men just as much.
14 years ago at 10:27 am^No, my preferred method of birth control is giving out a fake name and number.
14 years ago at 10:44 amBirth control is something that should be worked out between the two consenting parties. It’s not necessarily the woman’s responsibility nor is it necessarily the man’s. That’s up to the two of them to figure out. And it definitely is not the insurance company’s responsibility. This discussion is very telling about the extent to which our society has devalued personal responsibility for one’s actions, be they economic, sexual, or otherwise.
14 years ago at 11:03 amJParksCaldwell1855,
I am a little troubled by your legal analysis. First, Congress does NOT have police powers outlined in the Constitution. Congress has tax and spend powers which have been expanded at times as an enforcement arm for purposes of the Commerce Clause. The several states, and ONLY the several states, have police power for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. See United States v. Morrison. Second, I am dying to hear how the economic effect test in Wickard in anyway, shape, or form can be applied to a university, a PRIVATE university, opting not to provide money for birth control to its student body. Is Georgetown now in the business of producing birth control for consumption across state lines and for the consumption of its student body? Is there now a volatile market for birth control?
A law passed under the Commerce Clause must relate to the following: 1) a channel of interstate commerce; 2) an instrumentality of interstate commerce; 3) an activity having substantial effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez.
Now please, keep outlining for finals soon and stop trying to impress everyone with your 1L knowledge. I hope to God you’re not wasting your money at some third tier toilet (TTT) of a law school.
14 years ago at 11:32 amOh silly me, I thought libertarianism was about reverting government back to what was originally intended by the constitution (small federal government, free market, etc.) and not a giant puzzle to try to link everything ever in existence back to the free market and hate on the government. I would bet about 99% of libertarians would say some (very little) government is good. Did everybody else just blow off reading Lord of the Flies in middle school or something? Look, I love the free market! I get in arguments all the time with liberals over the Occupy Movement because it’s trying to destroy the free market and everything this country stands for. I agree with all of you that the ‘participation trophy’ generation is spawning a false sense of entitlement that fuels a vast majority of young adults in this country. That being said, the free market is not sovereign over the constitution. I can give you so many Supreme Court cases that prove this is not an issue of free market but an issue of employer violation of one of out most basic constitutional rights because of religious conviction. I didn’t hear any complaints when the federal government mandated Viagra, even for unmarried males, from religiously affiliated organizations. Why? Because constitutionally the state has the right to do so. This shouldn’t be different with the pill. So, in conclusion: I love the free market, but I love the constitution more (as any real libertarian should). I also have the ability to discern when things should be left up to the free market, and when the federal government is constitutionally obligated to step in. I’m sure yall are very smart boys, but I’m not an embarrassment to libertarians for being knowledgeable about what is constitutional and knowing where the free market does not apply (hint: not absolutely everywhere at all times, I’ve been referring to this phenomenon as ‘context’). I get it, I’m a girl, and nothing that I will ever say could make you see things from a different perspective (as evidenced by the redundant responses I’ve received). At the end of the day, everyone can be real tough and smart on the internet, but let me know if any of you are in Texas so we can have a real political debate in person where you can’t revert to Wikipedia or FoxNews.com for quick facts to throw around. That being said, I have one more homework assignment to turn in before I can start pregaming for spring break, so instead of fighting on the internet like the cool kid that I am, I will be with my fratdaddy (who obviously knows soooo much more than being, being a man and all) day drinking! Everyone have a fun and safe spring break and vote Ron Paul!
14 years ago at 11:46 amTKXD nobody wants to read a fucking novel on this so I’m done.
14 years ago at 1:11 pmBy the way, I don’t know why you think people who don’t want birth control to be universally covered are anarchist.
14 years ago at 1:17 pmLiterally read that whole fucking thing. I love adderall.
14 years ago at 12:13 am@JParksCaldwell1855 If contraceptive is a right then who has the responsibility to pay for it. No one is trying to stop her from paying for birth control. I think we can all agree (with the exception of scbro and the other dipshit liberals) that guns are a right. The government cannot force someone or some company to buy me a gun though. RIghts do not mean that you are entitled to that for free. It just means the government cannot prevent you from getting it.
14 years ago at 6:55 amFuck him.
14 years ago at 3:25 pmRush is a slut.
14 years ago at 3:26 pmI love sluts during rush
14 years ago at 3:27 pmYou’re in Acacia, not TKE. why does your name say “TKEpledge”? Did you drop Acacia?
14 years ago at 3:45 pmYeah and then he took it back like a little bitch.
14 years ago at 3:28 pmPlease California, just be quiet.
14 years ago at 3:31 pmcool name queer
14 years ago at 5:35 pmNot discriminating and calling everyone girl a slut. RFM.
14 years ago at 3:35 pmRecognizing my grammatical error and taking a lap before any try hard tells me to. #GentTips
14 years ago at 3:38 pmAnd fuck you too.c
14 years ago at 3:44 pmI love sluts.
14 years ago at 9:44 pmBlocking birth control. NF. Spending tax money so I don’t have to wear condoms. TFM
14 years ago at 4:03 pmI wouldn’t expect any less from someone with the username majin brogeta.
14 years ago at 4:08 pm^^ How’s that rubber vagina working for you, or is it strictly your hand?
14 years ago at 4:21 pm^ Government subsidized fleshlight*
14 years ago at 5:24 pmYeah man!!! Fuck women, right?
14 years ago at 4:09 pmYou sexually confused, boy?
14 years ago at 6:08 pmWhat does everyone have against sluts?
14 years ago at 4:10 pmNothing, but once I tag em everyone deserves to know I’ve marked my territory for nine months…
14 years ago at 6:10 pmAEPi NF.
14 years ago at 4:16 pmWhoa bro. Whoa.
14 years ago at 4:34 pmBro, Whoa. Whoa.
14 years ago at 4:41 pmWoah. Woah, Bro
14 years ago at 5:03 pm