rush limbaugh

[Stephen Eisel]

Really, read the transcript of her testimony. It wasn't me, me, me. She was making the effort to speak in general for a group of people about how they'd be negatively impacted by allowing employers and educational institutions an exemption from covering contraceptive medication

It certainly sounds like she includes herself in this "group"..

I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens...

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships,

[Thealexa Becker]

Really, read the transcript of her testimony. It wasn't me, me, me. She was making the effort to speak in general for a group of people about how they'd be negatively impacted by allowing employers and educational institutions an exemption from covering contraceptive medication

It certainly sounds like she includes herself in this "group"..

I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens...

Stephen,

What is the point of your argument? You think someone is going to testify before Congress if they didn't have a vested interest in what they were testifying about?

Besides, your examples hardly make her sound self centered as much as they just show she was including herself in the group she was talking about.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen,

What is the point of your argument? You think someone is going to testify before Congress if they didn't have a vested interest in what they were testifying about?

Besides, your examples hardly make her sound self centered as much as they just show she was including herself in the group she was talking about.

Freedom! Tolerance! and Choice!... Rome is buring and the goulags are worried about bc at a University.. nice! How about gas prices? Oh yeah.. Solyndra LOL

[Thealexa Becker]

Stephen,

What is the point of your argument? You think someone is going to testify before Congress if they didn't have a vested interest in what they were testifying about?

Besides, your examples hardly make her sound self centered as much as they just show she was including herself in the group she was talking about.

Freedom! Tolerance! and Choice!... Rome is buring and the goulags are worried about bc at a University.. nice! How about gas prices? Oh yeah.. Solyndra LOL

I still am not understanding you. Could you perhaps clarify your argument more specifically?

I would really like to know why you are so eager to dismiss the issue of women's reproductive rights. It's not any less valid than some other issues on the table currently.

[Roy Pitchford]

Stephen,

What is the point of your argument? You think someone is going to testify before Congress if they didn't have a vested interest in what they were testifying about?

Besides, your examples hardly make her sound self centered as much as they just show she was including herself in the group she was talking about.

Freedom! Tolerance! and Choice!... Rome is buring and the goulags are worried about bc at a University.. nice! How about gas prices? Oh yeah.. Solyndra LOL

I still am not understanding you. Could you perhaps clarify your argument more specifically?

I would really like to know why you are so eager to dismiss the issue of women's reproductive rights. It's not any less valid than some other issues on the table currently.

I'm probably the last person who wants to weigh in on this discussion, but I'd like to bring up (or emphasize, if it has been mentioned here already) a point that could strike a nerve and is probably highly politically incorrect.

Why are some people so eager to dismiss the issue of "women's reproductive rights"? Well, let me ask, what are those rights? If these rights are truly exercised in the processes of "reproduction" then I don't understand why contraception is necessary. You're impeding that which you are attempting to do...

If these rights are being exercised to ends other than reproduction, than these are not "reproductive rights," are they? What are they then? My own take would be that they are recreational rights.

I haven't looked at my copy of the Constitution in the last couple days, but I don't recall a constitutional mandate for federal provision or support of recreation. If I'm wrong, I'd like to begin collecting stipends so I can purchase movies and paintballs.

[Stephen Eisel]

I would really like to know why you are so eager to dismiss the issue of women's reproductive rights. It's not any less valid than some other issues on the table currently.

I am not against women reproductive rights. Thank God for women's reproductive rights or I would be paying a lot more child support each month. I am all for it.. The issue here is not about reproductive rights but about a bunch crazy zealous liberals forcing their belief's down other people's throats. This is a perfect example of liberal intolerance. Again, Rome is burning.. I am paying higher gas prices.. and these crazies are focusing their energy on shoving their bc beliefs down people throats who disagree with them ... If Fluke does not like the Georgetown bc policy then she should go else where.. She should have done her due diligence before deciding to go to Georgetown.. Why should Georgetown have to change their policies/beliefs for Fluke?

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... %20Article

This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.