News-Record.com

"Since when does government have the "right" to use our tax money to subsidize the sexual activities of Lawing and others"?

Government has been subsidizing birth control for college students for quiet some time, Tom. Emily is upset that the teat is drying up somewhat. And the lamestream media has been an enabler all along in this entitlement attitude:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070822123257.aspx

Emily Lawing is the poster child for the swooning masses chanting 'change' and 'hope' and 'yes we can' at Hussein Obama's rallies.

"Lawing complains that birth-control costs are too high"

That depends on which type of birth control you're using. Condoms are still cheap.

This letter is a crock of crap!
Tom, what would you rather have, more "unwanted" children or pay a little for some birth control? Climb down from your ivory tower a moment to answer that one. Would you rather pay welfare, build more prisons, provide more police...or would you support subsidizing birth control for those living on margins of society?

Tom, have you EVER heard the old saying, "An Ounce of Prevention, Beats a Pound of Cure"? That was from Poor Richard's Almanac written by Benjamin Franklin over 200 years ago. It still rings true today, to those whose brains can process it.

neocon,
Your politics of the "gutter" are old and tired. Using a man's middle name as some sort of ephitet shows how shallow you really are. Realize that you do not have the intellect to contribute to conversations and just go away. You really are a sad figure here when you cannot debate ideas but resort to name calling and "making fun" of people personally. Grow up.

(or make my point further by continuing to do the same)

`

The bit dog mewls first, I see. Those who depend on government for their living is quick to point out "what a crock of crap" a lte is from someone who disagrees with government sponsored sex.

The liberal mind at it's finest: "Pay me now or pay me later". Non payment to those who never lifted a finger to earn it is not an option.

I would say $434 billion per year is just slightly more than an 'ounce' TL Canadian.

"Hussein" is the Messiah's given name...what's wrong with using it?

TLC,

Since this is an objective answer quiz, I select none of the above. I don't want more "unwanted" children or pay a little for some birth control. Why do we have to choose from only two options? I choose not to do either. I also do not choose more aborted babies, even though that was not one of your stated choices.

Conservatives, be careful what you ask for. You might get it. If Roe v Wade gets overturned, individual states can ban abortion. That means middle class & affluent women will have to arrange something in a state that allows abortions if they want one. The cost will increase a bit due to travel costs. Poor women will procreate more. Same holds if we make birth control less affordable.

There's the liberal threat again that neocon cited. Pay me now or pay me later. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, and this issue is returned to state legislature's for a vote, as it should have been 30+ years ago, then it can be debated and determined as it should have been. That doesn't make it abortion even more righte, but it will be the rule of law, not a fiat by a few judges who "found" it in the Constitution.

Some of you guys are missing the point altogether. As I recall, and is admitted by this letter writer, Emily was not asking the government to provide FREE birth control, only more AFFORDABLE birth control. As I said in the "Emily" thread, if the government can provide FREE Viagra, Cealis (or what ever brand they are using now) for prisoners, they can certainly make birth control more affordable for women.

As far as I know, the Student Health Center at UNCG still provides free condoms. I don't think it gets anymore affordable than that. Of course, I guess I'm crazy to assume that if you can't afford a child then you shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Of course, if there is going to be complaining about how good men have it in prison, I'd love to hear how anyone can account for this. A 2001 University of Georgia study that found women generally receive an average of 21.6 months less than men for the same crime, bank robbery. In fact, women received a break on sentencing compared to men across the board. Men may be getting Viagra, but women are allowed to get on with their lives almost 2 years earlier than men.

If they provide free condoms for men, why don't they provide free birth control for women? I don't know of any women who can wear a condom.

Tell me, Bishop, that you and your (ex?) wife waited until you could afford a child to start having sex. Or did your statement apply only to women?

BTW, if you meant a man or woman who cannot afford a child and who cannot afford birth control or refuses to use birth control should not be having sex, I agree. However, this is not a realistic expectation.

"If they provide free condoms for men, why don't they provide free birth control for women?"

I guess you don't understand how copulation works. Condoms are about 97% effective in preventing pregnancy. Therefore it's birth control. Furthermore, I don't see anyone developing an oral contraceptive for men.

"Tell me, Bishop, that you and your (ex?) wife waited until you could afford a child to start having sex. Or did your statement apply only to women?"

There's an awful lot of assumptions going on there, given that you don't even know me. I'm not divorced, and I've never been married. In fact, I don't recall ever stating on this blog that I had been married. I don't have any kids of my own, but I have helped raise quite a few that are not mine. My statement above applied to everyone. Please show me where I specifically stated that it applied only to women.

No, Bishop, you do not understand that there are two sides to that particular tango. There are multiple ways for women to protect themselves; female condoms, hormonal pills/patches, spermicides, rings, etc. The problem is, they are ALL expensive. This relegates the only affordable contraception method to the man.

Condoms are effective 97% of the time, this is true, but only when it is used correctly. In a hasty situation, the women will have to trust that the man put it on right, put it on at all, etc. The only way to garuntee that a women's sexuality is her own is to help her provide her own methods.

The only reason I can presumably see for not wanting a women to be free is misogyny. Adding a small amount for people to not have children reduces abortions, medicaid costs, orphans, uneducated workers (drop out of school), and more. Misogyny, wanting to control the women's sexuality, is the only counter-argument here that I see.

Oak Ridge Runner and Neocon,
At some point you two need to enter the REAL world. Sure, I'd like to wave the magic wand too, but your responses are without merit or substance. At some point, reality will set in for you both....or at least we hope.

" Misogyny, wanting to control the women's sexuality, is the only counter-argument here that I see."

From Dictionary.com:

mi·sog·y·ny

–noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women

Slaan, you may want to look in the dictionary and consider a different word. Please let us know when you find it, I'm not aware of a word defined as "wanting to control the women's sexuality" and would like to know what it is. The antonym would be interesting as well.

I have fond recollections of this word. Remember the time you called me a misogynist Demon Deacon? That was back in the days before.....well you know what I mean.

People have sex. People have sex. People have sex. People have sex. People have sex. People have sex.

Nothing is going to change it. Nothing is going to stop it. Women, married or not, should have the same rights as men when it comes to preventing pregnancy. Comdoms may be 97% effective, but the real rate (which includes human error) is 88%. Condoms are cheap. Condoms make sense (if we'd teach kids how to use them). Condoms suck. Everybody knows sex is better without them. North Carolina kids aren't even taught how to use them. We want less unwanted (teen) pregnancies. We want the abortion rate to be as low as possible. Low income families, teens, and college students need to be able to afford birth control. It saves everyone money down the road.

Birth Control and safe sex begin at home but end in the bedroom (or the backseat of a car or a friend's couch). North Carolina has an outdated sex education policy and the federal government is stripping women of the one (99.9%) effective way of preventing pregnancy. You want to spend less on welfare? Prison? Social Services? Just like illegal immigration, lets stop it at the borders.

Its simple. Look at the statistics.
Fewer unwanted pregnancies. Fewer Problems.

Dan- Not letting a women to take control of her own womb isn't a form of "mistrust of women?"

Helping people not get pregnant can only be a good thing economically, morally and politically. I still can't come up with a good reason for this besides: DAMN REDS AND THEIR SOCIALISM!

You are streeeeeeetching it Slaan. Merriam-Webster is even more direct than dictionary.com :

misogyny

Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek misogynia, from misein to hate + gynē woman Date: circa 1656

: a hatred of women

Please go back and find a word that defines wanting to control a woman's sexuality. BTW a mother or father could want to control her/his daughter's sexuality, does that make said parents misogynists?

Before you throw out words you may want to check their meaning.

***************************************************

"Helping people not get pregnant can only be a good thing economically, morally and politically."

Would you care to explain what this claptrap (pun intended) means? It's my economic, moral, and political obligation to help some college student whom I don't know to not get pregnant? Is that what I read? Would you care to expound?

************************************************

rahrah is correct in that people have sex. I did during at a younger pre-marital age, guilty as charged. This was way back in ancient times, early 80's, when we actually paid for our own birth control and knew how to use a condom without government sponsored seminars on how to do so. You open the package and slide the thing on, quite simple.

BTW rahrah, our biggest fears at the time were syphillis, gonorrhea, or even worse herpes as it is not curable. HIV was new, not well understood at the time, and mainly confined to homosexuals and IV drug users.

I assume you refer to the pill as having a 99.9% efficacy rate in preventing pregnancy. Yeah condoms do suck, but the pill has a 0% efficacy rate in preventing STDs. Pregnancy isn't lethal (except for an aborted baby), HIV is.

"No, Bishop, you do not understand that there are two sides to that particular tango. There are multiple ways for women to protect themselves; female condoms, hormonal pills/patches, spermicides, rings, etc. The problem is, they are ALL expensive."

Apparently condoms are not that expensive, as many universities in the UNC system provide them free through their health centers. If you don't like the free birth control that is available, that's fine. Just don't go around complaining that others are too expensive when there is a state-subsidized method made freely available to college students. Having sex is a personal choice. It's not the job of the state to provide you with free contraception.

"This relegates the only affordable contraception method to the man."

What a bunch of hogwash! That would only be true if we were talking about rape. If the condom helps prevent the woman from getting pregnant and getting an STD, by your logic only the man benefits. Further, a woman can insist that her partner wear the condom. It's not like you've never heard the phrase: "No glove, no love."

Condoms can be an effective means for preventing transmission of disease by bodily fluids, however, they are much less effective at preventing diseases transmitted through mere contact with the skin. There's always the slip and rip that ruins the condom's effectiveness anyway (which can often be attributed to guys buying over-sized condoms to massage their undersized egos).

I'm sure the 80's were great, before the explosion of medical malpractice suits (and hair bands) and the ridiculous rise in all health care costs. Perhaps then, the pill was affordable. Thats all Emily was asking for anyway.

Either way, I'll stick to my method for not getting STD's: Don't be a dirty slut (or sleep with one).

ORR said "There's the liberal threat again that neocon cited."

And again...and again...and again...Every time...without fail: "Pay me now or I'll produce a baby that you will have to support far into the future".

Liberals tell us that we (taxpayers) owe them birth control because they are unable to control their libido. They squeal how unfair it is that, sure rubbers are cheap, but it just doesn't feeeeeel as good with a sock on, and besides when the moment is right and the heat is on, they don't have time to install the sock. Therefore we taxpayers owe them something...or else they will produce a child for us to raise.

Insane.

"...however, they are much less effective at preventing diseases transmitted through mere contact with the skin."

Tell me about these skin contracted diseases please rahrah. Sex isn't required for skin contact, a simple handshake or kiss on the cheek constitutes "mere contact with the skin". Sounds scary.

"There's always the slip and rip that ruins the condom's effectiveness anyway (which can often be attributed to guys buying over-sized condoms to massage their undersized egos)."

Is this from experience or is there data somewhere about guys getting a size too large? Links appreciated.

"Perhaps then, the pill was affordable."

Got it, the pill has increased in cost therefore taxpayers have to pay for it now versus then. Well guess what, gas has increased in cost too from now versus then, does that mean taxpayers have to foot the gas bill of college students so they can drive?

Here is some good advice from this site. Can't afford the pill?

Go to Planned Parenthood.

If you have insurance plan choices, switch to one that covers the pill. (Just ask mom & dad to change if a college student).

Ask your partner to contribute to the costs. (Totally agree with this one). If you want to play you have to pay :)

Notice this little note:

Ask your partner to contribute to the costs. If you don't have a regular partner, condoms should be your choice for birth control. The Pill does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, some types of the Pill actually increase your risk of contracting a disease because the hormones cause the lining of the vaginal wall to thin, making it easier for organisms to penetrate.

http://www.estronaut.com/a/cost_of_pill.htm

Estronaut calls itself "A Forum for Women's Health", so I doubt they are misogynists.

"they don't have time to install the sock".

Even worse Neo, according to rahrah, "North Carolina kids aren't even taught how to use them. "

Egads, Neo, forget about time to install the sock, they don't KNOW HOW to INSTALL the sock!! We need Condom Fitting 101 in the schools!! This generation is so stupid they don't know how to put one on or buy a size too big!! Good luck at getting a job.

You said insane, I say pathetic.

http://www.nchealthyschools.org/data/
School Health Data, check out those last three pdf files.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1229974,00.html
http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2004/RE041215.html
Men buying Wrong size.

http://www.avert.org/usecond.htm
Importance of fit. How to use.

http://www.wpclinic.org/sexual-health/stds/
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080203145747AAcIBbo&show=7
http://www.trojancondoms.com/printer_friendly.aspx?article_id=9&promo=true
Genital Skin to Skin Contact (not shaking hands).

There you go again, TLC. You do not own the truth, although you'd like to do so.

And, I wish that you would learn to be able to debate an issue using some sense and reasoning, rather than always relying upon insults. You've toned your personal attacks down because you had to or be banned. But, your only skill is an insult of those with which you disagree. Discuss the facts, TLC, if you can.

Thanks for proving my point rahrah, some people are so stupid they cannot use a condom properly. Thank goodness most know how to use the Internet so they can discover that an XXX large condom won't fit properly on an X small penis. And we didn't even have the Internet 25 years ago to help us with such decisions.

What makes you think people will use the pill properly?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the pill but it isn't a cure all. It can be used improperly and has zero efficacy against STDs, in fact it can even increase the chance of STDs as the link stated.

******************************************

ORR, a tiger is a tiger, it does what tigers do and cannot change. It must be difficult for Demon Deacon to hold off the extra serving of vitriol, but the insults are the same.

Dan,

Look no further than the Catholic Church!
They have practiced keeping women down for hundreds of years! Can a woman be a Priest? Can a woman be a Cardinal? Can a woman be Pope?

You need look no further than the institutions you put so much of your personal equity into, to find that misogyny you seem to think does not exist. Control, control, control. Look at the Catholic Church's position on birth control and you will see both lunacy and the effort to keep women down.
Why would the Catholic Church go into third world countries to feed the starving masses, but not offer one item--a condom??? Because while that one item might stop the spread of HIV/AIDS it would also take power away from the Catholic Church.

As to ORR's uninformed remarks, I just consider the source. He and neocon would cut off their own noses to spite their faces, and one cannot carry on intelligent conversations with either of them--and I refuse to fight the unarmed!

`

"Can a woman be a Priest? Can a woman be a Cardinal? Can a woman be Pope?"

Answer: no, she can't be a Bishop either.

We've been down this road before Demon Deacon but if you wish I'll address it again.

Guess what? A woman doesn't have to be a member of the Catholic Church. She is free to leave at any time, I've never seen a single woman forced to remain a member of the Catholic Church. If she feels controlled by the Church then she can join another faith.

I agree with the Church's stance on abortion however I disagree with it's stance on contraception. That being said, the Church has it's doctrines and I don't expect it to violate them by handing out condoms. As you said they do alot to help people in poor countries but contraception isn't one of them. There are plenty of secular and other religious organizations that can offer them.

BTW, there are other religions that do not ordain female clergy such as The Orthodox Church.

http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/Articles/The_Orthodox_Priest_An_Ikon_Of_Christ.htm

Funny I never see you bash that religion, what gives?

`

Dan,
Do you realize how childish you sound when you start that "Looky, they do it too! They do it tooo! Not just us Catholics!!"
Dan, I refuse to fight an unarmed man. Come back when you actually can refute and/or discuss intelligently what I said.

`

Nice cop out Demon Deacon. For some reason you like to bash Catholics, fine by me but delve your mind into a few other religions, I provided one example. If you really want to illustrate religions that oppress women then look no further than Islam.

One more time, no woman is forced to be Catholic so your argument holds no water.

I notice your tone changing over the weeks, no more kind and gentle Demon Deacon. Soon you will be back to your old self. A tiger is a tiger.

Just in case you missed it:

WFU 79 - Ga Tech. 87

UNC 90 - BU 80

Even UNC-G won :)

If you axe me, The Liberal Canadianette has latent desires to become a priest...but can't accept the fact that girls are not allowed, so he berates the religion...

It's a common disorder amongst dykes.

The argument in this letter is that the government should not help make birth control affordable. There is nothing wrong with sex. Most people do it. Even if you are against pre-marital relations, there are low income families with just as much a right to basic health care, including contraception. The pill is one of the most effective means of preventing pregnancy. Outrageous costs fostered by the government should not force poor married couples to remain abstinent. All we want is an affordable pill. Either the government subsidizes it, or we take on the task of reigning in the health care industry.

rahrah, you sound exactly like Emily Lawing, could it be you are one in the same? Betcha it's true.

1) Even if you are against pre-marital relations, there are low income families with just as much a right to basic health care, including contraception.

Please tell me where people, anyone, have the right to taxpayer funded contraception.

2) The pill is one of the most effective means of preventing pregnancy.

The pill is effective at preventing pregnancy, true. But it does absolutely nothing to protect from STDs. What happens to those who contract STDs, specifically HIV, from unprotected sex? Do they have a right to lifelong treatment funded by taxpayers for their poor decisions?

3) Outrageous costs fostered by the government should not force poor married couples to remain abstinent.

Demagoguery at it's best. We pay for poor peoples food, shelter, and health care so we have to pay for their sex too?

4) All we want is an affordable pill.

Talk to the Planned Parenthood as mentioned above.

Good luck with your quest Emily. And remember, be safe in bed.

Some interesting links....

http://www.rcrc.org/issues/contra_affordable_DRA.cfm

Lines to pay attention to..
"she discovered that the birth control that previously cost $25 at the college health center had more than doubled to $55. She did the responsible thing and compared prices at CVS, Planned Parenthood, Walgreen's, and elsewhere and found that the lowest price was $45,"

"For 20 years, Congress has increased access to affordable prescription drugs at no cost to the federal government by permitting drug companies to voluntarily offer nominally-priced drugs to certain health providers. College health centers could buy prescription drugs, including contraceptives, at an extraordinary discount of some 90 percent. This arrangement was not a subsidy and did not cost taxpayers a dime. Rather, to encourage the pharmaceutical companies to be generous to certain charitable groups, Congress gave the manufacturers a limited exemption from Medicaid pricing rules."

http://www.ncjw.org/pdf/PlanAFactSheet-AffordableCon.pdf
A Fact Sheet.

And as far as STD prevention goes, I'll still continue to encourage people to be picky about their sexual partners and, of course, to use condoms whenever possible. More simply. Don't be a dirty slut.

And I promise, I'm not Emily.
I would never take a social services class.
Aerospace is more my speed.

By the way, LibCon, you're a silly internet personality.

I'm not sure you've really said anything with much substance (or merit). It's funny that you berate others for name-calling by calling them names. Or maybe it's just sad....

And I don't know, Dan, I remember the days when a bunch of people were forced to be Catholic. I think they called it, The Inquisition. That was just a fffeeewww years ago, right?

Yep the Inquisition was quite awhile ago. I'm speaking in contemporary terms.

Nice point on Demon Deacon (aka libcon), you catch on quickly.

What kind of aerospace?

So I'm just assuming that the lack of further comment means we all agree that I'm right?

I don't know yet. Still in college but maybe commercial space travel.