[talaniman]

And who is doing that? No one, that's just another straw man. Plus, I've already shown the affordability in both OTC and prescription and noted the giveaways.

As I alluded to earlier and posted in May, in 2009 the CDC reported that "contraceptive use is virtually universal in the United States." Only the methods differ. So who exactly are we providing access to contraceptives that didn't already USE contraceptives?

Again, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease. There is NO justification for it other than a political agenda, and to persecute the church while decimating the first amendment? Well that's just sick.

I checked this a while ago and the fact remains the $9 dollar contraceptive you cited is on through a program offered toemployees of local businesses,

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/sa...rol-at-target/

A spokesperson from Target told TheDC that the rate is exclusive to a program called ScriptSave, which provides discount prescription drug rates to the employees of participating area businesses.

The spokesperson told TheDC via email that in order to “better serve the community, Target Pharmacy has partnered with ScriptSave® to offer this pharmacy savings program to its neighboring businesses and their employees"

So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of precription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its to long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is noproblemis a FALSE one.

[speechlesstx]

I checked this a while ago and the fact remains the $9 dollar contraceptive you cited is on through a program offered toemployees of local businesses,

$9 birth control at Target for discount prescription cardholders | The Daily Caller

Wow, now that changes everything. Anyone can get a 3 month supply of that item online for $44. You can get a 90 day supply of generic Depo-Provera at Walmart for $10.

So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of precription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its to long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is noproblemis a FALSE one.

You've just moved from one straw man to another. If contraceptive use in the US is "virtually universal" it still means access is not an issue.

[speechlesstx]

By being selective we are quoting out of context.

Tut

No one understands that more than I, but in this case I don't believe the context contradicted the point.

[talaniman]

Reread your own link Speech, PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED!!!

[speechlesstx]

Reread your own link Speech, PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED!!!

No kidding? I'm quite certain I specifically addressed that portion of your response. Why yes, yes I did. Plus, we've already had that discussion yesterday - getting a prescription for contraceptives is not that hard. My last point stands as is without alteration.

"You've just moved from one straw man to another. If contraceptive use in the US is "virtually universal" it still means access is not an issue."

[Wondergirl]

I'm with Tal on this --

"So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of prescription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its too long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is no problem is a FALSE one."

Birth control pills -> prescription -> doctor visit -> continuing care and subsequent visits = lots of money out of pocket if no insurance

[talaniman]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf

Nowhere did the link you provided make a correlation between access and financial cost. Yes the products are out there, and available but only to those that can afford the rather costly related expenses incurred in a doctor visit. It was a narrow study of the product, not access to that product.

Talk to females with little or NO access and you wouldn't be so dismissive of millions of women so easily. Economics plays a HUGE role in access. What you thought Planned Parenthood was just about abortions? Of course you did.

[speechlesstx]

I'm with Tal on this --

"So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of prescription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its too long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is no problem is a FALSE one."

Birth control pills -> prescription -> doctor visit -> continuing care and subsequent visits = lots of money out of pocket if no insurance

I GET that a PRESCRIPTION is required for PRESCRIPTION medications, I'm not stupid. But geez, even when I was 15 the girls had NO PROBLEM getting prescription contraceptives. That was the 70s.

I'm sure access to contraceptives has expanded exponentially since then, prescription or otherwise. In fact I know so since the study Tal keeps poo-pooing stated 3 years ago that contraceptive use in the US is "virtually universal."

Virtually: : almost entirely : nearly

Universal: 1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society <universal health coverage>

to a : present or occurring everywhere
b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions <universal cultural patterns>

3 a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices>
b : comprehensively broad and versatile

So what part of "virtually universal" is too complicated for you?

[Wondergirl]

I GET that a PRESCRIPTION is required for PRESCRIPTION medications, I'm not stupid. But geez, even when I was 15 the girls had NO PROBLEM getting prescription contraceptives. That was the 70s.

How did they pay for them -- and the doctor visits?

[speechlesstx]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf

Nowhere did the link you provided make a correlation between access and financial cost. Yes the products are out there, and available but only to those that can afford the rather costly related expenses incurred in a doctor visit. It was a narrow study of the product, not access to that product.

Talk to females with little or NO access and you wouldn't be so dismissive of millions of women so easily. Economics plays a HUGE role in access. What you thought Planned Parenthood was just about abortions? Of course you did.

I'll try and speak s l o w l y.

The study is "Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008." There is no need to "make a correlation between access and financial cost," the Use of Contraception in the United States is "virtually universal."

Short and sweet, the GOAL was VIRTUALLY met 4 years ago so what more needs to be done? NOTHING, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease and you're perfectly willing to persecute the church and decimate the first amendment in the process and that's just sick.

It doesn't matter how many ways you try to frame the debate, access to contraceptives is NOT an issue, it's an EXCUSE to implement a political agenda. Period. End of story.

[speechlesstx]

How did they pay for them -- and the doctor visits?

Are you kidding me? Planned Parenthood was all too eager to get them started, nothing's changed.

What part of "virtually universal" contraceptive use needs a mandate that persecutes the church and decimates the first amendment? I really don't get what you two don't get about "virtually universal" use, especially one that needs a massive government response. It's illogical, it can only mean pushing a political agenda and pandering for votes. There is no other logical reason for it.

[TUT317]

No one understands that more than I, but in this case I don't believe the context contradicted the point.

I tend to agree. I don't believe it is a contradiction. It is probably more of a qualification of the point.

On that basis I think it is not up to us to decide what is relevant or irrelevant. After all it is his quote.

The best way to do this is to include the whole quote, rather than the bit we think is relevant. Don't you think?

In answer to your question about the relevance of a limited quote.

I would say that in this case it doesn't fit anywhere into social contract theory. As I said, we need to consider the whole quote.

Tut

[Wondergirl]

"But geez, even when I was 15 the girls had NO PROBLEM getting prescription contraceptives. That was the 70s."

So they all headed for PP and got them there? How did they get there? I don't remember PP as being in any conversation I ever had with my friends.

[talaniman]

They ripped of the moms or big sisters, or mama took them to a doctor and got their own. And paid for them.

Or they LIED, but smart guys kept a condom in their wallets, from the gas station bath room down the street.

That was the 70's, well late 60's.

[speechlesstx]

Dodge, dodge, dodge. The facts speak for themselves, access is not an issue. Period.

[talaniman]

Oh, lighten up will you. Where did those 15 years olds get their contraceptives from in your day?

[TUT317]

You neglected the key part of my comment " they saw the future well and created a blueprint for governance that is ageless. " That doesn't mean that they foresaw the details of what the future would be . But they created a governing model that was founded on principle ;and adaptable to a changing world . The means of amending it are written into the document ;and that is the evidence I need to make that statement .

Hi Tom,

I am not disagreeing with your claims about the amendment process. You missed my point so I sill say it again in a more direct way.

If you are talking about an ageless blueprint for governance into the future then you are putting forward a political ideology. I know you are critical of leftist ideologies and so am I, but an ideology can come form a variety of sources.

Have another look at your quote.

You are advocating some type of universal principle for political prescription. Universal in the sense that it is a statement for how society will be organized into the future given a set of preconditions. These preconditions are no doubt contained in the blueprint.

Do you know any other ideologies that speak of inextricable laws that govern the development of society into the future? I know a few.


Tut

[tomder55]

I think their " ideology " was liberty. But the Constitution was a product of compromises ,and a recognition of a future of changes. That doesn't mean their "ideology " wasn't the basis for the founding .

[TUT317]

I think their " ideology " was liberty. But the Constitution was a product of compromises ,and a recognition of a future of changes. That doesn't mean their "ideology " wasn't the basis for the founding .

Hi Tom,

In some ways you are correct, but in another way not so correct.

You could certainly argue their ideology is liberty. Provided we are talking about liberty as found in the social contract theory; as found in Enlightenment political philosophies of the time. They all seem to exhibit a common theme in terms of universal principles of justice and how these relate to the human condition.

Basically we could say that authority should be derived from a moral point of view. More particularly a universal moral stance based on the nature of the human condition prior to their being an organized political society. Sometimes called a state of nature.

The important point is that this state of nature is a pre-political condition. Unless we can argue that the recognition for future changes was actually pre-political then we would have problems defending this position.

It seems more probable the recognition for changes is actually a post political phenomena.


That's the way I see it unless you can come up with something different.


P.S. Why would you want to argue for this position anyway? Ideology is not a good thing.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

Oh, lighten up will ya. Where did those 15 years olds get their contraceptives from in your day?

Already answered.