In response to:

Sandra Fluke: Opposing the Contraception Mandate Is Just Like Opposing Leukemia Coverage

psydoc Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:34 PM
You are the one who came in here making false claims, then you call us morons. Project much?
evie10 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 8:19 PM
psydoc Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:53 PM
Then they should seek a different insurance carrier. In 40+ years of dealing with insurance companies, I have never seen a carrier deny medically required treatment, and I have some experience with endometriosis.
Specious Rule Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:53 PM
You proved? Wow, in your twisted reality maybe. Go away free loader.
sjk Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:47 PM
not at Georgetown. that IS the point,.
psydoc Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:43 PM
Your claim that bc pills are not covered for endometriosis, and other diseases treated with the active ingredient in most bc pills is false.
Marcus_T_Cicero Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:42 PM
Why should we support her needs, esp since BC pills can be had for $9,00 a month?

brimley Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:42 PM
and you lie when you say that BC for medical conditions are not covered.
Simplecaveman Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 6:41 PM
Then only those with medical conditions should be allowed birth control, correct? Then why isn't it?

On MSNBC this afternoon, Sandra Fluke truly outdid herself, attempting to argue that the people who disagree with the contraception mandate on religious freedom grounds are in the same category as people who oppose insurance coverage for leukemia.

What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny...