Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 4, 02:38
2: Dec 3, 14:19
3: Dec 3, 11:17
4: Dec 3, 07:33
5: Dec 2, 17:22
6: Dec 2, 11:48
7: Dec 2, 08:21
8: Dec 1, 17:33
9: Dec 1, 11:23
10: Nov 30, 15:54
11: Nov 30, 09:41
12: Nov 29, 16:44
13: Nov 29, 08:01
14: Nov 28, 16:19
15: Nov 28, 09:42
16: Nov 27, 18:07
17: Nov 27, 12:04
18: Nov 27, 08:26
19: Nov 26, 18:06
20: Nov 26, 12:05
Posts: 165
In response to
"
I'm assuming you read the 1.5 pages of the bill to see what it does, right? -- (link)
"
by
spamlet
i thought you said this bill was 1.5 pages.
Posted by
tRuMaN (aka Truman)
Mar 13 '12, 14:21
cause it isnt.
Responses:
Sorry, look at the last 1.5 pages of the bill. That's the part they are screaming about. -- nm
-
spamlet
Mar 13, 14:22
4
ok, i am getting there. but this is just stupid, we are going to require proof of medical necessity in one case
-
tRuMaN
Mar 13, 14:25
3
just a point of clarification, the objection is not that contraception causes sex. the objection is that they believe contraception is wrong. -- nm
-
loosilu
Mar 13, 14:26
2
so if you're married and using contraception, that's wrong. It's not necessarily about unmarried sex. -- nm
-
loosilu
Mar 13, 14:27
1
your reality doesnt negate my justification for the law. -- nm
-
tRuMaN
Mar 13, 14:30
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
