ST Alpha - "ok, i am getting there. but this is just stupid, we are going to require proof of medical necessity in one case" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 165

In response to "Sorry, look at the last 1.5 pages of the bill. That's the part they are screaming about. -- nm" by spamlet

ok, i am getting there. but this is just stupid, we are going to require proof of medical necessity in one case

Posted by tRuMaN (aka Truman) Mar 13 '12, 14:25

and then throw out fda rules in regards to cancer drugs, cause why?

wtf? its like saying the rules only apply here, cause we dont like cancer, but since we think contraception causes sex, we dont want contraception to be covered, though that isnt medically sound.

why not just add that anyone wanting contraception has to sit through an 8 hour abstinence class? like drivers ed, for sex and abstinence, and tylenol.

Responses:

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

ok, i am getting there. but this is just stupid, we are going to require proof of medical necessity in one case

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.