Woman Kept Off American Airlines Plane For Allegedly Offensive Shirt

[Rams]

Woman Kept Off American Airlines Plane For Allegedly Offensive Shirt

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...lnk2%26pLid%3D163935

An unidentified woman claims that she missed her American Airlines flight because staff found her choice of clothing offensive, according to the blog RH Reality Check.

That's because it bore the statement: "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f--k a senator." The slogan first appeared on a sign at a rally in Oklahoma in February. Oklahoma Sen. Judy McIntyre (D) famously posed with the sign, telling The Huffington Post, "I saw a sea of signs that caught my eye, but this one in particular -- I loved its offensive language, because it's just as offensive for Republicans of Oklahoma to do what they're doing as it relates to women's bodies. I don't apologize for it."

The woman, identified only as "O," was heading from Washington DC. She told RH Reality Check, "When I boarded the plane, I was one of the first groups to board (did not pass by many folks). I was wearing my shawl just loosely around my neck and upon sitting down in my seat the lady next to me, who was already seated, praised me for wearing the shirt." Yet she says she was approached by a flight attendant who told her that she needed to speak with the captain before making her connecting flight because the shirt was "offensive." The captain informed her that she shouldn't have been allowed to board in the first place, and would need to change before boarding her connection.

According to the woman, this interaction caused her to miss her connection. And, she asserts that the staff on her flight called ahead to the connecting gate to tell agents there that "O" needed to change her shirt, but not to hold the flight. "O" claims that her luggage was checked and "changing shirts without spending money wasn't an option."

American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith told MSNBC: "The only reason she was asked to cover up her T-shirt was the appearance of the 'F-word' on the T-shirt. The [pro-choice] message is irrelevant to our policy..."

It's stated in the airline's conditions of carriage, available on its website, that "American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons." That includes if you "are clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers."

This isn't the first time a passenger's clothing has caused such a stir. Last year a college football player was arrested after trying to board a U.S. Airways flight wearing sagging pants. Similarly, Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong was kicked off a Southwest flight last year for having pants that hung too low.

On the other hand, a man clad in women's lingerie was allowed to fly U.S. Air last year.

The t-shirt in question is available through the site CrockTees.com.
**************************

 I may have to start flying AA.

[Brad]

Good call on the part of the Airline.

[tank_post142]

As you all know by this time , I am relatively conservative in my opinions. BUT start infringing on MY first amendment rights and we have a problem !! this is a private forum run by the private OWNERS and they are pretty good about allowing us free speech. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO, but in public I have the right to express my opinions and beliefs. by accepting passengers with no regard to civil rights qualifications they are required by law to allow free speech. Disregarding the Constitution of the United States of America  is allowed , IF you are a foreign company operating in a foreign nation.It is NOT allowed in the USA. I will not fly AA even though many of my friends work for them here in Miami.

[Rams]

As you all know by this time , I am relatively conservative in my opinions. BUT start infringing on MY first amendment rights and we have a problem !! this is a private forum run by the private OWNERS and they are pretty good about allowing us free speech. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO, but in public I have the right to express my opinions and beliefs. by accepting passengers with no regard to civil rights qualifications they are required by law to allow free speech. Disregarding the Constitution of the United States of America  is allowed , IF you are a foreign company operating in a foreign nation.It is NOT allowed in the USA. I will not fly AA even though many of my friends work for them here in Miami.

Tank,
That's one of the great things about this country, you get to make that choice.  Personally, I'm not offended by foul language whether in print or spoken but, I also recognize there are acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.    IMHO, this falls within the unacceptable realm.   What you must remember is, that aircraft is just like a ship at sea, the Captian of that flight/aircraft is responsible for the safety and welfare of the passengers and crew that travel on it.  His decision, I'm glad AA backed him up.   IF he felt anyone was disruptive or a flight danger, he can have them removed.  AA just went to the top of my list given a choice on which airlines I fly.  

[CISE]

I would agree that she shoudl be thrown off for wearing a shirt the "F word" - if it also true that anyone on the plane who USED the "F word" was also thrown off.

If you can infringe on written freedom of speech you can also infringe on spoken freedom of speeach.

 

[Rams]

I would agree that she shoudl be thrown off for wearing a shirt the "F word" - if it also true that anyone on the plane who USED the "F word" was also thrown off.

If you can infringe on written freedom of speech you can also infringe on spoken freedom of speeach.

 

Goes to using good judgement.  What I say in the locker room is not what I would say at a day care center.  Same goes with what I would wear.   If saying that were to cause the same reaction on a flight and disrupt or endanger a flight, then I wholeheartedly agree.   Again, I'm not personally offended but, I understand how this could have caused an issue.  I still support that pilot.

[Robert]

Although I agree with her sentiment and agree with tank about free speech I also agree with use of appropriate language and would not let anyone I cared about out of the house with a shirt with the f word on it. I remember when airlines used to have a dress code and the stewardess were really pretty. I wouldn't mind going back to that I saw one the other day that looked like she just got up. 

[Momz]

Using that standard; most of my tee shirts would get me banned of virtually any airline.
What ever happened to our first amendment rights?

I wear my "politically offensive" tee shirts to political fundraisers and when I go to our State Capitol in in Lansing. It does get the attention of the Senators and Representatives.

My wifes favorite tee shirt says "I give a $hit-ABATE of MI".

[Gryphon Rider]

If it was a standard T-shirt other than the slogan, I wonder why she didn't just simply turn it inside out?

[MacDragon]

If it was a standard T-shirt other than the slogan, I wonder why she didn't just simply turn it inside out?

Good point... Even if it looked awkward turned inside out... She could have continued her flight.  Could have done that right in the planes bathroom.

[PAVALKER]

As you all know by this time , I am relatively conservative in my opinions. BUT start infringing on MY first amendment rights and we have a problem !! this is a private forum run by the private OWNERS and they are pretty good about allowing us free speech. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO, but in public I have the right to express my opinions and beliefs. by accepting passengers with no regard to civil rights qualifications they are required by law to allow free speech. Disregarding the Constitution of the United States of America  is allowed , IF you are a foreign company operating in a foreign nation.It is NOT allowed in the USA. I will not fly AA even though many of my friends work for them here in Miami.

Tank,

I would imagine that if you started to use the F Word here (if it would even permit you to... TEST... snuggle) then at some point your privilege (not a right) to be here might be taken away. Buying an airline ticket for the "privilege" to fly onboard an aircraft does not mean it is a public place and that you can spew foul language as you see fit.  If that were the case, then I could exercise my right to be in a foul language fee environment, that I paid to be in, and effectively be permitted to smack you  to shut you up.   Some parents, and other mature responsible adults, don't like to be exposed or expose their minor children to foul or abusive language in text or verbally, and while you might say ... they can leave, they really can't when the plane is in the air.  The plane is not a public environment, even tho the public use it.  While the WBC has the freedom to spew their BS in a public environment, you surely wouldn't consider your house a public environment and would be within your right to remove them or deny them the privilege to be there if they started their BS after you may have initially invited them in.

People confuse "rights" with "privileges" all too often, and in this case the passenger was paying for the privilege to fly on board the AA aircraft.  And AA was exercising their right to control their environment for the comfort of the many, not just that one.

Edit... and as you can see... you don't have the freedom of speech here either.... the F word behind TEST was changed to "snuggle".    So are you going to stay or leave?

[G-Man]

Oh, the IRONY!!

"If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f--k a senator."

But, I do want the government (my fellow citizens) to pay for things that block my womb, so can f--k EVERYBODY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

[Varmintmist]

Not a question of free speech.
It is a question of private property rights.

The owner of the airline posted what the do's and don'ts are in public. The instant she chose to not follow the owners wishes she was trespassing and could be removed. A airplane is NOT a public venue. It is a privately owned buisness that the public may frequent as long as they follow the rules set by the owner.

Her choice is that if she wants to wear that shirt or even tattoo the f word across her chest and go bare, she can. She doesnt get to step on pther peoples rights when she does.

[Rams]

Her choice is that if she wants to wear that shirt or even tattoo the f word across her chest and go bare, she can.

Well now, there's an image I hadn't considered. 

[Davemn]

Good point Varmint

[Psychotic Bovine]

Should a person who hasn't bathed or showered in a week and smells like it be allowed on a flight or bus?
To me, I have NO issue with a person who smells to high heaven. Heck, they could smell like a rotting corpse and I wouldn't care.  But, I know that other people would.  Is this right?  Does a person have the right to play music on a plane as loud as they want?  Or outside of my house at all hours of the night? (hint, would it matter to a deaf person?)
Was the person who had a ringtone in a restaurant that said "F--- you" over and over (loud enough that people on the other side of the room turned and looked) infringing on anyone's rights? 
Sorry, but we live in a civil society, and people need to act like it.
Reasonable and prudent are words that seem to be lost on more and more people these days.

[John Schmidt]

I find the "concern" about personal rights at times somewhat amusing, a bit outlandish and often foolish at best when addressing subjects like that posted above. Set aside all the concern over "rights" issues for a moment because they don't apply here, instead....what about pure and simple common sense and decency. Applying those rules to your daily life as most were taught at your mother's knee isn't for one second going to tread on your constitutional rights. You have every right to be as vulgar and stupid as you feel the need, just use some judgement when doing so. And please, don't be so naive as to think I'm a prude. Those that know me, know better. Those that don't, take note!

[Jeff K]

This has nothing to do with the first amendment or free speech. That only applies to government censorship. The government didn't tell her to get off the plane, a private company did.

Try walking into the Iron horse Saloon with your colors on. They will show you the door.

[fudgie]

Jeez its only a shirt.

[PAVALKER]

Jeez its only a shirt.

What is your point?   

[BigAl]

Oh, the IRONY!!

"If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f--k a senator."

But, I do want the government (my fellow citizens) to pay for things that block my womb, so can f--k EVERYBODY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

What he said.

[John Schmidt]

Jeez its only a shirt.

No, it's not "only a shirt." And therein lies the problem....the attitude. Rather sad...but in this permissive day and age I guess it's to be expected. That doesn't change the lack of judgement or decency.

[Varmintmist]

I did find it interesting that Huffpo digitized EVERY pic of the shirt, and everyone is getting on American Airlines.


Just a observation.

[F6Mark]

Oh, the IRONY!!

"If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f--k a senator."

But, I do want the government (my fellow citizens) to pay for things that block my womb, so can f--k EVERYBODY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I must have missed where it said the wonam wearing the vulgar t-shirt also collects birth control benefits from the gpv't.  Or you may be referring to the fact that most private insurance carriers do provide birth control benefits to policy-paying women, thus spreading out the cost to all the other subscribers to the medical plan.

If the former, maybe you think nobody should be collecting gov't benefits?  Like a mortgage interest deduction maybe?
If the latter, were you generalizing about this one woman or were you slapping every woman of childbearing age in the face?

[The Anvil]

The owner of the airline posted what the do's and don'ts are in public. The instant she chose to not follow the owners wishes she was trespassing and could be removed. A airplane is NOT a public venue. It is a privately owned buisness that the public may frequent as long as they follow the rules set by the owner.

Correct. Nor is flying a right. I would also hope that if passengers were hurling profanity about the cabin that the airline staff would put a stop to it if I didn't do it myself. Commercial aircraft are public places and people should act appropriately.

Also, some people just like to wear shirts like that just to start trouble. F**k her.

[R J]

Also, some people just like to wear shirts like that just to start trouble. F**k her.

You F**k her, you brought her.

[Jeff K]

The down and dirty is... she is a moron. She apparently has no idea where her "womb" is. I don't believe even John Holmes could penetrate into her uterus not to mention a Senator.    ???   

[RedValk]

This has nothing to do with the first amendment or free speech. That only applies to government censorship. The government didn't tell her to get off the plane, a private company did.

Try walking into the Iron horse Saloon with your colors on. They will show you the door.

amen brother....been there...DONE THAT. at Daytona one year, i had my vest with my VRCC patch on. I thought "colors" ...meant like MC colors, etc. they said NOPE...ANY thing that could be considered colors. they told me take the vest off ( guess i could have turned it inside out...as others here have mentioned). I took the vest off. Problem was, i had a VRCC tshirt on underneath. When the "bouncer" saw me minutes later...with THAT tshirt on...he became pretty pissed...and physically took me to the edge of the property and told me to LEAVE! He was A GIGANTIC DUDE...so i didn't feel like arguing with him     

Just like being ON THIS BOARD...or the board i run (runeriders.com)...you agree to abide by the published rules when you register...and come on here (or the board i run...or any other one for that matter). Don't abide by those rules, and you MIGHT...and CAN...be asked to leave...or even forecably MADE to leave...if you just can't abide by the rules.

it's that way just about EVERYWHERE in society.

[G-Man]

Oh, the IRONY!!

"If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f--k a senator."

But, I do want the government (my fellow citizens) to pay for things that block my womb, so can f--k EVERYBODY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I must have missed where it said the wonam wearing the vulgar t-shirt also collects birth control benefits from the gpv't.  Or you may be referring to the fact that most private insurance carriers do provide birth control benefits to policy-paying women, thus spreading out the cost to all the other subscribers to the medical plan.

If the former, maybe you think nobody should be collecting gov't benefits?  Like a mortgage interest deduction maybe?
If the latter, were you generalizing about this one woman or were you slapping every woman of childbearing age in the face?

What are you talking about???  Did you read the article.  She, the woman who wore the shirt, stated that it was an anti GOP thing.   That the GOP was against providing birth control to all women.  I found this statement to be ironic because on one hand, she doensn't want governemnt IN her womb, but she does want them to pay to BLOCK her womb (with contraception).  If you don't see the irony here, I can't help you. 

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

[fudgie]

To me the shirt and wearing colors is a whole diff ball game. I doubt this woman would be in a knife or gun fight cause of the phrase. Its not a territorial thing like colors are.

[Bob E.]

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

That's a bit of a distortion, don't you think?  How do you know her insurance is FREE?  Perhaps she pays for it...or earns it as part of her compensation as an employee of the university...or is covered as part of her tuition that she pays for??  This whole thing wasn't a matter of getting something for free or paid for by taxpayers.  It was a question of whether prescription birth control (the pill) should be covered by an insurance policy that is bought and paid for (or earned) by an individual.  And, are you suggesting that people who make lots of money should pay more for insurance because they could otherwise afford certain costs out of pocket? I doubt it. 

[G-Man]

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

That's a bit of a distortion, don't you think?  How do you know her insurance is FREE?  Perhaps she pays for it...or earns it as part of her compensation as an employee of the university...or is covered as part of her tuition that she pays for??  This whole thing wasn't a matter of getting something for free or paid for by taxpayers (YES IT WAS see below.  It was a question of whether prescription birth control (the pill) should be covered by an insurance policy that is bought and paid for (or earned) by an individual.  And, are you suggesting that people who make lots of money should pay more for insurance because they could otherwise afford certain costs out of pocket? I doubt it. 

No, I don't believe that society should have to pay for anyone's birth control CHOICES (my favorite word).  Don't matter if insurance is free, if the individual buys it, the employer buys it, etc.  Makes no difference to me.  Put Viagra in the same category.  This is entirely NOT a women's health issue as one party will lead you to believe.  As a doc, I will swear on anything that will please you, hormonal therapy for medical conditions has always been provided to the patient by their health insurance providers.  However, Hormonal replacement for birth control, is a CHOICE.  Plain and simple.  Nobody should have to pay for other peoples CHOICES.

Unfortunately, our society is making the folks accustomed to having their choices paid for by the rest.  Teenage prgnancies, single parents, quitting school, crime, etc. are all choices the rest of us pay for.  Yes, yes, before I get slammed as I'm only in it for myself or whatever lib crap someone wants to fire at me, there are those who fall on bad times, or are sick, or incapable, ........these folks need the help, but these are the MINORITY, not the majority of those with their hand out......like Ms. Fluke.  If her insurance doesn't cover birthcontrol, so what?  Condoms are very cheap, and protect angainst STD's as well, which the pill does not.  Oh, she's not sleeping around?  She's in a committed relationship?  Then the TWO OF THEM surely can afford their CHOICE of birthcontrol together.  Oh, she's not in a committed relationship, she just doesn't want to use a condom, Again, why do we have to pay for that choice.  Aaaaaaaaand, when she gets an STD from using the pill and not a condom, I'm sure her insurance company will cover that!   

[Bob E.]

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

That's a bit of a distortion, don't you think?  How do you know her insurance is FREE?  Perhaps she pays for it...or earns it as part of her compensation as an employee of the university...or is covered as part of her tuition that she pays for??  This whole thing wasn't a matter of getting something for free or paid for by taxpayers (YES IT WAS see below.  It was a question of whether prescription birth control (the pill) should be covered by an insurance policy that is bought and paid for (or earned) by an individual.  And, are you suggesting that people who make lots of money should pay more for insurance because they could otherwise afford certain costs out of pocket? I doubt it. 

No, I don't believe that society should have to pay for anyone's birth control CHOICES (my favorite word).  Don't matter if insurance is free, if the individual buys it, the employer buys it, etc.  Makes no difference to me.  Put Viagra in the same category.  This is entirely NOT a women's health issue as one party will lead you to believe.  As a doc, I will swear on anything that will please you, hormonal therapy for medical conditions has always been provided to the patient by their health insurance providers.  However, Hormonal replacement for birth control, is a CHOICE.  Plain and simple.  Nobody should have to pay for other peoples CHOICES.

Unfortunately, our society is making the folks accustomed to having their choices paid for by the rest.  Teenage prgnancies, single parents, quitting school, crime, etc. are all choices the rest of us pay for.  Yes, yes, before I get slammed as I'm only in it for myself or whatever lib crap someone wants to fire at me, there are those who fall on bad times, or are sick, or incapable, ........these folks need the help, but these are the MINORITY, not the majority of those with their hand out......like Ms. Fluke.  If her insurance doesn't cover birthcontrol, so what?  Condoms are very cheap, and protect angainst STD's as well, which the pill does not.  Oh, she's not sleeping around?  She's in a committed relationship?  Then the TWO OF THEM surely can afford their CHOICE of birthcontrol together.  Oh, she's not in a committed relationship, she just doesn't want to use a condom, Again, why do we have to pay for that choice.  Aaaaaaaaand, when she gets an STD from using the pill and not a condom, I'm sure her insurance company will cover that!   

One way or the other, we're gonna pay for those choices.  Personally, I'd rather pay for the bc pills because they are much cheaper than the cost of an unintended pregnancy, both in short and long term costs. Did you notice how there wasn't a peep from the insurance companies when Obama said that if the Catholic institution had an objection, then the insurance would provide it for free?  Guess why.  Because they know it saves them money to provide the pills versus covering the costs of childbirth. I predict your response would be that then they would have to live with that choice.  But then, more likely than not, you've now added at least one person and perhaps 2 or 3 to the list of those who need help.

Also, by your logic, one could argue that treating terminal cancer is a choice.  Or providing health care to the elderly when they are ill and clearly not going to recover is a choice.  They're just gonna die anyways.  Why should I have to pay for that choice??  Because as a civilized society, we've decided that paying for those are things serves the "greater good".

[czuch]

Would they kick you off if you had a pork chop tied around your neck?

[G-Man]

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

That's a bit of a distortion, don't you think?  How do you know her insurance is FREE?  Perhaps she pays for it...or earns it as part of her compensation as an employee of the university...or is covered as part of her tuition that she pays for??  This whole thing wasn't a matter of getting something for free or paid for by taxpayers (YES IT WAS see below.  It was a question of whether prescription birth control (the pill) should be covered by an insurance policy that is bought and paid for (or earned) by an individual.  And, are you suggesting that people who make lots of money should pay more for insurance because they could otherwise afford certain costs out of pocket? I doubt it. 

No, I don't believe that society should have to pay for anyone's birth control CHOICES (my favorite word).  Don't matter if insurance is free, if the individual buys it, the employer buys it, etc.  Makes no difference to me.  Put Viagra in the same category.  This is entirely NOT a women's health issue as one party will lead you to believe.  As a doc, I will swear on anything that will please you, hormonal therapy for medical conditions has always been provided to the patient by their health insurance providers.  However, Hormonal replacement for birth control, is a CHOICE.  Plain and simple.  Nobody should have to pay for other peoples CHOICES.

Unfortunately, our society is making the folks accustomed to having their choices paid for by the rest.  Teenage prgnancies, single parents, quitting school, crime, etc. are all choices the rest of us pay for.  Yes, yes, before I get slammed as I'm only in it for myself or whatever lib crap someone wants to fire at me, there are those who fall on bad times, or are sick, or incapable, ........these folks need the help, but these are the MINORITY, not the majority of those with their hand out......like Ms. Fluke.  If her insurance doesn't cover birthcontrol, so what?  Condoms are very cheap, and protect angainst STD's as well, which the pill does not.  Oh, she's not sleeping around?  She's in a committed relationship?  Then the TWO OF THEM surely can afford their CHOICE of birthcontrol together.  Oh, she's not in a committed relationship, she just doesn't want to use a condom, Again, why do we have to pay for that choice.  Aaaaaaaaand, when she gets an STD from using the pill and not a condom, I'm sure her insurance company will cover that!   

One way or the other, we're gonna pay for those choices.  Personally, I'd rather pay for the bc pills because they are much cheaper than the cost of an unintended pregnancy, both in short and long term costs. Did you notice how there wasn't a peep from the insurance companies when Obama said that if the Catholic institution had an objection, then the insurance would provide it for free?  Guess why.  Because they know it saves them money to provide the pills versus covering the costs of childbirth. I predict your response would be that then they would have to live with that choice.  But then, more likely than not, you've now added at least one person and perhaps 2 or 3 to the list of those who need help.

Also, by your logic, one could argue that treating terminal cancer is a choice.  Or providing health care to the elderly when they are ill and clearly not going to recover is a choice.  They're just gonna die anyways.  Why should I have to pay for that choice??  Because as a civilized society, we've decided that paying for those are things serves the "greater good".

AND THERE IT IS FOLKS........Yup, I want to push granny over the cliff, make you breath bad air, drink dirty water.  I'm at war with women and all poor people in general.

The truth is that I live in the real world.  I know first hand that those having babies aren't the ones seeking out birth control.  Birth control is available 24 hours a day in every 7-11 and gas station across the country.  These women, and yes I said women because only a woman can become pregnant, simpley CHOOSE to not use birth control.  Maury Povich presents this every day, twice a day, for the last 20 years yet it goes ignored.  Women having unprotected sex with multiple partners and nobody knows who the fathers are for all these babies.  Thousands of women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex.  And these are just the ones who go on TV!  So, how will providing it to the ones who actually CHOOSE to prevent pregnancy anyway benefit society?  Why do we have to pay for someone elses birth control choice.

Shame on you for throwing cancer patients in the mix.  I never said that illness was a choice.  But, yes, treating any illness is a choice.  The patient has the choice of which treatment to undergo, or to not be treated at all.  Pregnancy prevention for those that would use contraception anyway is NOT AN ILLNESS that needs to be treated and paid for by society.  Real World.

[Bob E.]

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

That's a bit of a distortion, don't you think?  How do you know her insurance is FREE?  Perhaps she pays for it...or earns it as part of her compensation as an employee of the university...or is covered as part of her tuition that she pays for??  This whole thing wasn't a matter of getting something for free or paid for by taxpayers (YES IT WAS see below.  It was a question of whether prescription birth control (the pill) should be covered by an insurance policy that is bought and paid for (or earned) by an individual.  And, are you suggesting that people who make lots of money should pay more for insurance because they could otherwise afford certain costs out of pocket? I doubt it. 

No, I don't believe that society should have to pay for anyone's birth control CHOICES (my favorite word).  Don't matter if insurance is free, if the individual buys it, the employer buys it, etc.  Makes no difference to me.  Put Viagra in the same category.  This is entirely NOT a women's health issue as one party will lead you to believe.  As a doc, I will swear on anything that will please you, hormonal therapy for medical conditions has always been provided to the patient by their health insurance providers.  However, Hormonal replacement for birth control, is a CHOICE.  Plain and simple.  Nobody should have to pay for other peoples CHOICES.

Unfortunately, our society is making the folks accustomed to having their choices paid for by the rest.  Teenage prgnancies, single parents, quitting school, crime, etc. are all choices the rest of us pay for.  Yes, yes, before I get slammed as I'm only in it for myself or whatever lib crap someone wants to fire at me, there are those who fall on bad times, or are sick, or incapable, ........these folks need the help, but these are the MINORITY, not the majority of those with their hand out......like Ms. Fluke.  If her insurance doesn't cover birthcontrol, so what?  Condoms are very cheap, and protect angainst STD's as well, which the pill does not.  Oh, she's not sleeping around?  She's in a committed relationship?  Then the TWO OF THEM surely can afford their CHOICE of birthcontrol together.  Oh, she's not in a committed relationship, she just doesn't want to use a condom, Again, why do we have to pay for that choice.  Aaaaaaaaand, when she gets an STD from using the pill and not a condom, I'm sure her insurance company will cover that!   

One way or the other, we're gonna pay for those choices.  Personally, I'd rather pay for the bc pills because they are much cheaper than the cost of an unintended pregnancy, both in short and long term costs. Did you notice how there wasn't a peep from the insurance companies when Obama said that if the Catholic institution had an objection, then the insurance would provide it for free?  Guess why.  Because they know it saves them money to provide the pills versus covering the costs of childbirth. I predict your response would be that then they would have to live with that choice.  But then, more likely than not, you've now added at least one person and perhaps 2 or 3 to the list of those who need help.

Also, by your logic, one could argue that treating terminal cancer is a choice.  Or providing health care to the elderly when they are ill and clearly not going to recover is a choice.  They're just gonna die anyways.  Why should I have to pay for that choice??  Because as a civilized society, we've decided that paying for those are things serves the "greater good".

AND THERE IT IS FOLKS........Yup, I want to push granny over the cliff, make you breath bad air, drink dirty water.  I'm at war with women and all poor people in general.

The truth is that I live in the real world.  I know first hand that those having babies aren't the ones seeking out birth control.  Birth control is available 24 hours a day in every 7-11 and gas station across the country.  These women, and yes I said women because only a woman can become pregnant, simpley CHOOSE to not use birth control.  Maury Povich presents this every day, twice a day, for the last 20 years yet it goes ignored.  Women having unprotected sex with multiple partners and nobody knows who the fathers are for all these babies.  Thousands of women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex.  And these are just the ones who go on TV!  So, how will providing it to the ones who actually CHOOSE to prevent pregnancy anyway benefit society?  Why do we have to pay for someone elses birth control choice.

Shame on you for throwing cancer patients in the mix.  I never said that illness was a choice.  But, yes, treating any illness is a choice.  The patient has the choice of which treatment to undergo, or to not be treated at all.  Pregnancy prevention for those that would use contraception anyway is NOT AN ILLNESS that needs to be treated and paid for by society.  Real World.

My point, which you seem to have either totally missed or intentionally ignored, is that family planning is a "greater good" for society and is actually much less costly than paying the short and long term costs that arise from unintended pregnancies...which are certainly part of the REAL WORLD...which addressed your argument about having to pay for other people's choices.  My other point is that you can turn any decision to act on any circumstance into a "choice" and make the same argument.  I wasn't suggesting that you wanted to throw grandma off a cliff. 
I was just trying to illustrate a flaw in your logic.

[G-Man]

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

That's a bit of a distortion, don't you think?  How do you know her insurance is FREE?  Perhaps she pays for it...or earns it as part of her compensation as an employee of the university...or is covered as part of her tuition that she pays for??  This whole thing wasn't a matter of getting something for free or paid for by taxpayers (YES IT WAS see below.  It was a question of whether prescription birth control (the pill) should be covered by an insurance policy that is bought and paid for (or earned) by an individual.  And, are you suggesting that people who make lots of money should pay more for insurance because they could otherwise afford certain costs out of pocket? I doubt it. 

No, I don't believe that society should have to pay for anyone's birth control CHOICES (my favorite word).  Don't matter if insurance is free, if the individual buys it, the employer buys it, etc.  Makes no difference to me.  Put Viagra in the same category.  This is entirely NOT a women's health issue as one party will lead you to believe.  As a doc, I will swear on anything that will please you, hormonal therapy for medical conditions has always been provided to the patient by their health insurance providers.  However, Hormonal replacement for birth control, is a CHOICE.  Plain and simple.  Nobody should have to pay for other peoples CHOICES.

Unfortunately, our society is making the folks accustomed to having their choices paid for by the rest.  Teenage prgnancies, single parents, quitting school, crime, etc. are all choices the rest of us pay for.  Yes, yes, before I get slammed as I'm only in it for myself or whatever lib crap someone wants to fire at me, there are those who fall on bad times, or are sick, or incapable, ........these folks need the help, but these are the MINORITY, not the majority of those with their hand out......like Ms. Fluke.  If her insurance doesn't cover birthcontrol, so what?  Condoms are very cheap, and protect angainst STD's as well, which the pill does not.  Oh, she's not sleeping around?  She's in a committed relationship?  Then the TWO OF THEM surely can afford their CHOICE of birthcontrol together.  Oh, she's not in a committed relationship, she just doesn't want to use a condom, Again, why do we have to pay for that choice.  Aaaaaaaaand, when she gets an STD from using the pill and not a condom, I'm sure her insurance company will cover that!   

One way or the other, we're gonna pay for those choices.  Personally, I'd rather pay for the bc pills because they are much cheaper than the cost of an unintended pregnancy, both in short and long term costs. Did you notice how there wasn't a peep from the insurance companies when Obama said that if the Catholic institution had an objection, then the insurance would provide it for free?  Guess why.  Because they know it saves them money to provide the pills versus covering the costs of childbirth. I predict your response would be that then they would have to live with that choice.  But then, more likely than not, you've now added at least one person and perhaps 2 or 3 to the list of those who need help.

Also, by your logic, one could argue that treating terminal cancer is a choice.  Or providing health care to the elderly when they are ill and clearly not going to recover is a choice.  They're just gonna die anyways.  Why should I have to pay for that choice??  Because as a civilized society, we've decided that paying for those are things serves the "greater good".

AND THERE IT IS FOLKS........Yup, I want to push granny over the cliff, make you breath bad air, drink dirty water.  I'm at war with women and all poor people in general.

The truth is that I live in the real world.  I know first hand that those having babies aren't the ones seeking out birth control.  Birth control is available 24 hours a day in every 7-11 and gas station across the country.  These women, and yes I said women because only a woman can become pregnant, simpley CHOOSE to not use birth control.  Maury Povich presents this every day, twice a day, for the last 20 years yet it goes ignored.  Women having unprotected sex with multiple partners and nobody knows who the fathers are for all these babies.  Thousands of women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex.  And these are just the ones who go on TV!  So, how will providing it to the ones who actually CHOOSE to prevent pregnancy anyway benefit society?  Why do we have to pay for someone elses birth control choice.

Shame on you for throwing cancer patients in the mix.  I never said that illness was a choice.  But, yes, treating any illness is a choice.  The patient has the choice of which treatment to undergo, or to not be treated at all.  Pregnancy prevention for those that would use contraception anyway is NOT AN ILLNESS that needs to be treated and paid for by society.  Real World.

My point, which you seem to have either totally missed or intentionally ignored, is that family planning is a "greater good" for society and is actually much less costly than paying the short and long term costs that arise from unintended pregnancies...which are certainly part of the REAL WORLD...which addressed your argument about having to pay for other people's choices.  My other point is that you can turn any decision to act on any circumstance into a "choice" and make the same argument.  I wasn't suggesting that you wanted to throw grandma off a cliff. 
I was just trying to illustrate a flaw in your logic.

No Bob, I missed nothing.  I disagreed with you on that point and presented TWO PARAGRAPHS explaining why I disagree, yet YOU seem to be intentionally ignoring. 

Again.....providing one form of birthcontrol, to women who ALREADY use birth control, is paying for someone's CHOICE of birth control.  Unwanted pregnancies happening to women who don't want to get pregnant is the smallest percentage of childbirths.  The childbirths, and children, that society will have to foot the bill for, happen to women who are NOT USING birth control, that is cheap and readily available 24/7.  These women aren't going to use anything whether it's free or not because there is free stuff already.  There is free contraception provided in hospitals, clinics, health centers, everywhere, and we STILL have all of these fatherless kids that we all pay for.  So tell me, how will this change if the rest of us have to pay for a certain form of birth control, that only those that use birth control will benefit from anyway?

[Bob E.]

Oh BTW (this is not directed to anyone in particular), that woman Fluke, who petitoned for birth control because her GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL insurace doesn't provide it for free, will make an average salary of $150,000 coming out of the school she attends.  THIS is the person who needs birthcontrol, chipped in for by 85% of the population who will never even come close to making that kind of money in their lifetimes, let alone at their first job upon graduation.   

That's a bit of a distortion, don't you think?  How do you know her insurance is FREE?  Perhaps she pays for it...or earns it as part of her compensation as an employee of the university...or is covered as part of her tuition that she pays for??  This whole thing wasn't a matter of getting something for free or paid for by taxpayers (YES IT WAS see below.  It was a question of whether prescription birth control (the pill) should be covered by an insurance policy that is bought and paid for (or earned) by an individual.  And, are you suggesting that people who make lots of money should pay more for insurance because they could otherwise afford certain costs out of pocket? I doubt it. 

No, I don't believe that society should have to pay for anyone's birth control CHOICES (my favorite word).  Don't matter if insurance is free, if the individual buys it, the employer buys it, etc.  Makes no difference to me.  Put Viagra in the same category.  This is entirely NOT a women's health issue as one party will lead you to believe.  As a doc, I will swear on anything that will please you, hormonal therapy for medical conditions has always been provided to the patient by their health insurance providers.  However, Hormonal replacement for birth control, is a CHOICE.  Plain and simple.  Nobody should have to pay for other peoples CHOICES.

Unfortunately, our society is making the folks accustomed to having their choices paid for by the rest.  Teenage prgnancies, single parents, quitting school, crime, etc. are all choices the rest of us pay for.  Yes, yes, before I get slammed as I'm only in it for myself or whatever lib crap someone wants to fire at me, there are those who fall on bad times, or are sick, or incapable, ........these folks need the help, but these are the MINORITY, not the majority of those with their hand out......like Ms. Fluke.  If her insurance doesn't cover birthcontrol, so what?  Condoms are very cheap, and protect angainst STD's as well, which the pill does not.  Oh, she's not sleeping around?  She's in a committed relationship?  Then the TWO OF THEM surely can afford their CHOICE of birthcontrol together.  Oh, she's not in a committed relationship, she just doesn't want to use a condom, Again, why do we have to pay for that choice.  Aaaaaaaaand, when she gets an STD from using the pill and not a condom, I'm sure her insurance company will cover that!   

One way or the other, we're gonna pay for those choices.  Personally, I'd rather pay for the bc pills because they are much cheaper than the cost of an unintended pregnancy, both in short and long term costs. Did you notice how there wasn't a peep from the insurance companies when Obama said that if the Catholic institution had an objection, then the insurance would provide it for free?  Guess why.  Because they know it saves them money to provide the pills versus covering the costs of childbirth. I predict your response would be that then they would have to live with that choice.  But then, more likely than not, you've now added at least one person and perhaps 2 or 3 to the list of those who need help.

Also, by your logic, one could argue that treating terminal cancer is a choice.  Or providing health care to the elderly when they are ill and clearly not going to recover is a choice.  They're just gonna die anyways.  Why should I have to pay for that choice??  Because as a civilized society, we've decided that paying for those are things serves the "greater good".

AND THERE IT IS FOLKS........Yup, I want to push granny over the cliff, make you breath bad air, drink dirty water.  I'm at war with women and all poor people in general.

The truth is that I live in the real world.  I know first hand that those having babies aren't the ones seeking out birth control.  Birth control is available 24 hours a day in every 7-11 and gas station across the country.  These women, and yes I said women because only a woman can become pregnant, simpley CHOOSE to not use birth control.  Maury Povich presents this every day, twice a day, for the last 20 years yet it goes ignored.  Women having unprotected sex with multiple partners and nobody knows who the fathers are for all these babies.  Thousands of women who CHOOSE to have unprotected sex.  And these are just the ones who go on TV!  So, how will providing it to the ones who actually CHOOSE to prevent pregnancy anyway benefit society?  Why do we have to pay for someone elses birth control choice.

Shame on you for throwing cancer patients in the mix.  I never said that illness was a choice.  But, yes, treating any illness is a choice.  The patient has the choice of which treatment to undergo, or to not be treated at all.  Pregnancy prevention for those that would use contraception anyway is NOT AN ILLNESS that needs to be treated and paid for by society.  Real World.

My point, which you seem to have either totally missed or intentionally ignored, is that family planning is a "greater good" for society and is actually much less costly than paying the short and long term costs that arise from unintended pregnancies...which are certainly part of the REAL WORLD...which addressed your argument about having to pay for other people's choices.  My other point is that you can turn any decision to act on any circumstance into a "choice" and make the same argument.  I wasn't suggesting that you wanted to throw grandma off a cliff. 
I was just trying to illustrate a flaw in your logic.

No Bob, I missed nothing.  I disagreed with you on that point and presented TWO PARAGRAPHS explaining why I disagree, yet YOU seem to be intentionally ignoring. 

Again.....providing one form of birthcontrol, to women who ALREADY use birth control, is paying for someone's CHOICE of birth control.  Unwanted pregnancies happening to women who don't want to get pregnant is the smallest percentage of childbirths.  The childbirths, and children, that society will have to foot the bill for, happen to women who are NOT USING birth control, that is cheap and readily available 24/7.  These women aren't going to use anything whether it's free or not because there is free stuff already.  There is free contraception provided in hospitals, clinics, health centers, everywhere, and we STILL have all of these fatherless kids that we all pay for.  So tell me, how will this change if the rest of us have to pay for a certain form of birth control, that only those that use birth control will benefit from anyway?

Well, when you start off your paragraph stating that you live in the "real world", thereby suggesting that I do not, and then use Maury Povich's show which features mostly uneducated, unsophisticated, low to no income people...who most likely have no insurance and cannot afford prescription birth control...and then complain about how they keep getting pregnant thereby actually reinforcing my position...you'll have to excuse me for misunderstanding your point. 

You started off your posts by arguing that we shouldn't have to pay for Fluke's birth control, never mind the fact that you totally misconstrued what Ms. Fluke's testimony actually was and engaged in a bit of character assassination on her.  And never mind the fact that it is actually a net cost saver for insurance companies to cover bc pills versus paying for unintended pregnancies, let alone the long term costs to society of caring for the child.  Then you made a statement about hormonal therapy always being covered by insurance which directly contradicts Ms. Fluke's actual testimony regarding her friend who had some sort of health issue but her insurance wouldn't cover the necessary hormonal therapy because of the birth control pill issue.  Also, never mind the fact that you also misconstrued the fact that nobody was asking for something for nothing, but rather discussing whether something should be covered under an insurance policy that they either paid for or earned.  And then you support your agument with a bunch of Maury Povich examples who don't even have insurance, which has nothing to do with whether insurance should or shouldn't cover bc pills. We're not talking about welfare here.  And also never mind the fact that unless you are in the same insurance pool as Ms. Fluke, you aren't paying anything towards her birth control pills.

And after all of that, you have the gall to say "shame on me" and suggest that I don't live in the real world?  Really?    Whatever...

[Mongo]

It's simple the word F--K is offensive, it's so offensive I don't think I can't even spell out F--K in my post on this board without it being pulled. She wanted attention and she got it.