Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> When I first took
> Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
> to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
> costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.

What side effects? I tried a bottle once with no side effects. When I
use an allergy drug, it's usually the generic brand of Allegra.

G.

On 7/2/2014 9:04 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:53:16 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:52:18 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 22:08:36 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The newest proposal is to make mainstream birth control an OTC
>>>> medication and I can't argue with that POV.
>>>
>>> Seems a bit risky as there are many women who are unable to take pills
>>> for a variety of reasons, better they remain on prescription. What
>>> would they do about all the other methods such as IUDs or capsules
>>> under the skin for long term control ?
>>
>> Doesn't that apply to many OTC available today? When I first took
>> Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
>> to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
>> costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.
>> Janet US
>
> I was thinking mainly, in the case of birth control pills, strokes in
> young women. Not a nice thing to happen. If the doctor prescribes,
> he/she knows all your other risks that would indicate some other
> method is better for you.
>
According to a letter in today's Washington Post, the use of birth
control pills can *lessen* the risk of ovarian cancer. I haven't had
time yet to check this out.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 02/07/2014 7:04 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:53:16 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:52:18 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 22:08:36 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The newest proposal is to make mainstream birth control an OTC
>>>> medication and I can't argue with that POV.
>>>
>>> Seems a bit risky as there are many women who are unable to take pills
>>> for a variety of reasons, better they remain on prescription. What
>>> would they do about all the other methods such as IUDs or capsules
>>> under the skin for long term control ?
>>
>> Doesn't that apply to many OTC available today? When I first took
>> Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
>> to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
>> costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.
>> Janet US
>
> I was thinking mainly, in the case of birth control pills, strokes in
> young women. Not a nice thing to happen. If the doctor prescribes,
> he/she knows all your other risks that would indicate some other
> method is better for you.
>
However, there is a woman Dr in a Calgary walk-in clinic who refuses to
prescribe the pill.
Graham

On 02/07/2014 6:58 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 22:09:31 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:10:24 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
> snip
>>>
>>>
>>> When they are young they sow their wild oats. They drink and do drugs in
>>> excess. After they get bored with that they turn their need for excess
>>> to religion. The fundie "christians" and the Catholics get a kick out
>>> of sin.
>>
>> I believe that statement.
>
> I don't. There are people who are drawn to gossip, spreading
> scandal, and messing about in other people's lives. These people
> observe and speculate on the lives of others all the time. Some of
> them are drawn to particular religious groups because it gives them an
> outlet for controlling others. I do believe that the past of these
> people does not bear scrutiny.
> Janet US
>
People despise most in others what they despise most in themselves.
Graham

On 2014-07-02 8:53 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:

> Doesn't that apply to many OTC available today? When I first took
> Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
> to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
> costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.
>

My wife has bad allergies and used to get prescription antihistamines.
After a few years they would become available OTC and no longer covered
by her plan.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-07-02 8:53 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> > Doesn't that apply to many OTC available today? When I first took
> > Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
> > to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
> > costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.
> >
>
> My wife has bad allergies and used to get prescription antihistamines.
> After a few years they would become available OTC and no longer covered
> by her plan.

You don't need your insurance plan to buy OTC drugs. they are cheap
enough.

G.

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 02/07/2014 7:04 AM, wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:53:16 -0600, Janet Bostwick
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:52:18 -0300, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 22:08:36 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The newest proposal is to make mainstream birth control an OTC
>>>>> medication and I can't argue with that POV.
>>>>
>>>> Seems a bit risky as there are many women who are unable to take pills
>>>> for a variety of reasons, better they remain on prescription. What
>>>> would they do about all the other methods such as IUDs or capsules
>>>> under the skin for long term control ?
>>>
>>> Doesn't that apply to many OTC available today? When I first took
>>> Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
>>> to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
>>> costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.
>>> Janet US
>>
>> I was thinking mainly, in the case of birth control pills, strokes in
>> young women. Not a nice thing to happen. If the doctor prescribes,
>> he/she knows all your other risks that would indicate some other
>> method is better for you.
>>
> However, there is a woman Dr in a Calgary walk-in clinic who refuses to
> prescribe the pill.

We used to have a woman Dr in our practice who was a Catholic and refused to
prescribe it. She made it quite clear.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2014-07-02 8:53 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> > Doesn't that apply to many OTC available today? When I first took
> > Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
> > to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
> > costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.
> >
>
> My wife has bad allergies and used to get prescription antihistamines.
> After a few years they would become available OTC and no longer covered
> by her plan.

Find a good allergist and get immunotherapy, no drugs, no side effects,
just total relief for 90%+ of patients and after a few years of
treatment it's usually permanent relief. Most insurance covers it too.

In article >,
"Steve Freides" > wrote:

> ImStillMags wrote:
>
> > Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
> > of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
> > contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
> > pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
> > no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
> > Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
> > I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
> > Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
> > their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
> > us all.
> >
> > http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>
> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>
> -S-

I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
co-pay or deductible?

graham > wrote in
:

> However, there is a woman Dr in a Calgary walk-in clinic who
> refuses to prescribe the pill.

Is it because she is a Bible thumping retard--and the gods know
there are far too many of these in Alberta--or does she have sound
medical reasons? If she is letting her religious views influence
the way she treats patients, the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Alberta (or failing that, the CMA) should be examining this
issue. They do have a Complaint process. Of course, it is
entirely conceivable in Alberta that the CPSA is the source of that
problem hence my recommendation to consider appealing to the
CMA...or move to Québec where you don't have to concern yourself
with the encroachment of proselytizing medicos.

http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/services/Compl...Complaint_Proc
ess.aspx

http://tinyurl.com/p7avvjn

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On 02/07/2014 9:05 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:35:44 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 02/07/2014 7:04 AM, wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:53:16 -0600, Janet Bostwick
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:52:18 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 22:08:36 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The newest proposal is to make mainstream birth control an OTC
>>>>>> medication and I can't argue with that POV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems a bit risky as there are many women who are unable to take pills
>>>>> for a variety of reasons, better they remain on prescription. What
>>>>> would they do about all the other methods such as IUDs or capsules
>>>>> under the skin for long term control ?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't that apply to many OTC available today? When I first took
>>>> Claritin many years ago the doctor warned me it was a strong drug and
>>>> to watch for side effects. Now claritin is OTC (and considerably less
>>>> costly) Presumably the potential side effects are still there.
>>>> Janet US
>>>
>>> I was thinking mainly, in the case of birth control pills, strokes in
>>> young women. Not a nice thing to happen. If the doctor prescribes,
>>> he/she knows all your other risks that would indicate some other
>>> method is better for you.
>>>
>> However, there is a woman Dr in a Calgary walk-in clinic who refuses to
>> prescribe the pill.
>> Graham
>
> I would ask her why and if it is on religious grounds, then I would
> report her to CMA !
>
It hit the headlines here a few days ago. The CMA must be well aware of it.
Graham

On 02/07/2014 8:37 AM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> graham > wrote in
> :
>
>> However, there is a woman Dr in a Calgary walk-in clinic who
>> refuses to prescribe the pill.
>
> Is it because she is a Bible thumping retard--and the gods know
> there are far too many of these in Alberta--or does she have sound
> medical reasons? If she is letting her religious views influence
> the way she treats patients, the College of Physicians and Surgeons
> of Alberta (or failing that, the CMA) should be examining this
> issue. They do have a Complaint process. Of course, it is
> entirely conceivable in Alberta that the CPSA is the source of that
> problem hence my recommendation to consider appealing to the
> CMA...or move to Québec where you don't have to concern yourself
> with the encroachment of proselytizing medicos.
>
One can only assume that she is a bible-thumping or papist retard. It
has been widely reported but the media have not been able to contact her.
Graham

graham > wrote in
news
> One can only assume that she is a bible-thumping or papist
> retard. It has been widely reported but the media have not
> been able to contact her.

The CPSA can open a complaints file without speaking to her
beforehand.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

In article >, says...

> However, there is a woman Dr in a Calgary walk-in clinic who refuses to
> prescribe the pill.

In the 1960's I had a woman GP Dr who also refused. She told me the
only contraceptive I needed was the word NO.

I said "No" to her advice and found another Dr.

Janet. UK

On 7/2/2014 10:28 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article >,
> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>
>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>
>>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
>>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
>>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
>>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
>>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
>>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
>>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
>>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
>>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
>>> us all.
>>>
>>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>>
>> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>>
>> -S-
>
> I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
> is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
> co-pay or deductible?
>

Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only
safely placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:31:26 -0400, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
>>health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
>>require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only
>>safely placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.
>
> I think once you start excluding things, it's a slippery slope. I
> have heard people saying our health care should not pay for smokers
> ills but I say to them, well we should also exclude brain injuries
> from skate boards or extreme sports if we are to go that route In
> actual fact a doctor was telling me those brain injuries are far more
> expensive because smokers have a limited duration before they croak

When the increasingly non-smoking public gets a bit older, our health care
and social security/government pension costs will go through the roof. They
used to die off sooner, and relatively quickly. No so "healthy" nonsmokers.
Ka Ching!

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/2/2014 10:28 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>>
>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>
>>>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
>>>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
>>>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
>>>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
>>>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
>>>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
>>>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
>>>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
>>>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
>>>> us all.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>>>
>>> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>>>
>>> -S-
>>
>> I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
>> is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
>> co-pay or deductible?
>>
>
> Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
> health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
> require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only safely
> placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.

Chemist shops here give free condoms on request.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 7/2/2014 12:39 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:31:26 -0400, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
>> health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
>> require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only
>> safely placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.
>
> I think once you start excluding things, it's a slippery slope. I
> have heard people saying our health care should not pay for smokers
> ills but I say to them, well we should also exclude brain injuries
> from skate boards or extreme sports if we are to go that route In
> actual fact a doctor was telling me those brain injuries are far more
> expensive because smokers have a limited duration before they croak
>
Let's be specific; I don't think male condoms have ever been available
under health plans and having that continue is not a new exception.

I'd favor banning the growing of tobacco and its importation into the US
but that does not seem politically possible. Driving under the influence
of alcohol is banned and most drugs like cannabis and opioids should be
included.

A limit to nicotine in the blood might be necessary, even if smokeless
inhalers could be available. However, half my life ago it seems, I was a
pipe smoker and can vouch for its pleasant aspects and I don't think it
impeded my ability to drive.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 7/1/2014 4:26 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:36:57 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>
>
>> It was probably plagiarized. It's OK, this is Usenet.
>
>
> I cited my source.
>

It's none of my business how you choose to post. My guess is most quotes
go without citation anyway. OTOH, most links on Usenet are probably
broken. Once that link to your source breaks - congrats, you've just
become a pretty good writer.

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:16:38 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 7/2/2014 10:28 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
>>>>>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
>>>>>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
>>>>>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
>>>>>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
>>>>>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
>>>>>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
>>>>>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
>>>>>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
>>>>>> us all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>>>>>
>>>>> -S-
>>>>
>>>> I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health
>>>> than
>>>> is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
>>>> co-pay or deductible?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
>>> health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
>>> require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only
>>> safely
>>> placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.
>>
>>Chemist shops here give free condoms on request.
>
> Wow, I don't know whether ours do, must ask the pharmacist next time I
> am there, that'll make him wonder!!
>
> I gather they have made advances with a male contraceptive pill but
> were I a young, fertile female again, I sure as hell would have no
> faith in a "I'm on the pill" anymore than one believed the story about
> vasectomies After all, who is going to have the most grief ?

Of course!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:16:38 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"James Silverton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 7/2/2014 10:28 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ImStillMags wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
> >>>>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
> >>>>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
> >>>>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
> >>>>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
> >>>>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
> >>>>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
> >>>>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
> >>>>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
> >>>>> us all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
> >>>>
> >>>> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
> >>>>
> >>>> -S-
> >>>
> >>> I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
> >>> is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
> >>> co-pay or deductible?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
> >> health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
> >> require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only safely
> >> placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.
> >
> >Chemist shops here give free condoms on request.
>
> Wow, I don't know whether ours do, must ask the pharmacist next time I
> am there, that'll make him wonder!!
>
> I gather they have made advances with a male contraceptive pill but
> were I a young, fertile female again, I sure as hell would have no
> faith in a "I'm on the pill" anymore than one believed the story about
> vasectomies After all, who is going to have the most grief ?

If you don't know the person enough to trust what they tell you, you
don't know them well enough to need contraceptives...

On 2014-07-02 10:07 AM, Gary wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-07-02 8:53 AM, Janet Bostwick wrote:

>> My wife has bad allergies and used to get prescription antihistamines.
>> After a few years they would become available OTC and no longer covered
>> by her plan.
>
> You don't need your insurance plan to buy OTC drugs. they are cheap
> enough.
>

The daily use antihistamines are a lot cheaper now than they used to be.
They were originally available only by prescription, so they were
covered by her plan. Now they are cheap.

On 02/07/2014 10:24 AM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> graham > wrote in
> news >
>> One can only assume that she is a bible-thumping or papist
>> retard. It has been widely reported but the media have not
>> been able to contact her.
>
> The CPSA can open a complaints file without speaking to her
> beforehand.
>
Let's hope they do!
Graham

On 2014-07-02 10:37 AM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> graham > wrote in
> :
>
>> However, there is a woman Dr in a Calgary walk-in clinic who
>> refuses to prescribe the pill.
>
> Is it because she is a Bible thumping retard--and the gods know
> there are far too many of these in Alberta--or does she have sound
> medical reasons?

The doctor's first name is Chantal, so quite possibly a Catholic.

>-If she is letting her religious views influence
> the way she treats patients, the College of Physicians and Surgeons
> of Alberta (or failing that, the CMA) should be examining this
> issue. They do have a Complaint process.

The CPSA has a policy on the refusal to provide certain services on
religious grounds and she was acting in accordance with that policy. The
refusal to provide it has to be clearly and promptly communicated to the
patient and the patient must be referred to another doctor who will do
it. By putting the sign up she covered herself.

On 2014-07-02 2:04 PM, wrote:

>> Chemist shops here give free condoms on request.
>
> Wow, I don't know whether ours do, must ask the pharmacist next time I
> am there, that'll make him wonder!!
>
> I gather they have made advances with a male contraceptive pill but
> were I a young, fertile female again, I sure as hell would have no
> faith in a "I'm on the pill" anymore than one believed the story about
> vasectomies After all, who is going to have the most grief ?
>


I am not politically correct and have been hassled over my views about
the *ultimate* responsibility for birth control being with the female
because she is the one who is going to have to deal with the pregnancy.
Any woman who takes a man's word for it that he has had a vasectomy is
taking a huge chance. I doubt that a woman who would know what a
vasectomy scar looks like would have to worry about one.

Birth control methods are not 100% effective. One SiL is an RN and
managed to get pregnant while on birth control, and the result was my
twin niece and nephew.

On 2014-07-02 2:38 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>> I gather they have made advances with a male contraceptive pill but
>> were I a young, fertile female again, I sure as hell would have no
>> faith in a "I'm on the pill" anymore than one believed the story about
>> vasectomies After all, who is going to have the most grief ?
>
> If you don't know the person enough to trust what they tell you, you
> don't know them well enough to need contraceptives...
>


That is a very moral stand, but I might suggest that it is often in
cases like that where contraceptives are especially important.

In article >,
James Silverton > wrote:

> On 7/2/2014 10:28 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> >
> >> ImStillMags wrote:
> >>
> >>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
> >>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
> >>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
> >>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
> >>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
> >>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
> >>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
> >>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
> >>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
> >>> us all.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
> >>
> >> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
> >>
> >> -S-
> >
> > I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
> > is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
> > co-pay or deductible?
> >
>
> Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
> health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
> require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only
> safely placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.

Almost every health plan does cover those. Even Hobby Lobby covers 16
types. Just not the 4 abortifacients. Why is birth control free with no
co-pay or deductible?

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:56:22 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-07-02 2:04 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Chemist shops here give free condoms on request.
>
> >
>
> > Wow, I don't know whether ours do, must ask the pharmacist next time I
>
> > am there, that'll make him wonder!!
>
> >
>
> > I gather they have made advances with a male contraceptive pill but
>
> > were I a young, fertile female again, I sure as hell would have no
>
> > faith in a "I'm on the pill" anymore than one believed the story about
>
> > vasectomies After all, who is going to have the most grief ?
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not politically correct and have been hassled over my views about
>
> the *ultimate* responsibility for birth control being with the female
>
> because she is the one who is going to have to deal with the pregnancy.
>
> Any woman who takes a man's word for it that he has had a vasectomy is
>
> taking a huge chance. I doubt that a woman who would know what a
>
> vasectomy scar looks like would have to worry about one.
>

Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion, men are pretty much pigs.

>
>
> Birth control methods are not 100% effective. One SiL is an RN and
>
> managed to get pregnant while on birth control, and the result was my
>
> twin niece and nephew.

On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:59:47 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>
> Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion, men are pretty much pigs.

Rooting pigs is more to the point.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 14:52:22 -0500, Mark Storkamp
> wrote:

> Why is birth control free with no co-pay or deductible?

It is?

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 2014-07-02 4:06 PM, sf wrote:

>> Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion,
>> men are pretty much pigs.
>
> Rooting pigs is more to the point.
>


LOL.... You may know that rooting is a euphemism for the sex act in
Australia. A number of years ago some good friends of ours visiting
cousins in Australia and had taken a number of Roots sweat shirts as
gifts for the children. The parents were not pleased.

On 02/07/2014 2:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-07-02 4:06 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>> Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion,
>>> men are pretty much pigs.
>>
>> Rooting pigs is more to the point.
>>
>
>
> LOL.... You may know that rooting is a euphemism for the sex act in
> Australia. A number of years ago some good friends of ours visiting
> cousins in Australia and had taken a number of Roots sweat shirts as
> gifts for the children. The parents were not pleased.

I remember a t-shirt with the following on it:
"A wombat eats roots shoots and leaves" (no punctuation)
{:-)
Graham

On 2014-07-02 4:59 PM, graham wrote:
> On 02/07/2014 2:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2014-07-02 4:06 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion,
>>>> men are pretty much pigs.
>>>
>>> Rooting pigs is more to the point.
>>>
>>
>>
>> LOL.... You may know that rooting is a euphemism for the sex act in
>> Australia. A number of years ago some good friends of ours visiting
>> cousins in Australia and had taken a number of Roots sweat shirts as
>> gifts for the children. The parents were not pleased.
>
> I remember a t-shirt with the following on it:
> "A wombat eats roots shoots and leaves" (no punctuation)
> {:-)


I thought it was "... eats roots and leaves"

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 2:13:38 PM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-07-02 4:59 PM, graham wrote:
>
> > On 02/07/2014 2:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >> On 2014-07-02 4:06 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion,
>
> >>>> men are pretty much pigs.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Rooting pigs is more to the point.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL.... You may know that rooting is a euphemism for the sex act in
>
> >> Australia. A number of years ago some good friends of ours visiting
>
> >> cousins in Australia and had taken a number of Roots sweat shirts as
>
> >> gifts for the children. The parents were not pleased.
>
> >
>
> > I remember a t-shirt with the following on it:
>
> > "A wombat eats roots shoots and leaves" (no punctuation)
>
> > {:-)
>
>
>
>
>
> I thought it was "... eats roots and leaves"

The book is _Eats Shoots and Leaves_ it is about grammar and punctuation.

Nellie

On 2014-07-02 5:26 PM, Nellie wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 2:13:38 PM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2014-07-02 4:59 PM, graham wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/07/2014 2:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2014-07-02 4:06 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion,
>>
>>>>>> men are pretty much pigs.
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> Rooting pigs is more to the point.
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> LOL.... You may know that rooting is a euphemism for the sex act in
>>
>>>> Australia. A number of years ago some good friends of ours visiting
>>
>>>> cousins in Australia and had taken a number of Roots sweat shirts as
>>
>>>> gifts for the children. The parents were not pleased.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I remember a t-shirt with the following on it:
>>
>>> "A wombat eats roots shoots and leaves" (no punctuation)
>>
>>> {:-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought it was "... eats roots and leaves"
>
> The book is _Eats Shoots and Leaves_ it is about grammar and punctuation.
>
>

Maybe I am confusing it with the joke about a koala arguing with a
hooker he had oral sex with and did not want to pay. He pointed to the
definition of koala in the dictionary, an Australian marsupial that eats
bush and leaves.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:13:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-07-02 4:59 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 02/07/2014 2:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2014-07-02 4:06 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion,
>>>>> men are pretty much pigs.
>>>>
>>>> Rooting pigs is more to the point.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL.... You may know that rooting is a euphemism for the sex act in
>>> Australia. A number of years ago some good friends of ours visiting
>>> cousins in Australia and had taken a number of Roots sweat shirts as
>>> gifts for the children. The parents were not pleased.
>>
>> I remember a t-shirt with the following on it:
>> "A wombat eats roots shoots and leaves" (no punctuation)
>> {:-)
>
>
>I thought it was "... eats roots and leaves"

Um, most wombats don't have enlarged prostates, Dave. hehe

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:06:41 AM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:59:47 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion, men are pretty much pigs.
>
>
>
> Rooting pigs is more to the point.
>

They're always sniffing around for that smell. :-)

>
>
> --
>
> All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:53:04 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:06:41 AM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:59:47 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Sounds like sage advice for any young woman. In my awesome opinion, men are pretty much pigs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Rooting pigs is more to the point.
> >
>
> They're always sniffing around for that smell. :-)
>

Truffles! Snarf snarf snarf....

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 2014-07-02 5:47 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
I remember a t-shirt with the following on it:
>>> "A wombat eats roots shoots and leaves" (no punctuation)
>>> {:-)
>>
>>
>> I thought it was "... eats roots and leaves"
>
> Um, most wombats don't have enlarged prostates, Dave. hehe


I will take your word for that. I have never shoved anything up a
wombat's butt.

"Alan Holbrook" > wrote in message
. 30...
> ImStillMags > wrote in
> :
>
>> For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock, the
>> Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious
>
> <snip>
>
>> own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for us
>> all.
>>
>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>
> You want free birth control? Hang a picture of Nancy Pelosi in your
> bedroom.

Well, thank you for that! I just looked up her image as I didn't know who
she was. I was going to eat soon. Was...