Men can get women pregnant, which is why the CDC lists contraception as pregnancy prevent. Not to mention they are the only thing that prevents the t***smission of STD's, which women get free testing for by the ACA. So men have to take responsibility for not only their reproductive rights, but have to take responsibility for women's reproductive rights.

But I see you don't care about the 5th & 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause. "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And if you think that contraception is for something other than pregnancy prevention, you need to check with the CDC that says that contraceptions purpose is pregnancy prevention. It's illegal to take anything for other than what their purpose is for.

Only problem is that not everyone has accesses to these free centers that hand out condoms, similar to how not everyone lives in an area where they can get cheap contraception. So it would cost them money to go obtain these things, perhaps even a couples days drive in order to pick up free condoms.

That doesn't get around the violation of the ACA has on the 5th & 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause, which is non-negotiable, even at 99cents, which any woman can tell you!

It is what I first thought of when they talked about free contraception after Sandra Fluke made her appeal.

I did some research and it would cost a male more money than it would a female. Females would only have to buy "the pill" once a month. So we can suppose on the high end that the pill costs 100 dollars. So they buy 12 of them and that would cost 1,200 dollars.

The CDC says that condoms should be used for both anal, oral, and vaginal. So we can suppose that a male has sex once a day. They buy a pack of condoms, which costs around 3.99 where I live at CVS. So a male would have to use all three condoms when they receive oral sex, give anal and vaginal. So now we just multiply 3.99 by 365, and we obtain it would cost a male 1,456.35.

So we immediately see it costs a male more than a female. Not to mention that condoms are the only thing that prevent STDs. So the male has to take responsibility for both themselves and the female to stop the spreading of STDs.

Looks like Democrats want to wage the war on men, and make sure that they don't receive equal protection.

That wouldn't change anything if you did a clean sweep. Why? Very simple. Every politician has one goal in mind. Get re-elected. How do they get re-elected? Doing what their v**ers want. But how do they let the v**ers know that they did what they want? They raise money to pay for TV adds or radio adds (which aren't cheap by the way, which you can see with how much an add costs for a Superbowl add).

What surprises me is that people actually think there is some consorted effort to divide people. Perhaps they didn't know, there is no such thing as a consorted effort. It's called human nature.

Take the biological fact that people are different from one another. From this, it means that people have different thoughts and points of view. So there is going to be natural disagreements. So from this we get disagreements in which people argue. Not only that, the best we can get are two different groups that share some basic opinions, with some differences within them, who disagree with another group. SO there is no consorted effort to bring up d******eness amongst people, it's just a fact of being human.

That article was a joke, and only one part of it was true. That one part that was true was that consumers are the job creators. But this is axiomatic in any free market. But we don't have a free market.

Just so you know, Robert Reich isn't a trusted economist. He's just pushing his failed ideas.

What I'm really surprised at is that he happened to leave out the Gilded Age in which we had the greatest economic growth in World History. People gained bigger wages, lived longer, and the nation did better. Not to mention that there was no income tax and so the rich didn't pay for infrastructure and etc that he mentions.

Can you tell me why the ACA doesn't respect the US Constitution by respecting the 5th and 14th Amendments Equal Protection clause by giving women free contraception and not giving men free contraception?

Democrats keep talking about Republicans having a "War on Women", but this is another way of them waging their "War on Men".

We all remember that "Sl*t" Sandra Fluke wanting the government to pay for her contraception, and other women's contraception. One of the big things was preventative services for women.

So some of you probably wouldn't be surprised that Democrats don't want to give men these same preventative services. The government isn't giving out free contraception to men, i.e. condoms. This is a clear violation of the 14th & 5th amendments Equal Protection clause. If women are allowed to obtain free contraception, then men must be allowed to obtain free contraception as well.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.
http://answers.sea1.webmd.com/answers/5040611/does-the-affordable-care-act-cover-condoms-and-other-contraception-for-men-too-or-is-it-just-for-women-

Remember, condoms do what no other contraception does, which is that they prevent the spread of STD's like that of HIV. They also help to prevent pregnancy, which is what contraception means under the CDC's meaning of contraception. So women would be allowed to have pregnancy prevention devices under the law, but men are FORCED to pay for contraception under the law.

Democrats obviously don't want to make sure that men are protected, but women are protected. However, this means that men can contract STD's from women because they aren't protected under the new law.

It won't go away, because than you will complain about some individuals, say a Charles Koch or Bill Gates giving all their money to campaigns. Besides, you do understand that non-profit corporations are funded by individuals who exercise their first amendment of freedom of speech and freedom of association, right? Just like unions, which are corporations funded by individuals exercising their freedom of association.

This idea of "hidden" list goes all the way back, at least, to the NAACP. Remember, there was a SCOTUS case in which the government wanted the list of people who donated money to fund the NAACP in their fight for civil rights, and this list would have been used to harass these peoples for their political support for an institution that some people didn't like.

It doesn't matter where the speech comes from, or who finances the speech, since all that matters is the speech itself. Remember, there is a fallacy known as ad hominem, which is attacking the person instead of what they say.

Big Business isn't allowed to give unlimited support to "your side". Big Business isn't allowed to give unlimited money, only non-profit corporations like the Sierra Club, ACLU, or Unions. For-profit corporations aren't allowed to do it.

What is interesting is that since Unions are spending the most money, and they are corporations that are ruining this country, and those members have no decision on where the money goes to. However, other non-profit organizations like the NRA, have individuals that decide to freely give their money knowing where it will go. Unions do the opposite. So of course, unions are more evil than other non-profit corporations.

Citizens United opened the flood gates for Unions to use their corporate money (we know how Democrats h**e corporate money), and have been using that money to fund dark money campaign. It's just d********g how Citizens United have allowed Unions to spend more money from individuals who haven't decided to fund those campaigns, unlike other corporate entities, than anyone else. Just goes to show that Unions love Citizens United. This in turn means that Bernie Sanders loves Citizens United, since unions are part of his big ideas.

I saw the incident happen as well, and I did some fact checking. There were two portions that were put up for a v**e at the same time. One of them was on Israel and the other was about God. So we have a disjunction to face. Either they booed for Israel or booed for God or booed for both. Now to be fair, I think they were booing on Israel, and for good reason.

What loophole? There is no loophole. It's the law, unless you think the law is a loophole.

Because it's not very hospitable. NASA has already landed there, so I can't get any privacy there.