Incendiary Image of the Day: Day by Day Edition Entertainment by Dan Zimmerman | Mar 07, 2012 | 28 comments facebook twitter linkedin email comments Jason says: March 7, 2012 at 11:11 I am opposed to anyone paying for a crappy shotgun. Bill Ms. Fluke for a Remington 870 Marine Magnum. Reply karlb says: March 7, 2012 at 11:15 Two Trolls this early in the morning? Reply Aharon says: March 7, 2012 at 11:33 Good toon. I demand that society reimburse me for the cost of either ammo or a gun. Actually both since why should I have to pay for the cost of my own self-defense? Aside, I was reading through some of the analysis of the new healthcare bill that requires insurance firms to provide birth control etc. The bill is going to dramatically expand female healthcare programs, government offices, etc while creating and expanding (I believe) absolutely nothing for male healthcare needs. If a woman wants a free abortion paid for by society or others in an insurance group then along with it should be a mandatory sterilization. Reply BLAMMO says: March 7, 2012 at 12:32 Contraception may be a medical service or procedure but it is not medically necessary. There are many medical services and procedures that have never been covered by health insurance for that reason. The most common of these is cosmetic surgery. e.g., B(.)(.)B JOBS!! Why cover contraceptive services and not B(.)(.)B jobs? Seems kind of arbitrary, to me. I would propose, not only do we cover B(.)(.)B jobs instead of contraception, but they be made mandatory. All women over 40, and by age 50 must have at least one B(.)(.)B job. Which would also benefit men as well; their mental health and frame of mind. Okay, to be fair, we’d have to offer them to men too. But only reductions. Reply J says: March 7, 2012 at 15:36 Birth control is a medical necessity for some women. One example is that my wife has to take it to prevent painful cysts from forming that would otherwise require regular surgery. Reply Mike OFWG says: March 7, 2012 at 15:44 Hopefully your insurance covers that, with some appropriate co-pay. BLAMMO says: March 7, 2012 at 19:00 That doesn’t sound like contraception to me. i.e., she’s not taking the medication to prevent conception or to simply engage in a lifestyle of her choosing. Smoking is a lifestyle choice but why do you suppose there is no progressive agenda to subsidize that choice? baclava says: March 8, 2012 at 13:41 congrats, you’ve just come across the realization that the medicines we label “Birth Control” are actually used for many other purposes. if you cared to ask anyone who uses birth control, they should be able to tell you this. Sandra Fluke, when she was eventually allowed to testify, was not asking anyone to pay for her contraceptives. She asked to be that this kind of medicine be covered, as in paid for by premiums, because they would be unaffordable otherwise. Why is this important? Because, for example, a friend of hers had polycystic ovary syndrome, which can be treated with a common contraceptive pill. Which was not covered by her employer, Georgetown University. This, you might have also found out, had you looked into why a perfectly reasonable person might be making unreasonable demands, and found out that the story was larger than it seemed. John Marston says: March 7, 2012 at 11:33 I love this site because of the fantastic reviews. I realize this site is a rightwing site and I myself identify as a conservative based on gun rights and immigration but give me a break with this Fluke crap. Don’t stoop to Rush’s level. He and others like him give people like us (conservatives) a bad name. His rediculous name calling is what gives the uber-leftists ammunition. Reply jiminyt says: March 7, 2012 at 11:44 +1, agree with John. Reply C. Walther says: March 7, 2012 at 11:50 The irony is they usually just pick up the stones we slingshot at them and throw them right back. Reply Aharon says: March 7, 2012 at 12:42 The thrown stones are poorly chosen ones. They’re cheap, shallow, and of low-quality easy to rebuke. Reply BC; MT says: March 7, 2012 at 12:49 +1. Should have learned from Rush’s mistake. Reply Anthony Meruelo says: March 7, 2012 at 16:22 I was listening to his show the day that was being discussed. I don’t remember him ever saying the word ‘slut’. Can someone link that for me? Reply Not Too Eloquent says: March 7, 2012 at 19:48 Love Rush! 3 hours of unadulterated truth. NCG says: March 8, 2012 at 00:42 Yep. Thanks for the ammo. Reply Colby says: March 7, 2012 at 13:18 We all understand that women are not having sex with themselves right? Hands off guns but hands on fetus? It has never made sense to me why a women’s right to choose for protection (2a self defense or otherwise) and for abortion are on different sides of the ideological spectrum. Reply HSR47 says: March 8, 2012 at 03:55 “It has never made sense to me why a women’s right to choose for protection (2a self defense or otherwise) and for abortion are on different sides of the ideological spectrum.” It is, quite simply, a matter of innocence. The criminal who attacks women simply going about their business, and with the intent to beat/rob/rape or otherwise do harm to women is not innocent. He has thoroughly considered his crimes, and he has intent; he is NOT innocent. An unborn child on the other hand, is simply going about it’s business of living; it IS innocent. So, to be clear, I believe them to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum because I believe in the sanctity of life ̶ That of the innocent. Your assertion only holds true if you posit a right to commit murder, which I do not support. Reply baclava says: March 8, 2012 at 13:43 nearly 90% of abortions are conducted within the first 12 weeks, well within the embryo state. perhaps not relevant to your point, but a commonly missed distinction nonetheless Reply Silver says: March 7, 2012 at 14:25 Marston’s post got me thinking, and even though this has nothing to do with the comic strip, I don’t know where else to express this to the people behind this blog. Your reviews are great, but in truth, you can get gun and gear reviews anywhere, or even just frequent a competent forum with many opinions. I come to this blog because of its unwavering commitment to give voice to 2A advocates, and not shy away from confronting the antis with their real kryptonite: logic, intelligence, and an unwillingness to compromise our 2A rights. I think the articles that bring to light righteous DGUs, support gun-owners, and confront the lies and tyranny of our enemies is far more important than simply being a site for gun people. I like to think that this blog has changed some minds and spoken to a good number of Americans who truly can be “gun people” and responsible citizens, if only they could be shown a different side than what the MSM has shoved down their gullets. Reply Josh says: March 7, 2012 at 16:46 And then they mess it all up by mixing in birth control politics…. Reply HSR47 says: March 8, 2012 at 04:01 Actually, the issue at hand is NOT contraception; the issue is whether or not the federal government should mandate what insurers MUST cover. Thus, it is an issue of over-regulation of the markets, as well as being an issue of congress over-stepping it’s Constitutional limits. Really, Fluke’s (and other students’) costs being so high is a complex function of left-wing politics both in government (subsidies in various forms and by various names) and in most institutions of higher learning in this country. In effect, she sees an issue, and then demands more of what caused that issue in the first place. Reply Bob says: March 7, 2012 at 15:38 Love the DBD comic strips. Not everyone is good, of course, but a few are very good. I’ve read every one since I discovered them several months ago. I like the knife-twisting irony in a lot of them. Reply GS650G says: March 7, 2012 at 16:16 If we are going to subsidize Ms Fluke’s lifestyle let’s subsidize everyone’s Reply NCG says: March 8, 2012 at 00:44 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/27/1068530/-A-new-controversy-erupts Reply Mark N. says: March 8, 2012 at 02:43 Birth control is a pharmaceutical. It is available only be prescription from a physician. It comes with health risks. And there is no reason why a health insurer should get to pick and choose which common pharmaceuticals it will cover and which it will not. Nor, last time I checked, is health insurance “free.” My monthly bill for premiums is about $2500, not including co-pays. Government mandates as to what insurance must cover are entirely common. The standard fire policy that is part of a homeowner’s policy is mandated by statute in California. The California uninsured motorist coverage is specified by statute, as is every other state’s minimum coverage limits or “na fault” policies. Companies may offer more coverage or variable prices, but all must provide the same basic coverage to every insured. This is absolutely no different. In fact, most health insurance plans will pay for Viagra or other “male supplements”, not something that is considered “medically necessary.” So if they will pay for the cost of giving him the ability to father children, what is inherently wrong with paying for the cost of her prevention of pregnancy? Nada zip zilch. This issue is not and never has been about “free government handouts.” [Although with the major overpopulation we are facing, I think a massive handout of contraceptives would be a good thing. Far more effective that “just say no.”] Reply waif says: March 8, 2012 at 07:30 I don’t believe we are facing “major overpopulation.” Second, why shouldn’t an insurance company be able to choose what services or coverage it will provide? Don’t like it, exercise your right to choose a different insurer. It is embryologically incontrovertible that a fetus is a human life: it’s alive, and it is human–it’s got human genetic material which is being expressed according to a specific developmental path common to every other member of our species, the end product of which is a person. The only issue is who has control over its fate–that is, does it have claim to personhood with the right to not be killed in the womb, or is it equivalent to a tumor or polyp while in the womb, with the right not to be killed coming at a later time. The pro-choice argument is at its strongest when arguing from a position of a woman’s self-determination, but it forfeits this position as soon as it tries to force others to subsidize the life choices of its adherents. Keep your laws off my body? More like keep your hand out of my pocket. Reply Mark N. says: March 8, 2012 at 21:27 What subsidy? This is not about taxpayer money, never was never will be. The big lie is that anyone is being “forced” to subsidize any one for anything. If you buy nto a health care plan, you “subsidize” every person in the plan who needs medical services–that is, after all, how insurance works, through spreading the risk. So if YOU don’t want to subsidize some one else’s medical conditions, don’t buy nsurance. No one is forcing you to have it. And most employees do not get to pick and choose what health insurance they get–they get whatever their company’s plan allows. Further, with birth control, there are no embryos to worry about; we are not talking about abortion. Married people who do not want children/more children take birth control all the time. Are we going to suggest that it is somehow “immoral” for married people to have sex without the risk of having children they cannot afford or do not want? Now who isonposing their views on others? Reply Write a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.