I’ve read many stories covering this issue, and I understand that now the law will allow girls of any age to buy plan B.
My question is what about boys?
Can boys of any age buy Plan B? I’m assuming yes.
Why do all the reports only say girls?

What about the slogan “If we can save one life”? President Obama likes to use it as justification for his proposals. . . I think the last time he used it was in the gun control argument.
So what if SGK is a poorly run organization that spends too much on administration costs?
They do a good job of raising awareness of the issue, and organizing corporate donations, so 15% to research is a large number of dollars.
Overall they do a public good, even though if costs more than it should, kind of like Obamacare costs too much, but it’ll help some people.

The Debt of the USA is increasing every day, because we (the US Government) borrow money every day to keep the Government running.
The deficit IS being reduced, mostly due to the fact that more tax revenue was collected this year than expected.
The debt over the next 10 year is now projected to be $681 billion less than before, but the Debt will still be a very large number ($8 to $10 Trillion).
Right now the US Government owes about $17 Trillion, and that will increase to $25 Trillion in the next 10 years.

This Bill seems to be based on a false argument. . .
The Federal Reserve is NOT the Government they are a private central bank.
They support their member banks with discount interest rates, but the member banks have to pay to belong to the “club” they also have to follow the rules, and one of the rules is the interest rates they can charge.
That being said, I agree that the Federal Government is charging a high rate.

The problem of high student loan debt has a lot to do with the amount the universities are charging.
Somebody should do a study into where the money paid in tuition goes.
Some of the large universities are sitting on large sums of cash. When I say large I’m talking Billions of dollars! Harvard could charge free tuition for all it’s students, for the next 150 years, and still have money left over.

Just an example of what I’m talking about: Here in California the State government is spending more money than ever on higher education (State University system) yet students are still forced to pay large sums in tuition.
Prior to the mid 1970′s the California State Universities were free to attend, all you had to do was buy the books.
How did we get to the point where a student has to pay $25,000 a year or even up to $40,000 a year for tuition???

Interest rates on this debt is the small problem, figuring out where the money goes; now that’s an issue!

Do all these Bills say the same thing? or are they worded differently?
if so what are the differences?

And the Dems would be for it! . . . It goes goes both ways, think about this:

What if President Bush proposed health insurance reform that promised to insure everyone and lower the cost of insurance for everyone, by mandating that everyone buy government approved insurance policies from a private insurance company that got to mark up the cost so they made a bigger profit.
And the analysis of the Plan would come to the conclusion that only half of the uninsured would be covered by insurance after 10 years, and the cost of the program would triple.
Do you think every Democrats in congress would vote in favor of that plan?

The Affordable Care Act is a terrible law, but the dems feel obligated to support it. Obamacare should be repealed because it’s a bad law. It doesn’t reform healthcare, it only changes who pays for health insurance, and mandates everyone pay insurance companies for coverage, while driving up those costs.
I can’t believe the Dems fell for this terrible plan.
Obamacare should be repealed by the Dems and replaced with real reform!
1) All workers who’s employer pays for a share of their healthcare insurance coverage should have that money paid to them as wages. It’s their money!
2) Everyone should have basic medical insurance coverage paid for by the government (like Medicare) with a sale sales national sales tax.
3) everyone could buy additional Medical insurance if they choose with their own money.
You’d end up with:
1) More money for workers.
2) Everyone would have medical insurance for basic medical needs, at lower cost.
3) Everyone would have freedom to choose more coverage if they want.

I think you made a good bet. . . I think Kennedy was just making a stupid statement to build support for the pro marriage equality side. . .
I’m actually in favor of keeping traditional marriage, and adding marriage equality to it, because in my mind it’s still different, but it would be a shame to decide a case like this on such weak arguments.

All Americans are already treated equally. All unmarried men of age can marry all unmarried women of age, (excluding family members).
Therefore a heterosexual male and a homosexual male can marry the exact same pool of women.

Marriage is the 2 genders coming together to form a union.

Marriage equality is based on a persons sexuality, not gender, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just different, so it should be called something other than marriage.

What does “Marriage Equality” mean?

Is it any two people that are not already married, and are above the age of consent can Marry each other in the eyes of the law?

What benefit is there to the State recognizing such a relationship?

I’m all for equal treatment under the law, but I haven’t heard any argument so compelling that would it require changing the definition of Marriage.

What does “Marriage Equality” mean?

Is it any two people that are not already married, and are above the age of consent can Marry each other in the eyes of the law?

What benefit is there to the State recognizing such a relationship?

It would be nice to see some of the facts of the studies in this article. How do the different studies prove that one type of parent is better than another?
what standard do they use?

Finally someone is making sense! . . . I’ve been saying for 4 years now, that the best way to lower health insurance costs is to LOWER the eligible age for medicare to 62 years old. That way you get 62 year old to retire, which frees up jobs for younger people, and they’ll probably take Social Security at age 62, saving money there in the short run 7 years, then costing slightly more if they live to be 70 years old or older. . . It’s really a win / win situation.
Let’s face it Obamacare is a terrible law! it lowers quality of care, increases costs, and still leaves 25 million people uninsured. . .
Please someone stop Obamacare from being fully implemented! It would be cheaper and better to just allow anyone without health insurance to join medicare. It’s a simple, easy and affordable way to insure people.