This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover contraception


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:15:13 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover contraception


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

It's probably cheaper to cover contraception than to cover the ensuing
children from not using it.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:15:13 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover
contraception


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

It's probably cheaper to cover contraception than to cover the ensuing
children from not using it.

Cindy Hamilton
groups restored

Perhaps you should have read the article...or are you just another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdNXOi4O6w

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:12:28 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:15:13 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover
contraception


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

It's probably cheaper to cover contraception than to cover the ensuing
children from not using it.

Cindy Hamilton
groups restored

Perhaps you should have read the article...or are you just another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdNXOi4O6w

I read the article. I don't see where it contradicts my point.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 07:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:12:28 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:15:13 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover
contraception


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

It's probably cheaper to cover contraception than to cover the
ensuing children from not using it.

Cindy Hamilton
groups restored

Perhaps you should have read the article...or are you just another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdNXOi4O6w

I read the article. I don't see where it contradicts my point.

Cindy Hamilton

Why should taxpayers pay for your ****ing and abortions???

On 1/22/2017 11:46 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 07:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:12:28 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:15:13 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover
contraception


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

It's probably cheaper to cover contraception than to cover the
ensuing children from not using it.

Cindy Hamilton
groups restored

Perhaps you should have read the article...or are you just another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdNXOi4O6w

I read the article. I don't see where it contradicts my point.

Cindy Hamilton

Why should taxpayers pay for your ****ing and abortions???


Of course they shouldn't but instead you pay for a few more generations
of the same as they keep breeding. Forget looking at it from a moral
POV, consider the economics of it. Unless you have them neutered. . .

On 01/22/2017 10:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Of course they shouldn't but instead you pay for a few more generations
of the same as they keep breeding. Forget looking at it from a moral
POV, consider the economics of it. Unless you have them neutered. . .

There's a thought. Instant one child policy if you're on public assistance.

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:03:35 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/22/2017 11:46 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 07:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:12:28 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:15:13 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover
contraception

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

It's probably cheaper to cover contraception than to cover the
ensuing children from not using it.

Cindy Hamilton
groups restored

Perhaps you should have read the article...or are you just another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdNXOi4O6w

I read the article. I don't see where it contradicts my point.

Cindy Hamilton

Why should taxpayers pay for your ****ing and abortions???

Of course they shouldn't but instead you pay for a few more generations
of the same as they keep breeding. Forget looking at it from a moral
POV, consider the economics of it. Unless you have them neutered. . .


Women who are on welfare should be required to have Norplant or an IUD to prevent further out of wedlock children. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Fertile Monster

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:05:04 -0700
rbowman wrote:

On 01/22/2017 10:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Of course they shouldn't but instead you pay for a few more
generations of the same as they keep breeding. Forget looking at
it from a moral POV, consider the economics of it. Unless you have
them neutered. . .

There's a thought. Instant one child policy if you're on public
assistance.

Do not give more money to welfare whores each time they
have another child.
This is what you get, **** make baby on you.
Better yet, how about the welfare slugs get a job and
take some responsibility for their own life.//////?

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 05:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:15:13 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
This should help to erode the tax base in NY...

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover
contraception


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/22...raception.html

It's probably cheaper to cover contraception than to cover the ensuing
children from not using it.

Cindy Hamilton

Third, to the unbearably self-important screeching harpies of the
Feminist movement: Guess what? 42% of American women voted for
President Trump. Every single one of us has a uterus, ovaries and
vagina. We are mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, girlfriends and
single. We are professionals, blue collar, stay-at-home, entrepreneurs,
and hopeful that a Trump administration will improve the working
situation for all Americans. Because instead of identifying only as
female reproductive organs, we identify as Americans.

You don't want
the government (or anyone really) to meddle in your pussy business?
THEN STOP PUSHING YOUR PUSSIES IN OUR FACES.
Trust me, we don't care
about your pussies.

I guarantee you, we want nothing to do with your
pussies. But Freedom from meddling carries the burden of responsibility
for your choices.
**You can't demand Freedom in one breath, and with the
next demand Government (taxpayer) funded everything.**

That's like
living with your parents rent free and then yelling about having to
live by their rules. Oh, wait..... Anyway, Feminists, we don't care. We
don't want to know what you do, who you do, how often you do, as long
as we aren't held financially responsible for your irresponsible
choices.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 12:03:33 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Why should taxpayers pay for your ****ing and abortions???


Of course they shouldn't but instead you pay for a few more generations
of the same as they keep breeding. Forget looking at it from a moral
POV, consider the economics of it. Unless you have them neutered. . .

Getting them neutered would solve the problem and it would only take one generation.