Let me try to re-launch a question that got slightly lost.

For those who feel contraception that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg is abortion, and that abortion is homicide, does it follow that a woman who uses that type of contraception should be subject to the penalty for homicide?

My understanding is that common birth control pills may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Some people do, that's why I asked, which seems fair to me.  From his answer apparently Tommy is among them. 

I was not moving to pre-fertilization, I was just shortening because I thought from the context the meaning was clear.  Not to a lawyer, apparently.    Also only a lawyer would quibble over the difference  between homicide and murder in this context, and then insult the other party by suggesting they were unreasonable.   You did not really answer.  Should I rephrase?

Soooo a woman using contraception should face the same consequences as any other murderer, you say.

You're bringing out my inner feminist.

Sounds like a logical stance, but I'm curious how it works out. What should the law be? Do you want all forms of abortion, even contraceptives that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, made illegal? What happens to a woman who uses them?  Is she fined?  Jailed? Sent for mandatory re-education?  I think this is the enforcement problem to which some have alluded.

The linked article appears to hold that the President's false version was what he believed at the time.  So the President is only guilty of a little harmless spin in pretending he had not (incorrectly but innocently) blamed the video.  I call baloney.

The article seems to put the blame squarely on Hillary for the false video story, though, doesn't it?

Also there was an unintentionally hilarious sentence in there about how the President could not be blamed for relying on inaccurate CIA intelligence!!!!!!  Whatever happened to "Bush lied, people died"?

But I feel the waters closing over the story again.

It's true, our government may be keeping us in the dark for our own good.  But so very unlikely.

Not looking for conclusions; looking for the relevant facts in context.  In one instance she quotes someone as saying they avoided characterizing the attacks as terrorism out of "an abundance of caution."  Said caution did not stop them from blaming the attacks on the video, a pertinent and known fact that would help us decide how believable they were.  She says it's unclear where the video story came from, but does not say why it's unclear (I presume it's because no one in a position to know, will say.)  Perhaps she is trying to preserve a relationship with her nameless sources by not directly discrediting their statements.  

I have heard repeatedly that after a 5pm briefing in an already scheduled meeting, Obama was incommunicado until early the next morning.  But Andrew McCarthy says Hillary Clinton's February Congressional testimony mentioned a 10 PM phone call with Obama!  Shortly after which, Clinton issued the "response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet" story.

As you said, the video story did not arise during successive drafts of the talking points.  The talking points were successively revised to conform to the video story.

That is a good article but seems too willing to accept the "early confusion" explanation.  As TP outlines in the post above, that is just not credible.

TP does a great job with the early days which I am too lazy to emulate with the later ones.  But I recall that two-three weeks after 9/11/13, long after anyone could claim "early confusion", the President was still blaming the video at the UN, on David Letterman and The View, and on
Univision.  It was clear if you were paying a little attention as, say, the New York Times was not, that the president of Libya was telling us the truth while our President was lying to us.  I found it stunning at the time.  I actually did not think President Obama would handle an attack on America that weakly and dishonestly.

MLH, I don't think cash discounts are illegal but they may break insurance contracts. There are "professional courtesy" discretionary discounts but more common, as I was trying to say, is charging an enormous additional amount to cash customers.  That seems like a perverse sort of pricing.

MFR, I have carried a large deductible for years, it's now $11,000/yr, and I used to just pay cash and then submit for reimbursement to my insurance company if I went over the deductible.  I has to stop that because very often the doctor's office could not even guess what they were going to charge me, and also I had to let it run through the insurance company to get the negotiated rate.  Again, crazy that I would be penalized for just paying the bill at the time.

AZ Dude, I discussed emergency room care specifically because I thought you said that's what the law covered.  I do think we need to reduce the involvement of government and third party payers.  Emergency room care will always be a tough issue, but a lot could be done to make ordinary care rational.  It won't be done under Obamacare.

Me too.  Yes, she demonstrated skilled slimy-lawyerhood there.

The existing pre-Obamacare system is in fact inadequate, but probably not because it has too much free enterprise in it. 
Emergency health care does have some weaknesses as far as a being a free market- you  won't be comparison shopping or asking if the hospital is in-network if it's a real emergency.  There is also a perversity in the fact that the uninsured are billed three times what the insurance company pays.  If in fact this had the effect that the hospital billed everyone the same for the same service, that would not be all bad.  The drawback is, it would probably average higher without the pressure from insurance companies, plus it's just a ridiculous thing for the state to be micromanaging. 

Yup. 

My mother got each of her children a good suitcase for high school graduation.  A gentle hint, perhaps.  I have mine to this day, battered but functional.

For some nephews who liked to sleep late I got a "no excuses" present to take to college:  A watch with an alarm, electric clock/radio alarm, and travel alarm (all inexpensive.) 

I think items every independent adult needs like a sewing kit, tool kit, car emergency kit, office supply kit, etc. are good.

I get my husband a new package of work socks every birthday and Christmas, and every time he expresses great delight.  "Like walking on a cloud" to have new socks, he says.  He really is quite low maintenance.