Can the government mandate that insurance providers supply birth control (an elective treatment) to every single woman?

Can insurance providers not decide that their insurance company is not going to provide birth control for some particular reason?

I think the issue with the contraception and the church has less to do with just birth control in and of itself and more to do with what the government can and cannot mandate.

I think the issue with the contraception and the church has less to do with just birth control in and of itself and more to do with what the government can and cannot mandate.

Horseshit.

You simply realize that you're not going to get anywhere bitching and moaning about your poor, pathetic superstitious sensibilities. Time for a new approach.

The issue isn't birth control, it's government confiscation of liberty.

The issue isn't birth control, it's government confiscation of liberty.

#3 | Posted by Huguenot at 2012-02-13 11:43 AM

@4
Another speechless libtard.

PS,
Why don't you do the latter. ;)

Hugeknob: unaware of his surroundings and proud of it

#6

That's original. How about you climb out of your mother's basement and get a job?

The issue isn't birth control, it's government confiscation of liberty.

No one is forcing you anyone to use birth control. There is no assault on liberty. This is a controversy manufactured by a few superstitious twats and their sycophantic media lackeys. Religion has no claim on matters concerning interstate commerce or personal choice.

The morally decrepit pile of shit known as the catholic church must learn proper place... in the garbage heap of history's greatest mistakes.

It's about big government and small liberty. You libtards think that big govy should be able to tell people what to buy.

Time for a new approach.

Let's just move directly to a China policy;
sterilization -one and done -

How Can Women Of Color - Particularly African-American Women - Otherwise
Prevent Unwanted Pregnancies Without Government Intervention?

The Stereotype Of The Poor, Pregnant, Uneducated Person Of Color Is A Thing Of The Past.

Thank Our Lucky Stars For President Obama!
LOL!

So... If a gov were elected that decided there should be no abortions under any circumstances, would you believe that is a reasonable exercise of gov power?

To not believe so, seems a bit hypocritical.

Why not leave the gov out of all of this? Don't pay for contraceptives or abortion. Don't tell people whether or not they can have abortions. Don't pay for people's health coverage.

Stop bailing people out for making bad decisions.

Are you a worthless piece of ghetto trash? Here, I've got some birth control for you, for FREE: CLOSE YOUR MOTTLED, NASTY ASS FAT LEGS ONCE IN A WHILE.

It works wonders, yo!

How Can Women Of Color - Particularly African-American Women - Otherwise Prevent Unwanted Pregnancies Without Government Intervention?

The Stereotype Of The Poor, Pregnant, Uneducated Person Of Color Is A Thing Of The Past.
#12 | Posted by skip_wellington at 2012-02-13 08:34 PM

Thankfully Maury and his "Who my baby daddy" episodes keeps the dream alive...

I thought that personal responsibility was a virture of the right. How responsible is it for people to get health care without paying for it?

How responsible would it be to drive on our nation's highways and bridges without paying for the prividledge? If people didn't contribute to the construction and maintenance of our highways and bridges through a tax on fuel and tolls, our highways and bridges wouldn't get built and wouldn't be maintained. If "we the people" don't pay for it, who will?

The mandate to purchase medical insurance is an attempt to change the health care payment model to make it more like that of the highways and bridges i.e. pay in advance. Paying in advance increases the likelihood that the resource will be there when we need it.

^Probably a better place to start would be to get the government out of health care payments in the first place. Prices would go down an people would self ration instead of big govy rationing for them.

It's about big government and small liberty. You libtards think that big govy should be able to tell people what to buy.

#10 | Posted by Huguenot

Why do I get the feeling you think it's big government and small liberty when Jack in the Box only has regular fries and the the curly fries you wanted?

Maury and Jerry fans notwithstanding, the correlation of poverty and fertility continues unabated. It's an issue of freedom, yes. You can't be free if every sex act must be accompanied by the fear of pregnancy. herm

Its very simple:

Every one is not responsible for your private actions with regard to your body.

However, as soon as you say everyone must pay for your private actions with your body, you no longer have a say in what happens to your body.

If you get pregnant, you did it to yourself, you and your partner.

I'm not your partner, so I'm not paying.

If you say I should pay for what you do with your body.

Then I say what it is you are to do with your body.

Yea, thought not.

Typical Libtart.

Just like the gay meth head taking on every body in the club.

"Keep your government off my body", till they got AIDS.

Then its "The government needs to pay for my hospice care ".

Sick,sicker and sickest.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER....

@18
IDK, I'll bet that I want government dictating fewer things than you do though.

#16 | POSTED BY FEDUPWITHPOLS AT 2012-02-13 08:48 PM | REPLY

The bridges and tollways are bad examples. What are you basically saying is that you want me to pay for you to drive on the tollways while I avoid paying the extra toll charges.

I feel the same way about health insurance as I do car insurance. Insure what you believe you are worth. However, there would need to be an affordable way for everyone to do so.

Those who volunteer to opt out should either go to a free clinic or die in the street.

Is is all due to poverty?. Could ignorance and lack of responsibility have anything to do with it? I thought the vaunted Planned Parenthood gave out free condoms and birth control pills. Or is all the money and effort reserved for doing abortions-not for free.

You simply realize that you're not going to get anywhere bitching and moaning about your poor, pathetic superstitious sensibilities. Time for a new approach.

#2 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2012-02-13 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Careful, Ex. IcePrick gets testy when you challenge his religion.

Or in this case, IcePrick brought it up.

You do realize that unwanted pregnancies end up costing all of us a bunch of money? Crime, police, jails cost a lot more money than some fucking birth control pills! And to suggest that poor women (I love how righties hate women as much as they do poor and non-whites in general) should bear the responsibility by "keeping their legs closed" while ignoring that many of them are married? Righties are famous for the "woman should submit to her husband" point of view. How do you reconcile these?

Why do righties always seem to fail to see the "penny-wise pound-foolish"-ness of their point of view?

Odummer has put a price on a human life and low and behold its the cost of co-payment. Nanny State now has yet another definition. Americas 2008 brain fart lives on. NOBAMA 2012.

Why do righties always seem to fail to see the "penny-wise pound-foolish"-ness of their point of view?

Because a lot of them are greedy fatasses?

Is is all due to poverty?. Could ignorance and lack of responsibility have anything to do with it? I thought the vaunted Planned Parenthood gave out free condoms and birth control pills. Or is all the money and effort reserved for doing abortions-not for free.

#23 | POSTED BY DONALD

There is no "free" birth control. Also, insurance companies are fine with taking on the cost of birth control without co-pays as part of preventive coverage. You know why? Because birth control pills for life for a woman costs less than one complicated pregnancy or premature delivery! If I'm a business which path do you think I'd prefer?

Also, as righties seem unaware that birth control pills are prescribed for a number of health issues other than preventing pregnancy.

Taking birth control pills also decreases a woman's risk of ovarian cancer. Data analysis of birth-control pill use in more than 23,000 women with ovarian cancer and 87,000 women without ovarian cancer suggests that a woman's risk of ovarian cancer decreases by 58 percent with 15 years' use, 44 percent with 10 to 14 years' use, 36 percent with five to nine years' use, and 22 percent with one to four years of use.

Does a woman with health insurance have a right to get the medicine she needs for these conditions? Are you going to police why each woman is taking birth control?

You know their answer is going to be the Church isn't preventing these women from taking it, just from them having to pay for it.

Because a lot of them are greedy fatasses?

#27 | POSTED BY JPW

Y'know, that could be it!

You do realize that unwanted pregnancies end up costing all of us a bunch of money? Crime, police, jails cost a lot more money than some fucking birth control pills!

#25 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2012-02-13 09:48 PM

Why not force women to undergo contraceptive implants? Then they can apply to have a child and the government can review the application to make sure that they are able to provide a good home and family environment for that child?

That would fix your argument.

@25
Dude,
Think about it. What is the biggest problem the America faces? What is the cause of hunger, crime, unwanted pregnancies, drug addiction, child abuse, urban plight and high school drop out? It's POVERTY.

The cure? Put a check in their mailbox every month.

You know their answer is going to be the Church isn't preventing these women from taking it, just from them having to pay for it.

#29 | POSTED BY JPW

But that's just the point! The Church isn't paying for it. The insurance companies are just covering it anyway, because it costs them less than pregnancies do.

Why not force women to undergo contraceptive implants? Then they can apply to have a child and the government can review the application to make sure that they are able to provide a good home and family environment for that child?
That would fix your argument.

#31 | POSTED BY T_MAN

Is that what a "small government" does?

I think the right just hates sex (unless, of course, it's kinky)

But that's just the point! The Church isn't paying for it. The insurance companies are just covering it anyway, because it costs them less than pregnancies do.

#33 | Posted by WhoDaMan

You're insane if you believe that the cost of that benefit doesn't get included in the price of premiums.

Obama's comprimise was not a comprimise at all.

Is that what a "small government" does?

#34 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2012-02-13 10:15 PM | REPLY

Is that some sort of cryptic post? Wtf does that mean?

I was just pointing out a solution to the problems that you posted. As you will not decrease those things unless you force people to take contraceptives on a regular basis without skipping a day.

Can't people get free birth control from places like planned parenthood right now? So your assumption is that if it's free and easily accessible, these same irresponsible people, will be responsible enough to take these pills, as directed, and without missing doses.... RIGHT!!!

Probably a better place to start would be to get the government out of health care payments in the first place. Prices would go down an people would self ration instead of big govy rationing for them.

#17 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT

Just like they never ever have before.

Do you know why there are no more Huguenots? Because they were as stupid as you.

more pleasure, fewer babies, lower costs: win/win/win

This is such manure.

Poor women have all the birth control they could ever need or want.

PP gives it out for free. They give out free condums and free BC pills.

There are insurance plans with small co pays. Wall Mart, CVS, Walgreens and Target give the BC pills for $4.00 a month.

Then there is the free method--no screwing--that's 100% no pregnancy would occur.

But even if the stuff were free--there will be women who are so irresponsible--they don't care!!

But that's just the point! The Church isn't paying for it. The insurance companies are just covering it anyway, because it costs them less than pregnancies do.

#33 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Obama pulled a patsy--he was forcing religious organizations to pay for the contraception--against their religioius principles.

And just moved the shell game to force insurance companies to pay for it.

Which in essence means you and me the taxpayer.

Someone is going to pay--because the HC Act forces people to have a mandatory policy with mandatory terms and conditions at a mandatory cost.

Better people have no health insurance and die and decrease the population, eh Murph?

PP gives it out for free. They give out free condums and free BC pills.

And you "conservatives" want to get rid of that too. Try again.

There are insurance plans with small co pays. Wall Mart, CVS, Walgreens and Target give the BC pills for $4.00 a month.

Link? One that describes eligibility and availability please.

Then there is the free method--no screwing--that's 100% no pregnancy would occur.

Right. Yours is a bitter, unhappy life so everyone else's must be too.

Sad thing is is abstinence being the only 100% guarantee is obvious. Too bad it isn't reality though. Try living in reality before you comment on it.

But even if the stuff were free--there will be women who are so irresponsible--they don't care!!

Which is exactly why we should make sex education about kittens and beams of sunshine and God.

It's mind boggling how conservatives can be so wrong all the time and yet be so convinced they're correct.

And you "conservatives" want to get rid of that too. Try again.

It's funny to me that leftists abhor ANY religious-group clinging to tax-exempt status but, at the sams time, find ZERO opposition to PP being tax-exempt - hell, PP receives taxpayer monies to fund abortion.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2012-02-14 02:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

No one talks about making sex education about kittens and beams of sunshine and God.

They do talk about making it about personal responsibility and dealing with the consequences of your own actions.

Notice, pro choice individuals want abortion to be "legal, safe, and rare (supposedly)".

So far... their strategy for making it "rare" has not been working very well.

The issue isn't birth control, it's government confiscation of liberty.

#3 | Posted by Huguenot at 2012-02-13 11:43 AM

Another hysterical cooze speaks up.

#4 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I guess you don't believe in the constitution of the USA.

Where does it say the US government can make us buy something we don't want or need. Please point that part out to me ace.

Jeff, could you kindly show me a post where I talk about PP tax status? It'd be news to me considering I'm not at all familiar with their tax status.

#45 an honest man would admit their strategy hasn't really been implemented because of the constant watering down by conservatives who don't want their precious children learning about things they likely already know and who want to live in a dream world where millions of years of evolution and biology can simply be ignored.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2012-02-14 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's called a strawman. You just constructed one.

The strategy of the "legal, safe and rare" people has been implemented. They have been too focused on the "legal, safe" part and have not been doing so well with the "and rare" part of the discussion.

Why? Because there seems to be an initiative to remove the humanity from the unique, living human being growing in the womb.

I think a much stronger dose of responsibility would be very helpful in all three areas, legal, safe, and rare.

It's only partially a strawman.

The strategy has not been implemented because of the reasons I stated. I'm not on my comp so I can't find them but IIRC studies have been shown that clearly show the higher the priority on abstinence only the poorer the results of the sex ed, ie higher teen pregnancies abortions ect.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2012-02-14 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, as you admitted, strawman.

I didn't say anything about abstinence only.

I don't think abstinence only is correct, as it is obvious that there are people who don't have very good self control and will need other means to prevent.

Of course the situation of making it "legal, safe, and rare" goes beyond contraception in dealing with responsibility for ones actions.

"I think a much stronger dose of responsibility would be very helpful"

Then fight for sex education, not sex misinformation.

Then fight for sex education, not sex misinformation.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-14 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag: DERP

You get the derp flag. Warranted you by your ignorance.

-Then fight for sex education, not sex misinformation.

you mean comprehensive sex education, don't you?

IOW, not abstinence only sex education...right?

misinformation? you mean kids are being told that if you don't have sex, you could still get pregnant?

"IOW, not abstinence only sex education...right?"

Abstinence-only teaching isn't sex education, it's sex misinformation.

"misinformation? you mean kids are being told that if you don't have sex, you could still get pregnant?"

No, misinformation, as it implies kids won't have sex if told not to have sex.

-No, misinformation, as it implies kids won't have sex if told not to have sex.

I don't think that's misinformation. It's "disbelief" that kids won't have sex if told not to have sex. which I agree. telling them not to and leaving it at that is stupid.

is that all abstinence only education is?

"don't have sex, it's wrong. you'll get pregnant or get a disease. class over"

that's it?

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-14 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag: DERP

What is hilarious is that your post is misinformation.

1. Abstinence only education is not what is being discussed.
2. Abstinence only education, even if it was being discussed, does not imply that kids won't have sex if told not to have sex. It tells kids that the most fool proof way of not getting pregnant is not to have sex.
3. Abstinence only education, even if it was being discussed, is sex education as it educates people about sex and how to avoid becoming pregnant by not having sex.

You have earned yourself another DERP flag. Congratulations.

Abstinence only education is not what is being discussed.

The participants in the earlier discussion of abstinence only education would beg to differ. You really do live in your own personal fantasy land, don't you?

The only derp on this thread is your own half-baked fundie drivel.

#58 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2012-02-14 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

More prejudice and ignorance from Zombiehunter.

Danforth responded to me. I was not talking about abstinence only education. Danforth was incorrect and thus you are incorrect.

3. Abstinence only education, even if it was being discussed, is sex education as it educates people about sex and how to avoid becoming pregnant by not having sex.

#57 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Would say that depends on the content of Abstinence only education methods.

If all they say is dont do it, then it's BS. It's like telling someone to avoid driving in snow because they dont want to teach you how to handle a spin-out.

Eventually the situation's going to come up and as in both cases, sometimes the only option is to go with it and hope for the best.

Rather know my options to be honest rather than "hold tight, close your eyes, and pray".

Besides, regarding all of this, why the outrage now and not when more than half the states passed a law requiring contraceptive coverage? Last I heard the church has a presence all over the world, including those states...why now?

Rather know my options to be honest rather than "hold tight, close your eyes, and pray".

Well, when you're a dipshit who's convinced praying actually works that's not as bad as it sounds.

Stupid republicans. Birth control bad, "personhood" amendments shot down in the reddest of red states - and yet Virginia's forced vaginal probe ultrasounds and legislated "personhood" on track to become law. What a collective bunch of authoritarian dung dwellers.

Where does it say the US government can make us buy something we don't want or need. Please point that part out to me ace.

They can make you pay taxes.
They can spend that tax revenue to provision We The People with goods and services that Congress deems appropriate.
For example, the military is paid for out of tax revenues.
For example, health care for the military is also paid for out of tax revenues.

Hope this helps!

let see no abortion do not make birth control easy to get blame poor people for having to many children
the Conservative logic

Hugenut: The issue isn't birth control, it's government confiscation of liberty.

Precisely. GOPhers want to control women by taking away their autonomy.

Or did you mean something else?

PP: let see no abortion do not make birth control easy to get blame poor people for having to many children
the Conservative logic.

Pretty much THIS.

Republicans are all about protecting the po' precious babby from ejaculation to birth but once the kid is here they denigrate a poor mother by calling her a "welfare queen" for availing herself of any social services.

Their logic is very ill.

Be Well.

Precisely. GOPhers want to control women by taking away their autonomy.

Women are not being denied contraception - they are not having their autonomy taken away. The left just wants somebody else to pay for their contraception and they want to do it by force. THAT is taking away people's autonomy.

How disingenuous can you people be on this issue?

I love how opposition to a NEW mandate is somehow taking away something; something that didn't exist before.

The mental gymnastics leftists will go to justify their totalitarianism is astounding.

Rather know my options to be honest rather than "hold tight, close your eyes, and pray".

Besides, regarding all of this, why the outrage now and not when more than half the states passed a law requiring contraceptive coverage? Last I heard the church has a presence all over the world, including those states...why now?

#60 | Posted by Lohocla at 2012-02-14 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course that is another strawman that JPW would be proud of. They don't teach "hold tight, close your eyes, and pray". Even if abstinence only education was the issue I was discussing (which it wasn't) you would be incorrect.

There are actually secular "abstinence only" education programs as well.

It has more to do with abstinence being the only 100% foolproof way of not getting pregnant if you don't want to than it has to do with anything else.

In fact, many abstinence only programs do inform people about their other options, but make clear that abstinence is the only way to make sure you do not get pregnant if you do not want to or are not ready to be pregnant.

The presidents policies will make birth control more expensive so that won't help. Follow the lives of poor people and you find out that this article is way off base. Most poor smoke, drink, and buy lottery tickets, but according to this article they can't afford birth control yea right.

My experience with the poor in my family was mostly bad decisions when it came to handling money.

They call the lottery the poor persons tax for reason. Yet this article claims they can't afford birth control.

It has more to do with abstinence being the only 100% foolproof way of not getting pregnant if you don't want to than it has to do with anything else.

In fact, many abstinence only programs do inform people about their other options, but make clear that abstinence is the only way to make sure you do not get pregnant if you do not want to or are not ready to be pregnant.

#68 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

That pesky "many but not all" contradicts the "abstinence ONLY" aspect of the debate.

And honestly, I totally agree with that approach.

I have no problem with someone saying the only 100% foolproof way to avoid std's an pregnancy is dont do it, what I DO have an issue with is the idea of saying that's the only contraceptive we approve of, dont even think of it.

Because now you have 100% or 0% chance, especially if you make it a stigma for other than abstinance type contraceptives.

As Spud pointed out, some people have the reverse logic of always being right vs abortion / social programs. Protect them until they're born, then ridicule them and deny them help afterwards.

People are going to fuck, that's reality and one that is constantly ignored.

Just becuase YOU (non specific you) dont like it, doesnt alter the reality that, in the long run, it's cheaper to provide contraceptives than to not. The problem, for me at least, is that the conservitive mantra of "free market" somehow do not apply.

Besides, these are their ideas as of a few years ago, so it's not a theological issue, it's a political one and honestly it's stupid.

Neither side is 100% wrong or right, but because both sides are on the fringe, nothing gets done because each side considers it a binary argument, all or nothing. Thats not a representational form of Govt, it's something else.

fear of pregnancy. herm

#19 | Posted by herm at 2012-02-13 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too bad YOUR parents were not afraid ENOUGH of this.

No telling how many innocent lives might have survived without your "safe passage" escort to the death chambers in PP.

The left just wants somebody else to pay for their contraception and they want to do it by force. THAT is taking away people's autonomy.

Requiring that a corporation process billing codes used within their industry...
Can you name the person whose autonomy is threatened by that?
Because I'm not seeing a single person affected.

but make clear that abstinence is the only way to make sure you do not get pregnant if you do not want to or are not ready to be pregnant.

Well already the program is flawed, because anal sex works just as well for that.

The left just wants somebody else to pay for their contraception and they want to do it by force.

If you believe in the Social Contract, then you believe in enforcement of contracts.
Enforceent. Does not equal coercion. Get it?

Of course, if you reject the Social Contract and prefer anarchy, that's fine too.
It's cool that you can get on the Internet from your Ted Kacynzski shack in the woods!

fear of pregnancy. herm
#19 | Posted by herm at 2012-02-13 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too bad YOUR parents were not afraid ENOUGH of this.

No telling how many innocent lives might have survived without your "safe passage" escort to the death chambers in PP.
#72 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at

I find it ironic that those who are many supporters of the pro-life, find it OK to make comments like that and somehow can honestly not see the hipocracy in it.

I find it ironic that those who are many supporters of the pro-life, find it OK to make comments like that and somehow can honestly not see the hipocracy in it.

#76 | Posted by Lohocla at 2012-02-16 06:37 AM | Reply | Flag:
Not at all - I don't consider HERM "human life".