Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fired!

[Matata]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Well I dunno...if my BC is my business and some don't want to pay for it because it allegedly has nothing to do with women's health, although the CDC considers abortion a matter of women's health and abortion is linked to BC whether we like it or not, why should I "pay" for others' diabetes, heart conditions, arthritis, high blood pressure, anti-depressants, allergies. A case could be made that each of those could be avoided through better personal accountability so let's remove them from insurance plans too. And hey, if you're born with bad genes that predispose you to an illness or disease, why should it be my concern. If none of those people are treated and die, less taxes and more money for the rest of us, nicht wahr?

 

[Circe]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Well I dunno...if my BC is my business and some don't want to pay for it because it allegedly has nothing to do with women's health, although the CDC considers abortion a matter of women's health and abortion is linked to BC whether we like it or not, why should I "pay" for others' diabetes, heart conditions, arthritis, high blood pressure, anti-depressants, allergies. A case could be made that each of those could be avoided through better personal accountability so let's remove them from insurance plans too. And hey, if you're born with bad genes that predispose you to an illness or disease, why should it be my concern. If none of those people are treated and die, less taxes and more money for the rest of us, nicht wahr?

I know you're kidding, but I have the sneaking suspicion that a large segment of this country - above and beyond the insurance execs - is very serious about feeling this way, and will stay that way until misfortune strikes them. Oddly enough, then the shoe is always on the other foot ....

 

[Maria D]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Well I dunno...if my BC is my business and some don't want to pay for it because it allegedly has nothing to do with women's health, although the CDC considers abortion a matter of women's health and abortion is linked to BC whether we like it or not, why should I "pay" for others' diabetes, heart conditions, arthritis, high blood pressure, anti-depressants, allergies. A case could be made that each of those could be avoided through better personal accountability so let's remove them from insurance plans too. And hey, if you're born with bad genes that predispose you to an illness or disease, why should it be my concern. If none of those people are treated and die, less taxes and more money for the rest of us, nicht wahr?

That's right people...I'm already sucking you dry for the $110 difference between my Pulmicort inhaler cost and my co-pay, all because I refuse to give up the cats! Nyah, nyah, nyah.

(and yes, I did fire off an email to my state and federal reps in the last hour)

 

[Matata]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I know you're kidding, but I have the sneaking suspicion that a large segment of this country - above and beyond the insurance execs - is very serious about feeling this way, and will stay that way until misfortune strikes them. Oddly enough, then the shoe is always on the other foot ....

Alas, Circe, I fear you're correct and tis a sad state of affairs indeed. I think it's because people vary and they are far more dangerous than people who differ

 

[MissStepcut]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

My insurance covered my acne medication and paid 80%, along with the cough suppressant I got to get me through a job interview... If we really want to have an "as medically necessary as birth control" standard, I think we're gonna find that it covers a whole lot of stuff we're all enjoying coverage for now.

Plus, if Catholics should get to exclude coverage for contraceptives, should Jehovah's Witness employers get to exclude blood transfusions?

 

[beebrisk]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Plus, if Catholics should get to exclude coverage for contraceptives, should Jehovah's Witness employers get to exclude blood transfusions?

Yes, if that employer is a church or any other religious institution-- as is their Constitutionally protected right.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Bee, I'm curious - what's the solution, in your perspective? Can you suggest a better course of action?

I'm not asking what people "should" do - I've gotten that you think that we should all pay for ourselves, each man is an island, no cooperative effort, etc., etc.

But in the society that we HAVE, where we pay taxes and social programs exist and children born to unwilling or incapable parents will partake of social programs and your tax dollars and what-have-you ... outside of doing what we can to help people limit their family sizes to make the most of our resources, what's your solution?

P.S. - Question stands. If birth control is a terrible notion but we all admit we can't put the genie back in the bottle ... any concrete suggestions from the conservatives? Ladies keep an aspirin between your knees didn't work then, and it won't work now. So, again I say ...?

*cricket, cricket*

Yeah.

Some people are just cranky and think that it's their god given right to complain about what everyone else is doing-- but never actually HELPING find a solution.

In this case, we already HAVE the only solution that is going to work. They just don't like it so they are sticking their fingers in their ears-- unfortunately their gums are still flapping in the process.

And BlackJade-- I'm a person who loves children, but has chosen not to have them. Nothing to do with hating babies or railing against the reality that women's bodies are made to bear children and everything to do with personal CHOICE.

Which is what the abortion debate is. No one is Pro-abortion. That's just INACCURATE. People are pro-personal choice or anti personal choice.

 

[MissStepcut]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Plus, if Catholics should get to exclude coverage for contraceptives, should Jehovah's Witness employers get to exclude blood transfusions?

Yes, if that employer is a church or any other religious institution-- as is their Constitutionally protected right.

Is a hospital or, say, law school, a "religious institution"? Because if we literally just mean churches, the discussion just narrowed dramatically. If we're talking about profitable businesses that just happen to be run by religious institutions, we're back where we started.

Edit: and let's not just declare who has what rights in this discussion. It's not nearly as obvious as you're making it sound, and you're no Supreme Court justice.

 

[beebrisk]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Bee, I'm curious - what's the solution, in your perspective? Can you suggest a better course of action?

I'm not asking what people "should" do - I've gotten that you think that we should all pay for ourselves, each man is an island, no cooperative effort, etc., etc.

But in the society that we HAVE, where we pay taxes and social programs exist and children born to unwilling or incapable parents will partake of social programs and your tax dollars and what-have-you ... outside of doing what we can to help people limit their family sizes to make the most of our resources, what's your solution?

P.S. - Question stands. If birth control is a terrible notion but we all admit we can't put the genie back in the bottle ... any concrete suggestions from the conservatives? Ladies keep an aspirin between your knees didn't work then, and it won't work now. So, again I say ...?

*cricket, cricket*

Yeah.

Some people are just cranky and think that it's their god given right to complain about what everyone else is doing-- but never actually HELPING find a solution.

In this case, we already HAVE the only solution that is going to work. They just don't like it so they are sticking their fingers in their ears-- unfortunately their gums are still flapping in the process.

And BlackJade-- I'm a person who loves children, but has chosen not to have them. Nothing to do with hating babies or railing against the reality that women's bodies are made to bear children and everything to do with personal CHOICE.

Which is what the abortion debate is. No one is Pro-abortion. That's just INACCURATE. People are pro-personal choice or anti personal choice.

Invoking a religious institution's right to conscience does not require a "solution".

I never said I was against BC. I said I am against religious institutions being forced to by the Federal Government to provide it or cover it.

I never said I was against insurance covering BC. I said I'm against the Federal Government forcing insurance companies to cover it, 100% as they are soon to do, by law.

I never said "birth control is a terrible notion". In fact, I have used it for most of my adult life. Heck, if I could put in the water system, I would . I do not have a single objection to BC. I do not have a single moral question or concern with regards to BC or anyone who uses them.

If I thought all those questions (directed toward me) had anything to do with any of my objections here, than I would answer them. Alas they are irrelevant to my position on this particular issue and certainly not relevant to the original topic.

 

[beebrisk]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Plus, if Catholics should get to exclude coverage for contraceptives, should Jehovah's Witness employers get to exclude blood transfusions?

Yes, if that employer is a church or any other religious institution-- as is their Constitutionally protected right.

Is a hospital or, say, law school, a "religious institution"? Because if we literally just mean churches, the discussion just narrowed dramatically. If we're talking about profitable businesses that just happen to be run by religious institutions, we're back where we started.

Edit: and let's not just declare who has what rights in this discussion. It's not nearly as obvious as you're making it sound, and you're no Supreme Court justice.

Never claimed to serve on the court but anyone who has ever read the Constitution and studied even the basics of American history should understand the importance of religious freedom and why it is contained within the FIRST Amendment.

Yes, businesses "that just happen to be run by religious institutions" are entitled to self-govern. If you have a problem with that, I would suggest even a cursory reading of said First Amendment. I'm not the one declaring "who has what rights" here. That was done 200+ years ago.

And remember that after the groundswell of outrage, even our current president deferred to its wisdom. It's that obvious.

 

[movie zombie]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

imo, when a religious organization decides to move out of the church and into the world of commerce, now is a commercial group and not entitled to religious protection within its commercial endeavors. stay within the confines of the church and/or do deeds for free. the minute the religious group starts charging fees for services, they are no longer religious.

there will be some that may disagree. religious freedom is guaranteed. being in business is not a guarantee. the religious group chose to be in business or provide a service. separation. is. also. part. of the US Constitution. they need to abide by the commerce rules of the land.

 

[beebrisk]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

imo, when a religious organization decides to move out of the church and into the world of commerce, now is a commercial group and not entitled to religious protection within its commercial endeavors. stay within the confines of the church and/or do deeds for free. the minute the religious group starts charging fees for services, they are no longer religious.

there will be some that may disagree. religious freedom is guaranteed. being in business is not a guarantee. the religious group chose to be in business or provide a service. separation. is. also. part. of the US Constitution. they need to abide by the commerce rules of the land.

Actually, the US Constitution makes no mention of the separation of church and state. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Separation was a concept the framers used to interpret the 1st Amendment which by the way, was intended to keep the state from encroaching on the church--Not the other way around!

It may be your opinion that when a religious organization decides moves into commerce it is no longer entitled to protection, but that's not the rule of law. And that's why, when there was an uproar over the government forcing the BC mandate on the Catholic church and their interests (including Georgetown U.) the president, in a very rare act of wisdom, backed down.

 

[Black Jade]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

[quote="Maria D|1332375533|3153877.[/quote]

I'm perplexed. Yes, contraception does fail. A hormonal birth-control user taking the pill correctly has a far better chance of becoming pregnant than a person who regularly plays the lottery has of winning -- doesn't everyone know that? Who is erroneously teaching that it doesn't? I preach this fact all the time and it's precisely why abortion should be legal. If I, a woman, become pregnant and choose not to carry the pregnancy to term it is my business and no one else's. I don't need to talk about clumps of cells. Technology doesn't change the fact that a first trimester fetus is not a viable organism. It's up to the woman to decide, period.

The people who believe that abortion is murder that "their tax dollars" shouldn't be paying for can console themselves in the fact that these millions of unwanted fetuses are joining the multitudes of actual already born men, women and children that my tax dollars have paid to murder in wars I don't support. And, if you don't like supporting the lifestyles of people you feel should be "paying for their own birth-control/sex," be comforted that my tax dollars pay for the prescription medications of Americans who, against all advice from their doctors, lead a lifestyle that directly leads to diseases like type II diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. That's the way it goes.[/quote]

Thank you, Maria D for not pretending that you did not get my point (as many have been doing) and being upfront and honest about what you believe, abhorrent as it is.
I know it will make no difference to YOU to point out the fact that if you, a woman, become pregnant and choose to have an abortion, it will make a difference to the 'fetus'. Fetus is just the Latin word for 'baby' by the way. A fetus may not be a 'viable organism' but it is a baby and if not murdered (I define murder as when someone is killed, how do you?) will grow up to be a person. Does the fact that it is small and cannot yet live on it's own really mean it has no right to live?
When you say 'it's up to the woman to decide, period' on what logic do you base this statement? You sound like a slaveholder of former times. "I have the right to decide completely about my slaves (because they are not people".) You need to prove that a baby is not person (which you can't) before you can grant someone else such over-reaching control over his or her life. The fact that pre-born babies can't survive outside of their mothers in the first three months does not mean that they should be sentenced to death at the mother's caprice, in my opinion. With a little inconvenience to her, the child born from the CHOICE that she definitely made, and knew the possible consequences of, can be born safely--and given to someone else who will happily take care of it and rear it. It's called adoption. And there's a shortage of babies available to be adopted and many loving people who want them. There are also many, many groups who will help support the mother during her pregnancy and even find ways to pay for her medical care. These groups will also help her either find a person to adopt the child, or help support her (sometimes for years) after the baby is born. Because having a baby is not a 'punishment'-it is bringing a human life into the world and children and their mothers need to be supported.
Re: your war/murder argument, are you aware that 73 times more Americans have been killed by legal abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision than have been killed in the past 12 wars we have fought, combined? And that abortion worldwide kills more people every two months than the Nazi Holocaust did in all the time that it was being perpetrated? And you do have some chance to survive a war, even if you are bombed or in battle. You have very little chance to survive either being dismembered piece by piece and pulled out the womb or suffocated in saline. Though some few people do. (Did you watch the youtube video?)
I have no problem with you having sex or with you using birth control. As I keep saying, I used birth control myself. But I do not want to forced to be an accomplice to the murder of small innocent human being, with whom we are NOT at war (at least not the last time I heard). We can debate the morality of war another time. I do not like war. It is a horrible thing. I don't believe in war, but do believe it is necessary sometimes for self-defence. The cases in which you STRETCH a point to say that the mother must defend herself from pregnancy, or that particular pregnancy, because her life is really and truly in danger and also cases in which there is a problem with the baby;s health, TOGETHER total 6%. The cases where the woman has been raped are less than 1%. 93% of abortions are performed for no other reason than the convenience of the mother. All of the fancy language about choice and rights comes down to that--the convenience of the mother. And MONEY. ABortion is a tremendously profitable business in the US, financially speaking. Planned Parenthood and others feed off the mother's confusion, desperation and fear at being pregnant, use fancy language to make their ugly business seem a little less ugly than it is (if you don't think about it too much and never look at photographs), fail to discuss psychological effects and repercussions--and rake in the $$$$.
There is such a thing as right and wrong, and morally, this jsut is not right.
But in their scheme of things, as you stated above (in very memorable words), abortion HAS to keep on existing because "A hormonal birth-control user taking the pill correctly has a far better chance of becoming pregnant than a person who regularly plays the lottery has of winning."Nuff said.

 

[Circe]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

A) Wow, you make that video sound tempting. Glad I didn't click the link. Not even going to bother pointing out that from the sound of it, it features one of the less-than-one-percent of late-stage abortions, and that almost all of them are undergone before the first trimester, when there is nothing to film but a woman swallowing a pill, and later, wiping.

Oh, wait. Couldn't resist. Hate propaganda. Now back on-point.

B) This thread? About birth control. Your posts? About abortion. THIS is why people see you as conflating the two.

C) Still no alternative solutions to suggest? Third try's the charm!

Edit for D) - that is to say, Maria D. Thank you for your series of calm, cogent, and rational posts in this thread. They're doing wonders for my blood pressure.

 

[ericad]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

WOW, BJ. You know that this thread isn't about abortion, right? Maybe you ought to go back and read the original post to refresh your memory. It's about proposed BC legislation in AZ. Do you have anything to contribute on THAT topic?

It seems that those of us who are pro-choice not only hate babies, but we're comparable to slave owners! That's a very logical comparison - baby haters and slave owners go together like peas and carrots.

Your statistics are very creative, btw. But you forget that pro-choice and anti-choice groups define life differently. So your statistics are meaningless to those who don't define life and murder the same way as you and your propaganda do.

All this being said, the majority of Americans want to keep first trimester abortions legal (per a 2011 gallup poll), so I sleep very soundly at night knowing that my right to choose is supported by the majority of American citizens, and protected by the law. You can spout all the alarmist propaganda you want, but at the end of the day, pro-choice advocates have both the law and public opinion on our side.

If you find abortion distasteful and wrong according to your unique and specific moral compass, don't get one. Problem solved. And if those who are anti-choice REALLY want to stop abortions, why not focus on prevention? Pregnancy prevention will absolutely directly result in fewer abortions. Limiting access to education and BC under the guise of religion or tax payer responsibility will result in an increase in abortions, not an increase in babies, personal responsibility or abstinence. And if we also take away abortion rights, the result will be an increase in female deaths due to illegal abortions, suicide, etc.

Interesting. I wonder what we'll find if we research abortion demographics? Which racial and socioeconomic groups would be most affected by these types of changes? Chew on that a little before accusing pro-choicers of hating life, eugenics and comparing us to slave owners.

 

[monarch64]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

BlackJade: TL;DR. If you want to have a discussion about abortion, why not just start a new thread?

 

[Imdanny]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm calling BS. BC and abortion are health care matters. Period. It's well past time for the US to have a health care system that covers everyone. Period. Germany accomplished this under Bismark in the 19th century. The US spends roughly 2x its GDP for health care than every other country in North America and Europe, for drastically inferior outcomes, and has 50 million uninsured. And we spend our time trying to prevent women from getting BC if it's going to be used for... wait for it... BC.

 

[movie zombie]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm calling BS. BC and abortion are health care matters. Period. It's well past time for the US to have a health care system that covers everyone. Period. Germany accomplished this under Bismark in the 19th century. The US spends roughly 2x its GDP for health care than every other country in North America and Europe, for drastically inferior outcomes, and has 50 million uninsured. And we spend our time trying to prevent women from getting BC if it's going to be used for... wait for it... BC.

 

[tammy77]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

So I went back and read the article link to make sure that I didn't miss something and had to comment again. My point was that people say "I pay for your BC and I don't want to" but are they forking out the $200 a month that I pay for coverage? No. I know for a fact that the ONLY thing I used my insurance for over the course of several years was an annual pap and monthly birth control pills that would have been approx $25.00 w/o insurance. So let's do the math. I pay approximately $2400 a year for coverage. My pap is at MOST $300 including the visit and labs. My BCP was approximately $300 a year. So my insurance company still pockets approximately $1800 of MY money. This doesn't even take into consideration what my employer pays, which is worked into my compensation. If I didn't have the coverage, my salary would be higher so that needs to be accounted for as well. As a side note, a pregnancy and delivery cost at minimum $8000 with no complications and I guarantee that Fertile Mertile can and will pop out more than one child every 10+ years. It's all connected. You can't just say that you lose money because your premiums are higher because of bcp or whatever garbage excuse. We pay one way or the other - higher premiums, higher taxes, etc. and removing one of the most effective forms of contraception is backwards thinking, period.

Furthermore, I can't honestly fathom why it's an employer's business if it has NOTHING to do with my job performance. Nothing.at.all. I rather like the analogies that liken it to people using insurance for allergy, acne, etc "not medically necessary to survive" medications. Do you see me petitioning to stop paying for surgeries and far more expensive medications for people w/high blood pressure, etc. because they haven't taken care of themselves? No, because I happen to believe that it's none of my business what they need to use their insurance for.

What's next? Making us disclose whether or not we're living with a SO before marriage because it's against the employer's religion and being able to fire you if you are? What if you can't afford to live on your own as MANY people on bcp can't afford to have a child? Absolute BS.

This is all a moot topic anyhow because there's no way that bill is going to pass.

 

[ericad]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm calling BS. BC and abortion are health care matters. Period. It's well past time for the US to have a health care system that covers everyone. Period. Germany accomplished this under Bismark in the 19th century. The US spends roughly 2x its GDP for health care than every other country in North America and Europe, for drastically inferior outcomes, and has 50 million uninsured. And we spend our time trying to prevent women from getting BC if it's going to be used for... wait for it... BC.

+1

BC is only available by prescription. That alone defines it as a healthcare matter. I can't think of another single prescription product that is excluded from health care coverage. Advil, Nyquil and condoms, however, are available over the counter. Therefore not a health insurance matter because it doesn't require a doctor visit or prescription. Besides Imdanny's excellent post above, you simply can't make the argument that it's not a healthcare matter.

And if we're going to allow religious organizations to refuse coverage of BC (and I can only assume that those who favor this type of legislation will ALSO INSIST that it includes male vasectomy and recreational use of Viagra), then let's see how you feel about other religious organizations refusing treatment for employees who indulge in various other behaviors which violate their ethics. Have drug/alcohol/caffeine/smoking related illness? Forget coverage from any Mormon employer. Have high cholesterol and heart disease? Bet your Hindu employer won't want to cover it after seeing you eat all those hamburgers. Need a blood transfusion? Well, you're SOL because your employer is a Jehovas Witness, so no treatment for you! But strangely, I haven't seen any other religious groups' ethical dilemmas brought into the debate. But it's not an attack on women, right?

What people are suggesting, that religious employers should not be required to offer a medical plan that covers any treatment that violates their religious beliefs, is impossible. Health plans are not designed a'la carte - employers can't just pick and choose specific services. These religious employers can offer broad medical benefits, or none. This is not about the rights of religious employers. It's about taking freedom and liberty away from women and pushing specific political anti-health care reform and social agendas.

For those who support this type of legislation, and who think that BC coverage should be removed from health care reform in order to honor the beliefs of one minority group among millions (most businesses are not religious in nature), please confirm your agreement that vasectomy and Viagra should also be removed from all health care coverage. And let's also remove all STD diagnostics and treatment too, because recreational sex that doesn't result in pregnancy is against the beliefs of these religious institutions. And let's also stop covering gay people because religious organizations don't like homosexuality, so let's exclude them from all health care coverage in order to satisfy religious employers.

Because until you do, you will never convince me that you're not waging an attack on women.

 

[MissStepcut]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Plus, if Catholics should get to exclude coverage for contraceptives, should Jehovah's Witness employers get to exclude blood transfusions?

Yes, if that employer is a church or any other religious institution-- as is their Constitutionally protected right.

Is a hospital or, say, law school, a "religious institution"? Because if we literally just mean churches, the discussion just narrowed dramatically. If we're talking about profitable businesses that just happen to be run by religious institutions, we're back where we started.

Edit: and let's not just declare who has what rights in this discussion. It's not nearly as obvious as you're making it sound, and you're no Supreme Court justice.

Never claimed to serve on the court but anyone who has ever read the Constitution and studied even the basics of American history should understand the importance of religious freedom and why it is contained within the FIRST Amendment.

Yes, businesses "that just happen to be run by religious institutions" are entitled to self-govern. If you have a problem with that, I would suggest even a cursory reading of said First Amendment. I'm not the one declaring "who has what rights" here. That was done 200+ years ago.

And remember that after the groundswell of outrage, even our current president deferred to its wisdom. It's that obvious.

And I would suggest a deeper reading than a cursory one if you really believe that the protection of the "exercise of religion" is going to Constitutionally extend to religious institutions engaged in running profitable enterprises What kind of sense does that make?

Edit: for example, some religions claim interracial marriage is wrong. A hospital run by such an organization still can't discriminate in hiring against minorities (or multiracial people). The 1st Amendment isn't going to protect you there.

 

[ksinger]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Plus, if Catholics should get to exclude coverage for contraceptives, should Jehovah's Witness employers get to exclude blood transfusions?

Yes, if that employer is a church or any other religious institution-- as is their Constitutionally protected right.

Is a hospital or, say, law school, a "religious institution"? Because if we literally just mean churches, the discussion just narrowed dramatically. If we're talking about profitable businesses that just happen to be run by religious institutions, we're back where we started.

Edit: and let's not just declare who has what rights in this discussion. It's not nearly as obvious as you're making it sound, and you're no Supreme Court justice.

Never claimed to serve on the court but anyone who has ever read the Constitution and studied even the basics of American history should understand the importance of religious freedom and why it is contained within the FIRST Amendment.

Yes, businesses "that just happen to be run by religious institutions" are entitled to self-govern. If you have a problem with that, I would suggest even a cursory reading of said First Amendment. I'm not the one declaring "who has what rights" here. That was done 200+ years ago.

And remember that after the groundswell of outrage, even our current president deferred to its wisdom. It's that obvious.

And I would suggest a deeper reading than a cursory one if you really believe that the protection of the "exercise of religion" is going to Constitutionally extend to religious institutions engaged in running profitable enterprises What kind of sense does that make?

Edit: for example, some religions claim interracial marriage is wrong. A hospital run by such an organization still can't discriminate in hiring against minorities (or multiracial people). The 1st Amendment isn't going to protect you there.

Not to mention that there is a BIT more to it than protecting religion from from evil secularists intent on destruction of everything that's good. The why is very much part of history that was very recent to the memories of the colonists, and pretty well known. Not so much to our myth-making time.

Separation was more intended to keep the state from being allied with ANOTHER RELIGION that YOU didn't agree with, from oppressing your particular flavor of religion. In the context of the times, there wasn't an example and barely even a concept of a secular state oppressing the religious. However there were hundreds of years of examples of religious/state oppression of opposing religions, Christianity being fond of inquisiting/discriminating/murdering heathens and each other over correctness of belief and all. So, if anything it was intended to keep a religious group from wielding state power and using it to oppress another religion.

Let's get it straight.

And as others have pointed out, I just wonder what's next for the convenient cover of "religious conscience".

 

[Black Jade]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

The reason I am not discussing birth control is that it is a complete red herring here. No one is suggesting taking away the right to birth control. No one on this thread. No one in the Republican party. it is a non-issue. It is all very well to take non-issues and scream loudly about them, when you are trying to make other people do things that you have decided that they should do (as in 'the Catholic church ought to pay for birth control') but they remain non-issues and I for one, don't like to waste my time with them.

Maria D made my point about abortion better than I did--even though Circe and EricaD are still managing to ignore it. It's lovely to see EricaD work herself into fits at being compared, not to a slaveowner but to someone who supported the right to slavery. (I am sure that you all understand the difference--I don't think you are obtuse, except when you want to be, for political reasons). What I said was, people were only able to justify slavery by denying the personhood of blacks in the US (Dred Scott, 3/5 of a human being) just as people are now only able to justify abortion by denying the personhood of 'fetuses'. It's because she needs so badly to deny that fetuses are people who grow up to be young women that Circe is not going to click on the link and hear the young woman talking who survived a saline abortion 20 plus years ago. There is nothing on the video but an attractive, vibrant young woman talking, who is very grateful to be alive, and who has now had a chance to meet the mother who aborted her and talk to that mother, which was an amazing, healing experience for both of them. But the fact that this young woman exists is a big problem for Circe, who wants to keep 'fetuses' in their place--as 'clumps of cells', as 'appendages to the mother' as something microscopic easily wiped away with a little blood after taking a convenient little pill--after all if you can't even see it, it doesn't count, does it?
But when it is born and grows up and can talk and is a YOUNG WOMAN--
Better not click on that link, Circe, dear. Better not unsettle yourself by watching a young woman who smiles, and cries and thinks and walks and talks.
And better make sure that others don't survive the experience to grow up to be unsettling.
That's why our president voted against the born alive infants protection act. If the mother decided they shouldn't be born, how dare they be born ALIVE--the next best thing is not to let them grow up.

 

[sonnyjane]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Ay yi yi. I agree with other posters, Black Jade. If you want to talk about abortion so much, please just start another thread, one that I'll be sure to ignore. Your comments have no relevance here.

Can we please let this thread die?

 

[ericad]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

Oh, gotcha. Pro-choicer's aren't like slave owners, they're like slavery supporters. That's completely different!

I also enjoy the way you've stated that I've worked myself into fits and previously, beebrisk accused me of screaming at her. And here I thought I was conducting myself in a thoughtful and intellectual way. I never got worked up or angry or yelled at anyone. Why are you projecting? Do you think that's more effective than supporting your arguments with facts?

As for your refusal to discuss BC, that's what the original topic of this thread is about. If you won't discuss it, then you don't belong on this thread. The subject at hand is whether or not employers should have the right to fire female employees who use BC for pregnancy prevention. What is your opinion on that specific issue? That's what we're here to discuss - it's not a red herring, it's the subject matter of this thread.

And as for all of the aborted fetuses who could have grown up into wonderful members of society, well if I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong.

When our society shows that it can protect, educate and nurture the children we already have (and I mean ALL children in this country, children from all walks of life), then perhaps you can make the argument that it's a safe haven for all the unwanted babies who would have otherwise been aborted.

Your example is a grown woman who would have been aborted but instead was carried to term and grew up, and my example is Casey Anthony, or hundreds just like her. Casey Anthony wanted an abortion but her parents forced her to carry the unwanted baby to term. She eventually tortured her toddler to death and threw her away like garbage. Unwanted children are neglected and abused every single day in this country - perhaps we should focus on fixing that problem first by insisting on education and pregnancy prevention (pregnancy prevention = abortion prevention) before we deny women the right to make private and completely legal medical decisions about their bodies.

 

[iugurl]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

I'm calling BS. BC and abortion are health care matters. Period. It's well past time for the US to have a health care system that covers everyone. Period. Germany accomplished this under Bismark in the 19th century. The US spends roughly 2x its GDP for health care than every other country in North America and Europe, for drastically inferior outcomes, and has 50 million uninsured. And we spend our time trying to prevent women from getting BC if it's going to be used for... wait for it... BC.

+1

BC is only available by prescription. That alone defines it as a healthcare matter. I can't think of another single prescription product that is excluded from health care coverage. Advil, Nyquil and condoms, however, are available over the counter. Therefore not a health insurance matter because it doesn't require a doctor visit or prescription. Besides Imdanny's excellent post above, you simply can't make the argument that it's not a healthcare matter.

And if we're going to allow religious organizations to refuse coverage of BC (and I can only assume that those who favor this type of legislation will ALSO INSIST that it includes male vasectomy and recreational use of Viagra), then let's see how you feel about other religious organizations refusing treatment for employees who indulge in various other behaviors which violate their ethics. Have drug/alcohol/caffeine/smoking related illness? Forget coverage from any Mormon employer. Have high cholesterol and heart disease? Bet your Hindu employer won't want to cover it after seeing you eat all those hamburgers. Need a blood transfusion? Well, you're SOL because your employer is a Jehovas Witness, so no treatment for you! But strangely, I haven't seen any other religious groups' ethical dilemmas brought into the debate. But it's not an attack on women, right?

What people are suggesting, that religious employers should not be required to offer a medical plan that covers any treatment that violates their religious beliefs, is impossible. Health plans are not designed a'la carte - employers can't just pick and choose specific services. These religious employers can offer broad medical benefits, or none. This is not about the rights of religious employers. It's about taking freedom and liberty away from women and pushing specific political anti-health care reform and social agendas.

For those who support this type of legislation, and who think that BC coverage should be removed from health care reform in order to honor the beliefs of one minority group among millions (most businesses are not religious in nature), please confirm your agreement that vasectomy and Viagra should also be removed from all health care coverage. And let's also remove all STD diagnostics and treatment too, because recreational sex that doesn't result in pregnancy is against the beliefs of these religious institutions. And let's also stop covering gay people because religious organizations don't like homosexuality, so let's exclude them from all health care coverage in order to satisfy religious employers.

Because until you do, you will never convince me that you're not waging an attack on women.

Boob jobs and lipo are also "healthcare" as they require doctors and surgeons. I hope my insurance doesn't cover such procedures.

I am on birth control. Obviously, I am not "against" birth control. However, do I think that I "deserve" to have free birth control? Umm no.. I still have to pay co-pays for pain medicine, antibiotics etc. Sure, I guess it would be nice to not pay a dime for it, but I really don't think it is more important to get it for free, when there are drugs that save people's lives that wouldn't be 100% covered.

Is birth control really more important to get for free rather than my friend's epilepsy drugs, blood thinners to prevent clots/stroke etc? There are many generic BC pills that are less than $10 a month. I think that anyone who cannot pay 10 a month, should NOT have sex. What if you are in the 1% who ends up getting pregnant? Babies cost a lot more than $10 a month. (Or if you choose to get an abortion)

 

[MissStepcut]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

iugirl, it's not really fair to narrow down the issue for what you're able to pay for your BC with your insurance. Not everyone can get away with paying $10/month depending on their insurance and health needs (not everyone can take the cheapest pill out there).

As for saying, "if you can't afford it, don't have sex!" that's already been brought up in this thread and the fact of the matter is, people who can't afford babies can, do, and will continue to have sex, no matter how much we guilt and admonish them. What's the point of hammering away at that line of reasoning when we already know it fails?

 

[ksinger]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

The reason I am not discussing birth control is that it is a complete red herring here. No one is suggesting taking away the right to birth control. No one on this thread. No one in the Republican party. it is a non-issue. It is all very well to take non-issues and scream loudly about them, when you are trying to make other people do things that you have decided that they should do (as in 'the Catholic church ought to pay for birth control') but they remain non-issues and I for one, don't like to waste my time with them.

Maria D made my point about abortion better than I did--even though Circe and EricaD are still managing to ignore it. It's lovely to see EricaD work herself into fits at being compared, not to a slaveowner but to someone who supported the right to slavery. (I am sure that you all understand the difference--I don't think you are obtuse, except when you want to be, for political reasons). What I said was, people were only able to justify slavery by denying the personhood of blacks in the US (Dred Scott, 3/5 of a human being) just as people are now only able to justify abortion by denying the personhood of 'fetuses'. It's because she needs so badly to deny that fetuses are people who grow up to be young women that Circe is not going to click on the link and hear the young woman talking who survived a saline abortion 20 plus years ago. There is nothing on the video but an attractive, vibrant young woman talking, who is very grateful to be alive, and who has now had a chance to meet the mother who aborted her and talk to that mother, which was an amazing, healing experience for both of them. But the fact that this young woman exists is a big problem for Circe, who wants to keep 'fetuses' in their place--as 'clumps of cells', as 'appendages to the mother' as something microscopic easily wiped away with a little blood after taking a convenient little pill--after all if you can't even see it, it doesn't count, does it?
But when it is born and grows up and can talk and is a YOUNG WOMAN--
Better not click on that link, Circe, dear. Better not unsettle yourself by watching a young woman who smiles, and cries and thinks and walks and talks.
And better make sure that others don't survive the experience to grow up to be unsettling.
That's why our president voted against the born alive infants protection act. If the mother decided they shouldn't be born, how dare they be born ALIVE--the next best thing is not to let them grow up.

Really? I don't think so. Not by a long shot.

The issues are related for certain, but when opposition to abortion comes in the form pushing out PP and all the good it does for 3% of what it does, of concerted introduction of "personhood" bills all over the country, that could and likely will, effectively make illegal whole swathes of birth control methods, put the big chill on in-vitro fertility methods, and mandate the rape by instrumentation of a woman seeking a legal medical procedure - patronizingly for "her own good" so she'll make "the right choice"- and Rush Limbaugh articulates the worldview of a large listenership who clearly believe access to contraception turns women into sluts and prostitutes, you can't say that contraception is a red herring. Quite the other way around I'm thinking. You talk about slavery, but it is gone, while the patriarchy is still quite alive and kicking.

In the words of one Republican Texas lawmaker in an interview recently..

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/09/25/texas-republican-admits-war-on-birth-control/

When The Texas Tribune asked state Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Nacogdoches), a supporter of the family planning cuts, if this was a war on birth control, he said “yes.”

“Well of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything, that’s what family planning is supposed to be about,” Christian said.

 

[MissStepcut]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

KSinger, thanks for sharing that.

That's exactly what makes this legislation so frustrating, IMO, and why it hasn't fully sunk in with some people that there really are people trying to take away women's access to birth control, because it's just so obviously anti-woman and so obviously contrary to any rational attempt to reduce the number of abortions in this country.

 

[iugurl]

Re: Use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy? You're fir

iugirl, it's not really fair to narrow down the issue for what you're able to pay for your BC with your insurance. Not everyone can get away with paying $10/month depending on their insurance and health needs (not everyone can take the cheapest pill out there).

As for saying, "if you can't afford it, don't have sex!" that's already been brought up in this thread and the fact of the matter is, people who can't afford babies can, do, and will continue to have sex, no matter how much we guilt and admonish them. What's the point of hammering away at that line of reasoning when we already know it fails?

No, I should have said there are (several) BC pills that are less than $10 without insurance. In fact, mine is $5 a month. I do not put it on my insurance because with insurance, the co-pay is exactly the same. My doctor gave me 6 or so choices that are less than $10 WITHOUT insurance. Now your second point, that not everyone can take the "cheapest" pill out there is somewhat true. I do believe, based on what my doctor has said, that there is at least one cheap generic pill in each "category/type" of pill. (combination, progestin only etc). I am assuming that most people who are ok with a certain brand would probably be fine on the generic version, that is if there is a generic.

I am not saying people who can't afford babies shouldn't have sex. I am saying those you cannot afford BIRTH CONTROL, you shouldn't have sex. If you cannot afford birth control, you cannot afford an abortion, if you cannot afford an abortion, you most certainly cannot afford a baby. Is that really unfair?