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

[Circe]

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

Blame your own movement, BJ.

I'd poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick before clicking on anything from the anti-choice movement - a movement that practices disinformation by using gross-out bait-and-switch images of stillbirths (generally third trimester) to protest abortion (generally first trimester), and generally in the least appropriate venues. Outside schools, shelters, hospitals ... charming folk. If you could argue your points rationally, without histrionics, unvetted sources, or tangents, I'd be a lot more inclined to engage, but since you're not ... pass. I rank y'all on roughly the same level as Something Awful, and at least their hideous imagery tends to be accompanied by horrified fascination.

I don't know if it's the intellectual dishonesty I dislike more, or the inappropriate pleasure in other people's discomfort. You're judged by the company you keep: blame the rest of the anti-choicers, their bad science, and their tendency to profit off the ignorance of their credulous audience. Gianna Jessen, anyone? Another "survivor" who makes a tidy profit on speaking fees, but apparently couldn't be bothered to research how saline abortion works, and tried to claim chemical burns. Yeesh. At least Ohden did some reading, I guess, though the complete and total lack of sources on her website or independent corroboration still has me scratching my head that people buy her story.

And, for the love of all that's holy, could we go back to the topic of the thread already? This is the biggest train-wreck of a derail I can remember on this board. Yeesh.

 

[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?

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?

I'm not a doctor so I don't know if it's the case that there's a generic version for every possible set of conditions, but I am under the impression there isn't.

I don't think it's "unfair" to say that people who can't afford BC shouldn't have sex. Hell, I don't think it's even unfair to say people should only have sex when they're actively seeking to have children! Sounds fair and reasonable enough to me. But we know people fail when we try to hold them to that. I think we should also stop subsidizing all kinds of other things we currently subsidize so that people would stop externalizing their bad behaviors (like driving gas-guzzling SUVs on long commutes, using coal-powered electricity, wasting water building golf courses in Arizona...) but there are compelling arguments for why we should continue to subsidize all that too.

 

[kenny]

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

This, "Oh I just CAN'T live on under $150K a year " and "poor people shouldn't have babies" strikes me as ugly and elitist.

My SO's extended family is DIRT poor.
They make babies "they can't afford" but there is more love, joy, peace and happiness in that home than in any $150+Kers I know.
They even eat meals together.
Yup, some are on food stamps that my tax dollars pay for but I'd never dream of surgically or verbally sterilizing them.

Sometimes I wonder if it's the rich folks who should be discouraged from reproducing.

 

[MissStepcut]

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

Kenny, I don't think it's elitist to want people to live within their means (without food stamps or other public assistance). People shouldn't have children they can't afford on their own. The only problem with that is, they do anyway. Since we can't stand to watch children starve, the great majority of people support food stamps. Seems like supporting subsidized birth control belongs right in that same camp.

 

[Efe]

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?

Erica, Honestly, I think you should back away from this thread. In my opinion, the only thing you are accomplishing is alienating a portion of your consumer base. Yes, you are entitled to your opinions, which I agree with for the most part, but I am reminded of a thread a while ago about a vendor who posted a picture on his personal Facebook page that some found offensive. That was enough for people to get offended and swear to never do business with him, defriend him, etc.

You are a vendor and anything that you say here can, and will be, interpreted through that filter. I just think it is a good business practice to stay out of a topic like this one. Of course, you may have thought this through before you got involved, which is fine, but I thought it useful to make the observation.

 

[MissStepcut]

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

Well I for one really respect EricaD for being brave enough to speak on this topic despite her vendor status. That's very admirable.

 

[ericad]

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

I appreciate that Effy, but I disagree. I'm a woman and a citizen and enjoy debating important issues. Honestly, I think it's just fine for consumers to know and understand who and what businesses are about and choose to spend their dollars accordingly. There's nothing wrong with supporting businesses who share your values. It's not our goal to be everything to everyone, and I'm not interested in going through life pretending to be a bowl of plain vanilla ice cream when I feel passionately about something this important. I've always been an outspoken person and the great thing about owning my own business is that I can be who I want to be and run my business in a way that suits my personality, style and conscience.

When we stop having these conversations and stop speaking up for what we believe in is when we begin to hand over our liberties to others on a silver platter. I've protested the war and celebrated marriage equality laws and written to my congress-people and signed petitions and myriad other things that I'm very proud of. These values will lose me the business of some and earn me the business of others. I'm not trying to be the biggest antique dealer in the world, I'm just trying to make a living doing something I love while having fun and being myself.

I also have the good fortune of living in a place where activism and open dialogue are cultural norms (born and raised in SF, now live in Seattle, and my husband is French - a strong influence on me with regards to speaking out for one's beliefs). The concept of keeping mum when legislation is being proposed that removes reproductive rights from women in the hopes that I might earn a few extra sales by suppressing my spirit is completely counter intuitive to me.

 

[ericad]

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

Well I for one really respect EricaD for being brave enough to speak on this topic despite her vendor status. That's very admirable.

Thanks MissStepCut, I really appreciate that.

 

[kenny]

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

Erica I respect you.
I'm also dealing with a similar issue and I can learn from your integrity and bravery.

 

[ericad]

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

Erica I respect you.
I'm also dealing with a similar issue and I can learn from your integrity and bravery.

Thanks Kenny. I hope you're able to work through your situation.

 

[Circe]

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

I appreciate that Effy, but I disagree. I'm a woman and a citizen and enjoy debating important issues. Honestly, I think it's just fine for consumers to know and understand who and what businesses are about and choose to spend their dollars accordingly. There's nothing wrong with supporting businesses who share your values. It's not our goal to be everything to everyone, and I'm not interested in going through life pretending to be a bowl of plain vanilla ice cream when I feel passionately about something this important. I've always been an outspoken person and the great thing about owning my own business is that I can be who I want to be and run my business in a way that suits my personality, style and conscience.

When we stop having these conversations and stop speaking up for what we believe in is when we begin to hand over our liberties to others on a silver platter. I've protested the war and celebrated marriage equality laws and written to my congress-people and signed petitions and myriad other things that I'm very proud of. These values will lose me the business of some and earn me the business of others. I'm not trying to be the biggest antique dealer in the world, I'm just trying to make a living doing something I love while having fun and being myself.

I also have the good fortune of living in a place where activism and open dialogue are cultural norms (born and raised in SF, now live in Seattle, and my husband is French - a strong influence on me with regards to speaking out for one's beliefs). The concept of keeping mum when legislation is being proposed that removes reproductive rights from women in the hopes that I might earn a few extra sales by suppressing my spirit is completely counter intuitive to me.

Very well said. This thread has actually changed my mind about buying from JBEG. For the better. On the basis of a previous thread, I'd taken a consumer's view as being the be-all, end-all, and decided to shop elsewhere. This thread, and particularly the statement above? Give me a renewed confidence in JBEG's integrity.

I like a vendor who has the courage of their convictions - and who can articulate them instead of relying on a graphic or a slogan. Erica, kudos to you.

 

[kenny]

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

I appreciate that Effy, but I disagree. I'm a woman and a citizen and enjoy debating important issues. Honestly, I think it's just fine for consumers to know and understand who and what businesses are about and choose to spend their dollars accordingly. There's nothing wrong with supporting businesses who share your values. It's not our goal to be everything to everyone, and I'm not interested in going through life pretending to be a bowl of plain vanilla ice cream when I feel passionately about something this important. I've always been an outspoken person and the great thing about owning my own business is that I can be who I want to be and run my business in a way that suits my personality, style and conscience.

When we stop having these conversations and stop speaking up for what we believe in is when we begin to hand over our liberties to others on a silver platter. I've protested the war and celebrated marriage equality laws and written to my congress-people and signed petitions and myriad other things that I'm very proud of. These values will lose me the business of some and earn me the business of others. I'm not trying to be the biggest antique dealer in the world, I'm just trying to make a living doing something I love while having fun and being myself.

I also have the good fortune of living in a place where activism and open dialogue are cultural norms (born and raised in SF, now live in Seattle, and my husband is French - a strong influence on me with regards to speaking out for one's beliefs). The concept of keeping mum when legislation is being proposed that removes reproductive rights from women in the hopes that I might earn a few extra sales by suppressing my spirit is completely counter intuitive to me.

Very well said. This thread has actually changed my mind about buying from JBEG. For the better. On the basis of a previous thread, I'd taken a consumer's view as being the be-all, end-all, and decided to shop elsewhere. This thread, and particularly the statement above? Give me a renewed confidence in JBEG's integrity.

I like a vendor who has the courage of their convictions - and who can articulate them instead of relying on a graphic or a slogan. Erica, kudos to you.

+1

 

[ericad]

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

I appreciate that Effy, but I disagree. I'm a woman and a citizen and enjoy debating important issues. Honestly, I think it's just fine for consumers to know and understand who and what businesses are about and choose to spend their dollars accordingly. There's nothing wrong with supporting businesses who share your values. It's not our goal to be everything to everyone, and I'm not interested in going through life pretending to be a bowl of plain vanilla ice cream when I feel passionately about something this important. I've always been an outspoken person and the great thing about owning my own business is that I can be who I want to be and run my business in a way that suits my personality, style and conscience.

When we stop having these conversations and stop speaking up for what we believe in is when we begin to hand over our liberties to others on a silver platter. I've protested the war and celebrated marriage equality laws and written to my congress-people and signed petitions and myriad other things that I'm very proud of. These values will lose me the business of some and earn me the business of others. I'm not trying to be the biggest antique dealer in the world, I'm just trying to make a living doing something I love while having fun and being myself.

I also have the good fortune of living in a place where activism and open dialogue are cultural norms (born and raised in SF, now live in Seattle, and my husband is French - a strong influence on me with regards to speaking out for one's beliefs). The concept of keeping mum when legislation is being proposed that removes reproductive rights from women in the hopes that I might earn a few extra sales by suppressing my spirit is completely counter intuitive to me.

Very well said. This thread has actually changed my mind about buying from JBEG. For the better. On the basis of a previous thread, I'd taken a consumer's view as being the be-all, end-all, and decided to shop elsewhere. This thread, and particularly the statement above? Give me a renewed confidence in JBEG's integrity.

I like a vendor who has the courage of their convictions - and who can articulate them instead of relying on a graphic or a slogan. Erica, kudos to you.

Thank you Circe!

 

[movie zombie]

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

the phrase "don't feed the troll comes to mind"......

those that want to debate abortion should start their own thread.

 

[Circe]

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

the phrase "don't feed the troll comes to mind"......

those that want to debate abortion should start their own thread.

Point taken - apologies for rising to the bait.

 

[perry]

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

[quote="Black Jade|1332433896|3154351
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 $$$$. [/quote]


BJ. I have read several post where you make the above claim that Planned Parenthood and others are making money off of abortions services. Have you ever looked at the financial reports from Planned Parenthood?

Here is their latest (and you can easily find back about 6 years with a web search).

http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage

If that link does not work - try this one, and then click on the link on the center right.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm

A bit of information for those who do not know: Planned Parenthood is a 501C3 charity - and depends on substaintial fundraising to do what they do.

Patient Fees (Non government Health Service Revenue) only accounts for 31% of their operating cost (Previous years from 5-6 years ago had this clearly labeled as patient fees).

Abortion services is only 3% of what they do, which has been steady going back the 5 years I looked at the reports (look at the annual report for a breakdown of what they do).

I fail to see where they are making money off of Abortion; not do I see where you can claim that they are all about abortion as you have in previous post. It appears to me that they offer abortion as a service for those who feel they need it.

I am also aware of some non-planned parenthood abortion clinics in some other states. They also do fundraising. Now I am not saying that their might not be a for profit "abortion clinic" out there somewhere; just that the majority of them seem to lose money providing abortions.

Can you provide any other data to back up your claims that Abortion is about money for the clinics performing them?

Note that I am also intrigued by another fact that came out in a recent attempt by our state to regulate the state medical college. Abortion is actually a somewhat common medical procedure for a varity of reasons and OBGYN Dr's must learn how to perform them and deal with their complications in order to become certified as OBGYNs. It also came out that most of these abortions were performed in normal hospital or clinc settings that have noting to do with Planned Parenthood nor with "Abortion Clincs." The State Legislators quickly backed down on their proposed legislation when that was brought up. Now I have no idea what percentage of "medically necessary/recomended" abortions are provided compared to those provided becasue someone just did not want to complete the pregnancy for other reasons. I suspect that most of those other abortions are never counted as such.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[Maria D]

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

.deleted

I responded to a post from a few pages back before reading the ones that came after, all better (and saner) than mine.

 

[movie zombie]

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

the phrase "don't feed the troll comes to mind"......

those that want to debate abortion should start their own thread.

Point taken - apologies for rising to the bait.

many have done so, myself included.

i'd like to see Perry's response as an original thread in which abortion would be discussed.....

 

[ksinger]

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

And here's something to ponder....where would having to go hat in hand to your employer (even if he/she wouldn't fire you) to reveal that you need contraception for any reason, fit in with the Hippa laws? I mean they'd have to take your word for it because the law would preclude a doctor from saying anything at all to an employer, concerning your health status, yes?

Kind of mind-boggling really.... what a monstrous mess in the making.

 

[VapidLapid]

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

The healthcare one is extended by an employer is part of one's compensation for one's job, even if one has to pay into it from one's own pocket. No employer has the right to tell an employee how, or on what they can or can't spend their earnings.

 

[perry]

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

And here's something to ponder....where would having to go hat in hand to your employer (even if he/she wouldn't fire you) to reveal that you need contraception for any reason, fit in with the Hippa laws? I mean they'd have to take your word for it because the law would preclude a doctor from saying anything at all to an employer, concerning your health status, yes?

Kind of mind-boggling really.... what a monstrous mess in the making.

Actually, many of the people looking for these laws are used to doing just that. It was only several decades ago that the actual running of health insurance was taken from the employers and transfered to either insurance or intermediary companies. Many companies used to have the various medical records and claims inhouse - and made decisions on what was covered and what was not in their own offices. I have worked in two companies where the old records still existed - and those records were not secure. At one company I did suggest that we burn them (before shreaders were common) and eventually the owner agreed.

So yes, a large number of middle aged and older business men believe that they have the right to know about and control reimbursement for every medical treatment that you recieve as part of them providing medical coverage to their employers. They just view the laws being proposed as a return to the way it used to be (and in the minds of many - the way it should be).

Personally, I don't really care to know about such details and do not believe it is proper for your supervision and management to know and have access to such information.

Perry

 

[movie zombie]

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

The healthcare one is extended by an employer is part of one's compensation for one's job, even if one has to pay into it from one's own pocket. No employer has the right to tell an employee how, or on what they can or can't spend their earnings.

or limit the benefit they can derive from spending their earnings...

 

[Gypsy]

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.

WOW. Great post. Truly great.

And I am absolutely fine with my vendors having opinions on stuff like this. They are people too and part of this community. As long as they respect the posting rules about their business, the rest is all good.

 

[Imdanny]

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

The healthcare one is extended by an employer is part of one's compensation for one's job, even if one has to pay into it from one's own pocket. No employer has the right to tell an employee how, or on what they can or can't spend their earnings.

An essential point, and one I've tried to make previously in this and other threads with limited sucsess.

 

[packrat]

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

After spending most of my life being part of Jehovah's Witnesses, and although being non practicing now, part of my family is baptized. I just want to say that an employer who is a Witness is not going to prevent an employee from receiving medical care, whether it's a transfusion or not. There is a huge difference between Witnesses and Catholics and one of those differences is "here is the information, you decide how best to handle it". I believe the teachings on blood changed several years ago and it's not as black and white now, it's a personal preference such as being an organ donor etc. Witnesses go door to door to tell you what they believe b/c they feel it's the right thing to do-they do not prevent other people (employees, neighbors, someone in line w/them at the grocery store) from life saving medical treatment b/c they feel it's the right thing to do. Going door to door is the only "forceful" thing Witnesses do.

 

[ericad]

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

After spending most of my life being part of Jehovah's Witnesses, and although being non practicing now, part of my family is baptized. I just want to say that an employer who is a Witness is not going to prevent an employee from receiving medical care, whether it's a transfusion or not. There is a huge difference between Witnesses and Catholics and one of those differences is "here is the information, you decide how best to handle it". I believe the teachings on blood changed several years ago and it's not as black and white now, it's a personal preference such as being an organ donor etc. Witnesses go door to door to tell you what they believe b/c they feel it's the right thing to do-they do not prevent other people (employees, neighbors, someone in line w/them at the grocery store) from life saving medical treatment b/c they feel it's the right thing to do. Going door to door is the only "forceful" thing Witnesses do.

Thanks for sharing that, packrat. I have nothing but respect for any religious group that understands that others don't necessarily share in their beliefs, and who don't impose their specific belief structures onto others. We've had Mormon, Jehovas and Christians come to our door and they have always been polite and respectful when we say, "thanks but no thanks." (well, except for one lady, but that's probably because DH answered the door in his underwear, lol, she was less than pleased. But to be fair he tried not answering and she kept ring the bell saying, "I see you moving around, I know you're home!" so he was like, "Ok, lady, you asked for it, here I am in all my glory." He's so...French.)

I'm not well versed in what specific religions do and don't believe and enforce (my use of the blood transfusion example was just to prove a broad point about religious beliefs in general and their applications to healthcare.) But I do have many Mormon, Catholic and Christian friends (including some former colleagues who are Evangelical) and, though I'm an Atheist, we all get along swimmingly and they'd never dream of inserting themselves into any personal choice I make, whether medical or otherwise.

Basically, I see that there are 2 separate issues (excluding abortion, which really should be discussed separately from these issues apart from being a consequence of restricting BC). I'd like to see the thread circle back to:

1. should free BC be removed as part of health care reform in order to respect the beliefs of religious employers, and if so, where do you draw the line? Certainly there are other covered services and medications that violate other religions' beliefs - do you keep removing benefits from the majority in order to satisfy the minority? The narrow issue is that BC will be covered at 100% for everyone and religious employers don't want their premiums to include free BC for all because it's against their beliefs, even though the coverage they offer their employees now gives them access to BC with a co-pay. The issue is cost and who pays the difference.

2. specific to the proposed AZ legislation, when free BC as part of health care reform is implemented (which is happening soon), should an employer have the right to require female employees to provide proof that their BC is not being used for reproductive purposes if BC use violates their ethics/beliefs? Like #1 above, where does one draw the line? And will this legislation also apply to men's use of Viagra and vasectomy? Or is this type of legislation strictly targeting only women?

 

[packrat]

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

No problem! It's not something they publicly announce or make a great fanfare about. I only found out b/c I happened to ask my Gramma about a different question I had and while we were talking it circled back to that. It's probably one of the first things people think about/associate w/Witnesses.

 

[ksinger]

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

After spending most of my life being part of Jehovah's Witnesses, and although being non practicing now, part of my family is baptized. I just want to say that an employer who is a Witness is not going to prevent an employee from receiving medical care, whether it's a transfusion or not. There is a huge difference between Witnesses and Catholics and one of those differences is "here is the information, you decide how best to handle it". I believe the teachings on blood changed several years ago and it's not as black and white now, it's a personal preference such as being an organ donor etc. Witnesses go door to door to tell you what they believe b/c they feel it's the right thing to do-they do not prevent other people (employees, neighbors, someone in line w/them at the grocery store) from life saving medical treatment b/c they feel it's the right thing to do. Going door to door is the only "forceful" thing Witnesses do.

Thanks for sharing that, packrat. I have nothing but respect for any religious group that understands that others don't necessarily share in their beliefs, and who don't impose their specific belief structures onto others. We've had Mormon, Jehovas and Christians come to our door and they have always been polite and respectful when we say, "thanks but no thanks." (well, except for one lady, but that's probably because DH answered the door in his underwear, lol, she was less than pleased. But to be fair he tried not answering and she kept ring the bell saying, "I see you moving around, I know you're home!" so he was like, "Ok, lady, you asked for it, here I am in all my glory." He's so...French.)

I'm not well versed in what specific religions do and don't believe and enforce (my use of the blood transfusion example was just to prove a broad point about religious beliefs in general and their applications to healthcare.) But I do have many Mormon, Catholic and Christian friends (including some former colleagues who are Evangelical) and, though I'm an Atheist, we all get along swimmingly and they'd never dream of inserting themselves into any personal choice I make, whether medical or otherwise.

Basically, I see that there are 2 separate issues (excluding abortion, which really should be discussed separately from these issues apart from being a consequence of restricting BC). I'd like to see the thread circle back to:

1. should free BC be removed as part of health care reform in order to respect the beliefs of religious employers, and if so, where do you draw the line? Certainly there are other covered services and medications that violate other religions' beliefs - do you keep removing benefits from the majority in order to satisfy the minority? The narrow issue is that BC will be covered at 100% for everyone and religious employers don't want their premiums to include free BC for all because it's against their beliefs, even though the coverage they offer their employees now gives them access to BC with a co-pay. The issue is cost and who pays the difference.

2. specific to the proposed AZ legislation, when free BC as part of health care reform is implemented (which is happening soon), should an employer have the right to require female employees to provide proof that their BC is not being used for reproductive purposes if BC use violates their ethics/beliefs? Like #1 above, where does one draw the line? And will this legislation also apply to men's use of Viagra and vasectomy? Or is this type of legislation strictly targeting only women?

1)I'm not entirely sure you're correct on the point that religious employers currently offer BC with co-pay. Right now 28 states already have in place, some requirement for BC coverage, with some states having exemptions of various flavors for employees of religious institutions, and with varying definitions of what a religious employer looks like, whether that be strictly churches, but not universities or hospitals, that sort of thing. And the rest of the states have no mandate of any kind. So it's a mish-mash at present. I will say though, that prior to the health bill, these state statutes were passed and pretty much adhered to without much fuss by most religious employers, therefore the twisted knickers right now are looking a bit hypocritical. Especially considering that many of the same people now frothing, supported coverage before now.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

The froth right now is to great degree, posturing, especially on the part of the Catholic bishops. Contraception WAS one of the most non-controversial things imaginable, a battle waged and won decades ago, with the only ones opposing it being the upper echelons of the Catholic Church...and the Duggars. The Catholic laity has been merrily ignoring them (and I'm certain they have to know that) on matters pertaining to family planning for quite a long time now, so "Catholics" are pretty generally not opposed - in many cases even the priests at the local levels are not opposed, only the hierarchy, which is trying to get it's cred back when proclaiming on matters of morals after having lost much of it in their reprehensible handling of the child abuse/rape scandals here in the US, and currently still going full-tilt in places like Ireland and The Netherlands.


2)No, they should not have the right to require notification. That is a huge violation of privacy and would pretty much gut the whole point of Hippa, which was to stop that very thing. The abuses that went on before Hippa with employers selectively trying to screw over employees with health problems, well, I witnessed one with my own eyes. It was ugly. I personally think it would end up just providing pseudo-sanctimonious cover for employers who don't wish to cover certain things, or expensive things. I don't trust most people's professions of "religious conscience" more than I think they're driven by bottom line concerns.

And yes, this legislation would target only women, or that is the goal at the moment certainly. The minute it was applied with any equality to men (along with similarly legislatively mandated invasive procedures, trips to the shrink to be sure a man is not suffering impotence of a mental nature, and signed affidavits from sex partners as to impotence etc), the hue and cry would go up to heaven and it would be dismantled in a nano.

 

[Gypsy]

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

So... I've been thinking about the arguments by people claiming that requiring insurance companies and religious employers to pay for birth control impinges UNCONSTITUTIONALLY on religious freedom, since it was brought up so many times in this thread and never, IMO, adequately addressed.

Religious Freedom has always been limited by the law. It's is not an absolute right and NEVER has been, despite the fact that it is in the first amendment. The freedoms of the first amendment have always been balanced with what is in the public interest. And sometimes the public interest is compelling enough that it comes out on top. Just as freedom of speech has been limited by libel and slander and hate speech laws, for example. And just as the right to assembly has been limited by requirements for permits and so on. So has religious freedom always been limited by the law-- for example polygamy laws (Mormons) and laws against human sacrifice (devil worship is a religion too) have always limited the completely free practice of religion.

Yelling that the government doesn't have the RIGHT to impinge on the freedom of religion is simply false. It does and has ALWAYS had the right to do so in the face of a compelling public interest. It's a balancing test. People pissed off about the government requiring birth control be covered just don't AGREE that this is a compelling enough public interest to impinge on religion.

The right to practice your religion is SUBJECT to the laws of this country. And always has been. Just because you don't AGREE with the particular proposed limitation of this right, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

And, in fact... as pointed out by the JBEG posters, the fact that only women might be subject to these limitations as Viagra and Vasectomy's will still be covered AND since no MAN who uses those methods will be subject to a violation of privacy by having an employer CONFIRM that the employee is NOT using it as birthcontrol there IS a constitutional case. But it's one of equal protection under law. And I am hopeful that if ANY of the crack pot laws are introduced women will be lining up with challenges to them under the Equal Protection and get them declared unconstitutional. Well, as long as there are no more Scalia's appointed to the High Bench, that is.

 

[missy]

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.

WOW. Great post. Truly great.

And I am absolutely fine with my vendors having opinions on stuff like this. They are people too and part of this community. As long as they respect the posting rules about their business, the rest is all good.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree and I am in fact very pleased that Erica posted her thoughts here. I find it refreshing that she is willing to share her thoughts on this critical topic.