They actually were, if they covered prescription meds of any kind.
I never heard that the government was responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies.
I guess you should get out a bit more, then, and maybe obvious goals like that wouldn't seem so unusual to you. For some odd reason, many people think, say, abortions are bad, so are kids born to teens unprepared to be mothers, or to drug addicted mothers, etc. and devote attention to solving some or all of those problems, and believe government has a role in some or all of them. It's not exactly a radical view of government we're talking about here.
In some states, but not all. So, that I know is not accurate.
Federal female contraception mandate before ACA
Certain aspects of the contraception mandate did not start with the ACA. In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.
The government has no responsibility for controlling pregnancies. And I didn't think the purpose of the ACA was to prevent pregnancies either.
I'm a woman. I spent my entire adult life trying to not get pregnant when I didn't want to be pregnant. Shockingly, it can be done...and Uncle Sam didn't help me.
Yes, that's all true.
But I guess I'm a little unclear about what the point is. I guess as a libertarian you object outright any employer regulations, so I'm hesitant to start any debate with that as the starting point. But 'what they provide or do' in the workplace is broad enough to include gender based discrimination of any kind, including a head covering, or requiring women to have male escorts in public, refusing to promote them to a position where they'd be supervising men, etc. I'd oppose that, I guess you'd say the women should find another place to work.
I'm a woman. I spent my entire adult life trying to not get pregnant when I didn't want to be pregnant. Shockingly, it can be done...and Uncle Sam didn't help me.
Well, I guess to an extent it is. Laws against murder are ONE attempt to control the population.
I'll just add that it's great you managed on your own. What we KNOW is about half (40-50%) of all pregnancies aren't planned, so lots of women fail, for all kinds of reasons, among them being lack of access to reliable methods of birth control, often because of cost, poor women have a hard time floating $1,000/year. But whatever the reason, we don't have to guess that there are MILLIONS of failures every year, the abortion stats bear that out, about 1.2 million per year. So what we're doing now isn't working.
Do you think we shouldn't try anything? Seems shortsighted to me.
The purpose of the ACA is to make healthcare available to more people for the purpose of improving health. Pregnancy, healthy kids, are, as I'm sure you'll agree, a big part of "healthcare" for women. So is family planning, which improves the odds mothers are ready to have and adequately care for children. In other cases preventing pregnancy is a medical necessity because pregnancy risks death for some women. Other women take contraceptives for reasons other than pregnancy prevention and the drugs have a direct effect on health like all other prescription drugs. For all these reasons, the medical community recommends contraceptives as part of a comprehensive health insurance package, along with other services like checkups and wellness visits.
BTW, you saying the government has no responsibility (technically true as an opinion, one of many I guess) doesn't mean much, because it's a goal, reducing unwanted pregnancies, that is shared by people across the political spectrum, many of whom believe government at all levels SHOULD play a role. If you disagree, we should just ignore the number of abortions and babies born to teen mothers, etc. that's GREAT! I disagree as do most people I'd imagine.
ROFLMFAO!!!
Since when is the protection of a person's right (the right to life in this case) an attempt at population control?
Do you think the ACA is going to stop teenagers from having unprotected sex?
So we should do nothing. Got it. I disagree!
You left out the rest of that quote. The point was obvious, we have all kinds of policies that attempt to shape behavior, control the population, from laws against murder to credits for just about any activity you can think of.
How do you know the comment you're poking fun at wasn't itself poking fun?I am, I'm poking fun at what looked to me like a laughably arrogant statement. Do you believe very few employees earn their pay?
Actually,False, but do go onsince the issue is based on HL's objection to contraceptives
well hell yeah ... that was the whole idea from the get-go. lol, the Democrats seem to be focusing more on the GOPs War on Women. I've heard they're already fund raising off of it.
.
Really once again drives home the reality that the Dem rank-and-file are pretty much LIV sheeple.
I actually don't know what your point is. The ruling clearly allows employers to state a moral objection against ALL contraception, and refuse to cover any of the option. This is clear FROM THE WORDING OF THE FINAL ORDER, and confirmed by the orders today. It covers the 'contraception mandate' not just abortifacients. If you agree, great, if not, read the rulings and the orders in that link.
Hobby Lobby might have objected to only 4 types, but they explicitly argued the case on the basis of a religious objection being able to trump all forms of birth control.
Frankly, this is easily the worst Supreme Court decision in at least my lifetime. How can you segregate women’s reproductive healthcare from everything else? What about Scientologists? Can they do away with their prescription drug plan? What about pacifists, should they be refunded the portion of taxes spent on military? What is the fundamental difference between paying into a fund that pays into a fund that pays into something you don't like and paying taxes which goes toward appropriations which goes to something you don't like? Why is a religious objection to womens health care different from a religious objection to drone attacks?
Also, remember this is a for profit corporation that no longer has to pay for something required by every other employer. They gain a competitive advantage because of their religious beliefs. As many as 90% of all US Businesses fall into the "closely held" category as defined by the SCOTUS. So we should expect them to start all "joining" the religion which opts them out of anything to give them a competitive advantage.
It's more effective than not pulling out.
Well, then they would have choices.
They could work elsewhere if birth control is that important to them.
They can pay for them themselves (which women did before the ACA).
Or they can quit their jobs, collect unemployment, and sign up for the Obamacare insurance and get all of the covered birth control they want and need.
Then you're fine with other people making decisions for you based on their religious beliefs which circumvent US law? Because that's what we're talking about here.
It's more effective than not pulling out.
So I take that as a "no the ACA isn't going to stop teenagers from having unprotected sex".
We are way off topic here. The topic isn't abortions. It's the Hobby Lobby ruling which has zero to do with teen sex and pregnancy.
**** that ****. Toby doesn't pull out for any woman.
Duh! I wasn't addressing any other part of the quote. Why include it if I'm not addressing it? Your premise fails when you attempt to substitute one type of "behavior control" for another. It is disingenuous to say that a law that is in place to "control" behavior against the violation of a right is actually for controlling population. You are taking a result and trying to call it a purpose. When you make an incorrect association like that you will be called out for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?