Trump administration rolls back ObamaCare contraceptive mandate

[Superfly]

Tell us how we, as a culture, are amoral and how you propose to make it moral.....

Nations that attempt to legislate tend to be repressive. What is moral is always a higher standard than what is legal.

Morals are also relative. What is moral to me may not be moral to others.

 

[Herkamer63]

Contraception is to prevent mistakes.

So babies are a mistake now? Man, I guess it really isn't about the children now because they're all mistakes. I can't believe how wrong I was, and I'm glad you straightened me out. However, I am sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but even though sex does give pleasure to the people involved, it's primary function is to create babies (last I checked). I also heard, and this is a crazy idea so hear me out, the best way not to have kids is to simply not have sex. But hey, what do I know, right? I'm just a tax payer who doesn't believe that no one should pay for other people's sex (especially those that you don't know). Just sayin'.

 

[Athanasius68]

They were demanding their beliefs be imposed on others who did not share their belief.

Nuns were being compelled to pay for contraceptive coverage. It is obvious whose beliefs were being imposed on whom.

 

[Greenbeard]

So babies are a mistake now?

If unintended, yes. Having a child for which one hasn't planned or otherwise isn't financially or emotionally ready is a mistake. One most people are keen to avoid.

Man, I guess it really isn't about the children now because they're all mistakes.

Not all pregnancies are unintended.

 

[Athanasius68]

. So it is only the unlucky women who work for christian religious zealots who will suffer because they don't believe as their employer does. Next you will be saying that Muslim zealots can apply Sharia law at their work places. Who thought that in America we would need to start asking what our employers religion is so we don't get exploited?

The Little Sisters of the Poor are zealots? Maybe we should worry about secular zealots.

 

[holbritter]

Can anyone name a company who would eliminate all birth control coverage from their insurance?

Hobby Lobby?

 

[Josie]

Hobby Lobby?

Except they didn't.

 

[holbritter]

Yours? Worry about your own and stay out of the lives of others.

Fine. Don't make me pay for it then, cause then I have a say.

 

[holbritter]

Except they didn't.

Good for them. I don't know any, I was just guessing since they are the only one I could think of that might. So what's the big deal then?

 

[holbritter]

How a la carte are you talking about? If only parents with children with birth defects sign up for that coverage, then the pool of those covered is going to be full of very expensive patients. Your insurance costs would be through the roof. Maybe people will sign up for that coverage while pregnant just in case and drop it immediately after the baby is born. Or gamble on having a healthy baby only to have an unhealthy baby that you decided not to cover. Would everyone under the age of 40 or 45 opt out of coverage for heart disease, Alzheimer's, certain cancers, and other 'geriatric diseases' affectively shoveling the cost of aging onto the already elderly?

The healthy subsidizes the sick and when the healthy get sick those that are healthy subsidize them. I pay car insurance despite the fact that I have a clean driving record so that if I ever need coverage, it's there. I don't know what you mean by a la carte, but how does it work without somewhat defeating the purpose of what insurance is supposed to do.

Put that way, it doesn't serve the purpose. Thanks.

 

[holbritter]

I find it incredibly bizarre that you believe your employer should get to decide whether or not you get to have sex.



I really don't think you want to go down the road of arguing which interventions have the most bang-for-their-buck in terms of long-term social benefits. Stick to the moralizing stuff--shaky as it is, it's still much firmer ground for your anti-contraception argument.

You can still have sex. You just have to pay the $25 a month for birth control. Or buy some condoms.

 

[Josie]

Good for them. I don't know any, I was just guessing since they are the only one I could think of that might. So what's the big deal then?

There is no big deal. Virtually no company is going to eliminate all birth control coverage from their health care.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Nuns were being compelled to pay for contraceptive coverage. It is obvious whose beliefs were being imposed on whom.

Not for themselves. No imposition.

 

[Anthony60]

Except your solution to these problems seems like it would cost more in the long run.

Cost is not the issue here.

What is more cost effective a little money for birth control or a lot of money having support the results of unwanted pregnancies?
Adoption agencies and orphanages do not run on magic, more unwanted pregnancies will cost you more in the long run.

Ditto.

 

[Anthony60]

The Supreme court has declared abortion a right as an American. States cannot infringe on anyones rights.

Ah, well is it really? They kind of just made it up without any Constitutional support. Nothing in the Constitution takes this away from the States and gives it to the feds. Show me where it says so. Don't bother, you can't.

 

[Athanasius68]

Not for themselves. No imposition.

Of course there was. They had to pay for it.

 

[Anthony60]

Said a guy who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fistful of fifties. :shock:

I don't need fifties, just your Mo... I'll stop there, LOL!

 

[Manc Skipper]

Of course there was. They had to pay for it.

Not for themselves. You employ someone, you pay the going rate, including all their healthcare package.

 

[Josie]

Can anyone name a company who would eliminate all birth control coverage from their insurance?

Anyone???

 

[Anthony60]

First reaction: Naturally, Bravo is a guy. Great. More abortions. Thanks, Donald.

That sentence doesn't makes any sense.

Second reaction: why would you cover antibiotics and not the pill? it's not just sexual behavior... birth control, as Rush Limbaugh should have realized if he wasn't such a creep to attack as sluts women who testified about this, does more. The pills can prevent problems with women's cycles. My ex used the pill long before she was sexually active, prescribed for her by her doctor due to irregular periods.

Great. Is that what it's mostly used for?

Third reaction: what kind of Puritan jerk would single this out to defund? Obviously some brain dead moron.

Huh? Another one.
Fourt reaction: Is viagra covered? If so, imagine Trump won't touch that.

Is Viagra birth control? Or does it treat a medical condition? What religions object to the use of Viagra? That doesn't make much sense.

 

[Nickyjo]

Having trouble with the "reply with quote" button but here are attempts to answer.

1- my point was that defunding birth control increases the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies.

2- who cares what it's mostly used for? None of the employers business. (Like telling male employees they can't by condoms.) As someone pointed out, that reasoning could be used to prohibit transfusions. Or, for that matter, to allow an employer to prohibit an employee from buying beer with his wages. The employee earns both beer and healthcare with the same labor. Don't like that they drink beer or use birth control, don't hire them. Probably illegal, but you could try.

3- aside from preventing conception plus other health benefits, birth control allows women to be sexually active, for good or for ill. Viagra allows men to be sexually active, for good or for ill. From my understanding of Catholic teaching having friends in the business, it's not beyond belief that the Catholic Church (in the old days at least) could oppose viagra under the theory that it -- like artificial insemination, forms of birth control other than rhythm, etc., -- violates God's plan for sex and the individuals involved. Not being able to get it up or not being able to carry a fetus to term are just the luck of the draw. Messing with these phenomena is inappropriate, contrary to God's plan.

But remember: this is the same Church that once opposed lending money at interest, supported the Crusades, etc. It has evolved with the times... Mostly after the times, but still. Witness the current Pope's comment about gays, "Who am I to judge." (I can imagine conservative Cardinals thinking, "You're the goddam Pope! Who else is supposed to judge?!")

 

[Yes_Minister]

Cost is not the issue here.

Ditto.

Then what is the issue here? You seemed to complaining about the idea that you have pay for someone else's birth control, but seem to ignore the costs that unwanted pregnancies can bring to society, so what do you want?

 

[Athanasius68]

Not for themselves. You employ someone, you pay the going rate, including all their healthcare package.

Sure. And the mandate was that they needed to purchase a product for which they had theological objections.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Trump administration rolls back ObamaCare contraceptive mandate | Fox News


And another Obama failure is removed from the books.

Because you can't have too many unwanted pregnancies. Brought to you by the same people who are anti abortion, unless its their mistress. LOL!

 

[vash1012]

In the long history of legitimate fights for women's rights and recognition of inequality in our system and culture, this is a battle that is undeserving of the outrage on both sides that it is inducing. Birth Control is relatively cheap and accessible for 95% of the population already. I don't think you can legitimately claim buying into an insurance plan that pays for birth control for people if they choose to take it is infringing on people's rights either. Ultimately, its a minor issue with a whole lot of alternatives that are less burdensome and contentious than a governmental mandate.