More from the war on birth control!

[mill4023]

If they don't want to cover birth control, then they should at least cover the abortion I'd have if I got pregnant. (Oh wait...the Right doesn't think I should have THAT right either!)

You can't be serious.

I don't see how the issue of whether insurance providers should be required to pay for something that is not a treatment for any health disorder has anything to do with a "war on birth control".

Why do you feel entitled to having your birth control pills paid for?

Next thing we know, jodifla will be complaining that the government doesn't require employers to provide free hotel rooms for their employees so they can go have sex whenever they want.

 

[TDC Nala]

Don't think birth control is going anywhere anytime soon. The radical right's agenda has as much chance of becoming the law of the land as the radical left's agenda does (which is not much).

I may not be up on the law anymore, but I don't recall that there is a right to birth control. However, telling married people to abstain is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It's not much less ridiculous to expect it of the unmarried.

Aren't condoms inexpensive?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Well, people have been controlling their births for a long time prior to the advent of the Pill. There are many forms of birth control that are not expensive, but if you want to take the Pill, then I guess you'll have to pay for the privelege.

I pay a high premium to take the anti-depressant of my choice. It works best for me. My insurer wants me to pay for a cheaper generic drug which gives me side effects. I choose not to do that, so I have to pay out of pocket. I don't expect anyone else to pay for it.

If using BCPs is such an issue, then perhaps it needs to go into the household budget, right along with the cabel bill and trips to WDW

Well said!

(Sadly, we are becoming an "entitlement" society.)

 

[jodifla]

You can't be serious.

I don't see how the issue of whether insurance providers should be required to pay for something that is not a treatment for any health disorder has anything to do with a "war on birth control".

Why do you feel entitled to having your birth control pills paid for?

Next thing we know, jodifla will be complaining that the government doesn't require employers to provide free hotel rooms for their employees so they can go have sex whenever they want.

I think that insurers not paying for women's health care, of which reproductive issues are a crucial part, is about as meanspirited, misguided and uncaring as it gets, but again, most of you miss my point.


So, here are my points, in caps so you can't miss it: Many in the Religious Right don't think you HAVE ANY RIGHT TO BIRTH CONTROL OTHER THAN ABSTINENCE! They think CONTRACEPTION IS IMMORAL! And most importantly, THEY ARE TRYING TO GET LAWS PASSED THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THEIR AGENDA!

And sure, other methods besides the pill exist. And most of them aren't anywhere near as effective as the pill. The pill is what fueled the women's movement and gave women true control over their reproduction. And that's exactly why the Religious Right wants to take it away.

The slam about me wanting the government to pay for hotel rooms is too ridiculous to comment on.

What I want is this: My reproductive freedom protected. I'm certainly willing to pay for mine, because I can afford it. (Although I haven't needed to pay out of pocket, because my companies made sure that it was covered.) Not every woman can. And if she can't pay for birth control, she sure can't afford a child.

 

[jodifla]

Don't think birth control is going anywhere anytime soon. The radical right's agenda has as much chance of becoming the law of the land as the radical left's agenda does (which is not much).

I may not be up on the law anymore, but I don't recall that there is a right to birth control. However, telling married people to abstain is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It's not much less ridiculous to expect it of the unmarried.

Aren't condoms inexpensive?

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled there is a right to birth control, in Griswold v. Connecticut.

 

[Galahad]

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled there is a right to birth control, in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Indeed, it affirms that laws may not make birth control illegal. It does not stipulate how and by whom it must be provided.

 

[jodifla]

Well said!

(Sadly, we are becoming an "entitlement" society.)

Oh, please.

 

[jodifla]

Indeed, it affirms that laws may not make birth control illegal. It does not stipulate how and by whom it must be provided.

But several states, such as Illinois, have ruled that insurers must provide birth control.

 

[Tine731]

If they don't want to cover birth control, then they should at least cover the abortion I'd have if I got pregnant. (Oh wait...the Right doesn't think I should have THAT right either!)

I had (I no longer work for the company) health insurance that covered an abortion but not birth control. Does not sound right. When I asked the benefits manager about it I was told that the provider would rather have the minimum cost of the abortion then the cost associated with a pregnancy.

 

[Tine731]

You can't be serious.

I don't see how the issue of whether insurance providers should be required to pay for something that is not a treatment for any health disorder has anything to do with a "war on birth control".

Why do you feel entitled to having your birth control pills paid for?

Next thing we know, jodifla will be complaining that the government doesn't require employers to provide free hotel rooms for their employees so they can go have sex whenever they want.

Let me stir the pot....My current insurance will pay for Viagra but not birth control. Where does this fit in your theory? Just something to think about.

 

[jodifla]

From Kansas:


D.A. reads teen-sex law more broadly
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle

Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston told a federal judge Wednesday that she goes further in her reading of a Kansas law regarding the reporting of teenage sexual activity than the state's attorney general does.
Foulston said her policy required reporting to social services and law enforcement knowledge of intimate contact involving boys and girls under age 16, including fondling of the breasts. She added that it would extend to efforts to obtain birth control.

 

[TDC Nala]

Griswold did not rule that there is a right to birth control. It ruled that a state cannot refuse by law to allow it to be sold to those that want it. Griswold did not rule that insurance must cover it, or that it must be provided at little or no cost to those who cannot afford it.

And any insurance plan that will not cover female birth control should not be covering Viagra.

But several states, such as Illinois, have ruled that insurers must provide birth control.

That is up to the state. As far as I know there is not any federal ruling one way or the other as to whether or not insurers MUST provide coverage for female birth control. And if they do that, they ought to figure out how to provide for condoms, too.

It appears from the items and trends posted by jodifla, she believes that within the near future the Federal government will most likely attempt to pass a law that makes birth control illegal in the entire country, if not for everyone, then definitely for minors.

I don't see it happening on a national scale, no matter who the administration is run by or who is on the Supreme Court.

Although, the part about the teenagers being reported to law enforcement...if they're now charging six year olds with sexual harassment I can see how that sort of thing might happen.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

From Kansas:


D.A. reads teen-sex law more broadly
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle

Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston told a federal judge Wednesday that she goes further in her reading of a Kansas law regarding the reporting of teenage sexual activity than the state's attorney general does.
Foulston said her policy required reporting to social services and law enforcement knowledge of intimate contact involving boys and girls under age 16, including fondling of the breasts. She added that it would extend to efforts to obtain birth control.

For those under 16?? or everyone??

 

[BuckNaked]

Yes, private companies who receive absolutely no money from the government have the right, at present, to refuse to cover birth control. However, IMO, if they receive even a dime from any type of governmental agency they should have to cover birth control.

I don't see why getting government money should have anything to do with it. No company should have to provide health coverage. If they choose to, great, if not, that's fine too. And no company should have to provide prescription coverage either. If they do great, by they shouldn't have to provide coverage for anything that they choose not to, including birth control.

 

[BuckNaked]

OMG!!!!! The dreaded lobbyist! Oh my. It is my understanding that BOTH sides of the fence have their fair share of lobbyists.

Still much ado about nuthin

Exactly, and from the same person as always.

 

[BuckNaked]

And when the people from the Eagle Forum get their way, no one will have any access to hormonal birth control.

(Bolding added by me) And you really believe that's going to happen?

 

[minkydog]

I don't see why getting government money should have anything to do with it. No company should have to provide health coverage. If they choose to, great, if not, that's fine too. And no company should have to provide prescription coverage either. If they do great, by they shouldn't have to provide coverage for anything that they choose not to, including birth control.

I totally agree. Don't have time to expound on that, but I agree--my employer is not Santa Claus. They provide me the option of taking the insurance or not taking it. It's kinda like my mom used to say "It's either meat loaf or you make yourself a sandwich." You can take what their offering or not, but no company should be forced to pay for any medical service they don't want to provide.

 

[BuckNaked]

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled there is a right to birth control, in Griswold v. Connecticut.

The court ruled that we have a right to access to birth control, not that we have a right to have it provided to us for free.

And given that ruling, why in the world are you so obsessed with the notion that states will outlaw it?

 

[BuckNaked]

But several states, such as Illinois, have ruled that insurers must provide birth control.

True, but that law only affects Illinois, so what? The SC never said that anyone had to provide birth control, and free birth control is certainly not a Constitutional right.

 

[BuckNaked]

Oh, please.

Why "oh please"? He's right, and this thread is a perfect example of it.