More from the war on birth control!

[tw1nsmom]

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.

To a certain extent, you're right. If a company chooses to not provide any prescription coverage...fine, no birth control. If a company doesn't want to provide preventative or nonessential medicine...fine, as long as Viagra and all other preventatives are excluded (however, BC is often used out of medical necessesity...as in my case). However when a company does provide prescription coverage, and they provide viagra, preventative, and other nonessential medications and they still refuse to cover birth control, then they are doing so for moral/religious reasons and since they are forcing their views/religious beliefs on others they shouldn't receive government money in any way.

Trust me, my BC is not free, or even cheap. We run our own business, and pay our own premiums, copays and deductibles. To keep expenses low we only have a 50% prescription plan. I save very little money on it. However, I'm fine with it because our insurance covers birth control to the same extent that it covers comparable drugs.

I think another, really the main issue, is that restricting reproductive rights is a slippery slope. Arrest teenagers who take part in heavy petting and request birth control? Sure, why not? I mean, we don't want teenagers "doing it" anyway do we? The problem with that reasoning is that where do we stop when it comes to the limits? If we don't want our sixteen year old girls on birth control, do we really want our 18 year olds to be sexually active? For that matter, with out of wedlock babies on the rise, wouldn't it be better if we prevented all unwed women from engaging in premarital sex and having access to BC? The errosion of womens rights happens gradually, and before you know it we're all effected.

 

[jodifla]

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?

Right, Griswold holds that there is a right to access to birth control, not that it should be provided free. I understand that.

My concern remains that states will begin to outlaw hormonal birth control such as birth control pills IF they start to equate it with being an abortifacient. Then, they won't be outlawing birth control, they'll be outlawing something that they consider chemical abortion. (This, of course, assumes Roe v. Wade is overturned.)

This is clearly the road they're trying to take. I'm surprised so many of you refuse to see it. But as you point out, that's a thread that we've rehashed several times.

What I meant to be new on this one was the statement from the right-winger that married couples should just practice abstinence.

 

[jodifla]

.

I think another, really the main issue, is that restricting reproductive rights is a slippery slope. Arrest teenagers who take part in heavy petting and request birth control? Sure, why not? I mean, we don't want teenagers "doing it" anyway do we? The problem with that reasoning is that where do we stop when it comes to the limits? If we don't want our sixteen year old girls on birth control, do we really want our 18 year olds to be sexually active? For that matter, with out of wedlock babies on the rise, wouldn't it be better if we prevented all unwed women from engaging in premarital sex and having access to BC? The errosion of womens rights happens gradually, and before you know it we're all effected.

Yes, very well put.

 

[BuckNaked]

However when a company does provide prescription coverage, and they provide viagra, preventative, and other nonessential medications and they still refuse to cover birth control, then they are doing so for moral/religious reasons and since they are forcing their views/religious beliefs on others they shouldn't receive government money in any way.

You have no way of knowing why they aren't providing BC, you're just assuming it is on a moral/religious basis because doing so fits your particular agenda.

And even if they are denying coverage for moral/religious reasons, they are still not forcing anyone else to adhere to their religious beliefs, since women can still pay for birth control on their own. Firing people for using birth control would be forcing their moral/religious beliefs. Refusing to pay for birth control is not even close to that.

Where in the world did anyone get the idea that they are owed birth control by anyone else?

 

[BuckNaked]

My concern remains that states will begin to outlaw hormonal birth control such as birth control pills IF they start to equate it with being an abortifacient. Then, they won't be outlawing birth control, they'll be outlawing something that they consider chemical abortion. (This, of course, assumes Roe v. Wade is overturned.)

Which is a huge assumption on your part. Not to to mention the fact that even if Roe were overturned, abortion will not automatically become illegal except in two or three states with trigger laws.

This is clearly the road they're trying to take.

In your opinion.

I'm surprised so many of you refuse to see it.

We're not refusing to see anything, we just disagree.

 

[jodifla]

Letters to the Detroit News, re: a story on the legislature thinking about requiring birth control coverage: (All of them basically say that birth control is immoral, and they don't want insurers covering it...)

Requiring birth control coverage isn't choice

Who represents women?

In response to Laura Berman's Feb.12 column, "Michigan takes baby steps toward birth control coverage": It has always irritated me that Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Organization for Women are continually trying to get tax dollars in the name of "women." Millions of women like myself have been fighting everything they have promoted for the past 30 years.

We don't want to pay for someone else's contraception. They should pay for it. We don't want to pay for someone else's abortions; we want them outlawed. Has Berman forgotten that we didn't want the Equal Rights Amendment and we defeated it?



Tecumseh, Michigan

Brute force of 'choice'

The thought that a member of the press, with the solemn responsibility of safeguarding our rights, would advocate legislation compelling insurance companies to provide birth control prescription coverage sends chills down my spine.

This is an important piece of legislation to me because I chose my health insurance company (Care Choices) specifically because I did not want my health care premiums paying for abortions or contraception. I would no longer be allowed to exercise my religious beliefs. It doesn't sound like "choice" to me.

A better solution would be pressure on the health insurance companies by private individuals or interest groups to no longer pay for Viagra or other sex potency drugs. Leave the government out of it.

Barb Yagley

Troy

Words can't cloak immorality

Laura Berman begins by accusing Michigan legislators of making "choice" a dirty word. That is interesting, considering that feminists and liberals prefer to use the word "choice" rather than "abortion" or, in late-term abortion, "infanticide." Giving a neutral name to immoral acts does not make the acts morally acceptable.

Berman and her ideological associates would serve the state much better by pressuring insurers to remove from coverage drugs such as Viagra. Besides, birth control pills are hardly the only method for preventing pregnancy.



Troy, Michigan

 

[jodifla]

You have no way of knowing why they aren't providing BC, you're just assuming it is on a moral/religious basis because doing so fits your particular agenda.

And even if they are denying coverage for moral/religious reasons, they are still not forcing anyone else to adhere to their religious beliefs, since women can still pay for birth control on their own. Firing people for using birth control would be forcing their moral/religious beliefs. Refusing to pay for birth control is not even close to that.

Where in the world did anyone get the idea that they are owed birth control by anyone else?

Because it's basic health care, and if you have health insurance, it should cover it.

 

[BuckNaked]

Letters to the Detroit News, re: a story on the legislature thinking about requiring birth control coverage: (All of them basically say that birth control is immoral, and they don't want insurers covering it...)

Requiring birth control coverage isn't choice

Who represents women?

In response to Laura Berman's Feb.12 column, "Michigan takes baby steps toward birth control coverage": It has always irritated me that Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Organization for Women are continually trying to get tax dollars in the name of "women." Millions of women like myself have been fighting everything they have promoted for the past 30 years.

We don't want to pay for someone else's contraception. They should pay for it. We don't want to pay for someone else's abortions; we want them outlawed. Has Berman forgotten that we didn't want the Equal Rights Amendment and we defeated it?



Tecumseh, Michigan

Brute force of 'choice'

The thought that a member of the press, with the solemn responsibility of safeguarding our rights, would advocate legislation compelling insurance companies to provide birth control prescription coverage sends chills down my spine.

This is an important piece of legislation to me because I chose my health insurance company (Care Choices) specifically because I did not want my health care premiums paying for abortions or contraception. I would no longer be allowed to exercise my religious beliefs. It doesn't sound like "choice" to me.

A better solution would be pressure on the health insurance companies by private individuals or interest groups to no longer pay for Viagra or other sex potency drugs. Leave the government out of it.

Barb Yagley

Troy

Words can't cloak immorality

Laura Berman begins by accusing Michigan legislators of making "choice" a dirty word. That is interesting, considering that feminists and liberals prefer to use the word "choice" rather than "abortion" or, in late-term abortion, "infanticide." Giving a neutral name to immoral acts does not make the acts morally acceptable.

Berman and her ideological associates would serve the state much better by pressuring insurers to remove from coverage drugs such as Viagra. Besides, birth control pills are hardly the only method for preventing pregnancy.



Troy, Michigan

And your point is...what? They are as free to be against birth control coverage as you are to be for it. And believe it or not, they actually have the right to base that opposition on whatever they choose.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

“It's preventative medicine. It helps women plan their families so they'll be healthy,” said Karrie Galloway of Planned Parenthood.

Does this mean that being pregnant is unhealthy? (I do believe some in unPlanned Parenthood think that.)

Doesn't "preventative medicine" prevent you from becoming sick? What "sickness" is being prevented?

 

[tw1nsmom]

You have no way of knowing why they aren't providing BC, you're just assuming it is on a moral/religious basis because doing so fits your particular agenda.

And even if they are denying coverage for moral/religious reasons, they are still not forcing anyone else to adhere to their religious beliefs, since women can still pay for birth control on their own. Firing people for using birth control would be forcing their moral/religious beliefs. Refusing to pay for birth control is not even close to that.

Where in the world did anyone get the idea that they are owed birth control by anyone else?

If someone can come up with a strong, valid reason to deny birth control coverage for women, when a comany provides coverage for comparable, nonessential, preventative drugs, I'd like to hear it. The only arguments I've ever heard have a religious basis. When a company is discriminating against women and those of other religious beliefs by not providing them with comparable coverage as those with beliefs that don't conflict with the beliefs held by the company, then they shouldn't benefit in any way from taxpayer money.

 

[BuckNaked]

Because it's basic health care, and if you have health insurance, it should cover it.

That's where we disagree - I don't consider it basic health care, i.e., it's a want, not a need. If people want it great, they can pay for it if their insurance doesn't cover it.

I personally don't care whether insurance covers it or not, but I'm opposed to forcing companies that provide health insurance to cover it if they don't want to.

 

[jodifla]

That's where we disagree - I don't consider it basic health care, i.e., it's a want, not a need. If people want it great, they can pay for it if their insurance doesn't cover it.

I personally don't care whether insurance covers it or not, but I'm opposed to forcing companies that provide health insurance to cover it if they don't want to.

Are you a woman?

 

[BuckNaked]

When a company is discriminating against women and those of other religious beliefs by not providing them with comparable coverage as those with beliefs that don't conflict with the beliefs held by the company, then they shouldn't benefit in any way from taxpayer money.

That argument doesn't even make sense. If a company doesn't provide birth control to anyone, how can they possibly be discriminating against anyone's moral/religious beliefs?

 

[BuckNaked]

Are you a woman?

Yes, I am.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Because it's basic health care, and if you have health insurance, it should cover it.

A guess if you think of it as preventative medicine.

Many, many companies' health insurance does not cover birth control.

I don't think its "basic" health care, but if a company's health insurance does cover it, then fine. But, it is not a "right" to have it free.

If States wish to retrict birth control to minors, then that's up to the State, its legislators, and voters.

 

[jodifla]

Does this mean that being pregnant is unhealthy? (I do believe some in unPlanned Parenthood think that.)

Doesn't "preventative medicine" prevent you from becoming sick? What "sickness" is being prevented?

Yes, having too many children can be quite unhealthy for mother and child. Ever looked around the Third World?

For people who need to take certain medications, or are in cancer treatments...the list goes on and on.

 

[jodifla]

Yes, I am.

Hmmm.

 

[tw1nsmom]

Does this mean that being pregnant is unhealthy? (I do believe some in unPlanned Parenthood think that.)

Doesn't "preventative medicine" prevent you from becoming sick? What "sickness" is being prevented?

What sickness is being prevented?

Pregnancy's for women who would be medically at risk if they were to become pregnant.

Pregnancy's for women who would be in emotional peril from an unwanted pregnancy that they are incapable of caring for, or for which they will suffer physical abuse because of.

In my case, and other, birth control prevents the build up of endometriosis in my abdomen and cysts on my ovaries that cause debilitating pain.

and many other medically valid reasons...which as women we shouldn't have to enumerate in order to see to our reproductive health. My sexuality/sexual health, and other women's shouldn't be contingent on being willing to take the risk of becoming pregnant, or in medical peril/pain.

 

[BuckNaked]

Hmmm.

Oh wait, let me guess...I'm a traitor to my sex because I believe in personal responsibility rather than an entitlement to free birth control...

 

[BuckNaked]

What sickness is being prevented?

Pregnancy's for women who would be medically at risk if they were to become pregnant.

Pregnancy's for women who would be in emotional peril from an unwanted pregnancy that they are incapable of caring for, or for which they will suffer physical abuse because of.

In my case, and other, birth control prevents the build up of endometriosis in my abdomen and cysts on my ovaries that cause debilitating pain.

and many other medically valid reasons...which as women we shouldn't have to enumerate in order to see to our reproductive health. My sexuality/sexual health, and other women's shouldn't be contingent on being willing to take the risk of becoming pregnant, or in medical peril/pain.

Fine - then women should either a) work for a company that provides bc b) pay for it themselves or c) go to Planned Parenthood and get it for free.