More from the war on birth control!

[tw1nsmom]

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?

If they are providing for other nonessential, preventative medications that benefit others (ie men and viagra) that fall in line with their religious beliefs and fail to provide birth control (a comparable drug) for women, they are discriminating based on religious beliefs and in some case due to gender discrimination.

 

[TDC Nala]

I still think it's a long way from advocating guaranteed free birth control or comprehensive government mandated insurance coverage to stating that it's about to be banned outright for everybody.


If this thread had just been about advocating coverage (which I agree with) I would never have opened it, but there was that "war against birth control...watch out, nobody's going to be able to get it anywhere" hook that made me look at the thread. I don't agree that is imminent and it won't get me to open the thread next time.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

My point was more the bolded quote....that the Religious Right in this country thinks that you shouldn't be having sex...even if you're married...unless you want to have children. And these are the people shaping the laws in this country these days!

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

Again, my bigger concern is the new push from the Religious Right: Abstinence for married people, and the abolishment of hormonal birth control.

You'd be surprised what they have in store for us. And now that they have themselves elected into local levels all over the country, they are pushing those laws into state legislatures.

Actually, the new move that the Religious Right is doing is trying to restrict all birth control for those under 18.

In fact, there a bill right now being put forth in Arizona that would prohibit even Planned Parenthood from helping those under 18 with birth control.

And in Kansas, the move is to start charging those under 15 with crimes for even heavy petting, much less sex. According to the attorney general in that state, they can be reported by their doctors and jailed for asking about birth control.

After the Religious Right gets that accomplished, they'll start moving on restrictions for those of us older than 18.

A lot of these folks won't believe it until they wake up and read in the newspaper that their state has outlawed birth control pills and IUDs.

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!

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.

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.)

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

No offense, but I think you are in need of an anti-paranoia pill....

The pill is what fueled the women's movement and gave women true control over their reproduction.

And the pill was fueled by Margaret Sanger's racist vision of eugenics.

 

[BuckNaked]

If they are providing for other nonessential, preventative medications that benefit others (ie men and viagra) that fall in line with their religious beliefs and fail to provide birth control (a comparable drug) for women, they are discriminating based on religious beliefs and in some case due to gender discrimination.

Viagra is a treatment, and in most cases, birth control is not, so I don't see how they are comparable. But that aside, I still see no discrimination, since the company is not punishing women for using birth control, they are simply saying they won't pay for it. They should have that right, and it's unfortunate that some states have chosen to deny them that right.

What I would love to see in these states where the legislatures are telling them what they must cover would be for the companies to just drop coverage altogether. I'd venture to say that most people, given the choice of no birth control coverage for some or no coverage for anyone would choose the latter rather than the former.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

What sickness is being prevented?

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

The Planned Parenthood person didn't qualify it. She wants the insurance plans to pay for birth control pills for anyone who wants them (which Planned Parenthood will gladly sell to them and collect the insurance reimbursement).

In fact, I would bet that you would find that many health insurance plans that do not pay for birth control pills will cover them if pregnancy would cause a medical risk. I know it to be the case with at least two people.

 

[jodifla]

Viagra is a treatment, and in most cases, birth control is not, so I don't see how they are comparable. But that aside, I still see no discrimination, since the company is not punishing women for using birth control, they are simply saying they won't pay for it. They should have that right, and it's unfortunate that some states have chosen to deny them that right.

What I would love to see in these states where the legislatures are telling them what they must cover would be for the companies to just drop coverage altogether. I'd venture to say that most people, given the choice of no birth control coverage for some or no coverage for anyone would choose the latter rather than the former.

Actuallly, 23 states now require insurance companies to do the right thing and cover birth control

And why would you love to see that? Do you work for the insurance industry? Why so punitive against women?

 

[jodifla]

I still think it's a long way from advocating guaranteed free birth control or comprehensive government mandated insurance coverage to stating that it's about to be banned outright for everybody.


If this thread had just been about advocating coverage (which I agree with) I would never have opened it, but there was that "war against birth control...watch out, nobody's going to be able to get it anywhere" hook that made me look at the thread. I don't agree that is imminent and it won't get me to open the thread next time.

I think that you're correct in that it's not imminient. It's going to be a slow process of chipping away women's rights.


I was just astounded that anyone would go to a government hearing and insist that married people use abstinence.

 

[BuckNaked]

Actuallly, 23 states now require insurance companies to do the right thing and cover birth control

You may think it's the right thing, but I certainly don't.

And why would you love to see that?

Because I would love for companies to start reminding the states that they shouldn't be mandating insurance coverage.

Do you work for the insurance industry?

No, I don't work for an insurance company. Why do you believe that if someone disagrees with you it must be because they have something to personally gain from it? Did it ever occur to you that people might just disagree with you based on a different set of beliefs and values?

Why so punitive against women?

Please point out to me where I said anything about punishing women. Thanks.

 

[BuckNaked]

I was just astounded that anyone would go to a government hearing and insist that married people use abstinence.

I'm astounded that you would claim that someone did that. According to the article you posted, the witness said that was an alternative to expensive birth control. Nowhere in that article did anyone "insist" that married people use abstinence.

 

[jodifla]

You may think it's the right thing, but I certainly don't.



Because I would love for companies to start reminding the states that they shouldn't be mandating insurance coverage.




No, I don't work for an insurance company. Why do you believe that if someone disagrees with you it must be because they have something to personally gain from it? Did it ever occur to you that people might just disagree with you based on a different set of beliefs and values?




Please point out to me where I said anything about punishing women. Thanks.

Beyond some personal rights, states get to mandate most anything they want when it comes to companies. See what's going on with Wal-Mart these days?

It costs insurance companies next to nothing to provide birth control to women. So why not have them do the right thing? Why does it bug you so much that a state might care enough about its female population to ensure it gets proper health care?

 

[jodifla]

I'm astounded that you would claim that someone did that. According to the article you posted, the witness said that was an alternative to expensive birth control. Nowhere in that article did anyone "insist" that married people use abstinence.

If you read the quotes from the Eagle Forum Web site, you'll find it's clear that they find birth control is immoral.

 

[TDC Nala]

So they think it's immoral. So what? Lots of people do, and some of them lobby the government. They have the right to. If this has to do with the political views of the current administration, two more years and they're out. It's not too early to start campaigning for their opponents, so if that is what you're going to do, then just do it.

Wake me up when the banning of birth control is imminent. Then I will be glad to freak out.

 

[BuckNaked]

See what's going on with Wal-Mart these days?

Yes, and I'm a huge advocate of Wal-Mart pulling out of Maryland completely. Unfortunately, they say they won't, but I'd love to see it all the same. We'll see how the lawsuit against the state comes out. I'm hoping Wal-Mart wins and Maryland ends up with a big black eye.

It costs insurance companies next to nothing to provide birth control to women.

Meaning it would cost each individual woman next to nothing to provide it for herself. As I said, if a company wants to do it, great, but if not, I have no problem with that either.

So why not have them do the right thing?

Why do you get to decide what is the right thing for companies to do for their employees?

Why does it bug you so much that a state might care enough about its female population to ensure it gets proper health care?

It bugs me that states take it upon themselves to decide companies should be forced to provide any benefits other than pay for the work that is done by the employee. It should be completely up to the company to decide what benefits should be offered to their employees.

 

[goofygirl]

And the pill was fueled by Margaret Sanger's racist vision of eugenics.

Oh please. Playing the Race Card to defend not covering the pill....I've heard EVERYTHING now.

Margaret Sanger was a wonderful woman who wanted to help the poor. I consider her a hero. She would have done the same thing if she was black, brown, red, whatever.
It was many, many decades later that some bitter people of certain minorites decided to twist her good deeds into some kind racial genocide. I guess its easier to blame "The Man" (or "The Woman" in this case) than to take responsiblity for your own problems within your race.

 

[BuckNaked]

If you read the quotes from the Eagle Forum Web site, you'll find it's clear that they find birth control is immoral.

That wasn't what I was talking about - you claimed that the witness was insisting that married couples should use abstinence, and that is nowhere in the article that you posted.

 

[tw1nsmom]

So they think it's immoral. So what? Lots of people do, and some of them lobby the government. They have the right to.

Wake me up when the banning of birth control is imminent. Then I will be glad to freak out.

The problem with waiting until it's imminent, is that it will be very a very difficult/lengthy fight to regain our rights. The banning of birth control won't happen with the swing of an axe. Our reproductive rights will be slowly chipped away...if we let them.

 

[TDC Nala]

Sorry. I refuse to freak out about this now.

 

[icebrat001]

I do not know if my health insurance covers birth control or not, however, just the other day, my doctor recommended that I make an appointment with my gyn so that I can see about getting on birth control because my cycles are way to heavy and it causes me to loose to much blood and it's affecting me health wise and because I have painful periods.

I think that birth control should be covered for any and everyone, but if it isn't, people should go to a low cost clinic to obtain it. Many people do not know how to chart their cycles and can/will end up with many "accidents".

I myself have no clue on when I'm ovulating, then again, there isn't a reason for me to.

 

[BuckNaked]

The problem with waiting until it's imminent, is that it will be very a very difficult/lengthy fight to regain our rights. The banning of birth control won't happen with the swing of an axe. Our reproductive rights will be slowly chipped away...if we let them.

Tell you what, when we lose even a SINGLE reproductive right, let me know, and then I'll see if, in TDC Nala's words, it's time to freak out about it.

 

[jodifla]

Yes, and I'm a huge advocate of Wal-Mart pulling out of Maryland completely. Unfortunately, they say they won't, but I'd love to see it all the same. We'll see how the lawsuit against the state comes out. I'm hoping Wal-Mart wins and Maryland ends up with a big black eye.



Meaning it would cost each individual woman next to nothing to provide it for herself. As I said, if a company wants to do it, great, but if not, I have no problem with that either.



Why do you get to decide what is the right thing for companies to do for their employees?



It bugs me that states take it upon themselves to decide companies should be forced to provide any benefits other than pay for the work that is done by the employee. It should be completely up to the company to decide what benefits should be offered to their employees.

So in your world, slaves on a plantation is a good business model.