Contraception - a discussion

[Jarhead]

sometime rights come into conflict and they need to be resolved. in this case it is the freedom of choice vs. the freedom of religion. the courts will have a difficult time deciding this one. if you rule for freedom of religion, you trample someones right, but if you rule for freedom of choice, you trample someone elses rights.

its a double edged sword.
as cruel as it sound, i would argue freedom of choice wins out on this fact and this alone. the US is a secular society and not everyone believe in or follow religion. now people are still free to choose which religion to follow, but (in this case) ruling in favor or religion would in effect make those of us who do not adhere to that religion forced to follow part of its doctrine.

opinions?

But dont you get it?

The GOP is fighting for freedom of choice.

They are fighting the idea that goivernment has the right to mandate that an insuirance company MUST sell a service...even if they dont want to.

Ironically....they are fightiong for freedom of choice.

Freedom of religion started iut...yes....but Obamas "compromise" was to minimize freedom of choice for the insurance companies.

So now it is a fight for freedom of choice.

the GOP is fighting for freedom of religion.
the left is fighting for freedom of choice.

you have it backwards.

the GOP is fighting on the basis of religious institutions. where in the discussion has kaiser, united health care or blue cross / blue shield come up?

No sir. You have it wrong.

It started as freedom of religion when the Catholic Church complained.

Obama agreed and compromised.

However, the compromise meant that insurance companies can be told by government that they MUST offer something, even if it goes against their morals.

When has ANY business been told they MUST offer a service?

It is about freedom of choice.

The left wants the people to get BC form any insurance company they want to......at the cost of freedom of choiuce for the owners of the insurance companies.

The right wants the inmsurance companies to ALSO have freedom of choice....so sell it if you want...dont if you dont want to....take insurance with one that offers it or take insurance with one thayt doesnt.

Freedom of choice is swecured for both sides the GOP way....freedom of choice is eliminated for owners of insurance companies the left way.

 

[Syphon]

I'm sorry, but how does providing abortions equate with healing the sick in a Catholic hospital? I know of grocery stores who won't sell tobacco. It's their choice as to what services they will provide and what they won't. At least it is in a free society.

i dont see where providing free abortions is part of this discussion

What? Do you see the word free in regard to abortions in my post you responded to? Me either? I did mention a "free" society, which means free of government forcing you to provide services you choose not to.

providing abortions for free are not part of this discussion. unless somehow in your twisted mine the pill is equal to an abortion

 

[Syphon]

But dont you get it?

The GOP is fighting for freedom of choice.

They are fighting the idea that goivernment has the right to mandate that an insuirance company MUST sell a service...even if they dont want to.

Ironically....they are fightiong for freedom of choice.

Freedom of religion started iut...yes....but Obamas "compromise" was to minimize freedom of choice for the insurance companies.

So now it is a fight for freedom of choice.

the GOP is fighting for freedom of religion.
the left is fighting for freedom of choice.

you have it backwards.

the GOP is fighting on the basis of religious institutions. where in the discussion has kaiser, united health care or blue cross / blue shield come up?

No sir. You have it wrong.

It started as freedom of religion when the Catholic Church complained.

Obama agreed and compromised.

However, the compromise meant that insurance companies can be told by government that they MUST offer something, even if it goes against their morals.

When has ANY business been told they MUST offer a service?

It is about freedom of choice.

The left wants the people to get BC form any insurance company they want to......at the cost of freedom of choiuce for the owners of the insurance companies.

The right wants the inmsurance companies to ALSO have freedom of choice....so sell it if you want...dont if you dont want to....take insurance with one that offers it or take insurance with one thayt doesnt.

Freedom of choice is swecured for both sides the GOP way....freedom of choice is eliminated for owners of insurance companies the left way.

no matter how much you keep telling yourself that, its not the essence of the debate.

show me where the health insurance companies are coming together to protest the contraception mandate.

they are not, it is the church and religious institutions involved in health care.

i didnt know they church sold insurance now? this is news to us all....

you do realize that there is a difference between an insurance company and a health care provider right?

 

[g5000]

If this was truly about medical health, then it would be about condoms and not the pill.

The women who need the pill for legitimate medical reasons are a tiny minority who would incur a very small cost to the healthcare system for their medication. To use these innocent women as human shields is vile, disgusting, shameless behavior.

The rest of the women who want the pill would multiply the cost by a factor of ten. And so these women need to justify the expenditure.

They have not.

For these women, the pill serves no preventative medical purpose whatsoever. In fact, a condom is far safer as it actually prevents the spread of disease. But they did not ask for condoms.

And that is why they cannot hide the fact this is about subsidizing their sex life, which is a totally bogus argument for a handout.

So that is the end of that.

For the pro-life camp, they don't get off so easy from me, either. For decades, pro-lifers have been bitching about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood gets federal funds to hand out birth control. Most people, including pro-lifers, are NOT morally opposed to birth control. However, money is fungible and so when you give cash to PP for birth control, that frees up other monies which can be spent performing abortions.

While Congress is technically not funding abortions, it actually is.

For the life of me, I do not know why after all these years it has not occured to the pro-life movement to open their own women's clinics which can then be used to provide adoption services, pre-natal care, and birth control. And if Congress is going to be spending money on birth control regardless of whether or not you think they should, then these clinics should get that birth control money, too. And there will not be any stain on that money abetting abortions.

This is America, and we thrive on free enterprise and competition. Time to wake up and get smart, folks.

 

[asaratis]

Wry's point is.... that not suggesting or providing contraceptives in countries like this, only exacerbates the problem that they are trying to fix. Why would you support giving birth to more babies into such desperate squalor.

Personally I don't think the well being of the worlds poor is any of our governments business. Now if private charities wish to help that's a totally different thing and that's assuming the people will actually utilize the contraception that's provided.

The catholic church could care less about governments. They are a "government" of their own.

Catholic doctrine does not change to accommodate governments.

Catholic doctrine does not allow birth control. End of story.

Pretty much!

Here is an interesting article on the subject. I have heard arguments from both sides and have concluded that the Catholic Church is not going to bow to the arrogant Marxist.

This guy shoots down the argument that because a lot of Catholic couples use birth control then the church should accept the mandate from the government and support the use by providing (regardless of WHO actually pays for it) contraceptives to all female employees.

Catholic bishop warns HHS mandate will mean an end to Catholic hospitals, clinics, charities « Hot Air

Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

 

[Syphon]

If this was truly about medical health, then it would be about condoms and not the pill.

The women who need the pill for legitimate medical reasons are a tiny minority who would incur a very small cost to the healthcare system for their medication. To use these innocent women as human shields is vile, disgusting, shameless behavior.

The rest of the women who want the pill would multiply the cost by a factor of ten. And so these women need to justify the expenditure.

They have not.

For these women, the pill serves no preventative medical purpose whatsoever. In fact, a condom is far safer as it actually prevents the spread of disease. But they did not ask for condoms.

And that is why they cannot hide the fact this is about subsidizing their sex life, which is a totally bogus argument for a handout.

So that is the end of that.

For the pro-life camp, they don't get off so easy from me, either. For decades, pro-lifers have been bitching about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood gets federal funds to hand out birth control. Most people, including pro-lifers, are NOT morally opposed to birth control. However, money is fungible and so when you give cash to PP for birth control, that frees up other monies which can be spent performing abortions.

While Congress is technically not funding abortions, it actually is.

For the life of me, I do not know why after all these years it has not occured to the pro-life movement to open their own women's clinics which can then be used to provide adoption services, pre-natal care, and birth control. And if Congress is going to be spending money on birth control regardless of whether or not you think they should, then these clinics should get that birth control money, too. And there will not be any stain on that money abetting abortions.

This is America, and we thrive on free enterprise and competition. Time to wake up and get smart, folks.

what health conditions does condoms treat or prevent? i didnt know acne could be controlled with condoms, i didnt know ovarian cysts could be treated with condoms, i didnt know hormones could be regulated with condoms.

your issue is with people having sex for pleasure. get over it.

 

[asaratis]

the GOP is fighting for freedom of religion.
the left is fighting for freedom of choice.

you have it backwards.

the GOP is fighting on the basis of religious institutions. where in the discussion has kaiser, united health care or blue cross / blue shield come up?

No sir. You have it wrong.

It started as freedom of religion when the Catholic Church complained.

Obama agreed and compromised.

However, the compromise meant that insurance companies can be told by government that they MUST offer something, even if it goes against their morals.

When has ANY business been told they MUST offer a service?

It is about freedom of choice.

The left wants the people to get BC form any insurance company they want to......at the cost of freedom of choiuce for the owners of the insurance companies.

The right wants the inmsurance companies to ALSO have freedom of choice....so sell it if you want...dont if you dont want to....take insurance with one that offers it or take insurance with one thayt doesnt.

Freedom of choice is swecured for both sides the GOP way....freedom of choice is eliminated for owners of insurance companies the left way.

no matter how much you keep telling yourself that, its not the essence of the debate.

show me where the health insurance companies are coming together to protest the contraception mandate.

they are not, it is the church and religious institutions involved in health care.

i didnt know they church sold insurance now? this is news to us all....

you do realize that there is a difference between an insurance company and a health care provider right?

Some institutions are self insured because they make enough profit to cover the liabilities.

 

[kwc57]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

Actually, the whole "contraception" drum is being pounded by the liberals in an attempt at gotcha politics. If one were being honest, they would know this is about constitutional freedoms rather than denying women "health care". But that is if one is being honest.

sometime rights come into conflict and they need to be resolved. in this case it is the freedom of choice vs. the freedom of religion. the courts will have a difficult time deciding this one. if you rule for freedom of religion, you trample someones right, but if you rule for freedom of choice, you trample someone elses rights.

its a double edged sword.
as cruel as it sound, i would argue freedom of choice wins out on this fact and this alone. the US is a secular society and not everyone believe in or follow religion. now people are still free to choose which religion to follow, but (in this case) ruling in favor or religion would in effect make those of us who do not adhere to that religion forced to follow part of its doctrine.

opinions?

What the hell are you babbling about? There is no conflict here. No one is being denied anything. You are free to get an abortion. You can't go to a Catholic hospital and get one, but you can go anywhere that does do them and get one. If you work for a Catholic charity, the insurance they provide won't pay for your contraceptives, but you are still free to purchase and use contraception to your heart's desire. I'm a diabetic. For years, insurance companies wouldn't cover insulin pumps because of how expensive they are. Eventually, enough data was collected to prove that insulin pumps therapy actually helps reduce healthcare costs down the road and slowly, insurance companies began to cover them. To this day, all insurance companies have services and drugs that they simply refuse to cover or make you pay a larger share of the cost. But if I'd wanted to, I could have bought my own insulin pump without the insurance company. Same as with contraception. If your employer thru your insurance provider doesn't cover contraception, go buy a rubber or go down to Planned Parenthood and they will give you a gross for free. Your "freedom" is not and has not been denied. Now, the government telling a church that they must provide something that goes against their belief.......that is freedom denied. Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?

 

[geauxtohell]

Despite what the learned opinion of the medical professionals in the College of Bishops say, IUDs are not abortifacients.

Well since an abortifacient is a drug that would be correct, but to the point of whether it causes an abortion.....well that depends on your faith doesn't it? If you believe that a fertilized egg is a "human life" then the use of anything that prevents that egg from implanting would be considered an abortion. As the question of whether a fertilized egg is a "human life" is a matter of faith it becomes an argument between scientific definitions and religious definitions and at that point it's kind of a draw.

No. Medical Science is not a matter of faith. IUDs prevent fertilization. Not implantation. This issue is being debated on information that isn't even factual. Hypothetically, if the IUD missed on preventing fertilization, then it could prevent implantation.

So the Catholic Church's whole objection is over a hypothetical situation that, if it happens, is extremely rare.

http://www.acog.org/~/media/For Patients/faq014.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20120302T1345477509

 

[Jarhead]

the GOP is fighting for freedom of religion.
the left is fighting for freedom of choice.

you have it backwards.

the GOP is fighting on the basis of religious institutions. where in the discussion has kaiser, united health care or blue cross / blue shield come up?

No sir. You have it wrong.

It started as freedom of religion when the Catholic Church complained.

Obama agreed and compromised.

However, the compromise meant that insurance companies can be told by government that they MUST offer something, even if it goes against their morals.

When has ANY business been told they MUST offer a service?

It is about freedom of choice.

The left wants the people to get BC form any insurance company they want to......at the cost of freedom of choiuce for the owners of the insurance companies.

The right wants the inmsurance companies to ALSO have freedom of choice....so sell it if you want...dont if you dont want to....take insurance with one that offers it or take insurance with one thayt doesnt.

Freedom of choice is swecured for both sides the GOP way....freedom of choice is eliminated for owners of insurance companies the left way.

show me where the health insurance companies are coming together to protest the contraception mandate.

they are not, it is the church

that is irrelevant. Likely, all but a few will offer contraception becuase they want to get the largest market share...that is capitaslism at work.

But we dont want ANY LAW on our books that mandates any company MUST offer a service if it doesnt want to.

Would you agree to a law that says all attorneys MUST take a client on, even if they disagree with the client?

Would you agree to a law that said that all convenience stores MUST sell lottery tickets?

Would you agree with a law that said that all car showrooms of ALL car makers MUST sell GM cars along side the ones they sell?

Syphon...mandating an industry to sell something is a very dangerous precedent being set.....you need to get past your support of contraception (which I ALSO support) and see what this opens the door to.

 

[kwc57]

if you rule that religious hospitals apply for exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs, you up a whole different set of issues than just the contraception issue.

i could make the argument (in court) that my religion prohibits me from providing cancer drugs, aids drugs, heart drugs, or cholesterol drugs, or any other drug on the market. would that be an acceptable consequence in your mind?

My retina specialist doesn't do cancer screenings......and he's a healthcare provider! Go figure.

this is a pretty ignorant post, thats like saying i go to oncologist when i break my leg and wonder why hes not fixing it.

Yet you find logic in forcing someone who doesn't provide abortion services (Catholic) to provide that service. It isn't what they do, just like my retina specialist doesn't do cancer screenings. Not so ignorant is it?

 

[g5000]

what health conditions does condoms treat or prevent?

You do not know they prevent AIDS and other STDs? I guess our safe sex education system has failed. Jesus!

i didnt know acne could be controlled with condoms, i didnt know ovarian cysts could be treated with condoms, i didnt know hormones could be regulated with condoms.

your issue is with people having sex for pleasure. get over it.

See? You still do it. I plainly said paying for the pill for legitimate medical costs would be small. We can afford that. But you want far, far more than that.

You are using innocent sick people as human shields. You want the pill paid for not just for them, but to also subsidize your sex life with other people's money. Using sick people to get a handout is disgusting. You have no shame.

 

[Jarhead]

No sir. You have it wrong.

It started as freedom of religion when the Catholic Church complained.

Obama agreed and compromised.

However, the compromise meant that insurance companies can be told by government that they MUST offer something, even if it goes against their morals.

When has ANY business been told they MUST offer a service?

It is about freedom of choice.

The left wants the people to get BC form any insurance company they want to......at the cost of freedom of choiuce for the owners of the insurance companies.

The right wants the inmsurance companies to ALSO have freedom of choice....so sell it if you want...dont if you dont want to....take insurance with one that offers it or take insurance with one thayt doesnt.

Freedom of choice is swecured for both sides the GOP way....freedom of choice is eliminated for owners of insurance companies the left way.

no matter how much you keep telling yourself that, its not the essence of the debate.

show me where the health insurance companies are coming together to protest the contraception mandate.

they are not, it is the church and religious institutions involved in health care.

i didnt know they church sold insurance now? this is news to us all....

you do realize that there is a difference between an insurance company and a health care provider right?

Some institutions are self insured because they make enough profit to cover the liabilities.

the line in bold...

Need to say this. I thought we were having a respewctful debate....that question was designed to be an insult to my intelligence. I dont appreciate it.

That being said...you are aware that there are insurance companies owned and run by devout catholics and sell to catholic institutions only becuase they are4 very particular not to conver things like abortion and contraception.

They cant sell outside to non catholic organizations becuase they do not offer enough services...but that is OK with them.,..they dont mind a smaller market share...they prefer selling what they want to sell and stay within their religious morals.

The government has the right to tell them otherwise?

Would you like the government to tell you that you must sell something that was against your morals?

 

[g5000]

"That lady over there has bad acne, so I want you to make that guy over there pay for MY pill."


Liberal shameless begging at its finest.

 

[kwc57]

i dont see where providing free abortions is part of this discussion

What? Do you see the word free in regard to abortions in my post you responded to? Me either? I did mention a "free" society, which means free of government forcing you to provide services you choose not to.

providing abortions for free are not part of this discussion. unless somehow in your twisted mine the pill is equal to an abortion

Hey dumbshit!!!! Show me where I said anything about providing free abortions! I've never mentioned free abortions in any of my posts. If you're going to participate in these threads, you need to up your game a little and quit attributing made up shit to people who didn't say it. Sheesh!

 

[Jarhead]

liberals like to camp.....

I wonder if a liberal owner of a camping gear store would apprerciate the government passing a law saying that the store MUST sell hunting equipment.

Something to chew on.

 

[Syphon]

Actually, the whole "contraception" drum is being pounded by the liberals in an attempt at gotcha politics. If one were being honest, they would know this is about constitutional freedoms rather than denying women "health care". But that is if one is being honest.

sometime rights come into conflict and they need to be resolved. in this case it is the freedom of choice vs. the freedom of religion. the courts will have a difficult time deciding this one. if you rule for freedom of religion, you trample someones right, but if you rule for freedom of choice, you trample someone elses rights.

its a double edged sword.
as cruel as it sound, i would argue freedom of choice wins out on this fact and this alone. the US is a secular society and not everyone believe in or follow religion. now people are still free to choose which religion to follow, but (in this case) ruling in favor or religion would in effect make those of us who do not adhere to that religion forced to follow part of its doctrine.

opinions?

What the hell are you babbling about? There is no conflict here. No one is being denied anything. You are free to get an abortion. You can't go to a Catholic hospital and get one, but you can go anywhere that does do them and get one. If you work for a Catholic charity, the insurance they provide won't pay for your contraceptives, but you are still free to purchase and use contraception to your heart's desire. I'm a diabetic. For years, insurance companies wouldn't cover insulin pumps because of how expensive they are. Eventually, enough data was collected to prove that insulin pumps therapy actually helps reduce healthcare costs down the road and slowly, insurance companies began to cover them. To this day, all insurance companies have services and drugs that they simply refuse to cover or make you pay a larger share of the cost. But if I'd wanted to, I could have bought my own insulin pump without the insurance company. Same as with contraception. If your employer thru your insurance provider doesn't cover contraception, go buy a rubber or go down to Planned Parenthood and they will give you a gross for free. Your "freedom" is not and has not been denied. Now, the government telling a church that they must provide something that goes against their belief.......that is freedom denied. Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?

so you are advocating for an "a la carte" medical system. where its basically a pay as you go system. in order to make exact sure that your money is not going to anything you dont support you want to see insurance go away and people pay every exact cent for their own services? awesome, then i can stop subsidizing and helping pay for all your treatments.

if there were not laws, insurance companies wouldn't cover anything expensive. sugery, hospice care etc etc. lets do away with those things too and remove those mandates so that i dont have to pay for you grandma to have her hip replaced again.

lets go back to the days when they could drop you when you got sick, or deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition as well. the days where they their profits topped $3B and they continually refused to provide life saving services as a cost cutting measure.

again abortion is not part of this discussion, as much as you are trying to make it one. are you also advocating that businesses are people too now?

 

[Syphon]

My retina specialist doesn't do cancer screenings......and he's a healthcare provider! Go figure.

this is a pretty ignorant post, thats like saying i go to oncologist when i break my leg and wonder why hes not fixing it.

Yet you find logic in forcing someone who doesn't provide abortion services (Catholic) to provide that service. It isn't what they do, just like my retina specialist doesn't do cancer screenings. Not so ignorant is it?

this is not about abortion, how many time do i have to say this.

 

[Misty]

The Catholic Church is opposed to contraception for moral reasons.

Where is the morality in creating a life when food and clean water are rare commodities? Where poverty exists and educational opportunities are non existent?

Where is the morality when disease is spread?

Where is the morality when a women is the victim of domestic violence? When a women is forced to conceive and then trapped as the child become a lever to gain more power and more control?

Islam and some sects of judaism have strict rules about contraception including forbidding it.

Pumping hormones into your body for decades and being told it's ok to kill your baby seem much more harmful to women IMO.

It's a man's world. Men want lots of sex hate condoms don't want the responsibility of a child so they have concocted the perfect man world. Make the women take the hormones and make the women get rid of "it" when the man doesn't want it.

 

[Syphon]

liberals like to camp.....

I wonder if a liberal owner of a camping gear store would apprerciate the government passing a law saying that the store MUST sell hunting equipment.

Something to chew on.

guess if that hunting gear can prevent a medical condition im all for it. can you prove that it provides any health related services?