House GOPers War On Birth Control

[AllieBaba]

Everyone -- except the GOP, apparently -- agrees that that wider use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy would be best. Read the linked article in the Op, Willow. This is not merely an attack on abortion rights.

It is an attack on birth control.

It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.

The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."

Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.

How is that okay with you?

You're either lying, or ignorant.

You can walk into any health department in this country and get an IUD, Norplant or information about how to pursue sterilization for nada.

 

[Madeline]

Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358

Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358


Republicans in the House of Representatives are proposing HR 358, which would prohibit any funds authorized or appropriated by PPACA, affectionately known as Obamacare, to be used for abortions. It also includes language that ensures that private companies (such as Catholic hospitals) are not forced to provide abortions. The bill would insert the following language into PPACA:

(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except–
`(A) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
`(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Predictably, pro-abortion forces are up in arms over this proposed bill and are conjuring up the worst (and unlikely) possible scenario to drum up opposition to the bill. Nancy Keenan from NARAL said, “Anti-choice politicians have gone from redefining rape to denying abortion care to women who will die without it.” Jodi Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief at RH Reality Check melodramatically states, “In short: Fertilized eggs are people; women are not.” Michael Stone, a blogger on examiner.com, continued the rhetoric and carried it a bit further by saying that Republicans have declared war on women.

Somehow, all of these pro-abortion folks are failing to mention the exceptions A and B that I listed above. They are in the current text of the bill. And the bill does say it will not prohibit healthcare plans that are not using federal funds from PPACA from covering abortions. None of what the pro-abortion people are saying is really a shocker. They want pregnant women to have as much opportunity to kill their unborn children as possible and they want the taxpayer to foot the bill for it. Anything that pro-life advocates do to prevent the slaughter brings out the worst in the pro-abortion camp.

Oops! Google Chrome could not find abortion advocates distorting hr 358

You need a better linkiepoo, Newby. That one is broken.

 

[Madeline]

It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.

The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."

Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.

How is that okay with you?

You're either lying, or ignorant.

You can walk into any health department in this country and get an IUD, Norplant or information about how to pursue sterilization for nada.

Where you will not be able to obtain them is in your private MDs office if this bill passes....not unless you can afford to pay cash. This bill is not aimed at the poor. It is aimed the middle class.

 

[Newby]

The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."

Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.

How is that okay with you?

Could you please show us in the direct text of the bill where it says this?

There is a link to the bill within the linked article, Newby. Nice to see you, BTW. You been keeping well?

In that case, follow your own link and show us where it says what you're saying it does. It should be simple, yes? And thank you Madeline, I am doing well.

 

[peach174]

I'm comfortable with the Hyde Amendment as a measure for when taxpayers money should be used for abortion. If the Dems would stop trying to force Americans to pay for abortions, the GOP wouldn't have to waste time fighting it.

I agree. If a woman wants to have an abortion it should be between her and God. When you use taxpayer money in involves those who are against it.
It is not right to involve those who are against it, to be forced to pay for it with our tax dollars.

 

[Anachronism]

Angry yet? I know I'd like to punch someone.

These guys did say they would be all about jobs, am I correct? And instead, they're about setting back women's rights 100 years?

Your thoughts?

I'm disappointed that they're attempting to prohibit the use of PRIVATE funds for abortion and contraception. That is going too far in my mind. However, I am of the belief that it is not the place of the government to be paying for either of those things.

Then again, my beliefs on abortion, sex, and relationships in general do not meld very well with the generally accepted opinions on those topics these days. I'm against abortion in almost all cases (rape, incest, imminent health of the mother being the exceptions). I am against casual sex as a rule (it should be reserved for committed relationships). I believe in a much more traditional relationship model than most men and women these days.

To that end, I have no problem with a health insurance company being allowed to deny women payment for birth control and/or abortions. I definitely don't think the government should be paying for either. IF someone wishes to use birth control (and I have/do use condoms myself and I've been with women who use oral contraceptives) it should be paid for out of their own pocket. If they can find a plan that will agree to cover oral contraceptives without it being mandated, GREAT. They're still going to pay for it in the premiums. Of course the most effective form of birth control is the one this generation refuses to accept.... abstinance.

 

[Madeline]

I'm comfortable with the Hyde Amendment as a measure for when taxpayers money should be used for abortion. If the Dems would stop trying to force Americans to pay for abortions, the GOP wouldn't have to waste time fighting it.

I agree. If a woman wants to have an abortion it should be between her and God. When you use taxpayer money in involves those who are against it.
It is not right to involve those who are against it, to be forced to pay for it with our tax dollars.

I freaking hate the Hyde Amendment, but that is not under discussion. Taxpayer money is not being debated...insurance company premiums are.

You guys are having one helluva time staying on-topic here.

 

[Newby]

The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."

Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.

How is that okay with you?

You're either lying, or ignorant.

You can walk into any health department in this country and get an IUD, Norplant or information about how to pursue sterilization for nada.

Where you will not be able to obtain them is in your private MDs office if this bill passes....not unless you can afford to pay cash. This bill is not aimed at the poor. It is aimed the middle class.

That's not true Madeline. Please show us what part of the bill says this.

 

[EdSchultzIsFat]

I will never understand why so many couples have babies,when they are still renting,have a few hundred in the bank,live paycheck to paycheck,etc. etc. It seems in most cases they are couples in their early 20's who were doing everything backwards. Kinda like that MTV series,16&Pregnant(is that what its called?). Yes,there are accidents,if it is an accident,I understand having the abortion. But why do so many poor people just expect the government to pay all of their expenses because of an immature decision to have a child when they are still children? Don't they teach this in Grade/High school?

 

[Newby]

Angry yet? I know I'd like to punch someone.

These guys did say they would be all about jobs, am I correct? And instead, they're about setting back women's rights 100 years?

Your thoughts?

I'm disappointed that they're attempting to prohibit the use of PRIVATE funds for abortion and contraception. That is going too far in my mind. However, I am of the belief that it is not the place of the government to be paying for either of those things.

Then again, my beliefs on abortion, sex, and relationships in general do not meld very well with the generally accepted opinions on those topics these days. I'm against abortion in almost all cases (rape, incest, imminent health of the mother being the exceptions). I am against casual sex as a rule (it should be reserved for committed relationships). I believe in a much more traditional relationship model than most men and women these days.

To that end, I have no problem with a health insurance company being allowed to deny women payment for birth control and/or abortions. I definitely don't think the government should be paying for either. IF someone wishes to use birth control (and I have/do use condoms myself and I've been with women who use oral contraceptives) it should be paid for out of their own pocket. If they can find a plan that will agree to cover oral contraceptives without it being mandated, GREAT. They're still going to pay for it in the premiums. Of course the most effective form of birth control is the one this generation refuses to accept.... abstinance.

It's prohibiting the use of insurance where it is funded with federal dollars. The bill requires a coverage plan that will provide the same benefits that does not cover abortion when the plan is paid for in part, or in full, by federal dollars.

 

[Madeline]

Angry yet? I know I'd like to punch someone.

These guys did say they would be all about jobs, am I correct? And instead, they're about setting back women's rights 100 years?

Your thoughts?

I'm disappointed that they're attempting to prohibit the use of PRIVATE funds for abortion and contraception. That is going too far in my mind. However, I am of the belief that it is not the place of the government to be paying for either of those things.

Then again, my beliefs on abortion, sex, and relationships in general do not meld very well with the generally accepted opinions on those topics these days. I'm against abortion in almost all cases (rape, incest, imminent health of the mother being the exceptions). I am against casual sex as a rule (it should be reserved for committed relationships). I believe in a much more traditional relationship model than most men and women these days.

To that end, I have no problem with a health insurance company being allowed to deny women payment for birth control and/or abortions. I definitely don't think the government should be paying for either. IF someone wishes to use birth control (and I have/do use condoms myself and I've been with women who use oral contraceptives) it should be paid for out of their own pocket. If they can find a plan that will agree to cover oral contraceptives without it being mandated, GREAT. They're still going to pay for it in the premiums. Of course the most effective form of birth control is the one this generation refuses to accept.... abstinance.

I wonder exactly when the GOPers in the House decided that birth control, of all the various kinds of health care, could be a non-covered benefit, Anachronism? What gives them -- or you -- the right to control the private lives of women they don't know, married or not?

This is insane, it is not the platform they campaigned on (anyone remember "jobs, jobs, jobs"?) and it is Victorian in its morality.

Abstinence? Are you serious?

 

[EdSchultzIsFat]

I will never understand why so many couples have babies,when they are still renting,have a few hundred in the bank,live paycheck to paycheck,etc. etc. It seems in most cases they are couples in their early 20's who were doing everything backwards. Kinda like that MTV series,16&Pregnant(is that what its called?). Yes,there are accidents,if it is an accident,I understand having the abortion. But why do so many poor people just expect the government to pay all of their expenses because of an immature decision to have a child when they are still children? Don't they teach this in Grade/High school?

just wanted to add,I come from a family of five children. I am still single,but the other four all waited to own a home before making babies!(aside from having a secure job). It's really sad when the father has to deliver pizza or work for Burger King to support a child at the age of around 20/21.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held its first business meeting of the year to consider H.R. 358, the misnamed Protect Life Act, that would prevent women from using even their own private funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion and would significantly expand refusal calls that allow women to be denied treatment, even in circumstances where their health or lives are in jeopardy.

During the debate, members of the Committee finally admitted what we knew to be true: hidden under the cloak of so-called "taxpayer funding for abortion," H.R. 358 allows states to deny insurance coverage of birth control.

That's right: the Pitts bill is part of the war on contraception that's being waged by House Republican leaders. They're pushing a spending plan that eliminates the Title X family planning program, which for forty years has provided contraceptives and other basic preventive health care to women in need. They're trying to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of contraceptive care. They are trying to prevent states from even exercising an option to expand contraceptive coverage under state Medicaid programs. And now, they are allowing states to deny women coverage of contraception under the Affordable Care Act.

H.R. 358 is Part of House Republican Leadership War on Contraception | National Women's Law Center

Angry yet? I know I'd like to punch someone.

These guys did say they would be all about jobs, am I correct? And instead, they're about setting back women's rights 100 years?

Your thoughts?

If a person wishes to choose private insurance coverage for abortion, so be it. However, I do not support public funding for the procedure UNLESS, the patient is poor/indigent and her life is in danger.
This legislation goes nowhere. Unknot panties please.
BTW, this may be a legal stretch, but if there were no Roe v Wade which would have left the regulation of abortion to the individual states( as it should be), the federal government would have no standing here.
I support the right of choice. But not on the backs of the taxpayers or those who legitimately have insurance coverage.
Planned Parenthood is in it's conceptual frame, a good idea. However in practice the organization has been commandeered by the extreme Left which has a "free abortion on demand" agenda.

 

[Anachronism]

It's prohibiting the use of insurance where it is funded with federal dollars. The bill requires a coverage plan that will provide the same benefits that does not cover abortion when the plan is paid for in part, or in full, by federal dollars.

Personally, I'd prefer it to say that when there are Federal Dollars being spent on it the ONLY coverage plan available would NOT cover abortion or birth control. So in my mind it doesn't go far enough.

 

[Newby]

It's prohibiting the use of insurance where it is funded with federal dollars. The bill requires a coverage plan that will provide the same benefits that does not cover abortion when the plan is paid for in part, or in full, by federal dollars.

Personally, I'd prefer it to say that when there are Federal Dollars being spent on it the ONLY coverage plan available would NOT cover abortion or birth control. So in my mind it doesn't go far enough.

Well, as I understand it, it is only prohibiting the payment for abortion via the insurance plan, not birth control.

 

[California Girl]

You're either lying, or ignorant.

You can walk into any health department in this country and get an IUD, Norplant or information about how to pursue sterilization for nada.

Where you will not be able to obtain them is in your private MDs office if this bill passes....not unless you can afford to pay cash. This bill is not aimed at the poor. It is aimed the middle class.

That's not true Madeline. Please show us what part of the bill says this.

The truth and reality are very, very low down on Maddie's priorities list. Hysteria and bullshit always takes precedence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's prohibiting the use of insurance where it is funded with federal dollars. The bill requires a coverage plan that will provide the same benefits that does not cover abortion when the plan is paid for in part, or in full, by federal dollars.

Personally, I'd prefer it to say that when there are Federal Dollars being spent on it the ONLY coverage plan available would NOT cover abortion or birth control. So in my mind it doesn't go far enough.

Well, as I understand it, it is only prohibiting the payment for abortion via the insurance plan, not birth control.

So as we are now to understand, madeline's frothing at the mouth is all over nothing but a technicality....It figures.

 

[Anachronism]

I wonder exactly when the GOPers in the House decided that birth control, of all the various kinds of health care, could be a non-covered benefit, Anachronism? What gives them -- or you -- the right to control the private lives of women they don't know, married or not?

Oh, about 30 - 40 years ago when it started to become more common in usage amongst the general public, maybe?

I personally believe that the foundation upon which this country was built is Personal Responsibility and Morality. Without those two things, I believe we begin to fall apart as a nation; and I feel we're well down that path at this point.

I have no problem with women using oral contraceptives and both parties requiring the use of condoms. What I have a problem with is paying for it for other people. I buy my own condoms, thank you very much. Several of the women I've dated and been sexually involved with over time have had to pay 100% for their own oral contraceptives. In fact I've shelled out cash from my own pocket on more than one occasion to cover that cost, and I have no problem with it. Likewise, I am of the opinion that engaging in sexual activity (even with BC used) IS an acceptance by both parties of the potential of becoming parents. That's called Personal Responsibility.

This is insane, it is not the platform the campaigned on (anyone remember "jobs, jobs, jobs"?) and it is Victorian in its morality.

I will tell you this.... "Jobs, jobs, jobs" was not the platform that I had any interest in from these people. Personally, I don't think the Federal Government has a responsibility to create jobs. It does have a responsibility to get out of the way of private business doing so, but not a mandate to create the jobs themselves.

I have no problem with Victorian morality, personally.

Abstinence? Are you serious?

As serious as a heart attack or that little blue "+" sign on a pregnancy test. It is the one and only 100% proven means of avoiding pregnancy. Anything outside of that has the potential of not working. Incluling a friend of mine who found out on Friday that she's pregnant.... after she had her tubes tied back in 2002..... OOPS.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If she used a pill and he used a rubber, then the whole world would be de populated shortly,, and no blood will have been spilled.. what is it about demonRats that the lust for hacking up the unborn,, what is that shit?

Conservatives generally object to educating our youth in the proper use of a condom; and sexual matters are highly restricted areas of discussion as part of a comprehensive health education program in our public schools.
Yet many still continue to spread lies that abortion is the contraceptive of choice, ignoring the fact that unwanted pregnanacy can be a result of ignorance, abuse, incest or rape.

 

[Anachronism]

Well, as I understand it, it is only prohibiting the payment for abortion via the insurance plan, not birth control.

Either way, I have no interest in seeing MY tax monies being used for Abortions OR Birth Control.