Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Regarding Your Quote about Thinking Spring? I'd hate to tell ya,but the average temperature in Naples all week is around 78/79. I don't know how those in the rust belt deal with the 5/6 months of winter.Especially the last two wintersAngry 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 the campaigned on (anyone remember "jobs, jobs, jobs"?) and it is Victorian in its morality.
Abstinence? Are you serious?
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.
Christ onna cracker. The bill addresses covered i-n-s-u-r-a-n-c-e benefits, not Medicaid or CHAMPUS. You geniuses slay me -- pull a few "feel good" anti-abortion slogans out of your asses and you think that qualifies as "debate". Even though your points have nothing whatsoever to do with the TOPIC.
Anyone here, married or single, want to be able to access the birth control method her MD reccomends? Or do you think House GOPers know what's best for you?
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?
Christ onna cracker. The bill addresses covered i-n-s-u-r-a-n-c-e benefits, not Medicaid or CHAMPUS. You geniuses slay me -- pull a few "feel good" anti-abortion slogans out of your asses and you think that qualifies as "debate". Even though your points have nothing whatsoever to do with the TOPIC.
Anyone here, married or single, want to be able to access the birth control method her MD reccomends? Or do you think House GOPers know what's best for you?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
The Affordable Care Act included, as part of the compromise on abortion, a provision that made clear that nothing in the health care law would preempt state laws on abortion. H.R. 358 expands this provision, preventing the new health care law from preempting any state law - now or in the future - that has to do with "conscience rights." The Energy and Commerce Committee counsel admitted today that this provision goes WAY beyond abortion. In fact, it gives states carte blanche to undo, in the name of conscience, almost any federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act.
This loophole means that, under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
The Affordable Care Act may finally mean that all new health insurance plans will cover contraceptives. And now, under the cloak of "taxpayer funded abortion," members of the Energy and Commerce Committee admitted today that the bill would allow states to opt-out of this guarantee.
House Republican leaders have decided to wage war on contraceptives. They're out of touch with American women. It's up to us to stop them.
H.R. 358 is Part of House Republican Leadership War on Contraception | National Women's Law Center
How do you want your tax dollars spent? Foreign wars of choice, Star Wars Technology, Corporate Welfare and on no-bid contracts to the cronys of a Vice President are a few of the ways I object to my tax dollars being spent.
Preventing disease and helping families with children born with chronic and congenital maladies seems to me a higher purpose for my tax dollars, vis a vis killing children in foreign nations (albiet they are usually only collateral damage) on the pretense a foreign government desires a WMD.
That's because our "youth" should not be having sex.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.
That's because our "youth" should not be having sex.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.
For tose of you who use the excuse " kids will be kids and it's going to happen(sexually active teens)"....Have 100% of the responsibility to teach your kids about the consequences of sexual intercourse...Yes, I stated "consequences"...
Of course the Left thinks that sex should be free of consequences.....Not so.
Fact is that most abortions are performed out of convenience or for birth control.
The taxpayers should be be funding abortion for birth control or someone's convenience.
Unless you're a republican of course. 
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 the campaigned on (anyone remember "jobs, jobs, jobs"?) and it is Victorian in its morality.
Abstinence? Are you serious?
H.R. 358 is Part of House Republican Leadership War on Contraception | National Women's Law CenterToday, 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.
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?
Cut the crap and stop obfuscating....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.
How do you want your tax dollars spent? Foreign wars of choice, Star Wars Technology, Corporate Welfare and on no-bid contracts to the cronys of a Vice President are a few of the ways I object to my tax dollars being spent.
Preventing disease and helping families with children born with chronic and congenital maladies seems to me a higher purpose for my tax dollars, vis a vis killing children in foreign nations (albiet they are usually only collateral damage) on the pretense a foreign government desires a WMD.
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?
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?
What I can't understand is how your can be against abortion and birth control at the same time
Seems counterproductive
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.
Michele Bachman criticized Michelle Obama for supporting tax breaks for breast pumps and looser rules allowing women to breastfeed in the workplace, calling it an example of a "nanny state." That's where you got it, Willow. You're not smart enough to have any ideas of your own. Just repeat what you hear from the stupidest leaders of the GOP. That's all you ever do.
That's because our "youth" should not be having sex.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.
For tose of you who use the excuse " kids will be kids and it's going to happen(sexually active teens)"....Have 100% of the responsibility to teach your kids about the consequences of sexual intercourse...Yes, I stated "consequences"...
Of course the Left thinks that sex should be free of consequences.....Not so.
Fact is that most abortions are performed out of convenience or for birth control.
The taxpayers should be be funding abortion for birth control or someone's convenience.
Cut the crap and stop obfuscating....
This is about removing a federal insurance mandate that requires health policies cover elective abortions and medical birth control( Pill,diaphragm) for women..
