House GOPers War On Birth Control

[Katzndogz]

If a woman wants an abortion for her convenience or because she made a mistake, it is not unreasonable to ask her to pay for her own convenience or her own mistake.

 

[Katzndogz]

So, in your vision of the perfect nation, children starve in the streets?

Good to know!

Ahhh, compassionate, humanitarian killing of children to prevent suffering. Just warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it?

50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse.

And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

How about that third unwanted pregnancy, or fourth, or fifth. If they had to pay themselves, perhaps they would invest in condoms or birth control pills. Perhaps, if they are poor enough, they would demand the male partners buy the condoms. Or is that too much for the poor little dears who have a right to sex.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why can't everyone just have access to the morning after pill? PP has been lobbying under different names against it. Which proves they really do want to be abortion factories.

I want the morning after pill available to every young woman. Yes you heard it hear first from an old broad who is conservative but still rocked while she was young and I know first hand how one can make mistakes.

I just want the morning after pill to be available without question over the counter.

I guarantee you PP will be against this like they always have been.

You'd think there'd be some way to manage this......​

12/8/11​

"The science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use," Sebelius said in a statement. "However, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. I do not believe that Teva's application met that standard."

A U.S. District Judge ruled in 2009 that the FDA had "repeatedly and unreasonably delayed issuing a decision on Plan B for suspect reasons" and forced the FDA to lower the age to 17 and re-review the rationale for its decision. Teva Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures the pill, filed a new application in February of this year to re-label Plan B as over the counter."

Age Limit Remains In Place​

Ya' gotta admit.....it's been worse.....just a (relatively) short-time-ago.....​

January 24, 2005​

"Hospitals across the state currently have the choice to distribute information about the emergency contraception if they want but some choose not to."

Hospitals May Be Forced....​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why can't everyone just have access to the morning after pill? PP has been lobbying under different names against it. Which proves they really do want to be abortion factories.

I want the morning after pill available to every young woman. Yes you heard it hear first from an old broad who is conservative but still rocked while she was young and I know first hand how one can make mistakes.

I just want the morning after pill to be available without question over the counter.

I guarantee you PP will be against this like they always have been.

Look at it realistically. We do not allow very young people, boys and girls to buy cough syrup, or spray cans of paint, now I understand drain cleaner is off limits. Why? Because they lack good judgment. The morning after pill is not harmless. Misused it is quite dangerous.

More Teabagger-style....
Bullshit!!!!!​

"You may have some undesirable side effects while using the morning-after pill. But many women use Plan B One-Step, ella, and Next Choice with few or no problems."

EBC​

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why can't everyone just have access to the morning after pill? PP has been lobbying under different names against it. Which proves they really do want to be abortion factories.

I want the morning after pill available to every young woman. Yes you heard it hear first from an old broad who is conservative but still rocked while she was young and I know first hand how one can make mistakes.

I just want the morning after pill to be available without question over the counter.

I guarantee you PP will be against this like they always have been.

Sure, because Planned Parenthood makes their money off of abortion. Morning After pills cut into their profits.

Plan B, RU486, etc. stop the process before life forms. These make sense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More Teabagger-style....
Bullshit!!!!!​

Mr. Shithead; I support the idea of your mother having a post-birth abortion of you.

Of course, when they shove the needle in your cranium, they'll hit a vacuum...

 

[g5000]

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?

I see this year-old topic has been rebooted for some reason.

I read the first few pages, and the last few pages, and I did not see any evidence that H.R. 358 has anything to do with contraception.

It has to do with abortion. And every version of it exempted victims of rape and incest, and it exempted cases where the mother's life is in danger.

So it appears everything in the OP article is a big smoking lie.

When you lie, you completely undermine your cause.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

More Teabagger-style....
Bullshit!!!!!​

Mr. Shithead; I support the idea of your mother having a post-birth abortion of you.

Of course, when they shove the needle in your cranium, they'll hit a vacuum...

Oh, gee......Teabagger-humor.

How witty.

 

[Dragon]

Here is a link to the text of the bill as passed by the House:

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Honestly, I cannot find any provisions in it that would permit states to outlaw birth control. I do think that the restrictions on abortion funding are too strict, however. This goes well beyond the Hyde amendment. It's not a case of blocking federal funds from directly paying for abortions, but it also blocks any federal funds from paying any part of the cost of an insurance policy that covers abortion. What's especially bad is this provision:

" (3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection or section 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as--

`(A) premiums for such separate coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

`(B) administrative costs and all services offered through such coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and

`(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that offers a qualified health plan through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection.';"

Now, consider what that clause (C) means. It means that an insurance company could not provide a general health insurance policy that does not cover abortion, and at the same time a separate insurance policy that covers ONLY abortion, allowing a woman to buy the general policy at a subsidized discount and the abortion-only policy at full premium. Instead, any policy issued by a carrier that covers abortion must be matched by another policy that is identical in every way except that it doesn't cover abortion -- and that means that the woman, in order to have abortion coverage while getting the subsidy for other health insurance, must buy two general health insurance policies, one of them at full premium.

The effect is to deny any woman eligible for subsidized insurance premiums from being able to purchase abortion coverage AT ALL -- with or without the subsidy. That goes WAY too far.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

I see this year-old topic has been rebooted for some reason.

I wanted to comment on.....

"....Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that most employers will be required to cover contraception in their health plans...."

.....but, couldn't do so in a new thread.

Every time I start a new thread, Diamond Dave (or, someone else) always whines & complains, until the Mods move it outta Politics.....so, I looked for the most-convenient/available one, instead.​

 

[g5000]

Now, consider what that clause (C) means. It means that an insurance company could not provide a general health insurance policy that does not cover abortion, and at the same time a separate insurance policy that covers ONLY abortion, allowing a woman to buy the general policy at a subsidized discount and the abortion-only policy at full premium. Instead, any policy issued by a carrier that covers abortion must be matched by another policy that is identical in every way except that it doesn't cover abortion -- and that means that the woman, in order to have abortion coverage while getting the subsidy for other health insurance, must buy two general health insurance policies, one of them at full premium.

The effect is to deny any woman eligible for subsidized insurance premiums from being able to purchase abortion coverage AT ALL -- with or without the subsidy. That goes WAY too far.

I think you mis-read clause (C). It says a health insurance company can offer two plans. One which covers abortion and one which does not. That way, a woman who is morally opposed to abortion would not have to pay for a plan that costs more because it covers abortion.

Look at it this way. Suppose you had two insurance plans identical in every way except one covered membership to tanning salons and the other didn't. The one that included tanning salons would be more expensive because the insurance company will have to make outlays to pay for tanning salon memberships, and that cost has to be recouped from the customers.

So a policy which covers abortion will also necessarily be more expensive than one that doesn't. The more services a policy covers, the more expensive it will be.

So why should a woman who is morally opposed to abortion be forced to pay for a policy which covers a service she will never use? Why should she be forced to subsidize an evil act?

If you want the abortion clause, you have to pay for that extra part of the policy out of your own pocket.

So now you have two choices. Aren't you pro-choice?

 

[g5000]

Hmmm.

I can either pay extra for an abortion clause, or I could save money and practice safe sex.

What a horrible dilemma to put these women in!

 

[g5000]

47 percent of all abortions are the result of not using any form of birth control. At all.

I would be more than happy to help all women get access to contraception who want it. That alone would cut abortions in half. Which is way, way, way more than the abortions that would be prevented if Roe v. Wade were repealed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

47 percent of all abortions are the result of not using any form of birth control. At all.

I would be more than happy to help all women get access to contraception who want it. That alone would cut abortions in half. Which is way, way, way more than the abortions that would be prevented if Roe v. Wade were repealed.

Women do have access to all the contraception they want. They merely need go down to the local elementary school and pick up a case of condoms.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

47 percent of all abortions are the result of not using any form of birth control. At all.

I would be more than happy to help all women get access to contraception who want it. That alone would cut abortions in half. Which is way, way, way more than the abortions that would be prevented if Roe v. Wade were repealed.

Women do have access to all the contraception they want. They merely need go down to the local elementary school and pick up a case of condoms.

Wrong, again.....as usual......​

1/20/2012​

"Under the new rule, set forth by the Affordable Care Act, most women employed in the U.S. will have the cost of their birth control covered with no co-pay. Churches and other places of worship would continue to be exempt from having to cover contraception for their employees if they morally object to the practice, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, but all other organizations will have a year to comply with the new requirement, regardless of whether or not they are religiously affiliated."

New Decision On Birth Control​

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong, again.....as usual......​

You know stupid, accessible and free are two different concepts.

You were dropped on your head, THEN kicked by a mule, werncha sparky?

 

[Cecilie1200]

47 percent of all abortions are the result of not using any form of birth control. At all.

I would be more than happy to help all women get access to contraception who want it. That alone would cut abortions in half. Which is way, way, way more than the abortions that would be prevented if Roe v. Wade were repealed.

Women do have access to all the contraception they want. They merely need go down to the local elementary school and pick up a case of condoms.

I dunno about elementary schools, but I know for a fact that every community has SOME group that's giving out free condoms. Tucson has multiple groups that do it.

Or, you know, if they care about not having children as much as the rest of us are supposed to care about them not having children, they could just hit the drugstore and buy some.

 

[initforme]

I can see anti abortion. But anti contraception? What about the married couple that choses they dont want kids? I APPLAUD them for making that decision. What is wrong with contraception. Please explain. I'm not for abortion but I know some young couples who have chosen not to have kids and we should encourage them for such a decision.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I dunno about elementary schools, but I know for a fact that every community has SOME group that's giving out free condoms. Tucson has multiple groups that do it.

Or, you know, if they care about not having children as much as the rest of us are supposed to care about them not having children, they could just hit the drugstore and buy some.

Apparently, according to the leftists, if contraceptives aren't doled out free by the gubmint, women are being denied access....

 

[logical4u]

I can see anti abortion. But anti contraception? What about the married couple that choses they dont want kids? I APPLAUD them for making that decision. What is wrong with contraception. Please explain. I'm not for abortion but I know some young couples who have chosen not to have kids and we should encourage them for such a decision.

What is wrong with contraception? Many Christians believe that contraception interferes with the "real" relationship between a married couple: that sex is a God-given gift to be shared when both are willing. The contraceptives interupt the natural rythm of a "break" (since many shorten or eliminate the menstral cycle) from each other that gives each partner time to reflect the other person's value as a mate. Contraception makes the couple less aware of the possibility of children and the possibilities that each child can bring to a relationship. Contraception makes sex: casual. It smudges the natural instincts of women to choose the 'best' mate available, and encourages her to settle for 'Mr Right Now'. Having sex with multiple partners (because sex is more casual and many types of contraceptives can mess with hormones and make women feel attracted to men that they would not normally want) makes it more difficult to enter into a committed, serious relationship (enter high divorce rate). Contraceptives can also increase the risk for breast and cervical cancers, killing women that have used them (some of them can kill women in early adulthood, that have less than 'healthy' lifestyles). Contraceptives make children (practicing sex) feel safe, therefore more likely to aquire and spread STDs. That is what many Christians believe. Many of them are aware of methods to reduce the chance of pregnancies thru carefully tracking to ovulation cycles, and avoiding those times when the woman is most likely to conceive.

I am aware that these beliefs will be slammed, mocked, and insulted. The same people that do that will say nothing against other religions that promote polygamy with tens of children being born into poverty, and where it is "acceptable" to use little boys for sex.

You wanted an explanation...