House GOPers War On Birth Control

[Anachronism]

Leaving a mother with no options has just added another abortion. Rightwing extremist policies strike again

Maybe Little Miss Sunshine should have thought about that before she slid her underwear off and spread her legs. In a proper society where abortion on demand is not an option, Little Miss Sunshine would need to take that into consideration before saying "Yes" to Lover Boy.

Leave an unmarried scared pregnant girl with no other options and she will choose abortion

Why is that so hard for the rightwing to figure out?

Maybe because we're not necessarily interested in giving her the option to choose what the outcome is. Maybe because we believe she CHOSE the potential of being a parent (as did the man she was with) when she agreed to engage in sexual relations.

You need to understand that abortion is legal in this country, so is sex

Until you can reduce the reasons a young woman seeks an abortion, you will not reduce the numbers. Preaching and "consequences" will not work

If the proper consequences are used, it will most definitely make a difference. I give you the example of my mother's best friend growing up in a small Minnesota town.... When my mother returned after her freshman year in college, her best friend was nowhere to be found. It turns out she'd gotten pregnant out of wedlock. Her parents had thrown her out on her butt. Both of this girl's younger sisters stayed chaiste until their wedding days after having seen their older sibling thrown out into a Minnesota winter because of her poor CHOICE.

Condoms fail 80% of the time. The use of spermicide cream with a condom raises the success rate to nearly as good as the Pill, but few people seem to know this and fewer still and willing to "deal with the mess".

Ignorance is not an excuse, Madeline. Never has been and never will be. It's a form of Survival of the Fittest. If they're not willing to "deal with the mess" then they need to be forced to, for the betterment of society as a whole.

So, a married couple with two kids who don't want more should practice abstinence?

How Victorian of you, thereisnospoon. Any other medical discoveries of the past 100 years you feel should be reserved only for the rich?

No, they should seek medical options to remove the potential of having another child; with the knowledge that it may not be a 100% perfect option. I say that as someone who has a friend who had her tubes tied back in 2002. She went to her doctor complaining of tiredness issues last Friday. It turns out she's three and a half months PREGNANT. Fate will be what it will be; and it is something no Man nor God can change.

 

[Newby]

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?

And I've asked three times now for you to please show us the section that prohibits insurance coverage for birth control that is not abortion. If it's in there, please show me where it is, because I haven't seen it.

Read the bill. Read the analysis of the bill in the article I linked in the Op. If you disagree with the analysis, bring it on...I am happy to hear all about it.

But claiming that because you cannot find the words "no health insurance policy may cover birth control or its attendant costs" supports your conclusion that the analysis is wrong is foolish. As you may have noticed, Newby, not all legislation with a bad or controversial intent is written so that the average fourth grader can understand.

So, in other words, you haven't a clue as to what you are saying. Thanks Maddie.

 

[rightwinger]

He addressed the problem exactly. People need to understand their are consequences to their actions. With all of the available knowledge and easy access to inexpensive birth control measures, there should be a very small instance of unwanted pregnancies

You need to understand that abortion is legal in this country, so is sex

Until you can reduce the reasons a young woman seeks an abortion, you will not reduce the numbers. Preaching and "consequences" will not work

Wrong...The question to be answered is when will people take responsibility for their actions and when things do not go as planned, take responsibility for the result.
You don't get to do whatever you want then demand others suffer the consequences.
No one is stating abortion is not legal. Nor is anyone implying sex is illegal.
The issue here is to practice responsible behavior.
Wqe are human beings. We are equipped with the one thing that no other creature on earth has...The ability to reason. With that comes the responsibility to not act on our every impulse and engage in irresponsible or dangerous behavior. At the end of the day poor behavior has consequences. Unprotected or irresponsible sex has consequences...
Pretend you have a teen aged child you KNOW for certain is having sex. Would you then tell them "it's ok"? Or would you advise them on the potential consequences of their actions? I'm going to bet you would do the latter. Based on that, why would you expect any less from anyone else. That on light of the fact that every unwanted pregnancy can result in the taxpayers becoming responsible in one way or another for that pregnancy.

That young, scared, teenaged girl is taking responsibility for her actions. She knows she cannot take care of the child and is aborting it. For the past 40 years that has been legal and will remain legal in this country

If you do not like the fact that she chooses to have an abortion....you have to offer her alternative choices. To say "You fucked around now you pay the consequences" is not one of those choices

 

[Anachronism]

If you do not like the fact that she chooses to have an abortion....you have to offer her alternative choices. To say "You fucked around now you pay the consequences" is not one of those choices

If she's my daughter, sister, etc... I have a very simple alternative.... "You no longer are part of my life." It's literally that simple. I can guarantee you that's what my parents would have done to any daughter of theirs who made that choice. It's what my grandparents would have done as well.

In fact, due to my birth defect it was SUGGESTED to my parents that they might want to seriously look into aborting me (1974). They never considered the option, even knowing that taking care of me might cost more than they made in a year on my father's salary as a public school teacher. They had family and friends who would have been more than willing to help out financially, emotionally, and physically.

 

[jillian]

If you do not like the fact that she chooses to have an abortion....you have to offer her alternative choices. To say "You fucked around now you pay the consequences" is not one of those choices

If she's my daughter, sister, etc... I have a very simple alternative.... "You no longer are part of my life." It's literally that simple. I can guarantee you that's what my parents would have done to any daughter of theirs who made that choice. It's what my grandparents would have done as well.

that's vile.

sorry.

 

[jillian]

And I've asked three times now for you to please show us the section that prohibits insurance coverage for birth control that is not abortion. If it's in there, please show me where it is, because I haven't seen it.

Read the bill. Read the analysis of the bill in the article I linked in the Op. If you disagree with the analysis, bring it on...I am happy to hear all about it.

But claiming that because you cannot find the words "no health insurance policy may cover birth control or its attendant costs" supports your conclusion that the analysis is wrong is foolish. As you may have noticed, Newby, not all legislation with a bad or controversial intent is written so that the average fourth grader can understand.

So, in other words, you haven't a clue as to what you are saying. Thanks Maddie.

why do people do that sort of thing?

she answered you.

read with comprehension.

 

[rightwinger]

If you do not like the fact that she chooses to have an abortion....you have to offer her alternative choices. To say "You fucked around now you pay the consequences" is not one of those choices

If she's my daughter, sister, etc... I have a very simple alternative.... "You no longer are part of my life." It's literally that simple. I can guarantee you that's what my parents would have done to any daughter of theirs who made that choice. It's what my grandparents would have done as well.

In fact, due to my birth defect it was SUGGESTED to my parents that they might want to seriously look into aborting me (1974). They never considered the option, even knowing that taking care of me might cost more than they made in a year on my father's salary as a public school teacher. They had family and friends who would have been more than willing to help out financially, emotionally, and physically.

You can kick your child out of your life for whatever reason you choose....that is your right

Some parents kick their children out of their life because they marry the wrong race. That is their choice and their loss too

 

[Anachronism]

that's vile.

So having standards and values that do not include a middle ground is now "vile"? Okay. If you say so. I was raised with a certain set of morals, values, and ideals. It was made very clear to me from a young age that when I was old enough to be on my own, I would get the opportunity to decide which of those to embrace for myself. It was also made very clear that if I chose to embrace alternative ideals that there would be no place for me in that family. I still got to make the choice; but I was made WELL AWARE of what the ramifications of choosing otherwise would be.

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if that sort of philosophy existed in a lot more of the homes and families in this country these days.

 

[Anachronism]

You can kick your child out of your life for whatever reason you choose....that is your right

Some parents kick their children out of their life because they marry the wrong race. That is their choice and their loss too

Yes it is my right. Just as it is my right to choose what companies and individuals I conduct my personal business with. The criteria that I use to do so is wholely my own, and would probably make most people's heads spin if explained in detail. I would suggest that more often that not it is the child rather than the parents who suffer more loss in that sort of situation.

 

[goldcatt]

And I've asked three times now for you to please show us the section that prohibits insurance coverage for birth control that is not abortion. If it's in there, please show me where it is, because I haven't seen it.

Read the bill. Read the analysis of the bill in the article I linked in the Op. If you disagree with the analysis, bring it on...I am happy to hear all about it.

But claiming that because you cannot find the words "no health insurance policy may cover birth control or its attendant costs" supports your conclusion that the analysis is wrong is foolish. As you may have noticed, Newby, not all legislation with a bad or controversial intent is written so that the average fourth grader can understand.

So, in other words, you haven't a clue as to what you are saying. Thanks Maddie.

In other words, reading the statutes and proposed amendments correctly is much more complicated and nuanced than you seem to understand.

Here's a thought. Before you go trolling and bomb throwing you can always pull it up yourself. It's all publicly available information. And of course if it's that easy even you should have a definitive answer in five minutes flat, right?

The link Maddy provided to the text of H.R. 358 clearly delineates the initial cross references you'll need to follow to track down the bits and pieces of various pieces of legislation that make up the actual current provision, then apply the proposed new language as directed to see the final outcome if passed when read together with the whole.

I know, I know, that would require time, effort, the intellectual honesty and curiosity to do a little research in the original sources and the ability to think for yourself. How dare I suggest it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

no, that is a dishonest analysis
please point out exactly where this is in the proposed legislation

If you have not read the bill, how do you know the analysis is dishonest? What is your beef with the National Women's Law Center?

Go to the Op, Divey, and click on the linked article. There is a hotlink there to the text of the bill. Look for the phrase "conscience rights". This is the center's analysis, based on their reading of the bill and an interview with the Committee's counsel:

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."

If you continue to disagree, fine...but I'd like to hear a substantive reply, please.

How do you get that the state will have the power to unilaterally prohibit birth control from the part you bolded? Even according to your source, the insurance companies have to request the exemption for the state to even be able to provide it. What are flipping out about? Do you really think every single insurer in a state will request an exemption? Hell, if you were the only insurance provider to not request an exemption you'd probably get a flood of business and that alone would ensure insurance providers wouldn't opt out.

Madeline is hysterical over this. Now that the facts have become clear, she is incredulous that no one else besides her and few other flaming libs on here are genuinely upset.

 

[Newby]

Read the bill. Read the analysis of the bill in the article I linked in the Op. If you disagree with the analysis, bring it on...I am happy to hear all about it.

But claiming that because you cannot find the words "no health insurance policy may cover birth control or its attendant costs" supports your conclusion that the analysis is wrong is foolish. As you may have noticed, Newby, not all legislation with a bad or controversial intent is written so that the average fourth grader can understand.

So, in other words, you haven't a clue as to what you are saying. Thanks Maddie.

In other words, reading the statutes and proposed amendments correctly is much more complicated and nuanced than you seem to understand.

Here's a thought. Before you go trolling and bomb throwing you can always pull it up yourself. It's all publicly available information. And of course if it's that easy even you should have a definitive answer in five minutes flat, right?

The link Maddy provided to the text of H.R. 358 clearly delineates the initial cross references you'll need to follow to track down the bits and pieces of various pieces of legislation that make up the actual current provision, then apply the proposed new language as directed to see the final outcome if passed when read together with the whole.

I know, I know, that would require time, effort, the intellectual honesty and curiosity to do a little research in the original sources and the ability to think for yourself. How dare I suggest it.

And how do you know that I didn't do that? I guess you just know everything? You certainly sound as if you think you do, I'll give you that.

Perhaps you should have suggested this to Madeline since she was making the false statements regarding the bill based merely on one blog article? Or is it because she agrees with you politically and I don't, that you feel the need to put me down for calling her out on her inaccurate statements?

Or perhaps you just wanted the prize for the most condescending bitch in the thread?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Vote Democrat, we'll pay for your IUD by taking money from people that used to be able to buy it until we took all their money to pay for shit for other people.

If you can't afford to have a baby, don't have sex... If you can't pay for BC don't have sex. If you're to fucking dumb to not have protected sex then why should others pay for your abortion?

Do liberals say no to ANY spending????? Oh, sure they do, as long as a Republican is doing it.

Neocons, everywhere wtf...

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

Do you understand human beings at all?
God gave us people the one thing that no other creature on earth possesses. That is the power reason and make judgements. That said, you are so wrong. Lower species get to act on their impulses. We DO NOT. It's called self control. With lack of self control comes the potential for consequences. So while no one is suggesting that a poor married couple not have sex, what is being is they should consider the potential consequences of their 15 -20 minutes of "sexual urges"...Because once the money shot and all the sweating is over with, there is a strong possibility the trouble is just beginning.
Now, as for your notion that those of us who are in opposition to your point of view not wanting to allow or making illegal one's urge to have sex....don't post that again. Because it isn't true.
Either show some factual evidence to support your argument or move on. Either way, stop emoting.

 

[goldcatt]

So, in other words, you haven't a clue as to what you are saying. Thanks Maddie.

In other words, reading the statutes and proposed amendments correctly is much more complicated and nuanced than you seem to understand.

Here's a thought. Before you go trolling and bomb throwing you can always pull it up yourself. It's all publicly available information. And of course if it's that easy even you should have a definitive answer in five minutes flat, right?

The link Maddy provided to the text of H.R. 358 clearly delineates the initial cross references you'll need to follow to track down the bits and pieces of various pieces of legislation that make up the actual current provision, then apply the proposed new language as directed to see the final outcome if passed when read together with the whole.

I know, I know, that would require time, effort, the intellectual honesty and curiosity to do a little research in the original sources and the ability to think for yourself. How dare I suggest it.

And how do you know that I didn't do that? I guess you just know everything? You certainly sound as if you think you do, I'll give you that.

Perhaps you should have suggested this to Madeline since she was making the false statements regarding the bill based merely on one blog article? Or is it because she agrees with you politically and I don't, that you feel the need to put me down for calling her out on her inaccurate statements?

Or perhaps you just wanted the prize for the most condescending bitch in the thread?

Kindly link to where I've even given an opinion. I'm still reading. *shrug*

 

[Newby]

In other words, reading the statutes and proposed amendments correctly is much more complicated and nuanced than you seem to understand.

Here's a thought. Before you go trolling and bomb throwing you can always pull it up yourself. It's all publicly available information. And of course if it's that easy even you should have a definitive answer in five minutes flat, right?

The link Maddy provided to the text of H.R. 358 clearly delineates the initial cross references you'll need to follow to track down the bits and pieces of various pieces of legislation that make up the actual current provision, then apply the proposed new language as directed to see the final outcome if passed when read together with the whole.

I know, I know, that would require time, effort, the intellectual honesty and curiosity to do a little research in the original sources and the ability to think for yourself. How dare I suggest it.

And how do you know that I didn't do that? I guess you just know everything? You certainly sound as if you think you do, I'll give you that.

Perhaps you should have suggested this to Madeline since she was making the false statements regarding the bill based merely on one blog article? Or is it because she agrees with you politically and I don't, that you feel the need to put me down for calling her out on her inaccurate statements?

Or perhaps you just wanted the prize for the most condescending bitch in the thread?

Kindly link to where I've even given an opinion. I'm still reading. *shrug*

Thanks, that answers my question.

 

[R.D.]

And how do you know that I didn't do that? I guess you just know everything? You certainly sound as if you think you do, I'll give you that......



Or perhaps you just wanted the prize for the most condescending bitch in the thread?

“The Protect Life Act” was re-introduced in the House of Representatives on January 20, 2011 to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) “to prohibit federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services.” The bill also provides conscience protection for any institution or individual refusing “to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training.”

CLICK

For my next trick I will predict they will trash the source as well as the facts

 

[GStarz]

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?

Vote Democrat, we'll pay for your IUD by taking money from people that used to be able to buy it until we took all their money to pay for shit for other people.

If you can't afford to have a baby, don't have sex... If you can't pay for BC don't have sex. If you're to fucking dumb to not have protected sex then why should others pay for your abortion?

Do liberals say no to ANY spending????? Oh, sure they do, as long as a Republican is doing it.

Neocons, everywhere wtf...

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

In other words, people act on blind, animal urges to have sex, and then kill the unwanted child out of convenience. Man, that's some admission.

 

[kaz]

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?

My thoughts are three:

1) While I'm pro-choice, your reference to abortion as "birth control" is depraved

2) The reason you change abortion to birth control is that you can't be honest about what the real issue

3) I am intellectually consistent, I am against this and all federal government mandates on private insurance. I'm guessing you're not. I'd bet big money on it. Your issue is wanting abortions funded, you're not objecting to the Federal intrusion.

 

[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?

My thoughts are three:

1) While I'm pro-choice, your reference to abortion as "birth control" is depraved

2) The reason you change abortion to birth control is that you can't be honest about what the real issue

3) I am intellectually consistent, I am against this and all federal government mandates on private insurance. I'm guessing you're not. I'd bet big money on it. Your issue is wanting abortions funded, you're not objecting to the Federal intrusion.

Re-read the Op before you shove me off a cliff. The NWLC used the word "contraception" in their analysis. I may have to watch Divey do the "I was right and you were wrong dance", but I am not a hide the pea kinda gal.

If the bill only concerns abortion, I will admit I was wrong and start over bellyaching about abortion rights. As of now, I'm trying to get a clarification from the NWLC and from another lawyer.

 

[kaz]

My thoughts are three:

1) While I'm pro-choice, your reference to abortion as "birth control" is depraved

2) The reason you change abortion to birth control is that you can't be honest about what the real issue

3) I am intellectually consistent, I am against this and all federal government mandates on private insurance. I'm guessing you're not. I'd bet big money on it. Your issue is wanting abortions funded, you're not objecting to the Federal intrusion.

Re-read the Op before you shove me off a cliff. The NWLC used the word "contraception" in their analysis. I may have to watch Divey do the "I was right and you were wrong dance", but I am not a hide the pea kinda gal.

If the bill only concerns abortion, I will admit I was wrong and start over bellyaching about abortion rights. As of now, I'm trying to get a clarification from the NWLC and from another lawyer.

OK, I accept your explanation you were unclear. The article states it's a war on contraception, but nothing in the bill does anything to restrict contraception. What it does is restrict the Federal government from forcing States to violate their own laws and reduces Federal funding for abortions and groups who fund abortions. Those groups also fund contraception, so they spin that into being an attack on the contraception.

The Federal government clearly has no authority to intrude on a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body. But it has not constitutional authority to fund a woman choosing an abortion or contraception either. The Republicans may be doing it for the wrong reason, but their position is correct. Money for abortions should be raised privately.

The article also made a claim that women are prohibited from buying insurance that funds abortions with their own money, but it never backed it up with any facts and the bill doesn't say that. It's apparently another warping of something else.

I love this, even when Republicans do the right thing it's for the wrong reason and even when the Left is in the right they can't address the points directly, they have to spin it into nonsense.