House GOPers War On Birth Control

[goldcatt]

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.

No, it shows that you assume things that aren't there and blindly launch the predictable personal attack without reading, acknowledging or comprehending facts. It says nothing about me, other than unlike you I prefer to look up, you know, those pesky fact things at the primary source before forming and giving an opinion. And I dislike ignorant bomb throwing hacks. It's a cross I must bear.

Speaking of facts and opinions, here's the current provision at issue in the OP, from Sec. 1303(c) as amended by PPACA Sec 10104:

`
(c) Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion-

`(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.

`(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding--

`(i) conscience protection;

`(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and

`(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

What the proposed amendment does to this portion is redesignate it as (e) rather than (c), and inserts a bunch of that other stuff before the section. None of that is a problem where contraception is concerned.

However, when you apply the proposed language changes from the text of H.R. 358 as previously linked it reads like this:

`
(e) Application of State and Federal Laws-

`(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws protecting conscience rights, restricting or prohibiting abortion or coverage or funding of abortion, or establishing procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.

`(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (g), nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding--

`(i) conscience protection;

`(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and

`(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.

It then adds the new subsection (g) from the previously linked H.R. 358, which doesn't apply to the question of contraception as it has to do with Federal funding for training institutions that refuse to provide training or referrals for training for abortion procedures.

So.....really the issue surrounds the removal of abortion-specific language as a modifier from the subsection titles and some portions of the language, and the specific inclusion of "protecting conscience rights" as a separate stand-alone item in the new paragraph (e)(1).

I have yet to find a definition of "conscience rights" in either the definition section or special rule section of the PPACA, although the thing is hundreds of pages long and I may be missing it if it's squirreled away elsewhere. This is the problematic part if it's not there and/or doesn't specify "conscience rights" is to be read to pertain to abortion.

So yes, as I read this with the amended language added if the States decide to include contraception in their conscience provisions, nothing in PPACA can or will override it as far as requiring coverage in any plans issued by Federal providers or by any other means. "Conscience Rights" and "Abortion" are separated out as two different issues by the plain textual construction and the subsection as a whole is generalized.

If passed, this should be interesting when it gets to court.

 

[Madeline]

So, in brief, it is complicated but it is possible the NWLC's analysis is correct.

I am unbowed!

I owe you deeply, mah more articulate sista.

 

[Madeline]

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.

Here's a newsflash: people have sex. They always will. Once you've had some, you may understand why.

 

[Anachronism]

Here's a newsflash: people have sex. They always will. Once you've had some, you may understand why.

Here's another newsflash: People Kill Each Other. They Always Will.

That doesn't make it good, right, or proper that they do so anymore than it is good, right, or proper that most people have sex.

At 36 years old, and having had sexual relations who more than a handful of women over the years, I have to say that in almost every case the sex WAS NOT WORTH putting up with the woman for. Then again I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in casual sex, nor do I believe that sex is the be-all and end-all of a relationship. I never have.

 

[goldcatt]

So, in brief, it is complicated but it is possible the NWLC's analysis is correct.

I am unbowed!

I owe you deeply, mah more articulate sista.

De nada. You know I'm a wonk and like this stuff.

Yep, it's possible. The new language removes conscience provisions from the umbrella of abortion and sets it as stand alone, which means the States can put just about anything into them and as long as it is a denial of service or coverage for reasons of "conscience" it will stand at least as far as the PPACA is concerned.

Contraception is one potential issue. The other thing I thought of immediately is the "end of life care" provisions written into some states' conscience provisions. It was brought up re: the Idaho statute in the thread about the pharmacist, remember? Those provisions would also be upheld under the proposed amendment. As would any other provision that is not defined as "emergency care", basically meaning immediate lifesaving treatment. Unless you're at the "end of life".

I kid, but that concerns me.

I'll have to go find that thread when I have a minute and look at the ID law again as an example, I'm just bopping in and out around other things. But this language gives States a very, very broad area in which they can manipulate coverage in plans offered by Federal providers. Not just Federal plans, mind you. Plans offered by Federal providers. The potential here is disturbing, IMO.

 

[Newby]

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

Thanks, that answers my question.

No, it shows that you assume things that aren't there and blindly launch the predictable personal attack without reading, acknowledging or comprehending facts. It says nothing about me, other than unlike you I prefer to look up, you know, those pesky fact things at the primary source before forming and giving an opinion. And I dislike ignorant bomb throwing hacks. It's a cross I must bear.

First of all, I did not personally attack anyone, get over yourself.

Secondly, Madeline was the one that made an assertion, or formed an opinion in her op without reading the primary source, i.e. 'the facts', or the actual bill, before she started making inaccurate accusations. But, I understand your need to be a partisan hack, and make ignorant bomb thowing hack posts all of your own. As you said, it's a cross you must bear. Friendship and partisanship comes before honesty in your world apparently. No surprises there.

I've already read several analysis pieces written that explain the bill, both Madeline's bogus article and other articles written by more qualified people than you'll ever hope to be. I think I'll stick with their analysis of it, especially since I've read several that all say the same thing, it has nothing to do with outlawing insurance from offering coverage for contraception. But, do carry on with your faux outrage bitchfest.

 

[logical4u]

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.

Supporting a bad habit is the same as encouraging a bad habit.
Maybe if those "poor people" didn't have some gov't agencies handing them food, shelter and "birth control", they would be "encouraged" to work more and screw less.

 

[Madeline]

Thanks, that answers my question.

No, it shows that you assume things that aren't there and blindly launch the predictable personal attack without reading, acknowledging or comprehending facts. It says nothing about me, other than unlike you I prefer to look up, you know, those pesky fact things at the primary source before forming and giving an opinion. And I dislike ignorant bomb throwing hacks. It's a cross I must bear.

First of all, I did not personally attack anyone, get over yourself.

Secondly, Madeline was the one that made an assertion, or formed an opinion in her op without reading the primary source, i.e. 'the facts', or the actual bill, before she started making inaccurate accusations. But, I understand your need to be a partisan hack, and make ignorant bomb thowing hack posts all of your own. As you said, it's a cross you must bear. Friendship and partisanship comes before honesty in your world apparently. No surprises there.

I've already read several analysis pieces written that explain the bill, both Madeline's bogus article and other articles written by more qualified people than you'll ever hope to be. I think I'll stick with their analysis of it, especially since I've read several that all say the same thing, it has nothing to do with outlawing insurance from offering coverage for contraception. But, do carry on with your faux outrage bitchfest.

Please explain, in some detail, how it is the NWLC's analysis is wrong, Newby. Merely preferring to be spoon-fed by the right wing blogosphere is not "debate".

No hurry. I know this is complicated stuff.

 

[Madeline]

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.

Supporting a bad habit is the same as encouraging a bad habit.
Maybe if those "poor people" didn't have some gov't agencies handing them food, shelter and "birth control", they would be "encouraged" to work more and screw less.

Thankies for posting, logical4U. So, you'd support a "screw tax"? How much income should someone have before they'd have your blessing to be sexually active, logical4U? Do you think we should issue chastity belts to those with too little income?

 

[Newby]

No, it shows that you assume things that aren't there and blindly launch the predictable personal attack without reading, acknowledging or comprehending facts. It says nothing about me, other than unlike you I prefer to look up, you know, those pesky fact things at the primary source before forming and giving an opinion. And I dislike ignorant bomb throwing hacks. It's a cross I must bear.

First of all, I did not personally attack anyone, get over yourself.

Secondly, Madeline was the one that made an assertion, or formed an opinion in her op without reading the primary source, i.e. 'the facts', or the actual bill, before she started making inaccurate accusations. But, I understand your need to be a partisan hack, and make ignorant bomb thowing hack posts all of your own. As you said, it's a cross you must bear. Friendship and partisanship comes before honesty in your world apparently. No surprises there.

I've already read several analysis pieces written that explain the bill, both Madeline's bogus article and other articles written by more qualified people than you'll ever hope to be. I think I'll stick with their analysis of it, especially since I've read several that all say the same thing, it has nothing to do with outlawing insurance from offering coverage for contraception. But, do carry on with your faux outrage bitchfest.

Please explain, in some detail, how it is the NWLC's analysis is wrong, Newby. Merely preferring to be spoon-fed by the right wing blogosphere is not "debate".

No hurry. I know this is complicated stuff.

I've already explained it. If you want to continue to spew the bullshit that insurance companies are no longer going to be allowed to cover birth control in their policies whenever you know damn well that's not true, more power to you. I understand that you have no shame when it comes to partisan hackery.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'd like to go on record as approving of Republicans using birth control.

 

[Newby]

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.

Supporting a bad habit is the same as encouraging a bad habit.
Maybe if those "poor people" didn't have some gov't agencies handing them food, shelter and "birth control", they would be "encouraged" to work more and screw less.

Thankies for posting, logical4U. So, you'd support a "screw tax"? How much income should someone have before they'd have your blessing to be sexually active, logical4U? Do you think we should issue chastity belts to those with too little income?

Anyone can do whatever they want, all anyone is saying is that no one else should have to pay for the consequences but the people involved. It's pretty simple really. You, nor anyone else has the right to tell me what to do with my money. It's the same concept that you have about women and their bodies, just apply that same concept to people and their hard earned money. If you want to screw your brains out and have 20 kids, go for it, just don't expect anyone else to pay for them. If you want to screw your brains out and have 20 abortions, go for it, just don't expect anyone else to pay for them. Simple.

 

[goldcatt]

Thanks, that answers my question.

No, it shows that you assume things that aren't there and blindly launch the predictable personal attack without reading, acknowledging or comprehending facts. It says nothing about me, other than unlike you I prefer to look up, you know, those pesky fact things at the primary source before forming and giving an opinion. And I dislike ignorant bomb throwing hacks. It's a cross I must bear.

First of all, I did not personally attack anyone, get over yourself.

Secondly, Madeline was the one that made an assertion, or formed an opinion in her op without reading the primary source, i.e. 'the facts', or the actual bill, before she started making inaccurate accusations. But, I understand your need to be a partisan hack, and make ignorant bomb thowing hack posts all of your own. As you said, it's a cross you must bear. Friendship and partisanship comes before honesty in your world apparently. No surprises there.

I've already read several analysis pieces written that explain the bill, both Madeline's bogus article and other articles written by more qualified people than you'll ever hope to be. I think I'll stick with their analysis of it, especially since I've read several that all say the same thing, it has nothing to do with outlawing insurance from offering coverage for contraception. But, do carry on with your faux outrage bitchfest.

Which is precisely how I know you didn't read the bill or the amendments. And that, my dear, answers your question.

Froth and parrot all you like, it's no skin off my nose. I was asked a question by a poster actually interested in a rational discussion and I gave my opinion, supported by facts and the logic I used to come to that conclusion. You're free to disagree with my opinion all you like, I stand by it and the method used to arrive at it.

But saying a partisan blog of any leaning is more valuable than the actual bill and the statutes it proposes to amend is nothing but hackery. You have a mind in there somewhere. Stop being spoon fed and think for yourself for a change.

I actually don't agree this bill is specifically intended as a "war on contraception", IMO there's another reason they're divorcing the conscience provisions from the abortion issue and it has nothing to do with procreation. But is the outcome they claim possible? I show how it is, and not from a blogger with an ideological ax to grind. Don't like the facts? Don't agree with my logic? You're free to do exactly as I did or anyone else can: Go to the source and prove me wrong.

You won't, but if you did I'd be interested.

 

[DiveCon]

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

is not having an abortion not "kicking a child out of your life"



and everyone elses too

 

[logical4u]

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.

Supporting a bad habit is the same as encouraging a bad habit.
Maybe if those "poor people" didn't have some gov't agencies handing them food, shelter and "birth control", they would be "encouraged" to work more and screw less.

Thankies for posting, logical4U. So, you'd support a "screw tax"? How much income should someone have before they'd have your blessing to be sexually active, logical4U? Do you think we should issue chastity belts to those with too little income?

What you are suggesting is to pay (continue paying with taxpayer money) for people to screw on the taxpayer's dime. My suggestion is to teach them: education, job, dream, your own place, after all that, then work on romance. If it takes you until you are 25, then you still have ..... 40+ years to screw your brains out (on your own dime).

 

[McDowell's]

So, in brief, it is complicated but it is possible the NWLC's analysis is correct.

I am unbowed!

I owe you deeply, mah more articulate sista.

No, you asserted that states would be able to outright PROHIBIT insurance companies from providing contraception and abortion coverage on insurance plans. The only thing that changed is that the federal law will not override State laws concerning conscience rights. If an insurance company does not have a moral/ethical objection to providing abortion/contraception coverage in their policies, THEY CAN STILL PROVIDE THAT COVERAGE. This is talking about states providing exemptions for entities who object on conscience not a blanket ban.

No, it is not. It is about granting states the power to prohibit insurance policies sold there from covering abortion OR BIRTH CONTROL.

Holy fuck, is it Annoy A Reader Day on USMB?

 

[DiveCon]

No, it shows that you assume things that aren't there and blindly launch the predictable personal attack without reading, acknowledging or comprehending facts. It says nothing about me, other than unlike you I prefer to look up, you know, those pesky fact things at the primary source before forming and giving an opinion. And I dislike ignorant bomb throwing hacks. It's a cross I must bear.

First of all, I did not personally attack anyone, get over yourself.

Secondly, Madeline was the one that made an assertion, or formed an opinion in her op without reading the primary source, i.e. 'the facts', or the actual bill, before she started making inaccurate accusations. But, I understand your need to be a partisan hack, and make ignorant bomb thowing hack posts all of your own. As you said, it's a cross you must bear. Friendship and partisanship comes before honesty in your world apparently. No surprises there.

I've already read several analysis pieces written that explain the bill, both Madeline's bogus article and other articles written by more qualified people than you'll ever hope to be. I think I'll stick with their analysis of it, especially since I've read several that all say the same thing, it has nothing to do with outlawing insurance from offering coverage for contraception. But, do carry on with your faux outrage bitchfest.

Which is precisely how I know you didn't read the bill or the amendments. And that, my dear, answers your question.

Froth and parrot all you like, it's no skin off my nose. I was asked a question by a poster actually interested in a rational discussion and I gave my opinion, supported by facts and the logic I used to come to that conclusion. You're free to disagree with my opinion all you like, I stand by it and the method used to arrive at it.

But saying a partisan blog of any leaning is more valuable than the actual bill and the statutes it proposes to amend is nothing but hackery. You have a mind in there somewhere. Stop being spoon fed and think for yourself for a change.

I actually don't agree this bill is specifically intended as a "war on contraception", IMO there's another reason they're divorcing the conscience provisions from the abortion issue and it has nothing to do with procreation. But is the outcome they claim possible? I show how it is, and not from a blogger with an ideological ax to grind. Don't like the facts? Don't agree with my logic? You're free to do exactly as I did or anyone else can: Go to the source and prove me wrong.

You won't, but if you did I'd be interested.

so basically what you are saying is the OP is in FACT wrong

 

[asterism]

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.

Here's a newsflash: people have sex. They always will. Once you've had some, you may understand why.

That is as repugnant a retort as someone saying "if you were having any, you'd not be so bothered."

Bad form.

 

[goldcatt]

First of all, I did not personally attack anyone, get over yourself.

Secondly, Madeline was the one that made an assertion, or formed an opinion in her op without reading the primary source, i.e. 'the facts', or the actual bill, before she started making inaccurate accusations. But, I understand your need to be a partisan hack, and make ignorant bomb thowing hack posts all of your own. As you said, it's a cross you must bear. Friendship and partisanship comes before honesty in your world apparently. No surprises there.

I've already read several analysis pieces written that explain the bill, both Madeline's bogus article and other articles written by more qualified people than you'll ever hope to be. I think I'll stick with their analysis of it, especially since I've read several that all say the same thing, it has nothing to do with outlawing insurance from offering coverage for contraception. But, do carry on with your faux outrage bitchfest.

Which is precisely how I know you didn't read the bill or the amendments. And that, my dear, answers your question.

Froth and parrot all you like, it's no skin off my nose. I was asked a question by a poster actually interested in a rational discussion and I gave my opinion, supported by facts and the logic I used to come to that conclusion. You're free to disagree with my opinion all you like, I stand by it and the method used to arrive at it.

But saying a partisan blog of any leaning is more valuable than the actual bill and the statutes it proposes to amend is nothing but hackery. You have a mind in there somewhere. Stop being spoon fed and think for yourself for a change.

I actually don't agree this bill is specifically intended as a "war on contraception", IMO there's another reason they're divorcing the conscience provisions from the abortion issue and it has nothing to do with procreation. But is the outcome they claim possible? I show how it is, and not from a blogger with an ideological ax to grind. Don't like the facts? Don't agree with my logic? You're free to do exactly as I did or anyone else can: Go to the source and prove me wrong.

You won't, but if you did I'd be interested.

so basically what you are saying is the OP is in FACT wrong

Yes....and no.

To state unequivocally there is a full out "war on contraception" I'd have to see evidence of a movement to include contraception services in State conscience provisions. I don't have that information, nor even if I did do I have evidence the House GOP is working in collusion with them.

BUT....what they state as a possible outcome is indeed possible.

So are a lot of other non-reproductive worst case scenarios. Personally I see it as a back door way to shelter the issuers from the costs of end of life care by allowing those provisions to be exempted as a matter of "conscience". That's actually worse in my opinion.

 

[DiveCon]

Which is precisely how I know you didn't read the bill or the amendments. And that, my dear, answers your question.

Froth and parrot all you like, it's no skin off my nose. I was asked a question by a poster actually interested in a rational discussion and I gave my opinion, supported by facts and the logic I used to come to that conclusion. You're free to disagree with my opinion all you like, I stand by it and the method used to arrive at it.

But saying a partisan blog of any leaning is more valuable than the actual bill and the statutes it proposes to amend is nothing but hackery. You have a mind in there somewhere. Stop being spoon fed and think for yourself for a change.

I actually don't agree this bill is specifically intended as a "war on contraception", IMO there's another reason they're divorcing the conscience provisions from the abortion issue and it has nothing to do with procreation. But is the outcome they claim possible? I show how it is, and not from a blogger with an ideological ax to grind. Don't like the facts? Don't agree with my logic? You're free to do exactly as I did or anyone else can: Go to the source and prove me wrong.

You won't, but if you did I'd be interested.

so basically what you are saying is the OP is in FACT wrong

Yes....and no.

To state unequivocally there is a full out "war on contraception" I'd have to see evidence of a movement to include contraception services in State conscience provisions. I don't have that information, nor even if I did do I have evidence the House GOP is working in collusion with them.

BUT....what they state as a possible outcome is indeed possible.

So are a lot of other non-reproductive worst case scenarios. Personally I see it as a back door way to shelter the issuers from the costs of end of life care by allowing those provisions to be exempted as a matter of "conscience". That's actually worse in my opinion.

so, instead of outright lying and claiming it is, why dont they work with them to close a suspected loop hole?

partisan political CRAP