House GOPers War On Birth Control

[Madeline]

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..

Can you explain to me why these insurance policies SHOULD be mandated to require coverage for elective abortion and medical birth control? Both are ELECTIVE procedures/products. Insurance companies should be allowed to choose whether they cover them, and if they do, to charge a premium for those elective coverages.

Why should private insurance companies be PROHIBITED by states from covering birth control in some parts of the country, Anachronism? WTF sense does that make?

That is what this bill proposes.

 

[DiveCon]

Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358

Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358


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

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

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

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

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

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

it worked fine for me

Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358 « Save the Little Humans

 

[DiveCon]

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 is just plain FALSE

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You'll find that I have little interest in "debate" on this or any topic, Madeline. My opinions/views do not change.

If an insurance company is taking money from the government, I don't believe they should be covering these things. That is using MY MONEY (via taxes) to cover procedures and products which I believe are immoral and contrary to the betterment of the United States as a whole. Is that on topic enough for you?

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?

Umm... I don't think I've seen anything that would make usage of the products illegal. It simply pushes the payment for those products bak where it belongs.... onto the individual choosing to use it, not the insurance company. From what I've read, so long as the insurance company doesn't take government funding, they would still be free to cover abortions and birth control. Sounds totally fair to me.

Insurance companies are not subsidized by the federal gov't, Anachronism. Some people will be forced to buy insurance who might not have otherwise, but it remains entirely private in nature. Except now, they can refuse to cover birth control as the GOP seems to think that's "best" for the middle class.

Again, mad enough to punch a wall here.

Have you gotten around to reading the source material yet, or are you still eating your liver out over the lies you read earlier?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

In other words, you haven't read the bill at all. All you've read is the "analysis" that was provided by your piece of shit source, yet you have the GALL to tell US to "read the bill". We DID read it, which is more than you did, which is why we keep asking you to cite us the place IN THE BILL - not in the National Bitches' Lie Center's article, thank you - where it says what you and your lying article say it does.

Is it too much to fucking ask that you substantiate your garbage blog with the source material, rather than with another part of the garbage blog? You keep telling us you're "mad enough to punch something". Maybe you should try exercising your glands less and your brain more and figure out IF you even SHOULD be mad.

Sheesh.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

the link you gave is dishonest

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

For the 1,001th time -- this bill has fuck-all to do with TAXPAYER dollars. It is about covered insurance benefits.

Imagine if the GOP were debating outlawing the coverage of any treatments for erectile dysfunction or testicular cancer? Why should men's health care be sacred but yet women's health care be denied?

For the 1,001st time: this bill has fuck-all to do with birth control at all, so why don't you get the fuck OFF of quibbling about "taxpayer dollars" and tell us where it is that ANYTHING WAS ACTUALLY SAID that we should all be angry about? You've rushed right past the whole "proving there's something to talk about" and right into "debating the details of the topic" that you haven't shown exists.

We don't HAVE to imagine that the GOP is debating outlawing male health care treatments, because we're busy watching YOU imagine that the GOP is outlawing birth control in a bill that doesn't even MENTION birth control, let alone "outlaw" anything. Before asking the rest of us to wander off on one of your half-baked asinine flights of fancy, how's about YOU come down from the one you're already on?

 

[Anachronism]

Insurance companies are not subsidized by the federal gov't, Anachronism. Some people will be forced to buy insurance who might not have otherwise, but it remains entirely private in nature. Except now, they can refuse to cover birth control as the GOP seems to think that's "best" for the middle class.

I'll ignore the idea that ANYONE should be FORCED to buy ANYTHING by the Government, since that's a different issue entirely. WHY is the Government FORCING these insurance companies to offer that care now? Personally I don't see any legitimate Constitutional authority for the Feds to be involved in health care at all, nevermind insurance.

I don't think it's a "what's best for the middle class" issue. Personally, I see it as a "What's best for the entire Country" issue. MAYBE if these people either have to start paying for their own contraceptives or actually stop engaging in the risky behavior, some of the problems in our society will begin to lessen. I'm not guaranteeing anything, but personal responsibility does tend to bleed over between issues once it becomes a learned behavior.

Again, mad enough to punch a wall here.

Don't do that. You might get stuck behind someone trying to get emergency contraception at the ER and that would probably increase your wait time significantly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 say set the women back 120 years.

I'd like to die before women could vote again.

Were women allowed to drive in the late 1800s?

Thankies for checking in, Newt Gingrich. If we need you, we'll let you know.

What do you expect, honey? Halfwit screeching viragos like you who think with their coochies and leave their brains in the shrink-wrap are the reason it took until 1920 for women to get suffrage. You're not exactly a poster child for "Look how smart and logical and informed women voters are". One group of lying twats writes an opinion article telling you that the GOP is ::gasp!:: trying to outlaw birth control, and you're ready to march on the fucking Capitol building, blazing torch and pitchfork in hand, without even LOOKING at the text of the bill in question.

Hell, I'm a woman, and I'M ready to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment just listening to you. You embarrass anyone with a vagina and a functioning brain.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You'll find that I have little interest in "debate" on this or any topic, Madeline. My opinions/views do not change.

If an insurance company is taking money from the government, I don't believe they should be covering these things. That is using MY MONEY (via taxes) to cover procedures and products which I believe are immoral and contrary to the betterment of the United States as a whole. Is that on topic enough for you?

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?

Umm... I don't think I've seen anything that would make usage of the products illegal. It simply pushes the payment for those products bak where it belongs.... onto the individual choosing to use it, not the insurance company. From what I've read, so long as the insurance company doesn't take government funding, they would still be free to cover abortions and birth control. Sounds totally fair to me.

Insurance companies are not subsidized by the federal gov't, Anachronism. Some people will be forced to buy insurance who might not have otherwise, but it remains entirely private in nature. Except now, they can refuse to cover birth control as the GOP seems to think that's "best" for the middle class.

Again, mad enough to punch a wall here.

For the most part that is correct. However, certain coverage mandates are subsidized by the federal government.
At the end of the day, federal insurance coverage mandates to the insureds are unfunded.
Meaning, the cost is born by the insured when in fact the insured had no intention of buying such coverage. That is not right.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why is this a priority?
Gay marriage will be the next priority these "conservatives" will address.
They vote against the recomendations of the Sec. of Defense on weapons systems "that are a waste of taxpayers money" that would save tens of billions in favor of this.
I oppose abortion and government funding of it but this is SHOW ONLY.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

the link you gave is dishonest

You'll notice she hasn't bothered to try or comment on MY link at all.

 

[DiveCon]

Why is this a priority?
Gay marriage will be the next priority these "conservatives" will address.
They vote against the recomendations of the Sec. of Defense on weapons systems "that are a waste of taxpayers money" that would save tens of billions in favor of this.
I oppose abortion and government funding of it but this is SHOW ONLY.

you think this is ALL they are doing?

 

[Madeline]

Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358

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

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

it worked fine for me

Abortion Advocates Distorting HR 358 « Save the Little Humans

I could not get it to work earlier.

LOVE that only "forcible" rape allows the woman access to abortion -- as opposed to statutory rape, date rape, etc. Mebbe these pro-lifers should just prohibit sex in any setting they cannot supervise and bless?

We could start stoning those who dun comply to death.

 

[Madeline]

Why is this a priority?
Gay marriage will be the next priority these "conservatives" will address.
They vote against the recomendations of the Sec. of Defense on weapons systems "that are a waste of taxpayers money" that would save tens of billions in favor of this.
I oppose abortion and government funding of it but this is SHOW ONLY.

If it passes, it will have an impact, Gadawg. It is not just "chest thumping". And birth control will not be the only prohibited covered benefit. What will happen to therapies developed from "the devil's work", stem cell research?

It'll be you, your MD, the insurance company and the state and federal government making private medical decisions for you and your family.

Is that what you want? Is that what rock-solid conservatives want?

 

[DiveCon]

Why is this a priority?
Gay marriage will be the next priority these "conservatives" will address.
They vote against the recomendations of the Sec. of Defense on weapons systems "that are a waste of taxpayers money" that would save tens of billions in favor of this.
I oppose abortion and government funding of it but this is SHOW ONLY.

If it passes, it will have an impact, Gadawg. It is not just "chest thumping". And birth control will not be the only prohibited covered benefit. What will happen to therapies developed from the devil's work, stem cell research?

It'll be you, your MD, the insurance company and the state and federal government making private medical decisions for you and your family.

Is that what you want? Is that what rock-solid conservatives want?

please point out where this is in the actual bill

 

[Madeline]

Why is this a priority?
Gay marriage will be the next priority these "conservatives" will address.
They vote against the recomendations of the Sec. of Defense on weapons systems "that are a waste of taxpayers money" that would save tens of billions in favor of this.
I oppose abortion and government funding of it but this is SHOW ONLY.

If it passes, it will have an impact, Gadawg. It is not just "chest thumping". And birth control will not be the only prohibited covered benefit. What will happen to therapies developed from the devil's work, stem cell research?

It'll be you, your MD, the insurance company and the state and federal government making private medical decisions for you and your family.

Is that what you want? Is that what rock-solid conservatives want?

please point out where this is in the actual bill

Please read the anaylsis in the OP's linked article -- in full. That answers your question. As I pointed out to Newby, some laws are more obscure than others.

 

[DiveCon]

If it passes, it will have an impact, Gadawg. It is not just "chest thumping". And birth control will not be the only prohibited covered benefit. What will happen to therapies developed from the devil's work, stem cell research?

It'll be you, your MD, the insurance company and the state and federal government making private medical decisions for you and your family.

Is that what you want? Is that what rock-solid conservatives want?

please point out where this is in the actual bill

Please read the anaylsis in the OP's linked article -- in full. That answers your question. As I pointed out to Newby, some laws are more obscure than others.

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

 

[Madeline]

please point out where this is in the actual bill

Please read the anaylsis in the OP's linked article -- in full. That answers your question. As I pointed out to Newby, some laws are more obscure than others.

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.

 

[DiveCon]

Please read the anaylsis in the OP's linked article -- in full. That answers your question. As I pointed out to Newby, some laws are more obscure than others.

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.

do you notice they dont actually cite the bill where it says what they claim, right?