Political & Elections

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Birth Control Thread at CC


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1223
Date: Mar 6, 2012
RE: Birth Control Thread at CC
Permalink  
 


"I don't think BC pills will ever be OTC. Most of us won't explore our Planned Parenthood clinics."

I don't know about that. If I lost my insurance coverage and was going to have to pay and arm and a leg for a gyn, I'd visit my local PP clinic in a heartbeat. I think those of us that frequented them when we were younger are pretty comfortable going back. Though I don't think they'd give me a cheap deal for birth control like they did 25 years ago, when they gave it to me for $5/monthly pills. It seems like you could get a pretty good deal with a prescription for an online bulk order though.

'I resemble that remark. Nothing ever "degenerates" into Monty Python jokes. It is an upward path."

I do agree with that.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Feb 22, 2012
Permalink  
 

evileye

I advocated to DS; If a job choice is between a ' permanent' job with Ben's, vs a contract job no Ben's, take the Contract job Bc you can chose the plans that you want at the benefits that fit your needs. Group insurance is a poor choice for young people in good health and life style. God made some people healthier than others and some more fertile. Its God's Will. Accept your fate.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Date: Feb 22, 2012
Permalink  
 

Thanks for the article SLS, this is the first I'm seeing this one. I am not surprised however, since many religious employers and organizations are becoming more and more vocal about this issue. It is definitely a threat to many religious institutions and their belief systems.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Feb 22, 2012
Permalink  
 

It's not just the Catholic employers that are upset about this.

the url link isn't working right.  Here is the article I found on Yahoo news today.

 

 

Not just a Catholic controversy: Protestant colleges threaten to drop student health care over contraceptive mandate

Liberty University students pray during a commencement ceremony. (Jill Nance/AP)

On a chilly winter day earlier this month, 120 college presidents--mostly of Protestant schools--from around the country met in Washington for an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, a group that represents 136 American schools and more than 400,000 students. One topic kept coming up in the discussions: How to combat President Barack Obama's proposed mandate for religious employers to provide health insurance that offers free contraception, a decision that would affect all of their institutions--and could violate some of their deepest-held beliefs.

During the conference, 25 of the presidents held a separate policy meeting to discuss the proposed directive, which was first established in the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and was upheld this year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate, later softened by the Obama administration, would have required non-church religious institutions like schools and hospitals to offer health insurance plans that include free access to contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Many of these presidents made trips to the offices of their representatives to urge them to fight against the decision.

Much of the news coverage of the battle over the contraception mandate focused on the outcry from the Catholic Church, but employers affiliated with Protestant denominations--especially religious colleges who offer insurance plans to students--waged an equally outspoken crusade against the decision. A coalition of more than 60 faith-based groups co-signed a letter to President Obama in December urging him to broaden exemptions to the mandate, and the council's president, Paul Corts, twice sent letters to the administration urging them to reconsider.

After the Obama administration first announced the mandate, colleges associated with Protestant churches and schools founded as expressly Christian institutions fought for exemptions, warning that the mandate could force them to deny health insurance to students who rely on the school's health care plans.

These critics say that many of the students who attend the schools are unmarried, so covering even preventive products would violate their religious teachings. Similarly, because some within the faith consider drugs like Plan B and Ella--which reduce the chance of pregnancy when taken after intercourse--to be abortion-inducing, the mandate caused problems even for coverage of married students and employees.

"You'd be teaching your students one thing and then providing services that you're teaching are wrong," Shapri LoMaglio, the director of government relations and executive programs at the council, told Yahoo News.

To quell concerns like these, Obama announced on Feb. 10 an "accommodation" for religious employers that would allow those employed by religious institutions to obtain free contraception as part of their employer health insurance, but said that the insurance companies would be required to pay for it, not the religious institutions.

In a statement after Obama's announcement, Paul Corts, the council's president, expressed skepticism that the accommodation plan would resolve the issue.

"Without seeing the final rule it is impossible to tell from the President's general statement if our specific religious liberty issues have been addressed," Corts said. "Therefore, we remain unaware of whether the religious exemption will encompass our schools and their student plans and eliminate all of the violations of conscience issues. We are anxious to get the details and will continue to work with the Administration to try to ensure that the religious liberty of our institutions is protected."

While the Obama administration was still considering how to apply the health care law's mandate to religious groups, several presidents from Protestant colleges sent letters to their representatives and posted them on Regulations.gov, a government site that gathers public comments on rules before they are implemented. Of the schools in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, at least 12 submitted comments urging the administration to expand the mandate or eliminate it all together. If churches were exempt, they argued, why aren't institutions that base their bylaws on the same faith-based principles?

"The Department of Health and Human Services hardly seems like the appropriate place for such a determination to be made," wrote Mark Benedetto, the president of the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota, a school founded by Baptists in 1872. "I am concerned that the regulations as written will violate the conscience of our institution as it relates to the health care plan that we offer to our students--the exemption is for employer plans, as written it does not appear to also include the student plans. Not only would this force our institution to violate our religious convictions by offering emergency contraceptives to our students, it would put us in the awkward position of offering a health care plan to our employees that is consistent with their religious convictions while offering another to our students that violates their religious convictions."

Some schools have already made the decision to revoke insurance to students not covered by their parents. A spokesman from Colorado Christian University, an interdenominational school in Denver that has filed a lawsuit opposing the rule, said students will be forced to seek insurance options elsewhere if the administration does not change course.

"This plan will not be offered in the future if it must be compliant with the administration's mandate thereby forcing American citizens to either compromise their beliefs or go without," said Ron Benton, the school's assistant vice president for administrative services.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Date: Feb 21, 2012
Permalink  
 

Cartera wrote:

I don't have any interest in rehashing all those arguments - it's all spelled out on the CC thread. In summary, there is no legitimate government interest in providing pork at all and certainly not from any particular location. If someone wants a ham sandwich, they simply go across the street to get it. Additionally, this has to do with rules regarding benefits for employees who do need to get meds from a particular place - their insurance companies that happen to be tied inextricably to their place of employment.  Birth control is different because it does something that none of the other meds you listed can - it prevents pregnancy. It also has the power to prevent abortions.  There is nothing as important in the life of a woman as reproducitive choices. Those choices are pretty important to lots of men too. Quite simply, birth control is in a class by itself.


 Thanks Catera-

1. I do not read CC & will not go looking for the thread.

2. If someone wants *free* <which we all know nothing is free> BC from their emploeyee health plan, walk across the street & don't work for a Catholic business, i.e. University, Hospital, etc....

3. And Plavix for example, helps prevents strokes. If a person suffers a stroke, it can cost 100's of thousands for hospitilization & rehab to the family.  Just like a pregnancy that results in a baby to raise costs lots of money.  Apples, apples.

4. Sweeping generalization: There is nothing as important in the life of a woman as reproducitive choices.

This absolutely does not describe any woman in my very large circle of female family, friends and acquaintances.  You must  associate with some very narrowly-focused women.

To be clear, I am not opposed to BC, even as a devout Catholic mom of 5!!!   However, I don't believe the taxpayer/private insurers should be mandated to pay for BC which is a 'choice' med/procedure for most women. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Feb 21, 2012
Permalink  
 

I don't have any interest in rehashing all those arguments - it's all spelled out on the CC thread. In summary, there is no legitimate government interest in providing pork at all and certainly not from any particular location. If someone wants a ham sandwich, they simply go across the street to get it. Additionally, this has to do with rules regarding benefits for employees who do need to get meds from a particular place - their insurance companies that happen to be tied inextricably to their place of employment.  Birth control is different because it does something that none of the other meds you listed can - it prevents pregnancy. It also has the power to prevent abortions.  There is nothing as important in the life of a woman as reproducitive choices. Those choices are pretty important to lots of men too. Quite simply, birth control is in a class by itself.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Date: Feb 21, 2012
Permalink  
 

Cartera wrote:

Tell the Orthodox Jewish Soup Kitchen they MUST serve pork loin because they get some federal/state funds to stay up and running.

If you think that is a relevant analogy, then discussion would serve no purpose.


 How is it not the same? Ball's in your court, I'm all ears. While you're enlightening me, please tell me why BC should be povided free of charge to anyone?  Why not Plavix too? Why not ALL preventative meds?  Why should the gov't stop with doling 1 class of meds? Rationale?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Feb 21, 2012
Permalink  
 

Tell the Orthodox Jewish Soup Kitchen they MUST serve pork loin because they get some federal/state funds to stay up and running.

If you think that is a relevant analogy, then discussion would serve no purpose.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 862
Date: Feb 20, 2012
Permalink  
 

CC- I said I don't want to debate because really, I'm done with that thread and with the whole religion/government thing for a while. I'm truly just sick of it and frankly, just don't care right now.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Date: Feb 20, 2012
Permalink  
 

No romani- you REALLY, and CLEARLY do not get it. Say as much as you like about being well versed in history, or the First Amendment. 

Tell the Orthodox Jewish Soup Kitchen they MUST serve pork loin because they get some federal/state funds to stay up and running.  They cannot refuse even if it is the antithesis of their belief system based on your logic.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 20, 2012
Permalink  
 

As if  "discussion" serves any purpose anyway.



-- Edited by hope on Monday 20th of February 2012 05:36:43 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Feb 20, 2012
Permalink  
 

It degenerated into Monty Python jokes by people heretofore not known for their sense of humor.

I resemble that remark. Nothing ever "degenerates" into Monty Python jokes. It is an upward path.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 20, 2012
Permalink  
 

It degenerated into Monty Python jokes by people heretofore not known for their sense of humor. wink



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

Go Ron Paul. evileye

So was there a solution to the thread or back and forth corections?evileye



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 862
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

hope, I'm well versed in history and really have no intention of arguing about it with you.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

Cardinal Fang is a character from Monty Python. The skit introduces the Cardinals with the line "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition." 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trglcYHSKFU

 

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

People are just upset that one religion has this much control over our government. Could you imagine if this were an Islamic group that we were bending the rules for? Can you imagine the outrage?

Sorry, romani, but this statement, and others you made over there, are mind-boggling in their lack of comprehension of the meaning of freedom of religion in this country.

I am busy today and can't say more, but I would urge you to read a bit of history.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

I must have missed that.  Too bad.  



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

I guess quoting Monty Python didn't lighten things up.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 862
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

Locked.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

I am shocked it made it to 700 posts.  

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_19994990?source=rss

Charles Krauthammer: GOP presidential hopefuls aren't pointing out failings of Obama's birth control `compromise'

By Charles Krauthammer

 

A brilliant sleight of hand. But let's for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let's accept his contention that this "accommodation" is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

 

 

 

GIVE him points for cleverness. President Obama's birth control "accommodation" was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients - all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution's insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups - Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold - to hail the alleged compromise, and hand Obama a major political victory.

Before, Obama's coalition had been split. His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama's choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would go to jail rather than abide by the regulation. After the "accommodation," it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then

bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.

 

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that's done all the time. Perhaps we should we call Obama's "accommodation" Presidential Decree No. 1.

Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration's regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not "religious," and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion - no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services - all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington's takeover of the private system of medical care - a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control - and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court - because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta - the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen - should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

Every presidential challenger says he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?

 

 


-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Sunday 19th of February 2012 10:27:24 AM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 19, 2012
Permalink  
 

Awww....so sweet.....seven hundred plus posts and they are beginning to feel bad about their Catholic bashing. Warms me heart, it does.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 18, 2012
Permalink  
 

Presently descending into the realm of the absurd.

Catholics are feeling bashed, so the response is, sorry, even though we are getting our kicks bashig the Church in this thread, in other threads Muslims have been bashed--so there. And atheists are bashed in the outside world--so there.

Maybe these parents should be made to attend their local middle school's bullying classes.  Wonder how that reasoning would fly there?  :rolleyes:

"Hey, I can bash gays, Mr. Principal, because over in the seventh grade they  bash fat people."

 



-- Edited by hope on Saturday 18th of February 2012 03:50:51 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 16, 2012
Permalink  
 

Oh, oh. A poster is bringing up abstinence. That's a no-no. That will offend the CC religion--just in case some teenaged kid is reading and gets the wrong idea about CC parents not being hip and cool and all.  That kind of  talk is taboo.  jym pronouces that another similar thread was closed or nixed. Typically when she makes such an "observation" for some mysterious reason the thread is shut down. We'll see.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 16, 2012
Permalink  
 

I got a chuckle from your clever comment over there.



-- Edited by hope on Thursday 16th of February 2012 08:26:05 AM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Feb 16, 2012
Permalink  
 

I just couldn't stay away from that thread.  

Clearly, I am surprised the thread has lasted this long.  I do believe that if a woman needs BC coverage, it should be available from her insurance at a co-pay.  I don't think free is the answer.  If it was, there are plenty more things that should be free - and aren't.  

I have had insurance over the years where it wasn't covered and it was pricey, but other meds were and weren't pricey.. I have also had a kid whose heart medication wasn't paid for my insurance, either, back when he was a baby.  That medicine cost me $250 a month - which was a hell of a lot of money for struggling new parents! 

It is easier now for most folks to get inexpensive generics from Target and Walmart.  Still, I do recall last year before my H got hired and we were self-insured and there was a glitch with the computer at the Target Pharmacy and some GERD medicine was going to cost me $220 for a month's supply.  Thank goodness there were OTC's - but they didn't work quite as well.  Not everyone has that luxury.  

I don't think BC pills will ever be OTC.  Most of us won't explore our Planned Parenthood clinics.  

When it comes to government, free is going to kill us with a thousand cuts. And we are already hemoragghing debt.

 



-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Thursday 16th of February 2012 08:10:11 AM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

romani, I am on my way out. Later I'll try to dig up some quotes from the posts I took exception to.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 862
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

What? Where are you getting that from, hope?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

Seriously why not just lobby for some kind forced sterilization for all those poor, undesirable, unable-to-plan ahead women we are so egregiously forced to pay for when things don't work out well in their lives? I mean all those upper-middle class white women have most certainly lived perfect lives, giving them the authority to declare who and who should not give birth--right. Many of the posts over there are offensive in the extreme, if not borderline racist.

And the funny thing is: they are so clueless about it.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

It has made me question more why BCPs are not over the counter. There seems to be a lot of support for it. They should be able to be made about as cheaply as aspirin. Then there would be nothing to discuss.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

 

Re: offensive and borderline racist:

Taxes by the secular government(s) go up as need for core government services do. More children, more CPS, police, prison, public education expenses etc., so more taxes. Unintended pregnancies that are not aborted result in more public education related expense for school for pregnant pre-teens and teens, CPS and police expense for intra-family and domestic violence and judicial expense for termination of parental rights and foster care expenses for placement of the removed children, etc.

“Free” birth control is cost effective to the taxpayer.

Think about the presumptions in this statement. There were similar ones made by Hanna and two or three other posters.

 



-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 15th of February 2012 08:28:08 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

I like the "Nanny States" heading.

biggrin



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 50
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

What say you?  Anyone want to comment? 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Feb 15, 2012
Permalink  
 

Hope,

hit the "post problem report" and say political or does not comfirm TOS, use a quotation from Pcafe, "Political Threads" sticky. 

 Xiggi/Trinity: Accept this is a reminder that politics, religion, and similar controversial topics should be discussed only as directly applicable to college matters.

Inasmuch as the moderating might allow certain threads that touch prohibited topics, threads that are specifically addressing results of elections and results of votes by politicians remain prohibited, UNLESS the issues are directly and entirely related to educational matters. 

I personnally do not find the thread as offensive in its nature but as unnecessary. The President (any P) gets to make a decision because the proverbial buck gets passed up the line to the President. We all know the famous immortal words of W, after which he made few if any meaningful decisions other than to not to make a decision-Financial Collapse of 2008.

If a thread cannot find sometype of concensus in the first 25 posts, then it becomes repetitious. I forget, did I push the washlet bidget for making one clean?evileye


-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 15th of February 2012 04:11:14 PM



-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 15th of February 2012 04:12:01 PM



-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 15th of February 2012 04:12:49 PM



-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 15th of February 2012 04:13:45 PM



-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 15th of February 2012 04:14:42 PM



-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 15th of February 2012 04:17:00 PM

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard