Comments about ‘Supreme Court refuses to halt morning-after pill rule’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 27 2012 8:21 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, Utah

When the morning after pill was first approved for use, it was deemed safe enough to be an over the counter medication - no prescription or doctors visit needed.

Religious groups pushed for it to have limited access. Their push was listened to and the morning after pill has restricted access requiring a dict

Salt Lake City, Utah

.... requiring a doctors visit and prescription which make it eligible for coverage by insurance.

If you have a religious objection and don't want insurance to cover it, then push for it to be over the counter - problem solved.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Your argument fails to address the problem.

Simply because a drug requires a doctors visit and prescription does not automatically mean that insurance HAS TO pay for it (most insurance programs have many drugs they exclude from coverage, such as Viagra).

Simply because something is over the counter does not mean insurance wont pay for it either.

Therefore making abortion pills over-the-counter (aside from the moral element of treating abortion as nothing more than wart removal) still does not stop the government from forcing insurance to cover it as long as it is part of the HHS mandate. Obama and Kathleen Sebelius could solve the issue immediately if they wanted to - but they don't - because they are faux-choice hypocrites. It is not pro-choice if you have NO choice of whether or not you participate, perform, prescribe or pay for an abortion.

The issue is: The act of forcing other people(directly or indirectly)to pay for abortion pills; prescription or non-prescription has little to do with it.

Ogden, UT

@CounterIntelligence 11:47 a.m. Dec. 27, 2012

You miss the point. "Abortion pills" aren't the medication being discussed. Contraception (including emergency contraception) is, and no contraception medication (even emergency contraception medication) terminates an established pregnancy. Once a pregnancy is established, contraception medications don't touch it. The medications at issue prevent pregnancy, not terminate it. The true abortion pill (RU-486 regimen) isn't included in the regulations at issue.

Nobody is being asked to "participate, perform, prescribe or pay for an abortion". Your comments are not factually grounded.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Nice sleight of hand
The mandate requires that insurance plans must cover abortifacients, contraceptive and sterilizing drugs.
You are technically correct in stating that RU-486 itself is not presently covered; however "emergency contraception" drugs Ella and Plan B are. Ella is a close relative to RU-486 and is also used for terminating an established pregnancy. So the fact that Obama is forcing those opposed to abortion to pay for Ella, instead of RU-486, is of little consequence.

As for your comment that nobody is being asked to "participate, perform, prescribe or pay for an abortion": That is EXACTLY what faux-choice zealots do.
Conscience clauses allow nurses and doctors who oppose abortion to opt out of participating or performing an abortion. They allow pharmacists not to fill prescription for abortifacients. These clauses have been openly fought by Planned Parenthood and NARAL and do not exist in many states, such as Obama's Illinois, where abortion opponents are forced to perform or prescribe as part of their medical licensing.

If NO is not one of the options, then it is not a choice: And NO means NO.

Your comments are factually manipulative.

spring street

"factually manipulative?" that is an interesting turning of words isn't it? it is even by your own admittance factual tha it does not cause an abortion therefor requiring companies to carry insurance for it and doctors to write prescriptions for it and pharmacies to fill them is not forcing them to participate in abortion. those are the facts I am sorry you think the facts are manipulative.

Hayden, ID

I am now forced to pay for other people's birth control! I thought liberals wanted the government out of our bedrooms! We are now forced to have the government right in our bedrooms meddling with our privacy. It must be very confusing to be a liberal.

Bronx, NY

@mountain man
How is making something available to those that CHOOSE to use it the government forcing their way into YOUR Bedroom?

Hayden, ID

@ George, Because I am now forced to pay for what going on in YOUR bedroom.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I have very strong feelings about the efforts of businessmen to oppress people. I feel that if a religious doctrine has any merit it doesn’t need any other source of income. The fact is that churches have been in the business of controlling the lives of people for a very long time and have not solved any of the real problems of the people they control.

All businesses are dictatorial in their make up and operation. Employees are simply voluntary slaves who have traded part of their freedom and rights for the necessities of life. People as customers are a little better off because they can walk away with out punishment.

Church members have a double whammy in that they have given up their freedom to the controlling government of the church. And if you think our federal government is too controlling check out those governments where religion is the government.

If we are to have true freedom of religion for everyone, we must not let the giant organized churches break free from the chains that bind them.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@spring street

I specifically said: "Ella is a close relative to RU-486 and is also used for terminating an established pregnancy"

So how is it that you arrived at "it is even by your own admittance factual tha it does not cause an abortion"? Ella works as a morning after abortion pill and is being included in the mandate as emergency contraception. Ella works as an abortifacient - you are expecting others to pay for it via an insurance mandate - without their choice, therefore there is NO choice to not participate.

Those are the facts; even when you compound faux-choice myopics with an attempt to misrepresent/manipulate/lie about what I said in order to make you point

Bronx, NY

@ mountain man
I am "forced" to pay for the choices others make in the bedroom both through my insurance and higher taxes to pay for our over population. Why should I pay for others inability to cotrol behaviors I find wrong but you should not?

Provo, UT


I'm sorry that you feel like government has to pay for more people but that's not actually true. In fact, if you don't want to pay for more people in the form of taxes the solution is quite simple. Don't vote for those that raise our taxes and who are willing to spend them on programs that aren't necessary. As for your claim about insurance. Again, the solution is simple. Look for other insurance which is less expensive, start your own insurance or benevolent association where you do not insure large families or pay for your own medical bills instead of expecting others to do so in the form of insurance and/or taxes.



Animal studies showed that Ella had little effect on established pregnancies, suggesting it acts differently from RU-486.

The abortion pill, also known as RU-486 ("medical abortion" or "medication abortion"), is a different drug from ella, Plan B One-Step, Next Choice One Dose, Next Choice and Levonorgestrel Tablets, which are approved for sale as emergency contraception in the United States. Emergency contraceptive pills (also called “morning after pills" or "day after pills") prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; they do not cause an abortion.
(Office of Population Research at Princeton University)

Generally emergency contraceptives cost $35-$60, not including a Dr. appt. if required.

Would you rather pay for the welfare and education needs of the children born as a result of unintended pregnancies? It is clear Republicans oppose social welfare programs, leaving women and children at risk. And what of the men/fathers? What emotional, physical and financial burdens do they bear?

Mission Viejo, CA

Mountanman, insurance covers prenatal care, labor, and associated medical costs of having a baby. We all end up paying a lot for others to have children. So, why cover the very expensive costs of having a baby, but not cover the very reasonable costs of preventing one when not wanted or ready for one?

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments