Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama administration announces new compromise on birth control; still can't get it right, say religious groups’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 22 2014 4:05 p.m. MDT

Updated: Wednesday, Aug. 27 2014 8:48 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
gmlewis
Houston, TX

There really isn't a way for the government to guarantee insurance coverage for abortion services (including some medications and devices) without individual and corporate taxpayers being complicit. Either insurance premiums will pay for this, or government taxes will pay for it.

The only way it can be free is if the federal government finances these services solely by debt that will only be paid upon the dissolution of government. Wait a minute, that's how a major portion of government services are provided today. Wow, problem solved!

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@gmlewis 4:29 p.m. Aug. 22, 2014

In truth the only thin the contraceptives in question do is prevent pregnancies from starting. Therefore no "abortion services" are involved. it' sad that people can't concentrate on and understand the scientific and medical facts, and not just buy into the rhetoric and mis-statements of those who are trying to do anything they can to tear down the President and to heck with anyone (like women) they may hurt in the process.

This looks like a good plan. I hope it works.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

What people don't understand is that there are different levels of objection to contraception and abortion. Some object to all contraception. Others believe that life begins at conception so they accept contraceptives that prevent ovulation, but they object to treatments that interferes with the development of a fertilized egg. Others, such as myself object to an abortion of a fetus at a certain level of its development. (I don't accept the 'viability' argument of the supreme court, they are legal scholars, but they aren't God and no amount of legal analysis can tell us when life begins.)

As we are trying to be an open, progressive society we need to respect that people are going to object because of religious reasons to providing contraception.

Employees should pay for contraception themselves. If someone argues that contraception is a financial hardship remember they are already paying 7-12% of their income to social security and I know of no politician in either party who objects to this.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

Now Furry1993, you know very well that Hobby Lobby had no problem with the majority of contraceptives that prevent conception. They only objected to four devices/medications that they felt would harm a conceived fetus. My logical premise was based on this broader definition of abortion; otherwise, there is no controversy.

My point was that these contested medical procedures will involve individuals and companies, whether they are funded by insurance premiums or funded by taxes.

boneheaded, but not a smidgen
SLC, UT

barry just changes laws whenever he wants to. takers are okay with it, but hopefully someday makers will actually do something to stop his continued illegal activities.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

More illegal changes to the law again without congressional approval and by now there is nothing left of the original laws so in effect the ACA doesn't exist anymore therefore Obama care is dead, kaput, revoked by his own hand and stupidity in passing a law that did not exixt when the democrats voted for the affordable health care act. Laws are not a work in progress government and therefore the ACA is devoid of anything it was once said to contain.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

interesting that BO is actually doing something in response to the Hobby Lobby case. The SCOTUS said there were fixes, but rather than trying to implement those fixes, senate dems, patty murray in particular, played politics with "women's health" and screamed about some phoney war on women. shame on patty and harry shame shame!

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Doesn't this strike anyone else as absurd?

Official Catholic doctrine holds that birth control is immoral...even as U.S. Catholics readily acknowledge that virtually all use it nonetheless.

And the objections to so-called "abortifacients" are objections to drugs that don't, in fact, operate in this manner. (IMO, such extreme views reflect a self-aggrandizing indulgence in one's own piety anyway and shouldn't be taken seriously.)

And we are twisting ourselves in knots to try to accommodate organizations that call themselves moral even as they:

a) Continue to protect pedophiles and their enablers in their midst;
b) Spread misinformation about birth control to people absent the education/information to know to be skeptical; and
c) Continue to promulgate abstinence-only policies that evidence shows do not work.

Perhaps we need a basic test to determine whether a claim of "moral"/"immoral" has any basis before we contort our laws into knots to accommodate it and allow religious institutions off the hook for paying their fair share. Once again it is tax-paying citizens - many who do not hold these views - that will be required to subsidize them.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Tek;

Remember that most of these employees ARE ALREADY PAYING PREMIUMS.

Their employer has no business dictating what health care options women use.

Religion: the greatest evil ever invented by men.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@gmlewis 8:08 p.m. Aug. 22, 2014

There are women who cannot use "conventional" birth control for medical reasons and need a (costly) device like an IUD. There re women who need emergency contraception (for whatever reason) to provide their basic preventative health care. The Hobby Lobby owners and their ilk would deny those women the health care they need based on scientifically and medically spurious reasons.

A fertilized egg is not a fetus (and will not become a fetus until it implants in the uterus and a pregnancy then starts). It is no different from any other fertilized egg, a third to a half of which never implant in the uterus and re expelled with the woman's next menses without starting a pregnancy and without her knowing that fertilization occurred. That's just how nature works.

The HL owners support abortion by getting their goods from China. They support the pills and devices in question by investing in the companies that make them. They just want to deny women the right to use them. Sad.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@lost in DC
Actually this change was the one SCOTUS was going for, since the argument was basically 'well you have this process for churches to go through... can't you just do that for these too?' and so that's what Obama's doing.

Linus
Bountiful, UT

The truth is that Obama and his liberal combine just want to eliminate the consequences of "the New Morality" (the old immorality). Every woman in America already has birth control built into her freedom to choose (agency). The wicked grieve when they can't sin with impunity, and they have the idea that people of faith are trying to interfere with their consequence-free pleasures. Liberals call this resistance a "war on women." Funny! It is really a war on the immoral of both sexes. Men's predatory charms won't be able to buy them "free love" if parental responsibility follows their sexual immorality. I say, "they that dance must pay the fiddler!"

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Ranch,
the employer pays the VAST MAJORITY of the premium, and even if the abortificants are not covered. and nothing prevents the employee from buying them on their own.

Furry,
there is NOTHING the employer can do to prevent the employee from buying them on their own and using them. N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!!!!!! they are NOT denying women ANYTHING!!!!! Why do you repeat the lie that they are stopping women from doing this, WHY? It simply is NOT true! by forcing employers to pay for these drugs, Obamacare IS forcing the employer into the bedroom.

Schnee,
yep, I WAS giving BO credit for actually doing something. I know, I surprised you. the senate dems are the greatest hindrance to progress in this country, and that is who I was chastising. BO has been known to strike deals with Boehner, only to see harry and chuckie cut the legs out from under him - throw him under the bus.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

@Furry1993 - Everything you say is true. I don't agree with the Hobby Lobby owner's definition of abortion inducing products. I'm just explaining why those who think like they do might reject Pres. Obama's compromise.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Linus 11:41 a.m. Aug. 23, 2014

You're aware aren't you, that the majority of contraception-users are married. You're saying that the only reason to have sex is to propagate and that married couples re being immoral if they have sex without wanting to propagate. You're saying that married women should deny sex to their husbands unless they want to propagate. You must really want to raise the divorce rate.

-----------------------

@lost in DC 2:39 p.m. Aug. 23, 2014

The only medication that aborts pregnancies is RU-486, and it is not involved. In fact, absolutely no "abortificants" are involved; only contraceptives (which prevent, not abort, pregnancies) despite what people are trying to use scientifically and medically spurious reasons to claim.

A basic part of medical insurance provides for basic preventative health care, including basic and needed medications (like contraceptives). Some of those contraceptives are inexpensive, some of the most needed ones can be quite costly. A woman who has health insurance should be able to have access to ALL needed medications (including contraceptives). She should have access to pregnancy overage; she should also have access to prevent-pregnancy coverage. That's only fair.

The Judge
Kaysville, UT

Karen R.,

So you're saying the catholic church is immoral, based on the actions of a relatively few. That's like saying all Texans are egotistical maniacs, based on a couple I've known.

And although it's not clear, you seem to be arguing that abortifacients don't cause abortions. Yet the FDA's own labeling standards advise the drugs "may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium)." In other words, they may prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. That's from the FDA, of your god of Big Government, not any right-wing person.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ The Judge

So you want to have a say in the personal lives of 50% of the population, but you're not for big government.

I think that those on the religious right are very much in favor of big government. They are very much in favor of a central authority telling them what they can/should do or not do, how often, and with whom. And as noted in my first sentence, they try to impose the laws of their big government onto others.

I think many that bewail Big Government doth protest too much.

Re the effect of the birth control in question, I refer you to the excellent, informative posts of Furry1993.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

The one thing I truly dislike about religion is the way in which people take it upon themselves to be the judge of others. Come on, do they really have to scrutinize people's sex lives? It isn't just this issue that bothers me. You go to a funeral and often, you will hear somebody saying how the deceased brought it upon himself! It happens all of the time. It makes me feel like yelling at them and asking them why they bothered coming! there are so many self righteous people who spend a lot of time evaluating and judging the lives of others. I guess it makes them feel more righteous. So, since I don't believe in what many of these religions do, why should I pay taxes that support them? When they get a tax exempt status, it effects me as a taxpayer. Maybe they should make it legal to deny benefits to Mormons, for example, because some people don't believe that they are Christian! Who gets to decide these moral issues, because as far as I am concerned, the intimate part of an employee's life is not the employer's business!

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ Ranch: "Their employer has no business dictating what health care options women use."

Employees pay 25% of the premium (on average). Employers pay the other 75%. Also, most plans are self-funded, which means the employer, not the insurance company, is paying the balance of the cost for any procedures, prescriptions, etc. Once a certain spending level is hit, the insurance company begins to pay (BTW, this rarely happens as the cap if very high)...

So, Ranch, if the employer is paying the bill, why do you think they have no say in what they will pay for? Would you like someone else telling you how to spend your money?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments