@ 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?
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!
@ The JudgeSo 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.
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.
@Linus 11:41 a.m. Aug. 23, 2014You'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, 2014The 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.
@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
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.
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
@lost in DCActually 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.
@gmlewis 8:08 p.m. Aug. 22, 2014There 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.
@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
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; andc) 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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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 4:29 p.m. Aug. 22, 2014In 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.
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,