Contraception mandate takes effect, fight to reverse it continues

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JRJ Pocatello, ID
    Aug. 3, 2012 6:30 p.m.

    Why am I being forced to pay for something that is 99% controllable? What a can of worms we open when we say 'yes' to everything instead of practicing self control.

  • Crystal Kayser West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 3, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    I personally think this is a silly argument. Where are the Jehovah's Witnesses protesting against being forced to have insurance that covers blood transfusions? Several religions and cultures don't believe in using all or some part of medical practices. It should be covered, but it should be the choice of the individual whether or not to use it.

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    Aug. 3, 2012 10:59 a.m.


    "Paying for other peoples behavior is a sign of a weak society."

    You should stop listening to Fox, Limbaugh, and Hannity and look into what is being offered. It is more than just contraception. The part of the ACA that took effect for women dealt with a number of preventative care issues, and yes, contraception is considered a preventative care issue. You do realize that plenty of married couples use contraception, right?

    All the ACA is doing in this case is removing the co-pay, which has been a barrier for many to get preventative health screenings, which when people don't get these, the costs can mount later on- which you pay for through increased health insurance premiums.

    But, hey, if you don't want to pay for other people's behavior, drop all the insurances you have (because they all pay into a "risk pool" that covers others) and move to the desert. At least there, you might not get any TV or radio reception to hear some of these "news" programs and "talking heads" screaming about how we shouldn't help anyone else.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:21 p.m.

    "Paying for other peoples behavior is a sign of a weak society."

    I agree.... no heart treatment for fat people

    No joint replacement or repair for former athletes

    And people who build in known areas that have flooding or tornados.... hey, you knew there was a risk... deal with it.

    And all those kids we now need to educate because of others "behavior".... well you know how this goes.

  • justme001 Salt Lake, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:16 p.m.

    Very well put, could not agree with you more.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 9:06 p.m.

    Well next time some of you take your diabetes medication or your high blood pressure medication or your cholesterol lowering medication that you got for a very reduced price because of your insurance, just think that in my opinion you all caused your own illnesses and in my opinion insurance shouldn't pay for any of your medication. After all, I don't need that medication, so no one else should. Makes about as much sense as you saying that someone else shouldn't get medication they need.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 6:22 p.m.

    So where is all the furor about Quakers being forced to pay for wars through the compulsory power of taxes?

    Where is the rage from the LDS who are forced to pay for the socialized distribution and sales of liquor through their state taxes?

    Where is the anger for Jews and Muslims who are forced to pay for swine subsidies in their federal taxes?

    But ask the University of Notre Dame cover the contraceptives of a janitor at the football stadium...

    Some people have a very narrow view of what constitutes infringement of religious liberty.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 2, 2012 5:31 p.m.

    Paying for other peoples behavior is a sign of a weak society.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Aug. 2, 2012 5:19 p.m.

    J-TX. Have you noticed that employers are now getting health care premium rebate checks?

    As a retired health care administrator for a Lww Firm located on LBJ that watched and paid ever rising health care premiums before the Affordable Health Care Act.

    I'm good with that.

    Aug. 2, 2012 5:16 p.m.

    It is actually hard to believe that anyone thinks there is a good reason to get stuff for free just because you can't control your actions or pay for it. I mean, we allow you to actually execute your own babies so, rather than free contraceptives, why not just keep your kitty on a leash!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 4:58 p.m.

    I didn’t think “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” was followed by “unless the demon-rats in their wisdom dictate otherwise”.

    And there is no such thing as free preventative medicine. No co-pay at time of service just means higher premiums the rest of the time.

    And I thought BO said he was trying to create jobs? How does placing more expensive mandates, some of which people of conscience consider morally reprehensible, help create jobs?

    What is discouraging is that much seems to hinge on the RFRA, when it should hinge on the 1st amendment. The ability of the government to present a compelling state interest to override religious seems to override the constitution, because the constitution contains no such exception.

    but then, what does the constitution have to do with anything - to quote the (D) from Wisconsin

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 2, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    Hey... I think it was a dumb move by Democrats to include some of this.... but you know what.... no one is making anyone have to use any of these services. If you are morally against any of these, just don't use them. How easy is that.

    But no....were all going to go all victimized about this. But in Utah, the fact that this is a huge deal doesn't surprise me. I don't drink... everyone knows that. That is one thing. But the Utah mentality is I don't drink, therefor no one should have the right to choose to drink (or smoke, or own a smoke shop evidently).

    If an organization only hires people who promise not to do something - use birth control for example - the fact that they have to offer it should mean nothing because no one should be asking for it. It is available - just not needed.

    Go figure......

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    @Oh, Please!

    You do realize that your comment just made you look foolish, especially to many, many married couples that use contraception. It's not, reading between the lines of your comment, for all those hedonists out that just can't control themselves. Oh, let's just tell married couples to, well, don't.....

    There are also, as @Wonder said, a number of medical conditions that for which contraceptives are beneficial. Some women are prescribed oral contraceptives for acne when other medication doesn't work. That's just one example. Would you like more to further invalidate your position? Or perhaps you should just quit listening to Rush Limbaugh.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 2:30 p.m.

    @Oh please -- Contraception is a medication used for several purposes, only one of which is pregnancy prevention. I'll say it's ok for insurance not to cover it the day you agree that we can drop whatever medication you use from insurance coverage.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    Captain Kirk.

    I actually have no proof of my opinion. Only to say that my opinion comes from the information gleaned from history books and movies. And that information has been supplemented by my imagination thus giving my conclusions. Not as good as real facts and figures but it works for me.

    Regards your opinion about collectivism, consider that every step in the progress of human beings happened as the result of collectivism, the getting together in a common cause. Whether or not the collective was forced or voluntary didn’t really matter.

    Consider the American Indian. The stories tell me he was a fiercely independent person living in a loose collective only for defense and making war. He was totally individually responsible for himself and his family. If he was taken out, his family would starve because no one else would take another persons responsibility. He owned only those things that he could protect.

    As I understand it, after hundreds of years the Indian culture remained pretty much the same, with none of the accomplishments we regard as progress.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 12:51 p.m.


    We have rights and freedoms because our federal government acts to secure and protect those rights. There are no other rights than those given us by our membership in the American society.

    As Americans we are expected to obey and pay for the laws, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with a particular law. Being an American is a totally voluntary membership and if you choose to be an American you must pay your dues.

  • Oh, please! Saint George, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    No one has addressed the "cause" here. If you don't want babies...don't................!

    Yes, SADLY, there are women taken advantaged of against their will. Surely this doesn't represent a large percentage of those seeking contraception.

    Self control and personal responsibility should be the watch words here. But somehow that would be construed to be unconstitutional.

  • Captain Kirk Lehi, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    Ultra Bob,

    I guess you are forgetting that most of the many, many millions that have been killed in the last century were killed by governments that were and are atheist and/or collectivist. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler all used these forms of government to kill.

    The commonality between all these governments was the idea that the collective was more important than the individual. Bad things happen when you subjugate the rights of individuals to the will of any group.

    Even in societies where religion was and is used as political power the big gotcha is the lack of individual freedom. Just another form of collectivism really.

    Your worries about the influence of religion in the government is silly at best.
    Your support of collectivism is way more dangerous.

    History proves that.

    This desire to force others to provide contraception to the collective is a small stepping stone in the wrong direction. We are not likely to be subject to mass political murder because it happens, but it is the wrong direction. All the arguments for this initiative are collectivist arguments and take away individual liberty and responsibility.
    That is why it is wrong and dangerous.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    Much of the wording involved here suggests that contraception is now 'free'. That alone should send up warning flags. It's not free. Someone has to pay for it, but it's a great word. Every time someone spouts out the word, immediately the crowds gather and the vote is all but unanimous. We like free stuff.

    Any time government offers something for free, the costs begin to mount. A similar ploy is made by strange men in odd cars offering free candy to children through a rolled down window, but again, at what cost? In many cases, this is the agenda of someone wishing to steer the masses into designed paths --- usually with tighter controls.

  • mattwend IDAHO FALLS, ID
    Aug. 2, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    Ultra Bob, I think absense of religion has a pretty bad record, too. Think USSR. I don't think the Romans were gonna religious mission, either. Also, how is forcing someone else to pay for contraception, which may be against their religion, protecting anyone's rights or freedom? That doesn't make sense to me. If contraception is a freedom and a right, isn't the responsibility to pay for it also their responsibility? Leave those who disagree out of the equation and then you are protecting rights and freedoms of two individuals, not just one at the expense of others.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    I just hope this nightmare ends in November. I'm holding on to the hope that a majority of Americans have enough of a moral compass to not vote for this train wreck to continue.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Aug. 2, 2012 9:02 a.m.

    Women of the world.....
    You may be tackled, shoved in a dark alley, and contracepted.
    There are those out there watching your every move.
    Be afraid.

  • dropout Logan, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    My religion says its a sin to fund a military or prison or any kind of intelligence agency...where to I sign up so none of my tax dollars go towards those things. Religious Freedom!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    There are no Constitutional rights or freedoms for business operations. Government federal, State, and local have the right to define acceptable business operations in their venue. Government can say what businesses, what products, the quality of products, can exist in their community.

    Churches who choose to operate businesses in the public are expected to follow the same rules as other businesses. Just because a public business is owned or operated by a church does not extend the “freedom of religion” to that business.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    The danger posed to America is much greater from the imposition of religion into government than from government into religion. World history is ripe with information about governments who have used and now use religion to kill, enslave and oppress people. There are probably cases where religion was not the issue but they are amateurs in comparison.

    Nothing our government has done is in any way a force against a person’s freedom of religion, except in the protection of the rights and freedom of Americans. No one is forced to use birth control or believe any thing about birth control.

    On the other side, we, our society, our government, allows religious people much latitude in promoting and advertising their religions. In the clothes they wear, in the words they inject into coins, buildings and pledges, even the public display of worship.

    The desire to keep government out of religion can only be accomplished by keeping religion out of government.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:38 a.m.

    Yet another example of how the ACA is going to save us all money on healthcare......NOT.

    Repeal and replace.

    Replace with things that will actually drive the cost of healthcare down.
    -Increased competition for insurance companies, providers and prescription drugs
    -Tort reform on malpractice punitive damages

    Oh, wait, that won't work. All these guys give too much to political campaigns.

    Then I guess we also have to institute:
    -Sweeping campaign funding reform
    -Term limits for congress

    I'm good with that.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Aug. 2, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    This would not be a problem if we didn't have an employer, and private insurance based system. Single payer like medicare for all eliminates the religious freedom argument. And did you notice at the Olympics opening ceremonies how much the British love their single payer "socialized" health care system the "NHS"?

  • Caprice PROVIDENCE, UT
    Aug. 2, 2012 5:35 a.m.

    More religious freedom. This situation is being turned into a big mess. The government has no business forcing companies to provide funded birth control on employees. It's simply not their place.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:59 p.m.

    re: radically moderate

    Uh, I'm not in favor of forcing people through compulsory government means to fund others contraception either, but can you explain how expanding existing government programs to provide more contraceptives doesn't make people who have conscientious objections pay for it? I don't think I get to check a box on my tax form restricting how the government uses my money.

  • Radically Moderate SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 11:44 p.m.

    This article brought up a brilliant point. If it is so important to public policy to have free contraceptives, why not expand existing government programs to provide them to everybody instead of just the poor? After all, the US Government is already the largest buyer of condoms in the world (yes, I know that many go to 3rd world aids programs), but still - Why do we have to make people who have conscientious objections pay for it instead?

    I'm also confused as to forcing people to pay for something that really isn't that expensive. Why do we have to violate others freedom of conscience for something that costs $10-20 a month out of pocket? That's who much we spend on contraception each month in my family, and it's worked perfectly so far for us.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 1, 2012 10:19 p.m.

    More freedom. Less religion.