I was unable to find a topic discussing the various bills that have been proposed for cutting back on access to birth control, and I think this is an important subject not just for females. One such bill was the Blunt Bill which aimed to allow employers to deny contraception coverage to women or any other health care service if they found it to be against their religion or if they morally objected to it. This bill did not pass but it was by a narrow margin.
This has lead to a heated debate about a woman's right to birth control in general, which to me is pretty scary. It has also lead to hateful comments by individuals such as Rush Limbaugh against a law student who spoke out against the Blunt Bill.
From NPR:
Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who has become a "poster child" for Democrats since Republicans wouldn't let her testify at a House hearing about President Obama's policy on contraception, said today she was stunned and outraged Wednesday when conservative radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and "prostitute" on his nationally syndicated show.
"It's important to think about that in our society in certain sectors this is evidently still acceptable" discourse, she said on NBC-TV's The Today Show. "That's really problematic."
It seems pretty outrageous that this is even up for discussion, but even if it is I feel as though it should be discussed in a mature and civil way without resorting to name calling...
What does this mean for basic health care coverage in the United States, especially for women? Also, what does this say about the state of political discourse in our country?
Um. The bill wasn't passed? So what does Limbaugh calling some random relatively unimportant woman a slut mean for health care coverage in the US? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean much.
I almost feel as if you're saying "nothing happened, woman was offended by someone saying something, what impact does this have on health care?"
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
It means that an entire political wing is basing its ideology upon the word of the Bible, which is highly disturbing from a practical perspective.
Also, I'm holding my breath until someone says, "Ron Paul 2012!", because a discussion like this is just going to dredge up everything.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
Wat. Just what. A fetus is not a child. Sex is a part of life.
Employers shouldn't care about either of these things, if they plan to have open applications.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote: Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3
What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
This isn't about abortion, its about birth control. Big difference.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote: You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this.
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote: You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this.
Where can you get free birth control from the government? Also- where do you draw that line at saying what you find morally wrong? Can you stop covering health care for homosexuals?
And additionally, I dont think that an employer who has absolutely no medical training should be telling you which medications are "right" and which are wrong.
And- so guys can be prescribed viagra from their religious institution and have all the sex they want, but women cant get essentially the female version of that? Pretty much makes no sense to tell people to just not have sex and that obviously is not how the world works
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Do you also reject medicine because getting sick should have consequences too? What about clothes, is refusing to freeze to death in cold climates by wearing things 'not living with consequences' too?
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote: I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on. I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations.
Oh, come on... that's a wildly sensationalist post and you know it. If you want to discuss the morality of abortion, try not to paint every woman as a slut and a murderer.
Women are not forced to have sex. I do not see why people don't have to live with consequences anymore.
Birth control isn't just about sex. For instance, one of the main treatments for Ovarian Cysts is hormonal contraception.
I'm surprised this is even something worth discussing. You can't just deny medicine to people just because it's against some religious belief. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they have no right to force it upon others.
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote: You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway. If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote: You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this.
Where can you get free birth control from the government? Also- where do you draw that line at saying what you find morally wrong? Can you stop covering health care for homosexuals?
And additionally, I dont think that an employer who has absolutely no medical training should be telling you which medications are "right" and which are wrong.
And- so guys can be prescribed viagra from their religious institution and have all the sex they want, but women cant get essentially the female version of that? Pretty much makes no sense to tell people to just not have sex and that obviously is not how the world works
I feel weird when the word "guys" is attached to "viagra" because I associate "guys" with younger men (early 20s) and viagra with younger corpses (early 60s-70s).
Personally, I think contraceptives/birth control as a whole should be cheaper (not that condoms are expensive), people should just buy them with their own pay, and that viagra, and associated drugs for males and females, should not be covered by anything tax funded.
And lets not file all religions under the anti-contraceptive category. I believe we want to focus our disgust solely on the pope and his minions.
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote: You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this.
What constitutional amendment is being broken?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them.
They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control.
That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech.
I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
EPT
