It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Will probably increase the number of abortions now.

Way to go Trump.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Birth control should never be part of health insurance, let alone mandated.


Says the guy living in the UK where birth control is covered under National Health Care.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

it would be a nightmare for the insurance industry with as many pools to keep track of as there are people in the country probably... and would turn out to be far more costly for everyone, not just in insurance rates but also in medical costs because people would opt out of coverages that they don't foresee needed but suddenly find themselves needing.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: UKTruth
Birth control should never be part of health insurance, let alone mandated.


Says the guy living in the UK where birth control is covered under National Health Care.


Yeah - disgraceful that it's covered. The NHS is in the toilet, by the way.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I'd laugh like heck if it turned out that the cost to buy an insurance policy without birth control cost more than one that had it included!! seriously, maternity care and birth costs way more than the annual cost of birth control pills!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



"Here. This is your policy. It *must* have these things because we've decided you are too stupid to know what your own needs are and this is what it will cost because we decided what has to be in it ..."

As opposed to

"Here. This is what I can pay for or will pay for and these are the things I feel are most important for me to have covered should I need them ..."


Ketsuko, this new rule isn't about money, but religious moral authority over their employees.

Do you think it should be okay for an employer to deny single women a policy that covers birth control, but offer it to married women?

How do you feel about the idea of having an employer who might require you to get permission from your husband in order for them to allow you to be covered for birth control, at no extra cost to your family.

Although, I do think some cheap btards will hide behind religious objections to try and save a dime.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Really? All this fuss over a dollar a day in cost? Smoke 3 less cigs or drink 2 less cokes or other unnecessary expense.

It’s not like you are not allowed to buy it! No one pays for my birth control.

I mean with all of the monumental problems in the world you focus on this.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko



"Here. This is your policy. It *must* have these things because we've decided you are too stupid to know what your own needs are and this is what it will cost because we decided what has to be in it ..."

As opposed to

"Here. This is what I can pay for or will pay for and these are the things I feel are most important for me to have covered should I need them ..."


Ketsuko, this new rule isn't about money, but religious moral authority over their employees.



Seems like it is more about religious freedom and choice than authority.
As an employee, you can always go work for someone else. Choices all around. No need for any authority.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Why should a man be mandated to have birth control coverage in his policy?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


That's not what this thread is about. It's about RELIGIOUS exemption.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot


Again, this isn't about money. It's about religious exemption.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
if you have employer health care, you're paying for birth control coverage. Even if you're a man. Does that make a whole lot of sense to you.....?


everyone who has insurance pays for things that don't apply to them. that's how insurance works.

i'm subsidizing viagra and not getting use out of it myself. as well as a multitude of other things. and i'm fine with that.

this is just petty, anti-woman moralizing by christians who think they should get to control other people. it's BS.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot


Again, this isn't about money. It's about religious exemption.



Again, this is really about religious freedom.

edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Again, this is really about religious freedom.


religious freedom like hobby lobby, who was so opposed to birth control for their employees that they had to go to the supreme court about it... oh but what's this in their investments? SO much birth control. they're happy to make money off it as long as they don't have to provide any for a woman themselves.

hypocrisy of the first order, like so many of these pricks.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Actually, due to hurricanes in Texas and Florida, US unemployment figures are higher than they've been in 8 years! Besides, there shouldn't be a religious test of cooperation with the employers' for a for profit, public business. It's unconstitutional.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

Didn't the ACA make it so that adolescents up to the age of 27 were covered under their parents' policies?


Didn't this provision seem to lower abortions by 40 percent?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot


Again, this isn't about money. It's about religious exemption.



Again, this is really about religious freedom.


Religious freedom is a personal choice, not a choice an employer makes for their employees. Don't believe in birth control. Don't use it.


edit on 6-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule.

So, the Trump administration decided to go religious on fertile woman's a$$es!


Er, I think you are barking up the wrong tree there!



As for, "Now any woman’s boss can object to covering contraception on moral grounds"

If it's moral grounds, that's not necessarily a religious thing...however who's to say?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot


Again, this isn't about money. It's about religious exemption.



Again, this is really about religious freedom.


Religious freedom is a personal choice, not a choice an employer makes for their employees. Don't believe in birth control. Don't use it.



There is a certain point you shouldn't be able to force a non profit institution with a religious affiliation to do something against their beliefs.

It may be more effective to show their view is wrong and birth control it leads to less abortions which in the religious scale is worse than sex for pleasure.
edit on 6-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Male cow feces. If the employer told a woman that she couldn't use birth control because it was against the employer's religious beliefs, that would be forcing the employer's religious beliefs on someone. This is just if you want it pay for it yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join