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.

 

The Birth Control Controversy

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 


So birth control is just a "life-style" then? And that makes it okay for Catholic institutions to deny anyone in their employ, even non-Catholics, access to it? Again organizations, even religious ones, are meant to be EQUAL under the law, not EXEMPT from it.

Sex is no more a life-style choice than eating is, it's a fundamental instinct, and only in the twisted fantasies of religious zealots is protected sex with birth control considered the irresponsible choice.



edit on 3-3-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
If everyone else is getting witch doctor coverage, than yes you should also be getting witch doctor coverage.


Everyone else does not get contraceptive coverage. I don't. My three sons don't. Roughly half of all insureds do not, because we are male. Besides, birth control is extremely simple and inexpensive. A single condom costs about fifty cents. Use the condom and retain the package. After use, toss the condom. Thereafter, anytime a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, simply hold the package between her knees. A lifetime of birth control for fifty cents!

Dammit!!! I'm doing it again. Falling into the trap of arguing something that isn't the real issue. You liberals are a sneaky bunch.

The only issue here is the First Amendment to the Constitution.
edit on 3-3-2012 by WTFover because: second paragraph



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Charmed707
 


So birth control is just a "life-style" then? And that makes it okay for Catholic institutions to deny anyone in their employ, even non-Catholics, access to it?


Catholic institutions are not the only places to get birth control. You are acting as if people are entitled to the privilege of birth control, which they are not.


Sex is no more a life-style choice than eating is, it's a fundamental instinct, and only in the twisted fantasies of religious zealots is protected sex with birth control considered the irresponsible choice.


Individuals don't need sex to survive. Sex and the usage of birth control are both personal choices in which others shouldn't have to pay for. People need to grow up and stop expecting handouts.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
Everyone else does not get contraceptive coverage. I don't. My three sons don't. Roughly half of all insureds do not, because we are male.

Dammit!!! I'm doing it again. Falling into the trap of arguing something that isn't the real issue. You liberals are a sneaky bunch.

The only issue here is the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Well I'm sure they don't get prostate exam coverage.

Nobody is infringing on the employers first amendment rights. The employer, is in fact, infringing on the employees rights, because he is not letting them make the choice for themselves, but is making the choice for them, based on his beliefs.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
[
Everyone else does not get contraceptive coverage. I don't. My three sons don't. Roughly half of all insureds do not, because we are male. Besides, birth control is extremely simple and inexpensive. A single condom costs about fifty cents. Use the condom and retain the package. After use, toss the condom. Thereafter, anytime a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, simply hold the package between her knees. A lifetime of birth control for fifty cents!





Males may not benefit from contraceptive coverage, but they do benefit from the tax payer subsidized medicare system for Viagra it swings both ways. Contraceptives are not solely used as birth control, these same medicines are used to treat other medical issues, and are required to be used while taking some medications, one used to treat very serious diseases such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis etc.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
oops double post
edit on 3/3/12 by Pixiefyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


Freedom of Religion is limit of the government. It is both an individual and collective right that essentially gives you the right to believe whatever you want to believe. But as you said, your beliefs can not trample the beliefs of others and likewise they on yours.


Based upon your strict interpretation of the 1st amendment, should we not allow Muslims to carry out honor killings in the name of Islam. I mean, it's part of their religion and Islam shares the same 1st Amendment protection given to Catholics.

You see, there does come a point where one's religion does interfere with the livelihood of others. It is at that point where government must step in and say "your belief is outside the scope of the 1st Amendment".



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muttley2012

You see, there does come a point where one's religion does interfere with the livelihood of others. It is at that point where government must step in and say "your belief is outside the scope of the 1st Amendment".


One can find what the founders truly intended by the words they left behind.



"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98



"The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen: 1. Freedom of religion, restricted only from acts of trespass on that of others;….. 5. Freedom of the press, subject only to liability for personal injuries." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:489

edit on 3/3/12 by Pixiefyre because: Sorry edited the wrong post ..too many windows open



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
Nobody is infringing on the employers first amendment rights.

In order for you to make this determination, you are deciding what constitutes a religious belief on the part of the employer. That is fundamentally infringing on their right to free exercise. There is no way way around it, no matter how badly you want there to be. The religious organization alone decides what their beliefs are and how they will practice them.


The employer, is in fact, infringing on the employees rights, because he is not letting them make the choice for themselves, but is making the choice for them, based on his beliefs.


The employer is doing no such thing. The employer is not prohibiting the use of contraceptives in any way, shape or form. My employer doesn't pay for my Jack Daniels, but that doesn't prohibit me from enjoying a nice Jack and Coke, whenever I please. My employer doesn't pay for insurance coverage that provides for hair replacement, even though that vacancy on the top of my head is getting increasingly larger. Yet, I still have the right to pay for the services of the Hair Club for Men, if I so choose.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre

Originally posted by Muttley2012

You see, there does come a point where one's religion does interfere with the livelihood of others. It is at that point where government must step in and say "your belief is outside the scope of the 1st Amendment".


One can find what the founders truly intended by the words they left behind.



"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98


Right. Exactly! Soon it will be CRIMINAL to NOT offer birth control. It's law, so follow Thomas Jefferson's words.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Muttley2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
In order for you to make this determination, you are deciding what constitutes a religious belief on the part of the employer. That is fundamentally infringing on their right to free exercise. There is no way way around it, no matter how badly you want there to be. The religious organization alone decides what their beliefs are and how they will practice them.

But the actions of the insurance company and the employee should not to be restricted by the employer. There is no way around that no matter how badly you want there to be.


The employer is doing no such thing. The employer is not prohibiting the use of contraceptives in any way, shape or form. My employer doesn't pay for my Jack Daniels, but that doesn't prohibit me from enjoying a nice Jack and Coke, whenever I please. My employer doesn't pay for insurance coverage that provides for hair replacement, even though that vacancy on the top of my head is getting increasingly larger. Yet, I still have the right to pay for the services of the Hair Club for Men, if I so choose.

Sure he is, he is interfering in the transaction between the insurer and the insured. Your rights end where mine begin.

JD and Coke are not healthcare products.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Contraceptives are not solely used as birth control, these same medicines are used to treat other medical issues, and are required to be used while taking some medications, one used to treat very serious diseases such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis etc.


This is an entirely different argument. First, everything I've ever hear about oral contraceptives is that they increase the risk of breast cancer. If that has changed, I am not aware of it.

Secondly, if an oral contraceptive medication is being used as treatment for a disease, then it is not a contraceptive. That's like using a baseball bat to break someone's arm. When you do, it's no longer a bat, it's a weapon. I would absolutely support the inclusion of mandated coverage of these medications for the uses you outlined, as long as they were medically necessary. There is a huge difference.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
JD and Coke are not healthcare products.


Nor is birth control. Unless you want to now say pregnancy is a disease.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Contraceptives are not solely used as birth control, these same medicines are used to treat other medical issues, and are required to be used while taking some medications, one used to treat very serious diseases such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis etc.


This is an entirely different argument. First, everything I've ever hear about oral contraceptives is that they increase the risk of breast cancer. If that has changed, I am not aware of it.

Secondly, if an oral contraceptive medication is being used as treatment for a disease, then it is not a contraceptive. That's like using a baseball bat to break someone's arm. When you do, it's no longer a bat, it's a weapon. I would absolutely support the inclusion of mandated coverage of these medications for the uses you outlined, as long as they were medically necessary. There is a huge difference.


There is a huge difference because you might like the nature of restriction your position provides.
Which is the case for many members on ATS... But in the end you are trying to block individual
behavior and self determination.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by daskakik
JD and Coke are not healthcare products.


Nor is birth control. Unless you want to now say pregnancy is a disease.

Pregnancy isn't a disease but it does require medical care. Contraceptives are regulated by the FDA as medication and medical devices.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by daskakik
JD and Coke are not healthcare products.


Nor is birth control. Unless you want to now say pregnancy is a disease.


How about employers who are firmly against over population, do they have a right
to exclude maternal care from their insurance policies? What if that belief only
applies to christians, because that person feels christians are small minded and
need to stop existing via breeding? Does society have to bow down to this belief?

edit on 3-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Except that it is an effective treatment for a number of health issues, some of which are life threatening. What makes the Pill any different than a drug like duasteride. Sure, duasteride treats enlarged prostates, but it is also used as a treatment for male-pattern baldness. Why does nobody seem to have a problem that duasteride is covered by many of the most basic insurance policies even though there is a fair number of people using it strictly because it will help them regrow their hair?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
But the actions of the insurance company and the employee should not to be restricted by the employer.


Why did you leave out the third party in that association? In fact, the most important party... The one which is paying the bill and, just like the other two, has the right the free exercise of religion and to determine the tenets of that religion.

Let's say my employer provides me a vehicle. I'm told to go to the dealership to get it. Once there, I find out it has hand crank windows. Can I then tell the dealership to upgrade to power windows, even though my employer doesn't want to pay for them? The options are the sole decision of the employer, who is footing the bill.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


1) I've already addressed the issue of medical necessity, in a post above.

2) If a patient and/or doctor conspire to obtain a prescription for and insurance payment for a particular drug, by falsifying the medical necessity and intended use of that drug, they've committed fraud.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

This is an entirely different argument. First, everything I've ever hear about oral contraceptives is that they increase the risk of breast cancer. If that has changed, I am not aware of it.

Secondly, if an oral contraceptive medication is being used as treatment for a disease, then it is not a contraceptive. That's like using a baseball bat to break someone's arm. When you do, it's no longer a bat, it's a weapon. I would absolutely support the inclusion of mandated coverage of these medications for the uses you outlined, as long as they were medically necessary. There is a huge difference.


Some common medical issues birth control pills are used to treat:

• Alleviation of menstrual cramps
• Reduction of amount and duration of menstrual bleeding
• Regulation of periods • Clearing up some types of acne
• Lowering the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers
• Treatment of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome


In addition to those birth control can also be used to alleviate the symptoms in perimenopausal and menopausal women

And regarding my statement about birth control required to be used in conjunction with certain medical treatments for serious disease. I posted information on two of these in on another thread discussing this, and for clarification the use of birth control while on taking these medications is required by the FDA

Prior Post regarding these treatments



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join