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.

 

Free Sterilizations Must be Offered to All College Women, Says HHS

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Really?

All student health care plans covering female college students in the United States must include coverage for free voluntary sterilization surgery, the Department of Health and Human Services announced late Friday afternoon.

Women of college age who do not attend school will also get free sterilization coverage whether they are insured through an employer, their parents, or some form of government-subsidized plan.


Yes, Surgical Sterilization is now considered a "preventative service" that should be offered for "free"

Nothing is Free!!


Also, just as the regulation requiring free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients makes no accommodation at all for private-sector employers who object on religious or moral grounds, the rule requiring this coverage for students makes no accommodation for non-religious private schools that object on religious and moral grounds or for state colleges in states where local voters, taxpayers, legislators and governors may object to providing free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to college students.


Still waiting to see how all of this will be paid for as the CBO estimates continue to increase into the Trillions of Dollars.
Is this another shot at population control??
By offering this convenient "free" service are they attempting to encourage sterilizations as a convenience?
What types of surgical sterilizations will be covered?
Tubal Ligation? Will they also pay for a reversal process (if possible)?
Hysterectomy? No chance of reversing that one. (Yes, I know certain medical conditions often warrant this procedure) I don't think that's the angle HHS is playing here.
Will they offer Free Vasectomies to men?

Free Free Free..... I'm tired of seeing that word thrown around by our govt. officials so easily.

Wow!
Sebelius is certainly determined to pay for the mandate by decreasing the number of human beings in our world. One way or another she'll get you covered. What's next? Birth Panels recommending govt. funded sterilizations?
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Better to pay for a tube tie than pay thousands in welfare. Just my opinion, i personally have no problem with free birth control measures as it's cheaper to pay for that than deal with thousands of unwanted kids on welfare.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
What I find disturbing is how what seems worst to you is PAYING for it than the procedure itself.

A women might think she never wants a child at 25 but this feeling changes a LOT of times with age, now that other life objectives have been attained.

Psychology 101, what are government officials are thinking about often seems so brainless.
edit on 19-3-2012 by User8911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
think about it, if a women doesn't have kids she still pays the same taxes but requires less time off for childcare duties and drains on the state for childcare/education along with less medical costs since you dont need to pay for her popping out a child every year or so which will mean the state can probably get extra taxes on the profit from the insurance companies



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
There should not be an option to deny coverage of that based on moral objections. Denying that option to others based on your own personal feelings is more intrusive into somebody else's life and conscience that you merely having to provide that coverage for it. It passively and minutely affects the employers involved; giving them ability to deny such coverage directly and much more majorly impacts their employees. That is the essence of why they shouldn't be allowed to deny such coverage.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Are males given this opportunity to be sterilized? If not, why not?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Once the Mandate door has been opened, it is very difficult to close. We are seeing a very unstable foundation being laid right before our eyes with Obamacare. This is all gateway stuff/mandates with no end in sight. Where will they draw the line if saving money is such a priority? Elderly people Look OUT!!

So are we going to see tubal ligations performed at the University Health Center. As one poster mentioned earlier, attitudes towards having children often change as you get older. Mine did and so did my wife's. We were 35 when we had our first child.

Will HHS cover a reversal procedure for those who change their minds? The process is more difficult years down the road. Will HHS cover the psychological counseling for these women living with regrets that may haunt them forever?

This is NOT an area for our govt. to be messing with. I can't imagine even thinking of my wife having this procedure done in college just because it was convenient and because it would save a few dollars.

The success rate of a reversal procedure is about 66% if that fails you are left with Invitro procedures which are costly and could easily lead to multiple births.
edit on 19-3-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by jibeho
 


Better to pay for a tube tie than pay thousands in welfare.


I agree. But in this case we are talking about college students, a demographic that is less likely to end up on welfare than average.

I dont see the logic behind this move. Either offer this to everyone equally, or target the lower class that not only should indeed be discouraged from procreation, but they may have problems with paying for the procedure in the first place.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I don't know, perhaps it's a way of starting a program of some kind. I do think it's a bit strange as most women at that age aren't sure if they want children unless they have children already and just don't want anymore.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Are males given this opportunity to be sterilized? If not, why not?


Vasectomies are easier and cheaper.


Then again, Ive been begging my gyn and the one before this to take my uterus.. just throw it away or give it to science. Im too old to deal with this dumb thing wigging out.
Usually they will not give women elective hystorectomies due to bladder prolapse and all kinds of weird crap. Im SHOCKED this is offered to such young women knowing the future complications.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Are males given this opportunity to be sterilized? If not, why not?


Vasectomies are easier and cheaper.


Then again, Ive been begging my gyn and the one before this to take my uterus.. just throw it away or give it to science. Im too old to deal with this dumb thing wigging out.
Usually they will not give women elective hystorectomies due to bladder prolapse and all kinds of weird crap. Im SHOCKED this is offered to such young women knowing the future complications.


Because it's not the same thing. Tubal ligation is not a hysterectomy. Two different things.
edit on 19-3-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Are males given this opportunity to be sterilized? If not, why not?


Vasectomies are easier and cheaper.


Then again, Ive been begging my gyn and the one before this to take my uterus.. just throw it away or give it to science. Im too old to deal with this dumb thing wigging out.
Usually they will not give women elective hystorectomies due to bladder prolapse and all kinds of weird crap. Im SHOCKED this is offered to such young women knowing the future complications.


Because it's not the same thing. Tubal ligation is not a hysterectomy. Two different things.
edit on 19-3-2012 by antonia because: opps


Oh for some reason I was thinking hystorectomies. WHen I was in college they wouldnt give me a tubal when I asked either. Ask anyone.. they would NEVER do this in the past.

Let me add.. I was married half way through my degree and we DID ask for a tubal.. no dice.In the consultation they refused and offered the IUD.. I was maybe 20... in the 80's. The excuse was that I hadnt had any kids yet and the tubals cant always be reversed. I cant be the only one this was told to.
edit on 19-3-2012 by Advantage because: addition



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I don't have a problem if someone wants to get sterilised, but they should have to pay for it. It is, after all, a lifestyle choice. If someone really doesn't want to have children, but declines to pay for their own sterilisation, then they should just practice safe sex or abstinence.

Free healthcare should only be for non-elective procedures.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
What a load of garbage thought the liberal mantra was to get Government the hell out of the bedroom?

No no nevermind it's ok as long as the government pays for sterilization and birth control eugenics by any other name.

What a sad pathetic pro argue that is lock step with China's one child policy which the current adminstration and others seem to be supporting.

So what if it saves money they say!!!!

What a twisted sense of "morality".
edit on 19-3-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
What a load of garbage thought the liberal mantra was to get Government the hell out of the bedroom?

No no nevermind it's ok as long as the government pays for sterilization and birth control eugenics by any other name.

What a sad pathetic pro argue that is lock step with China's one child policy which the current adminstration and others seem to be supporting.

So what if it saves money they say!!!!

What a twisted sense of "morality".
edit on 19-3-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Nahh theyll make us all drive tiny electric3 seater cars ....and we cant have more than one kid cause they wont fit in the car. Or carbon tax the heck out of you for having more than one and needing a larger car.


Seriously though, if they offer he ligations, they have to offer the reversals. If the reversal doesnt work.. and the woman cant have kids when she chooses.. what then?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Birth rates are on the decline world wide which really amounts to cutting their own throats the millenials is the largest group right now but there is nothing to replace them as long as those birth rates decline which means all the revenue which those morons use to fund social programs such as this one and the many others.

will dry up.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Yes, the option for college age young folk is a good idea, but should most definitly be aimed at the poorer classes of people. Note, they did say college AGE, not college students.
This is to make it generally acceptable.
Next make it mandatory for those poorer folk to be sterilized after having 2 children.
And after that, it should be mandatory for those with little or no hope of ever earning enough to support children.

The welfare class has got to go, leaving the money to be used for those who cannot work and have no other means of support.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Watch the movie Idiocracy. People that shouldn't have kids, continue to have kids. People that should have kids, are too busy calculating when the optimal time to have them would be, they forget to pop them out.

This movie was the greatest representation of our times to date. It should have been a documentary,




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I have thought that for years long before that movie but who am i tell who can have kids and who can't?

People are going to do what they are going to do.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by boncho
 


I have thought that for years long before that movie but who am i tell who can have kids and who can't?

People are going to do what they are going to do.


It doesn't mean people can't have options.

I still think there is underlying problems to the issue though. It's not simply about serialization or other preventative measures. It really boils down to giving young people a sense of self worth so they aren't limiting their lives to diaper changing before they even have a chance to develop themselves.
edit on 19-3-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join