Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent (some States), page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:07 AM by jeantherapy

reply to post by RobinB022

You're right of course, nowhere is the age of consent officially lower than 16 in the US. Oh and 'down there' isn't a term I use because maybe some people don't hang their maps with north closest to the ceiling.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:10 AM by karen61057

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen

Ahhh, Obamacare. ACA. It's just designed to help people who can't get insurance.

I mean, there's no social engineering or attempts at manipulating the populace or anything like that.

No and from the title of the thread you'd think that they were strapping 15 years olds to the operating table to remove their uterus. When all it says is that 15 years old is old enough to consent.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:11 AM by gwynnhwyfar

reply to post by reverandrandy

PLEASE, for the love of children. Sterilize those who claim motherhood to be too much for them, this number will still be too small compaired to all the women that should make the decision to be sterilized.

Here here! No matter how much some folks want to stick their heads in the sand, the kids are having sex. Isn't it a clue that there is even a reality show about teen moms? If they want protection or sterilization, and this will let them get it, more power to them. I'm all for it.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:14 AM by tkwasny

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Obamacare is part of a greater de-population agenda. What else will it take to convince people? I am just amazed at the volume of people who are accepting this. Do people have some kind of misguided idea that it's not doing what it is doing, or that it's some kind of crazy collateral for the supposed benefits touted by the Democrat Party?

Eugenics on a grand scale has always been a part of the progressives mantra. Not just some Democrats. It's way worse than that.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:15 AM by jeantherapy

hey I thought this was kind of interesting, from wiki:
" Vermont

The age of consent in Vermont is 16.

Title 13 V.S.A. § 3252.[84]

Sexual assault:

§3252(c) No person shall engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 16, except:

where the persons are married to each other and the sexual act is consensual"

Apparently it's all good if you marry them. Just another reason why I will continue boycotting marriage.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:18 AM by CynicalDrivel

reply to post by paleorchid13

Uh, yes there is. You ever saw the skit "Every Sperm is Sacred?" There's still Catholics and a few other Christian groups that hold to the idea that sex is for procreation, because God knew you before you were in the womb, and this is as bad as abortion, to those of that mindset.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:19 AM by Kangaruex4Ewe

Originally posted by Ameilia
I wanted my tubes tied when I was 18 years old. I was willing to pay for this, as an it's optional procedure. I would have even been happy to finance it and pay interest. Doctors refused because I was "so young I will change my mind."

I wanted my tubes tied when I was 25. See above.

I'm now 31. That's 13 years of wanting to be fixed I'm still "too young" as of 6 months ago.

So exactly when do *I* get to decide what I want to do with *my body* you ask?

Apparently sometime when I'm past reproductive age. You know, when it no longer matters...

Let em get sterilized if they want to. It's their choice, their body. At least this way they will have access to the medical procedures they should have access to.

This is the only part of Obamacare I've heard of that I actually agree with.

Amen. At 20 I wanted mine tied right after my first was born. Nope. Too young. Might change your mind. At 22 I wanted them tied after my second. Nope. Might change your mind. Ludicrous. 20 is plenty old enough to make the decision IMO and I am 35 now. I feel your pain. I still remain "untied".

Mainly to OP.... 15 however is a bit young IMO. My daughter will be 15 in November. She has said she doesn't want kids for years. I could see her wanting this and then maybe regretting it because she is still so young and hasn't even had a boyfriend or started dating yet. I don't care if she chooses to never have kids. I think people who feel that way are wise to follow that feeling...but 15 is just wow.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:29 AM by CynicalDrivel

reply to post by HamrHeed

Actually, there's studies that show that giving birth lowers the chance for cervical cancer.

reply to post by Ameilia

As long as it stays your choice, then yes, it's good. People are looking at the potential for abuse due to a problem with the way thing are worded.

Besides, most procedures are reversible.

reply to post by reverandrandy

Yeah, can vouch for it. Almost everyone I've talked to that wanted theirs removed, couldn't get it. But if they want their tubes tied? Sure.

But to most doctors, it's like asking to get your arm surgically detached, when there's nothing wrong with it.

reply to post by karen61057

There is one couple that each separately got their tubes tied, at different times, and each had it grow back..3 kids, each roughly 10 years apart. Mind you, this is before the burned (scarred) the ends.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:34 AM by ValidInquiry

I really don't see a problem with this as it can be seen as a economic problem, but at the same time I don't see why anyone would buy into it when normal uses of contraception exist for the same age group. But that's just me.

This is of course putting my thoughts of social engineering/gene therapy aside.

edit on 11-8-2012 by ValidInquiry because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 11:34 AM by AnIntellectualRedneck

I have a hard time having an issue with this. I mean, it ultimately is the 15 year old that is going to be the one dealing with the consequences of the decision.

If there's an accidental pregnancy from either accident or rape, it's ultimately the 15 year old that has to deal with the consequences. Sure, the parents are probably going to help a lot if they're a normal family, but there's nothing that really mandates that they do so.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 12:19 PM by OptimusSubprime

I read the section and it is very vague. The word sterilize or sterilization is not in there at all, so where is this story coming from?

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 12:51 PM by PsykoOps

reply to post by jeantherapy

reply to post by RobinB022

reply to post by jeantherapy

I was under the impression that it only applies if the other party is older? If you guys are right then that makes probably 90% of the population felons

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 12:54 PM by sealing

"Obama eats white baby with one hand and drowns white Christian kitten with the other!"

Now see that's a perfect 10.0
In the spirit of the Olympics
I'm gonna score this thread a 7.0* out of 10.

*7.0 was tabulated by by combining your Outlandish score with Distorted Facts score.
Had you left the ability to check what the issue really is out,
(birth control pills, not forced sterilization)
you may have scored a 8.5

Remember, less facts (if possible) and more scare !
Good luck !

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 01:26 PM by fnpmitchreturns

Another thread where the spin is "mandated"?

I wonder how many actually read what even the OP quoted?

Here is a vital piece you all glossed over... healthcare plans are required to carry this coverage .....

it is not mandated anything but that you have have it in you plan ....... I imagine that people and companies use their businesses to further their social engineering goals.....

because you have insurance for cancer treatments does that mean your mandated to get cancer?

that all health care plans in the United States--except those provided by actual houses of worship organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for churches per se--must provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives to “all women with reproductive capacity

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 01:33 PM by Advantage

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Advantage

A legal issue then.

The reason why age is a factor is because someone younger cannot make the correct unbiased choice. Yet now that they can, who's libel for it if they change their mind?

The government?
The facility where it occurs?
The parents?

Thats what I think. a legal issue. If a female child can not enter into a contract until she is 18, and can not make her own medical decisions by law and anyone who has sex with her at 15 is guilty of stat rape.. then the legality of it is an issue IMO. They woudl have to make it possible for a 15 yr old to make her own medical decisions as a minor and change the age of consent. PLUS make it possible for 15 yr olds to enter into a contract.. which would be a major cluster f.. erm.. mess.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 01:35 PM by Advantage

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
I have a hard time having an issue with this. I mean, it ultimately is the 15 year old that is going to be the one dealing with the consequences of the decision.

If there's an accidental pregnancy from either accident or rape, it's ultimately the 15 year old that has to deal with the consequences. Sure, the parents are probably going to help a lot if they're a normal family, but there's nothing that really mandates that they do so.

Tying her tubes or sterilizing her otherwise sure as heck isnt going to prevent, treat or mitigate the rape. It will also be way too late to prevent the pregnancy. This is one of those well thought out future choice decisions that 15 yr olds are notorious for not having the capability to make.

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 01:50 PM by RealSpoke

Good. You ever see how horrible the mothers lives are and the babies? Just watch "Teen Mom".

But there is nothing talking about sterilization in Obamacare that I can see, OP can you point this out?

edit on 11-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 03:16 PM by xuenchen

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Good. You ever see how horrible the mothers lives are and the babies? Just watch "Teen Mom".

But there is nothing talking about sterilization in Obamacare that I can see, OP can you point this out?

edit on 11-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

The "mandate" is that Insurance pays now. Not that all girls get sterilized

(and people are "mandated" to pay for the insurance policies pretty soon)

The "decisions" are made by HHS. The law gives Aunt Kathy (and future HHS Secretaries) the power.

The "sterilization" wording is in the HHS "rules" and "regulations".

The issue people are having is the age of decision without a parental consent.

It looks like there are conflicting laws and different ages in some States.

See page 1..... www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 03:37 PM by ElectricUniverse

reply to post by paleorchid13

Wow...talk about a gullible, insensitive argument... Many of these girls are not even given the choice if they are wards of the state... they are just told, "here sign this", and they are sterilized without their consent, and you are fine with it?...

No wonder the world is in so much trouble wiht insensitive, and EVIL people thinking like this...

reply posted on 11-8-2012 @ 03:38 PM by ElectricUniverse

reply to post by xuenchen

Can you imagine what would happen when the girls turn into women and want to have children, yet they have no more the choice to get pregnant?... Naaa, that will never happen... It's not like women change their minds when they become adults right?...

edit on 11-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)