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.

 

Forcing People to Pay for The Contraception and Abortion of Women is a Right for Women?

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by rockhndr
 





Ok...after walking away for a moment...I am truly TRYING to understand the issue here...if I pay into a system as well as you...what makes your choice of not having the option of BC and abortion


This issue arose out of Sandra Fluke as a Democrat operative wanting a Catholic Institution (Georgetown University) to pay for her contraception. She chose this University knowing full well it did not provide for contraception, and further tried to force policy changes. Then the Obama admin invited her to testify before Congress and invited her to support their party platform of encouraging abortions and contraception. Sandra knew what she was doing when she entered Georgetown. The issue is one of forcing religious institutions, particularly Catholic to change their policy.
edit on 26-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: typo




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rockhndr
 


Unless your health is in danger, an abortion is a lifestyle choice. I would recommend to any woman to set the money for an abortion aside, so you are not in a tight spot if you should need it. Ideally put it into something safe, like bonds, so it at least does not depreciate as much with inflation.

However if an abortion is necessarry according to a doctor, then yes, it should be covered by healthcare. How many abortions does the average American woman get? I did not get one yet and while not all acquaintances would have told me about having one, I am pretty sure I have close friends whom would have told me about being pregnant or at least having had an abortion after the fact.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


did you bother to read what i posted? I said the brain doesn't develop until 6-9 weeks. After that, no I (personally) don't agree with abortion, but under 9 weeks is perfectly fine as it is not a developed human. Once the brain is formed the fetus can feel pain and have been shown to think, thus making it human. But under 9 weeks, its a mass of cells that is not conscious.

And I love how you put LIBERAL in all caps, that means you must be a conservative Fox News junkie (or close). Liberal, conservative, all labels used to divide. All irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


That is what I am saying. They can have their religious freedom by not offering the basic standard for the country but they shouldn’t be federally subsidized for their specific beliefs. That is separation of church and state.

Why should I have to pay for their beliefs? It has also been proven that insurance premiums are more to the institutions that do not offer contraception.

In short if they want government money then they have to play by government rules but they can always decline.


BTW I am trying to stick to the OP on the subject of contraception.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Alright, I am seeing a different picture here and understanding now that the reasoning is on the wall...and on THAT issue I fully agree...the religious institution should not be infringed upon in its established beliefs as a religion...and an AHHH moment just occured!! I see now how PEOPLE in that religion could not want the option in healthcare...with that said though, don't we have a seperation of church and government? Meaning, what is paid into taxes, or even government healthcare should not have to abide by the few in the religious sect? (regardless of what religion)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by rockhndr
 





Ok...after walking away for a moment...I am truly TRYING to understand the issue here...if I pay into a system as well as you...what makes your choice of not having the option of BC and abortion


This issue arose out of Sandra Fluke as a Democrat operative wanting a Catholic Institution (Georgetown University) to pay for her contraception. She chose this University knowing full well it did not provide for contraception, and further tried to force policy changes. Then the Obama admin invited her to testify before Congress and invited her to support their party platform of encouraging abortions and contraception. Sandra knew what she was doing when she entered Georgetown. The issue is one of forcing religious institutions, particularly Catholic to change their policy.
edit on 26-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: typo


Georgetown University did offer contraception, but as a result of the Affordable Care Act's passage, it pulled its coverage in protest, as did other Catholic institutions. Hypocritical much?



ky on Apr 27, 2012 at 10:10 am
Since the Obama administration promulgated a new rule requiring employers and insurers to provide preventive health care services — including contraception coverage — some Catholic institutions have taken great offense to the regulation and accused the White House of waging a war against their religious objection to birth control. The rule exempts religious institutions and affiliated organizations from providing the benefit and offers employers a year-long grace period to implement the measure.

And while some Catholic colleges have responded to the controversy by stripping contraception from their plans, Georgetown University — the nation’s first Catholic institution of higher learning — has announced that it will not adopt any changes to its health insurance policies and will continue to provide birth control coverage to its employees. In a letter obtained by ThinkProgress dated April 26, 2012, President John J. DeGioia informs the Georgetown community that the University will offer contraception “for students who require them for health reasons unrelated to birth control,” and will institute “no change to the University’s approach to contraceptive coverage for employees”:

After thoughtful and careful consideration, we will continue our current practice for contraceptive coverage in our student health insurance for the coming year, as allowed for under the current rules issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

There will also be no change to the University’s approach to contraceptive coverage for employees for 2013.
We will be monitoring further regulatory and judicial developments related to the Affordable Care Act. I hope this is helpful in clarifying a matter of concern to many of you.
thinkprogress.org...


edit on 26-10-2012 by windword because: source



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I am sure she went there to make a point on her own crusade. I would be fine with them saying but out however only after they gave back and stopped receiving federal money.


In 2007, it received about $14.8 million in federal funds for research, with 64% from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, the United States Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense.[66] In 2010, the school received $5.6 million from the Department of Education to fund fellowships in several international studies fields.[67] Georgetown University Medical Center received an additional $118.4 million from these and other government sources.[66] Georgetown's Vincent Lombardi Cancer Center is one of 41 research-intensive comprehensive cancer centers in the United States, and developed the breakthrough HPV vaccine for cervical cancer in 2006.[68]


en.wikipedia.org...-64

Surely this would be fair.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rockhndr
 


Yes, exactly. If religious people don't believe in abortions, then they shouldn't get them.Their beliefs should not dictate what non-religious people are able to do. Gay marriage is another example, if your religion says its a 'sin' to marry another dude, simple: don't marry one. But that only applies to you, not everyone around you. Religion has too much hold on social change.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
currently, I have a healthcare plan, that pays for various types of birth control...
has for quite awhile...
at least a good portion of it.
currently, I imagine there could be people within the company that I work for, or at least there could be, that have an issue with birth control, and well, I got a feeling that our policies are mingled with policies from other people, other businesses, and well, all that money is pooled together, and anyone having a healthcare need that is covered, be it birth control, or any type of medication, or this treatment or that, well, for the most part, they will cover it!!!

and like I said, it has been like this for the 7 years I have worked for this company!!

along with that, we have gov't programs to help the needy amoung us, that will help them get the treatment they need, whatever it is, and by the way, they get a better deal than we do, since we have a $3,000 deductable that has to be paid before our insurance will pay anything!!!

so, obamacare is passed, making it mandatory for insurance to carry coverage for birth control, making it, and alot of other things free....because it's preventive....

and all of a sudden the christian conservatives are up and arms...
calling the women irresponsible for desiring that their insurance cover their birth control needs...
but....well, there are many women...and men that are far more irresponsible!!!
they don't pay any of the insurance premiums, the tax payer does. they don't work, they don't need to, the taxpayer will pay for their rent, their food, their shelter, ect. and....sometimes, they chose to have baby after baby, just to avoid the gov't mandate that they get a job once their kids are old enough!!!


I have to ask this....
if you find obamacare offensive, because it mandates birth control coverage....
would you find it offensive if it didn't also??
do you find it offensive that the current insurance coverage you have now also covers birth control???
do you find it offensive to know that mine does??? thinking that maybe, just maybe, some of your money might be mingling in with mine, and be used for it???

I will say it over and over,
having kid after kid is not healthy for a women!!
those of you who are religious, need to think about just what your church is teaching women, since more than likely it is teaching them to just follow the man's lead, and do as he says!! thus, attempting to take that power to control how many kids she has out of her hands!!!
some women need medications that will severely deform developing fetuses, others need birth control because concieving a baby would be very dangerous to their health, and still others use it to help control other health problems......


well....if you can stand in the way for those women to have the same opportunities available to them for their healthcare needs, then why in hades name should I be forking money over every week out of my paycheck for anyone's elses healthcare needs??? or any other need they may have???

I pay money for my insurance!!! and then I pay more when I need the care!!!
I am responsible!!!

but, if you chose to step between me and my doctor on this one issue...
well, I can chose to step between you and yours...
and we can all see just how irresponsible I can be!!!
and then, I can have free rent, free food, free healthcare (yes birth control included), free transportation, free college, free, free, free!!!

get your danged priorities straight people!!!



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rockhndr
 


those religious institutions are made up of religious individuals though, some of them own their own businesses, have their own employees that they insure...others are employees of various businesses, ect....
so, why should the institution itself be protected, but not the individuals that make up that insutution...
if catholic charities should be protected, why shouldn't it be just as appropriate to protect the catholic individual is what I am asking...
or the jahova witness?? maybe my insurance shouldn't cover blood transfusion, just so it doesn't offend a follower of that religion???

I always thought the constitutional protections were more for individuals rights and not for institutions rights???



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I always thought the government had no business as to what goes on in the bedroom?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
This is a really silly thread. everyone that pays tax is funding something they dont agree with eg. WAR.

Here is a vid that gives another spin on the pros for abortion
www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Um people pay for their insurance plan, nothing is being provided for free. You fail to understand how insurance works.



edit on 26-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 


I am assuming you have never heard of sodomy laws or incest laws or pedophilia laws etc....
(second line)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockhndr
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Alright, I am seeing a different picture here and understanding now that the reasoning is on the wall...and on THAT issue I fully agree...the religious institution should not be infringed upon in its established beliefs as a religion...and an AHHH moment just occured!! I see now how PEOPLE in that religion could not want the option in healthcare...with that said though, don't we have a seperation of church and government? Meaning, what is paid into taxes, or even government healthcare should not have to abide by the few in the religious sect? (regardless of what religion)


Well, people have argued about separation of Church and State, but let me ask, does Obama honor separation of Church and State when he fosters and supports people like Sandra and deliberately tries to force Churches to change their policy? My thought is no he does not. That is the reason for separation of Church and State, to stop the State from controlling what religious institutions do.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Um people pay for their insurance plan, nothing is being provided for free. You fail to understand how insurance works.



edit on 26-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)


Sandra Fluke testified before Congress that Georgetown University, a Catholic Institution would not pay for her to have free contraception. That is the issue here. she wants the insurance plan to cover her contraception and have no copay or anything else like that. See?

Incidentally, perhaps you would like to know that contraceptives can cause abortions and are considered abortifacients by the Catholic Church. The person may not even know she has miscarried. This is the reason for the Catholic stand on contraceptives. The feminists know this too by the way.
edit on 26-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by rockhndr
 


those religious institutions are made up of religious individuals though, some of them own their own businesses, have their own employees that they insure...others are employees of various businesses, ect....
so, why should the institution itself be protected, but not the individuals that make up that insutution...
if catholic charities should be protected, why shouldn't it be just as appropriate to protect the catholic individual is what I am asking...
or the jahova witness?? maybe my insurance shouldn't cover blood transfusion, just so it doesn't offend a follower of that religion???

I always thought the constitutional protections were more for individuals rights and not for institutions rights???




Jehovah's Witness does not provide services like the Catholic Church. Georgetown University is a Catholic Institution, and therefore Sandra Fluke wanted them to change their policy to allow for atheists who want abortifacients.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mac420
 





Yes, exactly. If religious people don't believe in abortions, then they shouldn't get them


But the Obama admin has gotten caught up in forcing religious institutions who provide services to people to provide for contraception in their insurance plans. Where is the so called separation of church and state that liberals say they want so badly when it suits their needs(like removing the pledge of allegiance in schools).



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


OH Glory Be, you provided a link to George Soros funded Think Progress.

So why did Sandra Fluke testify before Congress on behalf of herself and others that the institution would not pay for her contraception?


There are plenty of good reasons to be annoyed. From the conservative point of view, Fluke is on the wrong side of a battle over religious freedom. Back in March, she testified in favor of a proposed Obama administration rule that would require Catholic institutions, like her own Georgetown University law school, to reject the teaching of their church and cover contraception in their university health plans -- plans not funded by taxpayers, by the way, but by tuition and other university revenues.


www.cnn.com...
And that is even from the decidedly left leaning CNN news, and the rest of the article is extremely vitriolic and leftist but at least they got this part right.
www.cnn.com...

Let us understand, that she expects the insurance co to pay out for her contraception and eveyrone else who wants it, without co pays. This means that everyone who pays into that insurance ends up sharing the costs and paying higher premiums to absorb the cost.
edit on 26-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Your argument is moot.


The rule exempts religious institutions and affiliated organizations from providing the benefit and offers employers a year-long grace period to implement the measure.


And Georgetown University did offer contraceptives through their employee health insurance benefit package. They were making a move to strip that from their health insurance as a protest to the Affordable Care Act, but they changed their minds.


President John J. DeGioia informs the Georgetown community that the University will offer contraception “for students who require them for health reasons unrelated to birth control,” and will institute “no change to the University’s approach to contraceptive coverage for employees”:

After thoughtful and careful consideration, we will continue our current practice for contraceptive coverage in our student health insurance for the coming year, as allowed for under the current rules issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. thinkprogress.org...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join