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.
Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by primus2012
The pill is used 99.99999999999999999% of the time for wonton sex with little risk of pregnancy. If needed for a serious medical condition, it would not be argued by anyone.
14% of pill users—more than 1.5 million women—rely on the method for only noncontraceptive purposes. • More than half of pill users, 58%, rely on the method at least in part for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thirty-one percent use it for cramps or menstrual pain, 28% for menstrual regulation, 14% for acne, 4% for endometriosis, and 11% for other unspecified reasons.
Please explain your position to the women who are suffering from endometriosis. I am sure they will appreciate that you don't take their condition as a serious one. Adhesions and infertility, are both caused by endo, and I can assure you, that they are both quite serious.
Source
The pill and abortions are major suspects in the rise/cause of a common type of breast cancer. That's a risk you're willing to take for the sake of sex?
You know what they say about assumptions.
I don't take the stuff.
edit on 16-3-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by buster2010
What can be more immoral than forcing your religious delusions on your employees.
Originally posted by Kali74
A health benefits package is part of your earnings as an employee....
If the pill was needed for a woman's medical condition, it wouldn't be covered under the planned parenthood section of the insurance coverage, it would be an OB/Gyn or dermatologist's medical prescription for treatment of a condition.
edit: it is called "birth control pill" by gosh, not "acne control pill" or "menstrual regulation pill".
Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by Kali74
This thread is severely lacking in the 'female perspective' department, isn't it?
My opinion is that reproductive health is just as important as any other health issue. Preventing pregnancy, could also be considered a part of managing the health of our 'lady' parts.
Hypothetical example: A married woman has only one kidney. Her doctors have told her it would be dangerous to her and the unborn child should she get pregnant with her current state of health. Should anyone be able to tell her that she cannot prevent a pregnancy? Why shouldn't she be able to get the pill (or IUD, or the ring, or the shot, or the patch, or the implant) because, it offends someone's religious beliefs with insurance that she pays for?
....
I hate it when people go somewhere and then throw a tantrum that its not run the way they want so they try to change it. Don't go there or work there... either LEAVE or start your OWN business, place, etc.
Since we can agree that the employees have not tried to change the company in anyway now we can deal with issue of whether employers can dictate health coverage based of religious beliefs opening the door to every religious organization to limit coverage on multitudes of treatments such as anti-depressants, diabetes medication, blood transfusion, etc. etc.
And again freedom of religion does not grant anyone the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do.
With your argument an employer who does not agree with homosexuality could deny to pay for hiv medication because it's not "mentioned in the bill of rights".
A boss who's a Jehovah's witness could refuse to pay for blood transfusions for their employees because it's against their religious beliefs.
If you open the door with this ruling then you must allow others through the door as well who object because of "Religous Beliefs".
And you didn't read the bill of rights hard enough or didn't understand it. We have both Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion in this country. Also as a plus we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Which is a huge difference. We do not allow Tyranny of the People. The majority may not infringe upon the rights of minorities.
And btw. I'm a Moderate not a Liberal. If you're going to insult me then at least get it right.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by FaithandArms
I hate it when people go somewhere and then throw a tantrum that its not run the way they want so they try to change it. Don't go there or work there... either LEAVE or start your OWN business, place, etc.
Same here I am with you on that. Thank goodness that isn’t the case here is it? This case is between the owner and the government no employees have made any statements on the matter.
Since we can agree that the employees have not tried to change the company in anyway now we can deal with issue of whether employers can dictate health coverage based of religious beliefs opening the door to every religious organization to limit coverage on multitudes of treatments such as anti-depressants, diabetes medication, blood transfusion, etc. etc.
Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by primus2012
If the pill was needed for a woman's medical condition, it wouldn't be covered under the planned parenthood section of the insurance coverage, it would be an OB/Gyn or dermatologist's medical prescription for treatment of a condition.
This is exactly what my argument was from the beginning. It should be covered for these purposes under every insurance plan regardless of someone's preconceived notions on the use of the drug.
edit: it is called "birth control pill" by gosh, not "acne control pill" or "menstrual regulation pill".
This is beside the point as many, many drugs are used for things other than their original intended purpose.
Example: Antidepressants are sometimes used to relieve pain. Beta blockers and anti seizure medications are used to treat migraines. Propranolol can be used to treat anxiety associated with fear of flying or public speaking.
He didn't say the employees can't take it, he said he is not paying for it because it violates his religious beliefs
No sir. HIV medication is medically necessary, birth control is not.
So, your comparing life saving blood transfusions that are medically necessary to save a life to taking birth control. Ok, yeah, I can totally see that.