Supreme Court To Take Up Controversial Birth Control Cases

reply to post by windword


I have no issue with contraception at all, and think it is a good thing. The Catholic Church should provide condoms after sunday service.

I can't lie, though. I hate the ACA. I support a company joining in this, should they so choose (which I won't) just to make it hard for the government to continue ACA. I have seen the service degradation and the cost increase with my own eyes. In a business where profit margins can be less than 10%, increasing health care costs will only reduce my ability to pay for any insurance on behalf of my employees. That 70% I pay likely will be shrinking in 2015, meaning more burden on the employees.

It is unfortunate that a president who claims to be worried about the little guy is going to end up screwing the little guy the hardest here.

This isn't about "you are either for healthcare or you are not". This is about bad legislation that will do a horrible job of providing affordable healthcare to anyone. The premiums have already increased.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


One more thing: when negotiating a health plan, the way it works is this: you are asked a series of questions during risk assessments. It is decided which types of health issues are likely to occur most often, and which ones likely won't be a problem. You then shop for a plan that will allow you the greatest amount of coverage for the most items that really impact peoples lives, and you go with it.

If contraception is not seen as being important enough to warrant investment in it versus investing in a plan that doesn't have a copay for lab work, I can fully see why a company would choose to do that.

Not that it has ever happened that way. Just that a company selects plans based on how they can have the greatest impact on their employees health while remaining in a reasonable budget.

If they view the morning after pill as abortion, then surely this would also prevent women getting the coil as well.
I dont agree with abortion, but until the egg is implented it's not viable as a human being.

reply to post by WilsonWilson

If they view the morning after pill as abortion, then surely this would also prevent women getting the coil as well.

They do consider it to be the same.

According to the lawsuit: “The Green family's religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices....The administrative rule at issue in this case runs roughshod over the Green family's religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as related education and counseling.”

I dont agree with abortion, but until the egg is implented it's not viable as a human being.

That is the problem with their claim, in my opinion, and the main reason that their case should be dismissed.

According to Marty, “The lawsuit specifically claims that Plan B, Ella, and IUDs ‘can prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus, which constitutes an abortion,’despite scientific studies saying that the medications inhibit ovulation instead, and despite the fact that a pregnancy is not established unless and until an embryo successfully implants in the lining of the uterus.”

SOURCE

The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives. Since Ella is new to the market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either.

There is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception. It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan.
ncronline.org...

The pro-life community has it's eyes on all hormonal contraception, and given the chance will attempt to deny all forms to their female employee.

Here's the pro-life target list:

BIRTH CONTROL METHODS THAT MIGHT CAUSE ABORTION
Intrauterine Device (IUD) - A small device shaped in the form of a "T" that is placed inside the uterus by a health care provider. It works to prevent fertilization by keeping sperm from entering the fallopian tubes and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is less than 1%.*

Depo-Provera - Hormones delivered through injections, or shots, in the buttocks or arm every three months. It prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is less than 1%.*

Oral Contraceptives (Birth Control Pills) - Delivers hormones orally through a daily pill that prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 5%.*

The Patch (Ortho Evra) - Hormones delivered through a skin patch worn on the lower abdomen, buttocks, or upper body. It prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 5%.*

The Hormonal Vaginal Contraceptive Ring (NuvaRing) - Hormones delivered through a ring that is inserted into the vagina for three weeks at a time. It prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 5%.*

Emergency Contraception ("Morning After" Pill, Postcoital Contraception, Plan B, etc.) - Delivers hormones orally through a high-dosage pill that prevents ovulation, thickens the mucus lining so as to prevent fertilization, and thins the lining of the uterus, which may prevent implantation if fertilization does occur. The estimated failure rate is 1%.* www.abort73.com...

Of course, none of these methods cause abortion, by definition, but the pro-life community has their own definition, separate from the AMA and the medical community. The Pill's method is no different than the Morning after Pill, so if SCOTUS rules in favor of the religious, the Pill will also be on the chopping block.

You can still buy some of those things on your own though right? or no?

reply to post by windword

We're not talking about abortion, here. We're talking about contraception. Contraception is the best method of keeping abortion numbers low.

the pill/implants/patches are, or can be, forms of abortion. that is where the issue arises. it is quite possible to be on birth control and have an egg fertilized.

i do not support this. i am against it morally. i refuse to pay for such a thing.

arguing that it isn't abortion by definition is arguing semantics. the life cycle of a human begins with fertilization, and preventing that cycle from continuing--one could say "aborting" that cycle--is just as wrong as ending life at any other stage.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

One more thing: when negotiating a health plan, the way it works is this: you are asked a series of questions during risk assessments. It is decided which types of health issues are likely to occur most often, and which ones likely won't be a problem. You then shop for a plan that will allow you the greatest amount of coverage for the most items that really impact peoples lives, and you go with it.

If contraception is not seen as being important enough to warrant investment in it versus investing in a plan that doesn't have a copay for lab work, I can fully see why a company would choose to do that.

Not that it has ever happened that way. Just that a company selects plans based on how they can have the greatest impact on their employees health while remaining in a reasonable budget.

See I figured the republican solution would help actually. There are women who want this in their coverage, one is posting right here. If they decide to sell coverage over state lines and across them ect, then there is no real need for an individual to use a companies insurance plan at all. If she wants to do that she should have that choice. She pays for it, insurance company covers it, its up to her.

Nephalim

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

One more thing: when negotiating a health plan, the way it works is this: you are asked a series of questions during risk assessments. It is decided which types of health issues are likely to occur most often, and which ones likely won't be a problem. You then shop for a plan that will allow you the greatest amount of coverage for the most items that really impact peoples lives, and you go with it.

If contraception is not seen as being important enough to warrant investment in it versus investing in a plan that doesn't have a copay for lab work, I can fully see why a company would choose to do that.

Not that it has ever happened that way. Just that a company selects plans based on how they can have the greatest impact on their employees health while remaining in a reasonable budget.

See I figured the republican solution would help actually. There are women who want this in their coverage, one is posting right here. If they decide to sell coverage over state lines and across them ect, then there is no real need for an individual to use a companies insurance plan at all. If she wants to do that she should have that choice. She pays for it, insurance company covers it, its up to her.

I am all for a major overhaul of the health system. But when that is done, i don't want to see it done by the insurance companies like ACA was.

BTW, being an anarchist, not many republicans can tolerate my viewpoints.

bigfatfurrytexan

Nephalim

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

One more thing: when negotiating a health plan, the way it works is this: you are asked a series of questions during risk assessments. It is decided which types of health issues are likely to occur most often, and which ones likely won't be a problem. You then shop for a plan that will allow you the greatest amount of coverage for the most items that really impact peoples lives, and you go with it.

If contraception is not seen as being important enough to warrant investment in it versus investing in a plan that doesn't have a copay for lab work, I can fully see why a company would choose to do that.

Not that it has ever happened that way. Just that a company selects plans based on how they can have the greatest impact on their employees health while remaining in a reasonable budget.

See I figured the republican solution would help actually. There are women who want this in their coverage, one is posting right here. If they decide to sell coverage over state lines and across them ect, then there is no real need for an individual to use a companies insurance plan at all. If she wants to do that she should have that choice. She pays for it, insurance company covers it, its up to her.

I am all for a major overhaul of the health system. But when that is done, i don't want to see it done by the insurance companies like ACA was.

BTW, being an anarchist, not many republicans can tolerate my viewpoints.

See I can respect your choices too, if you're a company and you don't want to provide it, don't. I dont think anyone cares so long as the access to products and services exists. I personally don't expect a company to insure me. Just honest pay for honest work. The rest is up to me.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Thanks for letting us know your opinion on the matter.

In your opinion, every woman who is using birth control other than the barrier method, the rhythm methods or abstinence is having an abortion, possibly as often as once a month. Something like 80 percent of American women of child bearing age are using these contraception products. That's lot of abortions!

Watch out ladies and pro-choice gentlement,They're Coming For Your Birth Control!

windword
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

Thanks for letting us know your opinion on the matter.

In your opinion, every woman who is using birth control other than the barrier method, the rhythm methods or abstinence is having an abortion, possibly as often as once a month. Something like 80 percent of American women of child bearing age are using these contraception products. That's lot of abortions!

Watch out ladies and pro-choice gentlement,They're Coming For Your Birth Control!

mischaracterizing what he is saying is a form of dishonesty. If you want a discussion, thats a poor way to do it.

Just sayin'.

Legislating morality is impossible. It won't work. Abortion, birth control, dancing in public, you can't control it. They should quit trying.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I fail to see the dishonesty. Bob Sholtz thinks that public opinion should overrule the legal and medically accepted definition of pregnancy.

Bob thinks contraception can cause abortions. Bob thinks abortion is murder, and I'm guessing here, he wants to see abortion to be made illegal, therefore, most modern contraception along with it.

Bob was being intellectually dishonest in saying that the two definitions of pregnancy is just semantics. It isn't. It is a fundamental difference, one of which is opinion, and one is based on science.

White House Tries to Define Contraception As Abortion
The Department of Health and Human Services is dismissing medical experts and instead using a definition of pregnancy based on polling data.
July 16, 2008

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a woman's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS' new science

www.alternet.org...

reply to post by Nephalim

See I can respect your choices too, if you're a company and you don't want to provide it, don't. I dont think anyone cares so long as the access to products and services exists. I personally don't expect a company to insure me. Just honest pay for honest work. The rest is up to me.

Employment insurance is a part of a compensation package. The part of the premium the employer pays on your behalf is part of your compensation and is factored into your wage and the costs of doing business.

A personal bias levied by an employer to deny women the minimal standard of comprehensive reproductive health care, so that she has to seek additional, out of pocket insurance, simply because of her gender, can be seen as discrimination in compensation.

Like all compensation for a job, how that compensation is spent or put to use is the employee's perogative, not the employer's. An employer can't withhold compensation because of their disapproval of how their employee spends it.

reply to post by windword


If you wish we can discuss dishonesty on Bob Schotz part. But it doesn't negate that you mischaracterize what he is saying. Perhaps you don't understand him. But I am familiar with you as a poster, and consider you to be intelligent. So I do not think that is the case. I think it is more that abortion is a hot topic item, and that your personal experience causes an inflection of emotion on this subject.

Bob Schotz is stating that "morning after pills" are reprehensible to him. He recognizes that the "science" behind what is and is not a human child is politically motivated, and questions it. His position is every bit as valid as yours.

I think that what Bob Schotz is also saying is that contraception is fine, but he doesn't want it to be mandated that employers pay for it, or that policies must account for it in the cost model, even for those who may/may not need it. I see nothing wrong with this. ACA is a boondoggle, and dismantling it piece by piece is an acceptable methodolgy to me if we are unable to have it overturned outright.

windword
reply to post by Nephalim

 

See I can respect your choices too, if you're a company and you don't want to provide it, don't. I dont think anyone cares so long as the access to products and services exists. I personally don't expect a company to insure me. Just honest pay for honest work. The rest is up to me.

Employment insurance is a part of a compensation package. The part of the premium the employer pays on your behalf is part of your compensation and is factored into your wage and the costs of doing business.

A personal bias levied by an employer to deny women the minimal standard of comprehensive reproductive health care, so that she has to seek additional, out of pocket insurance, simply because of her gender, can be seen as discrimination in compensation.

Like all compensation for a job, how that compensation is spent or put to use is the employee's perogative, not the employer's. An employer can't withhold compensation because of their disapproval of how their employee spends it.

It is an employee benefit, not a compensation. Same as vacation time, which the employee also cannot choose how to execute. There are caveats to it, as well. And the employer (at least in Texas) is not required to buy out unused PTO/vacation time.

Compensation has historically been "taxable income". For example, regular/overtime/holiday/pto wages, bonuses, tips, etc.

Benefits are not taxed, and can actually provide some tax savings if you itemize returns and deduct insurance costs. Well...the ACA may end up changing that in the end. But for now, that is how it stands.

Benefits and compensation....two separate things that are budgeted on the same line items (and include things like regular and OT wages, holiday, pto, FICA, SUI, Medicare, SS, insurance, COBRA, and bonuses).

windword
reply to post by Nephalim

 

See I can respect your choices too, if you're a company and you don't want to provide it, don't. I dont think anyone cares so long as the access to products and services exists. I personally don't expect a company to insure me. Just honest pay for honest work. The rest is up to me.

Employment insurance is a part of a compensation package. The part of the premium the employer pays on your behalf is part of your compensation and is factored into your wage and the costs of doing business.

A personal bias levied by an employer to deny women the minimal standard of comprehensive reproductive health care, so that she has to seek additional, out of pocket insurance, simply because of her gender, can be seen as discrimination in compensation.

Like all compensation for a job, how that compensation is spent or put to use is the employee's perogative, not the employer's. An employer can't withhold compensation because of their disapproval of how their employee spends it.

You shouldnt be so stubborn Wind. Neither side should be. Listen, then think about it. If you can buy your insurance anywhere in the nation, ANYWHERE... is your 14th protected and even choice expanded? or would your rather fight with employers because you're stubborn? lol This way, the first is protected, and the 14th utilized. You GAIN this way actually. You're in more control of your insurance and your coverage.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

If you wish we can discuss dishonesty on Bob Schotz part. But it doesn't negate that you mischaracterize what he is saying. Perhaps you don't understand him.

Sigh. I haven't mischaracterized what he's saying. I think I understand him just fine, in fact, he couldn't be clearer!

(Bob Sholtz)
the pill/implants/patches are, or can be, forms of abortion. that is where the issue arises. it is quite possible to be on birth control and have an egg fertilized.
i do not support this. i am against it morally. i refuse to pay for such a thing.

bigfatfurrytexan
Bob Schotz is stating that "morning after pills" are reprehensible to him. He recognizes that the "science" behind what is and is not a human child is politically motivated, and questions it. His position is every bit as valid as yours.

Bob finds all forms of hormonal contraception to be immoral. Not just the Morning After Pill. Bob is more than welcome to his viewpoint, but, in his world, women are aborting all around him. The cashier at the grocery store may be aborting a "baby" as she's ringing up a bag of chips. The bank teller handing him a stack of 20's, could be aborting at the moment their hands touch!

Bob Sholtz
arguing that it isn't abortion by definition is arguing semantics. the life cycle of a human begins with fertilization, and preventing that cycle from continuing--one could say "aborting" that cycle--is just as wrong as ending life at any other stage.

This is where the intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Sholtz' argument lies. It's more than semantics, it's changing the definition of a medical term to suit his philosophy. It's fine to think that a fertilized egg is a person, although I disagree, but a woman isn't "pregnant" until implantation. In Vitro is a good example of that. The surrogate isn't "pregnant" until implantation.

But I am familiar with you as a poster, and consider you to be intelligent. So I do not think that is the case. I think it is more that abortion is a hot topic item, and that your personal experience causes an inflection of emotion on this subject.

There's no need to get personal here. Let's face it, this is hot topic for a number of people. And, there isn't a body of people more obsessed with women's vaginas, contraception and abortion than the GOP and the Tea Party.

I think that what Bob Schotz is also saying is that contraception is fine, but he doesn't want it to be mandated that employers pay for it, or that policies must account for it in the cost model, even for those who may/may not need it. I see nothing wrong with this.

Please read Mr. Sholtz comment again. I think that the above is what YOU think.

ACA is a boondoggle, and dismantling it piece by piece is an acceptable methodolgy to me if we are unable to have it overturned outright.

Personally, I find it unacceptable to attempt to undermine a law by attacking and oppressing the reproductive rights of women, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, to assert an agenda of religious moral high ground, and to push the "Pro-life" political agenda.

In the end, this strategy will only lead to chaos, as everyone has their own opinion of what the moral high ground is. There will be no firm legal standard, except what each individual corporate boss thinks is moral and what isn't moral for their employees.

It is an employee benefit, not a compensation. Same as vacation time, which the employee also cannot choose how to execute. There are caveats to it, as well. And the employer (at least in Texas) is not required to buy out unused PTO/vacation time.

Okay, now you're just thumb wrestling.

Employers of choice provide a comprehensive employee benefits package to attract and retain employees. In addition to a competitive salary, an employee benefits package is a standard – and expected - part of an employee total compensation package.

Health Insurance Is the Foundation of a Comprehensive Employee Benefits Package Provide Health Insurance as the Most Desired and Needed Employee Benefit

Health insurance is the foundation of a comprehensive employee benefits package. Health insurance is the preferred employee benefit of the majority of people who work.
humanresources.about.com...

An employer has no say how an employee spends their vacation time. In addition, there are times when personal days, due to all kinds of life situations, are taken on the spur of the moment, as is sick leave, without first getting approval from management to take the time off.

If an employee promised to spend X amount of dollars on each employee's health insurance, that employer doesn't, under current law, have the right to dictate the terms of how an employee uses their minimal standard coverage, based on a moral bias.

In other words, if a female employee's insurance will pay for "The Pill" as a migraine headache remedy, and she also benefits from the contraceptive aspect, it isn't fair that another woman, who only needs or wants the same drug for it's intended purpose, can't have it because her employer doesn't approve of her life style.

reply to post by Nephalim

You shouldnt be so stubborn Wind. Neither side should be. Listen, then think about it. If you can buy your insurance anywhere in the nation, ANYWHERE... is your 14th protected and even choice expanded? or would your rather fight with employers because you're stubborn? lol This way, the first is protected, and the 14th utilized. You GAIN this way actually. You're in more control of your insurance and your coverage.

This isn't about me. I haven't had the need for contraception for more than a decade. Also, I don't have an employer, I'm "somewhat" self employed to supplement my SDI.

I want to respectfully thank ALL posters for their input and opinions on the subject. Debate can be healthy!

I look forward to reading more of your comments, but I'm going to be busy for a few days. I'm doing a 3 day craft show, and will only be to check in infrequently.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


It's not semantics at all, until the egg imbeds in the uterus wall, it is not a feotus, it's just a cell.
your take on it is very very very hardcore, and i have to say i have never come across these ideas before.
It's not something that i have ever heard promoted by the pro life Lobby in the UK.
But i'm not surprised, it would be taken as someone trying to force women back into the yoke of male suppression.
I'm anti abortion, but this is way beyond the normal definition.
It's scary how people can take something which has prevented 1000's of deaths and turn it into something evil.