Ladies; Get Your Birth Control NOW While You Still Can

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!
--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

Don't say I didn't tell you!

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule
Now any woman’s boss can object to covering contraception on moral grounds.

NEW YORK ― President Donald Trump’s administration issued a new rule Friday that allows all employers to opt out of including birth control in their health insurance plans for any moral or religious reason, rolling back the Obama-era requirement that guaranteed contraception coverage at no cost to 62 million women. 

Requiring insurance plans to cover birth control imposes a “substantial burden” to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and could promote “risky sexual behavior” among adolescents, the administration said in its rule.

How many adolescents get their health care coverage from their employer?

a reply to: windword

Thank goodness there are some other options (

If you don’t have health insurance, you’ve still got options. Depending on your income and legal status in the U.S., you could qualify for Medicaid or other state programs that can help you pay for birth control and other health care. Planned Parenthood works to provide services you need, whether or not you have insurance. Most Planned Parenthood health centers accept Medicaid and health insurance. And many will work with you to help you pay based on your income. Contact your local Planned Parenthood health center for more information.

www.plannedparenthood.org...

www.plannedparenthood.org...

Over the counter pill access coming...

Under the ACA and Medicaid, the only FDA approved contraception covered (without copays or deductibles) are available by prescription only. Some states have expanded their coverage to include over-the-counter birth control methods, but most have not. Making birth control pills available over-the-counter is an excellent way to improve access for some people — but if they won’t be covered by private insurance or Medicaid (and aren’t priced affordably and accessible to younger women), they’ll remain out of reach for many. That’s why Sneha Barot, author of the Guttmacher analysis on OTC pill availability, recommends a comprehensive approach to expanding access: [R]ather than latching onto OTC status for birth control pills, policymakers could show their commitment to advancing reproductive health through steps such as strengthening contraceptive coverage under the ACA, supporting safety-net family planning centers, increasing funding for the Title X family planning program and advocating for additional states to adopt the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

The birth control pill is already available without a prescription in over 100 countries.

www.ourbodiesourselves.org...

Our bodies...ourselves.

a reply to: windword

Requiring insurance plans to cover birth control imposes a “substantial burden” to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and could promote “risky sexual behavior” among adolescents, the administration said in its rule.

So by this logic, the employer is the keeper of the moral code for not only their employees, but the employee's offspring as well.

Of course this only applies to sexual behavior. Purchasing "blood relics" stolen from the Middle East is fully acceptable and not morally reprehensible at all.

-dex

a reply to: InTheLight

Contact your local Planned Parenthood health center for more information.

That's an option until there are no more Planned Parenthood health centers. They are still squarely in the cross hairs of the morality legislators. And current events indicate that they aren't worried about having ready access to women's reproductive health. They can afford to pay for it in cash.

-dex

Proper sex ed will teach proper techniques without the need for pills or proceedures

a reply to: DexterRiley

what gets me is that businesses aren't people. I don't believe that the constitution extends to businesses.. it's an individual thing. we, as individuals have these rights, by allowing our employers to exercise these rights over us, then they will ultimately infringe on our rights. while a women who has three or so children might think it's immoral for her to conceive another, either because of the health risk involved, or just the economics of doing so... our healthcare system is set up so that her employer's health plan might be the only thing that is affordable to her. if her employer finds if offensive to their moral integrity to provide coverage for birth control, well, her following her conscious and moral leanings has become far more costly. or if the employee thinks it's immoral to provide health coverage to their daughter, well, again the morality of the employer trumps there own, they end up getting coverage for their daughter that includes the birth control..

if the moral beliefs of employers are to be taken into consideration, them the beliefs of those employees under him should have far more consideration than the employer and each person should be able to chose a health plan that suits their own belief...

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Proper sex ed will teach proper techniques without the need for pills or proceedures

What does proper sex ed look like for teenagers that are deemed by researchers in the field at that age as being incapable of making rational decisions due to immaturity (emotionally and physically)?

www.aacap.org...

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: windword

Requiring insurance plans to cover birth control imposes a “substantial burden” to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and could promote “risky sexual behavior” among adolescents, the administration said in its rule.

So by this logic, the employer is the keeper of the moral code for not only their employees, but the employee's offspring as well.

Exactly! I just posted a separate thread on this news, and addressed that in my OP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Proper sex ed will teach proper techniques without the need for pills or proceedures

What does proper sex ed look like for teenagers that are deemed by researchers in the field at that age as being incapable of making rational decisions due to immaturity (emotionally and physically)?

www.aacap.org...

By that logic, raise up the age of consent to 18. I'm for that.

Basically what got me through 16-39...pulling out and condoms.

a reply to: Butterfinger

Proper sex ed will teach proper techniques without the need for pills or proceedures

If I recall correctly, what's currently taught in what passes for "sex ed" is complete abstinence. I think that was a requirement put in place by the current crop of moral legislators.

By that logic, raise up the age of consent to 18. I'm for that.

Isn't that already the age of consent?

Basically what got me through 16-39...pulling out and condoms.

Props to you on that my friend! When I was in that age group, that kind of control was certainly not an option for me.


-dex

The age of consent would have to raised higher than that according to research.

It is widely debated as to which age the brain is considered “fully mature” or developed. In the past, many experts believed that the brain may have been done developing in the mid to late teens. Then along came some evidence to suggest that development may last until at least age 20. These days, a consensus of neuroscientists agree that brain development likely persists until at least the mid-20s – possibly until the 30s.

mentalhealthdaily.com...

a reply to: DexterRiley

Age of consent seems to be mostly 16-17 in most of the US
en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said about Proper sex ed, we could avoid most of this. I didnt mean to imply what we have is good, rather the opposite.
Overhaul abstinence promotion and safe sex.

I have 2 kids that were planned and it didnt take more than 2-3 sessions to get pregnant.

23 years of sexual activity, 15 years of marriage included I have been able to stay clean and purposeful on pregnancies.

If someone is getting pregnant or STDs left and right, its either on purpose, or they need to be educated in proper sex ed.

I said 18 because thats the stepping off point for "adulthood" in regards to other rights.

21 to drink in some states.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
I said 18 because thats the stepping off point for "adulthood" in regards to other rights.

21 to drink in some states.

Right, and the age of 18 was selected due to past research. The new research suggests mid-20's and for some into the 30's.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: DexterRiley

Age of consent seems to be mostly 16-17 in most of the US
en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said about Proper sex ed, we could avoid most of this. I didnt mean to imply what we have is good, rather the opposite.
Overhaul abstinence promotion and safe sex.

I have 2 kids that were planned and it didnt take more than 2-3 sessions to get pregnant.

23 years of sexual activity, 15 years of marriage included I have been able to stay clean and purposeful on pregnancies.

If someone is getting pregnant or STDs left and right, its either on purpose, or they need to be educated in proper sex ed.

That's not entirely true. What about women who must take antibiotics which counteract the pill's effects? What about women with thrombosis unable to take the pill and unwilling to suffer with other birth control options (IUD = torture / cup = unreliable / condom = unreliable / pulling out = really?)? Now let's keep in mind sex ed is for teenagers not adults - so after 18 or 21 drinking time - what comes into play, is irresponsible play.

Next stop, repeal of Rowe vs Wade. No more abortion of unborn children!