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.
If they view the morning after pill as abortion, then surely this would also prevent women getting the coil as well.
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.
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.”
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...
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...
We're not talking about abortion, here. We're talking about contraception. Contraception is the best method of keeping abortion numbers low.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.