A couple brief points on the contraception debate

I was watching the debate last night and just thinking to myself "I doubt that women care what these 4 male politicians have to say about contraception and women's health".

I think that both conservative men and liberal women can agree that 4 aging male politicians should not, in a presidential contest, be talking about contraception.

It's critical that we take note that it was liberals who pushed so hard for a Federal Health Care program in the first place. I find it ironic, even somewhat humorous, that they now act offended when male politicians are talking about the legality or practicality of Government-funded contraception. This is exactly what they wanted, isn't it? They were the one's that voted for it! . You can't give power to politicians and then feel offended when they try to exercise that power! If you play with hot water, don't act shocked when you get burnt!

Now I want to clear a couple things up here... There is not one presidential candidate who wants to, in any way (with the possible exception of Santorum), limit a woman's ability to use birth control or contraception in any way. In a free country, you ought to be able to make these personal decisions for yourself, so again, liberal women and conservative men can agree with this: The law should not limit a woman's right to use these products. We all agree on this -- left or right.

We do, however, disagree over the definition of what a right is. I believe a woman has a right to use these products if she desires, but I certainly don't think she has an entitlement, at a Federal level, to free products or services. There is a difference between a right and an entitlement, but these words get blended together by the media, I think. I think that there is something fundamentally errant about a man in Miami being forced to pay for the birth control of a woman in Seattle. And that's exactly what the current state is, when you have a Federal Health Care plan.

So this is my opinion, that the law should not limit women from using these products, but that a women should not be entitled to these things for free, at the expense of other taxpayers. She has a right to use these things, but is not entitled to them for free.

This is just my opinion, and it's important to separate opinion from fact. My opinion is that a woman has a right to use contraception, but does not have an entitlement. I know many liberals believe, however, that it is an entitlement, and so we're destined to battle for all of eternity about the morality of one plan or the other. We have differences of opinion.

The fact, however, is the 10th amendment. The law of the land says that if the Constitution does not give power to the Federal Government, then that power is reserved for the states. So while I think it's wrong for the Government to pay for contraception, a Liberal may think that it is right. Let's have this conversation at the State level.

There's something wrong with the discourse in America when a presidential candidate, or anyone running for office at the Federal level, for that matter, is forced to talk about contraception. We ought to have discussions at the State level about what the role of Government in Health-Care ought to be.

We will all be happier, then we won't need to listen to a few aging men talk about the merits of the pill! We can focus, instead, on the important things, like the debt and deficit, jobs, and the economy. I think this is something both Liberals and Conservatives can agree on!

 

I have gone from a social conservative to something less as my kids got older and got BF/GF. I can remember the day when I had to go look for my 17 yr old daughter at 2am(due home at midnight) and found her at a girlfriends house watching a movie(cell phone dead without her knowing), that I decided that B-C was better than pregnan-C. Next day I spoke to my wife about taking her to the OBG to consider BC pills... with the additional benefit of it helping with her acne. (thumbsup!). That action did NOT make my daughter become suddenly promiscuous or change any behaviour which we carefully ingrained in her from an early age. But, like seat belts, provided her and us with a just in case protection from a situation we didn't want at the time.
Hope that makes sense... but that is my 2C on this.

Oh yeah... and NO I don't think that we need to provide free BC/abortions/etc to anyone since it isn't expensive(already govt health programs and BC pills as cheap as $4 a month) and only requires the parents, err parent, to be involved and support their own kid. The cost is probably much less than a bottle of wine... you get my idea.

 

Nice post. I especially appreciate the irony that the group who pushed for and celebrates the PPACA (Obamacare) is the same group questioning the qualification of political leaders deciding the rules on birth control. What did they expect??? But toward the end you said you don't think government should pay for contraception; my understanding is that the controversy is over the law's requiring health insurance providers to cover contraception. In my opinion, that's actually worse. I like what PPACA is meant to accomplish, but this birth control controversy has exposed some serious problems.

 

It's not possible; it's definite:

""I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young and it has I think we've seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society," he says. "Birth control to me enables that and I don't think it’s a healthy thing for our country."

Santorum, who is waging a fight with Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination, has maintained his strong views on birth control over the past six years, as evidenced by an interview with the Christian blog Caffeinated Thoughts late last year.

"It's not OK because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," Santorum said."

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...rum-contraception-gop-presidential-nomination

 

Also, those of you who complain about the cost of healthcare in this country should be joyous that birth control would be available for all. Pregnancies are much, much more expensive than a monthly birth control prescription; who ends up paying for unplanned pregnancies? Either the rest of the insured on an insurance plan (if the woman is insured), or the taxpayers via a trip to the emergency room that cannot be paid for. Add to that the social cost of raising unwanted children of the poor who are more likely to be unhealthy, uncared for, and imprisoned, and you realize that available birth control is a net gain for America.

 

This is just a common sense issue to me. I'm appalled at some of the correlations these republican candidates are making between birth control and abortion. It is not the same. Not even close. Rick Santorum is a pain to listen to when it comes to this topic. He line of thinking is about 200 years stale dated. I didn't enjoy Newts implication that BC is infanticide either. I typically support Ron Paul but when he said that the issue of contraceptives was more of a "moral" issue than anything, that set me off. The ignorance from some of these candidates on this issue is not mainstream. BC keeps teen pregnancy down and keeps babies from being born into already broken homes.

Now, should Obama have forced the Catholic churches to provide BC to their employees? Probably not, but at least he back tracked and came up with a reasonable solution instead of doing nothing.

 

I personally don't have an issue with the "reasoning" for the law. I agree with it up to a point. The line that should not be crossed is Government interference with a religious belief...not matter what the religion.

 

Yes, which is an economic decision, meaning most (if not all) health insurance providers would freely choose to include that in their coverage. The government mandating that insurance providers cover it is shortsighted and unnecessary.

 

Exactly...the Government involving themselves where there is no need to.

 

Health insurance will pay for OCs.... if they are prescribed as acne meds.... BOOM! Done!

 

Again, churches aren't required to provide birth control.

 

I'm not sure I understand this. Why would it bother you that he considers it a moral issue? For some vegans, not eating/using animal products is more than a lifestyle choice, it's a moral issue. Does it upset you that they see it that way?

Agreed. But if you're being honest, you will acknowledge that there are things you consider immoral that can't be justified by their potential positive social impact. Hate to presume, but I would guess eugenics falls into that category. I'm only trying to point out that you can't use social pragmatism to define what are moral issues for other people.

 

Eugenics isn't analogous to birth control.

 

Ron Paul's comment bothers me for the simple fact that I don't agree with it. My girlfriend uses BC and I'd hardly call her an "immoral" person. He was alluding to a belief that it's not the pills that are the issue, but rather the people using them. I just can't agree with that assertion based on the fact that BC serves as a very helpful drug that helps millions of women with hormonal issues and prevents unwanted pregnancies.

Furthermore, Santorum's implied argument that BC somehow is a causal factor for out of wed lock pregnancies is just mindblowingly ignorant. Then again, Santorum isn't exactly mainstream with many of his assertions and beliefs. If contraceptives are used properly, then the pregnancies won't happen in the first place.

 

Yes they are, they are just not required to pay for it.

 

If it is such a religious issue, then why was Viagra covered by health insurance without so much as a minor stink?

This isn't about religious freedom, this is about the control of women. "Putting them in their place."

Nobody is going to be forced to take BC. Nobody.

 

Churches are exempt. Maybe research the topic before commenting? Otherwise (like now), you step in ****.

 

Religious organizations have more holdings that just churches, but I see what you did. We were talking religious organizations as a whole and you switched it to just churches. As always you twist and spin the conversation to fit your argument.

 

Where is any church against Viagra?

It isn't about keeping BC from women, it is about making a religious organization pay for something they oppose because of religious reasons.

 

Ooops. Egg on your face.

The only interference with religious beliefs is in regards to churches. Churches should not have "holdings." They're religions, not businesses. If they want to be businesses, they can sacrifice that precious tax-exempt status altogether.

 

On what basis do you decree that religious organizations should not have holdings? ALL major religious organizations have "holding" that are not churches.

You want the tax exempt status removed from religious organizations then contact your Representatives. Religious organizations have no Constitutional rights to these exemptions. It can easily be reversed by law.

p.s. it isn't egg, it is spittle from your mindless dribble.

 

I see you've made nice trite definitions for what a Church should - or should not - be, in regards to legal protections found in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we do not have to rely on Dave1mo for these legal declarations. They already exist, and Churches are entitled to own and administer places like clinics, food pantries and counselling offices.

BTW: if 98% of Catholic women already use birth control - as I believe the Obama Regime claimed - then why is it that this is a topic? It's obvious that the need has already been met, and Obama is merely sticking his snoot into areas he has no business in.

 

What makes it a religious organization? Is it only because the businesses governing body is religious? That's all you need to make it a religious organization? No. It's business and has to be regulated just like any other business.

If you don't like how business is regulated, don't go into business. Otherwise, insurance companies (read, not the church) has to provide BC if the desired by the person who is purchasing the service.

 

It was nothing more than a Campaign trick. Obama knows that most if not all insurances cover BC....even those insurance companies used by religious organizations. He figure that he would look like he was helping women and therefore might get their vote when in reality, he was changing absolutely nothing.

The problem is that when he dictated to religious organizations, he crossed the line and got called on it.

 

Fair enough.

I can't speak for RP or anyone who considers BC immoral; but I suspect almost all of them view "the pill" when used to treat hormonal issues totally differently than when used for the sole purpose of reducing the risk of pregnancy. So the pill itself isn't what's viewed as immoral, but rather it's the attitude that people feel entitled to risk-free sex lives.