oaktree
Master of Arts
Can I reserve the right to remain silent? :boing2:Since you are wrong, isn't this post then...no wait...what?
Since you are wrong men don't give ups their rights?
Double talk....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can I reserve the right to remain silent? :boing2:Since you are wrong, isn't this post then...no wait...what?
Since you are wrong men don't give ups their rights?
Double talk....
Can I reserve the right to remain silent? :boing2:
This is simple...the federal government should not tell a private company what they can or can't sell to their customers, which includes male or female reproductive health products or treatments.
Slacker.
What took you so long?!
Why do I think most of what I said is being ignored. I thought you would do better than that. Well, anyway, to answer you:
As an aside, the actions that sparked most of these debates, the Georgetown Law student who wants the rest of us to pay for her and her fellow student's "birth control" for sexual encounters, is requesting something that is absolutely rediculous. To try and mask it as a health issue is dishonest. It is neither a health issue nor a reproductive issue. Amazing to me is how many fall for that. She claims it is a reporductive issue. Therefore, all those who believe that women should have freedom to abort a fetus, jump on the bandwagon in defense of control over reproduction. Never realizing they are arguing for free condoms for sex flings rather than reproductive rights.
Not unless there is a medical need for a hysterectomy, or signed consent by both spouses (generally) for tubal ligation. I think most doctors would require both spouses to consent to a vasectomy as well. I have no idea how they handle a single male requesting a vasectomy. Regardless, ligation is a generally held to be a reproductive issue, not a health issue.
!?
He wasn't arguing religious groups should be compelled to provide services against their morals.
Excuse me? If the mother decides she doesn't want a baby and decides to have an abortion, the father has no rights to prevent her from assassinating his child.
As I said, parallel to the discussion a group of women discussed the joys of being female, with cramps, debilitatingly so, headaches, and strong bleeding, for some for a week...with the less intrusive solution being (gasp, yes) birth control not covered by their provider.
No, it's not birth control but a hormonal medication (that may have a contraceptive side effect) that is often indicated for such ailments. If only birth control was necessary to alleviate such such issues then abstinence, caps, rings, condoms, outcourse, or withdrawal methods would work. Also, if it the medication were seen as the hormonal medication for multiple indications rather than just contraception, then may some of these more stringent religious organizations wouldn't take issue with it being prescribed for the uses other than contraception. Maybe they already don't have a problem with it, but no one has asked?
These are the same people that are pushing bills that say that doctors are allowed to lie to patients about the health of fetuses to prevent abortion, that are pushing bills that make it preferable to let women die before you start an abortion, and to make it legal for employers to ask for proof that you're seeking hormones for non-contraceptive purposes.. and, as a not-at-all-overlooked side effect, to fire you if you ask for them for contraceptive purposes.
Aren't these a couple of local bills in a couple different states. I didn't realize that they are the same people. I certainly hope the voters in those states don't support such bills as you have described.
No, it's not birth control but a hormonal medication (that may have a contraceptive side effect) that is often indicated for such ailments. If only birth control was necessary to alleviate such such issues then abstinence, caps, rings, condoms, outcourse, or withdrawal methods would work. Also, if it the medication were seen as the hormonal medication for multiple indications rather than just contraception, then may some of these more stringent religious organizations wouldn't take issue with it being prescribed for the uses other than contraception. Maybe they already don't have a problem with it, but no one has asked?
People like the Minority Whip noted in the OP always want to shift attention from the question that really matters in these cases. When is a fetus considered a human with all of the rights that accompany that distinction?
If we were only talking access to birth control and about what people could do behind closed doors, then we're discussion individual reproductive/sexual rights.
At some point, we need to have a rational discussion about when a fetus becomes a human. I've read papers from various bio-ethicists who put that line anywhere from conception to three years old. My inclination is to put the line much closer to conception.
Practically, this is why we need States Rights on the matter. Smaller groups could actually decide things and a number of solutions could be compared to each other. Eventually, I think it would all balance out.
I am pretty sure If you were doubled over in pain every single month you would bother to ask your insurance to pay for it.
Quite right. And nowhere have I said insurance should not cover it. Maybe you are thinking of other posts when you respond to mine?
No, I am talking about reality.
That even though the condition warrants the treatments, the insurance does not cover it.
Full stop.
Because it's classified as birth control.
Sucks to be female.