details at Creative Minority ReportIt seems the decision is left to Kathleen Sebelius and Congress doesn't get a say which pretty much means everyone's getting contraception coverage.
The report raises the canard that an increase in contraception would lead to a decline in the number of abortions. And, of course, the Times passes this on uncritically as if this were indisputable despite every indication that the truth is the exact opposite.
In fact, this recommendation would require coverage of emergency contraceptives including pills like ella and Plan B which are abortifacients themselves. And there is no out clause for this requirement so it appears to me that Catholic and Christian institutions will be forced to cover contraceptive abortifacients and sterilization procedures.
Obamacare requires insurance companies to cover contraception and abortion pills
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This really made me upset when I read it yesterday in the AP, and I get a bit riled every time I see another reference to it. The AP was similarly all praise and thanksgiving with one line that moral objections might be raised by some people and organizations like the Catholic Church.
I'm sorry, but even if we all agreed that contraception was a non-morally suspect thing, why in hell should I pay for someone else's choice to attempt commitment-free sex? Contraception/sterilization is only a necessary preventative in the same way that a nose job is a necessary preventative for self-esteem issues.
I think, for a protest, a bunch of heavily pregnant woman should storm the White House demanding to know why they're being told they have a "disease." How can we get this to happen? I'll even make the signs. Maybe we could even have moms with newborns dressed as little germs. The MSM would HAVE to take pictures: cute kids is on the photographer's list of must-shoot. Or is that going too far?
This idea that contraception is somehow a form of health care is something that many people, especially large pharmaceutical companies, have been pushing for some time. Imagine that big cash cow to have something like 90% of women in the US hooked on hormonal contraceptives for 30-40 years. If we did the numbers I'm willing to bet they'd be astronomical. Obviously it's how corporations like Planned Parenthood are able to stay in business.
Something tells me an army of hormonal pregnant women might be one of the most frightening protests the White House has ever seen, lol!
It's called subsidiarity. I thought you were pro-labor?
Siarlys Jenkins, very well said. But I'd still go for natural method. Most contraceptives today are labeled as abortifacients. I am pro-health.
Wait — if it's up to the individual insured whether to make use of the option, why should it be paid for by insurance at all? The reason for insurance is to spread out the cost of care among a group of individuals. It's why having an 18-year-old male on your auto policy raises your rates, or why having an 85-year-old person on your health insurance plan causes the rate for the whole policy to increase.
Requiring contraception to be covered means that everyone on the plan — not just the person wanting it — pays for that coverage. In other words, it's not you who pays for your contraception. It's all of us together. Otherwise, why would you not simply pay out of pocket? Now, if all insurance companies are mandated to cover contraception, that means we don't get a conscience clause, either as an individual or as an institution. We must pay for it, like it or not. Where's my religious exemption?
Post a Comment