The New Contraception Mandate: Wrong on Every Level

Never. The purpose of Catholicism is to bring the greatest possible amount of power to the Vatican.

LAWS-JOHN popped out yet another steaming pile, which contained:

the new mandate forces health insurers to pay for the immoral use of drugs,

Yet they're strangely silent about paying for boner pills.

has anyone seen Laws-John in the comment section?

Robin he rarely moderates his own seeds except to post long diatribes that have no factual basis.

ahhh...fraidy cat is he?

They're against abortion and they're against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals? Leave these @!$%#in' people alone for christ sakes. Here is a entire group of people gaurenteed never to have an abortion.

George Carlin

Obama care provision will soon require private insurers to pay for birth control pills, and other forms of contracetion without co-pays or deductable. It also includes other health screenings for females, HPV vaccines, etc.

I personally dont care about what its providing. I care that this will jack up rates across the board not just on women in the childbearing years.

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=275211f9-123e-4684-8e71-b73ddd77d750

You can think the article is stupid all you want, but if not a mandate for contraception then why is an msn article calling it that.

You can think the article is stupid all you want, but if not a mandate for contraception then why is an msn article calling it that.

A "mandate for contraception" would mean that everyone has to use it.

The msn headline indicates the mandate is for "free contraception" (key word there: free). That is simply a mandate for no co-pays, not a madate that contraception must be used.

Big difference.

The mandate is for insurance companies, not individuals. The title doesn't point to one or the other but the seeded article and the one i linked clearly state that it is the insurance companies that have the mandate to provide free of charge contraception.

My response was to this comment

but if not a mandate for contraception then why is an msn article calling it that.

Just pointing out it's not "a mandate for contraception" and you are incorrect that the msn article called it that. "A mandate for contraception" and "a mandate for free contraception" are two different things.

Love it -- we are all forced to use contraception now.

Insurance companies can not provide free of charge contraception. Only providers--pharmacies can do that. The cost of the contraception is still covered in the premiums for the insurance... All they are doing is removing the copay element which is just the insurance companies method of squeezing out more dollars from our pockets. The trend is to move insurers to focus on prevention instead of expensive procedures that can easily be mitigated. It does not change the ability for a women to choose to get pregnant.

How is prevention of disease and pregnancy going to jack-up womens health care? Why have the health insurance companies made record profits during a recession -- is it something to do with drop in the birth rate? Hmmmm

Lord Fluffy,

Apparently not fertilizing every egg and popping out brats for God is immoral. Never mind that Pregnancy still kills hundreds of thousands of women every year!

Lord Fluffy,

Apparently not fertilizing every egg and popping out brats for God is immoral. Never mind that Pregnancy still kills hundreds of thousands of women every year!

What is also immoral is over populating the earth. Every time any species over populates, disease, starvation, and death will occur. Plus, the more children people have, the more waste we will generate. Where are we supposed to put the extreme amount of garbage that will accumulate due to over population? Over population causes children to suffer, and that is absolutely cruel and immoral.

By using that logic, insurance companies should no longer cover blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witnesses find them wrong. Or cover psych meds because some small Christian sects find them wrong (or Scientology, if you please).

Excellent points! I'll have to remember that!!! Thank you!

Regulations made by a religion can cover anything they like. Regulations made by government mandate to protect their citizens are not subject to religious test.

Catholics don't realize it's just a book written for a different time. They need to pull their heads out and work with the living.

I was trying to make a joke about guilt making it feel better, but I just couldn't come up with something sufficiently witty. But my brain is fried from work, so I just couldn't.

Sex is only dirty if it's done right. ;)

how's that?

Not bad at all. : )

thanks! hope your day gets better!

robinm85 wrote:

Sex is intended to make the good Catholic feel guilty. :)

Hell, Catholicism is the Official Religion of Fear and Guilt.

Of course it is. There is no fun without a good heaping serving of Catholic guilt!

Well, we Catholics are only supposed to have sex if procreation is unimpeded.

And from what I understand, the "seed" (sperm) must never be spilled outside of a woman's vagina.

Exactly! Masturbation is against the commandment against adultery. Figure that one out. ;)

That came from the ancient ignorance about sex. They believed men had a finite number of sperm. Since men had the obligation to provide the tribe and family with male heirs, he wasn't to waste any of his precious "seed."

The reason they called it "seed" was because they believed human reproduction was like planting a seed in the ground, where the ground provided a fertile climate for the seed to grow but did not contribute to the property of the species, like wheat.

Because of this observation, they believed men had subminiature humans already perfectly formed in their "seed" and the woman only contributed by having a "fertile" womb for the "seed" to blossom.

Because of this belief, they did not have a prohibition against female masturbation. She wasn't wasting anything precious.

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/m/monty_python/every_sperm_is_sacred.html

ROTFLOL. Thanks for reminding me of that skit. It sure stands the test of time, doesn't it?

As I've said, the only purpose of Catholicism is power for the Vatican. The more people in the world, the more people they can brainwash and control.

As I've said, the only purpose of Catholicism is power for the Vatican. The more people in the world, the more people they can brainwash and control.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine

From the few catholics I've known, they don't bother to tell the church about the adultery they commit either. Hell, I know one who invited his priest to have lunch with him and his mistress. I was sure they would all be hit by lightening. LOL

true story trm! they all go in and 'confess' so that they can turn around and do it all again next week with a clean slate so to speak :)

I believe in god, I just don't believe in religion.... to me, all religions are just out there trying to brainwash --- have faith, but don't expect the leaders of the religion to obey the rules, that's just for you peasants...........hmmm, kinda reminds me of the justice dept, now that I think about it

Yup, more "demographic winter" hysteria. Check 'em out, they have their own website. :-\

You just gotta keep having children even if the food supply cannot sustain them. /sarc

Forcing humans to bear children when they can't afford them is what is against social interests. When will these people wake up?

Probably some of them, from this side of the pond, but it see me that there are plenty over in Europe who are just as freaked out about the idea of the influx of non-white, non-Christian, immigrants overtaking their "native" population as some north-American folk are about the influx of south-Americans.

What a good Mommy! ::grin:: You know if a 'good' catholic comes on they are morally obligated to castigate you... just ignore them!

Rahlly,

I became an expert at ignoring people I had to or the kids yelling would drive me insane! hehehe :)

Indeed, I often tell people that the one great benefit of having raised kids is the ability to ignore just about anything.

Nope having the 6th baby robbed me of any energy! THAT stopped the sex!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Two was enough for me and thank goodness - second one was VERY challenging. After my tubes were tied AND his were snipped the sex was better than ever!

I was ok with only 2, but then I inherited my 2 beautiful step daughters. And then along came my 6 year old (uh-oh honey!) I said ok that is plenty! And then came our beautiful tornado and I said that is the last uh-oh!! LOL. I wouldn't trade any of them for anything in the world and I am thrilled that I have them all but I have my hands full enough now to keep me crazy tired for the next 60 years!!

And I agree about the sex being better! When I don't fall asleep before he gets home! LOL

I also had a tornado. Gratefully, he has calmed now to mostly sunny with a 20% chance of rain at any given time.

The rich won't have anyone to do thier bidding. The Catholic Church get their power from the multitudes enslaved to them.

Well said. Let's all write to them and say thanks for this. It only takes a minute using the links below. You know the forced birth crowd are writing in droves. This is from the Women's media center:

Yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed its landmark decision requiring health insurers to cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

The Women's Media Center applauds the HHS's ruling, which places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and studies support the idea that making contraception available to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

For the next sixty days, the HHS is accepting comments from the public regarding this ruling. We urge you to raise your voice and send a note to the HHS in support of birth control with no co-pays for all women.

The HHS's decision moves women's health care forward, despite a media environment where sexist rhetoric often tries to imply that responsible women who seek birth control are participating in irresponsible behavior. Just last week, Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly said, "Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex and are not going to take their birth control anyway" in a segment about this policy. (In an eerily similar tone, New Hampshire lawmaker Raymond Wieczorek said "If you want to have a party, have a party but don't ask me to pay for it" when New Hampshire recently defunded Planned Parenthood, barring thousands of women from access to birth control and other women's preventive care.) This attitude about women is dangerous.

The Women's Media Center is proud that the HHS has made a ruling that represents reality. Women need access to birth control because it is a basic part of preventive care.

Thanks, Loretta. That address just went up on my FB page.

That address just went up on my FB page.

Ditto!

Why do people think that no copay means you aren't paying for it. We still pay insurance premiums.

If it doesn't, it should. Both men and women, so women can have some handy if he doesn't arrive prepared.

But likely not since condoms are bought over the counter and don't require a prescription.

But likely not since condoms are bought over the counter and don't require a prescription.

Just so. Like the difference between aspirin and lortab. ;-)

Does anybody know if it includes vasectomies, though?

Nope, don't know. Tubal ligations too. Does insurance normally cover elective surgeries of other kinds?

If they did cover it, it would probably be a valid business decision over the long haul because once that is done, that person won't need any further birth control, maternity care, etc.

I don't know if the new policy covers sterilization, but I know that my insurance covers it partially. For vasectomy or other in-office procedure (essure), it's just our normal office visit co-pay. For tubal ligation, I'm sure it covers less since that is a surgical procedure.

If they did cover it, it would probably be a valid business decision over the long haul because once that is done, that person won't need any further birth control, maternity care, etc.

You'd think they'd be chomping at the bit to cover it, considering the cost of birthing a child.

As an interesting note, my insurance company didn't cover birth control at all. (It's a very, very small insurance company, at least around these parts) Then, I got pregnant, along with one of my husband's coworkers (both planned). I had a rather complicated pregnancy which ended up with seeing my doctor three times a week for the last month, an extra ultrasound, diabetes supplies for GD, etc. Husband's coworker also had problems and her baby was likely to have physical problems at birth. Well, this small company covers nearly 100% of ALL pregnancy related costs. A month after we both had given birth? Birth control was suddenly covered. I can't help but dream of the look on their faces after seeing our bills.

A Modest Proposal

By Jonathan Swift (1729)

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

My husband always tells me he understands why so many animals eat their young!! LOL. When I read your post to him he cracked up!! Thank you for posting that Loretta!

That was written in response to the same kind of fools complaining either women had too many children or were refusing to have children. Either way, the woman was to blame and "irresponsible."

Swift's satire and wit always makes me laugh. Wish I could write half so well.

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants…

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

I like that.

How about we derail every one of LAWS-JOHN's drop-a-steaming-pile drive-by seeds into a "spay or neuter" public service announcement?

At least there'd be some value to them.

I like the idea of variety.... oh i know, we could use one to spread the word of the FSM! (Ramen)

You could do that, but then you'd get into equal access issues.

You'd not be allowed to exclude, for example, the IPU. :)

That's a very good point, however i just made one about FSM, however we can do the same for IPU.