Religious freedom and contraception

[xjx388]

It's one of the most cost-effective forms of birth control available. What does that have to do with whether it should be distributed over the counter?

My point was that it's affordable to go to a doctor and have an IUD implanted.

There's a reason that most forms of birth control (other than condoms) require a prescription.

-Bri

For implantable forms of BC, obviously you need a doctor. But it has been argued that oral contraceptives could be safe for OTC use.

 

[leftysergeant]

The IUD costs about $200-$400 to put in and last several years. It's affordable for the vast majority of women even without insurance.

Bandaids and plaster of Paris are cheap.

Monitoring too assure that there is no tissue damage from a slipped IUD isn't.

 

[leftysergeant]

For implantable forms of BC, obviously you need a doctor. But it has been argued that oral contraceptives could be safe for OTC use.

But very few people who think that are bright enough to get into med school.

 

[xjx388]

Banaids and plaster of Paris are cheap.

Monitoring too assure that there is no tissue damage from a slipped IUD isn't.

Insurance doesn't have to cover the actual implantation, but checking it would be covered under your annual check up. Same thing with oral contraceptives. You can ask your doctor at a covered annual visit about which one is right, go out and buy it and then the monitoring can be covered under normal medical benefits.

See how easy that was?

 

[xjx388]

But very few people who think that are bright enough to get into med school.

You'd be surprised.

 

[tyr_13]

Why are religious groups required to pay minimum wage in these hospitals? GO!

 

[xjx388]

Why are religious groups required to pay minimum wage in these hospitals? GO!

Because it's not against their religious practices to do so.

 

[RandFan]

It follows just fine. In fact, just about everyone on here is effectively saying that the Church should not be free to practice it's religion; i.e., refuse to provide Birth Control.

Wait, so when the govt dictates that Jehovah's Witnesses can't deny children transfusions they are no longer free to practice their religion? Practicing religion is an all or nothing proposition? I don't buy it. If that is true then I'm sorry. Religion doesn't get a pass to do anything they want under the auspices of religion.

 

[tyr_13]

Because it's not against their religious practices to do so.

Ah, but religious groups are not required to pay minimum wage to religious workers in the church. And the normally don't from what I've seen. So why do they have to for the hospitals?

There are a lot of things that are against religious practices that the hospitals have to do by law as well. There are a lot of things that are against religious practices that even churches themselves have to do or not do.

 

[leftysergeant]

Not as dangerous and stupid as you think.

Link
Link

Anarchocapitalist twaddle. I can't find much about Grossman that he did not put on the web himself and that ditz Postrel has no relevant credentials.

 

[leftysergeant]

You'd be surprised.

Little Dickie Gage has that many people on board with his whackadoodlery.

 

[Bri]

My point was that it's affordable to go to a doctor and have an IUD implanted.

Only after you changed the arguent. The one to which I was responding is the argument that birth control should be over the counter. Still, $400 is more than a lot of people can afford up front (and IUD's can cost as much as $800 including insertion), so what you consider "affordable" depends on how much money you make and what your expenses are. So you're not making your case that requiring health insurance to cover the cost won't increase access to IUD's for some women.

For implantable forms of BC, obviously you need a doctor. But it has been argued that oral contraceptives could be safe for OTC use.

Sure, it's been argued (you just argued it). However, the FDA believes (based on the opinions of experts) that determining which of the myriad forms of oral contraceptives is appropriate isn't something that the average person should be doing. Not only do different oral contraceptives contain different hormones, but they contain different levels of those hormones. Getting the correct balance of efficacy, cost, and side-effects (both beneficial and detrimental) isn't particularly trivial, and needs to be monitored by a doctor. The consequences of getting it wrong can be serious.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Because it's not against their religious practices to do so.

So if it were against my religion to pay minimum wage to my employees, I wouldn't have to? What about if it's against my religion to pay taxes? What if it's against my religion to provide safe working conditions?

The Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment are often in opposition, and there are many cases (most recently in a 1990 decision called Employment Division v. Smith) where the Supreme Court has ruled that if a law is “neutral and generally applicable” (meaning that it is not specifically targeted against any religious group) individuals must comply with it even when doing so imposes a burden on their free exercise of religion.

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

Wait, so when the govt dictates that Jehovah's Witnesses can't deny children transfusions they are no longer free to practice their religion? Practicing religion is an all or nothing proposition? I don't buy it. If that is true then I'm sorry. Religion doesn't get a pass to do anything they want under the auspices of religion.

Correct. But there is a much more compelling public reason to force Jehovah's Witnesses to transfuse their kids. A child can't make those decisions for themselves so the State has to act on their behalf. But you can't force an adult to do the same thing.

There is no equivalently compelling public reason with Birth Control. There are very few, if any, women in America who have absolutely no access to any form of BC. And I'm all for increasing access to include those women. But the reality is that the women who absolutely cannot afford BC right now are likely very poor and not covered by insurance anyway. So a mandate is not helping them. In fact this mandate will only provide birth control to women who already have access to doctors and can afford to purchase it on their own.

If you want to increase access, support Planned Parenthood and other Women's Health clinics that offer BC on a sliding scale. They exist, they are private and they need your help right now. I donate to them regularly.

 

[xjx388]

Anarchocapitalist twaddle. I can't find much about Grossman that he did not put on the web himself and that ditz Postrel has no relevant credentials.

Little Dickie Gage has that many people on board with his whackadoodlery.

Handwaving. Many medical experts feel that BC can be given OTC. You haven't given any compelling arguments why this is "whackadoodlery."

 

[crimresearch]

Correct. But there is a much more compelling public reason to force Jehovah's Witnesses to transfuse their kids. A child can't make those decisions for themselves so the State has to act on their behalf. But you can't force an adult to do the same thing.

There is no equivalently compelling public reason with Birth Control. There are very few, if any, women in America who have absolutely no access to any form of BC. And I'm all for increasing access to include those women. But the reality is that the women who absolutely cannot afford BC right now are likely very poor and not covered by insurance anyway. So a mandate is not helping them. In fact this mandate will only provide birth control to women who already have access to doctors and can afford to purchase it on their own.

If you want to increase access, support Planned Parenthood and other Women's Health clinics that offer BC on a sliding scale. They exist, they are private and they need your help right now. I donate to them regularly.

Ahhhh... So *other* religions can have their religious objections overridden for 'good reasons', just not Catholics.

In other words, you want Congress to make a law respecting one establishment of religion, and infringing on the free exercise of others.

And you expect people to be gullible enough to fall for your claim that the 1st Amendment endorses that.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Neally]

Your premiums went up mostly as a result of rising health care costs. You failed to mention that.

Also known as lying by omission.

Still trying to parse my words to avoid the fail I see. I said nothing about the percent, proportion, etc, which is what you cite tries to deal with.

How am I back-pedaling? Do you honestly think I didn't realize my cite didn't attribute some of the increase to Obamacare?

Well, yes, that or you assumed that you could try to force my statement to fit the argument that the cite dealt with, which was the proportion of the increase attributable to general costs increase and to new requirements.

Unlike certain partisan zealots, I unable to take an honest look at this issue and discuss it. I never claimed Obamacare hasn't resulted in premium increases, merely challenged the notion that it is the sole, or even primary, reason for those increases. Your post suggested it was.

Well sure, after you've been forced to see that you cite actually supported my statement.

The cost-saving measures of Obamacare - or even really the law itself - haven't gone into effect yet.

But your position is clear.

If something is broken, it's Obama's fault.

If something was already broken, it's Obama's fault for not fixing it yet.

My health plan broke because of Obamacare, and I'm doubtful that anything down the line will fix it. Maybe you can tell me?
My health cost depend primarily on:
1. Doctor visits. How will Obamacare lower those? Is my doctor going to start charging less for a visit? How?
2. Hospital costs. How will Obamacare lower those? Are hospitals going to start charging less for a stay? How?
3. Drugs, tests, medical devices. Are pharmaceutical companies, device manufactures, a medical labs going to start charging less for their products or services? How?

That's what they want you to believe. They just need to find an excuse to jack up their prices. They probsbly cover a lot of other things that you do not want just because they are bloody expensive, so that the 20% they skim off the top is bigger.

Um no, your wishful thinking and hand waving don't cut it. I actually read my policy and the the coverage. But they probably have no problem with Obamacare. It forces new things to be added to the policy, they pass on the cost + the average of 3% profit they earn on the sale.

Why can't they just buy it? It's less than $10 . . . and they can get it free from Planned Parenthood and other sources. Why must everything be provided to them through health insurance?

Well because, it's a right, it must be free! Not having it would be an assault on every woman in America. Or something.

The Canadian system was often criticized during the health care debate, as were the UHC systems of other nations. Many of the criticisms were at best half-true, if not outright falsehoods, such as the infamous IBD editorial which stated that Stephen Hawking would surely have died had he been subject to the awfulness of the British NHS.

Boiled down, the arguments against UHC systems was Socialism!!!!

Yet if the Canadian system was so much superior it should have prevailed. But of course, we couldn't take the time to carefully discuss and analyze the data, look at the pros and cons. We had to do something now! Right now! Thus the monstrosity of Obamacare was born.

 

[RandFan]

Correct.

"Correct"? There is no freedom of religion in the US?

There is no equivalently compelling public reason with Birth Control.

Are you and I going to go around in circles? Really? You've made an argument and I've indicated that I understand the argument and have conceded that it isn't without merit. I disagree with your conclusions. I'm not sure what a rehash will accomplish. My point was to ask you if freedom of religion is an all or nothing proposition. My understanding is that yes, you do believe that. I find such absolutes silly and unhelpful but okay.

 

[xjx388]

Ahhhh... So *other* religions can have their religious objections overridden for 'good reasons', just not Catholics.

What is the 'good reason' for mandating BC coverage?

In other words, you want Congress to make a law respecting one establishment of religion, and infringing on the free exercise of others.

No. I want the government to leave religious practice alone entirely unless there is a compelling public need.

And you expect people to be gullible enough to fall for your claim that the 1st Amendment endorses that.

Why am I not surprised?

Because you haven't read the 1st Amendment and you haven't looked at all the cases where SCOTUS has upheld religious practice over public interests: Wisconsin vs. Yoder, for one.

 

[xjx388]

"Correct"? There is no freedom of religion in the US?

No. Correct as in sometimes a compelling public need that overrides freedom of religion.

Are you and I going to go around in circles? Really? You've made an argument and I've indicated that I understand the argument and have conceded that it isn't without merit. I disagree with your conclusions. I'm not sure what a rehash will accomplish. My point was to ask you if freedom of religion is an all or nothing proposition. My understanding is that yes, you do believe that. I find such absolutes silly and unhelpful but okay.

It's not all or nothing but I think the public need has to be very compelling before we override religious freedom. I don't think mandated BC coverage meets a compelling enough public need when there are other ways to ensure women get what they want.