Religious freedom and contraception

[crimresearch]

Unwanted pregnancies are a reality. Are there people who really don't get that?

Well apparently as long as there is any other option, like abortion, some people are fine with it.

 

[xjx388]

Unwanted pregnancies are a reality. Are there people who really don't get that?

I get it. But if a man and a woman have sex, even with birth control, there is a possibility (however slight) that pregnancy will occur. If you truly don't want to have a baby, the only 100% effective birth control method is not to engage in intercourse (unless you opt for sterilization, of course). No one can dispute that truth.

And it's funny to me that everyone has ignored another reality: STDs. Hepatitis B, Herpes, HPV and HIV are incurable. Others are treatable but dangerous if undiagnosed. That's the real public health threat and it's completely ignored. Oral contraceptives do absolutely nothing to prevent these conditions. For that you need condoms -and those aren't part of the public debate.

Funny, that.

 

[RandFan]

I get it. But if a man and a woman have sex, even with birth control, there is a possibility (however slight) that pregnancy will occur. If you truly don't want to have a baby, the only 100% effective birth control method is not to engage in intercourse (unless you opt for sterilization, of course). No one can dispute that truth.

Here is some more truth. People make bad decisions. Those bad decisions have ramifications for society and business. Seeking to punish people (or demand that they alone accept the consequences) is just delusional. It's biting your nose to spite your face.

And it's funny to me that everyone has ignored another reality: STDs. Hepatitis B, Herpes, HPV and HIV are incurable. Others are treatable but dangerous if undiagnosed. That's the real public health threat and it's completely ignored. Oral contraceptives do absolutely nothing to prevent these conditions. For that you need condoms -and those aren't part of the public debate.

Funny, that.

Doesn't change the facts that policies in question are good thing is reality. I agree with you about condoms but that's another thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

Medical professionals have consult with their patients, women, and determine what treatment or preventative measures are necessary. Now you can stick your fingers in your ears and sing Yankee Doodle Dandy all day about the net cost to society, and I'm betting you will keep doing so, but this is again an issue where conservatives are dead set against the findings and advice of the relevant professionals.

What findings? That contraceptives are useful and effective? I'm not disputing that. Findings that including insurance coverage makes much of a cost difference? Sorry, but that is very much NOT a settled fact. Yes, some women get pregnant when they don't want to, and that's not a good thing. Guess what, tyr: some women will do that even with coverage.

There are many conditions were medication is supplied to prevent.

And yet, that's not what you chose to contraceptives this too. One wonders why.

There are also many things that at one time the attitude was, 'screw you if you don't have the foresight', to say have clean water, or a minimum wage.

Generally speaking, if you don't have the foresight to buy your own contraceptives, you don't have the foresight to get them even if they're free. Unlike the scenarios you mentioned, this isn't a matter of people not being able to afford contraceptives. People CAN afford them. The question is use, and nothing about coverage will make people magically start using it. Every argument you have made falls down in the face of this rather simple fact: contraceptives are affordable even without insurance coverage.

What society provides evolves when it's found that it's simply better for everyone to suck it up and not hurt everyone just to make sure some people are 'properly punished' for their actions.

Society has also evolved to provide something when a special interest can succeed in rent-seeking. Your axiomatic faith in progressivism is not persuasive.

But then again, conservatives know better than them about this, and better than the professionals about sex education (which you must be against too for the exact same reasons on the same subject as this subject right?) and better than the professionals about global warming.

This isn't about sex education. Go start your own thread about sex education if that's what you want to discuss. Nor is this thread about global warming. There are plenty of threads for that already. And since you have failed so colossally in understanding what I've said about the actual topic of this thread, it should come as no surprise to anyone that your conclusions regarding my opinion of those subjects has no connection to reality.

But you probably can't hear over your singing.

You have absolutely no idea what I think. You have made that abundantly clear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here is some more truth. People make bad decisions.

If you don't buy contraceptives when you could easily afford it (and anyone with a job can), then the truth is that you're unlikely to go to your insurance provider to get it either. Yes, people make bad decisions. And insurance won't stop people from making bad decisions either.

 

[leftysergeant]

I get it. But if a man and a woman have sex, even with birth control, there is a possibility (however slight) that pregnancy will occur. If you truly don't want to have a baby, the only 100% effective birth control method is not to engage in intercourse (unless you opt for sterilization, of course). No one can dispute that truth.

And it's funny to me that everyone has ignored another reality: STDs. Hepatitis B, Herpes, HPV and HIV are incurable. Others are treatable but dangerous if undiagnosed. That's the real public health threat and it's completely ignored. Oral contraceptives do absolutely nothing to prevent these conditions.

STD is not a concern in a monogamous relationship.

It is a concern in rape. Being on the pill leaves one less thing for a rape victim to worry about.

 

[Neally]

There are many conditions were medication is supplied to prevent.

Which is why I demand insurance coverage for free running shoes. Good ones. They aren't cheap you know. And used properly, which I promise I will, they will give me all the preventative health benefits that exercise bestows.

Unwanted pregnancies are a reality. Are there people who really don't get that?

And it's about time that all insurance will offer free contraceptives, otherwise the population in the USA would be exploding with the fact that no one could and would be able to buy them previously.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you don't buy contraceptives when you could easily afford it (and anyone with a job can),

You're still begging the question. You just pooh-pooh testimony to the contrary and you offer exactly nothing as evidence to support the claim you keep making.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which is why I demand insurance coverage for free running shoes. Good ones. They aren't cheap you know. And used properly, which I promise I will, they will give me all the preventative health benefits that exercise bestows.

Good luck with that.

I hope you don't think it's on topic as an argumentum ad absurdum. Supporting the contraceptive requirement does not rely on an underlying premise that says we should require coverage for absolutely anything that might have a preventative health benefit. I think the societal benefits vs cost of easier access to contraception are easily distinguished from the potential societal benefits vs cost of free running shoes.

 

[tyr_13]

Which is why I demand insurance coverage for free running shoes. Good ones. They aren't cheap you know. And used properly, which I promise I will, they will give me all the preventative health benefits that exercise bestows.

And it's about time that all insurance will offer free contraceptives, otherwise the population in the USA would be exploding with the fact that no one could and would be able to buy them previously.

You do of course realize that if your doctor prescribes special running shoes, many forms of insurance will cover them, and almost all will pick up some of the cost don't you? See the doctors get to decide what's medically necessary, not the church.

 

[crimresearch]

I get it. But if a man and a woman have sex, even with birth control, there is a possibility (however slight) that pregnancy will occur. If you truly don't want to have a baby, the only 100% effective birth control method is not to engage in intercourse (unless you opt for sterilization, of course). No one can dispute that truth.

And it's funny to me that everyone has ignored another reality: STDs. Hepatitis B, Herpes, HPV and HIV are incurable. Others are treatable but dangerous if undiagnosed. That's the real public health threat and it's completely ignored. Oral contraceptives do absolutely nothing to prevent these conditions. For that you need condoms -and those aren't part of the public debate.

Funny, that.

Still moving those goal posts.

This isn't about sex, or about abstinence to prevent STDs, or buying food.

This is about your claims of a 'constitutional right' to force Catholic doctrine into the medical treatment of non-Catholics by law.

You've been asked repeatedly if that extends to other religion's prohibitions on medical treatment, and you've run away every time.

 

[Craig24]

Religious freedom and contraception

I am trying to make sense of the idea that requiring employers to provide contraception violates the first amendment. Does the reasoning go something like this:


The employers money might support an action the employer finds morally objectionable on religious grounds. Since SCOUTS has ruled that money equals speech, then withholding money is also a form of speech or expression. In this case religious expression. The employer is denied freedom to express themselves by non-contribution.


Please tell me this is inaccurate.

This narrows the focus to one concerning freedom of speech and conscience as opposed to the broader, more fundamental right to one's own life, from which all other rights are derived. The right to property and freedom of trade and contract is the right abrogated by mandates to cover .. well anything. Contraceptions happen to be the item under discussion but it wouldn't make any difference to me if the mandate proposed seeks to force insurerers to cover tylenol or viagra or any other drug or medical service. It's beneficial to consumers when these things are covered but it shouldn't be legally required. I'll just end it there and let this all sink in.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This narrows the focus to one concerning freedom of speech and conscience as opposed to the broader, more fundamental right to one's own life, from which all other rights are derived. The right to property and freedom of trade and contract is the right abrogated by mandates to cover .. well anything. Contraceptions happen to be the item under discussion but it wouldn't make any difference to me if the mandate proposed seeks to force insurerers to cover tylenol or viagra or any other drug or medical service. It's beneficial to consumers when these things are covered but it shouldn't be legally required. I'll just end it there and let this all sink in.

Sounds like you're arguing against the employer "mandate" altogether.

That's not really the argument that the religious institutions are making here.

 

[Craig24]

Sounds like you're arguing against the employer "mandate" altogether.

That's not really the argument that the religious institutions are making here.

Yes, that is correct. I have no interest in the arguments of the Catholic Church. They gave their sanction to many elements of the welfare state long ago and continue to do so. They made their bed and have to lie in it now. I will oppose the mandate in question but it will have nothing to do with protecting a religion. It has everything to do with protecting the rights of everyone.

 

[Neally]

I hope you don't think it's on topic as an argumentum ad absurdum. Supporting the contraceptive requirement does not rely on an underlying premise that says we should require coverage for absolutely anything that might have a preventative health benefit. I think the societal benefits vs cost of easier access to contraception are easily distinguished from the potential societal benefits vs cost of free running shoes.

Well then, do provide the cost/benefit analysis of free insurance mandated contraception vs non-mandated contraception. Show me how much the net savings will be with insurance paying for it vs people obtaining it elsewhere.

You do of course realize that if your doctor prescribes special running shoes, many forms of insurance will cover them, and almost all will pick up some of the cost don't you? See the doctors get to decide what's medically necessary, not the church.

First, I don't need special running shoes, just the off-the-shelf variety at Footlocker. Second, I don't want "many" forms of insurance, it needs to be mandated that all policies cover this. Third, the doctors need to told that this preventative measure is now covered so that everyone that requests it should receive it.

 

[RandFan]

Which is why I demand insurance coverage for free running shoes. Good ones. They aren't cheap you know. And used properly, which I promise I will, they will give me all the preventative health benefits that exercise bestows.

If studies show that the policy is cost negative as are contraceptives then why not?

And it's about time that all insurance will offer free contraceptives, otherwise the population in the USA would be exploding with the fact that no one could and would be able to buy them previously.

Straw man. My claim is only that this policy will reduce unwanted pregnancies.

 

[RandFan]

I get it. But if a man and a woman have sex, even with birth control, there is a possibility (however slight) that pregnancy will occur. If you truly don't want to have a baby, the only 100% effective birth control method is not to engage in intercourse (unless you opt for sterilization, of course). No one can dispute that truth.

I accept your premise. It is a red herring as it reataes to this discussion though. Providing contraception is still cost negative and still helps society.

And it's funny to me that everyone has ignored another reality: STDs. Hepatitis B, Herpes, HPV and HIV are incurable. Others are treatable but dangerous if undiagnosed. That's the real public health threat and it's completely ignored. Oral contraceptives do absolutely nothing to prevent these conditions. For that you need condoms -and those aren't part of the public debate.

Another read herring. If you are interested in discussing condoms for the control of STDs you should start a thread. However, your premise, which I accept, doesn't obviate the health benefits of other contraceptives.

 

[RandFan]

Well then, do provide the cost/benefit analysis of free insurance mandated contraception vs non-mandated contraception. Show me how much the net savings will be with insurance paying for it vs people obtaining it elsewhere.

It was the result of multiple studies that was the impetus for this policy.

The Case for Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive Services And Supplies Without Cost-Sharing

....insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies—both public and private—actually saves money. Guttmacher Institute research finds that every public dollar invested in contraception saves $3.74 in short-term Medicaid expenditures for care related to births from unintended pregnancies. In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent.

 

[RandFan]

First, I don't need special running shoes, just the off-the-shelf variety at Footlocker. Second, I don't want "many" forms of insurance, it needs to be mandated that all policies cover this. Third, the doctors need to told that this preventative measure is now covered so that everyone that requests it should receive it.

And? These all strike me as non sequiturs. What does what you "want" have anything to do with the subject at hand? If running shoes can increase well being and decrease costs then pray tell what on earth is the problem?

If you don't want the shoes then don't get them. You are still free to make that choice. No one is forcing you to buy shoes. Go barefoot if you want.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're still begging the question. You just pooh-pooh testimony to the contrary and you offer exactly nothing as evidence to support the claim you keep making.

Not so. I just gave the cost of birth control pills. There are many to choose from which are available for around $20/month or less. That's affordable. More expensive options exist, but one doesn't need to pick the most expensive option. I have no idea what Fluke was spending all that money on, and neither do you. You also have no idea why she spent so much (assuming she told the truth). And more importantly, you have presented no evidence that her costs are in any way typical or even necessary for non-typical cases. In fact, nobody has presented any evidence that contraceptive costs are an undue burden on anyone. Even Fluke didn't do that, because again, she didn't tell us why it cost her so much, so we cannot even conclude that she couldn't have paid much less.