Religious freedom and contraception

[RandFan]

To get back on track, no one has demonstrated that a compelling government interest exists in mandating birth control coverage.

However, we have demonstrated A.) it's a public good. B.) It's cost negative. B.) everyone pays for contraception.

So the question remains, why not?

 

[crimresearch]

Nobody made that claim. So again, for you to accuse me of creating strawmen is really the height of hypocrisy on your part.

Prove it.

Prove that I just 'made up' that NIH website about medical conditions requiring different contraceptive prescriptions. Prove that I faked the links to Fluke's $1K a year testimony or the links to the price range.

 

[RandFan]

To get back on track, no one has demonstrated that a compelling government interest exists in mandating birth control coverage.

1. The mandate only helps women with insurance.
2. Govt programs already to help every woman get contraceptives.
3. Contraceptives are nowhere near as expensive as people like Sandra Fluke would like you to believe.

Back on track,

1. Everyone pays for contraception.
2. It's a public good.
3. The experts recommend public funding to reduce cost for employers, increase productivity and help society.

End of controversy.

 

[xjx388]

Tappity tappity tapptity tap.

The claim was that no one needed to use the more expensive medicines, that it was simply a choice.

Correct. If an OC is too expensive there are cheaper alternatives that are just as effective even if they have side effects. Or even if they aren't OCs. Again. No one needs to use the most expensive option unless they want to.

Did you seriously believe that was just going to vanish down the memory hole?

I hope it doesn't, actually. I hope everyone keeps in mind that higher-priced options are mostly luxuries and not necessities.

Fluke's testimony was that there was a range of prices for contraceptives that could go as high as $1K a year, and that testimony has been proven true with the links provided.

Of course there's a range. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the higher-priced options are not necessary in order to achieve the goal of birth control.

This is relevant in that it counters the argument about it being no burden at all for any given woman to pay for her own prescriptions instead of having them covered by the health insurance she is already paying into.

Now some people seem to think that a doctor might prescribe a specific contraceptive due to medical conditions where a certain type might be contraindicated because of potential *harm* to the patient.


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a601050.html

And you say they don't know anything, based on 'sleeping doctor testimony'.

Please show me where it says 'contraindicated.' You can't quote medical advice and not use precise medical terms. It's obvious that you don't really understand the difference. The contraindications for OCs are all the same. Different OCs carry different risk profiles but that's not the same thing.

And ironically drospirinone is in one of the more expensive OCs, YAZ.

Do you have anything at all that is either correct or useful?

A heck of a lot more than you apparently . . .

 

[crimresearch]

To get back on track, no one has demonstrated that a compelling government interest exists in mandating birth control coverage.

1. The mandate only helps women with insurance.
2. Govt programs already to help every woman get contraceptives.
3. Contraceptives are nowhere near as expensive as people like Sandra Fluke would like you to believe.

That's because no one needs to show a compelling public interest in preventing churches from forcing their religious dogma onto non-members, it has already been established as a bedrock principle.

You have extended your 'religious freedom' claim to all religious medical taboos, not just the Catholic ones, so by your interpretations Muslims, Christian Scientists etc. should be able to cherry pick non-believers health plans, and even medical treatments the same way.

That simply is not going to happen, in spite of your belief that the law is supposed to protect the 'right' to force religous beliefs on others

Here's where your notions fall apart... in the real world, the courts have already said the law cannot force people to *live under* other people's religious creeds.

So no, you can't deny a woman that might die of blood clots the contraceptive her doctor prescribed, any more than you can deny someone else medicine that is made from swine, or you can deny someone blood from a blood bank.

 

[xjx388]

However, we have demonstrated A.) it's a public good. B.) It's cost negative. B.) everyone pays for contraception.

So the question remains, why not?

But that doesn't automatically mean "compelling government interest." Lots of things are public goods but we don't mandate their coverage in health insurance.

 

[crimresearch]

Correct. If an OC is too expensive there are cheaper alternatives that are just as effective even if they have side effects. Or even if they aren't OCs. Again. No one needs to use the most expensive option unless they want to.

I hope it doesn't, actually. I hope everyone keeps in mind that higher-priced options are mostly luxuries and not necessities.

Of course there's a range. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the higher-priced options are not necessary in order to achieve the goal of birth control.

Please show me where it says 'contraindicated.' You can't quote medical advice and not use precise medical terms. It's obvious that you don't really understand the difference. The contraindications for OCs are all the same. Different OCs carry different risk profiles but that's not the same thing.

And ironically drospirinone is in one of the more expensive OCs, YAZ.


A heck of a lot more than you apparently . . .

So I've got a cite from a medical study that the NIH is taking seriously, links to real life facts, and the direct quote of your exact words...

You have a 'sleeping doctor', labelling death from blood clots as 'mild side effects', and denial that you ever posted what you clearly did post, but a skeptics forum is supposed to believe that facts and reality aren't correct or useful, while your fantasies are.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[xjx388]

That's because no one needs to show a compelling public interest in preventing churches from forcing their religious dogma onto non-members, it has already been established as a bedrock principle.

Strawman. I say don't trample on religious rights unless you can demonstrate CGI. No CGI, no mandate.

You have extended your 'religious freedom' claim to all religious medical taboos, not just the Catholic ones, so by your interpretations Muslims, Christian Scientists etc. should be able to cherry pick non-believers health plans, and even medical treatments the same way.

Strawman. They should be able to decide what insurance plans and medical treatments they will pay for unless a CGI can be demonstrated.

That simply is not going to happen, in spite of your belief that the law is supposed to protect the 'right' to force religous beliefs on others.

Strawman. I don't think religious should be forced to pay for things that are morally abhorrent to them unless you can demonstrate CGI.

Here's where your notions fall apart... in the real world, the courts have already said the law cannot force people to *live under* other people's religious creeds.

Strawman. I never made such an argument.

So no, you can't deny a woman that might die of blood clots the contraceptive her doctor prescribed, any more than you can deny someone else medicine that is made from swine, or you can deny someone blood from a blood bank.

You obviously don't understand the medical issues involved. Blood clots are a risk for all women who take OCs. How come no one calculates the cost of OC's health complications when they are doing their cost-benefit analysis? Time lost from work? Illness? Death from blood clots? Etc?

But in any case this is yet another strawman. I'm surprised you still have any straw left. . .

 

[theprestige]

We evolved to be a social species. We live in a society. Sometimes it's in the best interest of all to provide social services.

"Sometimes" is not the same as "always". So you're still stuck at showing that this is one of those times.

Either that, or you meant to say "always", which calls for a whole other level of convincing arguments.

 

[respect]

Back on track,

1. Everyone pays for contraception.
2. It's a public good.
3. The experts recommend public funding to reduce cost for employers, increase productivity and help society.

End of controversy.

That doesn't mean what you think it does, public goods.

 

[xjx388]

So I've got a cite from a medical study that the NIH is taking seriously, links to real life facts, and the direct quote of your exact words...

You've got precious little. You obviously don't understand what you are reading.

You have a 'sleeping doctor', labelling death from blood clots as 'mild side effects',

Strawman.

and denial that you ever posted what you clearly did post, but a skeptics forum is supposed to believe that facts and reality aren't correct or useful, while your fantasies are.

Don't hold your breath.

I guess you still have a lot of straw left. Blood clots are a risk with all OCs. The form of progesterone you are referring to is actually in one of the most expensive forms of OC. Women would be better off with a generic!

 

[RandFan]

But that doesn't automatically mean "compelling government interest." Lots of things are public goods but we don't mandate their coverage in health insurance.

Let's assume there is no "compelling government interest". So what? It's in the public good. It doesn't trample anyone's rights (everyone pays for BC). It's good for the employer. It's good for the employee. It's good for society.

Why not? That question still remains. It's been shown to be in the public good. It's been shown that because of Title X everyone pays for BC. So, why not?

 

[RandFan]

"Sometimes" is not the same as "always". So you're still stuck at showing that this is one of those times.

That's easy. Good for the employee. Good for the employer. Good for society. It's one of those times.

 

[xjx388]

Let's assume there is no "compelling government interest". So what? It's in the public good. It doesn't trample any rights (everyone pays for BC). It's good for the employer.

Why not?

No CGI, no trampling religious rights. The 1st Amendment and Federal Law is pretty clear on this.

 

[RandFan]

No CGI, no trampling religious rights. The 1st Amendment and Federal Law is pretty clear on this.

Everyone pays for contraception. Title X. It's hard to trample rights twice, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Prove it.

Prove that I just 'made up' that NIH website about medical conditions requiring different contraceptive prescriptions. Prove that I faked the links to Fluke's $1K a year testimony or the links to the price range.

You're really stubborn about this whole strawman thing. I never said that different medical conditions didn't require different medication. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not people have access to affordable contraceptives. They do. Fluke's testimony isn't gospel. In fact, it's little more than hearsay.

 

[theprestige]

Let's assume there is no "compelling government interest". So what? It's in the public good. It doesn't trample anyone's rights (everyone pays for BC). It's good for the employer. It's good for the employee. It's good for society.

Why not? That question still remains. It's been shown to be in the public good. It's been shown that because of Title X everyone pays for BC. So, why not?

Fair enough. I doubt I'll ever be able to convince you that the government should not exercise its power without a truly compelling reason to do so.

I I know for sure you'll never convince me that the government should exercise its power without a truly compelling reason to do so.

And since none of the reasons presented so far have convinced me that the government has a truly compelling reason to exercise its power WRT contraception coverage, and since no other, better reasons seem forthcoming. I'll bow out.

Best of luck to you.

 

[crimresearch]

You're really stubborn about this whole strawman thing. I never said that different medical conditions didn't require different medication. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not people have access to affordable contraceptives. They do. Fluke's testimony isn't gospel. In fact, it's little more than hearsay.

From strawmen to moving the goalposts.

You claimed I made up things.
Prove that I made up that NIH site where they clearly show that all contraceptives are not interchangeable, due to life and death concerns.
Prove that the links I gave supporting Flukes research on the price range for contraceptives were made up.

 

[crimresearch]

Fair enough. I doubt I'll ever be able to convince you that the government should not exercise its power without a truly compelling reason to do so.

I I know for sure you'll never convince me that the government should exercise its power without a truly compelling reason to do so.

And since none of the reasons presented so far have convinced me that the government has a truly compelling reason to exercise its power WRT contraception coverage, and since no other, better reasons seem forthcoming. I'll bow out.

Best of luck to you.

So the actual words of the Constitution and the courts prohibiting religions from forcing their dogma onto non-members doesn't convince you that the compelling government interest in preventing that exists, hmmm?

OK. Bye.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough. I doubt I'll ever be able to convince you that the government should not exercise its power without a truly compelling reason to do so.

They are exercising their power with a compelling reason.

Best of luck to you.

You too.