Religious freedom and contraception

[Ziggurat]

I'd like to leave those decisions between patient and doctor. Seems a reasonable thing to do.

So would I. And that's the way it was. The only difference is that you also want someone else to pay for whatever they decide. But the freedom to make a decision is not synonymous with having that decision payed for by someone else.

 

[xjx388]

Okay, so if a doctor makes a recommendation and she agrees would be okay with you if she takes his advice?

I'd like to leave those decisions between patient and doctor. Seems a reasonable thing to do.

That's the way it should be. But this doesn't mean that coverage for the choice should be mandated by federal law.

 

[RandFan]

That's the way it should be. But this doesn't mean that coverage for the choice should be mandated by federal law.

I don't see why we don't make all choices available.

 

[tyr_13]

If you don't know how to ski well, you shouldn't go on double black diamond slopes.

I'm such a bastard for wanting to punish unskilled skiers.

What a ridiculous comparison. A more apt comparison would be removing government mandated safety equipment from double black diamond slopes, then telling people that if they can't do without them, don't ski on the slopes.

I never said that this is made up. But you've gone beyond this. You've made the claim that the only safe contraceptives for some people are unaffordable. You have presented no evidence that this is true. Taking your above statement as the gospel truth doesn't prove that it is.

That is not a claim I've made. For someone who complains a lot about people not understand what you're saying, you sure go out of your way to not understand what anyone else is saying. I'm sure that for some people the only safe contraceptives are unaffordable to them, but that's far from the only or main reason to cover contraceptives. All sorts of medical care might be affordable without coverage, which of course is in no way an argument against covering them.

Why is 'unaffordable' being used as a standard anyway? If my insurance is supposed to cover medicine, is it alright for it not to cover it just because I could afford it without it?

Funny thing using the term 'gospel truth' in a thread about contraception mandate violating religious freedom. Kind of reminds everyone of the actual topic that the objection is a religious one.

Let me guess: you also don't know why she used that pill, or if there were any cheaper alternatives.

The alternatives posed a greater risk for later in life. She used the pill from the age of twelve onward to deal with painful, debilitating and dangerous periods that would leave her unable to even stand with massive bleeding for four or more days a month. It also would cause horrible migraine headaches. Even the more expensive stuff did treat it all but her doctor and her came to the decision about which one would be best. They continued to discuss it and she actually went to a cheaper, although still outside of affordable for a college student, version eventually after the patent on the name brand ran out. Until that time there were no cheaper ones, and even 'cheaper' didn't mean affordable. Even the co-pay was problematic.

If you have two choices, and one of them is cheap, and I tell you to pick the cheap option if you've got problems paying for the expensive one, that's not cherry picking. Or if it is, then you've deprived the term of any significance to this debate.

Still with the fingers in ear 'why not condoms?' song and dance?

Yes, I do say. If there are affordable contraceptives available to everyone who need them, then logically the existence of expensive contraceptives in addition to affordable contraceptives doesn't make the affordable contraceptives any less affordable. That's simple logic, and I find it rather amazing that you're having a hard time wrapping your head around it.

Again with affordable. Keep framing the debate in this odd manner. It's helpful. It's cherry picking greatness.

All birth control pills use estrogen and/or progestin. That's it. The only variations are the doses (or if you include non-pill devices, how they're administered). In contrast, ADHD medications vary greatly. Your inability to get a cheap ADHD drug says nothing about a woman's ability to get a cheap contraceptive pill.

Wouldn't be the first time WebMD was wrong about something, but again, affordable doesn't mean, 'so shouldn't be provided'.

The doctor and patient were the ones making the choice of which option is best. The only difference between you and I on this is that you want to remove cost from their considerations, and I don't think we need to. That you cannot even recognize the essence of our disagreement on this point is not an encouraging sign.

Need to? No. Should? Yes. Strawman one. Remove cost? No. Remove one type of cost? Yes. Strawman two.

Oh, and again, nice way to forget the whole 'religious freedom' concept that is the subject.

Please justify any reproductive health insurance coverage then.

 

[xjx388]

What a ridiculous comparison. A more apt comparison would be removing government mandated safety equipment from double black diamond slopes, then telling people that if they can't do without them, don't ski on the slopes.

This is a strange comparison on many levels . . .

How is not having sex a punishment? Are we mental 5-year-olds? "It's not fair! I want to do it now! Wahhhh!" Jeez . . .

<snip>
I'm sure that for some people the only safe contraceptives are unaffordable to them, but that's far from the only or main reason to cover contraceptives.

OK what are the others?

All sorts of medical care might be affordable without coverage, which of course is in no way an argument against covering them.

Actually, I think it is. Many insurances won't cover OTC stuff, for example. The ones that do tend to be more expensive.

Why is 'unaffordable' being used as a standard anyway? If my insurance is supposed to cover medicine, is it alright for it not to cover it just because I could afford it without it?

Because that was the argument in Fluke's testimony. She says, in effect, it's too expensive so it should be covered at zero-cost. Another good standard is 'medical necessity.' What is 'medically necessary' about BC? Not use of OCs for non-BC purposes, mind you -which is already covered. "Not wanting to get pregnant," is not a medical necessity.

The alternatives posed a greater risk for later in life. She used the pill from the age of twelve onward to deal with painful, debilitating and dangerous periods that would leave her unable to even stand with massive bleeding for four or more days a month. It also would cause horrible migraine headaches.

Then her need was obviously 'medical necessity.' It would be covered by any medical insurance plan. That's not what this is about.

Even the more expensive stuff did treat it all but her doctor and her came to the decision about which one would be best. They continued to discuss it and she actually went to a cheaper, although still outside of affordable for a college student, version eventually after the patent on the name brand ran out. Until that time there were no cheaper ones, and even 'cheaper' didn't mean affordable. Even the co-pay was problematic.

Exactly. Mandating coverage does not somehow make it more affordable or more widely available. Barriers still exist. This is true with every illness - most stuff is not covered at zero-cost. So then that argument for mandating goes out the window.

 

[leftysergeant]

Because that was the argument in Fluke's testimony. She says, in effect, it's too expensive so it should be covered at zero-cost. Another good standard is 'medical necessity.' What is 'medically necessary' about BC? Not use of OCs for non-BC purposes, mind you -which is already covered. "Not wanting to get pregnant," is not a medical necessity.

Bull ****. To a rape victim, you'd better believe it is a medical neccessity. It seems to me that a lot of your arguments are based on the premise that the main demand for birth control services is mostly from women of loose morals who want too doink around outside of wedlock. In this time/space continuum, that population is a hell of a lot smaller than you seem to think.

Mandating coverage does not somehow make it more affordable or more widely available. Barriers still exist. This is true with every illness - most stuff is not covered at zero-cost. So then that argument for mandating goes out the window.

Horsefeathers. Not mandating, coupled with idiotic "conscience clauses" in the licensing requirements for pharmacies, enables more providers to make it unavailable at any price.

 

[xjx388]

Bull ****. To a rape victim, you'd better believe it is a medical neccessity.

Appeal to emotion. Emergency contraception is offered OTC. And the possibility of Rape is not a medical consideration when evaluating BC choices. What if a woman and her doctor choose condoms as the best option for her?

It seems to me that a lot of your arguments are based on the premise that the main demand for birth control services is mostly from women of loose morals who want too doink around outside of wedlock. In this time/space continuum, that population is a hell of a lot smaller than you seem to think.

Strawman. I have never made any such argument.

Horsefeathers. Not mandating, coupled with idiotic "conscience clauses" in the licensing requirements for pharmacies, enables more providers to make it unavailable at any price.

Poppycock. Any major pharmacy carries a wide variety of BC at all price points.

 

[leftysergeant]

Appeal to emotion. Emergency contraception is offered OTC. And the possibility of Rape is not a medical consideration when evaluating BC choices. What if a woman and her doctor choose condoms as the best option for her?

The possibility of rape is very much real and something against which it would be wise to take precautions.

Just try to get a rapist to stop long enough to put on a condom.

Strawman. I have never made any such argument.

Yes, you have, by carefully-phrased emotive language.

Poppycock. Any major pharmacy carries a wide variety of BC at all price points.

In this time/space continuum, that is simply not so. Read a freaking newspaper that is not 90% Rupert's rot.

 

[RandFan]

Then her need was obviously 'medical necessity.' It would be covered by any medical insurance plan. That's not what this is about.
Exactly. Mandating coverage does not somehow make it more affordable or more widely available. Barriers still exist. This is true with every illness - most stuff is not covered at zero-cost. So then that argument for mandating goes out the window.

Cannot believe this is still being discussed. What a non-issue this is. "Medical necessity"? Like it or not insurance has become being about promoting health and preventing illness and injury as well as treatment. That's all. There's no need for all the Sturm and Drang. No need to be reductive. We are a society. We care about the health and well being of our citizens. If it is deemed a public good then we can provide coverage for BC. And that is the only thing that this is about.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What about a hospital that took biblical prohibitions seriously? Should they be able to refuse to hire women or promote them if they are in a position of authority over a man? The bible is clear on that much more so than contraception at least with people other than your brothers widow, which really how often does that come up?

 

[xjx388]

The possibility of rape is very much real and something against which it would be wise to take precautions.

Just try to get a rapist to stop long enough to put on a condom.

The possibility of rape is not a medical consideration when deciding on which BC is the best for a particular woman. Thus, rape is not a strong argument for mandating BC's inclusion in Health Insurance.

Yes, you have, by carefully-phrased emotive language.

I have kept emotions out of this debate. You on the other hand . . .

In this time/space continuum, that is simply not so. Read a freaking newspaper that is not 90% Rupert's rot.

I don't need to read a newspaper to know that the women we serve in our clinic can get the BC they want at any pharmacy I'm aware of. I can see that in some rural areas it might be more difficult; but, in any city with a Wal-Mart, access is not an issue. Get your head out of those CT 'zines and look at what's happening in the real world.

 

[xjx388]

What about a hospital that took biblical prohibitions seriously? Should they be able to refuse to hire women or promote them if they are in a position of authority over a man? The bible is clear on that much more so than contraception at least with people other than your brothers widow, which really how often does that come up?

Please point to a hospital where this is an issue.

In any case, it is a compelling government interest to ensure that women are not discriminated against when it comes to employment.

 

[RandFan]

Thus, rape is not a strong argument for mandating BC's inclusion in Health Insurance.

No strong argument is needed. A report found that covering the co-pays for BC was in the public good. They determined that doing so would increase productivity and promote the health and well being of citizens. That's it. That's all that was needed for the president to act. It is the end result of living in a society and sociological and economic study. Not much of a big deal really.

 

[Bri]

So would I. And that's the way it was. The only difference is that you also want someone else to pay for whatever they decide. But the freedom to make a decision is not synonymous with having that decision payed for by someone else.

The administration didn't make this decision in a vacuum. The fact is that the majority of medical experts on a panel appointed to investigate the question agree that birth control should be offered free of charge as a matter of public health. The report indicated that even if it's not cost-negative to do so, the benefits are of offering birth control free of charge are substantial. That said, the report also points to studies that indicate that it would likely result in a cost savings (particularly when you factor in loss of work, medical costs of birth, and the costs of raising a child including providing health care for that child during its lifetime). Yes, there was a dissenting minority opinion. The administration made a decision based on the panel's recommendations.

You can argue that there wasn't “compelling government interest” or that the mandate does not provide no-cost birth control by the “least restrictive means.” The panel certainly thought it was a compelling government interest. I think that Obama's exemptions for the Catholic church provides the least restrictive means. However, I'd be fine with it if the government provided the birth control directly and raised taxes on businesses that amount to pay for it. Somehow, I think the Republicans would continue to claim that it violates religious freedom even though Catholic employers already pay taxes that pay for birth control.

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

No strong argument is needed. A report found that covering the co-pays for BC was in the public good. They determined that doing so would increase productivity and promote the health and well being of citizens. That's it. That's all that was needed for the president to act. It the end result of living in a society and sociological and economic study. Not much of a big deal really.

But it is a big deal when such a mandate interferes with the practice of religion. You can't just hand-wave that away.

I understand that the Catholic position is illogical, backwards and out of touch with their own congregation. No argument there. You could say the same for any religious-based belief. But the Constitution and Congress drew a line in the sand about creating laws that interfere with religious practice. You don't just get to cross that line whenever you feel a religious practice is ridiculous.

 

[xjx388]

You can argue that there wasn't “compelling government interest” or that the mandate does not provide no-cost birth control by the “least restrictive means.” The panel certainly thought it was a compelling government interest. I think that Obama's exemptions for the Catholic church provides the least restrictive means. However, I'd be fine with it if the government provided the birth control directly and raised taxes on businesses that amount to pay for it.

It already does this under Title X. Thus, every woman has access to affordable birth control. We already have the least restrictive means.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please point to a hospital where this is an issue.

In any case, it is a compelling government interest to ensure that women are not discriminated against when it comes to employment.

And the thing here is that not covering birth control was found to be discriminatory. So what religious based discrimination is ok and what is not?

Just because most people ignore that part of the bible or make strange claims about what it really means instead of what it says doesn't make it go away.

 

[RandFan]

But it is a big deal when such a mandate interferes with the practice of religion. You can't just hand-wave that away.

• Title X (they already pay for contraception).
• Freedom of religion/conscience isn't a black and white issue. Infringements of conscience I would posit are on a continuum. You keep saying there needs to be a compelling reason. I would say there needs to be a sufficient reason given the harm. In this case we are talking about an organization with a secular purpose. One that hires employees who do not share the values of the religion that owns the organization. That clouds the issue somewhat. I pointed out that what we are talking about is largely just a perception. They are paying money to an insurance company to cover a medical procedure.

I understand that the Catholic position is illogical, backwards and out of touch with their own congregation. No argument there. You could say the same for any religious-based belief. But the Constitution and Congress drew a line in the sand about creating laws that interfere with religious practice. You don't just get to cross that line whenever you feel a religious practice is ridiculous.

Not my argument.

 

[xjx388]

And the thing here is that not covering birth control was found to be discriminatory. So what religious based discrimination is ok and what is not?

Just because most people ignore that part of the bible or make strange claims about what it really means instead of what it says doesn't make it go away.

Women are not discriminated against when it comes to BC. It's not like it's covered only for men or men are given better options. Women have easy access to BC. Lack of insurance coverage is not a meaningful barrier to getting BC. Furthermore, mandating insurance coverage does nothing for the women who don't have insurance coverage. So this isn't even a good way to ensure that poor women have access.

For that we have Title X. I'm all for increasing funding of that program. But no one wants to talk about that because it doesn't accomplish their political goals.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Women are not discriminated against when it comes to BC. It's not like it's covered only for men or men are given better options. Women have easy access to BC. Lack of insurance coverage is not a meaningful barrier to getting BC. Furthermore, mandating insurance coverage does nothing for the women who don't have insurance coverage. So this isn't even a good way to ensure that poor women have access.

For that we have Title X. I'm all for increasing funding of that program. But no one wants to talk about that because it doesn't accomplish their political goals.

So you don't actually believe that religions should be free to run hospitals how they want to from freedom of religion, but that the decision that it is unfairly discriminatory in birth control. You are happy to force them to violate the remnants of their religion in other issues.

So then isn't religion a red herring here?