10
   

House Panel on whether women should have access to contraceptives

 
 
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 11:35 pm
The picture speaks for itself

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/02/16/oversight-hearing-AP120216123170_620x350.JPG
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 12:55 am
@maxdancona,
I'm lost. The US is debating over whether women should have access to contraception generally? Or is this specifically re over the counter availability of the morning after pill?


Either way, the photo is compelling.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 01:01 am
Women have access to contraceptatives, and no one is talking about removing this access, so this thread is mis-titled.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 01:49 am
@dlowan,
I believe the panel has to do with whether religious based health instituitions can be forced to give women access to contraceptives even if they are paid by health care. Part of Obama's latetest health care mandate is to force health care insurance to pay something like 90+% for all contraceptives costs and certain religious based hospitals are balking at having to hand them out when the patient requests for them.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 02:14 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

I believe the panel has to do with whether religious based health instituitions can be forced to give women access to contraceptives even if they are paid by health care. Part of Obama's latetest health care mandate is to force health care insurance to pay something like 90+% for all contraceptives costs and certain religious based hospitals are balking at having to hand them out when the patient requests for them.


Are you going to force them to offer abortions as well?? How about the super expensive pregnancy efforts like in vitro? Where do you draw the line at this attempt to rope family planning efforts into health insurance, a program that was intended to keep people from ill health?
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 02:21 am
@hawkeye10,
Contraception is key in preventing sexually transmitted diseases (that includes various forms of viral induced cancer) in women AND men. Prevention is cheaper then treatment.

And you're goofy, undereducated, irrational extension of your argument is just fiscal fearmongering at its worst.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 02:27 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

Contraception is key in preventing sexually transmitted diseases (that includes various forms of viral induced cancer) in women AND men. Prevention is cheaper then treatment.




ONE FORM of contraception is useful to preventing STD's.....if you want to confine your argument to a mandate to subsidize condoms then I would likely find myself in agreement with you.....so long as your vehicle for providing this service is not health insurance. We do have a public health system, and I am pretty sure that it often passes out free condoms already.

Quote:
And you're goofy, undereducated, irrational extension of your argument is just fiscal fearmongering at its worst.


It would be ever so helpful if you would try to keep your imagination in check and your arguments on point.

I notice with interest your refuse to tell how far you are willing to take government control of family planning.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 06:32 am
@dlowan,
Sorry I forget that not everyone here is Usian. I will fill in the story.

We Americans almost always depend on our employers for health care. There is a mandate that health care include contraceptive services including the pill. Religious groups are balking at this saying it hurts their conscience paying for health care that covers health care.

This was the first panel in a Republican investigation on whether religion is being oppressed by a law designed to give women access to contraceptive.

The five religious men on this panel think that religious institutions should be able to prevent insurance companies from providing contraceptive services to their employees.






maxdancona
 
  7  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 06:39 am
@hawkeye10,
Come on Hawkeye,

Contraception is a basic part of health care. Health insurance companies want to cover contraceptives because it saves them money. Unplanned pregnancy is awfully costly. This is really a power grab by religious groups over employees that quite often aren't even a part of their religion.

If Employers can restrict contraceptives from their employees coverage, a Christian scientist employer could restrict blood transfusions, or another group could restrict vaccines. If you don't have to address health issues it doesn't count as health care.

The real problem here is how stupid it is that employers are the key provider of health care in the US. If there were a government backed insurance plan we could get employers, and their backwards religious ideas, out of the picture.




0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 08:45 am
@maxdancona,
Sure does, not a woman in the bunch.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 08:48 am
@maxdancona,
Well said.

Joe(keep saying it)Nation
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:06 am
It was streamed live yesterday morning and was entitled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" I watched it since I'm fairly sure the issue is heading for review by SCOTUS and I had hoped the discussion would be more of a debate on the constitutionality of the new ruling.

As one might expect, it was divided along partisan lines, with the Democrats wanting to talk contraception as a requirement for women's health and the Republicans wanted to talk religious freedom.

The panel, made up of religious leaders, were united, though, representing Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. There was also a Jewish rabbi -- all of whom stated they will not close the doors to their respective charitable organizations -- rather they will refuse to comply with the new rule, refuse to pay the penalty/fine/tax (not sure what they're calling it now) and would be willing to face imprisonment.

The second panel actually did have a woman -- a physician from a religious college, but by then a couple of Democrats had walked out of the hearing in protest that there were no women lol.

I was a little disappointed that there wasn't more of a discussion along legal lines, but since several religious institutions have filed suit, we'll get to see the arguments from both sides as those go forward in the lower courts. (That's if the administration doesn't back off and just give an additional exemption for religions that self-insure).
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:24 am
@Irishk,
One lone woman out of that ain't something to brag about. In any case, the sides of the issue were unfairly represented. They were more than likely screened before hand. According to most polls, more people who belong to those representing them agree that women should have access to contraceptives through their insurance.

Talking of freedom of religion, I see the issue of being free from other's religion. I mean where would this line of thought end? What if someone didn't believe in medicine at all for moral or religious reasons?

It seems to me that religious conservative activist have run amok and have been encouraged to do so.

In Virginia a law was passed forcing women who want an abortion to have to have ultrasounds.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/vaginal-ultrasound.jpg

Quote:
This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason.

I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

What’s more, a provision of the law that has received almost no media attention would ensure that a certification by the doctor that the patient either did or didn’t “avail herself of the opportunity” to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat will go into the woman’s medical record. Whether she wants it there or not. I guess they were all out of scarlet letters in Richmond.


source
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:34 am
@revelette,
Quote:
Talking of freedom of religion, I see the issue of being free from other's religion. I mean where would this line of thought end? What if someone didn't believe in medicine at all for moral or religious reasons?
Those are obviously issues the courts will consider when deciding the lawsuits. The hearing wasn't really about the benefits of birth control, though, but rather was supposed to address consitutional issues. That's really the only part I'm interested in. The debate, if restricted solely to that, will be fascinating.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:39 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Quote:
Talking of freedom of religion, I see the issue of being free from other's religion. I mean where would this line of thought end? What if someone didn't believe in medicine at all for moral or religious reasons?
Those are obviously issues the courts will consider when deciding the lawsuits. The hearing wasn't really about the benefits of birth control, though, but rather was supposed to address consitutional issues. That's really the only part I'm interested in. The debate, if restricted solely to that, will be fascinating.


True - so, a quick question along those lines: can you provide one religious exemption to following the law without opening the door to many, many more? For example, if you think it's Constitutional that the US Gov't can't make the Catholic Church follow it's laws - by the way, the official position of the Catholics is that NO state laws apply to them whatsoever, they (through the Pope) deny any and all authority other than god - why would it be any different for polygamists in the Mormon church? What about Muslims whose religion clearly says that only Sharia law should be tolerated? Would you be equally willing to allow them to ignore the law?

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:47 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I think both the president and the administration are confident (having considered all of your points) that the new ruling is not an infringement on religious rights, and, also (from the points you have made) the religious community might be on shaky ground (although they gave no indication of being so).

There's precedent, I believe, for the 'polygamist' issue although I couldn't give you the details (I think it was many years ago).

We Amish, of course, are exempt Smile
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:49 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

I think both the president and the administration are confident (having considered all of your points) that the new ruling is not an infringement on religious rights, and, also (from the points you have made) the religious community might be on shaky ground (although they gave no indication of being so).

There's precedent, I believe, for the 'polygamist' issue although I couldn't give you the details (I think it was many years ago).

We Amish, of course, are exempt Smile


I was asking for YOUR opinion on the matter.

Cycloptichorn
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:52 am
There is a long history of House Republicans raising phony religious liberty issues. The Constitution Restoration Act, proposed in 2004, stated:
"...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

This bill and similar bills passed the House and were transferred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the Senate committee such bills were allowed to just sit there with no action taken. Eventually these bills died under a "Kevorkian rule." Smile
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 10:56 am
@Cycloptichorn,
On whether or not it's constitutional? I haven't a clue. I can see merits in the arguments from both sides -- but unlike the case that went before SCOTUS last month (involving religious rights), this one is a bit more complicated with legal enforcement of the ACA, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 11:21 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Here's the case I was thinking about in addressing your polygamy concerns. It's actually about a bigamist who felt his First Amendment right to religious freedom was being infringed upon...SCOTUS thought otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » House Panel on whether women should have access to contraceptives
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/01/2024 at 03:50:47