House Panel on whether women should have access to contraceptives

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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