I was going to try to do a Hub on this subject. But Iam very curious about what men have to say about this subject. Why do republican men want to take away needed health services for women? It's not just abortions..I understand , this could be a moral/ religious thing...but, basic health services? A lot of women who can't afford fancy doctors, rely on places like Planned Parenthood Clinics. These places offer a variety preventitive services.
Why are republican men so against a women seeking health assistance? If women become sickly or unhealthy, who will bare the children. Lets face it, most women perform far more duties that keep the household going. When the mom gets sick..all hell breaks loose. Is there any republican man out there who can enlilghten me?
The answer to that is really simple PJ. I won't sugar coat this at all.
We don't want to take away your health services.
It's an election year lie.
Now if you don't believe me wait for a few more answers. Betcha they are the same.
Conservatives fail to understand the needs of modern women because they are living in the past and their expectations of what a woman is and should be are out of date, hence we see attacks on planned parenthood by Republican GOP nominees and rabidly offensive statements concerning covering contraception even for serious medical conditions. It's not that Republicans are waging a war on women or have negative intent towards them IMO it's just that the Republican vote favors older men with outdated attitudes towards women and a very limited understanding of their modern needs and requirements.
uncastrated male bovine fecal matter* at least get it right .
But no what I am saying are facts, the Republican party has the oldest voter ship by an average of 7 years and a disproportionate number of males (Obama currently holds a 15% lead over Romney among female voters) and conservatives by their nature are backwards thinking (hence the word conservative) quite frankly I put it nicely, a right wing pundit called a woman a slut and a whore for telling a hearing that her friend had to pay for the pill to deal with her ovarian cysts and she thought her insurance should cover it and I saw here and elsewhere much of the right rally around that statement, which in itself is more than enough to demonstrate my point that is why the GOP has lost the female vote (I know according to you it's probably because they are being brainwashed by the liberal controlled media because you are completely out of touch with reality)
@Josak... I'll make you a deal. Since you think it's OK to make other people pay for medication that you need, lets work out a trade. I'll gladly pay for your contraceptives every month, and in exchange you can pay for my prescriptions. Fair trade, right?
Well I am a guy so my contraceptive costs are pretty low but I fully support public healthcare and thus paying for your prescriptions out of my taxes. BTW if you needed food I would pay for that too, in fact there are these things called food stamps that apparently 50% of modern American Children will rely on to eat at some point during their childhood.
I totally concur. Isn't a paradox that many Republican men are against funding for contraception and abortion; however, they against providing reasonable health care for mothers with children. They are also pro-war and pro-death penalty.
No one wants to "take away" your health rights... including contraceptives, abortions, etc. The real question is why do you think you have the right to take MY money (via the government) to pay for something YOU want? Guess what? My wife uses the pill. We pay for it ourselves. It's less than $10 per month. Why should we expect someone else to buy it for us? Maybe we should expect others to pay for our food too?
Dude where do you live that he pill is that cheap... But anyway the point of this one is purely a practical one, people will have sex, people will get pregnant if they are not using contraception because it is expensive (yes I know this is stupid but neither you nor I can change human stupidity) and when people get pregnant with no money the state will have to cover their costs for the birth (or kick them to the curb to have the baby by themselves I guess but I don't see that happening) as well as probably care and support for the baby born into this obviously dire economic situation, long story short it ends up costing you and me less to pay for the contraception than it is to pay for the results of unwanted pregnancy so I think we should take the lesser of two evils.
glockr, what makes you think that someone wants to take your money? Women work and pay for their own insurance, just like men. Abortions are legal and that makes contraceptives legal. If women want to take a stick up their butts they should be able to..without the consent of a man. I don't want to pay for your prostrate exams or what ever else men have done to their bodies.
All I am saying is..I pay for my insurance or I will pay cash for my body..I should not have to go through hell for female medical services or have men put restrictions on what I can have done to my body.
A woman should not have to iform her boss if she wants to go on the pill. Republican men are making a big mistake ...women will not be "screwed" with..uh..no pun itended
If I had a choice to buy a policy that didn't cover contraceptives I'd agree with you. Unfortunately ObamaCare doesn't provide that option - contraceptives must be "free." I'll be paying for them indirectly through higher premiums. Truth be told, all I want is a plan that covers catastrophic illness or injury. Unfortunately Obamacare doesn't offer that option either - so once again I'll be forced to pay for coverage I don't want and will never need. I never said I expect others to pay for my prostrate exams - I'll be happy to pay for them myself once I get there. I also never said I want to put restrictions on what you do with your own body.
They're not "free". They are included in a healthplan, as any other health issue is. Thank the gods! And the church is exempt from paying for it....so that washes their hands, IMO.
It's about equality. WE are just as much deserving of care as you are! Obama sees that. The others don't.
@lovemychris, I agree, President Obama wants all to have affordable health insurance and the others just don't care!
The difference is you expect others to subsidize your choices. If 0bama really cared about people's health care he would "allow" people to choose plans that met their individual needs. There are plenty of possible reforms that would actually help people without government taking over the entire "health care" industry, but "progressives" don't like them because it doesn't give government "enough" control. Just ask yourself ONE question if you can get beyond adulation for 0bama... if "The Affordable Care Act" is so wonderful, why did Congress exempt themselves from it?
The republicans in congress exempted themselves from it. If you lost your insurance and couldn't afford the cobra, which most can't, you also would be for it. Price an individual policy, MOST can't afford it! You get discounts in numbers, an individual doesn't have that luxury. When President Bush had the chance to sign a bill allowing small businesses to group together for better rates, he chose not to!
95% of health costs go to the last year of life....who is subsidizing that?
And my senator, John Kerry, has been squawking about giving everyone the same healthplan as gvt employee's get forever. But guess what? It's single-payer.
Now, who is dead set against that?
As we get older our needs change. But while you still work your premium includes child birth for those needing it. Those births or serious illness claims determine how much your premium will go up. And I take it you're okay with viagra but not contraceptives. 99% of Americans have used some form of birth control at one time or another. I pay school taxes but don't have kids in school. Should we eliminate that as well and limit the next generations education? This is a ridiculous argument. He healthcare plan that President Obama signed is already helping young people and seniors. And for those referring to the plan as ObamaCare, yes,"Obama Cares".
I don't know what Medicaid is like where you live, but in Georgia any pregnant woman can get FREE medical care by being placed on Medicaid if she doesn't have insurance or she can't afford it. Also, there are many places to get free birth control. There are FREE CLINICS and sliding scale clinics everywhere. This whole thing is a Democratic LIE. The Democrats are trying to shift some of the cost of Medicaid and Free services they provide onto the working people by redirecting the benefits. In other words, if they can get company insurance plans, colleges, and whatever org. to pay for free services for women, they can then take the billions they are spending on Medicaid and blow it on higher salaries for their buddies in government. No one wants women to be deprived of care. We happen to be in relationships with women. In case you missed it, not all, but most of the gay men are liberals. Conservative men, for the most part, are in relationships with women.
By the way, I am not bashing gays, I have gay friends and they are good people. I was making a point about Conservatives and Republicans.
Because being in a relationship with a woman totally proves you are not sexist and have full respect for her... very sound logic my friend and yes those things vary from state to state.
First of all, let's address the idea that there is no war on women. The fact is that there were over 1000 bills introduced in state legislatures in 2011 that singled out women, discriminating against them. Several hundred passed. In fact, in Wisconsin, the fair pay act was repealed, making it OK to pay men more for doing the same job. Beyond that, there's lots of answers to this hot topic. One has to do with money. Single men keep saying, "Why should my health insurance cost more in order to pay for women's healthcare, which is more expensive?" But then, it takes 2 to tango and I think that it's crazy to say that women should pay for their own pregnancies alone. The other big issue that no one is going to talk about--except denounce me for bringing it up--is that women are gaining power, hold more than half the mangagment jobs, and men are fighting back because their egos are brusied. The average man, however, supports equal pay.
This just in: The Republican-led House of Representatives voted today to deny cancer screenings to millions of poor women on medicaid. Texas cut 1/4 million women off health care benefits completely last month. Meanwhile, people say there is no war on women's health. At heart is the fear that you'll lose your own health care, so you support others losing theirs to ;protect your own entitlement. Unless, of course, women don't need healthcare insurance because they are so much stronger than men.
Interesting theory you have...."men are fighting back because their egos are brusied."
2 men I can say I have known who have no problem with women being equal--my dad and my x husband.
Most men, in my experience, do have this need to be superior....and maybe this IS why they are going after us like the plague! And women, like Phyllis Shlaughly who help them out by designating us the servers of the world. That is quite an interesting theory, and I'm going to apply it to them the next time one of them makes a speech. Boehner comes to mind....Oooh, he's in "anger-mode" again, ahahaha. Funny when he screams.
And Yay Cagsil!
"Anyone who doesn't support equality and equal rights isn't fit for office."
"Equality and Equal Rights. Neither exists in America."---so true...as we see the same people fighting the same fight over and over and over again....poor people, women, minorities, immigrants.
I would add that religions that keep women down aren't fit for consumption either. Yin/Yang, evil/good, male/female.....different sides of same coin. Too much of any makes for an unbalanced world.
Republican men do not want to take away women's health "rights" or any woman's right.
It is a trumped up charge initated by the hatemongers to villify Republicans because obama cannot find anything positive to run on other that killing Bin Laden.
Republicans are for everyone's rights, not just women's or any specific group.
If one looks at the whole picture, they can see thru the dirty Chicago mob style politics. You may give one person or group a benefit, but if that causes another person or group a disadvantage, is that right? It takes vision and openmindedness to look at the cost/benefit ratio for all parties involved.
As you can see the deliberate twisting of the truth has already begun in this thread.
I am completely in favor of supporting women's health in an economically sound manner.
Abortions however, have absolutely nothing to do with a women's health.
I don't believe that anyone wants to take another person's health care. Why. would we? It is a lie
Then why eliminate President Obama's healthcare plan? Oh yes, under the pretense of mandate, let's eliminate it all. Instead of trying to get rid of it, tweek it and make it work for all. Half the people who have insurance have no idea what it would cost them as an individual should they lose their jobs! The majority can't afford the cobra, much less an individual policy. But they avoid that issue! And as a "man", I can't see "men" making decisions on women's health in any form! It's a women's decision. But when your dealing with a group who believe it's the girls fault(ea: girl pregnant in school) and the girl is the only one to be punished, what can one expect? Why if the girl is asked to leave school, for example, is the boy allowed to continue his education and graduate? And my example is exactly what they're defending under the pretense of religion and the Constitution!
Your last sentence holds the magic words.
Under the PRETENSE of religion.
The Constitution doesn't address women specifically, so obviously we are not intended to have rights under it.
I'm still waiting to hear how all these people are going to suddenly be able to afford health insurance at the rate premiums are rising. They'll just be forced to buy something they can't afford.
And quite frankly, I'm sick of libs "avoiding the issue."
When is the cost of health insurance going to come down?
"But 26-year-olds can now be covered under their parents' plan!"
That's great. When is the cost going to come down?
"People with preexisting conditions can get coverage now!"
That's great. When is the cost going to come down?
"We all pay for uninsured people!"
When is the cost going to come down?
"Some Scandinavian country!"
I DON'T CARE! WHEN IS THE COST GOING TO COME DOWN? WHEN IS THE
F*ING COST GOING TO COME DOWN?!
I'm seriously beginning to suspect that the reason I always get deflected when I ask this is because everyone KNOWS there's nothing in the bill that's going to bring the cost down and no one wants to admit it!
The cost isn't going to come down. With government mandated health the total cost of the countries medical is going to skyrocket far, far beyond what Obama said it would - the only reason his figure was so low is that the first few years that care is paid for but not provided. Take that away and make realistic estimates and it will come close to bankrupting the country.
It is going up now, it will continue to go up and if we attempt to provide top notch health care for every person in the country we will end up with nothing at all.
That is an excellent and fair question.
I suggest you take it up with your friendly neighborhood nonprofit health insurer.
What, you say?
Your health insurer is not a nonprofit?
Perhaps you are covered under one of those insurance companies raking in huge profits as they demand premium increases and there is no one out there telling them "That's an obscene increase. You can't do that."
And so they do.
Every year. Like clockwork.
Then it was pretty dumb of Obama to promise the bill would save the average family $2,500 a year, wasn't it?
The bill will save the average family money, it just so happens that you and I are not part of that average, with our poverty statistics as they stand a lot people will be on free or almost entirely subsidized care, 15% of our population is under the international poverty line so if you are doing ok it may raise you healthcare costs slightly, in my view worth it to provide care for all those that were uninsured before but it's a personal choice on that I guess.
I don't believe it always (or even usually) works that way. When the increase a couple of years ago was too much my employer dropped insurance altogether. Other employers I've been with negotiated with several companies each year and chose the best deal regardless of who it was with. At least two were self insured, not using an insurance company for anything but taking care of the paperwork.
It IS a competitive society, you know.
Oh please! The mandate is a red herring.
Seeing as how they want to tell women what to do with their uterus. Mandate is their middle name!
"You will have that baby by order of the state."
You will not use birth control.
You will not have sex.
That about cover it, oh freedom party?
I hear what your saying, espically you, Josak (you think they are old) It goes deeper than that. For instance, if a female wants birth control pills, the republicans want her to tell her employer. They are also suggesting vaginal probes if a woman wants an abortion. These are just a few of the rules they want in place if contraceptions are to be providd by insurance.
I don't quite understand the OP, I guess. I've neither seen nor heard anything at all that women should not have the same health care plan as men. If you get cancer or have a heart attack it will be treated. If your break a leg it will be set. You are not expected to live without a needed liver transplant any more than a male is. Even the female reproductive system is covered when something goes wrong.
What I have seen are the issues of abortion and birth control being raised. Both are primarily religious issues, even birth control. They are also lifestyle matters and not medical issues except in very rare cases, whereupon they are treated.
If you are complaining that hormonal treatment (via the pill if it will help) is not to be covered, well, I haven't heard that at all. Just birth control.
To answer your question in these matters from a male standpoint - abortion I won't touch as it is an intensely personal and religious matter except to say that I support, in general, abortion as it is now handled.
Birth control is another matter. If a woman wishes to interrupt the proper functioning of her body to live a particular lifestyle that is certainly up to her, but I see no reason for anyone else to pay for it. I view it as much the same as breast enlargement, botox injections or any other medical treatment that changes the body for no other reason than that the person wants to. Guaranteeing that a woman will be reimbursed for her birth control pills takes it away from insurance and puts it squarely into charity paid for by Uncle Sam, just as it would be if condoms were paid for by the government. It may be good for the people in general, it certainly saves the person (male or female) money by shifting the cost to someone else, but it isn't insurance. I don't see a reason for the elderly, the sterile, the very religious, those trying to have a child or anyone else not wanting birth control to subsidize the cost for someone that does. There are already far too many entitlement programs paid for by those that do not or cannot benefit from them.
The birth control mandate only affects women with insurance, so assuming you're insured, too, your premiums will help pay either for her birth control or her prenatal care, childbirth, etc. (So will hers, by the way - it's not like she's getting something for nothing.) Believe me when I say birth control is cheaper! Even if your insurance has no maternity coverage, most insurance covers well baby visits and that sort of thing, so you'll still probably end up paying more if you don't help cover her birth control than if you do.
That's a part of why I say it is probably a good thing for the country as a whole, even though the assumption that a woman WILL get pregnant every 9 months without free birth control is ridiculous.
It doesn't change that fact that such "coverage" is not insurance at all, but just another entitlement program to get someone else to pay for what the recipient doesn't want to pay for. Insurance is a program to share the costs of unexpected needs, not for something we KNOW we will be spending money on. You buy car insurance because you MIGHT have a wreck, not because you will.
I might add that while what you say is true, it very definitely smacks of blackmail. Is that the intent? To blackmail others into providing free birth control?
I'd venture to say that 99% of all women have at one time or another used some kind of birth control. Whether they're Catholics,Lutherans, Baptists etc... most have used this means to control unwanted pregnancies or control the size of their family. To believe otherwise would be living with your head in the sand! Question is, why should it always be the woman? Why don't the men get fixed and birth control wouldn't be an issue. Why is viagra covered under insurance? It's not a medical need either!
Viagra is covered as a medical need to fix something wrong with the body - mostly age in this case, much like presbyopia or cataract surgery.
The pill is used (as contraception) to interrupt the correct functioning of the body.
There is just a wee bit of difference here.
You've got to be kidding me? Now I've heard it all. No, I respectfully disagree. Viagra is not a medical need and can't be compared in any way shape or form to someone's eyesight, which is a medical need. Medical need and medical want are two different things. As for the pill, 99% of the population has used it at one time or another. So if you want viagra to have sex, then the pill should also be covered to have sex. No wee bit of difference at all here.
Sorry to pop your bubble, but if the body was still working properly viagra wouldn't be needed to provide function. That makes it a need as far as insurance goes. In reality of course, it is not actually a need any more than eyes that work are; blind people live happy productive lives and so can people that can't have sex.
Nor do you need the pill to have sex - not even to limit the results of sex. If you want contraception there are a variety of options including requiring the male to provide condoms.
If you think that there is no difference between providing correct operation of body functions and artificially interrupting or stopping those operations, you need to re-think.
If part of the aging process is for a function to shut down, it is no longer a needed function. Hate to bust your bubble but you and obviously Habee who agrees with you, need to re-think. So if viagra is covered the pill should also be.
You mean like eyesight and vision. My Dr. tells me that cataracts are a function of age; that everyone will get them if they live long enough. We dont need vision, then, by your reasoning? It is no longer a needed function? Heart attack, stroke, failing organs - all are at least partially a function of age, but we don't need a heart, do we?
Why is it that you continue to ignore the fact that the pill disrupts proper function? Because you don't want that function? Because it takes it out of medical care and into something else? Or do you think that a healthy female body can't get pregnant so all those that can need "fixed" to be healthy again?
You're late - I already explained that below and (s)he understood.
Poor habee - all that heat and humidity down south is getting to her and she's slowly losing it. Sad.
Sorry, I didn't see that before I posted my explanation. The heat and humidity are temporarily absent. In fact, my pool temp has dropped down to 72. Of course, I still try to brave it in order to tan. Maybe I have brain freeze? lol
Be very careful with that tanning. My older sister ended up with major skin cancer even though she religeously used tanning screens. She's now in her 60's and regrets those long stints in the sun now and is unable to go in the sun. Remember, moderations!)
idratherbe....the pill is available free of charge at county health departments. I live in Oklahoma and that is the case here. Considering how conservative this state his, I believe free birth control is available nation wide to women who need it.
So young families should have to pay for birth control or are you against the pill in general?
habee is agreeing with you. Click the this indicator on the first line to see who she is talking to.
Unfortunately, she has apparently lost her mind. Poor habee.
Wilderness, I know you're a fiscal conservative, so look it from that point of view. Birth control saves loads of money in the long run, but viagra doesn't. Viagra is covered because most lawmakers are older men. lol
Actually, I do and am on record here as saying that free birth control is probably a good thing for the country.
It just doesn't belong in an insurance program; insurance isn't intended to cover ongoing costs that we know will be incurred by healthy people to maintain a lifestyle they want. That is, instead, just another entitlement program to get the country to pay for our wants and should be viewed that way. There is no reason for everyone to pay for those wants in the form of increased cost of insurance. If the country wants another charity giveaway then fine - do it. At least this one makes fiscal sense.
Maybe my idea of what insurance (of any kind) is for is a little skewed. In my lifetime my cost for insurance has far outweighed my medical costs, but my wife's medical expenses have been 50 or 100 times her insurance costs. To me that is what it is about - stopping bankruptcies and real financial hardships from unexpected medical costs by sharing the costs. Not providing free drugs for recreational activities, unnecessary cosmetic surgery or other medical costs incurred to change a healthy person into something they aren't.
If a woman finds the idea that her free birth control pills are charity to be objectionable, then good! She can buy her own (just like men do condoms) instead of getting someone else to pay for it. And yes, I would put vasectomies in the very same category, sitting in the seat next to free birth control pills.
You, too habee? You also equate the restoration of a lost body function to the destruction (however temporary) of a working healthy one?
Why? What am I missing? Is it just that we have to be somehow always equal even when apples and oranges?
Not a question of equal, or keeping score, but a plan that doesn't discriminate against anothers values or needs or both.
?? By arranging that my medical insurance costs will go up to provide free drugs that I cannot use under any circumstances? Sounds a little disriminatory to me.
Actually there are lots and lots of costs that cannot be shared by both sexes. Women will never have prostrate problems, men will never need a hysterectomy. It isn't discrimination to include both in an insurance plan, although I suppose that men and women should have separate plans (and costs) if we want to be absolutely fair and square here. Of course, that probably leaves women paying more.... I just don't find it necessary nor desirable to take that route.
Values are not an issue here; needs (as opposed to wants) are. That a woman wants sex is immaterial (so do I!) - that she wants someone else to pay for it is definitely NOT immaterial. Is the next step to provide insurance coverage for prostitutes for those that can't find a willing date?
That men and women both might need sex for a healthy life might be debatable; that either one needs sex without children is not. That one is a lifestyle choice and should not be covered by insurance. Other charity like welfare, probably, but not medical insurance.
Why is it the argument always jumps right into something extreme like Repubs want to take away health care. I think many people, if not most, don't believe the govt should mandate that all private employers or the insurance companies pay for contraception services. I have deeply personal experiences on this regardig my daughter ... I wish I was at liberty to describe here but I don't think I can ...
Maybe, it's a matter of opinion but what is completely clear is that is not happening and never will so we have to go with realistic and actually helpful solutions rather that what can at best be described as wistful thinking.
Why should hard working people pay for abortions and birth control for sluts who cant keep thier legs crossed?
So wilderness, you are arguing that Viagra should be covered by insurance but birth control pills should not?
I sincerely hope I am misreading your statement.
While I am not particularly against free birth control from the government it should not be included in a medical insurance package any more than cosmetic surgery is. When you demand that someone else pay for the cost to change your body from its natural state of health to accommodate a lifestyle or action that you wish to participate in it should not be considered as an insurance benefit. Offhand I can't think of any other "treatment" than birth control that has ever been covered by insurance that is in this category; to disrupt natural body functions of a healthy person.
I suppose one could make the case that it is similar to surgery to correct a cleft palate from a birth defect, but I don't swallow that. The palate may be "natural", but it is not normal and will adversely affect the person as the body cannot function to it's full ability. Similarly, breast reconstruction after a mastectomy should be covered even though cosmetic; it is a return to what was rather than a simple enhancement.
Viagara, on the other hand is a drug treatment designed to return the body to what it used to be before aging took the ability away and that IS the function of insurance. I am scheduled for cataract eye surgery next week and one of the things I look forward to is once more being to play a round of golf. A lifestyle choice taken away by the aging process, just like the inability to have sex that viagara restores. "Restores" being a key word here - the pill "restores" nothing the body has lost, simply makes a chosen lifestyle possible without pay the price for it by disrupting the reproductive process.
Again, I would probably find free birth control something government should provide as another charitable entitlement to societies members, but it should NOT be a part of an insurance program mandated to everyone.
Ever think while employed why your premiums went up? In a lot of cases, it's because younger employees are having babies. We all pay for that through our insurance whether we are able to have children or not. Ever have a fellow employee get seriously ill? Again your premiums go up. Of course your employer could just choose to drop the coverage in that event or fire the costly employee. Birth control helps control cost, while viagra is an unnecessary choice that raises the cost of insurance on all employed.
$10,000 for birth costs to a young woman pale a little in relation to $100,000 for a heart attack in an aging population. Yes, fellow employees get seriously ill and can have huge bills; those employees are usually not young healthy women.
Birth control helps control costs and it is not just the cost of the birth; it is the cost through decades. That's why I would support free birth control. Many companies have instituted wellness programs to promote health and cut health care costs, but those are not typically a part of their health care plan. If we want to help control those costs then let society do it as a whole; not just those that have medical insurance.
If women don't want to have babies they shouldn't have sex. Interesting. So now the man has no say in having a child or not? So after getting married, it shouldn't be consummated? So what the bible says in Genesis 2:24 is wrong? I'm lost here.
I can only hope your joking? If physically unable to consummate is one thing, but to get married and not consummate the marriage makes me think the marriage is wrong to begin with.
What does marriage have to do with sex?
What does any of that have to do with the bible?
Because of this comment you made, "Why should hard working people pay for abortions and birth control for sluts who cant keep thier legs crossed?" Your response is holier then though! Calling women sluts? You assume all women having an abortion or using the pill, I would guess, are not married. But it's okay to pay for viagra, i guess you would say?
Just for the record, a man does NOT have a say in whether a woman decides to consent to having sex and baring children.
He is always free to get a divorce if his wife wont consummate the marriage.
Women should have the right to choose and I am a man but not a fan of either political party.
But I don't think abortion should be used as birth control. I see some women who years later are really messed up by the abortions they had as young women. And I mean messed up mentally. But I still believe it should still be the right of the woman to choose. After all it is the woman who will raise the child and be responsible for the child for the next 19 to 21 years.
I personally know 6 women who have had abortions, 2 are ex's of mine. Every one of them said that if they could do it again they would have NOT got the abortion. When a woman is pregnant and single, common sense is replaced with fear of survival. Women like security, not risks. After they realize that they could have made it even with the baby, they then regret getting the abortion. Men who abandon pregnant women should be punished.
Premiums went up because POTUS delayed the start of the Health Care. The Insurance Co's knew what was coming and began raising premiums. POTUS admits this was not handled right. The Supreme Court will approve the plan...there is no constitutional problems. The democrats will have a problem trying to communicate how it will work...The only people it will concern immediately will be the people who are working and their employer does not offer insurance, these people will see first how it works. Next will be the people who work part-time or don't work at all. The Gov will offer coverage at what they can afford, with subsidies..if needed. It will not ffect those on medicare or disabiliy. It will be affordable, as more people get insurance, other premiums already in place will go dow, because the Insurance Co'swill have more patients. That's how it will become affordable for everyone. Right now we pay for those that do not hae insurance and cost are rising. The more people that pay a little ...premiums will go down. Why do you think the Insurance Co's have not been complaining? They will be making a shit lode of money. Slowly, rushing to the emergency room woth no insurance will be a thing of the past.
I think your reason is a little flawed. The POTUS set this up in such a way that benefits were to be paid for for several years without having insurance as a way to keep costs down in the 10 year budgetary process. By doing this it looks considerably cheaper than it actually is and realistic projections show this; the cost for second 10 year period balloons considerably.
In addition there are two "costs" to consider; the cost of all the medical care to the country and the cost to individuals. Some individuals (notably those less healthy, older or with perpetual health problems) will indeed find their costs going down. Those costs will be covered by younger, more healthy individuals that will see their costs escalate considerably. TANSTAAFL is the term that comes to mind; "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Somebody will pay for it.
In addition, just as you point out, insurance companies will see their profits climb considerably; "making a s**t lode of money" is an understatement. Yet, those profits are a part of medical costs and must be covered by someone. That "someone" is the insured people of the US and the result definitely won't be a decrease in policy costs. Increasing profits come from somewhere, not from thin air. That money comes from the total medical costs paid by US citizens.
You're right - at this time we still pay for medical treatment for those without insurance; with mandated care we will still pay for it plus a profit to the insurance companies. That doesn't equal cheaper costs.
I know of one very public person who was glad she had an abortion...Chelsea Handler. She was 16. Her parents told her--we want you to have a life 1st.
My sister had an abortion, because they were afraid the baby would be born with the father's disease..
There are numerous reasons for everything, and I'm sure we all regret decisions we have made in life.
When you take away the choice to make a decision...you are into the realm of religious tyranny--just like the Taliban IMO.
If you don't like abortion--don't have one. Simple as that.
"Notice how the same people who say being a mother is "the hardest job in the world" often want to push it on the young and unwilling."
Who wish for there to be no consequences to their actions.
In the real world there are.
Bulloney. I see actions going without consequence on a daily basis.
We are talking about abortion. Not George Bush.
Somene else's abortion is none of your busines. Bushco's crimes are all of ours.
You wish to make it my business. What the crap are you to do if George Bush passes away? You won't have anyone to blame then.
I want you and the church out of it---unless your opinion is asked for. That is the whole point of Roe V Wade....right to privacy.
It's my business when you want to take my privacy away, and make pregnancy an issue for the gvt to decide. That's over the line and the Constitution. It's My call on what makes my pursuit of happiness, not the gvt.
And btw--being a Christian does not make your views superior to mine!
I play by the rules. do my part, don't break any laws.....please back off with the ideology. We govern by ideas, not religious doctrine.
Being a mother is a hard job, there's no denying that. BUT, being a working mother or a single parent mother would be the "Hardest Job!" Being a mother and not working outside of the home is like comparing apples to oranges. No comparison at all.
If you think being a single parent mother or stay at home mom gets strange reactions from people, try being a stay at home dad or even a single dad.
Wilderness, good point! A working dad or a single parent dad would also be the "Hardest Job!" And a stay at home dad would also be a hard job. And during these times, that point needs to be considered and respected!
One of my sons was a stay at home Dad while Mom was out to sea in the Navy. Few people understood or respected that decision and I know it was hard on him as a result. While "housewife" or "homemaker" is an accepted occupation, "househusband" doesn't garner the same respect or reaction.
Well it should get the same respect. People pointing the finger have four pointing back at them!
Yes it most certainly should. I don't think I could have done it - a small town with too many Navy people for the jobs available. Add in two small children needing daycare and a low paying job just doesn't work.
So you have a man staying home with 2 little kids while Mom works. It doesn't get that man much respect - he's supposed to be the breadwinner and all... I actually had one guy tell me my sons wife should be at home with dinner ready when he gets home from work - I about punched him. She should go AWOL from 2,000 miles at sea to fix his supper!
I'd consider the source! The guy was probably suffering from the Napoleon Complex!lol I applaud your son and daughter in law. Times have changed!
In my experience, single dads have been looked on as heros. I never once heard anyone tell them they should have "kept it in their pants", or told them they were irresponsible, or told them they and their kids were undeserving of help.
In fact, I've seen people bend over backwards to help them!
I've never seen any of the social scourging that goes on with single moms. hmmmm, maybe if there were more single dads, single moms would be given more credit, less denigrating.
As they denigrated that woman who made those comment about Ann Romney. Oh yes----she is now a lesbian who no man would ever want...did you know that? Santorum even dissed her because her kids are adopted...not pure, like his. And I'm sure Laura, Rush, Savage and Malkin had their digs.
But oh yes, we all had to apologize to Ann.
You're right Hilary Rosen was denigrated and unjustly. Granted a stay at home mom's job is hard, but how hard could it have been for Ann Romney? She probably never had to worry about a budget,grocery shopping, meal planning, getting the kids to school, etc...Would like to know for sure, but I would be surprised if she didn't have maids, nannys, butlers, and drivers? In the real world of the working class, at home mom and dads don't have that luxory. They have to do the shopping, plan the meals,work within a budget, transport the kids, do the laundry, clean the house, be the doctor, and the list goes on.............So to say she or Mitt understand the plight of the average American is just hogwash! For her to understand the hardship associated with this economy is hogwash as well! We need "Real working class people to represent us." People who lived thru hard and good times and realizes the value of the dollar. But to hope for that is a dream, because without money, you're chances of getting elected are nill to none!
But most of the unwanted babies are from LOW INCOME households. How about teaching kids that their private parts will rot and fall off? Worked for our grandparents.
Republican men? Now there is a set of words that show bias and confusion.
Men are not out to take away pap smears, mammograms, prenatal care or any other essential care. However, many men and women do not want to pay for either woman or man's recreational sex. Sandra Fluke has plenty of money to pay for her $9 per month birth control. However, she wanted to take a stab at the Catholic Church. She put on a good show, but we saw right through her.
It is fairly so, wrong for other people to have to pay for a man's Viagra as well. If he wants that pleasure enhancement he should pay for it.
How come they don't have a hearing on that?
It is very hard and annoying to constantly hear ignorant people talk about what they don't want to pay for. Just because a person wants a medical service YOU deem unimportant, you stupid people talk about paying for it. Who paid for the thousands of lives lost by useless wars? Who is paying for the men and women who have lost limbs, eyesight and minds. You people forget that more was paid for by these courageous men and women and they will PAY for the rest of their lives. How do you get off complaining about what YOU don't want to pay for? You sit at home comfy cozy while thousands are PAYING to keep you safe. YES, it is Bush's fault, his and Congress, Republicans and Democrats. Try to think for yourselves instead of letting a totally biased political machine feed you falsehoods so you will forget what is really important!
Okay, what's the difference between women's rights and women's health rights? Hmmm....
Women's right's are the same as "Men's right's". Health rights pertain to the right to do with your body as you please (legally). Men don't usually have the same health decisions, because they are not responsible for "birth". Women, keep the humans going (lol). Women not only keep the race going but are the first source of nutrition for off springs. In some cases, the only source. So there are usually controversies as to what wpmen are allowed to do to their bodies, (or so, some men think they have a right to dictate) what that should be. Like abortions..contraceptives....but these responsibilities on the woman's body causes other health problem that men will never experience or understand. That's why they are specificallly called "women's health" issues. Does that help?
Health Rights? Or you actually reading those two words together? I mean seriously. What type of BS is running around now?
A woman has her rights. Those rights are not related to any product or service available. I'm getting a little tired of the government sticking it's nose in where it doesn't belong in the first place.
A woman's health and what powers she has to maintain that health is completely up to her. There are plenty of services offered in the U.S. marketplace to cover almost everything she could possibly need or want or desire.
The fact that government even has a hand in this should tell the public something about how far into society government's power extends. It's ridiculous!
A person's rights are based on a choice. That choice is tied to moral actions. As much as the government would love to legislate morality it cannot. The government has it's own damn problems with morality, much less the ability to legislate morality for others.
There are laws in place and other ordinances to keep a social environment. Many laws destroy personal liberty. Many laws are so outdated it's not even funny, yet these laws are still active and can be used against citizens, even if they don't know about them. Ignorance isn't so blissful now is it. And, ignorance has been deemed by the court system that it(ignorance) is never justified. If you're not in the know on something, then you better believe that you better get in the know about it.
No one is allowed to claim they didn't know the law. It is your duty as a citizen to know the law and how it pertains to you living your life. And, that starts with individual rights.
Well I disagree, both men and women have the right to a decent life lived with dignity, healthcare helps provide that. As far as I am concerned healthcare is a right.
Really? Are you willing to pay for that life? Do you get to say what that life is to be like? Who is to decide what a "decent" life is?
And, that would be part of the problem. What you think is a right? Is nothing more than a product and/or service offered by the U.S. Economy of business.
Healthcare is a fictional product. It doesn't exist.
Every person has a equal right to use whatever product or service they choose to use. No one should stand in the way of anyone's right to do so.
I am willing to pay as much in taxes as is required to guarantee that people can get healthcare when they need it. Decent life is a near self explanatory statement, if a person is sick and can't go to the doctor and so must suffer instead, that is not a decent life, sorry if you don't get it.
The vast majority of the developed countries in the world provide free healthcare, I am a citizen of America and two of the a fore mentioned countries and going back and forth shows without the slightest doubt that our system is terrible. The market place is fine for deciding how much my chips cost but no one should be priced out of life or health, it is immoral beyond belief, something that most countries have realized.
You're joking right? And, what guarantee do you think is in place? Don't think for a second that government can guarantee anything for the general public. The government is so ineffective and inefficient, it cannot even keep it's own house in order, much less guarantee people can get healthcare.
Thinking the government can manage healthcare for the entire country is not only absurd, but completely ridiculous.
There's NO hospital in this country that will turn away a sick person. Doctors are duty bound to ethically help them. It doesn't matter if they can pay or not.
Granting Universal Health Care in America is literally the straw that will break the camels back, without any doubt. The government is already continuing it's onslaught of America's currency by printing more borrowed money.
As I said before, it's the industry that needs reform. The entire system needs to be overhauled without a doubt. There's simply too much fraud and abuse of the system. This is the same problem with Medicaid and Medicare, and Social Security, especially Social Security Disability.
Most Countries? This is the second time you have referred to other Countries. Do me a favor, stop it. It's ridiculous. The market determines every item you use or consume. What you pay is based on supply and demand pricing. And, yes these prices are manipulated.
However, that doesn't change this discussion, which you seem to be trying to do.
You want to keep your health, then fine. No problem. Buy what you want. It's your choice because it's your right to do. However, under no circumstance should I as an individual be FORCED to buy anything in which I don't think I require.
See this statement is bizarre, you are suggesting that people who are sick can get treatment if they can't afford it which is false but even assuming it were true that just strengthens my point, if someone can get treatment free now then we should definitely institute a system to allow that free care to be better coordinated and maintained. OK I will stop saying most countries Instead I will say this, every country with a better healthcare rating than the US has free healthcare as does every country with a higher quality of life. Obviously governments can run healthcare and actually run it much better than private ownership. Taxes already force you to pay for things you may or may not want so saying that no one has the right to make you pay for something you don't want to is moronic and incorrect.
People have the right to live long and healthy lives and the US is failing it's populace in this respect, Cuba has a longer life expectancy.
Okay, you had me upto the last sentence here. From the people I have met online, the health care you talk about is so lousy it's not even funny and this is outside America, in those so called developed countries.
BS. Pure unadulterated BS. Governments cannot even run themselves much less anything else.
Dense much? I pay taxes so Government functions. I am not sure WHY you pay taxes. Making a claim that the government does with the money I give it to operate is a bit foolish don't you think. I willingly give money to the government. I don't reserve the right to dictate what the money is used for with regards to government operation.
It's odd how people want to be able to have a functioning government but also want to dictate how it spends it's money. I mean, don't take me wrong, I want the government to work effectively and efficiently on the funds it receives through taxation, but to be picky about specific things in which it funds? Well, to be honest, government shouldn't be meddling with people's rights to begin with and the further the distance the better.
Again, BIG F***ing deal about Cuba or any other country in this world.
Would you stay the hell on the topic of women's rights and quit with the BS of changing the subject.
If woman have equal rights, then they have the right to USE whatever product they want to use. They have the right to use whatever services are available. In my home state, Mass, NO hospital can turn away a sick person. Got it? And it's been adapted across the country. Got it? That is the best way to PROTECT individual rights for access to doctors and medicine.
The individual woman must have equal rights, which mean she has equal access to whatever health products and services are available. Every woman has this right already. Thus, it eliminates any BS argument about women's "health" rights.
Now, woman's rights and what products or services she is allowed to have access to? Answer: ALL. End of story.
And on top of that, this is about Women's rights. And, a woman should be able to take care of herself without help from anyone else, just like every other person on the planet should be able to do.
It is her duty to herself to maintain her health. That means that she is to be educated about health risks accordingly. That is for HER to do. You cannot FORCE someone to take care of themselves and there's absolutely NO need to burden the rest of society with the costs of those who don't want to take care of themselves.
Just a hypothetical here, but for those who want a "right to choose," what if there is a God, and what if God made life begin at conception. I don't think that the privacy argument will carry much weight. At the end of the day, someone who truly believes that there is a living child being taken from the womb can no more look past it than you would look past killing the child once born. (I admit I am assuming you would not look past that.)
As far as covering contraception under insurance, it is a pure logical fallacy. Insurance is intended to cover risk. There is no risk in a known event like buying contraception. It is akin to expecting your car insurance to cover oil changes. Beyond that, the idea that your insurance premium alone covers your contractions shows an abject lack of understanding for the nature of insurance. By definition, insurance pools funds of the many to pay for the occasional claims of the few. Your contraction is absolutely paid for by other. It must be built into the price of all insurance, it is simply transfer pricing from one group to another.
Here is a question for you PJ, why does the Obama administration believe that the women employees in the White House deserve to be paid 18% less than their male counterparts. Following your logic stream, I don't understand why all Democrats want to pay women less for equal work. Since we are painting with very broad brushes, please defend that position.
You missing something?
This entire discussion is about women's "health" rights. When the truth is it's about women's rights. I find it funny how people don't mind trampling on women's rights and do it blatantly.
A woman has equal rights to that of any other person. End of story. The fact that woman have to fight for equality and equal rights in this day and age is getting absurd.
She has just as much right to live her life, as much as anyone else does. There is no rhyme or reason, for government and/or other people are to get involved when it's her own responsibility for her own health.
Actually this entire discussion was not at all about women’s "health" rights. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. This discussion has been about politics, government intervention, pricing transfer, socialism of medicine, abortion as a moral issue, and several other things along the way.
In terms of the abortion issue specifically, it is far more nuanced than you seem to be implying. If tomorrow we somehow discovered that abortion was the killing of a salient being; all rational people would be against it. Conversely, if we were suddenly able to prove that life actually begins 6 months after conception, most rational people would accept it as a reasonable medical procedure early in pregnancy.
The argument is not about a woman’s privacy, it is about what constitutes an actual life, and that is why it becomes such a difficult issue. How you somehow turn this into trampling on women’s right is beyond me. Woman are blessed or burdened (depending on your perspective) with the biological responsibility of child birth, therefore, they are essentially caught in the middle of the debate.
I am guessing you don't engage in the scientific method very often. Cubans live longer; therefore it is the result of a communist government offering healthcare. Really? It is simply not arguable that the American Healthcare System supplies the world’s medical technology and treatment advancement. The world's medical care advances on the back of the for profit American system. When you start tossing out these silly life expectancy statics, you might want to include a few other factors like, obesity rate, smoking rate, work place mortality, average annual miles driven, average miles walked, climate, cultural norms, etc.
The notion that the government does anything better than the private sector flies in the face of everything we all see every day. Even the Federal Employees believe (recent survey) they do not work as hard as their private sector counterparts. Government must do some things in a civilized society, but they always do so at a net cost to the societies return on capital.
Actually according to the WHO it is precisely because they have better healthcare (the obesity is compensated by the more varied diet).
Hey T.R. Pres Obama's fist law he signed ws the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The law states, "equal pay. for equal work". On 4/23/12 Gov Walker wrote a bill repealing this law. The Republican Congress is also repealing this law. The women in the WH are fighting back with proposed legislation...the republicans are refusing to bring this to cloture..it is still a fight. The reason why women health rights have become an issue is in 21 states, the republicans are passing laws to take away these basic rights..which were settled back in th 1950's.
I cannot believe the laws the republicans want in place like "vaginal probes"...making doctors lie to female patients about certain care they request. (Doctors are now bringing law suits against these governors (republicans) on laws that are forcing them to act against their "hippocratic oath".
It's true the government screws a lot up..but some things work. Believe it or not medicare, disability, food stamp program and welfare are not perfect programs, but they have helped millions of people. Some of the Affordable Health Care acts are helping millions
now. My daughter does cannot afford health insurance, but she had to go to the emergency room for her knee. Not only did they treat her, but paid for the required prescriptions (she will be billed later), but more times than not after you go to the emergency room, you can't afford the medication.
There are good things in the health care plan, but (if Supreme Court passes it) the republicans want severe restrictions on "women health" issues. These old fashioned ideas are what is going to kill Romney for Pres.
Simply not true,
Federal program have had a devastating effect on community, and have relegated large swaths of the population to endless cycles of poverty. Beyond that, statistically the government in an inordinately inefficient means for delivery of any service. Estimates are that the government consumes at least 30% of the value of every dollar spent. Anyone who understands economics knows that there must be a return on National GDP. The larger the government becomes, the lower the economic growth must be. Every dollar the government consumes above the GDP growth rate, the lower the standard of living for the population.
The Ledbetter Act will have a chilling effect on women’s employment over time. No reasonable person would want women to make less than men all things equal. However, statistically, women are more likely to take breaks from work in the aggregate. It is called child birth and it is a good thing, not a bad thing, but an interrupted career will be a career that pays less. If employers are forced toward a non-market oriented equal pay scheme, they will and must figure out how to manage the number of child bearing women they hire. This isn't sexist it is math. Make no mistake, I was raised by a poor single mom I absolutely support equal pay for equal work, but that must happen in the specific, not in the general.
In terms of the WH staff, please step back and think about what you just said. The women have to take action to be paid fairly by the current administration. I will never understand why you would believe words over actions. This administration said one thing and did another. Now the women are forced to take action to hold the administration to its word. How do you justify that?
I terms of this vaginal probe non-sense, you are talking about sonogram legislation. I am not a physician, but I can assure you that if you experiencing any vaginal probing during a sonogram, you doctor is doing it wrong, very wrong. I am not sure where I fall on that particular issue, but it is not what you are describing. Yours is simply a leftist talking point, not a point for debate.
I am certainly sorry that your daughter had an injury, and I hope the best for her, but with market reforms, she would likely be able to afford a catastrophic policy (it used to be called hospitalization insurance), and she would be able to work through the deductable under such a scenario. Beyond that, the Medicare that you say helps is one of the primary reasons your daughters care was so expensive.
If you check out their site (WHO) it shows that the US has a longer life expectancy than Cuba even with a much higher obesity rate and a much higher risk for auto deaths. It's odd that the actual data differs from your assertions.
Romney's statement that college kids ask their parents for tution money show's he's out of touch. They wouldn't be trying to get a "Loan" if they or their parents had money. There is no way he can relate to the average American. And for those considering voting for him, I can only assume you're well off finacially.
Anyone who doesn't support equality and equal rights isn't fit for office. Any citizen who doesn't support equality and equal rights for others then supports the status quo presently controlling America.
Anyone who supports the status quo doesn't mind their rights being taken away.
Anyone who supports the status quo doesn't mind losing their earnings either.
The biggest problem in America is that the most average person has no clue or understanding of what their rights are to begin with. It's sad to say, but true nonetheless. Some people know a couple of their rights, but beyond that they know nothing.
The dumbing down of society has been an on-going disaster waiting to happen and it's shortly to complete boil over. The dumbing down started about 15 years ago or so. You know, it's when the government decides that it's going to shell out more borrowed money to fund some other supposed problem, so they reduce the funds allocated for education. Proving that the military industrial complex is still in full working order. They want citizens to join to die for a cause which is non-existent in America- Equality and Equal Rights.
Neither exists in America.
OK, TR, I believe you finally confounded and confused me. I am speechless, for me that is rare. 1st I have to admit ignarance on GDP..I do not understand how this is measured. You also stated that we need a National GDP, that to me is GNP..I cannot understand how the economist measure this. Our economy is so fragile, which aggregates the markets, so I do not understad how the numbers are acessed...so I will leave it alone.
Don't insult me by putting words in my mouth that I was talking about "sonograms". If you read what I wrote...that is precisely why the Doctors are suing. They are being forced to act in unethical ways when it comes to health treatment for women.
Your antiguated verbage about women taking more time off from work or having their careers intrupted to give birth, is why we had this conversation in the 1950's..your reasoning was used to keep women down and under paid. It was decieded during that time, that this should not make a difference in equal pay for women performing the same job. It was also proved at that time that women performed the same job better than a man, because they performed it quicker and right the . I don't remember mentioning how much my daughter's jaunt to the emergency room cost, I was elated that she was able to receive the services plus required medication.
What is a "non-market orientated equal pay scheme"? As usual the right blames this administration for trying to clean up what was left. This administration is trying to give women the rights they deserve, not hinder the process. If you actually believe that euality and equal rights are non-existent, we cannot discuss issues. I believe they exsist, it's just hard to see, because people like you don't see it therefore the problem can never be resolved.
But I agree with you, I don't know why you changed the subject, but the majority of people do not understand their rights, or don't want to fight for them. It may be easier to just ignore. As a black person, I was raised to ignore a lot of what I knew to be wrong, I was told just to stay on the right side of the law..and to grit my teeth on certain items. But I will voice my fear for women if Republicans continue in power, not only for women, for many poor people who want to get and education, young minds that will not be molded to learn at an early age. Republicans decried that Pres. Obama would change America as we know it. However, they are doing the changes, and not for the good of the country. They are sending us back to a time that was not very comfortable for most races and women. It has taken us a while to get it right, now that will all be eradicated. The lessons learned will be dust bunnies under our beds. We will become ignorant, intolerant and there will be CLASS WAR FARE..a division that will inhibit what we once stood for.
PJ, I invite you to google search civil rights legislation. You will find that every major civil rights act was authored, and at the very least supported by, Republicans. You will also find that Democrats, more often than not, were opposed to civil rights legislation.
Lyndon Johnson was the first democrat president to support civil rights. It is important to note that his Civil Rights Act of 1964 never would have passed without Republican support.
Franklin Roosevelt was president for 12 years and did nothing to improve the lives of black people. Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military, but it was Dwight Eisenhower who actually made it happen. The left's beloved John Kennedy also did nothing to improve the lives of black Americans.
Why would a party that had been fighting for the civil rights of blacks for over 100 years suddenly decide to become hostile to minorities after 1964? The answer is that the Republican party is not hostile to minorities. What you currently believe to be true is a liberal lie.
Please, do your own research. The truth is only a google search away. You should start by looking into which party Martin Luther King Jr was a member of.
An abortion just might have everything to do with a woman's health! don't be idiotic. Some women will die if they continue a pregnancy, have you never heard of that, Onusonus? This is a decision you cannot make unless you are that woman! And politicians belong nowhere near my Ob/Gyn's office!
Well of course there are a few extreme circumstances when a woman's health is at risk, and that is a fraction of a percentage of the 1.5 million women who get abortions every year because johnny didn't wear a condom. I mean we're talking about a couple hundred people nation wide.
And I agree that politics should not be involved, but abortion clinics still seek for federal subsidies. That's tax payer dollars, hence the politics will always be involved.
It's just like when the government subsidizes corn farmers. The country ends up with so much unneeded corn that they put corn syrup in everything. Same thing with baby killing abortion factories. They're everywhere, particularly in predominantly black neighborhoods.
So Margaret Sanger's eugenics brain child "the negro project" is successfully being carried out by the US Government. And you are applauding it.
You can't seriously be this stupid, there is a massive difference between saying "we have no right to tell people what they can and can't do with their body" or "it's not OK to force a woman to have a baby if she doesn't want to" (even if they can't afford an abortion hence the federal money) and practicing eugenics, women are choosing to have abortions because they don't want to have a child, simple. Factually the black population is the fastest growing after Hispanic in America. I say all this as someone who is very much on the fence about the abortion debate but your statement was just so ridiculous...
And I just have ask why are the Republicans - who may have written civil rights legislation - trying to dismantle those rights now? Since the time they were written, it seems to me that the Republican party has moved much farther to the right than they once were. Something has changed if they want to change what they put into law. The Repubs I know all are against any NAACP stuff at all. I don't understand why. Especially since they wrote those laws.
Let's put it this way. By whatever philosophy you choose to use, let's say women do not have a right to health insurance, and health insurance shouldn't cover contraception. Now imagine women can't get the contraception they need (only 42% of all women who use it, use it exclusively for birth control.) Will the philosophical and physical burden on these women who need it not do more damage to everyone than if we (taxpayers) were simply to pay for it? Considering they are a part of the system, the more they are suffering, the more the system is suffering. You might argue supply and demand and fair is fair, but I'm arguing that you'll be better off if you work with them and not against them. If a person is in distress because of health, they won't have a means to help him or herself and will therefore have more reliance in areas such as social security, medicaid, and so forth.
Furthermore, through planned parenthood and other programs, are we not saving the government money by alleviating the cost to the states (who get major funding from the federal government for schools)? Let's say a teen gets pregnant because there is no means for her to get contraception (We all know she's most likely still going to have sex.) Her child will need to be educated. Will the cost of educating this child, who is much more likely to have financial needs covered by the state considering the mother's financial standing, not outweigh the cost of contraception for this mother? Would the cost of her education not have been partially wasted because she no longer (realistically) has the ability to continue her education and career path?
We can argue education is the answer, but education won't stop (and I mean literally) a sperm from joining with an egg. You can argue abstinence education, but it's common knowledge that it typically doesn't work. So I say this: even if a woman doesn't have the right to contraception, we as a nation should provide it merely because it will, in only a few years time, actually lower what we are all paying in. We don't force a women to take contraception. We should merely make it readily available.
by Jackie Lynnley13 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Cassie Smith5 years ago
Sandra Fluke at a democratic hearing complained that she and her fellow female law school students at Georgetown are burdened by having to pay $3,000 for their own contraceptives, which is why she agrees with including...
by Chris Mills4 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, blasted the news as a “profound violation of religious liberty.”“The reality is that the HHS mandate forces women like me to...
by Yes Dear5 years ago
Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush YearsThe right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most...
by Onusonus7 months ago
A poll for the ladys out there.Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of their services are for abortion. The rest is for cancer screening and other unrelated health services.So how many of you women out there actually...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.