I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Dialysis Discussion => Dialysis: General Discussion => Topic started by: MooseMom on February 03, 2012, 11:01:43 AM
-
Bearing in mind the kerfuffle on a couple of "political threads", I am in two minds about asking this question, but it is a legitimate query and it is one that I myself had to grapple with.
When I was pregnant over 20 years ago, I was hospitalized for 6 weeks with pre-eclampsia and had to have a c-section when my kidney function started to deteriorate. I did not know at the time that I had CKD. I was intensive care for 4 days afterwards as my blood pressure went out of control. I was lucky to escape with my life. Six months later, I was biopsied, and that's when it was discovered I had fsgs.
I was referred to a neph who told me that I should not have another pregnancy. He explained that the body of a pregnant woman actually manufactures more blood, so more blood means more blood to cleanse, and that means more work for the kidneys. I was told that out of every organ system in the body, it is the kidneys that take the most strain during pregancy.
So, contraception became something of a necessity for me. I toyed with the idea of tubal ligation because I knew that another pregnancy would never be a good idea, so a permanent solution might be wiser. I spoke to my husband about it, and while he offered to have a vasectomy, I refused that option because since it was my body that needed to be protected, it was my responsibility. I also felt that his chance to have another child should something happen to me shouldn't be denied him.
I decided that what must take priority was the child I already had. I felt that he deserved a healthy mom, and for me to risk another pregnancy would be selfish of me. I felt that my responsibility was not only to my son but also to my husband. He deserved a healthy wife and a healthy mother for his child. So, I chose tubal ligation and never looked back.
The topic of birth control can be an emotional one driven by religious faith; I know there are people who oppose the use of birth control, and of course, that is their right. No one can force a husband or a wife to use it. But those of us here who are of childbearing age and who have CKD have a special set of circumstances that must be considered. It would be irresponsible to not give it a lot of thought because the consequences of pregnancy coupled with CKD can be dire.
So, after that wordy intro, what do you think a woman and her husband should do about contraception and CKD? I ask this in the most respectful way possible. I do not wish to fight, rather, I am interested in how you feel about this very real condundrum. This is not a hypothetical question.
Thank you for your respectful replies. For anyone who feels this is too personal a question, I agree it is VERY personal. But it is also very important.
(edited to add: I will not be offended by anyone who disagrees with my decision. Dissent cannot change the past. Besides, it was all so long ago, and that young woman doesn't even exist anymore.)
-
Thank you for posting this, MM. I look at it this way. For those who are female w/CKD and who are lucky enough to be in a relationship - be it a marriage or a commited relationship, contraception is a reality that has to be faced. To play russian roulette with fate could be deadly - to both mother and baby. The only other solution to that would be to not engage in intimate relations, which then means that the disease wins. And that, to me, is wrong. My one mantra in this life with now ESRD is to NOT let it win. Be careful, yes. I certainly don't condone casual sex with strangers or anything. I'm talking in a commited, loving, faithful relationship.
I admit, I get really irritated, and sometimes scared, when I hear people talk about being against contraception. I get scared because there are some who are seeking to be in political power, or who are already in political power, who feel the same way. I don't want them to legislate their beliefs.
KarenInWA
-
HELP HELP HELP> ON this subject!! I WANT birthcontrol. I hate condoms. I am finallymarried and refurse to use them, especially not that i am not sinning. But no doctor will give me birth control. One of the reasons why I want birth control is to get rid of my chest and facial hair, and my severe acne. Well the one birth control that im on is NOT working! A blood test has shown that I have high testortone levels (sp?) I was hoping birth control would get rid of those effects. And its not doing anything.
So, I am not suspose to have any kids on dialysis, and now because of dialysis I cant have birth control that will even help with my hormone levels??? WT_? :banghead; I was on birth control before dialysis. THey say lupus + dialysis = no birthcontrol.
I am so angry over this. I take nothing but vitamins and stool softners. Havent seen a lupus doctor in almost 2 years, been in remission for 13. Not on any blood pressure meds for over 2 years.
My facial hair and acne are NOT going away. I was told that dial ysis does not get rid of all of the testortone (sp?) in the blood stream.
Lisa
-
I believe that all babies and therefore all children ought to be wanted, welcomed and cared for in the world. That's an ideal and one that will never happen but I still believe in it as a goal. I started D at 26 and eventually made a decision NOT to have children since I didn't know if I'd be around to be a healthy mother and that was a tough decision since I love kids and think I'd have been a good Mum. I also feel lucky to have (despite ESRD and D) a strong sexual identity, a sensual nature, no personal experience whatsoever with selfish, hurtful or icky sex and have been living with the same man for 41 years now. The idea that anyone could/would/should have any bearing on our decision around contraception is ludicrous in the extreme. Actually, my husband was very concerned about me taking the pill as he worried about the potential harm from it and insisted that he'd prefer we work with condoms...a rather unselfish and unusual stance back in 1971.
By the same token, if someone is religiously motivated to NOT use contraception I'd never dream of saying they should do so although if a whole bunch of kids resulted from that decision and were being neglected or whatever I'd certainly think they should lay off the sex or find alternative ways of getting their physical needs met.
I really think that our world is far too complicated and our individual situations even more so, for absolutes in areas that don't impact others. Judging is easy, struggling with life's obstacles isn't and I think we each have enough on our own plates. MM, I would have done the same as you and never looked back.
-
We went the vasectomy route. I never wanted children of my own, long before I knew I had CKD. DH does not want children for various other personal reasons. Since we agreed that biological children were not going to be part of our lives and I could not go on hormonal birth control, we decided that the vasectomy would be the best route. It took a lot of fast talking to convince the doctor that this is what we wanted, since DH was just barely 30 at the time, but we have not looked back with regret.
-
Why politics should have any place in such a private matter is ludicrous and completely beyond me. It's simple, really: if you don't believe in contraception, DON'T USE IT! How hard is that?
Both of us hate condoms and I can't use hormonal birth control; the one time I tried it I was weepy and dangerously suicidal within a week, and I was on a low dose. Lack of really reliable birth control was ruining our sex life because both of us were terrified of pregnancy and so we ended up abstaining more often than not. Finally I said, "Screw this" and went to Planned Parenthood to have an (non-hormonal) IUD placed. It felt like a giant weight had been lifted off our shoulders. I really wish I'd had a tubal ligation last time I gave birth but it was too chaotic a scene for anyone to even think of it. Getting the IUD was the next best thing and the responsible thing to do. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
-
It's simple, really: if you don't believe in contraception, DON'T USE IT! How hard is that?
It's not hard at all for some of us, but it might be hard for others who feel that the use of contraception is morally wrong. But women who believe this way can and do get CKD, and for them, they have a choice to make. Is it a difficult choice or not? What if you decide that in this circumstance, it's ok to use contraception because it really can be a matter of life or death, but your husband does not agree and stills sees birth control as wrong? Or has that just never, ever happened?
-
Whoa MM you did not put this question to me the way you just did. You asked how I felt about taking BC for medically necessary situations. I stated of course, its okay in medical situations. But to use deliberately,for avoidance of pregnancy only, is what I did not believe is right! It was more a principle reason.. Nothing was said about politics on my behalf. But on the behalf of SGK that I felt that there was some political ponderance there!
I had a child by my first husband. I did not use BC at all. We used the ole "take your temp" method. I do not remember exactly how that worked, but it did with us. Anyrate, I have never been a sexually active individual. When I got divorced the 1st time, I was a single parent for 16yrs. So the want or need for sex's was not my top priority due to having to raise my child & working alot of hours.
But I have certainly been a healthy person most of my life and just did not want BC in it. If I had engaged in sex then the man would use a condom.
Also, if I had CKD, I would not chance bringing a child in to this world. I believe Monrien said it best. But I assure you, politics has no room in my personal life and beliefs. Im not stating anything but my personal heartfelt beliefs. And I most certainly am not forcing them on those who believe otherwise, just merely trying to answer the question put before me in an honest and sincere way!
I do believe in BC for all medically necessary situations, and would personally use them for that if I needed them. But for strictly to avoid pregnancy, I would not use them myself! Maybe I sounded pompus in my answer to you MM, but that was not intentional. It is my true belief. Even if I was not a Christian, I would still feel the same way.
I would love to have had more children than one, but it was never meant to be. In 1992, I had early signs of Endometriosis and had to have an Ablasion. Thus no more children. Would I like to have more, Heck yea, but it was not meant for me.
Im sorry guys, if I come across strong at times. God sent this site to us and Iam Blessed because of it! There is so much wisdom & knowledge with this family, I certainly want to remain a part and maintain my convictions.
Again, I apologize for maybe coming across as "pushy". I really couldnt Push anyone to do anything!
God Bless,
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
lmunchkin, rereading my original post, it does admittedly appear that I was injecting politics into this discussion when I referenced the now-infamous political threads, but what I was actually referencing was the high emotion that such topics create. I didn't want this discussion to become as emotional as those other discussions despite the fact that this IS an emotional topic for many. So, my apologies for not being clearer. :cuddle;
No, you were not being pushy at all...not in the least! You were gracious and forthcoming as always, and it is much appreciated. :thumbup; I understand your reasoning and would never want you to make choices or have opinions with which you could not live comfortably.
I, too, would have liked to have had another squishy punkin. Here 20 years later, it still makes me very sad. I'm sorry you couldn't have more, either. :'(
Again, apologies for not being clearer in my original question. Thank you for once again being so honest and introspective.
-
My CKD was caused by high blood pressure. Had it been caused by one of the other inheritable types, I certainly would have used BC. As that would be an endangerment to both mother and child. You did the right thing MM and something I too would have done. Yes, you take your chances. If God forbid, your only living child passes away then you are left with none, but, that is God's will, whether you were meant to be a good Mom or not.
-
Thanks MM for your acknowledgement. That other thread was definately "heated", but I know those individuals are Passionate in what they believe. You & I are not so very different either. I do find you to have always been fair & open. We may not agree on some things, but the respect has always been there!
You are loved by all here, Moosey, and you neednt apologize. That thread was definately getting "HOT". But I totally understand why they are Hot topics!!!! Oooooch.....
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
I think that a woman with CKD should use birth control because a pregnancy in a person with this disease could cause risk the life of the mother and the child. I was fortunate to have a daughter, but the pregnancy caused preeclamsia and she was born prematurely. I was advised not to become pregnant again.
I did not want to get my tubes tied, and I didn't want my hubby to get a vasectomy in case something happened to me. We have used a diaphragm. I don't have a problem with using the pill, but I was told that it wasn't good for someone with my health issues.
Why do some people have a problem with the pill vs a barrier method of birth control? The pill does not kill a fetus, it fools the body into thinking you are pregnant so that conception can not take place. Is there a moral difference for some. If so please explain, I don't want to debate, I just want to understand.
-
You mean your lot still have sex. Lucky people.
-
Why do some people have a problem with the pill vs a barrier method of birth control? The pill does not kill a fetus, it fools the body into thinking you are pregnant so that conception can not take place. Is there a moral difference for some. If so please explain, I don't want to debate, I just want to understand.
To answer your question, I really dont know I personally want the pill because of my severe acne and to help balance out my hormones that would not be a problem if it werent for dialysis.
Im guessing that some strange people see that a form of birth control is a form of abortion?? I personally wouldnt want my tubes tied becuase after a transplant I want one more child. And I dont like condoms. I personally would not be against an IUD if I didnt have high male testorone levels. I just want to get rid of the facial hair and the acne. If I cant have estrogen or have kids on dialysis, why not the birth control? THat is just me
-
Bette, I don't understand the "moral" argument against birth control. It seems to be the personally responsible thing to do if a pregnancy would harm either the mother or the child. In such situations, the use of birth control is "pro-family", in my view.
Sean Hannity had some discussion group assembled to talk about contraception and the "war on religion", and I couldn't help but notice that every single participant was male. I would really have liked to hear a woman's perspective, particularly a woman who did believe that the use of contraception is against her religious beliefs. I'd hate to think that we are entering into yet another fight between men and women on this issue. If an insurance policy must cover Viagra, then it just makes sense to cover birth control...and cheaper, too. But perhaps I am missing something here.
Lillipue, I am very curious about your situation. Do none of your doctors have a solution for you? What is it about lupus that makes using hormones to treat acne so ill-advised? Sorry I don't know more about the disease.
-
Bette, I don't understand the "moral" argument against birth control. It seems to be the personally responsible thing to do if a pregnancy would harm either the mother or the child. In such situations, the use of birth control is "pro-family", in my view.
Sean Hannity had some discussion group assembled to talk about contraception and the "war on religion", and I couldn't help but notice that every single participant was male.
Lillipue, I am very curious about your situation. Do none of your doctors have a solution for you? What is it about lupus that makes using hormones to treat acne so ill-advised? Sorry I don't know more about the disease.
There are severe stroke and heart attack risk for patients with Lupus.
-
There are severe stroke and heart attack risk for patients with Lupus.
Oh, thanks for that. I know nothing about lupus...could you tell me more what it is specifically about lupus that results in these increased risks? Does lupus cause high blood lipid levels or something like that? Thanks!
-
Bette, I don't understand the "moral" argument against birth control. It seems to be the personally responsible thing to do if a pregnancy would harm either the mother or the child. In such situations, the use of birth control is "pro-family", in my view.
Sean Hannity had some discussion group assembled to talk about contraception and the "war on religion", and I couldn't help but notice that every single participant was male.
Lillipue, I am very curious about your situation. Do none of your doctors have a solution for you? What is it about lupus that makes using hormones to treat acne so ill-advised? Sorry I don't know more about the disease.
There are severe stroke and heart attack risk for patients with Lupus.
Surprisingly, my OB/GYN is willing to take the risk. He called me the other night and was wiling to put me on actual birth control pills. I dont have high blood pressure nor am I on any bp meds, and have been in lupus remission for 13 years.
-
When my kidneys first failed I was only 17½ years old and when I asked questions,
the Professor quietly informed me that in his experience a pregnancy in females with damaged kidneys
would damage the mother and/or child or both.
This came as a great shock because I do adore children and I always get on extremely well with them.
I then decided not to have any children because I now knew how dangerous a pregnancy would be for me
and if I would have gone ahead and would have given birth to a sick or disabled child,
I would have felt as if I would have knowingly inflicted bodily harm to a child
and I don’t think I would have been able to survive that.
I possibly would not have survived a pregnancy anyway because, as I found out later,
my mother died shortly after my birth, she suffered from the same Lupus/SLE/MCTD as I do.
-
Renal disease by itself is not a contraindication to pregnancy as several mothers who have done daily dialysis can attest. That aside, SLE, MCT and other rheumatologic diseases carry separate risks above and beyond that of renal disease alone. As in all issues, it is a risk benefit analysis between patient and their health care team in each individual case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2073994/Woman-kidney-failure-defies-doctors-baby-despite-risk-life.html
-
All I can say is I am so 100% pissed off at what is happening in the USA right now in regards to contraception. I have been reading way too many articles and comments about it, and ignorant people are painting women as "sluts" who dare use a frickin' BC pill! WTF??? Yeah, I was so totally a slut when I was using the pill to regulate my frequent periods and not having sex! Give me a f*&#kin' break, people!!!
According to some who think they should be the be all that ends all, if you are a woman who should not get pregnant, then you should abstain. Even if you are married. OMFG, get me the F out of this country! If these people win the election AND get their beliefs put in as law, I want to get the H out!!!!
KarenInWA
-
Renal disease by itself is not a contraindication to pregnancy as several mothers who have done daily dialysis can attest. That aside, SLE, MCT and other rheumatologic diseases carry separate risks above and beyond that of renal disease alone. As in all issues, it is a risk benefit analysis between patient and their health care team in each individual case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2073994/Woman-kidney-failure-defies-doctors-baby-despite-risk-life.html
Hemodoc, that may be true of women who are in Stage 5 and are on dialysis, but I challenge that truth when it comes to a woman in Stage 3 or 4. Not everyone fits into the same mold. I am sure that I would have been an excellent candidate for pre-eclampsia when I was in those stages, especially since I was on a BP pill. Now I am a recent post-tx, not on a BP pill, but on many other meds as you know. If I were married, I would need to have access to a birth control option, be it temporary like the pill, or permanent like sterilization. I am thankful, however, that I do not work for a Catholic hospital or University. The local Catholic hospital network here in my area is taking over a secular network of hospitals, and I find that scary beyond belief.
KarenInWA
-
LOL@Karen. You should run for office! I'd vote for you! :2thumbsup;
-
Renal disease by itself is not a contraindication to pregnancy as several mothers who have done daily dialysis can attest. That aside, SLE, MCT and other rheumatologic diseases carry separate risks above and beyond that of renal disease alone. As in all issues, it is a risk benefit analysis between patient and their health care team in each individual case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2073994/Woman-kidney-failure-defies-doctors-baby-despite-risk-life.html
Hemodoc, that may be true of women who are in Stage 5 and are on dialysis, but I challenge that truth when it comes to a woman in Stage 3 or 4. Not everyone fits into the same mold. I am sure that I would have been an excellent candidate for pre-eclampsia when I was in those stages, especially since I was on a BP pill. Now I am a recent post-tx, not on a BP pill, but on many other meds as you know. If I were married, I would need to have access to a birth control option, be it temporary like the pill, or permanent like sterilization. I am thankful, however, that I do not work for a Catholic hospital or University. The local Catholic hospital network here in my area is taking over a secular network of hospitals, and I find that scary beyond belief.
KarenInWA
Depending on the underlying disease, most women in stage 3 CKD will be able to carry a pregnancy to term, but they are certainly high risk for fetal and maternal complications. Stage 4 CKD prior to the initiation of dialysis is a rather ominous state to begin a pregnancy.
http://sin-italy.org/Formazione_e_Ricerca/gruppi_di_studio/Rene_e_Gravidanza/docs/Pregnancy_in_CKD-AJKD.pdf
On the other hand, stage 5 with renal replacement therapy is not a contraindication to pregancy despite the many doctors that would state it is. There have been many successful pregnancies without maternal or fetal complications utilizing daily dialysis.
-
All I can say is I am so 100% pissed off at what is happening in the USA right now in regards to contraception. I have been reading way too many articles and comments about it, and ignorant people are painting women as "sluts" who dare use a frickin' BC pill! WTF??? Yeah, I was so totally a slut when I was using the pill to regulate my frequent periods and not having sex! Give me a f*&#kin' break, people!!!
According to some who think they should be the be all that ends all, if you are a woman who should not get pregnant, then you should abstain. Even if you are married. OMFG, get me the F out of this country! If these people win the election AND get their beliefs put in as law, I want to get the H out!!!!
KarenInWA
Funny, that's how I feel is Obama is reelected and begins social engineering of religious institutions.
-
This whole contraception thing as I understand it is: Is the Federal Government going to pay for contraception and is abortion considered a type of contraception. Obama really won but the country is too stupid to know it. In the end those religious institutions' ..... Insurance Companies will pay for it and does that include Abortion? Is this the way the Federal Government is getting away with paying for Abortion which is still a really big controversy in this country. Is that clump of cells in a woman going to be a baby or a Puppy? A baby or a Kitten?
Gosh what is that clump of cells going to be in 9 months, 8 months, 7 months, 6 months...... A BABY People!
I am not catholic and I believe in preventative contraception and my insurance paid for my pills when I was married and even now I'm on pills to stop my monthly period.
This whole fight is (I think) using federal funds. I do not use federal funds. Well, in a way I am since I was a Federal Employee and that is my insurance. But, you get what I'm saying. Free Federal Funds paid by you.
-
This whole contraception thing as I understand it is: Is the Federal Government going to pay for contraception and is abortion considered a type of contraception. Obama really won but the country is too stupid to know it. In the end those religious institutions' ..... Insurance Companies will pay for it and does that include Abortion? Is this the way the Federal Government is getting away with paying for Abortion which is still a really big controversy in this country. Is that clump of cells in a woman going to be a baby or a Puppy? A baby or a Kitten?
Gosh what is that clump of cells going to be in 9 months, 8 months, 7 months, 6 months...... A BABY People!
I am not catholic and I believe in preventative contraception and my insurance paid for my pills when I was married and even now I'm on pills to stop my monthly period.
This whole fight is (I think) using federal funds. I do not use federal funds. Well, in a way I am since I was a Federal Employee and that is my insurance. But, you get what I'm saying. Free Federal Funds paid by you.
Actually, the country just lost since it appears quite likely that Obama will be reelected this year. The freedoms brought by the constitution are under siege at this time and it appears that the majority of Americans support this brave new world. I trust that they will enjoy the loss of these constitutional rights, but it is a fearful thing to me to see where we are headed. In the end, we knew this is where we would go from Bible prophecies written thousands of years ago. We have been expecting these days in the church as much as we cherished the freedoms we had for years.
Five years ago, I remember discussing with someone that America is on the verge of a civil war. I thought he was crazy. I no longer believe that is crazy to contemplate the level of discord and disharmony in America could easily lead to the "revolution" that Obama and Alinsky have sought for so many years. It does puzzle me why people no longer cherish such rights as seen in the Bill of Rights, which granted unheard of powers to the people at the time the constitution was written.
The intervention by Obama is only one in a long list of attacks directly by the government against the original provisions of the constitution for religious freedom. The fact that it is popular is not a surprise either. It is not only the Democrats that have attacked religious freedoms. Perhaps the greatest assault against religious liberty in America came in 1984, January 1st when Ronald Reagan began taxing the churches of America through the social security system. Even more ironic is that is when he made the churches of America tax collectors. Previous administrations and the founding fathers had considered the church a separate sphere of influence not under the jurisdiction of the Government. Many made statements to the effect of we can't tax God since it is God that provides our blessings.
The people of today not only bravely tax God but many have declared Him dead. I have seen this encroachment whether GOP or DEM. The original burdens and taxation that provided the fuel for the fires of the American revolution are far since eclipsed by the current regulatory burdens and taxation. Yet, instead of seeking relief from these burdens, it appears that more and more Americans are asking for more and more regulations and taxation.
Makes no sense to me, but that is indeed the direction we are heading. You truly need to be careful what you ask for.
-
The judicious use of contraception is the best way to avoid abortions, so if you really want to prevent abortion, make sure that everyone who wants birth control can have free access to it.
No, contraception is not a form of abortion, and don't let anyone scare you into thinking that it is.
Contraception is also vastly cheaper than either abortion or pregnancy, so it makes fiscal sense to make sure people can get it.
I wonder if this would be such an issue if there was such thing as a male pill. I truly believe that it is not birth control that is being argued here, rather, it is women's sexual behaviour and the desire to control it. I find it very odd that the major monotheistic religions are traditionally so stringent when it comes to women and their place in the world. It is always the women who must be controlled so that men don't go astray.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith", rather, it is all about control.
The Constitution does not give male Catholics bishops (because women are not good enough to be bishops in the Catholic church) the right to interfere in a family's decision on how to manage themselves. A Catholic's religious liberty stops at my bedroom door as per the Constitution of our nation. The Catholic Church does not have the right to infringe upon my liberties and freedoms in how I manage my health concerns (and neither does Rick Santorum).
-
Regarding the whole religious freedom topic - churches are exempt from having to cover contraception and other related services. Catholic-run hospitals are NOT churches!!! They receive federal funds, and must comply by federal laws. This is a federal law. Not covering needed medical services for the female reproductive system is, to me, a form of discrimination. I'm even okay with having to pay a co-pay for the BC pill, since it is, after all, a pill. I pay a co-pay for all my other pills that I take. If I need to take the pill to regulate my period, or control bleeding, or some other health-related matter, how is that any different from having to take my anti-rejection meds, which are also for a health-related manner? Is it because I can't use my kidney to have sex??? That's what it all boils down to, isn't it???
It's all about sex. Even in a marriage, a woman is not allowed to have pleasure worry-free. And this is in The United States of America, the land of the so-called "free".
And I'm sorry, but I cannot take a church that enabled various priests to molest young boys for YEARS, and moved them around to try to "fix" the problem (which only resulted in more young boys being molested). Who are they to go around touting "moral values" and what is and isn't a sin???
I fear Santorum and all personhood amendments. That's the stuff of nightmares. Seriously.
KarenInWA
-
Regarding the whole religious freedom topic - churches are exempt from having to cover contraception and other related services. Catholic-run hospitals are NOT churches!!! They receive federal funds, and must comply by federal laws. This is a federal law. Not covering needed medical services for the female reproductive system is, to me, a form of discrimination. I'm even okay with having to pay a co-pay for the BC pill, since it is, after all, a pill. I pay a co-pay for all my other pills that I take. If I need to take the pill to regulate my period, or control bleeding, or some other health-related matter, how is that any different from having to take my anti-rejection meds, which are also for a health-related manner? Is it because I can't use my kidney to have sex??? That's what it all boils down to, isn't it???
It's all about sex. Even in a marriage, a woman is not allowed to have pleasure worry-free. And this is in The United States of America, the land of the so-called "free".
And I'm sorry, but I cannot take a church that enabled various priests to molest young boys for YEARS, and moved them around to try to "fix" the problem (which only resulted in more young boys being molested). Who are they to go around touting "moral values" and what is and isn't a sin???
I fear Santorum and all personhood amendments. That's the stuff of nightmares. Seriously.
KarenInWA
There is no doubt that any religious institution that takes money from the Feds is playing with the devil since as you point out, they agree to the laws of the Feds for that money. It is a fatal mistake that many churches have fallen into by the temptation of the easy Federal funding. It comes with strings that will push the organization in areas it doesn't want to go. I even gave up my tax exemption years ago over the fact that the IRS considers tax exemptions are a subsidy of that organization. Several examples in the Bible go to that effect:
II John 7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.
As far as controlling sex in America, are you serious? Shucks, sex is about the least controlled aspect of life in America any longer. Control. No. Choices, yes.
Please explain why I should pay for someone else to go out and have unbridled sex through tax money. If that is the way folks wish to act, that is up to them, but asking for tax subsidies. The entire issue on free Federal abortions in my personal opinion is an abomination due to my belief that life starts at the moment of conception. There is plenty to justify that position medically and by the Bible. In any case, I guess we can add just about any outlandish personal choice as a Federal benefit.
In any case, I don't have any doubt that this will be incredibly popular among many US voters. So be it. That is the choice of people today, but I do resent taking tax money from me to fund peoples lifestyles I disagree with, especially abortion. If folks are so interested in protecting rights, what about the rights of the unborn child? Who speaks for this new life? Don't they have the same constitutional rights to life and the pursuit of happiness? Well, I guess they don't in America any longer.
-
As far as controlling sex in America, are you serious? Shucks, sex is about the least controlled aspect of life in America any longer. Control. No. Choices, yes.
Please explain why I should pay for someone else to go out and have unbridled sex through tax money. If that is the way folks wish to act, that is up to them, but asking for tax subsidies. The entire issue on free Federal abortions in my personal opinion is an abomination due to my belief that life starts at the moment of conception. There is plenty to justify that position medically and by the Bible. In any case, I guess we can add just about any outlandish personal choice as a Federal benefit.
In any case, I don't have any doubt that this will be incredibly popular among many US voters. So be it. That is the choice of people today, but I do resent taking tax money from me to fund peoples lifestyles I disagree with, especially abortion. If folks are so interested in protecting rights, what about the rights of the unborn child? Who speaks for this new life? Don't they have the same constitutional rights to life and the pursuit of happiness? Well, I guess they don't in America any longer.
Why do those who oppose this always bring up unbridled, promiscuous sex??? Nowadays, condoms MUST be used if one is going to be dumb enough to do that, and if they don't, then they're fools!!!! Did you not read my earlier post about how I was on the pill for medical reasons and NOT having sex??? Just because a pill controls birth does not mean that she who takes it is engaging in sex, or, if lucky enough to be in a healthy, loving, adult relationship, leading a promiscuous lifestyle.
It is NOT only about people like that!!!!!! It is about the married couple who is not yet ready to plan a family, or the woman who cannot plan a family due to health concerns, but would still like to have a physical part to her marriage with her husband or significant other. It's about having back-up in place for if you are promisuous and do use condoms - sure, some of those will slip in, but, let's be honest here. Do we really want those people getting pregnant???? You want to talk about your tax dollars going up, stop birth control for those who ARE ruled by their gonads and get pregnant. What then??? Will you (as in - anyone who opposes this bill) balk at tax dollars going up for needed services for these kids?? That always seems to be the first place cuts are made, am I right???? If you want to lessen the cost of healthcare in this nation, why not start off with that which is preventable - unwanted pregnancies. You can't change the fact that people are going to have sex - that is a FACT! You can make contraception available to them. If they don't use it, then they're the ones who are dumb, not anyone else. (and yes, condoms do break, the pill needs to be taken on a consistent, timely basis, and pregnancies can and do still happen. But at least this is a tool to lessen that fact. That is what we (the USA) NEEDS).
If the the little bishop-whiners are going to throw temper tantrums over this issue, then maybe we need to have government intervention on the companies who make these pills and devices and have the government step in and help bring down the cost. It's a needed thing. People will have sex. Pregnancies will happen. People will need services as a result. Our governments, from federal down to the local level, cannot afford this anymore. Our tax dollars are already spread too thin. Of course, I am a bit confused as to why you think yours and my tax dollars will be paying for this new birth control access. I was under the impression that it was being paid for by the insurance companies. It seems to me that this would be a win/win for them, as providing contraception is a lot cheaper than paying for pregnancies and the new baby as a result of it. Then there's the fact that not every woman is going to get pregnant, and not every woman is going to use contraception - as both of these are choices that happen to affect their health. In the end, in a group plan, it is a wash. That is what is being discussed and what this law is intended for. Where do our tax dollars fit in???
My reproductive system and how it works affects my health, as do my kidneys. My kidneys needed medical treatment, my insurance covered it. When my female system needs medical treatment, I excpect that to be covered as well. If getting pregnant as a result of experiencing life in a way that is enjoyable is detrimental to my health, I expect a solution to that to be covered. Avoiding sex with my husband/significant other because I have the suck-ass reality of ESRD is, to me, letting the disease win. And that is something I REFUSE to do. Now, I am not married, nor do I sleep around. Sex is not a frequent in my life. But, I am a woman, who has had menstrual issues in the past, and have used the pill to treat those. I can't tell you how much that would anger me if I had to pay full price for those because the child-molester enablers deemed it a "sin". That is ludicrous!!!! And, with these personhood amendments that are cooking out there around the country, that is downright scary. As for abortion, it is a personal decision that the woman has to make. If I were to get pregnant as a result of a rape, I would not hesitate to get one. If I were to get pregnant now (which is impossible, btw, unless I was raped), I would most likely abort, because it is too soon after transplant. If I had gotten pregnant in the last 2 years, I would have aborted because I was in stage 4 CKD, and my body was not exactly "life-giving". These are my rights as an American woman. I do not want them taken away in my life time.
KarenInWA
-
The judicious use of contraception is the best way to avoid abortions, so if you really want to prevent abortion, make sure that everyone who wants birth control can have free access to it.
No, contraception is not a form of abortion, and don't let anyone scare you into thinking that it is.
Contraception is also vastly cheaper than either abortion or pregnancy, so it makes fiscal sense to make sure people can get it.
I wonder if this would be such an issue if there was such thing as a male pill. I truly believe that it is not birth control that is being argued here, rather, it is women's sexual behaviour and the desire to control it. I find it very odd that the major monotheistic religions are traditionally so stringent when it comes to women and their place in the world. It is always the women who must be controlled so that men don't go astray.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith", rather, it is all about control.
The Constitution does not give male Catholics bishops (because women are not good enough to be bishops in the Catholic church) the right to interfere in a family's decision on how to manage themselves. A Catholic's religious liberty stops at my bedroom door as per the Constitution of our nation. The Catholic Church does not have the right to infringe upon my liberties and freedoms in how I manage my health concerns (and neither does Rick Santorum).
No, that is not correct. Belief in the God of the Bible is all about free choice willingly following His teachings because of the truth of the Bible. It is about believing.
-
First of all, this is not a discussion about abortion. However, I will take this opportunity to point out that the only time there is federal funding for abortion is if a woman on Medicaid becomes pregnant via rape or incest, or if a pregnancy endangers her life, all per the current version of the Hyde Amendment.
Second, your comment, Hemodoc, re "unbridled sex" says a lot. Is a married man not allowed to have "unbridled sex" with his wife? I'm concerned that there is this underlying assumption that the only people who use birth control are the young, wanton and unmarried, but we all know that this is only a part of the story. There are many married couples who use birth control; you don't see a lot of families with 7 or 8 children anymore.
Thirdly, I will again declare that no matter how loudly one may shout it, contraception is NOT the same as abortion.
Lastly, I am pro-life but not merely pro-birth. Life continues after birth, and if you are truly pro-life, then you will be "pro" education, health care and everything else that children need to thrive. I personally do not believe that the "rights" of the unborn are somehow more important than those of the children we already have. In being able to limit the number of children we choose to have, we are protecting the ones that already exist. I honestly do not see the immorality in that.
It goes back to my original question, and what was what to do about birth control if you have a chronic condition that may endanger you, a developing baby and even the rest of your family, especially if you are one of those who DO see birth control as wrong per your religious beliefs? Perhaps we have no members who have ever experienced this particular conundrum. And of course it begs the question...should we use taxpayer money to help fund birth control to women who have CKD yet cannot afford contraception?
-
The judicious use of contraception is the best way to avoid abortions, so if you really want to prevent abortion, make sure that everyone who wants birth control can have free access to it.
No, contraception is not a form of abortion, and don't let anyone scare you into thinking that it is.
Contraception is also vastly cheaper than either abortion or pregnancy, so it makes fiscal sense to make sure people can get it.
I wonder if this would be such an issue if there was such thing as a male pill. I truly believe that it is not birth control that is being argued here, rather, it is women's sexual behaviour and the desire to control it. I find it very odd that the major monotheistic religions are traditionally so stringent when it comes to women and their place in the world. It is always the women who must be controlled so that men don't go astray.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith", rather, it is all about control.
The Constitution does not give male Catholics bishops (because women are not good enough to be bishops in the Catholic church) the right to interfere in a family's decision on how to manage themselves. A Catholic's religious liberty stops at my bedroom door as per the Constitution of our nation. The Catholic Church does not have the right to infringe upon my liberties and freedoms in how I manage my health concerns (and neither does Rick Santorum).
No, that is not correct. Belief in the God of the Bible is all about free choice willingly following His teachings because of the truth of the Bible. It is about believing.
"Faith" is about believing. "Religion" is about control. My views about "religion" as opposed to "belief in the God of the Bible" would raise many hackles, so I choose not to enter into this discussion as I do not wish to offend anyone.
-
As far as controlling sex in America, are you serious? Shucks, sex is about the least controlled aspect of life in America any longer. Control. No. Choices, yes.
Please explain why I should pay for someone else to go out and have unbridled sex through tax money. If that is the way folks wish to act, that is up to them, but asking for tax subsidies. The entire issue on free Federal abortions in my personal opinion is an abomination due to my belief that life starts at the moment of conception. There is plenty to justify that position medically and by the Bible. In any case, I guess we can add just about any outlandish personal choice as a Federal benefit.
In any case, I don't have any doubt that this will be incredibly popular among many US voters. So be it. That is the choice of people today, but I do resent taking tax money from me to fund peoples lifestyles I disagree with, especially abortion. If folks are so interested in protecting rights, what about the rights of the unborn child? Who speaks for this new life? Don't they have the same constitutional rights to life and the pursuit of happiness? Well, I guess they don't in America any longer.
Why do those who oppose this always bring up unbridled, promiscuous sex??? Nowadays, condoms MUST be used if one is going to be dumb enough to do that, and if they don't, then they're fools!!!! Did you not read my earlier post about how I was on the pill for medical reasons and NOT having sex??? Just because a pill controls birth does not mean that she who takes it is engaging in sex, or, if lucky enough to be in a healthy, loving, adult relationship, leading a promiscuous lifestyle.
It is NOT only about people like that!!!!!! It is about the married couple who is not yet ready to plan a family, or the woman who cannot plan a family due to health concerns, but would still like to have a physical part to her marriage with her husband or significant other. It's about having back-up in place for if you are promisuous and do use condoms - sure, some of those will slip in, but, let's be honest here. Do we really want those people getting pregnant???? You want to talk about your tax dollars going up, stop birth control for those who ARE ruled by their gonads and get pregnant. What then??? Will you (as in - anyone who opposes this bill) balk at tax dollars going up for needed services for these kids?? That always seems to be the first place cuts are made, am I right???? If you want to lessen the cost of healthcare in this nation, why not start off with that which is preventable - unwanted pregnancies. You can't change the fact that people are going to have sex - that is a FACT! You can make contraception available to them. If they don't use it, then they're the ones who are dumb, not anyone else. (and yes, condoms do break, the pill needs to be taken on a consistent, timely basis, and pregnancies can and do still happen. But at least this is a tool to lessen that fact. That is what we (the USA) NEEDS).
If the the little bishop-whiners are going to throw temper tantrums over this issue, then maybe we need to have government intervention on the companies who make these pills and devices and have the government step in and help bring down the cost. It's a needed thing. People will have sex. Pregnancies will happen. People will need services as a result. Our governments, from federal down to the local level, cannot afford this anymore. Our tax dollars are already spread too thin. Of course, I am a bit confused as to why you think yours and my tax dollars will be paying for this new birth control access. I was under the impression that it was being paid for by the insurance companies. It seems to me that this would be a win/win for them, as providing contraception is a lot cheaper than paying for pregnancies and the new baby as a result of it. Then there's the fact that not every woman is going to get pregnant, and not every woman is going to use contraception - as both of these are choices that happen to affect their health. In the end, in a group plan, it is a wash. That is what is being discussed and what this law is intended for. Where do our tax dollars fit in???
My reproductive system and how it works affects my health, as do my kidneys. My kidneys needed medical treatment, my insurance covered it. When my female system needs medical treatment, I excpect that to be covered as well. If getting pregnant as a result of experiencing life in a way that is enjoyable is detrimental to my health, I expect a solution to that to be covered. Avoiding sex with my husband/significant other because I have the suck-ass reality of ESRD is, to me, letting the disease win. And that is something I REFUSE to do. Now, I am not married, nor do I sleep around. Sex is not a frequent in my life. But, I am a woman, who has had menstrual issues in the past, and have used the pill to treat those. I can't tell you how much that would anger me if I had to pay full price for those because the child-molester enablers deemed it a "sin". That is ludicrous!!!! And, with these personhood amendments that are cooking out there around the country, that is downright scary. As for abortion, it is a personal decision that the woman has to make. If I were to get pregnant as a result of a rape, I would not hesitate to get one. If I were to get pregnant now (which is impossible, btw, unless I was raped), I would most likely abort, because it is too soon after transplant. If I had gotten pregnant in the last 2 years, I would have aborted because I was in stage 4 CKD, and my body was not exactly "life-giving". These are my rights as an American woman. I do not want them taken away in my life time.
KarenInWA
Yes, that we agree, it is about choice, but Obama is taking choice away and making support of his policies mandatory. Go have all the sex you want, none of my business, nor should I have to pay for that either. Who is taking away your choice. In any case, Obama has hit a real winner that folks will get all emotional about and demand abortion, birth control as a government right. Sorry, I don't see that as something I should pay tax money to support. I offends my beliefs, but that is of no consequence any more in this nation. Trampling on religious liberty seems to be a way of life for American politicians. Lets start paying for an RV in every house as well since we should all have the right to travel. I believe you are confusing rights and entitlements. Two different issues entirely. Why not give out free oxycontin to everyone as well so that folks don't realize how poor and bankrupted our country is becoming. Maybe free booze on top of that as well. Isn't there anything left in this world worth buying and purchasing for yourself?
An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.
In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit[1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement
I much prefer freedom to choose and to pay for my own entitlements myself instead of depending on government supplied items. Just my own choice. No one is trampling anyone's rights to the privacy of their own bedroom. However, forcing entities to go beyond religious beliefs is something this nation has not truly embarked upon before. It is a pure win for the Obama administration amongst a nation that so utterly rejects the precepts of the Bible any longer. It is interesting that my mother who was never a born again Christian lived her life by many of the precepts of the Bible even if not outwardly acknowledging that when she grew up during the 30's and 40's. Yet, today, any outwardly Judeo-Christian ethics are openly and blatantly ridiculed on Colbert, Stewart and so many other late night comedy shows. Our government is openly hostile in many ways as well. It is the will of the people, so be it.
Nevertheless, paying for contraception and abortion especially, I find quite offensive to me through Federal tax dollars. What is next on the list of freebies from the government as it enslaves us? Maybe pay for everyone's mortgage? This country is toast and I see quite a few of those that have money leaving for friendlier shores. Can't blame them and I wish I had the money to follow them myself, but I don't. Obama promised to fundamentally change this nation and that is exactly what he is doing.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/president_obama_to_outline_det.html
-
The judicious use of contraception is the best way to avoid abortions, so if you really want to prevent abortion, make sure that everyone who wants birth control can have free access to it.
No, contraception is not a form of abortion, and don't let anyone scare you into thinking that it is.
Contraception is also vastly cheaper than either abortion or pregnancy, so it makes fiscal sense to make sure people can get it.
I wonder if this would be such an issue if there was such thing as a male pill. I truly believe that it is not birth control that is being argued here, rather, it is women's sexual behaviour and the desire to control it. I find it very odd that the major monotheistic religions are traditionally so stringent when it comes to women and their place in the world. It is always the women who must be controlled so that men don't go astray.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith", rather, it is all about control.
The Constitution does not give male Catholics bishops (because women are not good enough to be bishops in the Catholic church) the right to interfere in a family's decision on how to manage themselves. A Catholic's religious liberty stops at my bedroom door as per the Constitution of our nation. The Catholic Church does not have the right to infringe upon my liberties and freedoms in how I manage my health concerns (and neither does Rick Santorum).
No, that is not correct. Belief in the God of the Bible is all about free choice willingly following His teachings because of the truth of the Bible. It is about believing.
"Faith" is about believing. "Religion" is about control. My views about "religion" as opposed to "belief in the God of the Bible" would raise many hackles, so I choose not to enter into this discussion as I do not wish to offend anyone.
I have no problem discussing the differences between religion and faith, but if that is your choice, I will honor that choice. China has some interesting national policies on birth control as well. They also pay for abortions, forced abortions. If folks wish to give the government access to private issues, be careful how far they will take them. Much better in my opinion to tell the government to keep out of private matters. That is the GOP message by the way. Don't forget, Karen from WA is absolutely correct about the noose the Feds have around the Catholic health providers that have accepted Federal monies, they must comply with Federal law. I would only add that the same applies to individuals as well. Do you really want Uncle Sam in your bedroom deciding birth control and abortion issues?
For me, give me my freedom to choose and to pay for what I choose. There is always a payback when the Feds "give" you something. There is always a string attached to it.
-
First of all, this is not a discussion about abortion. However, I will take this opportunity to point out that the only time there is federal funding for abortion is if a woman on Medicaid becomes pregnant via rape or incest, or if a pregnancy endangers her life, all per the current version of the Hyde Amendment.
Second, your comment, Hemodoc, re "unbridled sex" says a lot. Is a married man not allowed to have "unbridled sex" with his wife? I'm concerned that there is this underlying assumption that the only people who use birth control are the young, wanton and unmarried, but we all know that this is only a part of the story. There are many married couples who use birth control; you don't see a lot of families with 7 or 8 children anymore.
Thirdly, I will again declare that no matter how loudly one may shout it, contraception is NOT the same as abortion.
Lastly, I am pro-life but not merely pro-birth. Life continues after birth, and if you are truly pro-life, then you will be "pro" education, health care and everything else that children need to thrive. I personally do not believe that the "rights" of the unborn are somehow more important than those of the children we already have. In being able to limit the number of children we choose to have, we are protecting the ones that already exist. I honestly do not see the immorality in that.
It goes back to my original question, and what was what to do about birth control if you have a chronic condition that may endanger you, a developing baby and even the rest of your family, especially if you are one of those who DO see birth control as wrong per your religious beliefs? Perhaps we have no members who have ever experienced this particular conundrum. And of course it begs the question...should we use taxpayer money to help fund birth control to women who have CKD yet cannot afford contraception?
Dear Moosemom, yes it is all about abortions and contraception.
I don't believe that their is any doubt with two states publishing same sex marriage laws yesterday that we do indeed have unbridled sex in America. It is laughable to think otherwise. It is on our TV, our internet, on our bill boards, just about everywhere openly and flaunted by many people. It is the American experience today.
I honestly don't care what folks do in the privacy of their bedrooms, that is none of my business. Have all the sex you want, your life, your accountability not mine. I have never stated otherwise, but why should my tax dollars pay for that? Makes no sense to me. If people wish to have sex, that should be the privacy of their own choice. Why is government involved in the bedrooms of America? Way out of line as far as my opinion. The only business that the government is assuring that privacy, no more, no less. Now it seems that Uncle Sam wants to have a bit more of your privacy.
In any case, it will happen but to the detriment of this nation one more time. I would just state, be careful who you invite into your bedroom with you. Uncle Sam may not in the end be as benevolent as you believe he is. Remember, Uncle Sam never gives anything away without strings attached.
-
I have not read all of the above for several reasons that I don't feel compelled to share.
There will always be federal tax dollars going to things that specific individuals don't agree with, like, oh, say a war started on admitted lies that cost trillions of dollars and led to heinous war crimes committed against innocent civilians, including the murder of children.... I don't agree with that and am appalled that my tax dollars were spent to that end. I resent my tax dollars going to any hospital that wants to mix religion with healthcare. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion, and with nearly 10% of the US population identifying as atheist, we deserve to receive the healthcare that we pay for based strictly on science. The one time I was desperately sick in California with viral meningitis, I drove myself past the nightmare Catholic hospital an additional 15 minutes to get to a hospital that would not have crosses hanging above my bed. Of course, that decision cannot always be made and if I were a young woman who had been sexually assaulted and the closest hospital was a catholic hospital ER, they should be FORCED to give me birth control or they should have those tax dollars taken from them.
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
-
I have not read all of the above for several reasons that I don't feel compelled to share.
There will always be federal tax dollars going to things that specific individuals don't agree with, like, oh, say a war started on admitted lies that cost trillions of dollars and led to heinous war crimes committed against innocent civilians, including the murder of children.... I don't agree with that and am appalled that my tax dollars were spent to that end. I resent my tax dollars going to any hospital that wants to mix religion with healthcare. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion, and with nearly 10% of the US population identifying as atheist, we deserve to receive the healthcare that we pay for based strictly on science. The one time I was desperately sick in California with viral meningitis, I drove myself past the nightmare Catholic hospital an additional 15 minutes to get to a hospital that would not have crosses hanging above my bed. Of course, that decision cannot always be made and if I were a young woman who had been sexually assaulted and the closest hospital was a catholic hospital ER, they should be FORCED to give me birth control or they should have those tax dollars taken from them.
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
Cariad,
Thank you for stating that so well! I was going to say the same thing about how we can't choose where our tax dollars go. I feel the same way you do about my tax dollars going to pay for our wars. I liked to believe that my personal tax dollars went to the things that I care about, since there is no way to track where my specific dollars went. I suggest Hemodoc adopts that same outlook, instead of getting all fired up over women who don't want to get pregnant having sex with their husbands or boyfriends, and other women who take the pill for medical reasons. Also, this particular issue does not even have anything to do with tax dollars, since this law pertains to employer-sponsored health insurance. The big argument is over whether Catholic hospitals/universities should cover these necessary services for their employees. Since they get federal funds, yes they should. End of story.
Sad that this country is stooping to this level. To top it off, the state of VA is trying to get a personhood bill into law. The GOP want to actually BAN birth control for the entire state. WTF???
KarenInWA
-
Aw, Karen, that's sweet of you to say. Thank you. I think you make a crucial point about how these religions will withhold medically necessary healthcare from women solely because of the link to sexuality. This is what the supposedly fiscally responsible GOP wants? Who cares that the costs of an unchecked birthrate are astronomical. Who cares that we'll become just another third world country with starving, neglected children everywhere. Who cares that a few dispensable women in kidney failure will suffer and/or die.
The exact same nonsense comes up with the HPV vaccine. Rather than make this into an issue of controlling a disease, they'd rather try to scare girls away from having sex because they could get cancer. And then, by implication, cervical cancer because the deserved punishment for having sex, even though the boy who gave it to her could only have contracted it via sex. It's the perfect weapon - a sexually transmitted cancer that disproportionately ruins women's lives!
According to PolitiFact, 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used contraception. That is pretty much all of them. If you do not believe in it on a personal level, like you've said, Karen, just don't use it. I do worry that this planet is already overpopulated, though, and that one day soon more countries are going to have to enact stricter population control or the planet will die.
Oh, and PoltiFact just gave a Pants-On-Fire rating to one of those idiot personhood amendment champions for saying that abortion is the most common surgical procedure in this country. He's a doctor, by the way. Shame on him! Liar, liar, deliberate liar. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/patrick-johnston/ (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/patrick-johnston/)
-
Hemodoc, wouldn't it be great if we could all pick and choose to where we want our tax money to go!? Perhaps on our tax returns, we could be presented with a menu of choices, and we could tick which policies we were willing to fund. I'd go for that as there are many things that the government both past and present has done that I want no part of. But that's not an option, so we'll have to be content with the system we have now, which is to vote in congresspeople who will represent us and will vote as we might vote for how to spend our tax dollars.
I don't really WANT to fund birth control for people who are promiscuous or who are sexually unwise, but I am happy to fund birth control for, say, women with CKD or for women who have any medical need or for whom a pregnancy would be dangerous. I'm also happy to fund it for women who are in danger of giving birth to a child with some horrible genetic defect that will result in inevitable suffering and death. But I do not have the liberty to question all women as to WHY they want birth control. That is not of my business, nor should it be. So, how do you decide who has a "valid reason" for taking it, and who gets to define "valid reason", anyway?
I'd much rather fund bc for all of these wanton women if it would prevent just ONE abortion of an unwanted pregancy.
-
I have not read all of the above for several reasons that I don't feel compelled to share.
There will always be federal tax dollars going to things that specific individuals don't agree with, like, oh, say a war started on admitted lies that cost trillions of dollars and led to heinous war crimes committed against innocent civilians, including the murder of children.... I don't agree with that and am appalled that my tax dollars were spent to that end. I resent my tax dollars going to any hospital that wants to mix religion with healthcare. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion, and with nearly 10% of the US population identifying as atheist, we deserve to receive the healthcare that we pay for based strictly on science. The one time I was desperately sick in California with viral meningitis, I drove myself past the nightmare Catholic hospital an additional 15 minutes to get to a hospital that would not have crosses hanging above my bed. Of course, that decision cannot always be made and if I were a young woman who had been sexually assaulted and the closest hospital was a catholic hospital ER, they should be FORCED to give me birth control or they should have those tax dollars taken from them.
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
Cariad,
Thank you for stating that so well! I was going to say the same thing about how we can't choose where our tax dollars go. I feel the same way you do about my tax dollars going to pay for our wars. I liked to believe that my personal tax dollars went to the things that I care about, since there is no way to track where my specific dollars went. I suggest Hemodoc adopts that same outlook, instead of getting all fired up over women who don't want to get pregnant having sex with their husbands or boyfriends, and other women who take the pill for medical reasons. Also, this particular issue does not even have anything to do with tax dollars, since this law pertains to employer-sponsored health insurance. The big argument is over whether Catholic hospitals/universities should cover these necessary services for their employees. Since they get federal funds, yes they should. End of story.
Sad that this country is stooping to this level. To top it off, the state of VA is trying to get a personhood bill into law. The GOP want to actually BAN birth control for the entire state. WTF???
KarenInWA
Dear KarenInWA,
As I have stated a hundred times over, I could really care less about anyone having sex with anyone else including husbands and wives. You are once again falsely speaking. I have never once said that, nor shall I ever. If you want to have sex day in and day out, that is your business and I couldn't care less.
What I do care about is taking a private issue and making it public. By the way, once the Feds have access to your private actions in the bedroom, please don't get angry when they start to regulate that private action. If you can't see why this is dangerous for this nation, then there is nothing left to state. My position is that the government has no business regulating what goes on in the bedrooms. If you can't put that together with "FREE CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION" then truly there is nothing left to state. There is nothing free from the FEDS. Wait until the Feds start telling you that you can only have a certain amount of condoms a month for instance. You have met your quota and for the better good of the nation, we need to limit the number of condoms supplied each month.
With all of these entitilements, you give up freedom in the process. In any case, do as you wish, but remember that nothing is free with the Feds.
The biggest issue not talked about is the Federal mandate on abortion including in this edict from dictator Obama. Sorry, but there are many people of religious backgrounds and not of religious backgrounds that oppose abortion of any form and the right to life. After all, it is not your life you are aborting is it? How many Einsteins have we aborted in America in the last 40 years anyway. The loss to our society is beyond calculation.
Almost all insurance companies now provide birth control for all of their patients. This ruling affected only a very small percentage of health care providers in the first place who chose to work in the Catholic health systems for a reason. One issue not spoken about in this entire discussion is the long held ethical treatise that doctors and health care providers can refuse to participate in abortions and other medical procedures that they disagree with by conscience. Many OB/GYN docs in training refused to perform abortions for this reason.
This was in recognition of individual first amendment rights. What is not being discussed is that the Feds also wish to remove the choice to participate in procedures that they disagree wtih. There is much more to this story than women getting agry because the Catholic church prohibits these practices.
-
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
Do whatever you want, what business of that is mine!!
But that is the point isn't it, you want the privacy of making your own choices which I agree, make your own choices. I believe we are all individually accountable for our own actions. No problem Cariad, abort away all you wish. But keep it your private issue and don't make it a public issue that my tax dollars pay for.
Once again, why not read through the entire thread and see that I am actually looking at the rights you will lose by Federal control of contraception and abortion. You fail to understand that those are not actions I am the least bit interested in for myself so his edict has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever. You fail to understand that your private issues are now public issues under Obamacare and they will assuredly regulate them.
So you are right, I could really care less what you do, it is your life after all, and you are right, if the Feds wish to regulate your sex life, so be it, that is what you are asking for. Perhaps one day you will wake up and it will be the Feds telling you what to do and you will have no recourse but to realize, you asked for their control of your private affairs. So be it, have it your way and I hope all of you in support of these issues enjoy your brave new world of Federal control of even your "private" affairs. Guess what, they are now public and under control of the Feds. Enjoy.
-
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
Do whatever you want, what business of that is mine!!
But that is the point isn't it, you want the privacy of making your own choices which I agree, make your own choices. I believe we are all individually accountable for our own actions. No problem Cariad, abort away all you wish. But keep it your private issue and don't make it a public issue that my tax dollars pay for.
Once again, why not read through the entire thread and see that I am actually looking at the rights you will lose by Federal control of contraception and abortion. You fail to understand that those are not actions I am the least bit interested in for myself so his edict has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever. You fail to understand that your private issues are now public issues under Obamacare and they will assuredly regulate them.
So you are right, I could really care less what you do, it is your life after all, and you are right, if the Feds wish to regulate your sex life, so be it, that is what you are asking for. Perhaps one day you will wake up and it will be the Feds telling you what to do and you will have no recourse but to realize, you asked for their control of your private affairs. So be it, have it your way and I hope all of you in support of these issues enjoy your brave new world of Federal control of even your "private" affairs. Guess what, they are now public and under control of the Feds. Enjoy.
I am not in the least concerned with any of your specious arguments. The Federal government is securing the rights of millions of women through their involvement, because as any healthcare provider can tell you, cost is one way to control a society's actions, and when cost or availability are prohibitive, then that renders the right to do something useless.
I don't need your permission to do anything with my body, did not ask for it, reject it out of hand. I don't read these threads in their entirety because of your continued use of bible quotes and your appalling lack of respect for Obama. He is not a dictator by any definition and your inflammatory remarks are not appreciated. If you truly do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes then I find it bizarre that you would bring up gay marriage rights in a discussion of contraception. How many Einsteins have been aborted? What a ludicrous argument. Have you really reached that point? I don't know, how many Einsteins died by hospital error, or by preventable disease because their parents did not have health insurance, or because they were deported back to some hellhole country, or because they were sent to war and blown to pieces before they could reach their full potential? How many were never created because someone said "Not tonight, dear, I'm just not in the mood". How many were gay and told 'your sexual desires are an abomination' by some religion and snapped and killed themselves? You can play that laughable game all day.
-
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
Do whatever you want, what business of that is mine!!
But that is the point isn't it, you want the privacy of making your own choices which I agree, make your own choices. I believe we are all individually accountable for our own actions. No problem Cariad, abort away all you wish. But keep it your private issue and don't make it a public issue that my tax dollars pay for.
Once again, why not read through the entire thread and see that I am actually looking at the rights you will lose by Federal control of contraception and abortion. You fail to understand that those are not actions I am the least bit interested in for myself so his edict has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever. You fail to understand that your private issues are now public issues under Obamacare and they will assuredly regulate them.
So you are right, I could really care less what you do, it is your life after all, and you are right, if the Feds wish to regulate your sex life, so be it, that is what you are asking for. Perhaps one day you will wake up and it will be the Feds telling you what to do and you will have no recourse but to realize, you asked for their control of your private affairs. So be it, have it your way and I hope all of you in support of these issues enjoy your brave new world of Federal control of even your "private" affairs. Guess what, they are now public and under control of the Feds. Enjoy.
I am not in the least concerned with any of your specious arguments. The Federal government is securing the rights of millions of women through their involvement, because as any healthcare provider can tell you, cost is one way to control a society's actions, and when cost or availability are prohibitive, then that renders the right to do something useless.
I don't need your permission to do anything with my body, did not ask for it, reject it out of hand. I don't read these threads in their entirety because of your continued use of bible quotes and your appalling lack of respect for Obama. He is not a dictator by any definition and your inflammatory remarks are not appreciated. If you truly do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes then I find it bizarre that you would bring up gay marriage rights in a discussion of contraception. How many Einsteins have been aborted? What a ludicrous argument. Have you really reached that point? I don't know, how many Einsteins died by hospital error, or by preventable disease because their parents did not have health insurance, or because they were deported back to some hellhole country, or because they were sent to war and blown to pieces before they could reach their full potential? How many were never created because someone said "Not tonight, dear, I'm just not in the mood". How many were gay and told 'your sexual desires are an abomination' by some religion and snapped and killed themselves? You can play that laughable game all day.
As I said, enjoy Federal regulation of sex in America. Not the first country to walk down that path. Perhaps we can learn from what other countries have accomplished in state countrol of the bedroom. Not pretty in my opinion, but please have your precious freedom. Just be careful what you ask for.
-
OK, now I am confused. Would someone explain to me how the Feds are "regulating sex in America"? Are you talking about President Obama in particular, or are you talking about people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? I keep hearing Rick Santorum saying that birth control is wrong, so are you perhaps talking about "the Feds" should he become President?
Contraception should be a private issue just as all medical issues should be private, but we all know that they are not. Our dialysis treatments or transplant procedures certainly aren't private by any stretch of the imagination. I guess what is being debated is whether or not you think contraception is a moral issue or a medical issue.
You can't just start yelling about "losing our freedoms" or "the Feds are regulating sex in America!" without explaining exactly how that is happening.
-
OK, now I am confused. Would someone explain to me how the Feds are "regulating sex in America"? Are you talking about President Obama in particular, or are you talking about people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? I keep hearing Rick Santorum saying that birth control is wrong, so are you perhaps talking about "the Feds" should he become President?
Contraception should be a private issue just as all medical issues should be private, but we all know that they are not. Our dialysis treatments or transplant procedures certainly aren't private by any stretch of the imagination. I guess what is being debated is whether or not you think contraception is a moral issue or a medical issue.
You can't just start yelling about "losing our freedoms" or "the Feds are regulating sex in America!" without explaining exactly how that is happening.
Dear Moosemom, I have explained several times over. Just as KarenInWA correctly explained that the Feds have already won the issue of contraception with the Catholic Health Care Systemt because they have accepted Federal dollars in their programs. That means Catholic Health Care systems must comply with Federal regulation in exchange for Federal monies.
The same applies to individuals who accept Federal money for any entitlement, they must also comply with all of those Federal regulations in exchange for the money. That will also apply to people who have Federal payment for contraceptives and abortion. Very simply, the Feds never give anything for free, it always comes with strings attached.
Yes, it is a private issue, but now since people are demanding this new entitlement, they will also bear the brunt of Federal regulation in a public manner of what should be a private issue. Once they accept these Federal monies, it is no longer a private issue. It is a Federal funded and regulated matter. If that is what folks want, so be it. It doesn't affect me at all.
-
The same applies to individuals who accept Federal money for any entitlement, they must also comply with all of those Federal regulations in exchange for the money. That will also apply to people who have Federal payment for contraceptives and abortion. Very simply, the Feds never give anything for free, it always comes with strings attached.
My apologies for being thick, but this is the bit I don't quite understand. I am not vastly educated on this topic, so maybe you can help.
As I understand it, and I may certainly be wrong, the only time that the federal govt subsidises abortion is if the woman is a Medicaid recipient and if she has become pregant due to rape or insist, OR if her pregnancy is deemed to be medically dangerous and her life would be endangered should she continue with the pregancy. Is this correct or not? If this is correct, then yes, you are right...there are strings attached.
I am not sure, however, which strings are attached to any federal funding of birth control which are applied to INDIVIDUALS as opposed to those regulations imposed upon Catholic institutions. I'd like to hear more about these strings. Thanks.
-
Catholic hospitals accpet federal funding because they are hospitals. Some of the funding they receive is through Medicare and Medicaid payments. Others would be tax breaks for being non-profit medical institutions. I am not sure what other federal funding they receive, but I am sure there is more to help with the high costs of running a hospital.
What the Obama ruling for contraception is for, is for employer-sponsored health insurance to cover it. Insurance premiums are paid for by the employer, and sometimes the employer/employee, depending on the place of business. The employer does get a tax break for providing this benefit to their employees. But, I am not understanding where federal money is in this exchange, other than the tax breaks. It is not tax money that pays for any of my medical claims while I am an employee at my job, it is my insurance that does. I am not getting where the Feds are having any rule over anything that directly affects me, other then I will get coverage for anything contraception-related should I need it or seek it. If I am wrong in any of my understanding, then I apologize. I only thought that Medicare, Medicaid and government employee healthcare were covered by tax dollars.
KarenInWA
-
Catholic hospitals accpet federal funding because they are hospitals. Some of the funding they receive is through Medicare and Medicaid payments. Others would be tax breaks for being non-profit medical institutions. I am not sure what other federal funding they receive, but I am sure there is more to help with the high costs of running a hospital.
What the Obama ruling for contraception is for, is for employer-sponsored health insurance to cover it. Insurance premiums are paid for by the employer, and sometimes the employer/employee, depending on the place of business. The employer does get a tax break for providing this benefit to their employees. But, I am not understanding where federal money is in this exchange, other than the tax breaks. It is not tax money that pays for any of my medical claims while I am an employee at my job, it is my insurance that does. I am not getting where the Feds are having any rule over anything that directly affects me, other then I will get coverage for anything contraception-related should I need it or seek it. If I am wrong in any of my understanding, then I apologize. I only thought that Medicare, Medicaid and government employee healthcare were covered by tax dollars.
KarenInWA
Obamacare has taken over Federal overisght of all healthcare in America. In such, these private health care issues for all of us are no longer so including dialysis treatments and contraceptives. Now, Uncle Sam will have a say in what your healthcare benefits will be, that is the entire contraceptive AND abortion debate over his edict.
-
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
Do whatever you want, what business of that is mine!!
But that is the point isn't it, you want the privacy of making your own choices which I agree, make your own choices. I believe we are all individually accountable for our own actions. No problem Cariad, abort away all you wish. But keep it your private issue and don't make it a public issue that my tax dollars pay for.
Once again, why not read through the entire thread and see that I am actually looking at the rights you will lose by Federal control of contraception and abortion. You fail to understand that those are not actions I am the least bit interested in for myself so his edict has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever. You fail to understand that your private issues are now public issues under Obamacare and they will assuredly regulate them.
So you are right, I could really care less what you do, it is your life after all, and you are right, if the Feds wish to regulate your sex life, so be it, that is what you are asking for. Perhaps one day you will wake up and it will be the Feds telling you what to do and you will have no recourse but to realize, you asked for their control of your private affairs. So be it, have it your way and I hope all of you in support of these issues enjoy your brave new world of Federal control of even your "private" affairs. Guess what, they are now public and under control of the Feds. Enjoy.
I am not in the least concerned with any of your specious arguments. The Federal government is securing the rights of millions of women through their involvement, because as any healthcare provider can tell you, cost is one way to control a society's actions, and when cost or availability are prohibitive, then that renders the right to do something useless.
I don't need your permission to do anything with my body, did not ask for it, reject it out of hand. I don't read these threads in their entirety because of your continued use of bible quotes and your appalling lack of respect for Obama. He is not a dictator by any definition and your inflammatory remarks are not appreciated. If you truly do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes then I find it bizarre that you would bring up gay marriage rights in a discussion of contraception. How many Einsteins have been aborted? What a ludicrous argument. Have you really reached that point? I don't know, how many Einsteins died by hospital error, or by preventable disease because their parents did not have health insurance, or because they were deported back to some hellhole country, or because they were sent to war and blown to pieces before they could reach their full potential? How many were never created because someone said "Not tonight, dear, I'm just not in the mood". How many were gay and told 'your sexual desires are an abomination' by some religion and snapped and killed themselves? You can play that laughable game all day.
As I said, enjoy Federal regulation of sex in America. Not the first country to walk down that path. Perhaps we can learn from what other countries have accomplished in state countrol of the bedroom. Not pretty in my opinion, but please have your precious freedom. Just be careful what you ask for.
And as I said, I do not need nor desire your permission to do anything. I will enjoy seeing Barack Obama reelected and continue to outwit the Republican party. Enjoy your outrage and your attempts to scare women out of demanding that their very basic human rights be preserved by the federal government.
-
The same applies to individuals who accept Federal money for any entitlement, they must also comply with all of those Federal regulations in exchange for the money. That will also apply to people who have Federal payment for contraceptives and abortion. Very simply, the Feds never give anything for free, it always comes with strings attached.
My apologies for being thick, but this is the bit I don't quite understand. I am not vastly educated on this topic, so maybe you can help.
As I understand it, and I may certainly be wrong, the only time that the federal govt subsidises abortion is if the woman is a Medicaid recipient and if she has become pregant due to rape or insist, OR if her pregnancy is deemed to be medically dangerous and her life would be endangered should she continue with the pregancy. Is this correct or not? If this is correct, then yes, you are right...there are strings attached.
I am not sure, however, which strings are attached to any federal funding of birth control which are applied to INDIVIDUALS as opposed to those regulations imposed upon Catholic institutions. I'd like to hear more about these strings. Thanks.
Go read the Obamacare health care act.
As far as contraceptives, just about every insurance provider offers that already depending on the type of coverage you purchase. I would be very surprised that there is any more than a handful that don't.
On the other hand, I know of no insurance provider that provided abortions as part of the coverage. Everyone is focussing on contraceptives which are widely available in this nation already. Having insurance companies equate abortion to just another form of contraceptives is what hardly anyone is talking about, but that is the real issue in this entire debate. Since folks can go and get plan B in vending machines in some areas, who can say that access to contraceptives is not already universal? Adding abortion as just "another" form of contraceptives crosses the line on so many different levels.
-
Just because Obama is mandating that certain services be covered, does NOT mean that one is forced to use them!!! To not cover something because it affects my sex organs is just plain discrimination! What Santorum is prescribing for this country, and what the Republicans are trying to sign into law in VA, scares me more than my President signing into law services that I, as a hard working American, must have *access* to! Giving me access vs taking that access away??? Thank you, but I'd rather have as many choices available to me as possible, so I may get the coverage for the healthcare I need.
Bear in mind, I am a spoiled union employee. I have been lucky to have been through 7 months of dialysis with no out-of-pocket expense for it, and am now almost 3 months post-transplant with only drug co-pays out of my pocket. I do pay for Medicare, so I am sure that has helped, too. But, I did not pay for that until shortly before my surgery, so my dialysis was paid for 100% even w/o Medicare. I am very thankful that my job affords me this healthcare that I need. I guess this means I have higher expectations when it comes to caring for my own health. If only everyone could be as lucky.
KarenInWA
-
Religion is all about social control, and women with their scary sexuality and their independent thoughts have always been target one of any and every religion. It is mind boggling to me that any male thinks they should be given a say in what I do with my body. It is laughable that people can talk about losing freedoms and then rail against women being able to control their own physical person. I control what happens to my body. Live with it.
Do whatever you want, what business of that is mine!!
But that is the point isn't it, you want the privacy of making your own choices which I agree, make your own choices. I believe we are all individually accountable for our own actions. No problem Cariad, abort away all you wish. But keep it your private issue and don't make it a public issue that my tax dollars pay for.
Once again, why not read through the entire thread and see that I am actually looking at the rights you will lose by Federal control of contraception and abortion. You fail to understand that those are not actions I am the least bit interested in for myself so his edict has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever. You fail to understand that your private issues are now public issues under Obamacare and they will assuredly regulate them.
So you are right, I could really care less what you do, it is your life after all, and you are right, if the Feds wish to regulate your sex life, so be it, that is what you are asking for. Perhaps one day you will wake up and it will be the Feds telling you what to do and you will have no recourse but to realize, you asked for their control of your private affairs. So be it, have it your way and I hope all of you in support of these issues enjoy your brave new world of Federal control of even your "private" affairs. Guess what, they are now public and under control of the Feds. Enjoy.
I am not in the least concerned with any of your specious arguments. The Federal government is securing the rights of millions of women through their involvement, because as any healthcare provider can tell you, cost is one way to control a society's actions, and when cost or availability are prohibitive, then that renders the right to do something useless.
I don't need your permission to do anything with my body, did not ask for it, reject it out of hand. I don't read these threads in their entirety because of your continued use of bible quotes and your appalling lack of respect for Obama. He is not a dictator by any definition and your inflammatory remarks are not appreciated. If you truly do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes then I find it bizarre that you would bring up gay marriage rights in a discussion of contraception. How many Einsteins have been aborted? What a ludicrous argument. Have you really reached that point? I don't know, how many Einsteins died by hospital error, or by preventable disease because their parents did not have health insurance, or because they were deported back to some hellhole country, or because they were sent to war and blown to pieces before they could reach their full potential? How many were never created because someone said "Not tonight, dear, I'm just not in the mood". How many were gay and told 'your sexual desires are an abomination' by some religion and snapped and killed themselves? You can play that laughable game all day.
As I said, enjoy Federal regulation of sex in America. Not the first country to walk down that path. Perhaps we can learn from what other countries have accomplished in state countrol of the bedroom. Not pretty in my opinion, but please have your precious freedom. Just be careful what you ask for.
And as I said, I do not need nor desire your permission to do anything. I will enjoy seeing Barack Obama reelected and continue to outwit the Republican party. Enjoy your outrage and your attempts to scare women out of demanding that their very basic human rights be preserved by the federal government.
You are too funny since I don't have outrage about this at all. Sadness yes, outrage no.
In fact, contraception is universally available in America already. So is access to abortion services, many of which are free and already funded by the Feds.
So go ahead and demand that the government have control over every aspect of your life. I am not the least of which stopping you from that demand. Go ahead, I could care less as I have stated a dozen times over. I probably don't have that much time left in this world anyway. It is not going to affect me. In the end, the only people that Obama is outwitting is those not smart enough to see what he is doing. But if that is what you want, then by all means, enjoy.
-
Giving me access vs taking that access away???
Exactly! It's a desperate, last-gasp argument from people who want to whine that they cannot control every last dollar spent by this government and every last woman who lives in this country.
Yes, I'll keep my freedoms and I will enjoy.
-
Giving me access vs taking that access away???
Exactly! It's a desperate, last-gasp argument from people who want to whine that they cannot control every last dollar spent by this government and every last woman who lives in this country.
Yes, I'll keep my freedoms and I will enjoy.
Thank you, and I will enjoy my freedom to protest what the government is doing and interfering in personal, private matters and my freedom to quote the Bible when and where I please as well.
-
Giving me access vs taking that access away???
Exactly! It's a desperate, last-gasp argument from people who want to whine that they cannot control every last dollar spent by this government and every last woman who lives in this country.
Yes, I'll keep my freedoms and I will enjoy.
Thank you, and I will enjoy my freedom to protest what the government is doing and interfering in personal, private matters and my freedom to quote the Bible when and where I please as well.
Go for it. Women who consider it an interference to be given these services free of charge will enjoy their right to refuse that assistance and pay for any desired services out of pocket. It's a win for all.
-
I'm going to exercise my freedom of speech and try to get this discussion back on track because for those of us with severe renal disease, it's a relevant discussion. I'm not sure how many of us on IHD have the energy for indulging in wanton sex, so let's just assume that for us, the birth control dilemma is a medical issue.
I know that this is still a personal question, however, but I would still like to know if there is anyone out there who is struggling with making this decision. Is there anyone who feels that using birth control is wrong but is still having to consider it because of renal disease? If so, what things are influencing your thinking? Or, even more difficult, are you a man whose wife has CKD and is considering using birth control (and may well be encouraged to do so by her medical team), but YOU are the one who doesn't like the idea for religious reasons? How do you, as a husband, cope with the situation? We hear a lot from our female members, but if you are a husband of a woman with CKD, what do you think?
Thank you.
-
I probably don't have that much time left in this world anyway.
Wait a minute. This is a troubling comment. I hope there's nothing wrong...
-
I probably don't have that much time left in this world anyway.
Wait a minute. This is a troubling comment. I hope there's nothing wrong...
Northing more than renal disease which is enough. The average life expectancy for someone my age is about 10 years, I have used half of them up already with 5 years of dialysis to date. No firm data for daily dialysis, but it is a reality for all of us on dialysis. I made the comment in relative terms in that I don't expect to see the full effects all of this political mess, but I may be surprised.
-
You're hardly "average", Hemodoc!
I suspect that yes, you WILL be surprised. That's my hope, at least.
-
You're hardly "average", Hemodoc!
I suspect that yes, you WILL be surprised. That's my hope, at least.
One can only hope.
God bless,
Peter
-
I have one last question. It has occurred to me that men can control their own fertility by having a vasectomy in cases where their wife might have renal disease and for whatever reason cannot tolerate various forms of birth control. How does all of this "religious liberty" debate affect access to vasectomy? Does anyone know? Is it usually a urologist that performs this procedure? Do Catholic institutions ban insurance coverage for vasectomy? Do Catholic urologists routinely avoid doing this procedure? Is vasectomy considered to be against any religious teaching?
Thanks to anyone who might have some answers!
-
I have one last question. It has occurred to me that men can control their own fertility by having a vasectomy in cases where their wife might have renal disease and for whatever reason cannot tolerate various forms of birth control. How does all of this "religious liberty" debate affect access to vasectomy? Does anyone know? Is it usually a urologist that performs this procedure? Do Catholic institutions ban insurance coverage for vasectomy? Do Catholic urologists routinely avoid doing this procedure? Is vasectomy considered to be against any religious teaching?
Thanks to anyone who might have some answers!
MM, I think I can answer some of those questions. Yes, it is a urologist who performs vastectomies. I used to work in a multi-specialty clinic and was friends with the urology nurse. I know if I were married or in an otherwise commited relationship, I would want a permanent option such as vastectomy. I would probably still be on the pill, though, due to my obnoxious periods (which have taken a break since shortly after my tx - no complaints here! and no, I'm not currently on the pill, either.). From what I understand, vasectomy is a sin in the Catholic church, and also is not covered under their insurance. However, I do not know that as a fact, since I am not Catholic, nor do I work for anything they are affiliated with. I did work for a Catholic hospital for one year back in the 90's, but I was not benefit-eligible. I think you hear less about vasectomies in this whole issue because men only get them for one reason - to prevent conception. Where as women use contraception for reasons other than preventing pregnancy, and get some procedures done that eliminate fertility for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy (hysterectomy, ablation procedure, etc). Interestingly, in some of the googling I have done, I found out that the Mormon church supports tubiligation in rare instances, one being if the woman has renal disease. I thought that was interesting.
KarenInWA
-
Thanks for that, Karen. And yes, you are right that the controversy centers on the fact that women do use birth control methods for reasons other than preventing pregancy. Funnily enough, my gyn put me on the pill when I was 17 because I'd go sometimes as long as 6 months without having a period, and other times my period would LAST for 6 months. So, the pill regulated my cycle. What's interesting about this is that while I was told that I'd probably have trouble conceiving because my cycle would revert to its original chaos once I came off the pill, what actually happened was that even once I stopped taking it, my cycle remained regular, and as a result, I easily got pregnant. How's THAT for irony.
-
HELP HELP HELP> ON this subject!! I WANT birthcontrol. I hate condoms. I am finallymarried and refurse to use them, especially not that i am not sinning. But no doctor will give me birth control. One of the reasons why I want birth control is to get rid of my chest and facial hair, and my severe acne. Well the one birth control that im on is NOT working! A blood test has shown that I have high testortone levels (sp?) I was hoping birth control would get rid of those effects. And its not doing anything.
So, I am not suspose to have any kids on dialysis, and now because of dialysis I cant have birth control that will even help with my hormone levels??? WT_? :banghead; I was on birth control before dialysis. THey say lupus + dialysis = no birthcontrol.
I am so angry over this. I take nothing but vitamins and stool softners. Havent seen a lupus doctor in almost 2 years, been in remission for 13. Not on any blood pressure meds for over 2 years.
My facial hair and acne are NOT going away. I was told that dial ysis does not get rid of all of the testortone (sp?) in the blood stream.
Lisa
Dear Lisa, I sent you a PM before, but maybe that didn't arrive. Maybe you could try to decrease your testosteron by diet. I've just done some research how to increase my testosteron, cause that's too low, and found that very informative, and possitive. There was also information on how to lower it naturally, I will research that now and come back to you. I hope that will help a bit.
Cas
-
HELP HELP HELP> ON this subject!! I WANT birthcontrol. I hate condoms. I am finallymarried and refurse to use them, especially not that i am not sinning. But no doctor will give me birth control. One of the reasons why I want birth control is to get rid of my chest and facial hair, and my severe acne. Well the one birth control that im on is NOT working! A blood test has shown that I have high testortone levels (sp?) I was hoping birth control would get rid of those effects. And its not doing anything.
So, I am not suspose to have any kids on dialysis, and now because of dialysis I cant have birth control that will even help with my hormone levels??? WT_? :banghead; I was on birth control before dialysis. THey say lupus + dialysis = no birthcontrol.
I am so angry over this. I take nothing but vitamins and stool softners. Havent seen a lupus doctor in almost 2 years, been in remission for 13. Not on any blood pressure meds for over 2 years.
My facial hair and acne are NOT going away. I was told that dial ysis does not get rid of all of the testortone (sp?) in the blood stream.
Lisa
Dear Lisa, I sent you a PM before, but maybe that didn't arrive. Maybe you could try to decrease your testosteron by diet. I've just done some research how to increase my testosteron, cause that's too low, and found that very informative, and possitive. There was also information on how to lower it naturally, I will research that now and come back to you. I hope that will help a bit.
Cas
No, intrestingly I never got your pm. :( Let me know if you find anything on how to lower it naturally. Apparently birth control does not help, or is not helping. After 3 months, my acne and facial hair will not go away. My Ob/gyn is willing to give a hormonal birth control a try on me. If this doesnt work I am going to stop it.. Im leaving it all to God's hands. But yeah let me know.
Lisa
-
Oh, look at your wedding photo, lillupie! How lovely!!
-
Okay dear Lillupie, What I can find is that 1. Wholegrain grains,wheats, and rice are good for increasing your oestrogen (therefore lowering T).
2. Eating as little sugar, and sweeteners will reduce insulin levels, and therefore reduce production of androgenlevels which would increase T.
3. Low fat, less meat, nutmeg and thyme.
4. Apples and cherries are phyto-oestrogen rich (plant oestrogen)
5. replace tea/coffee for spearmint (regulates hormone imbalance)
Although quite difficult I think that is still possible while on D. On all sites it mentioned to loose weight too, but on your picture you don't look as if you need that (I still don't know how the smileys work, otherwise I would have put some in) Many more 'treatments' were mentioned, including herbs and natural meds, but I would not take them, so I would not 'advise' you to take them either of course. I hope I have helped a teeny weeny little?
good luck Cas
-
Oh, look at your wedding photo, lillupie! How lovely!!
Thank you!