Contraception and CKD

[Rerun]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[MooseMom]

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).

[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

[Hemodoc]

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.

[KarenInWA]

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

[Hemodoc]

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.

[MooseMom]

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?

[MooseMom]

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. 

[Hemodoc]

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

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[cariad]

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.

[KarenInWA]

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

[cariad]

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/

[MooseMom]

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. 

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[cariad]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[MooseMom]

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. 

[Hemodoc]

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.

[MooseMom]

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.

[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

[Hemodoc]

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.