What could go wrong with free birth control?
These entitlement debates are serious. When we get down to the bottom line of what we’ve been doing already in Medicaid – this is how I paid for my abortions.
This Medicaid government intrusion into the healthcare industry – coming out of Washington and then mandating all this stuff on the states – it is utter confusion and people’s lives are at stake as a result. So yeah, I would prefer that she does not come into these inner cities and pass this stuff. And I prefer that Planned Parenthood move out of those neighborhoods as well.
~ Pro-life activist and political commentator Star Parker (pictured) debating attorney Tamara Holder on the recent decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to mandate free contraceptive coverage, on the Sean Hannity via Urban Cure, August 5
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
o wow i was so pro birth control for so many years. i took depo procreation for 14 years
i know contraceptives are wrong but God help me because i still struggle with it
we have a really seedy section of town where crack prostitutes and heroin junkies will sell their bodies condom free for 20bucks! they do not care how many abortions they have so if they refuse a tubal litigation wouldn’t a shot of do be better?
sorry i don’t know why depo. provera wouldn’t print
It is better to prevent conception than to abort. We can work toward persuading more people to abstain from sexual acts. However, it remains true that in the real world, contraception is vital since it prevents pregnancies that would be aborted and the births of babies who might be neglected.
In your humble opinion, right Denise Noe?
i really feel bad suggesting birth control but in a perfect world all addicts would get clean it’s a huge epidemic and most do not get clean
i guess I’d rather see them use BC or have a tubal libation then to. put those children through horrid pain in abortion. surgery Face it for these women the dope comes first and they have no self respect
I am actually confused about what she is trying to say…
These entitlement debates are serious. When we get down to the bottom line of what we’ve been doing already in Medicaid – this is how I paid for my abortions.
is she saying that people only like medicaid because then they have extra money to pay for her abortion. There are arguments to be made against free contraception, but I don’t know what her’s is….
and if anyone has a solution I’d love to hear it because this one stumps. me_
Go Star Parker! Shannon I think you would need to hear the context of this debate to know what point Star was making (I am not entirely sure). If you can get time see if you can hear the radio broadcast because Star is usually an excellent debater. She usually relates her story as a former (self-proclaimed) “welfare queen” who proudly “worked the system” until her conversion to Christ. She is hated by the liberal left-wingers because she believes they want all Blacks especially from the inner-cities to stay on “Uncle Sam’s Plantation”, which is the title of her second book BTW.
Denise Noe says:
August 8, 2011 at 11:03 am
It is better to prevent conception than to abort. We can work toward persuading more people to abstain from sexual acts. However, it remains true that in the real world, contraception is vital since it prevents pregnancies that would be aborted and the births of babies who might be neglected.
0 likes
Carla says:
August 8, 2011 at 11:11 am
In your humble opinion, right Denise Noe?
(Denise) Carla, we need to revive chaperoned dating. That will prevent much unfortunate ssexual activity. There are other important measures I support to limit sexual activity.
However, contraception remains important to prevent conceptions that will result in abortions or neglected children. I’m open to more suggestions on how to realistically and hhumanely discourage sexual activity.
Side note: I just hate the Terms: Blacks, Jews, Gays, i understand that is is technically PC but I I don’t think I am a black * yuck) I think I am a black person. I wish this terminology has come bacl.
I looked at the link from her site, I still don’t entirely get the quote in context…but that is okay.
She seems to think healthcare is bad for black people because it makes them lazy. I wonder why she doesn’t think the same of the public school system. I mean if the government providing healthcare ( and i’m not talking birth control) is belittling to people and assumes that they can’t take care if it themselves. Doesn’t public school do the same thing. I mean its only 8,000 a year to send a child to public school and by paying for each and every child aren’t we encouraging people to have babies they can’t take care of?
Here is an excellent new column written by Star Parker on the same subject.
http://www.560wind.com/column.aspx?id=67be5f11-7e28-4a77-9f70-e341a7f6d9ef
Do these mandate laws have conscience clauses?
Prolifer: If you click the Urban Cure link in the post, it links directly to the audio of the debate. It’s about 25 minutes long.
Jack Borsch: Based on the debate, it looks like there may not be. But I haven’t read the text of the mandate myself.
“However, contraception remains important to prevent conceptions that will result in abortions or neglected children. I’m open to more suggestions on how to realistically and hhumanely discourage sexual activity.”
What about married women? 99% of American women have used some form of birth control in their life. This includes married women.
Preventing sexual contact until marriage does prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Jack,
Do these mandate laws have conscience clauses?
Not in any meaningful sense. Churches (and ONLY churches) are exempt. From the HRSA website:
“Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code.”
Christian charities and schools will not be exempted. Christian employers and insurance companies are not exempted. Even Sr. “I got a pen for defying my Church and supporting Obamacare” Keenan opposes the tiny exemptions calling it “[T]he parish housekeeper exemption — that’s about all it covers.”
The Star Parker article partially explains the concience clause/exception. Put into practice, the conscience clause will do the equivalent of exempting a single grain of sand on a beach. As I understand it, a Catholic (or other denomination or group seeking exemption – substitute the alternate group for “Catholic” in the following), insurance company or health care provider would have to be run by Catholics, be 100% funded by Catholics, and have 100% Catholic employees and customers to be eligible for the waiver.
Jim – exactly.
Via Daily Kos:
“ They defied the bishops to support President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now Catholic hospitals are dismayed the law may force them to cover birth control free of charge to their employees.
A provision in the law expanded preventive health-care benefits for women, and the administration said last week that must include birth control with no copays. The Catholic Health Association says a proposed conscience exemption is so narrowly written it would apply only to houses of worship.”
All you catholics out there that supported hopenchange, I feel not the least bit sorry for you. Truly.
You shoulda listened to Jill Stanek. :0)
Well, that sucks. Wonder if I could get hooked up to a lobby and get my meds free? It is only fair, right? *rolls eyes*
Shannon,
Back in college (1990) I had a good friend who was a poli sci major with me. We were talking about welfare/unemployment/medicare and she was adamant that it is actually the worst thing you can do to a person. She said, and I agree, that its a box people can’t get out of. You make just enough to make getting a job not worth the while, especially if you then have to pay daycare costs. Its not that she (or I) think people on welfare programs are lazy but it is hard to say I will make less in the short term so that I can gain experience to get better pay later on, especially when there are other mouths to feed.
I live in Illinois and was let go of my position in 2008 with a computer consulting company that went down in the recession. In two years I could not find a job doing what I was doing before and knew I would have to go back to school to have any hope of finding a job. I am now in school finishing a program with great job prospects despite the economy. However, when I was receiving unemployment I was told if I entered school I would lose my unemployment benefits! Really, what better use for unemployment benefits is there rather than schooling. I live in Illinois, my BIL lives in Michigan and he was allowed to use unemployment for schooling, in fact they even gave him travel expenses to attend school. I am not saying Illinois or any state should do that but they should also not dictate what the money is used for especially if you are bettering yourself.
Denise: we need to revive chaperoned dating.
All of the aunts, grandparents, and really – the rest of the townspeople should follow the young daters as they walk through the town….
What could go wrong with free birth control?
If it was considered a taxable benefit?
Doug says:
August 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Denise: we need to revive chaperoned dating. All of the aunts, grandparents, and really – the rest of the townspeople should follow the young daters as they walk through the town….
(Denise) Whenever a suggestion is made that might reduce the amount of early and frequently destructive sexual activity, it is ridiculed as sexually repressive and prudish. However, the simple fact is that adolescents are not psychologically equipped to handle the consequences of partnered sexual activity. The fact is that there are no less than 3 million unplanned pregnancies in this country every year (half of which end in abortion). Many children are born in poverty to unmarried mothers. Babies are found abandoned in dumpsters and on the street. As I’ve said, I support contraception 100%. However, encouraging abstinence from unmarried partnered sex among young people — especially minors — is a legitimate social goal. Yes, there are methods for achieving this goal that are repressive and inhumane and must be rejected. But chaperoned dating is well within reason.
Doug –
Again, I ask… While many women who seek contraception are teens and unmarried women, 99% of women in the US will use contraception at one time or another.
What about married women seeking to prevent pregnancies? Should they abstain from sexual relations with their spouse?
Annie says:
August 9, 2011 at 9:06 am
What about married women seeking to prevent pregnancies? Should they abstain from sexual relations with their spouse?
I think you would be surprised at how many do abstain – during their fertile time. I practice NFP which calls for abstinence during those times.
Kristen says:
August 9, 2011 at 10:38 am
Annie says:August 9, 2011 at 9:06 amWhat about married women seeking to prevent pregnancies? Should they abstain from sexual relations with their spouse?
I think you would be surprised at how many do abstain – during their fertile time. I practice NFP which calls for abstinence during those times.
(Denise) You can’t assume that because a woman is married she is automatically sexually active. Some long-married couples stop having sex out of boredom. I have a virgin friend who was in a “in-name-only” marriage for several years.
So the solutions for women who are in married relationships is to stop having marital relations (willingly or not) or to hope that NFP doesn’t result in an unwanted pregnancy? Can we agree that some women WILL benefit from free contraceptives beyond the single, promiscuous women you outline in your argument against affordable birth control?
Annie says:
August 9, 2011 at 8:33 pm
So the solutions for women who are in married relationships is to stop having marital relations (willingly or not) or to hope that NFP doesn’t result in an unwanted pregnancy? Can we agree that some women WILL benefit from free contraceptives beyond the single, promiscuous women you outline in your argument against affordable birth control?
(Denise) I wasn’t suggesting at all that marriages should cease being sexually active. I was just pointing out that you can’t assume that all of them are.
Yes, many married women benefit from access to contraceptives and that prevents abortions as well as the births of babies who might be neglected.
Why is this the one thing that is so wonderful no one should have to pay for it? Not drugs that prevent miscarriage or premature birth. Not drugs to treat or prevent cancer or heart disease. Not drugs to treat HIV, malaria, or tuberculosis. And why should it be paid for by people who do not want to pay for it? Why will no one pay for my drugs, which can help me control my blood sugar, may help forestall diabetes, and can prevent miscarriage? But if I wanted to take drugs that kill babies (and the kinds of birth control we are talking about can definitely kill babies) and make me gain weight, well, that’d get government funding. Why not fund the drugs that keep my FIL from getting prostate cancer? Why not fund antidepressants and antipsychotics that help people with psychological problems be functional members of society and not go on murderous rampages? Really, this is the one thing that needs to be fully funded? When all those other drugs are not at all controversial when used for their on-label use, and birth control’s only non-controversial usage is off-label? Something doesn’t add up. I think this is more of “let’s offer half the population something free so they’ll vote for us.”
I used birth control before I knew it could kill babies. I have been married 8 years. I have used nothing at all for 7 years. I have 2 kids. I don’t use NFP. My children are blessings. Any more God sends us will be blessings too. Any that anyone else doesn’t want are blessings. We are in the process of adopting a little girl from Eastern Europe.
Birth control is very rarely a need. It’s a want. So is abortion. No doctor should be forced to participate–just as they would not participate if a patient “needed” a nose job because her nose was “too big”, when really she was well within the range of normal. If she wanted a nose job, no one would have a problem with a doctor refusing to participate, because it’s an elective procedure. If he judged it unnecessary, with the (real) risks outweighing the (intangible) benefits, no one would call it ideological or holier-than-thou or out-of-line. Even if she makes the argument that “it’s my body” and she doesn’t want to support the excess nose tissue, it doesn’t compel his participation. I have had doctors refuse to prescribe me a safe drug for a real medical issue because they disagreed with me using it because I was breastfeeding. If they have that discretion, why can’t they decide abortion or birth control isn’t really necessary? Why is it so necessary to prevent a natural, healthy condition of a human woman? What kind of self-hate is this that leads people to not want to reproduce beyond a bare minimum replacement rate? Why should obese people have to give up food (lots of people suggest they pay higher premiums–and smokers), but people who don’t want kids not need to give up sex some of the time?
A lot could go wrong. To begin with most contraceptives are abortificants and just aren’t safe. They also get in our waterways and aren’t good for the fish. Instead of concentrating on rather our tax dollars should be for contraceptives which is a valid question we should be asking why aren’t more contraceptives available that are not dangerous to the health of women. Personally I believe that anything that is used by women that is antagnostic to embryos will also have a negative effect on their own body because the embryo of course is just a minature version of the adult human body. Hopefully before anyone takes anything that prevents conception from taking place they will educate themselves on the short and long term effects on their body and the effect that the preventative has on other life species. Of course this is suppose to be what the FDA is doing but maybe they’r on vacation are realized a long time ago that the ability of the American people to hold them accountable is not great. So if you consider the long term financial effect of free birth control what you’re doing is increasing the risk of health problems to more women, feminizing other life species because of the amount of estrogen most abortificants contain and so if you really consider all the effects of increasing the amount of abortificants that enter the human population you are looking at not saving money but actually spending more because of the negative effects on the human body and your compromising the ability of fish to reproduce thus your compromising part of the food chain.
Excellent points myrtle. Read the inserts inside the package of hormonal contraceptves. The side effects and contraindicatios are pages long. Like I explain to teens and young adult smart enough to ask ”anything powerful enough to stop you from having your normal cycle of ovulating and building up the normal endometrial lining every month (women do not have normal menstrual cyles or menstrual flow while on this stuff) , which is a normal body function of the female reproductive system, has got to have powerful chemicals in it.” Read the inserts carefully on pills, shots, patches etc. they are actually telling you you could die.
Why is this the one thing that is so wonderful no one should have to pay for it? Not drugs that prevent miscarriage or premature birth. Not drugs to treat or prevent cancer or heart disease. Not drugs to treat HIV, malaria, or tuberculosis. And why should it be paid for by people who do not want to pay for it? Why will no one pay for my drugs, which can help me control my blood sugar, may help forestall diabetes, and can prevent miscarriage?
Because the pro-abortion, population control advocates are in high places and they see this as more important than anything else.
Prolifer L
I think in most cases they understate the risk factor so for them to state that much no telling what the real conclusions of their studies were. A lot of that though could change if the public had a way to hold the FDA accountable when they allow drugs that are dangerous to reach the marketplace. I think in order for the FDA to function at a higher level of accountability number one they should be getting serious salaries so that if drug companies are paying them to look the other way they will be less tempted to and their needs to be a higher degree of acountability on the part of the drug companies and the FDA. The FDA are really like gate keepers. If you listen though to all the drug companies that are being sued I don’t think the FDA are doing a very good job and the drug companies aren’t really thinking soundly because it would probably be much more cost effective to do all the research that is needed and put a quality product on the market instead of putting a product that will just result in seriously compromising peoples health thus resulting in serious law suits and that’s not even considering the impact it has on the morale of their researchers to know that they are being pressured to release a product that is not ready. Something else that would probably help is to give some type of tax break to reward drug companies that show they they hold themselves accountable not only to the legal expectations of product testing but show a record of exceeding the legal expectations by continually putting a quality product on the market. And of course just because they list the serious side effects should not mean the product can then be put on the market.The American public should have a right to expect the FDA to do their job.
Pregnancy and childbirth have their side effects and dangers. Contraception is important. It prevents pregnancies that would lead to embryos and fetuses being ripped out of the womb. It prevents pregnancies that lead to the births of children who would be neglected and possibly even abused.
I can envision a world in which people relate to each other primarily on an intellectual basis. I can envision a world in which casual sex has disappeared. I can work for a world that de-emphasizes sexuality and in which casual sex happens less frequently.
In the world as currently constructed, contraception is vital to prevent evils.
Denise
I absolutely believe in contraceptives. I just don’t believe in abortificants. And I don’t believe that you have the ability or the legal authority to decide who and who won’t be good parents. What are your thoughts?
myrtle miller says:
August 10, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Denise
I absolutely believe in contraceptives. I just don’t believe in abortificants. And I don’t believe that you have the ability or the legal authority to decide who and who won’t be good parents. What are your thoughts?
(Denise) I never said I could make that decision. I’m not trying to make that decision.
Denise
Your whole post made at 11:03 makes a lot of assumptions and what I meant by my statements is what I said you don’t have that ability to decide who will or who will not be good parents and at some point free birth control will become mandatory that’s why I said you do not have the legal authority meaning you or no one else gets to decide who can and who can’t be parents.
(myrtle) “Personally I believe that anything that is used by women that is antagnostic to embryos will also have a negative effect on their own body because the embryo of course is just a minature version of the adult human body”
Except science disagrees with your “beliefs.”
————————————————————-
(young christian woman) “Birth control is very rarely a need.”
Tell me you’re kidding. PLEASE. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Of COURSE birth control is a NEED. Otherwise, why would 98% of American women use birth control at some point in their lives?!?!?! Please take a moment to acknowledge that not all women believe the way you do, and that some would prefer to take scientific control of their reproduction rather than go on faith.
“Of COURSE birth control is a NEED. Otherwise, why would 98% of American women use birth control at some point in their lives?!?!?!”
Is the idea here that the percentage of people engaged in a certain action is the qualifier for what constitutes need? This does not seem correct. I’m sure an extremely large percentage of Americans have had a drink of alcohol or smoked a cigarette at some point in their lives, yet I doubt that you would agree that this constitutes the need for cigarettes or alcohol. Most Americans, i am sure, have lied at some point in their lives. It does not therefore follow that lying is a need. On the other hand, very few Americans have ever attempted to find a cure for cancer, yet I am sure you would agree that there is a tremendous need for a cure for cancer. Thus I do not see how the percentage of Americans who have participated in an action at some point in the life or used a certain product is evidence of the “need” of that action or product.
Annie, please define “need.” I can only assume we are not using the word in the same way. I imagine that 98% of Americans have used chocolate, fast food restaurants, vacuum cleaners, remote controls, and microwave ovens, but I don’t consider these things needs either. Ubiquity does not equal necessity.
Annie
I’m not sure what science your referring to, look up the side effects of abortificants and then you will see that there really not good for women. I’m not sure if they’ve reached the conclusion that it’s because the embryo is just a minature human but thats the conclusion I’ve reached and it makes perfect sense to me. If it isn’t a logical conclusion than their wouldn’t be so many side effects. I’m not against contraceptives I’m just against abortificants because life is sacred and the side effects of abortificants put women at severe risk.
Denise: Whenever a suggestion is made that might reduce the amount of early and frequently destructive sexual activity, it is ridiculed as sexually repressive and prudish. However, the simple fact is that adolescents are not psychologically equipped to handle the consequences of partnered sexual activity. The fact is that there are no less than 3 million unplanned pregnancies in this country every year (half of which end in abortion). Many children are born in poverty to unmarried mothers. Babies are found abandoned in dumpsters and on the street. As I’ve said, I support contraception 100%. However, encouraging abstinence from unmarried partnered sex among young people — especially minors — is a legitimate social goal. Yes, there are methods for achieving this goal that are repressive and inhumane and must be rejected. But chaperoned dating is well within reason.
Denise, I was not seriously ridiculing anything, and what you say makes sense, in general. I don’t really know about “chaperoned dating” – I have no kids myself, and don’t really know how that would go over, given the fact that many times you cannot “put the genie back in the bottle.” Myself – I first had sex when I was nearly 20, never got anybody pregnant, and am glad of it.
Annie: Again, I ask… While many women who seek contraception are teens and unmarried women, 99% of women in the US will use contraception at one time or another.
What about married women seeking to prevent pregnancies? Should they abstain from sexual relations with their spouse?
Annie, I was just joking – thinking of the scene in ‘The Godfather II’ where Michael and his Sicilian bride-to-be go walking through the village… And if you don’t know that movie, then get thee the DVD!! : ) O’ course, should ye be needin’ the 2nd one, then by all means get the 1st one too!
No, married women, in general, will not abstain from sex with their spouse, period. Almost all episodes of sex are intended for pleasure, versus intended to start a pregnancy. Perhaps some would argue with the “almost all,” and well, hmm… okay maybe I should just say the vast majority of sexual encounters are for pleasure, versus starting a pregnancy.
Why does it have to be either/or? Almost all the time when I have sex, I am after pleasure and would welcome a pregnancy, and it does cross my mind if it’s near the right time.