Correct me if I’m wrong, do men not have to cover maternity coverage?… We’re forcing them to buy things that they will never need.
To the best of your knowledge has a man ever delivered a baby?
~ Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) grilling Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “for the government forcing men to carry maternity benefits”, via Gateway Pundit, October 30
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
by Kelli
Forty years later, having won most of their early battles, the current “women’s issue” crowd now maintains there’s a war on us that won’t end until we can obtain contraception and abortion without so much as a co-payment even for women who can afford an education at Georgetown, and it must be paid for even by people who have always maintained conscientious objection.
Meanwhile, many of us have refused to assimilate, though we rarely hold press conferences about it. Bearing the wounds of the sexual revolution, we think, for our daughters’ sakes, there’s still room for discussion. Abortion and contraception (free at last, or mostly) aren’t the best we have to offer our girls….
We think the abortion-contraception damsel in distress dirge is unworthy of us, and quite disingenuous coming from women perfectly able to pay.
Our “women’s issue” sisters may be admirable for their tenacity in defining the debate, but they do not define us. We take issue with their version of “women’s issues” and we can speak for ourselves.
~ Peggy Haslar, The Pueblo Chieftain, July 26
[HT: Jill; photo via capecodcounselor.net]
Hey, it takes two to tango. Obviously the men don’t need it for themselves; the idea is to subsidize maternity care for the women they impregnate.
It does take two to tango but maternity care has absolutely nothing to do with his body.
If he has to pay, he gets the say. Abortion becomes his choice.
Proabort women can’t have it both ways. Be careful what you wish for ladies.
Is this when Sebelius answers, “Whatever.” ???
Or was that some other conversation? And her profound answer?
I don’t see why not. Men have to pay child support.
But “it” is not a child according to the almighty Queen Sebelius. Why should a man have to pay for a potential child? It’s not his body.
This is a good thing. Don’t we want women to be able to afford to have their babies? The man is just as responsible for the pregnancy as the woman is. Anything that helps women to have their babies is a good thing. How can you say abortion should be banned and oppose helping mothers who cant’ afford prenatal care and giving birth? How can you say that men and women shouldn’t pay for maternity care to help pregnant women? Yet we should all (men and women) pay for defense spending for wars that half the country is against? That we should all (men included) pay for maintaining national parks that only a small percentage of us visit? But we shouldn’t pay to help poor women and their unborn babies? Really? how is this pro-life?
Honestly, I’m more concerned about whether or not pro-life men (and women) are being forced to pay for abortion coverage.
I’m all for men paying for their unborn children. As soon as killing that same unborn child is outlawed.
The war is on the unborn children.
So much of the ACA is not known and what’s worst the webiste does not provide answers prior to registering either. There is no transparency regarding OCare from day one.
But here’s the true dagger (so to speak). O promised affordable healthcare. Huh? There are so many hidden costs in the ACA, which does not make it affordable at all.
I have attempted to convey all along – COST-WISE ACA IS PROVING ITSELF a BIG FLOP!!!
“Hey, it takes two to tango. Obviously the men don’t need it for themselves; the idea is to subsidize maternity care for the women they impregnate.”
Yup, something like 95% of people reproduce eventually, I don’t see what’s wrong with making men hold up their end of the financial costs for maternity care, if we’re requiring insurance overall.
The issue isn’t that men with significant others will have plans that cover maternity/newborn care. The issue is that EVERYBODY must have a plan that covers these sweeping “ten essential health benefits,” even if there is no conceivable circumstance under which a given individual would ever NEED them. So a single male who has no intention of getting married or impregnating a woman? Tough luck. An elderly couple who are way past childbearing age? Too bad. Or, think of what a slap in the face THIS would be, a couple who want to but are unable to conceive? Doesn’t matter. They ALL have to pay for maternity coverage in their plans. Because one size fits all in ACA Fantasyland.
I don’t know why a man in a non-committed sexual relationship can’t opt out of paying maternity care, say, for example if he’s in the middle of his college education and doesn’t want to be burdened with the expense of a potential child, even if that potential child is potentially his.
ACA Fantasyland is a big flop alright.
Uh, Obamacare didn’t change the way insurance works. Policyholders are always subsidizing somebody else’s healthcare, paying for a service somebody else is receiving – that’s the point. If you want to start whining about paying for a service you won’t ever use, then start paying out of pocket.
Yes.
Pay for your own abortions.
BV – this is not about subsidizing someone’s healthcare but about the cost of these exchanges. The premiums are not going to be cheaper by the time specific coverage is picked by a registrant.
Proponents of the exchanges argue that they will be more cost-effective but O and Sebelius et al claims that OCare is more affordable is proving itself a farce. How many have fell for this gimmick?
No, Thomas, this arguments against mandatory maternity care coverage is just anti-woman sentiment disguised as concern about economics. Haven’t heard too many folks quibbling about why women should have to pay for prostrate cancer treatment…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278619/no-affordable-care-act-not-pro-life-william-saunders
“No, Thomas, this arguments against mandatory maternity care coverage is just anti-woman sentiment disguised as concern about economics. Haven’t heard too many folks quibbling about why women should have to pay for prostrate cancer treatment…”
To be fair, you haven’t seen much whining about paying for ovarian or uterine cancer treatments either under insurance plans. I think the issue is that people see childbearing as a choice, and people balk at paying for things they deem as choices. I would much rather pay for someone bearing a child than aborting it, so I’m much more worried about covering abortions than I am contraception or maternity.
“If you want to start whining about paying for a service you won’t ever use, then start paying out of pocket.”
How refreshing to see an abortion fan who sees things the way we do: Pay for your own ELECTIVE birth control and ELECTIVE abortions.
Where I think the “anti-women” sentiment comes in is people apparently thinking that women, especially women who aren’t married, somehow get pregnant and give birth all on their lonesome and that males have nothing to do with it. That’s pretty anti-woman, to pretend that reproduction falls on one gender solely, costs and all.
Anti-woman? Oh right of course of course. I must be against myself.
It can’t be anti-woman to support their death before they are born though right Megs?
Now use misogynist or patriarchy in a sentence. Go.
I will let you speak for me from now on Jack. You do it so well…
So you’re opposed to mandating that insurance plans cover prenatal care, Carla? Fine. Let the blessed crisis pregnancy centers pick up the tab.
Let the cursed kill mills pick up the tab for the bloodshed.
It would appear that Ellmers has little or no idea of how insurance, in all its forms, works.
If mens policies shouldn’t include cover for maternity care then neither should it include breast or ovarian cancer. Likewise, womens cover shouldn’t include testicular or prostate cover. As BV said. Or vasectomies.
What I find amusing is those who are protesting the loudest are probably those most opposed to choice and most in favor of population growth. The whole ‘taxpayers of the future’ thing.
This is not about poor women, or single women not being able to afford to have their babies, they are subsidized now. This is about people who do not WANT or NEED coverage being forced to pay for it. I do not WANT maternity coverage. It costs $200 extra per month, I will probably not have any more children. If I do, it is much cheaper to pay cash to the doctor and hospital for the prenatal care and delivery than it is to pay the insurance company five or six times the amount in additional premiums.
It is my right as a US citizen to spend that $2400 a year as I see fit, and they have NO constitutional right to tell me otherwise.
Where I think the “anti-man” sentiment comes in is people apparently thinking that men, especially men who aren’t married, somehow conceive a baby all by themselves and that women have nothing to do with it. That’s pretty anti-man, to say that the choice to kill an unborn baby is given to one gender solely, death and all.
It is also my right to pay only for catastrophic coverage which is needed only in the event of an accident or an unexpected illness, and to pay out-of-pocket for anything else. That is after all, what INSURANCE is supposed to be used for in the first place. NOT to subsidize the immoral choices of the entire population.
Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
Exactly, mlzoiss. Women can go to court now and the father will be required to pay his share of the costs of prenatal care as well as expenses incurred during and after delivery.
Or women can start learning to respect themselves enough to have sex within a committed marital union with a man who has taken vows to support her and their family. No courts needed!
You mean women should respect themselves? Next I suppose you’ll be telling me they should be responsible, too. Haven’t you heard that there is a WAR ON WOMEN??!
“Or women can start learning to respect themselves enough to have sex within a committed marital union with a man who has taken vows to support her and their family. No courts needed!”
Marriages don’t fail? And it goes both ways, dudes and dudettes are equally responsible for sexual activities (barring of course any coercive or forced activities). And regardless, not everyone is going to do this, and that doesn’t mean that their children shouldn’t be cared for if some loser decides he doesn’t have to pay any maternity costs. Considering how much child support goes unpaid (billions, seriously, it’s over 100 billion) even after court orders when a marriage fails, it’s not just a matter of “get married before you have sex” or “take him to court”.
“Where I think the “anti-man” sentiment comes in is people apparently thinking that men, especially men who aren’t married, somehow conceive a baby all by themselves and that women have nothing to do with it. That’s pretty anti-man, to say that the choice to kill an unborn baby is given to one gender solely, death and all.”
Are you directing this at me? I obviously don’t agree with abortion, tax payer funded or not, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I think abortion is anti-everyone of every gender.
Yes, it is directed at you, Jack. No prolifer here is anti-woman and your post at 4:03pm was uncalled for. Unless you were directing it at the proaborts here. Then you have my apologies.
Marriages don’t fail?
Couples that wait until marriage to have sex have very low divorce rates. But I think you knew that already.
It was a general comment at those weird people who see as pregnancy as a “woman’s issue” rather than something men should be equally responsible for, which I don’t believe is anyone here (regardless of whether we agree on how to fund maternity care).
To be fair, you haven’t seen much whining about paying for ovarian or uterine cancer treatments either under insurance plans.
Jack,
Actuaries had all that calculated. Pre-Obamacare the actuaries figured the cost based upon incidence of cancer and the fact that men could not get uterine cancer was a part of the calculation for men just like the fact that women couldn’t get testicular cancer was a part of their calculation.
I think you misunderstood the conversation, truthseeker. BV said that people were opposed to maternity coverage because of an anti-woman sentiment, I disagreed, saying I think it’s due to people seeing childbearing as a choice, which I used ovarian and uterine cancer as examples of female specific issues that I’ve literally never heard anyone complain about being paid for (except by those who don’t agree with any insurance at all, I guess).
“Couples that wait until marriage to have sex have very low divorce rates. But I think you knew that already.”
People say this and I haven’t seen anyone put any proof up.
The same beliefs which bring people to (supposedly) wait until marriage before having sex also make them less likely to divorce Jack. That’s about as far as it goes.
No prolifer here is anti-woman – no, just anti-women who don’t adhere to your doctrines.
“The same beliefs which bring people to (supposedly) wait until marriage before having sex also make them less likely to divorce Jack. That’s about as far as it goes.”
I’ve only seen the studies that say NFP couples = very low divorce rate thing, which I think is connected to the fact if you’re going to be devout enough to practice NFP instead of easier forms of birth control, you’re definitely going to be devout enough to take your marriage vows seriously. I haven’t seen any that connect lack of premarital sex to divorce rate, I wouldn’t doubt it but I’d like to see it. I do know that the Christian divorce rate is about equal to the non-Christian rate, so I wonder how many people are actually following it.
“no, just anti-women who don’t adhere to your doctrines.”
Nope, nope, nope. If pro-lifers in general were actually genuinely anti-certain women, I don’t think there’d be a zillion pregnancy centers catering to every pregnant women regardless of their religious or political beliefs.
Jack, first site I found but there are many more if you are interested in researching further:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=35210
The opportunity to proselytize and hopefully convert is never passed up Jack. And they still agitate for social and legislative pressures against behaviors they don’t ‘approve’ of.
That study is not much more than self-fulfilling correlation. It indicates nothing different to what I said.
She won’t need a better lawyer if she never leaves.
You’re not going to win me over with your charm offensive Praxedes
divorce rate data…
http://onemoresoul.com/downloadable-pamphlets/divorce-rate-graph-and-history-table.html
In the ‘old days,’ divorces were not that common. Marxist thought, which is anti-nukelar family, has been promoted for a little over 100 years here in the U.S.A. The “Frankfurt School,” and other Marxists, figured out what stood in the way of the workers’ world-wide revolution that will eventually usher in a world-wide time of peace and happiness.
What has stood in the way is “cultural hegemony;” those who hold power supposedly construct a general belief system that keeps them in power. The main pillars of this power source are: Judeo-Christianity, the nukelar family, and individually-motivated commerce.
The Marxists have developed campaigns of ideas to chip away at these roadblocks to their revolution. So, we have all of these ideas appearing anew: if it feels good, do it, you are entitled to a healthy sexuality, open marriage, swinging, and so on. It is not so much that the Marxists are advocates of these things, as they are opposed to one thing: the nukelar family, since it is one of the prevailing pillars of the cultural hegemony, thus supporting “oppression.”
As these values have become promoted in various ways, our society has suffered: single-parent homes have soared, divorce has hurt many children, all of the STDs have sprung up like crazy, diseases spread by needle-sharing have shot up, and on and on.
But these anti-family people never see this, and never acknowledge it. they claim all of these things are simply normal. They are not; they are unusual, and have popped up in the second half of the 20th century here in the developed world, and pop up where these new values, and or Marxism, has been promoted in others corners of the globe.
“No prolifer here is anti-woman – no, just anti-women who don’t adhere to your doctrines.”
You got this all mixed up “reality.” The women you speak of are coerced by their “significant others” and brainwashed by the pro-abort propaganda into a false sense of girl-power.
How do I know this. I pay attention enough to see that they all live to regret their abortions. Testaments from these women tell us so. But to pro-aborts that is lost as they have achieved their objective of an abortion and enrichment of PPs pocketbook…
This thread was supposed to be about the apparent debate surrounding a person’s right to access the most basic of medical services (like prenatal care). Bringing in topics like sexual morality, divorce, etc. – is this just a deflection tactic?
TLD oh boy do I disagree with you:
Marxism is not against the nuclear family and never has been. Read Engels very carefully. The gist is 100 percent opposite of what you claim:
“Marxists assert that families socialize chidren into accepting capitalist values, hierarchy and their lowly place within hierarchy.”
Here’s another sentence to ponder for you:
“Several sociologists highlight how the family diverts and stabilizes the anger and frustrations of male workers, channelling them away from opposition to capitalism and absorbing them within the family.”
Marxism despises capitalism in every form but not the nuclear family…
“This thread was supposed to be about the apparent debate surrounding a person’s right to access the most basic of medical services (like prenatal care). ”
I don’t think anyone’s argued about the right to access it, people have argued about how to fund the said accessing, though.
I do believe a couple people believe that low income women should use the ER for prenatal care, or something.
““Several sociologists highlight how the family diverts and stabilizes the anger and frustrations of male workers, channelling them away from opposition to capitalism and absorbing them within the family.””
This is saying that the nuclear family directs male worker’s anger AWAY from the opposition to capitalism, which I’m assuming for a Marxist is a bad thing. I’m not well versed on Marxism at all but I don’t think your quote is supporting you.
Well so much for the quote.
Let me have a stab at this another way Jack. I was born and raised 24/7 for the first 14 years of my life under a very strict Marxist philosophy. Families (as units) were affected by the socialist policies but there was never any emphasis on destroying the nuclear family for being nuclear. If anything the nomenclature and academia were more concerned with destroying any idea of capitalism that would emerge. I was an adolescent when I left that political system so I remember these details very well. Sounds to me like the propaganda I heard in the US in the 1980s.
Aw, I see, that’s pretty interesting. Like I said, I know little about Marxism, and I think US sources tend to be rather biased on anything to do with communism.
Not lately Jack. Our commander-in-chief has very pronounced pro-socialistic tendencies. His assault on capitalism is very obvious..
@Sara
What if the man is gay? Why should he have to pay for maternity leave? He and his partner will not be having a baby together. Stop trying to support the ridiculous. This is nothing more than taking from those that don’t needs something to make cheaper for another group. I am sure I don’t need birth control pills either but I am sure it is covered on my insurance.
It is not different then if you don’t have enough money to purchase health care, we will supplement the cost. This is a huge social program that will further drain the economy like Social Security that America cant afford or Medicaid which is also going bankrupt. Taxes will have to go up again or benefits are going to have to go down.
ENOUGH OF THE LIES PEOPLE
You appear to be confused “thomas r.”
The women you speak of are coerced by their “significant others” – I was speaking of almost all, not almost none.
and brainwashed by the pro-abort propaganda into a false sense of girl-power. – yes, not pandering to the patriarchy, bowing to their whims or heeding their directives is such a false thing isn’t it?
How do I know this. I pay attention enough to see that they all live to regret their abortions. Testaments from these women tell us so. – all? Testaments from the ones you know in the anti-choice network maybe. 98.7% are happy or at least ambivalent about their abortions. How many are repeat customers?
But to pro-aborts that is lost as they have achieved their objective of an abortion – abortion isn’t the objective. Womens freedom and reproductive rights are.
and enrichment of PPs pocketbook… – which it promptly puts back into providing its vast range of services to the community. (psst, there aren’t shareholders)
I don’t know why a man in a non-committed sexual relationship can’t opt out of paying maternity care, say, for example if he’s in the middle of his college education and doesn’t want to be burdened with the expense of a potential child, even if that potential child is potentially his.
You appear to be confused about how insurance works. If an unmarried man has an individual insurance policy, it covers him. Not anyone he impregnates. Just him. That’s why it’s called an individual policy. A woman will still have to take him to court for any financial contribution to her medical care, and if she wins that suit, he would then either have to pay out of pocket or fight with his insurance company about bringing her into his coverage. However, since women exist independently of men, the woman would not be dependent upon him for insurance. The individual mandate would require that she also have health insurance. She, personally. Not that she be attached to a man with insurance.
The bottom line is this: putting maternity care in as an essential benefit will make it impossible for insurers to either refuse to cover maternity costs or price maternity coverage out of people’s reach. Whether or not any individual thinks that is just depends upon whether the individual believes a) coverage of maternity costs is such an essential benefit that it should be hardwired into the whole insurance apparatus as a universal benefit, or b) because not everyone gets pregnant, we should be content with letting individual insurance companies set prices for that benefit. If a couple wants children but cant afford maternity coverage, they will have to catch as catch can to find treatment, delivery, etc. Personally, I’m in group a.
Are Marxists pro-nukelar family, anti-nukelar family, or neutral? Much can be said.
“…Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.”
Wikipedia: “Lewin often associated with the early Frankfurt School, originated by an influential group of largely Jewish Marxists at the Institute for Social Research in Germany.”
One day, I was pondering how to predict where I would find Marxist activity, according to my belief that they hate their unholy trinity of Christianity, the nukelar family, and commerce.
The kibbutz came to mind – a community, not parents, raises kids. sure enough, the Marxists were there.,,from Wikipedia…
“In 1927, the United Kibbutz Movement (HaKibbutz Hameuhad) was established. Several HaShomer Hatzair kibbutzim banded together to form HaKibbutz HaArtzi. In 1936, HaKibbutz HaArtzi founded its own political party, the Socialist League of Palestine, commonly referred to as Hashomer Hatzair.”
Back in the Reagan days, a big joke amongst us liberals was “family values.” You merely had to say “family values” to belittle and mock anything that smacked of traditional nukelar family. No data required.
If anyone wants to continue to make the case that the Marxists are advocates of the nukelar family, go ahead. I am interested to hear what arguments anyone might come up with.
The sad thing is: we were nearly all at our college with pocket money, health, and a good education that were fruits of the nukalr families we came from. yet we were mocking the one thing that had made us who we were , as of the tender young adult age of 18-21.
TLD: in case you have not noticed, all Russians join the democratic party in the US but Eastern Europeans become Republican. So much for the similarities btw socialist and democratic party.
It is that more significant since USSR was the oppressor over Eastern Europe for so many decades. The “big brother” philosophy speaks for itself..
Well I know one Ukrainian immigrant who is a leftist, but she hates the Democratic party so Idk. I don’t really know any other eastern European immigrants. Which country are you from Thomas (if you don’t mind my asking, ignore if it’s a rude question)? I’m just curious.
I will point you to the thread on Felski to answer that question. My comment there gives it away.
Yeah, some from the old USSR truly do hate the democratic party and are not far from the truth. Check out http://thepeoplescube.com (warning: SATIRE)…
This is oppression of men because not all men are impregnating women or having relations with them.
Not all men want to start families or have children. Not all men are leading promiscuous lifestyles. Many men aren’t even getting dates with women at all.
***However, Obamacare will force these men to pay for contraception, abortion, STD treatments, preventive care for women who will never do anything in return for these men.
Many of the subsidized women will be out having pre-marital sex with the ‘alpha’ males which is ultimately a lifestyle choice and as such is not justified in having its costs transferred to hard-working TAX-PRODUCING-MEN.
I swallowed the red pill a long time ago so this type of institutionalized gynocentrism is of no surprise to me. Keep spreading the word because many still believe that women are being oppressed by men when the opposite is actually true: men, and esepcially tax-producing men are oppressed by the state in order to provide money and resources to women who essentially return nothing in exchange to the men who are paying.
Lol I love you Red Pill guys, you always crack me up. Tell me more about the horrid gynocracy and how women don’t contribute to the economy, it’s hilarious and oh so factual.
If you guys actually bothered to work on issues that actually negatively affect males in the US (how about that criminal “justice” system/rape and beating factory, or lack of support for male victims of sexual violence and domestic assault), you might get somewhere, but really you all sound like a bunch of bitter ex-husbands who don’t like paying child support and libertarians who dislike the fact that a society requires economic input from all of us.
I’m gonna laugh forever at the “oppression of men” claims.
This is the first time I am actually not going to claim the male brain line of defense after reading Richard’s comment. And it upsets me so since that is a pretty good line to get a guy out of any predicament.
Maybe, the men are from Mars line would be more fitting for Richard’s thought process..
The point is not that men are ‘sharing the cost.’ It’s that men are required to have maternity care available on their individual policy. Why?
If I’m paying for services as much as $1,000 per month thanks to these addons shouldn’t I be able to use them?
Can we force women to have policies that cover sperm count and male enhancement at no cost as well?
If men don’t sign up the price is the same the point is just that men will never be able to use the insurance they are paying for and that surplus will go to cover other policy holders, while my $1,000 per month is going unused by me. I may see a benefit in service of $100.
For a man to get insurance it costs $1,000 to get a $100 benefit.
My insurance covers prostate cancer treatment. I guess I should get to whine about it on Glenn
Beck’s show.
Go for it.