Welcome to InsuranceForums.info!   

Advertisments:


Sponsor Links

Affordable Pet Insurance
Travel Insurance Comparison


Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Health Insurance topics including Obamacare & Health Insurance quotes

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby Dermott » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:39 pm

Is there more to the huge contraception debate other than "forcing" religious institutions to pay for contraceptives, etc? I watched the mandate speech given by Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRFNeIzkM38) and he stated that it won't force religious institutions to pay for those things and rather that the insurance companies will be mandated to offer women free of charge preventative health options involving contraceptives and so on. So what is the big fuss about if in the end it won't intervene against the First Amendment? I am just trying to understand why people are still debating if at all about this mandate. Thank you :)
Dermott
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:57 pm

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby Pearce » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:05 pm

comprehend that maximum professional decision persons perform not from a point of mind yet particularly from a stance of emotion and expediency. "solutions" isn't a talk board of dialogue and so my wager is that maximum who respond (myself blanketed) have in no way honestly been in a perfect debate. maximum of what i've got witnessed right it extremely is finger pointing, call calling and infantile questions asking people who're professional life "why do not you undertake?!!!" Having spent the final public of my grownup life with the Marine Corps, i'm not conscious of being on the shielding end of something. Having canned solutions looks shielding to me. I desire to be on the offensive. I advise (for this reason) which you do your study and seem up Margaret Sanger (Saenger ?) and locate out what her motive replaced into with beginning "planned Parenthood." inspect the demographics of who gets abortions (their education point, socio-financial point, marrital status, or maybe race). seem for as many selections as are functional for people who might take into consideration abortion. seem on the regulations related to issues which incorporate unintended loss of life of fetus' in say, alcohol suitable motorized motor vehicle injuries. Ask why we are able to fee a inebriated for the loss of life of a fetus and not an abortionist.
Pearce
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:37 am

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby Huxly » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:47 am

That is bull its about them using their religion to control others. Condoms have a REAL impact on health it would be foolish to ignore modern medicine for nonsense.
They do not have to be apart of insurance they can drop if they feel its against their faith.
Huxly
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:55 pm

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby Jeanelle » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:33 pm

You are correct.
There was no First Amendment issue.

It's really just a recoloring of the argument against ANY government insurance mandates.
Since the larger argument wasn't actually doing anything to kill AHCA, there needed to be a new "excuse" to kill it.
This was it.

However, those that argued it incorrectly cited the First Amendment.
Jeanelle
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:47 am

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby Josu » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:50 pm

Well Obama has come under intense fire from both sides left and right mostly by those employers who are intensly religious. The wording of the bill excludes religious institutions and those that are directly affiliated with a religious heriarchy. Institutions that do not qualify for exclusion are institutions such as hospitals, corporations, buisnesses, basically anything that is not directly instituted by a formal religion. The leaders of these institutions are required by the law to provide contraception to all of their employees regardless of the leader's personal religious faith. This disregard for the leader's faith and requirement by law for them to provide contraception to employess against their will is a violation of the first amendment. The outrage is more directed not towards socially acceptable forms of contraception such as birth control or condoms but more directed at the controversial forms such as abortion and the morning after pill.
Josu
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:26 am

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby eleazar » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:04 pm

Republicans just want to attack the president.
They don't really care what about.
If he saved a puppy from a tree, they'd find something wrong with it.
eleazar
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby Gunnar » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:06 am

It is bullshit to avoid talking about the real issues.
Gunnar
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:32 am

Is There More To The Huge Contraception Debate?

Postby Gare » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:38 am

The part of the controversy that they didn't talk about was that birth control now includes morning after pill.
So they want religious institutions and religious colleges (which are not exempt) to either pay for or hand out abortion pills which is like forcing them to agree with abortion.
While many Christians are ambivalent about contraceptives many of those same christians are vehemently opposed to abortion.
The other aspect is why can't people by their own condoms and birth control pills, I mean health insurance companies are not required to pay for tooth paste, shampoo and other discretionary items.
Gare
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:56 pm


Return to Health & Medical Insurance

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post