Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Why should childless families have to pay money so that you can have five babies? It's not like epilepsy, something that could affect everyone and something beyond your control. It's not even something complicated like heart disease, which has a lifestyle component but also a genetic component beyond your control. The Republican logic is that sex is a choice. Therefore babies are certainly a choice.

I think that there's a lot to this idea. And it's not necessarily Republican.

The problem is that health insurance pays for all kinds of things that are just choice like sex. All kinds of things can be shoehorned into the category of "choice," but even without that effort, consider all of the injuries that really only inhibit athletics.

Why should those diseases be covered but, say, impotence not? We want to say as a matter of policy that golf is a better activity than sex?

So Republicans scream about the constitution when government gets involved in birth control,
Meanwhile in VA the government is trying to make it a law that a woman getting an abortion has to have a trans vaginal ultrasound.

I am sorry but when it comes to my VAGINA, that's a WAY bigger violation of my constitutional right to liberty than govt mandated availability - mere AVAILABILITY mind you - of birth control.

They are such fucking hypocrites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument against requiring the inclusion of birth control applies also to Viagra and other life style drugs that do not diagnose or treat a medical condition.

Yes I believe we have covered this. But to correct the record E.D. Is a medical condition. It is a body part that isn't working properly and, depending on who you ask, it's a pretty important one.

Whether some old man can get it up is only a "medical condition" because big pharm spent money to create a "condition" that previously did not exist.

Sorry, but that's not true. Men were doing crazy things to fix this long before Viagra.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument against requiring the inclusion of birth control applies also to Viagra and other life style drugs that do not diagnose or treat a medical condition.

Yes I believe we have covered this. But to correct the record E.D. Is a medical condition. It is a body part that isn't working properly and, depending on who you ask, it's a pretty important one.

Whether some old man can get it up is only a "medical condition" because big pharm spent money to create a "condition" that previously did not exist.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. Why should childless families have to pay money so that you can have five babies? It's not like epilepsy, something that could affect everyone and something beyond your control. .

Because of the heard mentality
The childless are going to grow old and will eventually need someone to change their diapers when they are old and senile
that is what we need the next generation for

Anonymous wrote:The argument against requiring the inclusion of birth control applies also to Viagra and other life style drugs that do not diagnose or treat a medical condition.

Yes I believe we have covered this. But to correct the record E.D. Is a medical condition. It is a body part that isn't working properly and, depending on who you ask, it's a pretty important one.

The argument against requiring the inclusion of birth control applies also to Viagra and other life style drugs that do not diagnose or treat a medical condition.

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the logic is pretty sound. Exams, like the flu shot, are preventive in nature (ie, preventing someone from being medically sick). Birth control does not prevent someone from being sick.

AAAAhhh, but you ALREADY defined pregnancy as a "medical condition" requiring treatment.

Checkmate, honey.

I'm not PP, but I don't think so. Treatment for a pregnant woman is itself preventative. Pregnancy obviously isn't a disease, so preventing it isn't like preventing the flu.

It's a medical condition, so preventing it has at least some similarity to preventing the flu. To be more precise, I see pregnancy as a parasitic invasion that brings discomfort, pain, and sometimes even death. Fortunately, although its duration is lengthy, it is not chronic. But it has side effects which can last your entire life, although they sometimes have beneficial aspects.

Lets be real. In general, one gets pregnant by choice. One does not get the flu by choice, or other medical conditions. The fact is that sex is a voluntary act that I should not have to pay for. IF an insurer wants to provide it on a cost benefit basis, that is fine. But requiring it is a different story.

Exactly. Why should childless families have to pay money so that you can have five babies? It's not like epilepsy, something that could affect everyone and something beyond your control. It's not even something complicated like heart disease, which has a lifestyle component but also a genetic component beyond your control. The Republican logic is that sex is a choice. Therefore babies are certainly a choice.

If you want parity, then all women should all pay an extra $600 a year for an insurance rider and then you cover birth control + labor and delivery. OR you cover neither one. OR, we could be a civil society and pay for women's health across the board like we should, and let the women decide if they want to have children or not.

Pregnancy is natural. So is old age. So is death. Part of all of our well-person care, including annual physicals, is preventive. Just like dental insurance covers "preventive" care. Medical care includes "preventive" care. I guess if only women had teeth then we'd be arguing about whether preventive dental care was legitimate.... (her right to chew!)


Preganancy is certainly a unique medical condition. But as a PP said, it can have some very severe medical consequences and preventing it makes good medical sense for EVERYONE. The woman - obviously. The unwanted child. An overpopulated society. The insurers who would have to pay for the pregnancy and delivery. Planning and spacing pregnancies is a healthy choice. It makes good medical sense. That's why most insurance plans actually DO cover birth control now.

The press consistently speaks of the Obama "compromise" on BC, but while he clearly wanted to accommodate the Church, I saw no indication that he considered it a compromise on his goal of making BC available to all women. He considered it, or at least spun it, as an adjustment of implementation details.

I did not do a thorough search of all administration statements, though. Has any of you seen a use of the term compromise, or some equivalent word, by Obama or a spokesperson?

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

That's always been my take, judging from how courts have ruled on, for example, Native Americans using peyote. I posted pretty much the same thing on this thread or another one - I think it was "religious freedom covers thought, not action," and was crucified. Interesting.

I think we (I at least) took you literally. The free exercise clause protects many actions, so not just thought.

TheManWithAHammer hit the nail on the head!. Kristoff said "does not always". But most religious acts are covered, and it's those acts that are the meat of religious freedom. Acts that are not covered are primarily acts that are contrary to the common good or that impinge on the rights of others.

Covered: Your right to decide whether or not to use BC.
Not covered: Your right to limit someone else's use of BC.

Anonymous wrote:

Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

That's always been my take, judging from how courts have ruled on, for example, Native Americans using peyote. I posted pretty much the same thing on this thread or another one - I think it was "religious freedom covers thought, not action," and was crucified. Interesting.

I think we (I at least) took you literally. The free exercise clause protects many actions, so not just thought.

takoma wrote:If BC is not medical because pregnancy is a natural condition, then cancer should not be covered because a cancer is just your own cells choosing to grow freely.

And a virus is a natural organism cohabiting with you, just like your pussy cat.

takoma wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the logic is pretty sound. Exams, like the flu shot, are preventive in nature (ie, preventing someone from being medically sick). Birth control does not prevent someone from being sick.

AAAAhhh, but you ALREADY defined pregnancy as a "medical condition" requiring treatment.

Checkmate, honey.

I'm not PP, but I don't think so. Treatment for a pregnant woman is itself preventative. Pregnancy obviously isn't a disease, so preventing it isn't like preventing the flu.

It's a medical condition, so preventing it has at least some similarity to preventing the flu. To be more precise, I see pregnancy as a parasitic invasion that brings discomfort, pain, and sometimes even death. Fortunately, although its duration is lengthy, it is not chronic. But it has side effects which can last your entire life, although they sometimes have beneficial aspects.

Lets be real. In general, one gets pregnant by choice. One does not get the flu by choice, or other medical conditions. The fact is that sex is a voluntary act that I should not have to pay for. IF an insurer wants to provide it on a cost benefit basis, that is fine. But requiring it is a different story.

Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

That's always been my take, judging from how courts have ruled on, for example, Native Americans using peyote. I posted pretty much the same thing on this thread or another one - I think it was "religious freedom covers thought, not action," and was crucified. Interesting.