Dropping the pretense in the war on contraception

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Dropping the pretense in the war on contraception
30
Mon, 02-13-2012 - 10:22am

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
From the link: "The "it's about religious liberty" talking point effectively died on Friday. The longer the GOP keeps up this fight, the more obvious the party's war on contraception will be. Given the support contraception access enjoys with the American mainstream, it's a fight Republicans are very likely to lose."

That's exactly it. Some of us have known from the beginning that it had nothing to with freedom of religion and Obama has ensured that the spotlight is shone on the real issue...birth control...which some people don't think women should have access to.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011

At this point, the right knows it has a weak argument for this year's election. They grasp at everything. Honestly, if the president happened to inadvertently pass gas at some event, Republican leaders would try to make it a major campaign issue.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

I am not

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2003

Actually, it has a lot to do with religious freedom.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011

Hmmmm... take that further.if an employer objects to say... tonsilectomies, can they opt out? Christian Scientists might like this option. How about transplants? Blood transfusions? HIV meds? Sickel cell anemia? Insulin? (As the parent of a diabetic daughter, I'd really love this one.)

This is a secular country. People make ridiculous claims over coverage, yet none over say... viagra. Most of the ones expressing outrage are men, and I'd bet a poll would put those against as 75% men.

It is absolutely ridiculous how men control every damn thing, and now those men who oppose want the right to control our bodies.

The only logical outcome of this would be universal health care, no longer provided by employers, then employers don't have to worry their sexist minds over women taking a responsible approach to sex.

America is in danger. It is in danger of falling victim to a small but vocal minority that is hell bent on imposing its religious views on the rest of us. It's time for the rest of us to assert control and make it clear religion is fine, it has its place, but that place is not in any way shape or form with our government.

I'm not Christian. I don't want Christian standards imposed on me any more than Christians would want divine feminine belief or Reiki imposed on them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
<>

The church won't be paying for it. That's what the deal is...they have now changed the goalposts. A lot of us knew that the church would get to the nitty gritty...it has nothing to do with them paying for it or not...they don't want birth control covered, period, regardless of who is paying for it.

<< She also has the option of using over the counter birth control methods or natural family planning, which while they are actually very close in effectivness to the pill, they do rely more heavily on the woman using them correctly for their effectivness. >>

That's debatable about effectiveness. For example, the only way to tell if I was ovulating was with a blood test.

<>

Notice that there has been no cry of outrage from the insurance companies. That's because they would much rather pay for birth control than pregnancies.

<>

If it is okay for the Catholic church to not provide contraception under their insurance plans, then it would be okay for any other company to deny access based on their religious beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses - no blood transfusions. Scientologists - no mental health coverage. Whatever crackpot who decides they are anti-vaccinations...it would go on and on.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2003

take that further.if an employer objects to say... tonsilectomies, can they opt out? Christian Scientists might like this option. How about transplants? Blood transfusions? HIV meds? Sickel cell anemia? Insulin? (As the parent of a diabetic daughter, I'd really love this one.)

Never heard of a religion with an objection to tonsilectomies, but I suppose it is possible.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
<>

That is the definition of a secular state.

"A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

<>

The intent was to establish no religion. It's right there in the First Amendment.

<>

Birth control would be available to anyone who wants to access it under their insurance. There is no demand that they do access it. That is left up to the individual, not the church.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2003

f it is okay for the Catholic church to not provide contraception under their insurance plans, then it would be okay for any other company to deny access based on their religious beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses - no blood transfusions. Scientologists - no mental health coverage. Whatever crackpot who decides they are anti-vaccinations...it would go on and on.

That is right, if it is against their religion, they should not be forced to pay for it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

The laws of this country have to be secular in order to avoid the appearance of a state sponsored religion.

Jabberwocka

Pages