Near-Universal Contraception Coverage Approved

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Near-Universal Contraception Coverage Approved
253
Fri, 01-20-2012 - 2:14pm

Seems like this would be a good thing. More contraception = less abortion, less people who can't afford - or don't want - babies actually having them.

"Today, in a huge victory for women’s health, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that most employers will be required to cover contraception in their health plans, along with other preventive services, with no cost-sharing such as co-pays or deductibles. This means that after years of trying to get birth control covered to the same extent that health plans cover Viagra, our country will finally have nearly universal coverage of contraception."

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/20/407994/obama-administration-approves-rule-that-guarantees-near-universal-contraceptive-coverage/?mobile=nc

Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 6:52am
I have two daughters and a son, and the ideas that this topic matters differently b/w the two sexes is unfathomable, I don't think the law changed things for the better. An arbitrator? Lol.. I don't know what you see but many times while pro-lifers are praying outside they watch women AND men enter the clinics, I suppose that answers that!

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 7:54am

Most plans offered coverage immediately. Birth control took decades before most covered. Medicare, IIRC now excludes coverage for viagra. Covering BC makes a whole lot of sense. On covering viagra, I'm ambivalent.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 7:58am

I have two daughters and a son, and the ideas that this topic matters differently b/w the two sexes is unfathomable, I don't think the law changed things for the better. An arbitrator? Lol.. I don't know what you see but many times while pro-lifers are praying outside they watch women AND men enter the clinics, I suppose that answers that!

Look at it another way... if a man has legal say in whether a woman carries or aborts, you've just made her a slave to his wishes. No human being should be so treated. A man needs to really think twice before engaging in sex, because after the fact, his choices are limited. You might think this unfair, but the reverse would be exponentially worse. It would be different if a foetus was gestated in a lab, but it isn't.

Anything removing eggs, zygote, or foetus is invasive, no matter how accomplished. I've seen some crazy hypotheticals running such scenarios for the sake of debate, and before we go there, there is no way around an invasive procedure. Even RU486 is invasive.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 8:31am
Thanks for digging that up. I remember when I had an insurance plan that didn't cover oral contraceptives.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 9:56am

I see, you can't see any government involvement in the financial meltdown. No point in continuing on that then. That's getting a little off subject anyway.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 10:23am

If you read my post again, you'll see I pointed out an error in legislation, bipartisan by the way, in repealing Glass-Steagall - based on heavy pressure from corporate lobbyists.

Errors on the part of government were from lax or no regulation, not from misconduct. The private sector saw the holes in law and regulation and intentionally marched right on through. Government did not lie selling securities, the private sector did. Government did not misrepresent contract terms, the private sector did. Government did not put forth terms they knew borrowers might not meet, the private sector did. Government did not fraudulently complete applications, brokers and customers did. And government did not fail to set aside adequate reserves, the private sector did.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 11:29am

goddessofpeace wrote:

The government is not overstepping authority to make sure women get treated sorry but umm no.

I could see a State possibly having the authority to get involved, but not the Feds. I don't see "umm no" in the Constitution, if that is what you think gives them authority.

Only

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 11:50am

I could see a State possibly having the authority to get involved, but not the Feds. I don't see "umm no" in the Constitution, if that is what you think gives them authority.

The whole general welfare thing again. It's a broad license to act on behalf of the best interests of the people. Keep in mind they were for making the lives of people better, and preventing government from making them worse.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 12:33pm
Rick Santorum, the Catholic church and bishops.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Mon, 01-23-2012 - 12:36pm
goddessofpeace wrote:

gee the discrimination

Photobucket

Pages