Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration’s Birth-Control Rule

[szechuan]

Insurance doesn't cover condoms. Condoms are free at a lot of places and schools. Why should insurance be required to cover anything. Shouldn't we as consumers be allowed to choose what insurance coverage we want to pay for.

No, because consumers don't know what they need when it comes to coverage.

Returning a body's sexual function back to a normal state is actually a medical issue. It also affects a woman if her husband can't have a normal sexual life. That doesn't mean it is comparable to contraception. And it is used for heart issues in both males and females.

It's comparable to Contraception, there's better medicine out there then Viagra for "heart issues"

And a Husband can't have a normal sex life without Contraception unless he's sterile or wants a baby. Since you're so concerned about Sexual Function.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

How many times have you been sexually abused at a job where you needed contraception to prevent a baby? Me...never. I actually just do work at work.

How many times has a women gave birth to a baby. If she get's health insurance for that night mare Why shouldn't I get health care to prevent that night mare (pregnancy), from my job? Why don't employers keep their big fat nose out of my private business? And stop trying to exclude BC.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Hope the Trump ruling is upheld. The government shouldn't force citizens to violate their consciences.

Some Christians lack a conscience. Its better to have a women barefoot and pregnant. So the man can control her every move. Why don't you worry about yourself and let women worry about their heath issues.

 

[HARK!]

People want the freedom to discriminate against innocent people.

Like unborn children.

 

[blackribbon]

How many times has a women gave birth to a baby. If she get's health insurance for that night mare Why shouldn't I get health care to prevent that night mare (pregnancy), from my job? Why don't employers keep their big fat nose out of my private business? And stop trying to exclude BC.

If your employers are PAYING for your health insurance, then you have invited them into your private business. Giving birth is not the same as preventing pregnancy. You need to eat to be healthy...but you don't expect insurance to pay for your healthy food choices. Covering birth control for all employees when only a few are actually females who want to prevent pregnancy doesn't make sense. Insurance doesn't cover birth control for men (condoms). Children don't need it. Menopausal women don't need it. Women who are not sexually active don't need it. Women who want to get pregnant don't need it. But the employers pay for everyone to have this coverage. Why?

 

[blackribbon]

Some Christians lack a conscience. Its better to have a women barefoot and pregnant. So the man can control her every move. Why don't you worry about yourself and let women worry about their heath issues.

You mean if the government doesn't mandate that insurance pay for birth control, women are too stupid to be able to buy it for themselves ... along with shoes? For years before Obama care, women figured how not to stay barefoot and pregnant...I suspect that they will figure it out again if the government allows business to not pay for that coverage for all their employees.

 

[blackribbon]

Some Christians lack a conscience. Its better to have a women barefoot and pregnant. So the man can control her every move. Why don't you worry about yourself and let women worry about their heath issues.

Do you really believe that pregnancy makes women incapable of controlling their own lives?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Foreign policy isn't personal property. If you owned a restaurant and didn't want to serve Presbyterians, that would be your right as an American.

I don't recall the right of discrimination in the Constitution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You don't own it.

And employers don't own their employees.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[KCfromNC]

I get to quit funding US foreign policy?

I have a strong religious feeling that I shouldn't have to obey the speed limit.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to drop you within the scope of the contract you sign with them as long as they cover you while you are within the contracted period?

Yeah, I thought the argument was that businesses get to refuse service to anyone they want at any time for any reason.

 

[KCfromNC]

But this is a business we're talking about. And not a sole proprietorship owned by a single person. Or a business like Hobby Lobby which is owned by a family group. The Trump rule exempts publicly held corporations. Which may be owned by tens or hundreds of thousands of shareholders. And includes more than individuals. Banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, pension plans, universities, and other institutions also own stock. Is conscience a relevant term is this situation? And if so, who's conscience in a public corporation should determine its employee benefits policy? The Chairman/CEO? The HR chief? The top management team?

How about - stockholders get to vote what religion the company is, and the board and top level executives are then forced to convert to that religion and prove they're regularly attending the appropriate religious services.

Makes as much sense as pretending that legal fictions have religious beliefs.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Hope the Trump ruling is upheld. The government shouldn't force citizens to violate their consciences.

So where exactly do you draw the line for that?

For example, if I said I was a member of a new religion that didn't believe in police and fire departments, military, or farm subsidies, should I be able to opt out of those and not chip in toward them?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Interesting irony with this stuff...

The two things that reduce abortions the most are contraception access for lower income individuals, and comprehensive sex education. (in fact, when those two factors are combined, it's shown to reduce abortion rates by nearly 50%)

Religious conservatives claim to be the most highly opposed to abortion.

They're also the same ones who are the most highly opposed to the two measures that have been shown to be the most effective in reducing the number of abortions.

 

[cow451]

It wouldn't be news if it was common.

The news was that it was common and covered up and victims were afraid to speak up.

 

[cow451]

Like unborn children.

And born children.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Again, it is news because it is NOT that common. How many stories do you see that Suzy when to the grocery store to buy food for her family and had enough money for it? How many stories do you see that someone's fuel pump went out and they had to call a friend for a ride to work? These are common things and not "news". Shootings and sexual abuse on the job are not...therefore, newsworthy.

As for gun owners...well, we tend to own more than one gun so it isn't a one-to-one correlation with the general population. Most my friends have never touched a real gun.

I did not say that people did not own more than one gun I just said that for the number of guns to match the number of people that tells me that PLENTY of people have shot a gun. I do not know the number of people but it is at least in the tens of millions if not over 100 million ( more likely) who legally on guns that would be about 3-4 guns per person averaged.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Like unborn children.

There is debate as to whether and when they qualify as people ( remember that secular society I mention3e earlier).

 

[cow451]

Many anti abortion legislators are more than willing to axe services for children after they are born.

 

[HereIStand]

Many anti abortion legislators are more than willing to axe services for children after they are born.

That old liberal chestnut.