Free Birth Control Reduces Abortion Rate

[_Bob Loblaw]

Those of you who keep insisting that Limbaugh's statements were an aberration, keep in mind that Romney's response to Limbaugh's comments were simply: "I'll just say this, which is, it's not the language I would have used."

Perhaps, as I believe John Stewart said, he would have said "harlot" instead of slut.

I'm sorry. I do think it was an aberration.

More to the point of my OP: Health insurance companies, per ACA, are now required to provide free birth control. Republicans are determined to repeal ACA.

This is not true. The Republican proposal (Sensenbrenner-Black) was to reinstate the religious waiver, not to repeal the entire provision of the ACA. Here's a summary:

Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Diane Black (R-Tenn.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would limit the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requirement that employers provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and some abortifacient drugs. The bill would prevent the government from penalizing religious employers who choose not to follow the mandate due to the teachings of their faith. Citing a report by the Congressional Research Service, Sensenbrenner noted that religious employers who refuse to comply with the mandate could be required to pay $100 per day, per employee, which would add up to millions of dollars annually for some employers.

Prior to ACA, it was up to insurance companies in regards to how to cover birth control. Heck, when I was first married, my health insurance didn't cover birth control AT ALL. I had to pay ALL of the cost. I would imagine most insurance companies pay some amount towards birth control, but certainly they weren't, under the free market rein, choosing to provide free birth control, were they?

Unless you work for a religious institution, no one is arguing that your insurance company shouldn't pay.

To me, this question has to do with whether or not people really believe abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, plain and simple, then I would think that the TOP priority would be reducing the abortion rate at all costs.

Religious institutions don't have a great track record on doing things that make sense. The point for conservatives is that the new law encroaches on freedom of religion. I think it does, and to the extent that our constitution places a value on freedom of religion, it's a step in the wrong direction. Separation of church and state is a two-way street.

And frankly, while this is a side argument that has been resolved already, I wonder why the catholic church doesn't clue in to this, anyway. Is protecting all those sacred sperm really as important as preventing abortion/murder? How about some perspective here. Of course, if even Mother Teresa, working with starving, destitute children, couldn't see that birth control might be the lesser of two evils, perspective is too much to ask.

You're asking religious groups to abandon the precepts of your faith because you have decided that their approach doesn't make sense. I may agree with you (I do, actually), but it is not the federal government's prerogative to force religious institutions to violate their beliefs.

[_beastie]

I'm sorry. I do think it was an aberration.

Then why didn't Romney make a strong denunciation of Limbaugh's comments?

This is not true. The Republican proposal (Sensenbrenner-Black) was to reinstate the religious waiver, not to repeal the entire provision of the ACA. Here's a summary:

Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Diane Black (R-Tenn.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would limit the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requirement that employers provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and some abortifacient drugs. The bill would prevent the government from penalizing religious employers who choose not to follow the mandate due to the teachings of their faith. Citing a report by the Congressional Research Service, Sensenbrenner noted that religious employers who refuse to comply with the mandate could be required to pay $100 per day, per employee, which would add up to millions of dollars annually for some employers.

But Romney says it is his intention to repeal ALL of ACA on day one. Remember, he got in trouble for once saying there were some provisions he'd like to keep, but had to back off of that lickety-spit. I know you don't think Romney has a prayer of repealing it, but that is his intention.

Unless you work for a religious institution, no one is arguing that your insurance company shouldn't pay.

But if ACA is repealed there will be no way to force insurance companies to do so.

Religious institutions don't have a great track record on doing things that make sense. The point for conservatives is that the new law encroaches on freedom of religion. I think it does, and to the extent that our constitution places a value on freedom of religion, it's a step in the wrong direction. Separation of church and state is a two-way street.

I understand. Just venting.

You're asking religious groups to abandon the precepts of your faith because you have decided that their approach doesn't make sense. I may agree with you (I do, actually), but it is not the federal government's prerogative to force religious institutions to violate their beliefs.

Well, there is a limit to religious freedom. That has been tested in the past in regards to health issues, particularly with children.

[_palerobber]

So why do you conservatives think that the republican party opposes free birth control?

well, before you can support free birth control, you first have to support legal birth control.

but a large number of the mainsteam republicans, including elected officials, believe that birth control is a sin and that Griswold was wrongly decided.

[_palerobber]

1. Policies, like free birth control, that encourage promiscuity will likely negate any gains on unwanted pregnancies. Free bullets will not decrease shootings.

we're talking about free birth control, not viagra, you twit.

3. What possible reasoning would make free birth control a priority over free water?

lol, that's a great point -- why aren't more people talking about this false choice?!

5. As with the spread of STDs, the only way to be committed to reducing unwanted pregnancy is through abstinence. [...]

wait, are you saying your inability to get laid is reducing unwanted pregnancies in society at large?

6. And while i agree with Rush's characterization of that woman, i do not agree that "slut" should be used lightly in our society, as it may discourage that behavior. :wink:

when in doubt, close with assholery... it never fails.

[_Bob Loblaw]

well, before you can support free birth control, you first have to support legal birth control.

but a large number of the mainsteam republicans, including elected officials, believe that birth control is a sin and that Griswold was wrongly decided.

Other than Rick Santorum, I can't think of any mainstream Republicans who believe birth control should be made illegal. Please elaborate.

[_subgenius]

1. Policies, like free birth control, that encourage promiscuity will likely negate any gains on unwanted pregnancies. Free bullets will not decrease shootings.

we're talking about free birth control, not viagra, you twit.

oh, ok...in that case lets make it simpler for you....free birth control encourages promiscuity and will likely negate the illusory gains noted in the OP. The remarkable, and compelling, study whose
" enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services."

wow, Oscar Wilde was right about the theater for the poor.

3. What possible reasoning would make free birth control a priority over free water?

lol, that's a great point -- why aren't more people talking about this false choice?!

thanks for continuing the absurdity, i was apprehensive that it might go over some people's head.

5. As with the spread of STDs, the only way to be committed to reducing unwanted pregnancy is through abstinence. [...]

wait, are you saying your inability to get laid is reducing unwanted pregnancies in society at large?

no, i am saying that unwanted pregnancies are currently being reduced by your right hand, a bottle of Jergens lotion, and a box of tissues.

6. And while i agree with Rush's characterization of that woman, i do not agree that "slut" should be used lightly in our society, as it may discourage that behavior.

when in doubt, close with assholery... it never fails.

as you have so deftly demonstrated time and time again

[_palerobber]

oh, ok...in that case lets make it simpler for you....free birth control encourages promiscuity and will likely negate the illusory gains noted in the OP.

let me make it simpler for you -- you're full of crap, which is why you spun a laughably false analogy instead of citing any evidence for your BS claim.

[_palerobber]

well, before you can support free birth control, you first have to support legal birth control.

but a large number of the mainsteam republicans, including elected officials, believe that birth control is a sin and that Griswold was wrongly decided.

Other than Rick Santorum, I can't think of any mainstream Republicans who believe birth control should be made illegal. Please elaborate.

a poll commissioned by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in 2005 found that 20% of Republicans do not support legalized contraception. Santorum was the second leading candidate in the recent GOP primary, garnering nearly 4 million votes (20% of the total). maybe you will disagree with me, but i think 20% means we are not just talking about the fringe.

and then you have candidates like Ron Paul (4th place in primary with 11% of the vote), who may or may not be personally opposed to contraception, but who think Griswold was wrongly decided because Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to tell states they can't ban it. i guess i should have said "and/or that Griswold was wrongly decided" up above, because i don't really know the extent to which people like Paul are religiously motivated. but i do know they're perfectly fine if Mississipi or Kansas wants to ban contraception.

[_beastie]

oh, ok...in that case lets make it simpler for you....free birth control encourages promiscuity and will likely negate the illusory gains noted in the OP. The remarkable, and compelling, study whose
" enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services."

The study proved you wrong.