<p>Have mercy, Fang, let’s hope it’ll be overturned by some court or other. It’s surreal that in the year 2012, something so barbaric could even be suggested, much less be enshrined in law. </p>
<p>The war against women’s health and women’s rights rages on. :(</p>
<p>ETA – A woman legislator in one of these ultrasound battles proposed an amendment that would require a man seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction to undergo the exam you mention. The male legislators voted that one down, of course.</p>
<p>pugmadkate already mentioned the moving and heartbreaking film “Trembling Before G_d”, a documentary about Orthodox gay and lesbian Jews. Similarly, the book “Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels” talks about those who’ve left the Chasidic community for the “outside” world for a variety of reasons. </p>
<p>Not discussing things “in the open” has its own drawbacks. The orthodox and ultraorthodox communities are not exempt from issues like domestic violence and addiction. The recent murder of a young hasidic boy by a member of his community, a man who he trusted because he was clearly an observant Jew, makes the point even more forcefully. </p>
<p>Following law demands interpretation, which is not as clear-cut as just following a set of words. That interpretation deepens and changes because the world changes. iPads and space travel and Facebook weren’t covered in Leviticus. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s reform, not reformed. Plus reconstructionist and conservadox and humanistic etc etc etc. </p>
<p>More importantly, you can’t really draw an analogy between Catholic practice, where doctrine is set by the top of a church hierarchy, and Judaism, which ranges all over the place in where to draw authority. Old joke: three Jews, four opinions. Orthodox Jews consult a rabbi about the details of how to interpret religious law (halacha)…but there are many, many different “halachic authorities”. Reform Judaism, unlike Orthodox Judaism, says that the individual takes responsibility for choosing what religious practices to follow.</p>
<p>Strictness sometimes flops over into fanaticism, no matter the religion. Heard about the 8 year old Israeli orthodox girl who was pelted with feces and vile insults by ultra-orthodox men who said she was dressed immodestly? :(</p>
<p>Back to birth control: generally fine by us. For details, CYLHA (consult your local halachic authority) :)</p>
<p>Taxes by the secular government(s) go up as need for core government services do. More children, more CPS, police, prison, public education expenses etc., so more taxes. Unintended pregnancies that are not aborted result in more public education related expense for school for pregnant pre-teens and teens, CPS and police expense for intra-family and domestic violence and judicial expense for termination of parental rights and foster care expenses for placement of the removed children, etc.</p>
<p>Free birth control is cost effective to the taxpayer.</p>
We are talking specifically about employed people, 07Dad. Within the context, please. Why should employed people who, presumably by virtue of being employed, earn a salary, should receive birth control at no cost to themselves, when they can’t receive other drugs at no cost to themselves. Got an answer?</p>
<p>But why no co-pay, mini? Don’t be obtuse. Why should birth control pills be treated differently than any other medication in this circumstance? One could make the case quite easily that there are other drugs that provide cost benefits to society and employers. But, again, why should one type of drug be treated differently than others?</p>
<p>The answer, of course, is that this type of drug furthers the agenda and pleases the core constituency of the person who won the election. Let’s just call it what it is and at least be respectful enough to be honest.</p>
<p>I still cannot believe ANYONE could ever possibly be in favor of this. </p>
<p>I wonder if there’s any kind of exemption for rape or for if the mother’s health is in danger. That kind of emotional trauma is cruel and unusual and just downright disgusting. I wonder if these legislators even know what a trans-vaginal ultrasound entails.</p>
<p>Romani, I’ve had multiple such ultrasounds and never found them to be the slightest big deal. Now, of course, I’ve had scores of kids (oh, wait, there are actually only three!) so things don’t bother me as much, and I’m an old hag unlike yourself.</p>
<p>I can see your point philosophically, and the representative was pretty gross (I did, of course, seek out confirmation as HuffPo is not an unbiased source of news), but trans-vaginal ultrasounds are medically appropriate when ordered by a doctor and can be a very helpful tool.</p>
<p>Romani, I respectfully think you should be a little careful about this. You never know who might be reading this and become terrified by your posts. I see your point about the politician, but I think you should dial back the upsetting posts about a legitimate medical procedure. Like a colonoscopy, it’s a sometimes necessary unpleasantness.</p>
<p>Once again this thread seems to assume that everyone who is employed can afford something other than food, clothing and shelter. Minimum wage is $7.25. $1,160 (gross) every 4 weeks. </p>
<p>There is historical support for the proposition that the judical attitude toward prohibitions against birth control availability and abortion reflected in Griswold and Roe was to hold down the perceived “explosion” in the increase in the population of those who may be “the core constituency of the person who won the [last] election.”</p>
<p>I wonder how many objecting to “obamacare” would oppose it if the States cranked up forced sterilization of “febbles and incompetents” allowable as constitutional under Buck v. Bell?</p>
<p>Once again, people just avoid the question. Why shouuld birth control be treated differently than other drugs? I use a particular drug every day that keeps me alive and prevents other health complications. Lots of people do. Why is mine not required to be provided with no cost to me? </p>
<p>Dig deep, 07dad. You can actually answer the question. I have faith in you!</p>
<p>Why is it so hard to just say honestly and reasonably that elections have consequences and those who win the elections get to further their agenda? That’s all this is, but the twisting and spinning is hilarious.</p>
<p>For wanting “less government” in our lives, some segments are fine with the government regulating issues which should be between the doctor & the patient. Or a woman and her partner.</p>
<p>Because once someone is born, they are going to die. So a society without the dreaded “socialized medicine” has decided that an alive person is somewhat on their own to stay alive.</p>
<p>Birth control is about whether to give birth, a fundamentally different analysis applies.</p>
<p>But, yes-- politics is an example that to the victor goes the spoils (sometimes).</p>
<p>How is a eugenistic/racist motivation of some any more troubling than a moralistic/economic superiority motivation of others? It all falls away if BC is made available, but not mandatory that it be used.</p>
The recent murder of a young hasidic boy by a member of his community, a man who he trusted because he was clearly an observant Jew, makes the point even more forcefully. </p>
Orthodox Jews consult a rabbi about the details of how to interpret religious law (halacha)…but there are many, many different “halachic authorities”. Reform Judaism, unlike Orthodox Judaism, says that the individual takes responsibility for choosing what religious practices to follow.</p>