<p>Nah. Actually, it has been made and it simply does not fit for you.</p>
<p>Ah…07DAD…the response of a self appointed superior who has simply painted themselves into a corner.</p>
<p>
Only if one equates “true” with “fit.”</p>
<p>What angry bear? Presidential approval poll– now at or above 50% for the first time since 2010. Per the Arizona Daily Star yesterday
</p>
<p>Read more: <a href=“Komen Race donations down 30% here”>Komen Race donations down 30% here;
<p>A birth control pill provides a procreative choice. That’s all it takes to make it different.</p>
<p>Clearly (to me) whether that is “good” or “bad” may be a matter of moral debate, but it does not change the fact that it is materially different that other “medications.</p>
<p>Kettle truism applies here folks!</p>
<p>zoosermom, this really doesn’t warrant 3 posts, but just to be clear: I am not making an argument, or positing scenarios. I’m not expressing any pros or cons on this subject at all. I am merely pointing out that we are not talking solely about employed adults. </p>
<p>You and several others made such a point of saying the discussion revolves exclusively around employed adults, I’m just saying that population is not what you are need to be discussing. As you pointed out, if context is important, then it’s important to have the right context.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
You did that very thing. The janitor and her family weren’t my scenario.</p>
<p>
Because it does. We’re not talking about birth control overall, we’re talking about the mandate, specifically, which relates to employers. So somewhere in each family involved is an employed person.</p>
<p>Well…off to take dear dad for a procedure to PREVENT glaucoma. Paid the $275.00 initial co-pay, which is on top of the Medicare Supplemental policy he pays for each month, which of course is on top of the SS reduction recently imposed which course does not include the post procedure meds which will PREVENT complications. But hey, can he get some free BC pills while were there? We sure wouldn’t want to make this a gender specific benefit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forget the mandate…why isn’t there a hue and cry for ‘free’ (i.e., no cost) immunizations at the college health clinic. It would seem to me that the Director of the Health Services should spend his/her time preventing communicable diseases; that should be job #1. Not only would the students be healthier, but the college’s own employees would be exposed to fewer germs. Win-win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps for colleges, but not K-12. Some/many states allow parents to opt out of the vaccine should they so desire (on cultural or religious grounds). California is one such state that allows a parental opt-out for childhood immunizations which minimize the spread of communicable diseases in K-12, but not an opt-out for BC.</p>
<p>Gotta agree with zoos on this one, hayden. The mandate only applies to employer-provided health benefits. Indeed, this whole thread is premised on the fact that the Catholic Church, as an employer, must offer BC in its health plans, whether they want to or not.</p>
<p>How states serve the poor in Medicaid is a different issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is incorrect. </p>
<p>A drug requires a prescription in the US because the FDA mandates that it have a prescription, for safety reasons. Some Rx items in the US for example, are OTC in Mexico and Canada. There are certain meds that are OTC in 200 mg form, but Rx in 600 mg form. Same active ingredient, just one pill vs. three. The need is the same. The only difference is FDA ‘protection’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that indeed, is the key argument, then why doesn’t the Secretary of HHS or the Prez speak clearly that providing free BC is all about population control?</p>
<p>I guess I’m just willing to try a lot of things to cut down on unwanted pregnancies. They can lead to such tragic circumstances, not the least of which is an abortion. Will this mandate do that? Remains to be seen.</p>
<p>
[Bishops</a> Decry HHS Rule, Urge Catholics to Stand Up for Religious Liberty and Conscience Rights in Homilies at Vigil for Life](<a href=“http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-015.cfm]Bishops”>Bishops Decry HHS Rule, Urge Catholics to Stand Up for Religious Liberty and Conscience Rights in Homilies at Vigil for Life)</p>
<p>“providing free BC is all about population control” that is your assessment, not mine. Very seldom is something “all” about anything.</p>
<p>I don’t think very many people have missed the fact that governmental measures to increase the availability of birth control pills to women has a procreation option aspect.</p>
<p>I apologize if I misinterpreted your post, hanna. I missed the ‘backstory’ upthread about statins et al.</p>
<p>Yes, I do agree that most docs prescribe appropriate meds. But what I was reacting to was the implication (at least how I interpreted it) was that, because one “needs it”, it is prescribed. (Obviously, there are plenty of med needs that are not prescribed, i.e., they are OTC.)</p>
<p>Reminder: Political posts will be deleted. </p>
<p>-moderator vonlost</p>
<p>Of COURSE we’re talking about employer-provided health insurance. That’s pretty obvious. But a lot of the comments refer to the users of the prescriptions as adult employees, and make comments about the relative maturity and decision-making of those users… I’m pointing out that the employees are not the sole users of the health insurance. </p>
<p>I’m not saying anyone here is right or wrong in their views. Some of you have said that if you’re not willing to comply with the dictates of the Church, you should not have taken a job at a Catholic institution. To be thorough in that approach, you also have to address the fact that some of the end users did not choose to take a job at a Catholic institution. It is entirely possible that an 18 or 19 year old girl may not agree with her parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An 18 or 19 year old girl is an adult who can get her own job with insurance coverage if she is not happy with her parents’ coverage. She can see and doctor and pay for her own birth control. I’m not sure why you have an issue with this girl’s options.</p>
<p>^^ Yes, Hayden. And sometimes, hospitals and clinics that have been in business for years are bought out by Catholic affiliated HMO organizations. Employees therefore have not CHOSEN to work for Catholic organizations, but are suddenly subject to the arbitrary rules, regulations, and restrictions of the Catholic institution. </p>
<p>According to several posters, these employees are at fault for choosing to work for Catholic owned organizations. What about The options of THOSE employees?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely true. But then why did the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) mandate that ‘children’ can remain on their parent’s plans until they are 26? It’s called goal conflict for the college-goers.</p>
<p>I am sure that someone will jump on this comment, but I am not so sure that a young non-Catholic hunting for a job would know the policies of the Catholic church. Perhaps they should, but I am not sure.</p>
<p>No said anyone was “at fault” for working for a Catholic institution. Employment is at will; if having to pay for your own contraception is a deal-klller as far as choosing where to work, then go find another job; no one will stop you. Otherwise, worst case you will have to pay for your own contraception.</p>
<p>Zoosermom and Bay, am I right that your objection to the contraception requirement is not a moral objection? That is, you think it’s equally objectionable for a secular employer who offers insurance to employees to have to offer contraception coverage?</p>
<p>I’m just trying to figure out whether you object to the ACA, and this is just one example of its many objectionable requirements, that is whether you think it would be just as bad to have employers required to provide contraception if no one had a moral objection, or whether contraceptives are uniquely objectionable.</p>
<p>Can someone who thinks that contraceptives are uniquely objectionable on moral grounds explain how this is different from a Quaker having to pay taxes to support wars, even though Quakers are morally opposed to war?</p>