Cost of Contraception

Parent Cafe
301

<p>No. BCP is NOT treatment. The proper comparison is to preventive vaccinations, including tetanus for adults.</p>

<p>[Administration</a> Announces Regulations Requiring New Health Insurance Plans to Provide Free Preventive Care](<a href=“http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100714a.html]Administration”>http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100714a.html)
[Recommended</a> Preventive Services | HealthCare.gov](<a href=“http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/regulations/prevention/recommendations.html]Recommended”>http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/regulations/prevention/recommendations.html)</p>

302

<p>I agree that Bill Maher is also wrong to use similar language, however I havent heard him attack a woman personally using that language, he seems to use it to be irreverent, and I don’t like it.</p>

<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC App</p>

303

<p>Maher uses that language to refer to certain women on the “right,” and it’s flat out wrong. I can’t stand when the media (right or left/pundit/comic/commentator/whatever) uses derogatory slang to refer to women or people of color. They no longer, for the most part, do it about people of color. Hopefully, soon, they will stop with the sexual slurs on women on both sides of the aisle, as soon as possible. It’s gotten tedious and transparent and old.</p>

304

<p>The list of women he attacked personally includes Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum’s wife.</p>

305

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, very well. He asserted – based on no facts, as always – that MJ Fox was faking it, and exaggerating his symptoms.</p>

<p>Also: go to any major feminist blog or website, and you will see that people like Maher and Olberman, and Michael Moore too (in the Julian Assange situation), have been consistently and vigorously condemned – for years – for their appalling misogyny, every bit as much as someone like Limbaugh. The same was true of the dismissive rhetoric (“we’ll take care of those lady issues after the important stuff!”) emanating from some of the Occupy people.</p>

306

<p>

Well, actually, no. It’s perfectly legal for a 14 year old to work in a retail job on weekends. My kids got their first “real” jobs when they were 14 and 15. But I did learn that labor laws regulated how many hours and on what days they could work, particularly when school was in session. (Of course, each of them had typical “kid jobs” - babysitting, taking care of pets for absent owners, etc., before that.) </p>

<p>I’d also note that kids working in their own family’s business are exempt as well. The general rules are here: [Employment</a> Law Guide - Child Labor Protections (Nonagricultural Work)](<a href=“http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/childlbr.htm]Employment”>http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/childlbr.htm) </p>

<p>I’m not really upset about the “loss of freedom” inherent in child labor laws which prevent them from being free to work for 40 hours a week during the school year, or in coal mines or on assembly lines. In fact, I’d personally consider child labor laws to be an example of necessary and reasonable governmental regulation. </p>

<p>But then, I feel the same way about government regulations which prohibit rape, murder, theft and arson. I guess I just don’t appreciate “freedom” enough.</p>

307

<p>kluge - If you were an agricultural family, you might not feel the same. They are trying to regulate any farming done by children under the age of 16, and this includes very typical chores like feeding and working with animals.</p>

308

<p>Also, as a woman who can vote, I don’t think government mandates always take away freedoms.</p>

309

<p>

</p>

<p>Bay, just curious, be honest: If this were any other federally mandated no copay drug, would you have posted 50 posts critical of this mandate (I don’t know if you have 50 or 20 or 100, just pulled it out of a hat)? Or is it the fact that this drug has a sex related component to it which has raised your ire?</p>

<p>I really get the feeling that if this had been any other drug, we’d have heard nary a word about it. It seems that it’s the fact that women will use this drug and therefore “have sex on the public dime” which is really the source of outrage for a certain number of people, not all of them Catholic.</p>

310

<p>No, Nrdsb4, as I have said numerous times in this thread (do you ignore things I’ve written that conflict with your preferred profile of me?), I am very much a proponent of contraception and choice. I’m offended by your insinuation, but I know you don’t know me, so I won’t judge you too much for it. lol</p>

<p>I am opposed to federal mandates that are not needed, offend people, and do not provide the best alternative for achieving the desired result. Bcps are already covered by most insurance plans, the mandate doesn’t benefit women who have no employer coverage, but making bcps available over the counter does. I also prefer that people take some financial responsibility for their elective choices. I get it that many people would prefer that all health care be “free,” but that can’t happen, and I don’t understand why bcps should get preferred treatment over other life-saving drugs, when people have several different choices regarding pregnancy prevention that are affordable.</p>

311

<p>Bay–</p>

<p>I understand your point.</p>

<p>Understand this: There is a long history in the US of other people, men, in particular, trying to control what women do with their bodies, particularly, but not limited to, sexually, and reproductively, so that a BCP is not JUST a BCP. It won’t be ONLY a BCP until people stop trying to get control of women’s bodies and “allowing” or “not allowing” them reproductive freedom. It was not until 1965 that it was even considered illegal to withhold birth control from a woman, in this country.</p>

<p>We simply are not far enough along for your (religion, employer, whatever) freedom NOT to provide insurance which includes birth control coverage to trump a woman’s freedom to have access to that insurance coverage. The bottom line is that you aren’t ONLY talking about birth control, or even medical care, when you talk about a woman’s access to birth control. You just aren’t.</p>

<p>So, the freedom to have access to the BCP MIGHT, to a woman, represent MORE freedom than the freedom for a religion not to provide that insurance. You say we lose a little freedom every time the government makes a mandate. without a government mandate in 1965 (you do recognize how recent this is I hope), women would not have the freedom to obtain birth control. NOBODY EVER, in all that time, attempted to restrict a MAN’s access to birth control, even for his wife. </p>

<p>So, as much as you would like this to be about government interference in “our” freedom, some of us recognize, symbolically and actually, that without government interference we would have no reproductive freedom. None. </p>

<p>Which is why talking about BCP as if it is penicillian or a blood transfusion isn’t ever going to work. There’s far too much cultural subtext to birth control issues. Sometimes a cigar is NOT just a cigar.</p>

312

<p>poetgirl,</p>

<p>Bcp is available by prescription only, DUE TO GOVERNMENT MANDATE.</p>

<p>I really wish all of you who are spending so much time defending this federal mandate would instead advocate for over-the-counter access.</p>

<p>Then, guess what, you would NEVER have to finagle with your insurance company to get the birth control you want!</p>

313

<p>I do advocate for otc birth control pills. </p>

<p>But, you do realize that the same people who brought up this “blount” legislation in the senate are the same people trying to defund planned parenthood.</p>

<p>I suspect what you represent is one of those poor fiscal conservatives whose party is being hijacked by the social far right. Why not work on them? Why not get the far right to stop attacking women’s reproductive freedom instead of trying to get women to stop defending it. You do understand, I assume, if women’s reproductive freedom wasn’t constantly under attack, we could relax a little and advocate for things like OTC birth control pills. </p>

<p>So, your fiscal issues have been coopted by the social right wing. It’s not your fault, but it’s definitely not MY fault, either. Argue with them.</p>

314

<p>poetgirl,</p>

<p>I understand where you are coming from, but the fact of the matter is that choice and bcps are currently legal and widely available/accessible. I could spend my energy arguing with “social wingnuts,” but I don’t need to. Politically conservative candidates often take the “anti-” choice because it is the ‘safe’ choice. It garners constituents without really meaning anything, because it is too hard to change current laws. Do you feel like your rights as a woman have been shrinking over the years? I don’t, but maybe I’m oblivious to other womens needs (even tho I don’t mean to be).</p>

315

<p>I would be very concerned about over the counter birth control pills, because it seems they could be used to cause a lot of adverse effects. For instance, I’ve heard the morning-after pill is a stronger form of normal bcp. If so, wouldn’t it be possible for some malicious husband or boyfriend to buy otc pills and get the woman to take them via food, etc., without knowing? Maybe I’ve watched too many CSI shows, but otc just strikes me as very problematic. Obviously I’m not knowledgeable about this, so please feel free to educate me.</p>

316

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, you said it, but you’ve spent SO MUCH TIME here arguing against this that it began to seem less about mandating a no copay as much as THIS no copay drug. It was beginning to seem disingenuous. </p>

<p>But thanks for setting me straight and not going ballistic in the process. ;)</p>

317

<p>Its okay. I felt like I was being attacked, so its hard not to get defensive. :)</p>

318

<p>

</p>

<p>Any number of OTC drugs can be dangerous-fatal even-if misused.</p>

319

<p>There was a thread on this site about a college selling the morning-after pill by vending machine. I (and most who commented) thought that was great. It did make me wonder why the regular dose of bcps requires a prescription…</p>

320

<p>Well, I have to admit I’ve been arguing with Bay, for much of this, and I actually believe, for bay, it is a fiscal issue. Unfortunately, for most of the right wing it is social issue, particularly given the Catholic stance IN FAVOR of the affordable care act, in every other area.</p>

<p>No, Bay, I do not feel my personal freedom has been diminished lately, but for the women in Texas, and the women in Virginia? Maybe more so. In Chicago, we are in no danger of a conservative take over any time soon. ;)</p>

<p>Still, there is a steady march towards forcing women into all sorts of unneccessary medical calisthenics… And given that Santorum just won the primary in Oklahoma and Tennessee? I’m sure we are no nearer to otc birth control pills than we were before we began this debate. </p>

<p>We are going in circles. I ‘get’ what you are saying. I don’t necessarily even disagree with your principles. I also know that the men who are arguing against insurance coverage are the same men who are trying to get planned parenthood defunded, which is the closest thing to otc bcp’s that exist, right now. Good luck getting them to agree to selling them otc. Their daughter’s might be able to get them! without their permission! or even knowledge.</p>

<p>ETA: Those who fought against the vending machine are the same ones fighting against coverage. So, for them, it is not a fiscal issue, or even an issue of religious freedom, but an issue of “control.” Who will control access? Why not the woman herself? I don’t know. Ask them.</p>