<p>Seems that the real issue here is the rights of a private institution to decide what services/coverage it offers. I would think that Georgetown or any other private educational institution or private company has every right in the world to decide what benefits it offers employees/staff.</p>
<p>The private organization is under no obligation to provide anything, and it is up to people to decide whether they are OK with that. </p>
<p>If my employer decides to offer a health insurance plan with a very high deductible, for example, or coverage so wonderful that I can’t begin to afford it, that is their choice. If they don’t want to provide a plan that pays for prescriptions, for example, that is also their choice.</p>
<p>In my mind, this isn’t about contraception, it is about the right of private enterprises/orgs to decide how they want to run their business. In a free market society, that is how it works!</p>
<p>I think it was a big mistake ever to link health insurance with employment. Everyone should have the same access to a specified level of good health insurance coverage–not be dependent on what their employer offers, or even on being employed at all.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the individuals least likely to be able to afford the cost of effective birth control are also the least likely to be able to afford to care for and raise children (or more children than they already have) – and many are married so its not a question of sexual promiscuity.</p>
<p>I’m Catholic. I disagree with my Church’s teachings about contraceptives.</p>
<p>That said, I am appalled by the Catholic bashing in this thread…to say nothing of the misinformation. </p>
<p>The proposal does NOT apply to any religious institution which restricts its services to members of its own faith. So, the local Catholic parish will NOT have to provide coverage for contraception for the parish secretary or receptionist, as long as being Catholic is a prerequisite to be hired.</p>
<p>If a Catholic organization hires or PROVIDES SERVICES to non-Catholics, it would, under the law, have to provide contraception coverage. </p>
<p>Now, most non-Catholics and some Catholics seem to think that the Church has no alternative other than paying the cost. It has another option—to refuse services to non-Catholics. So, if Catholic Charities demands a baptismal certificate before it helps a family in crisis or a Catholic school accepts ONLY Catholic students or a Catholic hospice only helps dying Catholics or a Catholic center that provides daycare services to mentally ■■■■■■■■ children or adults restricts those services to Catholics, it does NOT have to provide contraceptive coverage under the new proposal.</p>
<p>Most of the organizations involved are NOT Catholic “businesses.” They are Catholic organizations that provide educational and charitable services. As long as these Catholic organizations put into place new rules saying “Catholics only,” they do not have to comply with the new law. </p>
<p>I’m not so sure the Church is going to cave on this. If it doesn’t and simply stops providing services to non-Catholics, it will be the poor, ill, elderly, mentally disabled, etc., who are NOT Catholic who will suffer. That’s the reality.</p>
Roughly 1/3 of young women between the ages of 20 and 24 use the pill, including young Catholic women. Surely Georgetown knew that when it admitted them?
Next Georgetown will demand that the female students remain barefoot in the kitchen. (I think the “pregnant” part needs no explanation.)
:D</p>
<p>
I have some stock in Porcine Airlines I’d like to sell you.</p>
<p>Just an FYI about PP- any financial aid you get counts as income. That includes loans. That sliding scale goes VERY fast for pills. The generic pills I got at PP were about $40/month and the consultation to get them was about $100. My FA is about 20k a year and that plus my job at the time (where I was only making a few hundred a month) put me in to the income bracket where nothing was covered. </p>
<p>PP is a great resource, but they’re not as cheap as people like to think.</p>
<p>^
And PP will continue to become more expensive as states like mine refuse to reimburse for medicaid-related services. The women in many Indiana communities have no other choice for reliable gyn services so PP will have to find ways to cover all who need services.</p>
<p>She is paying for student health insurance. If it covers medications like insulin, beta blockers, and antidepressants, why shouldn’t it cover medically-prescribed contraceptives? I think there should be a co-pay, like for other medications, but it should be covered.</p>
<p>No, geeps. She just wants equal treatment for prescriptions. As has been pointed out NUMEROUS times, bc is used to treat MANY other things. As was also pointed out, it’s often difficult to prove to insurance companies that it’s been used for PCOS or something and not pregnancy prevention so even if there is a health clause, it is often denied. But hey… why put facts in the way of opinion?</p>
If you read her testimony, which I already linked in this thread, you would have avoided making the same stupid comment that Rush did. Of course, I think Rush knew he was lying; I’d give you the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>Rush apologized.
Sort of.
And 5 advertisers pulled their support. Which I think is hilarious given that Rush says inflammatory things all the time.</p>
<p>^ No. She wants to show that denying coverage of birth control can affect your future of having kids. Her friend has PCOS and lost an ovary because she was not able to afford BC that could help prevent cysts on her ovaries.</p>
<p>People are on BC for a varied of reasons and most of them do not relate to them having a lot of sex.</p>
<p>More importantly I think Rush needs to re-educate himself on what birth control is used for and why this issue is so important. And the fact that old white guys shouldn’t be telling women what to do with their bodies.</p>
<p>Injure your knee CHOOSING to play football
Get lung cancer after CHOOSING to smoke for 40 years
Get measles after CHOOSING not to get the measles vaccine
Get hypothermia after CHOOSING to go camping in freezing weather</p>
<pre><code> etc., etc., etc.
</code></pre>
<p>But all over America people are frothing at the mouth that insurance should pay for a prescription drug to prevent pregnancy because, after all (gasp) the woman CHOOSES to have sex. How outrageous! She should have to pay for her own sinful, lustful activity. (Especially if she’s married.)</p>
<p>and will pay for Viagra so guys, even single guys, can CHOOSE to have sex if they happen to have sexual dysfunction… clearly considered an illness and for them sex isn’t a choice.</p>
<p>What Rush did was attack a woman sexually for daring to offer an informed opinion in a public place.</p>
<p>I read the woman’s transcript that Hunt linked, and didn’t interpret it as excluding the argument for contraceptives for their generally intended use (contraception). I think she was arguing in favor of making contraceptive devices available for any and all purposes, including for birth control and other medical conditions like PCOS.</p>
<p>Again, I think it is silly to spend so much political and personal energy arguing for no-copy insurance coverage, when making bcps available over-the-counter can achieve the nearly the same result without the controversy. Many women in direst need of contraception won’t have employer coverage anyway.</p>