New Report Recommends Free Birth Control for All Women Under Health Care Law
- Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:23pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
Insurance companies should provide free birth control, sexually transmitted infection counseling and HIV screening to all women under the new health care law, a new report from the independent Institute of Medicine said Tuesday.
Under the institute’s recommendations, all Food and Drug Administration-approved birth control methods — including the “morning after pill” — and sterilization procedures would be completely covered for women of reproductive ability as preventive health services, with no co-payments or deductibles.
Women would also receive insurance-covered breastfeeding consulting and equipment, gestational diabetes screening, human papillomavirus testing and domestic violence counseling, all at no cost.
In making its recommendations, the report cited the number of unintended pregnancies in the U.S., the risk such pregnancies pose to the mother and baby, and the direct medical costs involved:
Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Unintended pregnancy also increases the risk of babies being born preterm or at a low birth weight, both of which raise their chances of health and developmental problems.
The Department of Health and Human Services commissioned the panel to help it determine coverage regulations, but is not required to adopt any of its recommendations. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is reviewing the report and will make a final decision soon, according to a statement.
Sebelius called the report “historic” and “based on science and existing literature.”
“Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist,” Sebelius said.
Both the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Planned Parenthood applauded the panel’s recommendations.
“I’m really taken and pleased with the concept of making contraceptive methods available to women in general,” said Dr. James Martin Jr., ACOG’s president. “It’s just a shame that so many pregnancies in this country are unplanned and unwanted.”
“Covering birth control without co-pays is one of the most important steps we can take to prevent unintended pregnancy and help keep women and children healthy,” said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood in a statement.
At the same time, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops came out in strong opposition to the recommendations. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said there is “an ideology at work” behind the report, because “most Americans surely see that abortion is not healthy or therapeutic for unborn children, and has physical and mental health risks for women.”
“Without sufficient legal protection for rights of conscience, such a mandate would force all men, women and children to carry health coverage that violates the deeply-held moral and religious convictions of many,” DiNardo said in a statement.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 710 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 561 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 382 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 373 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 382 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 310 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 373 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (191)
Baikonur
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:01pmGreat idea. I agree 100%.
Report Post »Restored One
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:30pmThe word sterilization is what bothers me. Isnt that what some lady said should be done to certain races?
Report Post »Brizz
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:33pmPay no attention to the many adverse side effects, the government will pay for those too.
Report Post »irunamuk
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:51pmRestored One-Sterilization is just the technical term for getting your tubes tied. My suggestion is that we do it for liberals.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:25pmThis is exactly why collectivism fails ultimately.
One person has to decide for the collective what is right for the collective. However, individually people should decide for themselves what is right.
This also applies to religious nuts who truly believe in the Muslim Boogeyman.
Society needs to abandon the idea that the collective is responsible for the individual, and rightly assume the idea that the individual is responsible for the individual.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:36pmquote…covering birth control without co-pays is one of the….yadayadayada…so in other words, the American tax payers get to pay for your fornicating lifestyle…nice!
Report Post »agameofthrones
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 5:34pmThe ones who need it can already get it. But they won’t take it. The more kids they have, the more government assistance they get. They have learned how the system works and it’s too easy to get all the freebies. With WIC and food stamps and Section 8 housing and help with utilities, they make quite a nice living. The more babies they have, the more money they make. Did you know they can use their EBT cards to get cash instead of using it for food? Then the schools feed the kids breakfast and lunch paid for by the taxpayer because mommy is buying goodies for herself with the food money.
Report Post »So you can go ahead and agree. I hope you can afford to keep paying for them to have a free ride on you.
agameofthrones
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 5:47pmYou agree with people who say this?
“most Americans surely see that abortion is not healthy or therapeutic for unborn children.
Direct quote from article above. Not kidding!
Report Post »dealer@678
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 6:12pmStart the program right away and start with the illegal mexicans. PLEASE
Report Post »Valezka.Vidra
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 8:05pm“Pay no attention to the many adverse side effects, the government will pay for those too.”
Nah, they won’t. They might just pay for the euthanasia.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 9:50pmThere’s already free birth control… it’s called keeping your legs shut.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 9:52pmNow all we need is a way to get *FREE* birth control.
It can’t be from taxpayers if they used the word “free”. So I say go for it.
Report Post »UlyssesP
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 10:22pmI have a penis. What do I get for free?
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 1:21amHey, what do you know, more freebies! Will the freebies ever cease? This country is running out of money but who the hell cares… here’s more free stuff!!
I-D-I-O-T-S
Report Post »Zorro6821
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 7:07amThe only problem I have with the plan is that the costs will just increase our premiums even higher.
Report Post »GrandmaCat
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:59pmYes, these “benefits” will cost — increased insurance premiums. And, ObamaCare was supposed to reduce cost — premiums will creep up and up as more obscure socialist benefits are “defined” by panels of preposterous liberals. Sebelius should have stayed in Kansas. Obama should have stayed in Chicago.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:14pmCost analyses so far seem to say they’ll save us – both in premiums (having a baby costs thousands of dollars, which will likely be on the public dollar with Obamacare) and taxes (welfare down due to fewer baby mamas).
Perhaps most importantly, this means fewer abortions. If you’re arguing prices and are pro-life, then you’re putting a dollar sign on lives.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:21pm@Locked
Wait a minute…you just now put dollar signs on human life. Your equation, here and on other posts is:
Preventing human life is cheaper than supporting human life.
That’s a dichotomy that can only come from socialism. How sad that we’ve come to this in our nation.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:40pm@Ghostofjefferson
Actually, you hit it: prevention is cheaper than supporting. However, prevention is NOT destruction of human life. Socialism would include abortion in this equation, which I am not including (otherwise it would be prevention > destruction > support).
Your argument though is “None of the above,” which is impossible in our current world. By all means I think we should cut back and break down large, costly social programs; but until we can, we should pay less while not destroying life.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. My answer isn’t “yay socialism,“ but ”when it’s forced on me, I want the most bang for my buck until I can get it repealed.”
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:20pmwhat do you want to bet they will end up being like Planned Parent hood and they’ll push for sterilization, especially of black Americans. If birth control is out there, free from Planned parenthood now, and there are a lot of unplanned pregnancies, they just want a way to justify the morning after pill at the expense of insurance companies. Next they’ll be telling the car companies to give away cars if someone has a low income.
Report Post »Eblaze44
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:25pm@Locked Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:14pm
It means there will be fewer and fewer United States American citizens born so that Obama and his Socialist Democrat party can amnesty illegal foreign nationals. Hedonism reigns in the USofA.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 1:24amSo the gays can marry and NOT procreate and the straights can get free birth control or have an abortion on the chance their free birth control fails.
Report Post »We’re a doomed race.
Dustoff
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:59pmJust great… the libs wants us to pay for this and killing babies.
Give me a break.
Report Post »tarbush
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:23pmOf course they do! This is the first step toward implementing compulsory birth control / abortions as in another great communist dictatorship. It has to be free before you can require it. We have to control the population now. Remove ‘undesirable and feeble-minded’ populations. Besides, too many people will be ruin the environment.
Report Post »Shooter Sarge
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:45pmIt’s Ironic that the libs are getting the taxpayers to pay for their sexual promiscurity. Chaulk this up as another nail in the Republic’s coffin. Just like all the dollars gone for aides victims and research for the cure. It’s not a free country if a person claims that he should be entitled to do what he wants and we pay for the consequences. It is a free country when a person can do what he wants so long as he pays for the consequences. That’s the difference between the left and the right.
Report Post »The Voice of Libertarian Reason
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:11amI don’t agree with this…but to play devils advocate, maybe this would result in less babies being killed.
Report Post »SheriS
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:56pmIf you are one of the people supporting this idea, glad you don’t care how your tax dollars are used as that is the only way the government will be carrying an absurd program like this! Just another bleeding of our tax dollars—if the people could pay for it to start with, they would be on them! I’m amazed at how totally stupid taxpayers have become!
Report Post »1TrueOne55
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 8:03pmThis is the byproduct of progressive public school teachers.
Report Post »Baron_Doom
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:52pmNo cost to whom? SOMEONE has to pay for it.
Report Post »Alucard
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:00pmMy thoughts exactly!
Report Post »woemcat
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:51pmwe have free birth control already. it’s called ABSTINENCE!!!! i don’t want to pay for the pill so that others can hump each other like animals. exercise self control, people!!!! and if MARRIED people and girls who need the pill for hormone therapy, there are places to get it for low cost. this is a BAD IDEA!
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:11pmAnd Promoting Abstinence can make you a LOT of money if you are a single mom in Alaska. Word!
TEA
Report Post »duvexy
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:50pmNo I am not supporting this under the belly hedonistic free give away to those who refuse to take responsibility for the behavior. Taking our tax dollars to finance our self destruction of human kind is ignorant.
Report Post »How many birth control have they been handing out to roaches? They have been having too many babies. Figures. I seen to hear crickets now. No dice. Handing out free sterilization pills will only increase the fall of our Country as it creates hedonistic behavior.
jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:49pmLet me get this straight. Conservatives are against abortion, yet when given an alternative to prevent abortions(birth control), they are against it. Conservatives complain about welfare babies, yet when given an alternative(birth control), they are against it. Conservatives complain about babies, children, and their mothers on medicaid, yet when given an alternative(birth control), they are against it. How many conservatives replying used birth control to control the size of their families?
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:52pmYet…….. YOUR asking me to help pay for it. When a insurance company is forced to pay for this (instead of you) We all get the bill, because they must raise the rates.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:56pmOh Jill, that’s so boilerplate. You must try to do better, or at least endeavor to understand the terms of the debate.
It’s not about birth control. It’s about forcing others to pay for the birth control of people they do not know, which may or may not be against their own personal morality.
Report Post »NightWriter
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:02pmWe used birth control…. and WE paid for it out of pocket. Back then (70′s) neither contraception nor childbirth were covered by our health insurance… which we also paid for.
When will people understand… nothing is free… SomeOne pays!
Report Post »Steve Neiling
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:03pm@Jill98
Report Post »Your premise is that taxpayers have to fund one form of socialized medicine or another. Our premise is that taxpayer money is not to be used for social welfare programs at all. Funding welfare is coercive, not charitable, as you would no doubt argue. Why do we, as taxpayers, have to alleviate or mitigate the consequences of individual’s sexual behavior at all? Why do I have to go to work everyday so an unmarried man or woman can have sexual intercourse and not have to deal with the consequences? THAT’S the argument. Not should we pay for this option and not for that option.
jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:04pm@ dustoff and Ghost of jefferson, You do realize it is cheaper to pay for birth control, than it is for taxpayer money to pay until adulthood with welfare and medicaid. You do realize you are paying for those right?
Report Post »cntrlfrk
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:05pmWho is against birth control?
.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:11pm@Jill
I’ve already answered your straw man argument.
What you‘re stating is that you’d rather prevent human life than deal with it, in your progressive paradigm of “pay for it here or pay for it there”. That’s it at the essence. Think about what you’re saying, it’s really rather frightening, in fact it smacks of thinly veiled eugenics.
The actual solution is that government shouldn’t “mandate” aka force others to provide anything for free, nor should government be in the business of charity (medicare/welfare).
Report Post »Former Patriot
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:13pmIdea of the week. Since layabouts create more layabouts each generation for the welfare handouts that increase with each ba$tard kid they spit out, how about birth control and abortions are mandatory those living on money stolen from taxpayers by the government? It’s a compromise most can all live with. Perhaps not Democrat politicians since their voter base would dwindle rapidly.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:17pm@Steve
The problem is, social programs are reality. It’s a distasteful one for many of us, but it’s there. If this reduces abortion, lowers the cost to tax payers, AND keeps some girls from ruining their lives, I’m ok with it. If we’re going to be paying one way or another, I’d prefer to pay less and get more.
Obviously I’d prefer to pay nothing, but that’s not the world we live in. As has been said: nothing is free. We’ll pay one way or another.
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:21pm@dustoff The cost to insurance companies would decrease. The cost of prenatal care and delivery. The cost if the mother has complications during pregnancy or delivery. The cost if the baby is born premature or has complications. Cost of a pack of birth control pills next to nothing.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:25pmHey Jill, birth control prevents pregnancy, I have no problem with birth control. However, the abortion pill kills an impregnated egg, otherwise known as an unborn baby. Call it what it is, abortion. As I said, I have no problem with birth control. I do have a problem paying for YOUR birth control or anyone else’s for that matter.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:28pm@Dustoff Correct and our premiums pay for people who eat too much and have health problems because they become obese, smokers who get cancer, alcoholics who get liver disease, weekend warriors who need orthopedic procedures and any number of high risk activities people get involved in that significantly increase their risk of getting injured. Should we pay higher premiums because some guy that was hunting with Cheney got shot in the face??? Yea I know that was an extreme case. What exactly is your point. And yes there is scientific evidence that preventative care, which most of this is is actually much cheaper in the long run. Which is why many HMOs provided such care from the outset.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:29pmIt’s not the birth control conservatives are against. It’s the tax money they are taking to fund it. If you don’t want a baby, don’t ask me for money. Just don’t have sex, or go buy a condom, they don’t cost that much. I see welfare people who can buy cell phones, satellite tv, cigarettes, and tattoos, but won’t buy birth control. These same people are more able-bodied than I am, and I am still working to help THEM?
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:35pm@ghost of jefferson, Eugenics? So responsible adults(married or not) are taking part in eugenics? Did you use birth control to limit the size of your family? Giving free birth control is by far the much cheaper cost to an insurance company. Cost of pregnancy and delivery is expensive. Throw in any complications to the mother or baby during pregnancy and delivery. Cost of care for a premature baby in natal icu is very costly.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:35pm@LOCKED
Of course you’re ok with it. You are a socialist, pretending to be a concerned & rational thinking conservative.
Report Post »Which of course, you are not.
Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:44pm@Billy
A fiscal conservative, my friend, is exactly what I am. If you can’t see it, it’s your own issue. Throwing our hands up and saying “Just close your legs” doesn’t work. “Make them take responsibility” doesn’t work. Until we repeal social programs, we should make the best of the situation. As a full repeal won’t likely happen, I’ll take compromise over whining and being kicked to the floor by Democrats any day.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:50pm@Anonymous T. Irrelevant perhaps not. But that logic could apply to our tax dollars being used to treat someone in the military who has not seen combat as yet for drug or alcohol related illnesses or, in the case of a female soldier, preventative care or discounted contraception??
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:52pm@Jill098
“Cost of a pack of birth control pills next to nothing.”
Exactly… There’s no excuse for these things to be handed out and subsidized by taxpayer money… The real problem is people are losing the concept of individual responsibility…
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:56pm@LOCKED
Of course you would, because (See previous reason above).
From the very first time you posted here, your comments are always along the same line.
Something like this……..”I know it’s not cool that the sky is starting to turn purple, but since there is nothing we can do about it, let‘s just get used to it so we don’t annoy the purple sky people. Honest, If it were up to me, I would make the sky blue again, but since I can’t, I guess I’m ok with a purple sky, for now anyway.”
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:09pm@Billy
I‘m sorry you don’t seem able to read. I wish you could read, but since it won‘t happen I guess I’ll just settle for accepting it, even if it‘s not what I’d like. More effective than arguing, since you still won’t be able to read at the end.
Kinda like that, I guess? :) It’s called realism; something extremely lacking these days. In this case…
Ideal: No need for birth control – every birth is wanted, no one has sex unless they want a child.
Report Post »Reality: We either pay for medical expenses/welfare, birth control, or an abortion happens
Common response here: Complain, whine, abortion or medical expense/welfare happens while wishing for the ideal and doing nothing. AKA, we get the worst possible outcome but get to feel nice and outraged.
My response: Choose the best out of what we have (BC), and work for something better (repeal).
Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:21pm@LOCKED
Too funny.
I read you just fine, and so do most regular visitors of this site.
@GhostofJefferson summed it up nicely in his reply to you down the page a bit. The one starting with “Pragmatism”
The “Realism” of which you speak is why we are where we are now.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:36pm@Billy
I’m wondering what your alternative is?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:41pm@LOCKED
How about this……….
Ideal: Children are taught right from wrong, (left) & good from evil starting at a very young age.
Reality: People that did not learn their childhood lessons well, suffer the consequences of their poor decisions, and the rest of us are not forced to “Pay our fair share” to bail them out over and over and over again.
Work for you?
Works for me.
Report Post »Kerri g
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:41pmWe are not against birth control, we are just against paying for it with tax money. We are for personal responsibility.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:47pm@Billy
“Ideal: Children are taught right from wrong, (left) & good from evil starting at a very young age.
Reality: People that did not learn their childhood lessons well, suffer the consequences of their poor decisions, and the rest of us are not forced to “Pay our fair share” to bail them out over and over and over again.
Work for you?
Works for me.”
Wonderful, in part. Except the “Reality” isn’t reality, as some folks will use taxpayer funds as a result of their bad choices. I would think the better answer would be
“Reality: Do our best to minimize taxpayer cost and abortions now. Teach comprehensive sex ed and proper morals to help future generations. Repeal social net programs to make people personally responsible for their choices.”
I feel we want the same end, but disagree on what the current reality is. Seems we’re going to pay either now because of how the country is set up; I’d rather be pragmatic than give up my say and get screwed over completely.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 4:55pm@LOCKED wrote:
“Wonderful, in part. Except the “Reality” isn’t reality, as some folks will use taxpayer funds as a result of their bad choices”
And there is the problem in a nutshell.
How many times does a dog try to go beyond the limits of his electric fence before he learns to stay within his boundaries?
Report Post »uptoid
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:47pmI don’t know; i kind of like the idea of all the low lifes getting birth control; then we don’t have the read about the horrors of them beating their babies when they cry, or leaving them alone while they go to mcdonalds etc, or trying to figure out which man is the father of which baby.
Report Post »xoke
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:54pmIf you can figure out a way to make sure they use it…we might be getting somewhere.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:44pmBreast feeding equipment? Are you crazy? That’s like buying a car and then deciding if you want extras, like an engine. It is standard equipment.
Report Post »junior1971
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:41pmFree? ……………..not!
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:44pmYeah, nothing is free! Someone has to pay for it.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:46pmIt’s called Agenda 21
Report Post »Cryodawn
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:04pmNo, no, its totally free. Insurance Companys can pay for it because they are evil and cut the toes off kids. And they have loads of cash…. and they are just raising rates to get more, so they can pay out more, because they have more then you… Evil Insurance!!!
Sure, all of this is totally logical if your an idiot. Wait, I shouldn’t degrade idiots in such a way… Sorry Idiots, your not as bad as the guys that came up with this plan.
Just a FYI: There is a list of like 15 types of pills at walmart for like 4 bucks a month. If you cant pay 4 bucks, then maybe baby you shouldn’t be making babys, baby.
So is the Dr. visit going to be totally free too to get the free pills? Because they are just evil Docters holding back the 4$ dollar pills…. my eye is twitching now!!!!
Report Post »mikem1969
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:35pmHow about free cars, homes, boats, Tv’s, stereos, etc. gimme, gimme, gimme.
Report Post »cntrlfrk
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:41pmWhy not make it mandatory???
.
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:54pmSoon as you start paying for them.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:40pmAs far as STDs and unwanted pregnancies, I practice sex with the only method of birth control guaranteed, 100% effective– masturbation. Oh, and then there’s that whole gay thing.
There is no reason for anyone who is not me to pay for my BC hormones. That’s idiotic. It’s not that these BC technologies are unavailable to everyone who wants them, it’s that they are goods and services that must be paid for, and Leftist never want the consumer to pay for anything. that’s always for government to do, and then shift those costs to Someone Else™.
If you can’t afford to deal with the consequences of sexual activity, gay, straight, male, female, then don’t partake of such activity, and if you do participate in such activity and are subject to STDs and unwanted pregnancies, the only person who needs to bear the burden of those consequences is the person who partook of the activity.
If you’re broke, keep it in your pants, keep your legs crossed. Or engage in onanism in private.
You’re not getting my money to pay for your diseases and progeny.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:52pmRight on. Agree 100%.
Report Post »Rajabear1
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:09pmAmen! You play, you pay–not everyone else pays for you. That‘s been my motto since I was in high school and I’ve drilled it into the brains of my 3 children.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 7:37pmYou’re tending toward libertarian. Watch out, you might kicked off the liberal plantation.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 11:40pmI’ve always been a member of the Libertarian Brigades. I’ve never joined the Leftist Platoons. I have, from time to time, used who I am to go behind enemy lines to see what the enemy’s up to, but I’m a loyal Conservative to the core. I just find marriage freedom to be a Conservative value, and Hetero-only marriage to be Authoritarianism.
Report Post »geonj
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:40pmit is not a lack of birth control that causes all of those unwanted pregnancies. it is the careless attitudes of those involved . this nonsense will only end up raising the cost of health insurance for everyone because of the actions of some. we need to get back to an attitude where the majority rules and those in the minority have to deal with it.
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:39pmNews flash: it’s not free and never will be. Someone would have to pay for it in one way or another. That’s the main problem with the entitlement mentality; too many of them truly believe they are getting things for free, when in reality, they’re just stealing from someone else with help of the government. If they overspend they’ll simply take more from you. Give it up or go to jail. Government-sponsored extortion is all it is.
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:38pmStupid liberals…. There is NO SUCH THING AS FREE. Everything is paid for by someone.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:47pmNormal people know that but lis,progressives,dems,they‘re all the same don’t have the capacity to understand that.
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:52pmSo you would rather pay for welfare and medicaid, which is much costlier?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:59pmOh Jill, not again.
That’s your entire argument?
It’s easy. Under the Constitution, we should not be burdened to pay for birth control NOR medicare/medicaid NOR welfare. Your paradigm of “be forced to pay for this, or that” is rejected. The goal is to return to Constitutional governance, not to be dunked deeper into the fetid depths of socialism.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:10pm@Ghostofjefferson
Problem being, of course, that’s not the world we live in. Like it or not, welfare, social security, and medicare are here and have survived court challenges up to this point. Obamacare has gone both ways in different courts, but we’ll see if it survives a SCotUS ruling.
So, for now, it truly is a “this or that” dilemma. And free birth control would equal savings for the American people, both morally (fewer abortions) and fiscally (no baby mamas on welfare).
We shouldn’t abandon court challenges against this, but we also shouldn’t ignore reality, put our hands over our ears and go “la la la, not listening, I don’t believe it!”
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:13pm@Locked
“Pragmatism” is what has gotten us where we are today. One does not choose between two evils, one should never choose evil. I prefer to reduce all government “benefits” and that is *entirely* within the realm of possibility, especially as we go more and more broke. And that train is coming at us fast. Adding more “free” things is not something I’m interested in, sorry. I don’t buy into “it is what it is”.
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:36pm@ jill098
“So you would rather pay for welfare and medicaid, which is much costlier?”
Using the same logic, it is “much costlier” to medically treat people over 60 than to blow their brains out. You don’t get it. We should ALL be RESPONSIBLE for our own actions. I should not be held responsible for the actions of those on welfare. It is not the job of the federal government to redistribute property, (fruits of my labor, money), from those that earned it to those that want a free lunch. Drop welfare, food stamps and other “programs” and see how many can find jobs.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:44pmO jill don’t be a silly billy,ghostofjefferson covered it quite well, welfare medicade and medicare are unconstitutional and yes we have these wasteful programs,but soon they will all be insolvent making your argument of pay one or the other a moot point.
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:57pm@rightwingwhacko Where does giving free birth control go to cutting medical for the elderly? But cutting the cost to insurance companies by offering free birth control will. The price for prenatal and delivery vs. birth control. Cost of any complications during the pregnancy and delivery vs. birth control. Cost if baby is premature or has complications vs. birth control. Birth control is much cheaper than any of those costs.
Report Post »homekeeper
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:37pmIn this modern corrupt age, women shun the blessing of children and pray for the curse of barrenness. It just isn’t convenient for the modern woman to be burden with children, so she seeks devices to prevent them. Wouldn’t want to be home raising children or being reserved only for your husband – oh no, we got careers and selfish desires to pursue to be bothered with God’s opinion of blessings. Instead of women in the Bible who cried over barrenness, women today rejoice in it and now they want others to pay for it.
If most liberals are for birth control, is it a good thing they aren’t reproducing?
elosogrande
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:36pmWatch out minorities! Planned Paqrethood was started to do one thing – “Reduce or ELLIMINATE the undesirable population of the world”.
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:59pmSo you are saying anyone who uses birth control is trying to do reduce or do away with a minority? So being responsible is wrong? How many people replying on here have used birth control to limit the size of their families? If you did, according to elosogrande you are trying to do away reduce or do away with a race or minority!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:04pmOh my Jill, again?
He was talking about abortions and Planned Parenthood. If you do not know their history, specifically the history of their founder, then I highly recommend that you get cracking on your homework. It was in fact started in order to reduce “undesirable groups” of people, directly stated from the organization’s founder.
Report Post »bullcrapbuster
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:36pmLiberals are bound and determined to massacre humanity. Especially blacks since they are in the majority of those murdered by abortion.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:34pmI’m curious as to when even intelligent people grasp the concept of what this is going to cost. Also, can’t believe the number of people that appear to remain apathetic towards this health care debacle – even after what they’re now finding out about it.
I get so frustrated because the only way to cure this evil once and for all is to give work that pays good and go into the tank. The problem with that is that then I suffer as a result. There’s really nothing I can do about it, which is teeth-grittingly, wall-punching frustrating.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:53pmThat should read “quit work that pays good”.
Increasing age is a bitch, I tell ya.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:33pmI thought we were getting though hormones in dairy milk.
Report Post »johnnyrockett
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:31pmGreat idea. then they dont have to explain the pie chart of how many black children were killed in the womb.
Report Post »Diablo4965
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:30pmWant birth control! keep your legs closed ho’s.
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:36pmDid you just call Bristol Palin a ho?
Report Post »mossbrain
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:39pmBristol palin=ho
Report Post »Diablo4965
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:48pmYep! And if her mother wasn’t who she is we would have another single mother living of the tax payers and another child growing up without a father.
Report Post »xoke
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:53pmI’ll say she made a real bad decision. Now, as opposed to nailing your talking points, and bashing conservatives, please tell me how free contraceptives would have prevented this? People still have to use them, people don’t have to have sex, and if they want to they should pay for their own contraceptives. Or suffer the consequences thereof.
I think you missed the point of the article, and the point of Diablo’s comment. But nice job being the a**hole trolls you three are.
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:11pm@Xoke Wouldn’t an insurance actually lower costs by offering birth control? Cost of birth control vs. cost of prenatal care and delivery? Not to mention any unseen costs if baby is premature, or is born with complications? Or the mother has complications during pregnancy or the birthing?
Report Post »xoke
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 5:39pm@Jill…don’t understand that that neither is my responsibility. Explain to me how I the tax payer become liable because someone else has, or in this case, wants to have sex. Would it be cheaper than taxing me to pay for a child, yes…should I be taxed for either, no.
That’s the issue I have with people of your ilk, you frame the argument with only two crappy choices…pay for the kid, or pay for birth control. How about this, I pay for neither, the responsible party pays for their own life and I’ll pay for mine.
Report Post »xoke
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:30pmYou can’t help but to have sex…it’s simply not possible. Personal responsibility…what!? I don‘t know how many times I’m just minding my own business, then BAM, I’m having unprotected sex. Just like that. It sneeks up on you. You shouldn’t be “punished with a baby”!
/sarcasm
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:05pm“Dear Penthouse…you’ll never believe what happened to me today!”
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:26pmAnother form of POPULATION CONTROL by the progressives. HEY we can be JUST like China and be forced to have an ABORTION if we don’t obey the rules – ONE CHILD PER COUPLE. UGH.
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:39pmWouldn’t this make sense? Everyone complains about abortion and welfare babies on medicaid? Much cheaper to fund birth control, than to fund a baby to adulthood.
Report Post »Diablo4965
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:50pmHow bout this great idea, fund your own birth control,and if you get knocked up fund your own baby.
Report Post »fantasywriter
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:56pmIt goes farther than that. If I read this right they are saying that private insurance companies should pay for personal choices by policy holders. Birth control should be paid for by those that choose to indulge in sexual activities. That means most of us should be responsible for our own actions and not expect other policy holders to pay for it through their insurance premiums. These people (the government) need to learn that “at no cost” means someone else has to pay for it. I can see the government making sure that private insurance companies stick to the promise they made to their policy holders. I do not believe the government should make a private insurance company pay for things they were never designed to handle. The items mentioned in the article are good examples as well as pre-existing conditions which have little to do with insurance. These policies are supposed to insure that we have medical care in case we get sick. Giving coverage to someone who already has a medical problem is contrary to the very definition of insurance in which the company takes the risk. The problem with the healthcare industry is the over-reaching by the government creating more and more red tape and costs.
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 2:57pmI can see Jill wants us to pay for her fun, instead of paying it herself. Get a job lady.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:04pm@Dust
Actually, Jill’s idea makes much more sense, both fiscally and morally. Simplified access to birth control means fewer abortions and fewer unwanted pregnancies. The result is less of a cost overall.
There are plenty of other arguments against it, but it’s light-years ahead of insanity like Equaljustice’s comments. My own concern would be the interference with private companies. Should we interfere with free enterprise, even if that free enterprise is worse for society? Although I suppose if you get down to it this means that birth control companies technically get paid by the government and not by individuals. It’s kind of like taxpayer money going to Planned Parenthood (hold your thoughts on abortion please), which provides these services already, but through a different mechanism (insurance instead of funding).
Report Post »jill098
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 3:44pm@dustoff I have a job thank you! For insurance companies the cost of birth control is next to nothing compared to prenatal care and delivery. If the mother has any complications during the pregnancy or delivery again costs will soar. If the baby is born premature or with complications, again the costs soar. If anything why haven’t insurance companies offered it for free to save them paying out for all the dr. visits and hospital costs involved.
Report Post »