Why should contraception be free?

[rand42]

Nothing in life is free, especially if a politician is involved.

If our government can write waivers for corporations to opt out of Obama-Care, why can't they let the RCC opt out of Obama-Care. I believe the Obama White House will back down, the election is too close and the race is getting tighter. They will fold like a house of cards. They can't risk a court battle because if this provision is deemed unconstitutional then arguments can be made against the entire document.

[Rand2410]

Originally Posted by Holly3278

In my opinion, contraception shouldn't be sold at all with only one exception and that being that it is prescribed only for when it is needed to treat a serious health condition. And even then it should be the last available option.

Then I for one am thankful you had no authority in this decision.

[Rand2410]

Originally Posted by Leegal

True. Exception, satisfactory to the Catholic Church, can be written into Obamacare that covers provision of ABC to correct a medical condition.

However, if I'm not mistaken this part of Obama care will force the Church to provide coverage for sterilizations and abortificants too.

The Catholic Church was fooled by this. Catholics in the Church hierarchy were persuaded to support Obamacare and told they would have the exceptions that dogma and doctrine require. And that now proved not to be the case. As we see, now that it gets rolled out I'm reminded that Pelosi said "we have to pass it to know what's in it." No truer words were spoken.

However, the Church has been around for 2,000 years and Obamacare is not even fully in force. What is the liklihood that a 2,000 year institution will change its doctrine for Obamacare? The Church will still be standing long after this President's term expires.

EWTN filed suit. The cost to them alone, when they don't comply, will be $600,000 per year in fines.

Obama and the Senate must give in to avoid loosing more votes. This provision is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes, period.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by 247cath

Global warming(pollution)? The popes have spoken out about how polluting our environment is detrimental to the flock. Remember the teachings on stewardship?

The question is whether there is man-made global warming that threatens everyone's lives potentially within the next couple centuries. The Church has in no way supported such extreme views. Of course protecting our environment is important and the Church defends that, but I have seen no call by the Church for a reduction in population, have you? Speaking on pollution is much different then speaking out on supposed man-made global warming that is going to result in a catastrophe within the next couple centuries or even sooner according to some.

The issue is not about science, which is a concept that the church agrees with. But whether our church can be compelled to provide for the payment of services that are contrary to its teachings.

I was explaining the intent behind the views of those in the government who want the mandate in place. If you have someone who truly believes man-made global warming is going to kill us all off in the next couple centuries if something is not done, don't you think it would make a lot of sense that said people would do everything they could to limit the amount of CO2 producing babies that come into the World?

As to people using birth control to save the world, that appears to be a stretch. It would seem that most users of ABC have reasons a little closer to home, like spacing out kids.

Yes I would agree. The intentions of those in the government who are making decisions is who I was referring to. Many people who choose not to have kids or to only have one kid though cite, global warming as a reason for their decision. This is a much more common attitude in Europe as opposed to America right now though.

The church isn't against that concept, but against the methods utilized. NFP OK, ABC not OK.

I have not heard the Church cite global warming as an acceptable reason to limit family size lol. Yes the Church allows for birth control via NFP, but it should be done for serious reasons. The threat of global warming is not one of them.

[manualman]

Don't derail the thread.

Global warming is a different issue, though I agree that many in the neo-religious global warming cult see babies as the enemy. Doubt me? Google VHEMT. I'm fairly sure it's not satire. (But only fairly sure!)

Subject for another thread: the difference between the science of global climate / climate change and the neo-religious reactions to interpretations of that science. They are separate, but related like evolution and eugenics.

[turtle18]

Originally Posted by LizzieAngel

I guess my point is that, as rare as it is, some people are on birth control for real medical issues, and that is why I think it should be covered. Especially during college, $50/month for medicine is a lot of money.

But there are so many women who have OTHER, more serious conditions and they have to pay $50 a month co-pay for their medicine. Like woman who have diabetes, MS, high blood pressure, depression. These issue are much more serious, IMO, than having birth control covered. My friend almost died from not being able to afford her medicine for diabetets; no one is going to die from not being able to afford birth control.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by turtle18

One of things that has me completely baffled in this entire conscience debate is the Administration's notion that women should be provided free contraception. What exactly is it about this healthcare "service" that makes it so unaffordable? You can already get it free at most healthcare clinics. If you are insured, your co-payment would be at most $50 a month.

If they are really concerned about the healthcare of American women, why don't they make every service and drug free? I have a friend who has severe type I diabetes and she cannot afford her insulin even though she has insurance. She will die if she doesn't get her insulin.

It's because Obama needs votes this year. Free stuff is good. Free prevention of more people is even better (I know there is no logic in that but tell that to the party of death).

[3DOCTORS]

Originally Posted by turtle18

One of things that has me completely baffled in this entire conscience debate is the Administration's notion that women should be provided free contraception. What exactly is it about this healthcare "service" that makes it so unaffordable? You can already get it free at most healthcare clinics. If you are insured, your co-payment would be at most $50 a month.

If they are really concerned about the healthcare of American women, why don't they make every service and drug free? I have a friend who has severe type I diabetes and she cannot afford her insulin even though she has insurance. She will die if she doesn't get her insulin.

THANK YOU. About time somebody pointed this out. Good for you. I gave this thread 5 stars. And the women who do need some kind of hormonal intervention for legit health reasons wouldn't have to be left out in the cold.

I think the global warming thing isn't too far off the mark either - in my day, it was the ZPG (Zero Population Growth) argument. Basically the Culture of Death has convinced so many that humans are a blight on the face of the earth. If carried to its logical extreme, we might as well stop having kids at all and line up to drink the cyanide-tainted Kool-Aid.

People don't recognize how deeply this mentality has invaded our culture. Think Dr. Kevorkian. Think Peter Singer, who defends animal rights but believes parents should have the right to put their handicapped baby to death. It's a spiritual battle, fought by the Prince of Darkness against the Kingdom of God, and if we don't educate ourselves as to what's really going on, we are merely pawns.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by lizzieangel

long story short, armed with this knowledge, i went off the birth control again after a year on it (following a few unsuccessful months right after our marriage), and we conceived the very next month. eventually, when i stop nursing, i will have to go back on it again. For health reasons...and hopefully to set the stage for #2.
I guess my point is that, as rare as it is, some people are on birth control for real medical issues, and that is why i think it should be covered. Especially during college, $50/month for medicine is a lot of money.

Congratulations!

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by 3DOCTORS

THANK YOU. About time somebody pointed this out. Good for you. I gave this thread 5 stars. And the women who do need some kind of hormonal intervention for legit health reasons wouldn't have to be left out in the cold.

I think the global warming thing isn't too far off the mark either - in my day, it was the ZPG (Zero Population Growth) argument. Basically the Culture of Death has convinced so many that humans are a blight on the face of the earth. If carried to its logical extreme, we might as well stop having kids at all and line up to drink the cyanide-tainted Kool-Aid.

People don't recognize how deeply this mentality has invaded our culture. Think Dr. Kevorkian. Think Peter Singer, who defends animal rights but believes parents should have the right to put their handicapped baby to death. It's a spiritual battle, fought by the Prince of Darkness against the Kingdom of God, and if we don't educate ourselves as to what's really going on, we are merely pawns.

Margaret Sanger, founder of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist. Her mission carries on unabated.

[3DOCTORS]

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

Margaret Sanger, founder of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, was a racist eugenicist. Her mission carries on unabated.

Some know the real truth - check out

Black Catholics Apostolate for Life - check out their mission statement and prayer!

http://www.blackcatholicsforlife.org/

or Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)'s testimony: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org...veda-king.html

[He Man]

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

It's because Obama needs votes this year. Free stuff is good. Free prevention of more people is even better (I know there is no logic in that but tell that to the party of death).

One of the four most common meds for MS in its earliest, least nasty stages costs $4200/month. Better hope you have a good copay.

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by He Man

One of the four most common meds for MS in its earliest, least nasty stages costs $4200/month. Better hope you have a good copay.

I have no copay.

That is, my deductible is $5000. We are self-insured because my husband has his own company. We pay $1000/mo. for essentially zero coverage except catastrophic. We pay cash for doctor visits and medication. Medication is almost full price.

[Castello]

Originally Posted by turtle18

But there are so many women who have OTHER, more serious conditions and they have to pay $50 a month co-pay for their medicine. Like woman who have diabetes, MS, high blood pressure, depression. These issue are much more serious, IMO, than having birth control covered. My friend almost died from not being able to afford her medicine for diabetets; no one is going to die from not being able to afford birth control.

Because it is not about contraception, it is about tearing down the Church and using the fact that sex is our new god to do it.

[Castello]

Originally Posted by LizzieAngel

I always have to add my two cents to this argument. Some women, like myself, need birth control for medical, not sexual reasons. I've had amenorrhea (not menstruating regularly after menarche) since I was in middle school. This can cause a lot of serious issues, like ovarian cysts and endometriosis. It also meant my doctors have been telling me since I was a teenager that if I was going to have kids, it would require serious medical intervention, hormone supplements, fertility treatments, etc.
Eventually, the doctor prescribed me the Pill to help regulate my hormones to avoid the negative effects I was having. While on it, my cycle is regular and there are no issues. I've gone off it several times, including when I studied abroad in Latin America (first time in my life I was happy to have amenorrhea because health care products down there can be of very dubious quality). What I found was that usually I had one more cycle after going off before I went back to not having one.
Long story short, armed with this knowledge, I went off the birth control again after a year on it (following a few unsuccessful months right after our marriage), and we conceived the very next month. Eventually, when I stop nursing, I will have to go back on it again. For health reasons...and hopefully to set the stage for #2.
I guess my point is that, as rare as it is, some people are on birth control for real medical issues, and that is why I think it should be covered. Especially during college, $50/month for medicine is a lot of money.

Please, contact http://www.popepaulvi.com/ they will help you find a solution!