Isn't it Dishonest to Call the Morning After Pill a Contraceptive?
In this forum whenever we discuss (hurl insults at each other in the name of good lulz) the coverage of contraceptives, the only real argument ever presented is that employers should be forced to cover birth control pills because they are used as medical treatments for controlling monthly cycles....blah...blah...blah...
[link]
But in this article, I was expecting to see the same argument about a private business with a Christian ownership group not wanting to cover contraceptives. Instead, I read that the sticking issues are that they do not want to cover abortion pills in their insurance.
Now these drugs are for the expressed purpose of killing a child(fetus, blob of cells, parasite, or any other wonderful names liberals have for this life) AFTER conception.
The medical definition of a contraception is a medical treatment that prevents conception. Prevents conception. We are talking about drugs that are taken AFTER conception. That is their purpose. So the first point, is can a government mandate on pre-conception treatments really mandate post-conception attempts to abort the resulting child?
The second issue, is that it seems as an owner of a business, you lose all rights to the free exercise of your religious convictions:
"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.
Those that celebrate the destruction of religious liberties will no doubt cheer this slap in the face of the Constitution. But those that actually care about the personal liberties we all enjoy and should expect, do you care about the dishonest measures being taken to classify something as pre-conception treatment when it clearly is not? Just to get it covered and forced on people, churches, and conscientious business owners that find forcing others to pay for your abortion as deplorable.
Those that really are pro-abortion have no excuses. You can't hide behind wanting this for some monthly period adjustment. There is only one purpose for these, and if you support this, you reveal yourself to be truly pro-abortion, and wanting others to pay for that.
[link]
But in this article, I was expecting to see the same argument about a private business with a Christian ownership group not wanting to cover contraceptives. Instead, I read that the sticking issues are that they do not want to cover abortion pills in their insurance.
Now these drugs are for the expressed purpose of killing a child(fetus, blob of cells, parasite, or any other wonderful names liberals have for this life) AFTER conception.
The medical definition of a contraception is a medical treatment that prevents conception. Prevents conception. We are talking about drugs that are taken AFTER conception. That is their purpose. So the first point, is can a government mandate on pre-conception treatments really mandate post-conception attempts to abort the resulting child?
The second issue, is that it seems as an owner of a business, you lose all rights to the free exercise of your religious convictions:
"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.
Those that celebrate the destruction of religious liberties will no doubt cheer this slap in the face of the Constitution. But those that actually care about the personal liberties we all enjoy and should expect, do you care about the dishonest measures being taken to classify something as pre-conception treatment when it clearly is not? Just to get it covered and forced on people, churches, and conscientious business owners that find forcing others to pay for your abortion as deplorable.
Those that really are pro-abortion have no excuses. You can't hide behind wanting this for some monthly period adjustment. There is only one purpose for these, and if you support this, you reveal yourself to be truly pro-abortion, and wanting others to pay for that.
Comments576
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Why? It's a process of prevent pregnancy when used.
Or terminating one.
But if prevention is the goal, why didn't they choose to use the variety of very available and affordable methods and substances prior to having sex?
But if prevention is the goal, why didn't they choose to use the variety of very available and affordable methods and substances prior to having sex?
It can be used before or after regardless of its strength.Maybe some women want to take creampies (for a lack of less vulgar word)? Maybe they like that feel without being made pregnant? Science argues women who do take creampies (there's that word again) can be healthier and happier as a result.
lol.
It's not an abortion pill. It prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg and makes in harder for the sperm to get to one. It's preventative and only works if you're NOT already pregnant, hence having to use it so soon after sex.
Plan B and especially ella also can work after an egg used been released and fertilized. They are not preventative. They are reactive after sex. And employers should not be forced to pay for these.
If it was 100% conclusively proven that Plan B only worked by preventing ovulation and had no effect on fertilized or implanted eggs, then would you have a problem with it?
I would have a problem with forcing employers to pay for it.
Why? It's not abortion anymore, is it? I think that even you would agree that lone eggs or sperm aren't people. You can't use the "muh feelings" card anymore.
Because it serves no vital health issue that's not easily prevented.
It's a social and societal issue.
There are more unintended pregnancies amongst teenagers, often in poorer areas. If there are a lot of poor teenagers who are having kids that they can't afford, then they'll become greater burdens upon the welfare system. You are opposed to this, yes?
And this isn't even going into the various health risks of teenagers or even preteens having children. There are greater risks of complication, and of the baby being unhealthy upon birth. So in some ways, it is a health issue.
This can be alleviated through ditching abstinence-based sex education (which studies show actually increases teen pregnancy) and instead teaching teenagers to have safe sex. However, people who are opposed to abortion also tend to be opposed to contraception-based sex education as well as supporting the unwanted children that invariably result.
So, I think that you're wrong here.
There are more unintended pregnancies amongst teenagers, often in poorer areas. If there are a lot of poor teenagers who are having kids that they can't afford, then they'll become greater burdens upon the welfare system. You are opposed to this, yes?
And this isn't even going into the various health risks of teenagers or even preteens having children. There are greater risks of complication, and of the baby being unhealthy upon birth. So in some ways, it is a health issue.
This can be alleviated through ditching abstinence-based sex education (which studies show actually increases teen pregnancy) and instead teaching teenagers to have safe sex. However, people who are opposed to abortion also tend to be opposed to contraception-based sex education as well as supporting the unwanted children that invariably result.
So, I think that you're wrong here.
View all replies
Fun fact: Hormonal birth control causes abortions, too! Such methods of birth control occasionally permit fertilization, but prevent the zygote from properly implanting.
Welp. We'd better just allow everyone to run roughshod over individual rights because fundamentalists are upset about another issue that doesn't concern them.
Welp. We'd better just allow everyone to run roughshod over individual rights because fundamentalists are upset about another issue that doesn't concern them.
I agree with your first sentence.
An employer not providing your abortion is not running roughshod over your ability to choose one.
This is why we are creating this destructive entitlement environment. Where liberals think everything they want is a right and if it isn't handed to them it is running roughshod over individual rights.
An employer not providing your abortion is not running roughshod over your ability to choose one.
This is why we are creating this destructive entitlement environment. Where liberals think everything they want is a right and if it isn't handed to them it is running roughshod over individual rights.
The bigger question, IMO, is "is it just to allow an employer to force his or her religion upon employees".
My answer: No. It is not just for anyone to force their religion on people, especially if those people are dependent (and outside the family unit). An employer should not have the power to dictate the activities of his or her employees outside of the work, unless that activity directly affects the person's ability to do their job (eg no hard illegal drugs or coming to work drunk, etc).
The employer has to make a small sacrifice (paying for insurance), that then allows for employees to make their own decisions. Nobody is forcing the employer to advocate birth control or take it themselves, merely to allow comprehensive preventative health coverage to employees. Ultimately this can be beneficial to an employer, especially since a pregnant woman would have to have paid leave anyways.
My answer: No. It is not just for anyone to force their religion on people, especially if those people are dependent (and outside the family unit). An employer should not have the power to dictate the activities of his or her employees outside of the work, unless that activity directly affects the person's ability to do their job (eg no hard illegal drugs or coming to work drunk, etc).
The employer has to make a small sacrifice (paying for insurance), that then allows for employees to make their own decisions. Nobody is forcing the employer to advocate birth control or take it themselves, merely to allow comprehensive preventative health coverage to employees. Ultimately this can be beneficial to an employer, especially since a pregnant woman would have to have paid leave anyways.
Not offering a non-essential option is not forcing anything on anyone.
It is an essential.
1) Pregnancy can be dangerous and fatal.
2) Birth control is prescribed for more than just preventing pregnancy.
3) It's considerably cheaper for the employer.
4) Without insurance coverage it's something pretty much restricted to the wealthy and people who are able to get coverage via other government plans or Planned Parenthood (it's like $80+/month without insurance if you don't qualify for a government plan or Planned Parenthood assistance).
1) Pregnancy can be dangerous and fatal.
2) Birth control is prescribed for more than just preventing pregnancy.
3) It's considerably cheaper for the employer.
4) Without insurance coverage it's something pretty much restricted to the wealthy and people who are able to get coverage via other government plans or Planned Parenthood (it's like $80+/month without insurance if you don't qualify for a government plan or Planned Parenthood assistance).
HAHA...
this is why we have the entitlement culture that we have.
Everything is a right and is vital so other people must pay for it.
1. Many forms of true contraception that prevent the need for these two specific abortifacients.
1b. Other people should not have to pay for your sexual choices, nor is this vital.
2. We are not talking about birth control that is used for other treatments. These particular ones have no other treatment use.
3. Not really, but irrelevant if employers don't want to provide this drug of choice.
4. We aren't talking about the pill. And it is not something you take monthly.
I know you want to get these talking points in, but try to keep up with the actual discussion. This is not talking about birth control in various forms referred to as "the pill".
this is why we have the entitlement culture that we have.
Everything is a right and is vital so other people must pay for it.
1. Many forms of true contraception that prevent the need for these two specific abortifacients.
1b. Other people should not have to pay for your sexual choices, nor is this vital.
2. We are not talking about birth control that is used for other treatments. These particular ones have no other treatment use.
3. Not really, but irrelevant if employers don't want to provide this drug of choice.
4. We aren't talking about the pill. And it is not something you take monthly.
I know you want to get these talking points in, but try to keep up with the actual discussion. This is not talking about birth control in various forms referred to as "the pill".
All birth control is used to treat and prevent health conditions, which includes pregnancy, this is the case with Plan B. This is EMERGENCY medicine as well for rape victims.
It is cheaper for the employer. Which is cheaper, paying a few dollars more, or paying a woman for not working for 3 months, training a temp replacement and paying them? Then having to pay for the employer portion of insurance covering the pregnancy and birth, then the added dependent on the employees plan? That is not an irrelevant cost.
The cost factor still stands. Plan B with insurance is a couple dollars, potentially free at Planned Parenthood if the person qualifies, but it can be prohibitably expensive if someone falls out of that group ($48 at Drugstore.com, but can be up to $70).
Generally people don't talk about employers covering Plan B because there are many alternatives to it (eg pretty easy to get at Planned Parenthood) which often render a discussion moot.
But if it's medicine or doctor related, particularly in emergency situations, it should be covered. End of story. Religious beliefs of the employer cannot enter into this because they are not qualified to make medical decisions for their employees.
It is cheaper for the employer. Which is cheaper, paying a few dollars more, or paying a woman for not working for 3 months, training a temp replacement and paying them? Then having to pay for the employer portion of insurance covering the pregnancy and birth, then the added dependent on the employees plan? That is not an irrelevant cost.
The cost factor still stands. Plan B with insurance is a couple dollars, potentially free at Planned Parenthood if the person qualifies, but it can be prohibitably expensive if someone falls out of that group ($48 at Drugstore.com, but can be up to $70).
Generally people don't talk about employers covering Plan B because there are many alternatives to it (eg pretty easy to get at Planned Parenthood) which often render a discussion moot.
But if it's medicine or doctor related, particularly in emergency situations, it should be covered. End of story. Religious beliefs of the employer cannot enter into this because they are not qualified to make medical decisions for their employees.
This is not a vital part of a health regiment. And no doctor would use it as such.
And no employer should be forced to pay for it or offer it.
And no employer should be forced to pay for it or offer it.
It is vital and pregnancy can be life threatening.
You have not supported the statement.
You have not supported the statement.
View all replies
I'll just leave this little linky here: [link]
For those who don't like clicking links, it's a NY Times article saying that the claims that the morning-after pill works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus (which would be tantamount to abortion if you believe that fertilized eggs are people, as maddmatt does) may be based on faulty and outdated science. Instead, it's probable that pills like Plan B work by delaying ovulation (which means no egg), and/or thickening the cervical mucus, preventing the sperm from reaching the egg (which means no sperm).
If this is true, then there is no fertilized egg that results, which means that there actually is no argument here. This is in contrast to something like mifepristone/RU-486, which is a pill designed to destroy implanted embryos and is, in fact, an "abortion pill." Besides, it can take up to three days for a sperm to reach an egg after sex, and three days is the maximum effective time of pills like Plan B.
For those who don't like clicking links, it's a NY Times article saying that the claims that the morning-after pill works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus (which would be tantamount to abortion if you believe that fertilized eggs are people, as maddmatt does) may be based on faulty and outdated science. Instead, it's probable that pills like Plan B work by delaying ovulation (which means no egg), and/or thickening the cervical mucus, preventing the sperm from reaching the egg (which means no sperm).
If this is true, then there is no fertilized egg that results, which means that there actually is no argument here. This is in contrast to something like mifepristone/RU-486, which is a pill designed to destroy implanted embryos and is, in fact, an "abortion pill." Besides, it can take up to three days for a sperm to reach an egg after sex, and three days is the maximum effective time of pills like Plan B.
Imagine the NYT having a liberal opinion minimizing the morning after pill and those like ella.
Because science has a liberal bias, amirite?
If we discount all sources based on any bias at all, then why should anyone accept facts from you since you have a clear conservative bias? Or from me since I have a clear liberal bias? Or from anyone?
If we discount all sources based on any bias at all, then why should anyone accept facts from you since you have a clear conservative bias? Or from me since I have a clear liberal bias? Or from anyone?
People have a bias, yes. And people who have a vested interested in the propagation of certain drugs and methods have biases. And the NYT certainly has a bias to try to portray liberal causes in the best light.
However the article does not list facts, figures, or even studies. It makes sweeping claims without fact trying to argue a case through persuasion.
"Science" has made no determination as suggested in the article as evidences by the still warnings posted by health organizations on risks to implantation. You can't claim one doctor at the Mayo Clinic overrides the consensus of the Mayo Clinic which lists the implantation risk in Plan B and Ella. Yet this article attempts to do that. A clear bias.
However the article does not list facts, figures, or even studies. It makes sweeping claims without fact trying to argue a case through persuasion.
"Science" has made no determination as suggested in the article as evidences by the still warnings posted by health organizations on risks to implantation. You can't claim one doctor at the Mayo Clinic overrides the consensus of the Mayo Clinic which lists the implantation risk in Plan B and Ella. Yet this article attempts to do that. A clear bias.