Contraception . . . leftwing style

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

As secretary of State, (Hilary) Clinton has made the issue of girls and women worldwide a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. “It’s not just the right thing to do, it is a strategic imperative,” she said. She wondered aloud “why extremists are always focusing on women—the reason is a mystery to me,” but it’s the same the world over, no matter what the ideology. “They all want to somehow control … the decisions we make about our own body. It’s hard to believe even here at home we have to stand up for women’s rights and reject efforts to marginalize any one of us.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...destinies.html

Does anyone want to control how women's decisions concerning their body? Why is the left turning Obama's Manadated Birth Control into a women's body decision? My mammy always said; "you dance the dance, you pay the drummer!" Why should taxpayers foot the bill?

[dodge]

Here we go, another chapter in Cowshut’s liberal-bashing right-wing propaganda. He links to an article he found at the Daily Beast by political reporter Eleanor Clift about Hilary Clinton’s appearance at the Women in the World Summit in New York this past Saturday, and somehow twists it into anti-Obama rhetoric centering on birth control.

The Secretary of State talked about brave women she’s met in her life and the obstacles they faced; and about relationships she built with women all over the world. She talked about Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and how women can make a difference in the world.

Clinton told the audience that she wondered “why extremists (like Cowshut and Limbaugh) are always focusing on women,” and how “they all want to somehow control the decisions we make about our own body.”

Cowshut attacks President Obama’s “birth control mandate.” What’s wrong with requiring private health plans to provide preventive services that include breast exams, HIV screening and contraception for free? This new policy will help millions of women get the affordable care they need.

Contraception was included as a required preventive service on the recommendation of the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families. Access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer, and linked to overall good health. Nationwide, 1.5 million women use contraceptives only as treatment for serious medical conditions. Most importantly, broadening access to birth control will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, a goal we should all have.

Proper planning through birth control results in healthier mothers and children, which benefits all of us. Some 99% of women in the U.S. who are or have been sexually active at some point in their lives have used birth control, including 98% of Catholic women, according to the Guttmacher Institute (a non-profit organization working to advance reproductive health). A recent survey by Hart Research shows 71% of American voters, including 77% of Catholic women voters, supported this provision broadening access to birth control.

Consistent with other federal policies, churches and other groups dedicated to teaching religious doctrine are exempted from providing this coverage under a “conscience clause.”

Those now attacking the new health-coverage requirement claim it is an assault on religious liberty, but the opposite is true. Religious freedom means that Catholic women who want to follow their church’s doctrine can do so, avoiding the use of contraception in any form. But the millions of American women who choose to use contraception should not be forced to follow religious doctrine, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/opeds/02082012.cfm

[easeltine]

...just to get to the Truth what we are really talking about here...it is $300 per year, NOT $600, (of course that could be the difference between Sam's Club and a mom and pops drug store), and NOT $3,000 like the Left-Wing Feminist claimed.
At least Senator Barbara Boxer is only at double the amount that it really costs.

President Obama has no Constitutional Right to force a Religious Institution to pay for something that is against their Personal Convictions.

7-2 Supreme Court decision when it gets there...6 Catholics, and Justice Kagen...it may even get Justice Breyer and be a 8-1.

The Obama Admintration lost a 9-0 decision in the Supreme Court regarding the Lutheran School case. The President is again arrogantly acting like a Marxist Dictator. Not too different than King Henry VIII having Cromwell go around the Law to get Sir Thomas More executed. In our country The Supreme Court protects us from this type of tyranny.

On a side note - I live in California. In reference to Senator Boxer and Speaker Pelosi, "...well they are not Left enough for me." - my Mother-In-Law

Imagine?

[dodge]

Easeltine -- The figure of up to $600 per year for prescription contraceptives that Senator Boxer had on her website is accurate. Here’s a breakdown:

Birth control pills: up to $600 per year.
Birth control patch: up to $600 per year
Vaginal Ring: up to $600 per year

Source: U.S. News & World Report

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...h-control-cost

“According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month, depending on health insurance coverage and type of pill. On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600.”

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...women-1117.htm

The Idaho Business Review,

http://idahobusinessreview.com/2012/...y-responsible/

MSNBC,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46680142...eally-cost-or/

And many other sources confirm this. What do you base you statement that it’s “$300 per year, NOT $600?”

Then you make another statement that has absolutely no truth to it, saying that the President is trying to “force religious institutions to pay for something that is against their personal conviction.” Religious groups are exempted from the contraception rule in the mandate. All faith-based organizations, not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities, are removed from having to cover employee’s contraception costs.

Amazingly, after having made so many uninformed comments, you make the outrageous statement that President Obama “is again arrogantly acting like a Marxist dictator.” Apparently, this had to do with the Supreme Court decision in favor of a Pennsylvania Lutheran School who fired a teacher after she took disability leave for narcolepsy, then returned mid-year demanding her job back.

How does this make the President a “Marxist dictator?”

What do you do, just say what you want without knowing with it is you're talking about?

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

...just to get to the Truth what we are really talking about here...it is $300 per year, NOT $600, (of course that could be the difference between Sam's Club and a mom and pops drug store), and NOT $3,000 like the Left-Wing Feminist claimed.
At least Senator Barbara Boxer is only at double the amount that it really costs.

President Obama has no Constitutional Right to force a Religious Institution to pay for something that is against their Personal Convictions.

7-2 Supreme Court decision when it gets there...6 Catholics, and Justice Kagen...it may even get Justice Breyer and be a 8-1.

The Obama Admintration lost a 9-0 decision in the Supreme Court regarding the Lutheran School case. The President is again arrogantly acting like a Marxist Dictator. Not too different than King Henry VIII having Cromwell go around the Law to get Sir Thomas More executed. In our country The Supreme Court protects us from this type of tyranny.

On a side note - I live in California. In reference to Senator Boxer and Speaker Pelosi, "...well they are not Left enough for me." - my Mother-In-Law

Imagine?

Like everything else Obama, the estimates will not nearly cover the actual cost. But i have another even better idea. Let the taxpayer pay for the date also. If we are going to be on the hook for part of it, we may as well pay the hull thing.

[easeltine]

Dodge,

"All faith-based organizations, not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities, are removed from having to cover employee’s contraception costs."

This was the promise that President Obama changed his mind on. You have stated the exact promise that President Obama gave to the Pro-Life Democrats in the House to get the forced insurance passed. In fact, the reason that Pope and the Catholic Bishops are objecting about this so much is that the President has changed this to just the houses of worship only. This is the Catholic Church's objection.

The statement, "We will not comply," is currently being read in many Catholic churches.

"The policy, announced in January, requires nearly all employers to provide insurance coverage that includes free birth control for workers. Houses of worship are exempt; religiously affiliated charities, hospitals and schools are not." - http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...ama/53539988/1

Please Google - Obama Contraception Policy

[easeltine]

Dodge, on the contraception, it is possible to purchase contraception for for $300 per year.
I am not stating that Senator Boxer's figure of $600 per year is totally out of line.

I am stating that Sandra Fluke, the Feminist Georgetown Student's figure of $3,000 per year, is a WHOPPER OF A LIE!

"My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today."

This is a Pro-Abortionist that has purposely misrepresented the Truth, that is $300-$600 per year to be $3,000 per year.

Man, even in that Roe v Wade decision the lady lied! Anything to kill a baby, and reduce the surplus population.
These Left-Wing Loonies start with the fear expressed in the book of 1968, "The Population Bomb," and here we are in 2012 with the indigenous people of Europe's birth rate below 2, and the Muslims are around 10. Europe will be an Islamic continent very soon.

[dodge]

According to a Bloomberg National Poll released yesterday, “Americans overwhelmingly regard the debate over President Barack Obama’s policy on employer-provided contraceptive coverage as a matter of women’s health, not religious freedom, rejecting Republican’s rationale for opposing the rule. More than three-quarters say the topic shouldn’t even be a part of the U.S. political debate.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...rn-debate.html

More than six in ten respondents (including almost seventy percent of women) say the issue involves health and access to birth control. The result of the poll suggest the Republican candidates’ focus on contraception is out of sync with the U.S. public. These candidates are talking to a relatively small subset even among Republicans. They may have the feeling, and their polls may be showing them, that this is a way in and this is a wedge issue within the party, but this does not dovetail with the view of the majority in the U.S.

More than half those interviewed also say that Rush Limbaugh should be fired based solely on his comments concerning the female law student who testified publicly in favor of birth-control coverage, calling her a prostitute.

My guess would be that the reason you bring up the contraception issue is because you are an anti-Obama Christian conservative, and anything that you can use as ammunition against the President serves your purposes.

[easeltine]

"My guess would be that the reason you bring up the contraception issue is because you are an anti-Obama Christian conservative, and anything that you can use as ammunition against the President serves your purposes."

Dodge,

This is the topic of the thread!

"Why is the left turning Obama's Manadated Birth Control into a women's body decision? My mammy always said; "you dance the dance, you pay the drummer!" Why should taxpayers foot the bill?"

The Obama Administration's Secular Humanistic Forced Taliban Health Insurance, along with the Obama Administration's Secular Humanistic Forced Taliban Mandated Birth Control, (the taxpayers and religious institutions being forced to pay the bill), may lose in the Supreme Court!

[dodge]

Come on, Easeltine. “the Obama Administration’s Secular Humanistic Forced Taliban Health Insurance?” You got to be kidding me! Comparing the President’s health care reform initiative to the Taliban, a religious organization that has been responsible for massacres, human trafficking, oppression of women, and terrorism, to efforts by the Administration to cover everyone in the United States with affordable health care is about as outlandish as anything you’re ever wrote here.

[easeltine]

I agree...that was over the top. I apologize.

I know that the President is motivated by a desire to help people with lower health insurance, and believes that this is a good idea. There are some aspects that need tweaking, even to people on the Left.

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

Come on, Easeltine. “the Obama Administration’s Secular Humanistic Forced Taliban Health Insurance?” You got to be kidding me! Comparing the President’s health care reform initiative to the Taliban, a religious organization that has been responsible for massacres, human trafficking, oppression of women, and terrorism, to efforts by the Administration to cover everyone in the United States with affordable health care is about as outlandish as anything you’re ever wrote here.

That actually sounds like this administration. Obama has stood in the way of real border reforms, thus allowing human trafficing to reach way beyond farm labor. Oppression of women . . . ever hear these folks talk about Sarah/Bistrol Palin? Ann Coulter? Terrorism . . . labeling the Fort Hood shooting as workplace violent . . . yeah right. You come up with better descriptions of the left than I ever have.

[stage director]

I think the argument that says Catholic institutions should be mandated to dole out birth control is completely flawed. In the first place, it doesn't hinder a woman's choice because there are many other sources she can turn to if that's what she wants.

[stage director]

You should ask the folks in countries that do have mandated health care what they think of the quality. It's not complimentary. When government is in charge quality dwindles. You can see that in most Veteran's hospitals.

[dodge]

Stage -- Who is arguing that Catholic institutions should be mandated to “dole out birth control?”

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

You should ask the folks in countries that do have mandated health care what they think of the quality. It's not complimentary. When government is in charge quality dwindles. You can see that in most(make that all) Veteran's hospitals.

England is going to privatize their health care just for the reasons you gave.

[stage director]

Stage -- Who is arguing that Catholic institutions should be mandated to “dole out birth control?”

I was responding to your comments:

Consistent with other federal policies, churches and other groups dedicated to teaching religious doctrine are exempted from providing this coverage under a “conscience clause.”

Those now attacking the new health-coverage requirement claim it is an assault on religious liberty, but the opposite is true. Religious freedom means that Catholic women who want to follow their church’s doctrine can do so, avoiding the use of contraception in any form. But the millions of American women who choose to use contraception should not be forced to follow religious doctrine, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

I'm saying that honoring the policy of a Catholic institution that opts to be exempt from providing this type coverage in no way tramples on a woman's choice, nor forces a woman to follow religious doctrine. It simply means they will have to get contraception from elsewhere, the same way millions of women are doing now. The government has no business dictating policy.

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

I was responding to your comments:

I'm saying that honoring the policy of a Catholic institution that opts to be exempt from providing this type coverage in no way tramples on a woman's choice, nor forces a woman to follow religious doctrine. It simply means they will have to get contraception from elsewhere, the same way millions of women are doing now. The government has no business dictating policy.

Actually, both of you missed the mark. Why should I pay for conctraception with my tax money? Should I not also pay for the date? (I might add to that I already paid for those too damn sorry to buy automobile insurance. If I can pay for those sorry @@@@@@@s to drive, should not I also pay for those to date whom I pay for contraception?)

[stage director]

Actually, both of you missed the mark. Why should I pay for contraception with my tax money? Should I not also pay for the date?

You shouldn't imo. Contraception is not a medical treatment, but a lifestyle choice. If an insurance company opts to include that as something they cover, more power to them. In the same way contact lens coverage is at their option. I should not be required to pay for someone else's contact lenses, or their sex life.

[dodge]

Hi Stage. You say that “contraception is a lifestyle choice.” Are you an advocate of the religious opinion that sex should only be between husband and wife for procreation purposes? If not, then contraception is absolutely necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Without that, there would be an increase in abortions. What do you think the impact of that would be? Enjoying sex without getting pregnant is also a “lifestyle choice,” and a right. I’m in favor of health insurance covering contraception prescriptions. Condoms do not always work.