House Votes to Allow D.C. Employers to Fire Women for Using Birth Control

a reply to: FyreByrd

In the UK our politicians are mostly conceited, opportunistic, self-serving, yes man / woman half wits with their hands out.

In the US, your politicians are all that ours are with the added bonus of being completely Insane!

Who says you Americans don't get more bang for your buck?

And you actually vote for these...people?

a reply to: FyreByrd

So how does this sit with the depopulation agenda that I and many others believe in? Whats the purpose of this ruling? I would have thought that the ruling would have gone the other way and been consistent with the depopulation agenda ..... have I missed something?

a reply to: Azureblue

You've missed what these nuts believe in, that's what.

They believe an overpopulated world will herald the apocalypse, followed by the rapture, or what they imagine will be themselves being taken to heaven and the rest of the people left to die in misery.

They want overpopulation, it's part of the 'go forth and multiply' thinking.

Ok so let me see if I have this straight, in America you want your boss to pay for your condoms and if they dont then its anarchy.............okay.

Can someone please tell me why the GOP, the party of Eisenhower and Lincoln, appears to be going collectively utterly insane? Bills like this are utterly irrelevant and pointless. Although they do show how little control Boehner has over his own party and how useless he is.

a reply to: PLAYERONE01

From what I understand this is about health insurance covering contraceptives.

It isn't a money issue.

Health insurance companies were charging more for plans that didn't cover contraception because they wised up and calculated pregnancies cost more than the contraception.

So, is the argument really that bosses want to pay more for plans with less coverage?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
So, is the argument really that bosses want to pay more for plans with less coverage?

The argument is not that, it's should they be allowed to?

the bible is not a sex advice manual. In fact there is very little mentioned About contraception. Contraception should be seen as a good thing, it stops unwanted pregnancies.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
the bible is not a sex advice manual. In fact there is very little mentioned About contraception. Contraception should be seen as a good thing, it stops unwanted pregnancies.

Most contraception was fine for Hobby Lobby I believe. Only very specific types were not. So Hobby Lobby had no problem with contraception, really it was only Plan B (Morning After Pill).

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Haven't you heard? Employers have always known what's best for their employes.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Haven't you heard? Employers have always known what's best for their employes.

Not sure what that has to do with not providing a "contraceptive" which is only for those who choose NOT to be on a contraceptive. Hobby Lobby (which this seems based off) had no problem with every female being on birth control.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I wouldn't trust anything out of Washington

Good or bad

OK, this has created a very interesting Sunday morning debate in the NonSpecific household.

If your employers health insurance is more expensive to cover contraception and abortion then no I don't think an employer should pay for it. As it is your own personal choice to use such things.

If it's cheaper to cover it, and out ways the cost of maternity/paternity cover then common monetary sense would dictate to cover it, and just keep schtum, as you are saving your pennies.

Do employers who issue health insurance know what you use your health insurance for or is that confidential information? I am British so I wouldn't know. I am surprised that there isn't a scheme to provide free contraception to the under 25s like there is in the UK. (don't shoot!)

This me and NonSpecific agree on... what we don't agree on is the right for an employer to fire you due to personal beliefs the employer has.

In the UK, as far as my experience at being hired and hiring people, you cannot ask about their political/religious/personal beliefs at the interview stage. It is purely about their ability to do the job. If once that person becomes an employee and their beliefs start effecting the work environment, their ability to do their jobs and the ability of others to do their job then you have grounds for dismissal.

In my opinion what business is business and what is personal is strictly personal. Never the twain shall meet ideally.

If you hire someone, and at the interview stage they say they are a member of the BNP, not because you asked them but they said, then you can choose not to hire. You could never ask them about it directly.

If you disagree with people having tattoos doesn't mean that they can't cover them up, nor does it effect their ability to type 80wpm. Why not hire them if some non tattooed person can only type 50.

a reply to: MrsNonSpecific

It's a bit twisted by Liberals.

Hobby Lobby was not against birth control. They were only against the morning after pill, which is designed for those NOT on birth control who have sex, think they got fertilized, and want to terminate it.

So really, Hobby Lobby would love their employees to be on birth control, then they have no reason to use that pill.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't like the morning after pill, screws you up. I think if you want to have an active sex life, and are responsible then you would be on the pill or other forms of contraception. Does the use of the morning after pill correlate with sex ed provided in schools? Just a thought...

It's £27 for a morning after pill in the UK if you are over 25. Cheaper than a child but a little steep.

Coincidentally this was just posted on my facebook news feed by a friend... Must be something in the American air at the moment..

Success of Birth Contrl to prevent pregnancy

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: FyreByrd
Its not pandering to anything, its letting businesses keep their rights to what they want to provide...

You made a bogus thread, with a bogus thread title , and its been pointed out its not even true
And youre worried about businesses providing birth control?

That's not quite right, the OP used the same link heading as ATS requests we should do. The thread is not bogus either, and the Washington Post story is essentially the same, because it's not just about contraception on offer by an employer, it's also about the mindset of anti-pill employers who would be allowed to sack someone, IF THEY KNEW that someone in their employ was using contraceptive...that's how stupid it gets, that much I agree, and obviously it's not going to ever be enforceable, unless any anti-pill employer can make the case. But anyone can see the sneakiness of it all, it's a sleeked piece of legislation, as Buster rightly says...the American Taliban.
The thing to keep in mind, is that the dogma of Salem was only a few hundred years ago, a mere half dozen lifetimes or less. What a misrepresentation of Christianity that was...by so-called Christians. Come to think of it, God help all the carrot pullers of this world, because they are doomed...except those on Capiltol hill of course!

Read it more carefully. The only thing related to birth control they could be fired for is using company-provided insurance to purchase it. Not for using it. Same with in-vitro fertilization. And when a company signs up for an insurance policy, they can choose what the policy will and will not cover. They can choose to exclude birth control if they fit the legal requirements to do so. Therefore, when an employee attempts to use the insurance to purchase it, it will come back as not covered at the pharmacy. So they couldn't use the insurance to purchase it if they wanted to. And, consequently, they wouldn't be committing the offense they could be fired for.

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: FyreByrd


Thats not what it does, what it does is make employers NOT have to pay for birth control if they do not choose to, thats not discrimination thats maintaining your rights....

I hate slippery slope arguments but.. What prevents an employer from refusing to pay for more expensive medical care and saying it is on religious grounds, when the true reason is financial?

Honestly, it is orders of magnitude less expensive to pay for monthly birth control than to pay for all of the costs associated with pregnancy, birth, and then 26 years of Healthcare for the new dependant. I don't think that particular issue is of any real concern.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

whose forcing whom here?

Had you even bothered to read the article and see the vote count instead of whining about how there are more important things to worry about then you would know who is trying to force what on the people.

They are wanting to have the right to not have to provide that

No they are wanting the right to force their religious views on people that do not follow their religion.

And the liberal left is trying to FORCE them to....so whose forcing what?

The majority of the vote was Republican so don't try to start the liberal left whinefest. If the left is trying to force anything they are trying to force following the Constitution on the right.

Taliban huh? inflamitory much? please take that bs somewhere else buster, I dont see conservatives out lynching people in the streets, cutting gays heads off, or throwing them off of buildings...

They don't have to since that idiot Reagan thought it was such a great idea to turn the police force here in America into a paramilitary outfit.

No one is trying to force people not to have birth control......period.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? If you use birth control you can lose your job. No nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Get a clue dude.

THere is a hell of a lot more important things going on in this country then someones damn birth control

Yes keep this ignorant whine up because America can concentrate on one thing at a time. As you said take the drama somewhere else.

And you're doing exactly the same thing, except your views aren't religious.

if you dont have a baby by your 30th.
then they use artificial insemination.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Metallicus

But didn't you know silly?

It is a "war on women" if we don't pay for birth control and on demand abortions.

But didn't you know silly.

It is a "war on Christians" if we don't want to have to be second class citizens to them.