Abortion and why it's wrong

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: fabledgoddess

I have to laugh at the "just don't have sex comment", please...!

Of course, why not?

Because sex is fun, natural and healthy.

If a woman cannot be expected not to murder a child for convenience,

Come on. Do you ever THINK before you write stuff like this? Ever heard of rape? Forced sex within marriage? Young people unaware of the consequences because their 'caring' parents never told them anything? Ever heard of contraceptives failing? Ever heard of cultures that do not allow women to even use contraceptives?

why could one expect her to control her sexual urges either?

Or men, what about their sexual urges? Actually, the male drive to have sex is higher than that of most women.

Look around - it is EVERYWHERE. Women and men behave like rutting animals. Fornicate, conceive, abort, repeat! What fun!!!

If sex had not been such fun you would probably not sit there yapping about rutting animals..

We will receive exactly what we have demanded.

I hope so - though I'm not sure how it would work without a physical body, but if you're right I will have sex after death

Cheer up old bugger: we're doing much better than we did in the 19th century. IN those days women in the lower classes were pregnant most of the time and if they skipped a year, the preacher would remind them of their duties to God, the Country and their husband..

a reply to: Seamrog

You make it sound as if we're sticking a pair of scissors in the soft belly of a toddler

It's a foetus, not even capable of breathing, not of thinking. Just a lump of cells. In many cases nature itself will abort that lump, often unnoticed by the woman who thinks her period is a bit off this time. You don't think THAT'S murder, do you? Yes, sometimes a doctor sucks out that lump of cells instead - no scissors in sight,scissors were used in the "good old days" in countries where abortion was forbidden. No need for scissors actually: there are not even bones inside yet. It's potential - and that potential is aborted, giving other potentials a better chance. A young girl, raped by her father, may yet recover and raise a family with a caring man after all, not burdened by an unwanted incestuous child. A busy mother of 4, confronted with an unwanted pregnancy because her contraceptive failed, may continue loving and caring the four she can handle, instead of hating all five she can't. And perhaps parents, confronted with a foetus that will grow out to be a severely handicapped child may decide to do what nature itself failed to do and abort it.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I don't know about that, Ron Paul was OB/GYN doctor who delivered a few thousand babies. He made a comment once that while he was training to be a doctor he was in a hospital where they aborted a fetus and threw it in a garbage can in the corner, where it cried till it died.
He went on to relate down at the other wing of the hospital, doctors and nurses are doing everything they could to save the premature babies that were born and wanted by their parents, and they are a similar age, as in weeks.

I don't need any scientific studies to tell me that little fetus should have been protected, by the adult community, just like the one in the other part of the hospital.

Perhaps I am repeating information that has allready been provided. If so forgive me. I haven't read the whole thread but I have a notion that hate and extreme animosity is expressed on both sides.

May I speak for the child and the children I murdered, in support for the OP and the unborn.

From the day of conception forward:
22 days the heart begins to beat with the childs own blood.
3rd. week, liver kidneys and intestines take shape.
6th. week brain waves are detectable.
8th. week every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, finger prints form, the "baby" can begin to hear.
11th. week all organ systems are functioning
12th. week all parts necessary to experience tactile stimulation are present, vocal cords complete, the child can suck its thumb.
15th. week adult taste buds, the child can taste.
17th. week the child can dream (REM sleep)
20 weeks partial birth abortion is performed.
(we used to drag and quarter people as capital punishment, now it is a "procedure".

I am ASHAMED of my past and thus I must speak for those who have no voice.

I don't condemn any one, I just pray this may seize to be.
My silence condemnes me.

a reply to: WalkInSilence

Your courage redeems you.

May the peace that surpasses all understanding surround you, and comfort you, and continue to lead you to the eternal light good mother.

My heart to yours.

a reply to: PageLC14

I totally and completely agree with you. I may not personally elect to have an abortion, but I certainly can understand that there are numerous reasons why people do...and it is not my place to judge them, because I believe in a higher power and believe that as a human being I do not have the right to do so. My right to choose an opinion doesn't negate their right to choose what they do with their bodies and vice versa, and I value that enough to fight for it, even if it conflicts with my own personal beliefs.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

A lot has changed since Ron Paul was a medical student. In those days (pre Roe V Wade) doctors treated women and children (well, people in general) like cattle.

We've come a long way since the '50s, when it comes to women's reproductive care and health care rights in general.

a reply to: dawnstar

a reply to: windword
there are states that require it? I am getting old, I remember a time when you were lucky if your health insurance covered birth control... don't think I ever was covered for elective abortions.
but that isn't what I am asking really, what are the chances that if my employers decides one an insurance policy that covers elective abortions that I can force him to offer me one that doesn't?

No. Most states now require the availability to be made in group insurance plans (in other words, at least one healthcare plan from each private insurer must afford the ability of its clients to seek an abortion through a third-party route in the event that an abortion is needed), such as a person would sign up for through their employer. California was not in compliance with the state on that point; two Catholic-affiliated companies refused to comply because it is federal law that says differently, and they were trying to use that as a loophole to get out of having to comply with state insurance mandate, for religious reasons. So the state forced them to comply, and found a few others who had not been offering the coverage, allegedly slipped through the cracks, and they were also forced to comply. This was sometime last year I think.

Federal funds cannot be used to pay for elective abortions. State tax funds do not pay for them either. But if you choose an insurance plan that offers comprehensive coverage, then you either accept that you will be paying premiums that reflect coverage for boob jobs, abortions, Viagra and penile implants, even liposuction and other plastic surgeries, or...choose a different plan.

The state enforces insurance regulations so that discrimination is not occurring within these agencies, just as they always have. They by no means "force" anyone to pay for health insurance that includes paying for the cost of other members' elective procedures (abortion is actually a relatively new addition to comprehensive coverage; we've been paying for "male performance enhancement" surgeries, gastric bypass/lap-band and botox, breast reductions, acne treatments, for years, and those are all elective)...that is a misrepresentation of the law, and taken completely out of context. No one is being forced to do anything, except for the employers...they're being forced to offer the option, and to cover that cost if someone should need to use that option.

The law maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions that govern abortion policy, which prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges.

same source

If your employer only offers plans that have that third-party coverage, then you are always free to get a private insurance policy. But typically, if it's a big company, they offer at least three different coverage plans and the higher-premium plans will be the ones with comprehensive coverage for elective procedures. As long as they are complying with the law and offering the option, they can place restrictions on the coverage too; pay for the procedure but not the anesthesia, or pay for the procedure but not pain meds or any other after-care, to give a couple of examples.

The procedure itself is out-patient; usually if you want pain control during and after, it's an extra fee because it is not a procedure that requires the patient to be knocked out or even numbed up. It takes about ten minutes to perform, and doesn't even require a follow-up visit as long as after-care instructions are followed. Most physicians will not prescribe pain pills either...acetaminophen or ibuprofen is usually considered efficient enough for pain management. It is a minor procedure.

The employer doesn't just get "discounts" or "kickbacks" and low rates for insurance. They actually pay money for their employees' coverage...a lot of people don't realize that. What the employee actually pays is only a fraction of the cost involved. That's why it's a "benefit"...because it is a privilege that is afforded to people along with their paycheck; discounted insurance premiums at a group rate.

So yes, insurance providers are required to comply with state laws and offer comprehensive coverage for elective procedures. But the consumer is not forced to pay for it...they have options.

a reply to: windword

But, the bottom line is that abortion is legal and is sometimes a basic medical necessity, and insurance companies have been covering it without question, for the most part, until the ACA made it mandatory that employers provide their employees' with basic health care coverage that includes womens' reproductive needs.

The mandate is that the employer make the coverage available. There have always been "reproductive needs" type coverages through insurance...they just changed the language to reflect abortion as one of them so that insurance companies cannot deny a policy holder the option of paying for that procedure, which they have been trying to do for religious (and numerous other) reasons. No one has been "covering it without question" by any stretch of the imagination...insurance companies are constantly battling with the government over things like this; it is not a new issue. It simply gets more press because it's the word "abortion" and everyone hears that and loses their minds over it, but they have been ordered to comply because they were getting around it via federal law and that cannot be allowed to continue.

There was quite a skirmish a while back on state mandates that insurance offer coverage for the "morning after" pill regimen too...because they are prohibited by law from discriminating against people and refusal to offer the option amounted to discrimination. Never mind the fact that people have been cheerfully paying higher premiums for plans that reflect the cost of Viagra and penile implant surgery, fertilization treatments and IVF (since those are so medically necessary, right?) and adoptions, as well as numerous other cosmetic/elective procedures and treatments. I wonder how many people out there actually read through their policy paperwork...might be quite a surprise to find out what they're actually paying premiums for.

a reply to: fabledgoddess

How about enabling a woman to have a hysterectomy at any age she chooses so some abortions would not be necessary? I was told by a doctor when I was 18, that I could not have any right to whether or not I wanted to have a child or not. Maybe this is a more peaceful resolution and everyone would be happy. And do not preach the pill. That did not work for me. Nor abstain from sex. (Don't want to elaborate further on why. )

A hysterectomy is major abdominal surgery and is an excessive measure for something as simple as birth control, but elective tubal ligation would be a very good idea. There are still places in this country where it is perfectly ok to deny a female elective tubal ligation if she is under a certain age and has not had a certain amount of children (either because the doctor refuses to do it or insurance refuses to cover it), and you are right--if that were to be mandatory for insurance companies to cover the cost of, it would very likely go a long way toward reducing the number of abortions being performed.

originally posted by: Seamrog
HELL YEAH!!!

Especially not the child's!

Hey kid, STFU and take the scissors!

Your opinion doesn't F___G matter!!!

This type of argument annoys me. It's not a child. It's a fetus (a child in development). It cannot survive outside of the womb, nor is it even capable of thinking of things on that level. The fetus is still very much part of the mother at that point, so the decision should be hers. Mothers make decisions for their children for the first 18 years of their life, so why not that decision as well? "Hey kid, STFU, you're going to boarding school". Why doesn't the child get a say in THAT? Sorry but you're opening a can of worms with that argument.

Whether religious folks admit it or not, the world is getting over populated. Somebody posted stats that showed 1.3 billion abortions since 1980. Well could you imagine an extra 1.3 billion people in the western world right now? It's bad enough in the inner cities and over crowded places as is. Humans need to be more responsible. That's the bottom line and it's not just about abortions, it's about birth control. The population is getting out of hand and it is going to cause all kinds of food and fresh water shortages if it continues at the rate its going. If you look at it like that abortion could actually save the human race.

I know religious folks don't give a crap about that because they think the world is ending soon anyway, and want to populate like jackrabbits to spread their religion, but IMO, That is a MUCH bigger problem than abortion. How about as a human being you use responsibility in determining the amount of kids you have? You don't need 5+ children, I'm sorry. Think about somebody besides yourself and your dying religion when you have kids. Any pro lifer who has 4 kids or more has absolutely no right to tell anybody else what not to do with their body. Afterall, your religion is a complete guess. You simply don't know that abortion has bad consequences, you just don't like it. Do the world a favor and think about things for the world as a whole instead of your own selfish intentions with your narrow minded religion that encourages you to treat the earth and nature like crap and not even care about our future because of ancient fairy tales.

a reply to: Barcs

This type of argument annoys me. It's not a child. It's a fetus (a child in development). It cannot survive outside of the womb, nor is it even capable of thinking of things on that level. The fetus is still very much part of the mother at that point, so the decision should be hers. Mothers make decisions for their children for the first 18 years of their life, so why not that decision as well? "Hey kid, STFU, you're going to boarding school". Why doesn't the child get a say in THAT? Sorry but you're opening a can of worms with that argument.

It is a tired, lame argument to be sure...these are often the same people who have kids in kindergarten running around with iPhones and tablets; the good old electronic babysitters so that they don't have to be responsible for their offspring and can spend their time trying to tell other people what to do with theirs instead.

Whether religious folks admit it or not, the world is getting over populated. Somebody posted stats that showed 1.3 billion abortions since 1980. Well could you imagine an extra 1.3 billion people in the western world right now? It's bad enough in the inner cities and over crowded places as is. Humans need to be more responsible. That's the bottom line and it's not just about abortions, it's about birth control. The population is getting out of hand and it is going to cause all kinds of food and fresh water shortages if it continues at the rate its going. If you look at it like that abortion could actually save the human race.

I know religious folks don't give a crap about that because they think the world is ending soon anyway, and want to populate like jackrabbits to spread their religion, but IMO, That is a MUCH bigger problem than abortion. How about as a human being you use responsibility in determining the amount of kids you have? You don't need 5+ children, I'm sorry. Think about somebody besides yourself and your dying religion when you have kids. Any pro lifer who has 4 kids or more has absolutely no right to tell anybody else what not to do with their body. Afterall, your religion is a complete guess. You simply don't know that abortion has bad consequences, you just don't like it. Do the world a favor and think about things for the world as a whole instead of your own selfish intentions with your narrow minded religion that encourages you to treat the earth and nature like crap and not even care about our future because of ancient fairy tales.

Since no one has raised their hand yet and said "ok, I'll take care of all the unwanted fetuses after they turn into real live human beings, and I'll pay for all of their food and education, medical expenses and clothing until they all graduate from college and beyond if they are disabled or deformed or sickly.", somehow I think you've hit the nail on the head, there. It's all fun and games til someone has to put their money where their mouth is. And you are 100% right, it is all about birth control when you get right down to it. Of course there would still be medical necessity for abortions in some cases, but prevention is fundamentally the key here.

originally posted by: windword

Can't you read? You're talking about plans that include abortion coverage that some people don't want to pay for. The Bracy family didn't want to buy an insurance plan that covered abortion for them! Their suit wasn't about paying for someone else's abortion!

I am pretty sure it's you who can't read...

You even excerpted a portion of the article which explains it pretty well.

...
they filed a lawsuit against federal and state officials because they could not purchase a plan that did not require its participants to pay for the elective abortions of others.
...

originally posted by: windword

Twisting of facts. Federal fund do not cover elective abortions, but they may cover abortions for incest, rape and to save the mothers life. Do you have a problem with that too? Too bad for you! That has nothing to do with Obamacare.

The one twisting facts is you among some others...

...
The GAO identified 1,036 Obamacare exchange plans across the country that cover elective abortion while remaining eligible for taxpayer subsidies. As Heritage Foundation and others predicted when Obamacare was passed, federal taxpayers in all 50 states are now footing the bill for subsidies for the purchase of health plans that cover abortion.
...

dailysignal.com...

If you don't understand what "elective abortion" means perhaps you should have looked it up.

An elective abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy before the 20th week of gestation at the woman's request for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease.
...

www.britannica.com...

Elective abortion covers ALL other abortions that have nothing to do with human fetal disease, or that can cause the death of the mother... Elective abortion doesn't just cover pregnancies as a result of incest or rape. It covers ALL other pregnancies for reasons other than maternal health or the health of the HUMAN fetus.

There are many states that still do not offer plans that allow people to opt out of paying for the elective abortion of others. The case of that family mentioned in the article was one example of a state that wasn't giving people a healthcare coverage that allowed them to opt out of paying for elective abortion of others.

Not to mention that Obama claimed in 2009 that obamacare would not pay for abortion. He stated abortion in general.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
but supposedly there is a separate charge that is to be charged for the coverage...so no, taxpayer money isn't supposed to be used to pay for the coverage.
weather it is or not is like everything else in the obamacare nightmare, who the heck knows because ain't none if it worked right to begin with and probably still doesn't!
but as a result of it, many states have made it so no one can get abortion coverage without paying additional money for it.
by abortion coverage I mean abortions that aren't medically necessary by the way.

originally posted by: Barcs

This type of argument annoys me. It's not a child. It's a fetus (a child in development). It cannot survive outside of the womb, nor is it even capable of thinking of things on that level. The fetus is still very much part of the mother at that point, so the decision should be hers. Mothers make decisions for their children for the first 18 years of their life, so why not that decision as well? "Hey kid, STFU, you're going to boarding school". Why doesn't the child get a say in THAT? Sorry but you're opening a can of worms with that argument.

This type of argument annoys me... I know you have been taught to just call it a fetus to try to dehumanize it more so it's easier for your conscience to accept the murder of a human. But it IS a HUMAN fetus. It is an innocent HUMAN who has never caused any harm to you or anyone else...

originally posted by: Barcs
Whether religious folks admit it or not, the world is getting over populated. Somebody posted stats that showed 1.3 billion abortions since 1980. Well could you imagine an extra 1.3 billion people in the western world right now? It's bad enough in the inner cities and over crowded places as is.
...

The world is not getting over populated... There are plenty of ways to feed and house the people of the world right now but tptb and many regular people are simply not interested in doing so... It has nothing to do with taking away more rights or demanding more taxes. Just from 2007-2010 the Federal Reserve "lost" $13 trillion U.S. dollars from taxpayers which could have been used in many ways to bring more jobs into the U.S. and pay for a large percentage of the U.S. debt.

But, people like you much rather dehumanize human fetuses, and even human babies and murder them because in reality you feel "threatened".

You may, or might not realize it but the various attempts to dehumanize human fetuses and babies by certain parties comes from the claimed threat people like you want to believe because that's the only solution you are being told will resolve "the world's problems".

Not to mention that in case you didn't know a majority of abortions have been carried out in third world nations and WITHOUT the consent of the parents. Millions, and millions of people in third world countries have been, and are being sterilized without their consent and even abortions are done without the consent of the mother/parents...

originally posted by: Barcs
Humans need to be more responsible. That's the bottom line and it's not just about abortions, it's about birth control. The population is getting out of hand and it is going to cause all kinds of food and fresh water shortages if it continues at the rate its going. If you look at it like that abortion could actually save the human race.
...

That's quite ironic... Since Obamacare is about not taking personal responsibility but rather to use public funds, even without the consent of people, to pay for the murder of human fetuses due in great part to the irresponsibility of some people who do not even want to take the responsibility for paying for the murder they want to commit.

As for food and water shortages... It has to do in great part due to the natural changes Earth has been undergoing. Earthquakes have been increasing worldwide which is causing new openings in Earth's layers and large quantities of water from the water tables are being sucked deeper and deeper into Earth's layers which is the mayor cause of water shortages.

And abortion is NOT going to save humankind... That's one of the most irresponsible things to say. Abortion is not going to stop earthquakes from increasing or the other changes Earth is undergoing which will continue to affect mankind.

originally posted by: Barcs
I know religious folks don't give a crap about that because they think the world is ending soon anyway, and want to populate like jackrabbits to spread their religion, but IMO, That is a MUCH bigger problem than abortion. How about as a human being you use responsibility in determining the amount of kids you have? You don't need 5+ children, I'm sorry. Think about somebody besides yourself and your dying religion when you have kids. Any pro lifer who has 4 kids or more has absolutely no right to tell anybody else what not to do with their body.
...

Just because people believe abortion is wrong and are telling you how they feel about it, it doesn't mean they are trying to own your body... Not to mention that sorry but even a human fetus is not part of the body of the mother... It is an independent human. The fact that it needs help from the mother doesn't mean it's not human, or that his/her life means less... Post-natal babies and even children also need the mother/parents to survive... Does it make them less human because they can't survive on their own?...

I know that many atheists, and even many religious leftists don't give a crap about innocent human fetuses and even babies, and would rather keep giving opportunities to hard core criminals and even to rapists, and murderers than give such opportunities to the innocent HUMAN fetuses they so willingly want to deny life to because of their selfishness, and because they lash out at the most innocent humans because they feel threatened...

originally posted by: Barcs
Afterall, your religion is a complete guess. You simply don't know that abortion has bad consequences, you just don't like it. Do the world a favor and think about things for the world as a whole instead of your own selfish intentions with your narrow minded religion that encourages you to treat the earth and nature like crap and not even care about our future because of ancient fairy tales.

This discussion is not about religion... There are plenty of religious lefties who also agree with the pro-choice crowd...

As for selfishness... Who is really selfish, those who think that humanity can be saved by murdering the most innocent of humans, or those who believe those innocent human fetuses should also have a chance at life?...

If anyone is narrow minded, selfish, and living a fairy tale are those who don't think that HUMAN fetuses are human, or that it is okay to murder them for SELFISH reason such as "I will have no life if the baby is born"... or "I am not ready so let me kill the baby with the money from other people"...

An innocent HUMAN fetus has more right to life than all hard core criminals combined.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Your insurance premiums pay for your insurance policy, not other people's insurance policies.

This is a personal opinion, not a topic for ATS.

Remember when ATS used to be a site for conspiracy theories?

originally posted by: windword

Your insurance premiums pay for your insurance policy, not other people's insurance policies.

Even when you are given direct quotes several times you can't understand what is written right in front of you...

...
they filed a lawsuit against federal and state officials because they could not purchase a plan that did not require its participants to pay for the elective abortions of others.
...

a reply to: dawnstar

but supposedly there is a separate charge that is to be charged for the coverage...so no, taxpayer money isn't supposed to be used to pay for the coverage.
weather it is or not is like everything else in the obamacare nightmare, who the heck knows because ain't none if it worked right to begin with and probably still doesn't!
but as a result of it, many states have made it so no one can get abortion coverage without paying additional money for it.
by abortion coverage I mean abortions that aren't medically necessary by the way.

In 2014 there were more than a thousand obamacare exchanges that failed to comply with the regulations, so there were a lot of taxpayers whose money went for subsidies on policies that they should not have...I think California was one of the worst offenders. They were not separating the charges out as they had been ordered to do, so the states had to force compliance...under obamacare, the states are supposed to offer two different carrier plans, one with elective abortion coverage options and one without. And if you opt for the one with coverage, it's usually a third-party rider that offers a comprehensive plan rate for elective surgeries...the patient is covering the rest of the cost themselves, not the employer, and getting the surgery at a lower cost than paying without insurance. And there are states which ban those riders from being offered, too. Even Medicaid cannot funnel money for funding abortions. The federal position on the subject has not changed either.

Since 1977, federal law has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or if it is determined to endanger the woman’s life. This rule, also known as the Hyde Amendment, is not a permanent law; rather it has been attached annually to Congressional appropriations bills, and has been approved every year by the Congress. The Hyde Amendment initially affected only funding for abortions under Medicaid, but over the years, its reach broadened to limit federal funds for abortion for federal employees and women in the Indian Health Service. Until recently, insurance coverage of abortion for women in the military had been even more restricted so that pregnancies resulting from rape or incest were not covered. In early 2013, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act expanded insurance coverage for servicewomen and military dependents to include abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, as permitted in other federal insurance policies.5 Federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions in other circumstances, and abortions can only be performed at military medical facilities in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.

Abortion coverage

Individual states are allowed to use their funds to pay for abortions if they want to...to offset cost of Medicaid-based procedures and other things, but they cannot use federal taxpayer funds to do it either.

Currently, 17 states use state-only funds to pay for abortions for women on Medicaid in circumstances different than those federal limitations set in the Hyde Amendment.7 In 32 states and the District of Columbia, Medicaid programs do not pay for any abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions (Appendix 1). South Dakota limits coverage to cases of life endangerment for the woman, in apparent violation of federal law.

The ACA reinforces the current Hyde Amendment restrictions, continuing to limit federal funds to pay for pregnancy terminations that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest (Table 1). State Medicaid programs continue to have the option to cover abortions in other circumstances using only state funds and no federal funds. President Obama issued an executive order as part of health reform that restated the federal limits specifically for Medicaid coverage of abortion.8 The law also explicitly does not preempt other current state policies regarding abortion, such as parental consent or notification, waiting period laws or any of the abortion limits or coverage requirements that states have enacted.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

that abortion surcharge or whatever it was called was the extra funding for the abortion coverage of their insurance plan, not for other people's insurance. ya know, the coverage for abortion had to billed separately so that taxpayer funds weren't used to cover the insurance coverage for it... the mistake was made when the exchange was required to provide at least one plan that didn't include coverage for abortion and failed to do that.
so, do you also have a fit about the money you pay for your insurance coverage being used for viagra, or the taxpayer's money being used for plans that cover it....or is it just when it comes to women's reproductive rights that you have a problem and feel like getting picky..

you mention in a previous post about all those poor women in other countries who are forced by their gov't to have abortions...like oh, I don't know...china?? but well dear sweet hobby lobby who suddenly developed a problem with providing birth control coverage after obamacare was passed never seemed to have a problem with buying their stock from companies in china that PLAYED A VITAL ROLE in enforcing china's one child policy!