Contraceptive Insurance: The Standpoint of a Political Conservative

reply to post by spinalremain


So equating hearing aids to condoms and abortion pills doesn't matter what you think doesn't matter what the Government thinks.

There are 2 options:

Abstain
Pay for it themselves.

But wait they are paying for themselves and someone else yeah that makes alot of sense.

I have a love-hate relationship with this topic. I believe that hormonal birth control is fracking up a significant number of things. However, I'm not going to stop you from taking it.

Between an increase in population of unwanted children and abortions, or socializing the cost of contraceptives, I believe that one choice is much cheaper and more humane.

At some point society is involved in this equation, and the cheapest and least interventionist point seems to be the most reasonable one to me.

I'll add as a separate point - that insurance agencies are totally willing to pick up the tab for a massive (mostly recreational) amount of "male enhancement" products while holding out on female-used contraception annoys me to no end.

reply to post by Aim64C


Essentially if the religious group is paying for the insurance.. they should be permitted to dictate what it is you get. If you pay for it, it's none of their business. Not all religious insurance policies are 100% paid by the employer, often the individual pays 50% or more.. if that's the case, the church imo has no right to say anything regarding the care.

But ultimately what it comes down to is the Federal Government over stepping it's boundaries .. it has no right to dictate legal contracts between insurance providers and employers.

reply to post by spinalremain

Men who don't have sex are complaining about an issue that concerns women who have sex.

It's not just the Catholics. However, should the government mandate that all health insurance companies cover vision correction?

It's no one's fault they are born with sub-optimal eyes. The factors extend even outside of genetics and gestation environment and difficult to calculate risk.

You see where I'm going with this, don't you?

Do I have that right?

We have the right to complain about anything.

As well as the right to remain silent.

Some people choose to not be discerning.

Right. They want to take Gov funds but they want to use it however they like.

This is, generally, not the case. The concept of separating church and state was originally meant to pertain to finances (so that neither religion nor government could control the other via purse-strings). Any grants given to churches are grants open to any volunteer organization and come with the same caveats applied to their deposition.

(I imagine hiding and moving child rapers from parish to parish around the country can get quite expensive)

That baseless, broad sweeping generalization is neither here nor there to the issue at hand.

However, perhaps if I were to submit to my senator a piece of legislation that, among other things, mandated ISPs to provide ("free of charge") parental control software and virus protection programs with their internet service, you'd start to think a little less categorically about this issue.

Why should you have to pay for parental control software through your internet bill when you don't have kids (or don't think you should have arbitrary restrictions set on your child's use of the internet).

I could make a convincing argument on the floor of the Senate for the benefits such legislation would provide to National Security, consumer confidence/security, and how good it would be for the kids (and if you don't support it, you must be in favor of internet sexual predators and 419 scam artists).

Originally posted by Aeons
I'll add as a separate point - that insurance agencies are totally willing to pick up the tab for a massive (mostly recreational) amount of "male enhancement" products while holding out on female-used contraception annoys me to no end.

Me too.

Male enhancement is considered a medical problem.

Contraceptives are considered an elective choice.

Argh!

For starters I am a Conservative.

My personal belief on contraceptive insurance is HELL NO ! ! !

Why should "We the People" pay for condoms, birth control pills, etc... Engaging in sexual intercourse is a personal choice. If you want to avoid getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant use condom, there fairly cheep and can be found at every drug store, party store, Seven Eleven, Gas Station, Target, Meijers, Walmart, and just about every cheep motel that rents buy the hour.

This is not about access to birth control its about who pay for it. And the easiest way to avoid pregnancy is to avoid sexual intercourse. If you chose to knock boots or do the horizontal mambo unprotected you know the possible end result.

If you going to engage in sex which is you own choice, make sure you are prepared or keep it in your pants.

reply to post by Annee

Male enhancement is considered a medical problem.

Since I'm feeling argumentative, I'll bite.

Erectile dysfunction is a phenomena caused by failure of the body to work "as advertised."

Contraceptives are considered an elective choice.

Whereas contraceptives are designed specifically to inhibit the normal reproductive function of the body.

Regardless, it should not be the government that mandates your insurance to offer the coverage. If you want the coverage, select a plan that covers it. If you force all insurance companies to be the same, then it really doesn't give the consumer any power.

Originally posted by JBRiddle
This is not about access to birth control its about who pay for it.

No - - its about who pays for all the unwanted kids as a result of not having access to birth control.

The cost of contraceptives is miniscule to the cost of an unwanted child.

reply to post by Annee

No - - its about who pays for all the unwanted kids as a result of not having access to birth control.

Because, God Forbid, we exercise a bit of discretion, or common sense.

Perhaps you could clarify how, exactly, insurance-provided contraception is going to increase availability to contraception when a box of condoms can be had for under $5 at almost any retail establishment, and "the pill" is available at a cost between $15-50 per month.

The average young adult spends more on their online gaming addictions that they magically produce money to sate regardless of employment status.

The cost of contraceptives is miniscule to the cost of an unwanted child.

Hmm....

Food for thought. I don't have any unwanted kids. Do you know how I know this?

Male enhancement is considered a medical problem. Contraceptives are considered an elective choice

So men having sex is good to pay for, but women having sex is bad? What the hell kind of logic is that? It sound like to want to just subsidize gay sex to me.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Perhaps you could clarify how, exactly, insurance-provided contraception is going to increase availability to contraception when a box of condoms can be had for under $5 at almost any retail establishment, and "the pill" is available at a cost between $15-50 per month.

Both contraceptive and condoms should be used together. People are different. This is not a "one fits all" situation. I have 2 grandchildren because the rubber broke.

The cost of contraceptives is miniscule to the cost of an unwanted child.

Hmm....

Food for thought. I don't have any unwanted kids. Do you know how I know this?

ME ME ME ME - - its all about ME

You're a guy - aren't you.

Originally posted by CB328

Male enhancement is considered a medical problem. Contraceptives are considered an elective choice

So men having sex is good to pay for, but women having sex is bad? What the hell kind of logic is that? It sound like to want to just subsidize gay sex to me.

Where did you pull gay sex out of that?

Bizarre.

An Insurance Companies right to opperate or be able to get a licence falls under the jurisdiction of the State and Federal Goverment. This has nothing to do with religion as in the U.S. Religious doctrine does not drive what is the right of the individual.
If you don't want to use a condom...or take the pill or any other type of contraception Plan B or whatever....no one can force you to....the rights of another individual who wants or needs this contraception.....must be covered under the laws of the land...that being...SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
A Sperm Cell or and Egg Cell whether they have achieved fertilization or not is not an issue....it is up to the individuals choice not some religious belief.
Plus all of this arguement is over a bunch of cells that shortly after fertilization as in the case of plan B...are existing in such a small quantity and simple construct that it is not a question if it is alive...it is...the SPERM AND THE EGG CELLS were alive long before fertilization....they are just not self aware or SENTIENT. A Mold spore is ALIVE....an eggplant....is Millions of times more developed and closer to sentience than a one or two day old clump of Human cells....they are not SENTIENT. There should be no arguement. Split Infinity

reply to post by Annee

Both contraceptive and condoms should be used together. People are different. This is not a "one fits all" situation. I have 2 grandchildren because the rubber broke.

Okay.

Why does an insurance company need to cover the cost of something I can, literally, walk down the street and acquire with what is sitting in my wallet, right now? I can write a check for the doctor's visit and it clear with plenty of head-room.

ME ME ME ME - - its all about ME

I was going to wait a little longer before unveiling the meaning of life... but... thanks for ruining the surprise.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have too much fun with them.

You're a guy - aren't you.

Another novel observation. In theory - I can go about, dipping my stick into whatever hole comes along, with very few realistic consequences (many girls around here wouldn't even be able to begin to guess at the father's identity).

And, yet - I recall some words my father gave me during "the talk." It was quite direct and to the point. "Contraceptives don't always work. Any time you have sex, you could get someone pregnant. Unless you are willing to accept the responsibilities of a child with that person, do not have sex."

I've not yet met someone I feel secure enough with to have a child. Thus, I have not had sex.

Does that mean that I think sex is "for reproduction?" Its biological function is obvious - it feels good and is an expression of attraction because the survival of our species depends upon it. I hold myself above the standards of barnyard animals, and recognize that the risk is not worth the temporary gratification until I'm secure enough to handle the risk.

And I'm a guy. It's considered "honorable" for a guy to stick around if he gets a girl pregnant unintentionally.

A girl, on the other hand, should be even more discerning; considering her end of the bargain. It's expected she carry the child to term and make the attempt to raise it properly (and it doesn't bare repeating what she is called if she chooses abortion or adoption).

The problem, it would seem, is not a lack of contraceptive availability (where was this problem prior to 1952?). The problem rests with a failure of society to treat sex with the respect it deserves. All of the railing against GMOs, "chemical foods," and "radiation exposure" in our society... yet we are more discerning of what food we stick in our mouth as opposed to whose bodily fluids we are swimming in.

Little inverted, no?

Further... why not just pass legislation that makes "the pill" an over-the-counter contraceptive? That would completely eliminate the concept of needing insurance companies to cover a $150 doctor's visit once or twice a year.

Or do we need a doctor to tell them what chemicals are okay to stick in their bodies? (When we defend their right to stick whatever into whomever)

.... Methinks our priorities are a little skewed.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

An Insurance Companies right to opperate or be able to get a licence falls under the jurisdiction of the State and Federal Goverment.

I wasn't aware the Federal Government was granted the authority to regulate business licensing. No such authority is granted under the Constitution or its amendments.

The State government, however, has every right to establish licensing laws. The complete lack of Federal domain means that States can, legally, formulate any set of laws and criteria governing business they so desire; so long as it is developed in accordance with their State's constitution.

If you don't want to use a condom...or take the pill or any other type of contraception Plan B or whatever....no one can force you to....the rights of another individual who wants or needs this contraception.....must be covered under the laws of the land.

Wait... what?

I'll recycle the argument I used, earlier.

Everyone should have virus protection on their computer, right? It helps to protect them from malicious programs that can put their finances, identity, and even personal security at risk.

As such, the Government needs to ensure that every person who wants it can have access to it. Because of this, any company contracting internet service to a customer must, also, provide virus protection ("free of charge") to the customer under the proposed legislation.

You use AVG - a free program, but not considered up-to-snuff by the legislation's arbitrary standards (correct or incorrect, it is the law). Your internet provider still has to provide you with a valid software license. As such, your internet premiums will have to go up - IE - you are being made to pay for a program that you don't use and don't want because someone else has been deemed to require it.

Does that put the issue in a less emotionally-charged context for you?

reply to post by Aim64C


Actually your reasoning is completely sexist. You used a an apples and oranges scenario, but made them fit one round peg.

Pick your topic. Is your topic about sex being an option, not a need, sort of like a hobby, or is it about the biological differences between men and women.

If your living in a real equal society, where men and women are equal, and you don't want to fund things to do with sexuality, because your premise is sex is a hobby, not a need, then you would not pay for erectile meds and enhancements for men or birth control for women.

Because it doesnt matter if the equipment is functioning well or not, sexual function is not a necessity.

On the other hand, if you are actually thinking that sex is a need, but due to bodies being different (EGADS WE LEARNT THAT AS A CHILD AND EACH TYPE OF BODY IS EQUAL, THE ONES THAT NEED ERECTIONS, AND THE ONES THAT DON'T NEED ERECTIONS) then you would realize that the same round peg law, doesnt work for the sex that is the square peg and you would have to tailor the laws to each sex for their differing but equal bodies. Now that sex is considered a need.

Both men and women make the babies my dear.

And the cost of children is extreme, and for teenagers, often paid for by the state.

And male forms don't count more than female.

Yeah, women need to be protected from unwanted pregnancies and if you havent learn a thing about birth control and realized that condoms alone are not recommended by any doctor for decades, published in every medical journal, in sex education programs, in the news paper, then hmmmm....... sort of lacking an education.

Women have the extra need of pregancy protection to be equalized for the body types.

In our Canadian constitution equality is SUBSTANTIVE, that means you equalize situations. Otherwise Equality means nothing.

If I was a conservative, I would pay for all the prevention for pregnancies I could but not pay for the erectile meds, or enhancements. That would the priority for saving the state costs.

Now I'm not understanding this issue either by the way.

Are you saying that your medical service plans, ie the cost of the doctors appointment or clinic visit, is not covered for reproductive issues????

Because if this is a big controversy and up until now it hasn't been covered, then compared to the rest of the modern world, you guys really have been shafted. Thats always covered. I really don't understand why anyone in your country has not forced normal changes long long ago.

This post is not to disparage you personally but the assertion that your argument is Conservative. It may seem Conservative but is in fact a Right-Liberal argument; the same as the argument that this law is wrong because it violates Catholic’s conscience or that the First Amendment protects against such intrusion. I, along with the other Traditionalist Conservatives, would like to give our position on the subject.

The argument that HHS mandate is wrong because it violates our conscience or some right is defending a Conservative position with Liberal language. Stop it – now. This is suggesting that religion is purely a private matter whereas Catholicism has been, and will hopefully continue to be, a force for arguing against privatizing religion. Ceding that religious beliefs of right and wrong are simply dependent upon those subscribers to Catholicism is not what the Church should accept as a valid argument; what is wrong in Catholic social teachings is wrong, regardless of your faith or lack thereof.

But the argument is far deeper than just contraception. It is about the fundamental control over society, a century’s long struggle between Catholicism and Liberalism. Whereas Liberals proclaim humans are naturally free and autonomous, bound only by laws which regulate physical behavior which results in physical harm. Thus Liberals assert that people should not be limited in their natural rights except where it can cause harm to another; otherwise the state should be neutral. So Liberalism asserts Rights as superior to any notion of “good” and the state should aim for fairness in protecting and expanding the sphere of individual liberty while balancing claims to potential harms.

This is where the conflict since the Enlightenment between Liberalism and Catholicism arises. In Catholic teachings there is a specific “good” which must be understood and enforced, which has been the cause for Catholics to erect many institutions under their authority to live out their conception of the “good”. In this regard Catholics cannot hold their religion as private but instead as the fundamental understanding of the world, thus clashing with Liberalism. Through this conception of the “good” Catholics cannot simply allow the state to proscribe what is good or not, because there is a higher authority than the state to which we answer.

We Catholics view human nature as entirely different as Liberals. Man is not inherently free and independent; we are members of the Body of Christ. Naturally we are social and political animals; requiring law, culture, and religion for proper order. Law is not meant simply to prevent harm but is derived from, and meant to advance, the “good”. This means that the law must be derived from Divine law, restricting human behavior so as to prevent sin and self-destruction; so virtue is necessary both within a legal context and a personal context. Merely protecting the “right”, as the Liberal state does, is not what society is meant to do; it must protect the “good”. However this does not mean the Church and State must be one; rather the State must ground its legal vision within Church doctrine.

The Church’s law in regards to contraception is being treated as though so long as the doctrine is not enforced outside of the Church, it should be ignored and not intruded upon by the state. That is the argument we hear, even from Catholics, instead of the argument that the Church doctrine is inherently right and good. Strictures pertaining to birth control are not taught as merely faith-based laws applicable only to Catholics; it is right, regardless of religious beliefs.

Now, very few will remember but Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” warned about four important consequences stemming from the widespread use of contraceptives and birth control:

• General lowering of moral standards
• A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
• The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
• Government coercion in reproductive matters.

How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution? Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 days. Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8% [PDF]. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just 48 percent of them. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960.

And if you don't think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? Government coercion: just look to China (or America, where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we're talking about this right now).

Business Insider

Of course not all of the problems can be tied back to birth control alone, but you are kidding yourself to deny that the Pope was not prophetic. The problem is one that the Church recognizes. Just because you do not physically harm someone does not mean harm has not been done to society. Liberalism asserts that individual autonomy is most important and that any social ills caused should be corrected by the state if necessary, and if it does not infringe upon individual rights. Catholicism asserts that society is itself autonomous and any actions within it which are aimed at individual satisfaction will be destructive. The Church holds this view for everything from sex and gambling to economics and trade. Liberalism says the state should be indifferent to individual desires while Catholicism teaches that some desires are inherently wrong and destructive for the social fabric of a community.

However as the fourth point in the Pope’s prophetic summation points out, the state will turn its back on belief in autonomy. They would remove the veil of indifference and begin to attack institutions holding onto an opposing world view. So the state would force Liberalism and freedom on people holding onto self-limiting views with the barrel of a gun if need be. To those who cannot yet see it, this is more than a debate over contraception; it is a debate over world views which are still feuding. Now that one has the clear upper hand it is seeking to enforce its vision on the other, even if it means violating some of its own assertions about “rights” to do so.

Front Porch Republic – Religious Liberty

Originally posted by Misoir


Now, very few will remember but Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” warned about four important consequences stemming from the widespread use of contraceptives and birth control:

• General lowering of moral standards
• A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
• The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
• Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Spot On!


Would love to see anyone argue this.

BTW,You really should have made your own thread on this. This is very well written,and thought out.