House GOPers War On Birth Control

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

Hey, anybody who wants to argue on the facts of the law is free to do so. I'm not God and I like a good meaty discussion.

But this will go on a while yet. You don't know our Cecile. Hungry?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Has everyone noticed that we never heard a peep about abortion, birth control, etc. when Republicans controlled the whole government?

They could have passed what they wanted. They didn't, because they could care less. They only use it when Democrats are in power, for political points with their base.

Then you must not have been listening . . . which, I'll admit, comes as no surprise whatsoever.

The last time the Republicans gained control of Congress was 2003.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

If someone "didn't hear a peep" about abortion during that Congress, he must have had cotton in his ears and his head under a rock.

 

[DiveCon]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

no, she hasnt
shes said it is possible they MIGHT be right on one point, but that they took a small fragment and wove it into something it actually isnt


at least that is my take on what goldcatt said

 

[Cecilie1200]

Health insurance companies do not usually want a flood of business....how many ads do you see on tv for health insurance (other than Medicare plans) as opposed to auto insurance or life insurance? This is already a seller's market. And it does not take a genius to figure out that the fewer covered benefits they offer, the more profitable the plans will be.

if people dont like the coverage, they wont buy the insurance
hell, most people get theirs as part of an employment package
thats why you dont see ads on TV About them

I am not still fretting about whether the WLC messed up the analysis of this bill, Divey. I dun feel like arm-wrestling but as far as I know, health insurance is a seller's market virtually everywhere in the US.

In other words, they lied, she knows they lied, but she's incapable of admitting that she's a dupe, they're a bunch of lying bitches, and she's made an utter fool of herself . . . again.

 

[McDowell's]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

Hey, anybody who wants to argue on the facts of the law is free to do so. I'm not God and I like a good meaty discussion.

But this will go on a while yet. You don't know our Cecile. Hungry?

I generally agree with you that this will allow states to make exemptions based upon conscientious objections. I don't agree with Madeline pretending her posts throughout this thread were accurate. First, this will not set back women's reproductive rights 100 years. Second, there is no basis for States to outright ban abortion/contraceptive coverage in this bill.

 

[McDowell's]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

no, she hasnt
shes said it is possible they MIGHT be right on one point, but that they took a small fragment and wove it into something it actually isnt


at least that is my take on what goldcatt said

I was being sarcastic.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

no, she hasnt
shes said it is possible they MIGHT be right on one point, but that they took a small fragment and wove it into something it actually isnt


at least that is my take on what goldcatt said

I said their analysis of the law itself appears to be correct.

Their characterization of it as an all-out "war" on contraception is not.

The possibility of it being used that way exists, certainly. Will it? I don't have the evidence on that to make the call.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Read the bill. Read the analysis of the bill in the article I linked in the Op. If you disagree with the analysis, bring it on...I am happy to hear all about it.

But claiming that because you cannot find the words "no health insurance policy may cover birth control or its attendant costs" supports your conclusion that the analysis is wrong is foolish. As you may have noticed, Newby, not all legislation with a bad or controversial intent is written so that the average fourth grader can understand.

So, in other words, you haven't a clue as to what you are saying. Thanks Maddie.

why do people do that sort of thing?

she answered you.

read with comprehension.

Her answer was, "Just because the analysis said it was there and it isn't doesn't mean the analysis was wrong." THAT would be why people tell her she hasn't a clue what she's saying: because she doesn't. The more you read for comprehension, the more you realize that Mad's an idiot and a tool.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

no, she hasnt
shes said it is possible they MIGHT be right on one point, but that they took a small fragment and wove it into something it actually isnt


at least that is my take on what goldcatt said

I was being sarcastic.

I'm open to different interpretations, as I've said repeatedly. I laid out my thesis. The info is all there, the links are posted in this thread to every piece of law involved. I'm seeing lots of bullshit and attacking the messenger. If you have a different opinion, let's hear it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

that's vile.

So having standards and values that do not include a middle ground is now "vile"? Okay. If you say so. I was raised with a certain set of morals, values, and ideals. It was made very clear to me from a young age that when I was old enough to be on my own, I would get the opportunity to decide which of those to embrace for myself. It was also made very clear that if I chose to embrace alternative ideals that there would be no place for me in that family. I still got to make the choice; but I was made WELL AWARE of what the ramifications of choosing otherwise would be.

Personally, I think we'd all be a lot better off if that sort of philosophy existed in a lot more of the homes and families in this country these days.

Apparently, it's now more vile to shun family members who commit heinous acts than it is for them to commit the heinous acts.

Once upon a time, it was considered obvious that if someone was convicted of murder, most of not all of their relatives would have nothing to do with them. Now, you're considered immoral - even more immoral than the murderer - if you don't shag ass up to the prison to see them every visiting day. And killing an unborn child? That's actually supposed to elicit SYMPATHY.

Sorry, but no. I told my daughter that if she got pregnant, I'd help her out, or I'd support her decision to put the baby up for adoption if she really had to. But if she killed my grandchild, she could consider herself as dead to me as anyone else who killed my grandchild would be.

And no, for the record, if she murdered someone, I wouldn't visit her in prison, either.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

Hey, anybody who wants to argue on the facts of the law is free to do so. I'm not God and I like a good meaty discussion.

But this will go on a while yet. You don't know our Cecile. Hungry?

I generally agree with you that this will allow states to make exemptions based upon conscientious objections. I don't agree with Madeline pretending her posts throughout this thread were accurate. First, this will not set back women's reproductive rights 100 years. Second, there is no basis for States to outright ban abortion/contraceptive coverage in this bill.

Sorry, I missed this.

I don't speak for Madeline, she can hold her own and stand by her own posts.

No, there is no basis for States to outright ban contraceptive coverage. BUT there is an opportunity for insurers, as defined health care providers under the statute, to opt out of anything from contraception to provision of certain medications to organ transplants to hospice care or anything else as a matter of "conscience" if the State includes those things in their conscience provisions. And there is nothing that can be done about it.

That's the concern for me. Contraception is only the tip of the iceberg, it will take away choice and availability in coverage on a multitude of services depending on the State. Those providers who do offer services that fall under State conscience provisions will have less competition, so costs will go up. The balance will be picked up by government programs such as MC and MA or eaten by the provider.

Not an improvement, IMO. Abortion funding is already banned in the current language, why divorce the conscience provisions if not to shield the insurers?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Vote Democrat, we'll pay for your IUD by taking money from people that used to be able to buy it until we took all their money to pay for shit for other people.

If you can't afford to have a baby, don't have sex... If you can't pay for BC don't have sex. If you're to fucking dumb to not have protected sex then why should others pay for your abortion?

Do liberals say no to ANY spending????? Oh, sure they do, as long as a Republican is doing it.

Neocons, everywhere wtf...

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

Do you understand human beings at all?
God gave us people the one thing that no other creature on earth possesses. That is the power reason and make judgements. That said, you are so wrong. Lower species get to act on their impulses. We DO NOT. It's called self control. With lack of self control comes the potential for consequences. So while no one is suggesting that a poor married couple not have sex, what is being is they should consider the potential consequences of their 15 -20 minutes of "sexual urges"...Because once the money shot and all the sweating is over with, there is a strong possibility the trouble is just beginning.
Now, as for your notion that those of us who are in opposition to your point of view not wanting to allow or making illegal one's urge to have sex....don't post that again. Because it isn't true.
Either show some factual evidence to support your argument or move on. Either way, stop emoting.

Y'know, I'M one half of a "poor married couple" - or, at least, a married couple who didn't want the hassle and expense of any more children - and I never felt compelled into a "demand taxpayer-supported abortions or forego sex" situation. I just had my tubes tied.

I really fail to understand people who have to make everything into melodrama.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey, anybody who wants to argue on the facts of the law is free to do so. I'm not God and I like a good meaty discussion.

But this will go on a while yet. You don't know our Cecile. Hungry?

I generally agree with you that this will allow states to make exemptions based upon conscientious objections. I don't agree with Madeline pretending her posts throughout this thread were accurate. First, this will not set back women's reproductive rights 100 years. Second, there is no basis for States to outright ban abortion/contraceptive coverage in this bill.

Sorry, I missed this.

I don't speak for Madeline, she can hold her own and stand by her own posts.

No, there is no basis for States to outright ban contraceptive coverage. BUT there is an opportunity for insurers, as defined health care providers under the statute, to opt out of anything from contraception to provision of certain medications to organ transplants to hospice care or anything else as a matter of "conscience" if the State includes those things in their conscience provisions. And there is nothing that can be done about it.

That's the concern for me. Contraception is only the tip of the iceberg, it will take away choice and availability in coverage on a multitude of services depending on the State. Those providers who do offer services that fall under State conscience provisions will have less competition, so costs will go up. The balance will be picked up by government programs such as MC and MA or eaten by the provider.

Not an improvement, IMO. Abortion funding is already banned in the current language, why divorce the conscience provisions if not to shield the insurers?

But that doesn't matter to the ideologues.
It makes practical sense.

 

[Gadawg73]

Vote Democrat, we'll pay for your IUD by taking money from people that used to be able to buy it until we took all their money to pay for shit for other people.

If you can't afford to have a baby, don't have sex... If you can't pay for BC don't have sex. If you're to fucking dumb to not have protected sex then why should others pay for your abortion?

Do liberals say no to ANY spending????? Oh, sure they do, as long as a Republican is doing it.

Neocons, everywhere wtf...

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

Do you understand human beings at all?
God gave us people the one thing that no other creature on earth possesses. That is the power reason and make judgements. That said, you are so wrong. Lower species get to act on their impulses. We DO NOT. It's called self control. With lack of self control comes the potential for consequences. So while no one is suggesting that a poor married couple not have sex, what is being is they should consider the potential consequences of their 15 -20 minutes of "sexual urges"...Because once the money shot and all the sweating is over with, there is a strong possibility the trouble is just beginning.
Now, as for your notion that those of us who are in opposition to your point of view not wanting to allow or making illegal one's urge to have sex....don't post that again. Because it isn't true.
Either show some factual evidence to support your argument or move on. Either way, stop emoting.

Do you want facts?
You can not handle the facts.
FACT is when a male is 16-20something a blue throbber has NO SENSE and NO CONSCIENCE.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Angry yet? I know I'd like to punch someone.

These guys did say they would be all about jobs, am I correct? And instead, they're about setting back women's rights 100 years?

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are three:

1) While I'm pro-choice, your reference to abortion as "birth control" is depraved

2) The reason you change abortion to birth control is that you can't be honest about what the real issue

3) I am intellectually consistent, I am against this and all federal government mandates on private insurance. I'm guessing you're not. I'd bet big money on it. Your issue is wanting abortions funded, you're not objecting to the Federal intrusion.

Re-read the Op before you shove me off a cliff. The NWLC used the word "contraception" in their analysis. I may have to watch Divey do the "I was right and you were wrong dance", but I am not a hide the pea kinda gal.

If the bill only concerns abortion, I will admit I was wrong and start over bellyaching about abortion rights. As of now, I'm trying to get a clarification from the NWLC and from another lawyer.

And it only took 11 pages of listening to her rant before she FINALLY engaged her brain and checked the source documents.

Yup. I don't really wonder why it took until 1920 for women to finally be allowed to vote. Who the hell wants all that glandular thinking making government decisions?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

In other words, people act on blind, animal urges to have sex, and then kill the unwanted child out of convenience. Man, that's some admission.

Here's a newsflash: people have sex. They always will. Once you've had some, you may understand why.

Here's a newsflash: People use reason and logic. Once you've tried some, you may understand why.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, in brief, it is complicated but it is possible the NWLC's analysis is correct.

I am unbowed!

I owe you deeply, mah more articulate sista.

If you consider spin, lies and distortion to be "correct" then yes, it is correct

Mad considers anything that supports her emotional desire for how the world should be to be correct. Piddly shit like reality, logic, and reason are much to "masculine" for her to bother with. Women are much more "intuitive thinkers" than that, didn't you know?

Like I said, she's a cartoon of every negative female stereotype in existence. Listening to her makes me cringe on behalf of women everywhere.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Goldcatt already sort of declared Madeline the victor of this thread. Sorry you're wasting your time, Cecilie.

Speaking of another one who's an embarrassment to everyone with a vagina and a functioning brain . . .

Think about it. One of the things men complain about the most with women is the way they just declare themselves the automatic winner in every argument, and then cry and pout until men throw up their hands and give them what they want just to shut them up. Right?

I give you Goldcatt and Mad as Exhibits One and Two. They're like a running joke about the evils of women.

 

[snjmom]

I skipped from page 1 to page 15 and have only this to say. The state should be falling over themselves to fund anything that helps people who can't afford to raise children, not have them.

 

[goldcatt]

I generally agree with you that this will allow states to make exemptions based upon conscientious objections. I don't agree with Madeline pretending her posts throughout this thread were accurate. First, this will not set back women's reproductive rights 100 years. Second, there is no basis for States to outright ban abortion/contraceptive coverage in this bill.

Sorry, I missed this.

I don't speak for Madeline, she can hold her own and stand by her own posts.

No, there is no basis for States to outright ban contraceptive coverage. BUT there is an opportunity for insurers, as defined health care providers under the statute, to opt out of anything from contraception to provision of certain medications to organ transplants to hospice care or anything else as a matter of "conscience" if the State includes those things in their conscience provisions. And there is nothing that can be done about it.

That's the concern for me. Contraception is only the tip of the iceberg, it will take away choice and availability in coverage on a multitude of services depending on the State. Those providers who do offer services that fall under State conscience provisions will have less competition, so costs will go up. The balance will be picked up by government programs such as MC and MA or eaten by the provider.

Not an improvement, IMO. Abortion funding is already banned in the current language, why divorce the conscience provisions if not to shield the insurers?

But that doesn't matter to the ideologues.
It makes practical sense.

I think he and I actually substantially agree as far as the legal provision goes.

But then again, I'm on cold medicine and shouldn't presume to speak for him.