Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
Are you saying government needs to not only fund contraceptives but it must force private insurance companies to fund them as well? If private insurance companies are able to not fund contraceptives that would certainly be an attack on birth control, don't you think?
Government not funding contraception. This is truly becoming Nazi Germany, I bet they didn't fund birth control either.
This country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
And it's all the fault of the GOP. Stupid Republicans...
It's always back and forth with me. I always have fun though.The government needs to allow private insurance companies to fund contraception under the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. I'm in favor of the government funding contraceptive services for women who have no health insurance and no other way to pay for it.
Thanks for returning to civility.
OK, no insults, check. No sarcasm, check. I will point out that no sarcasm is in fact a new rule. I'm not sure that sarcasm is in fact "uncivil" either. As for debate, we never were. Debate would involve your addressing Republicans actual position with actual statements that actually reflect their statements. You call government not funding birth control as "attacking" birth control and provide a quote that Republicans are allowing private insurers as not being required to fund birth control as government prohibiting them from funding birth control.Government not funding contraception. This is truly becoming Nazi Germany, I bet they didn't fund birth control either.
This country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
And it's all the fault of the GOP. Stupid Republicans...
So much for civil debate. Bye kaz.
It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.
Michele Bachman criticized Michelle Obama for supporting tax breaks for breast pumps and looser rules allowing women to breastfeed in the workplace, calling it an example of a "nanny state." That's where you got it, Willow. You're not smart enough to have any ideas of your own. Just repeat what you hear from the stupidest leaders of the GOP. That's all you ever do.
Oh, so now we gotta give you birth control which you will not use then feed, house, educate you babies and pump yo breasties??
SO?!?!?!?!"war on contraception"???The Pitts bill is part of the war on contraception that's being waged by House Republican leaders. They're pushing a spending plan that eliminates the Title X family planning program, which for forty years has provided contraceptives and other basic preventive health care to women in need. They're trying to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of contraceptive care. They are trying to prevent states from even exercising an option to expand contraceptive coverage under state Medicaid programs. And now, they are allowing states to deny women coverage of contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act included, as part of the compromise on abortion, a provision that made clear that nothing in the health care law would preempt state laws on abortion. H.R. 358 expands this provision, preventing the new health care law from preempting any state law - now or in the future - that has to do with "conscience rights." The Energy and Commerce Committee counsel admitted today that this provision goes WAY beyond abortion. In fact, it gives states carte blanche to undo, in the name of conscience, almost any federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act.
This loophole means that, under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
The Affordable Care Act may finally mean that all new health insurance plans will cover contraceptives. And now, under the cloak of "taxpayer funded abortion," members of the Energy and Commerce Committee admitted today that the bill would allow states to opt-out of this guarantee.
oh PAHLEEEZE
Under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
it DOES allow them toUnder H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
Are you saying government needs to not only fund contraceptives but it must force private insurance companies to fund them as well? If private insurance companies are able to not fund contraceptives that would certainly be an attack on birth control, don't you think?
It needs to allow private insurance companies to fund contraception. I'm in favor of the government funding contraceptive services for women who have no health insurance and no other way to pay for it.
Thanks for returning to civility.
SO?!?!?!?!"war on contraception"???
oh PAHLEEEZE
Under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
you cant buy your own BC?
its not that expensive
i'm pretty sure that was sarcasm,Michele Bachman criticized Michelle Obama for supporting tax breaks for breast pumps and looser rules allowing women to breastfeed in the workplace, calling it an example of a "nanny state." That's where you got it, Willow. You're not smart enough to have any ideas of your own. Just repeat what you hear from the stupidest leaders of the GOP. That's all you ever do.
Oh, so now we gotta give you birth control which you will not use then feed, house, educate you babies and pump yo breasties??
You are just talking stupid. Get some sense.
so, they will go with a different company that DOES cover itSO?!?!?!?!Under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."
you cant buy your own BC?
its not that expensive
Excuse me. Title X is not for me, it's for poor women.
so, they will go with a different company that DOES cover itSO?!?!?!?!
you cant buy your own BC?
its not that expensive
Excuse me. Title X is not for me, it's for poor women.
it just gives a company the right NOT to cover
in 1970, abortion wasnt legalso, they will go with a different company that DOES cover itExcuse me. Title X is not for me, it's for poor women.
it just gives a company the right NOT to cover
The GOP hopes with this bill to eliminate all Title X funding. Title X funds CANNOT be spent on abortion.
"Title X (ten) of the Public Service Act is a federal grant program signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive health research center, the law had broad bipartisan support and was the result of increasing concerns that low-income women were not able to get access to family planning services and had higher rates of unwanted pregnancies than more affluent women.
Title X grants, which are administered through state health departments or regional agencies, support family planning programs in 4,500 clinics serving 5 million individuals across the country. The funds, which totaled $317 million last year, are used to provide a range of reproductive health and family planning services primarily to low-income individuals. The program is run by the Department of Health and Human Services and provides funding for contraceptive counseling and supplies, STD testing, breast and cervical cancer screenings, vasectomies, hypertension and blood pressure measurement, prenatal care and sex education.
While Title X is the only federal program dedicated exclusively to reproductive health care, it isn't the only source of public funding for family planning services, or even the largest. About 12 percent of the $1.85 billion in public funds spent on family planning services in 2006 came from Title X, according to Guttmacher. The biggest chunk of funds—71 percent—came from Medicaid, a joint federal-state health program for low-income individuals and families. The remainder was funded through various federal block grants and state appropriations.
A Guide To GOP Proposals To Slash Family Planning - Kaiser Health News
in 1970, abortion wasnt legalso, they will go with a different company that DOES cover it
it just gives a company the right NOT to cover
The GOP hopes with this bill to eliminate all Title X funding. Title X funds CANNOT be spent on abortion.
"Title X (ten) of the Public Service Act is a federal grant program signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive health research center, the law had broad bipartisan support and was the result of increasing concerns that low-income women were not able to get access to family planning services and had higher rates of unwanted pregnancies than more affluent women.
Title X grants, which are administered through state health departments or regional agencies, support family planning programs in 4,500 clinics serving 5 million individuals across the country. The funds, which totaled $317 million last year, are used to provide a range of reproductive health and family planning services primarily to low-income individuals. The program is run by the Department of Health and Human Services and provides funding for contraceptive counseling and supplies, STD testing, breast and cervical cancer screenings, vasectomies, hypertension and blood pressure measurement, prenatal care and sex education.
While Title X is the only federal program dedicated exclusively to reproductive health care, it isn't the only source of public funding for family planning services, or even the largest. About 12 percent of the $1.85 billion in public funds spent on family planning services in 2006 came from Title X, according to Guttmacher. The biggest chunk of funds71 percentcame from Medicaid, a joint federal-state health program for low-income individuals and families. The remainder was funded through various federal block grants and state appropriations.
A Guide To GOP Proposals To Slash Family Planning - Kaiser Health News
You have to understand the liberal mind. If government doesn't require it, government is forbidding it. Also, if government doesn't fund it, government is forbidding it. Why? Because government is fair, companies aren't. So for government to allow companies to not fund birth control is the same in the end as forbidding it because greedy companies won't do it unless they are forced to do it. So to not say that government is forbidding it is in fact a lie because it implies companies have a choice. Their greed removes that choice, it's the same.it DOES allow them to
it also allows them not to be REQUIRED TO
see the difference?
Not enough to help them yourself, only enough to allow a Democrat to do it for you. Such a shallow conviction's not worth much anyway. If it meant something you'd do something about it yourself, not argue for your political hack's ability to do it for you.Obviously, not every citizen cares whether poor women get healthcare. I do.
WTF are you to dictate to me or to any woman what she should do with her body?
Two points:
I'm not telling you what you can or can not do, but rather what you should do. there's a difference. Angry indignation from leftists is an old song. It's dull and tiresome. you should stop trying to sing it because it's a bad song. Are you so highly placed that you can say for certain when life begins? Are you God?
second, it isn't only your body, or are you so mindlessly selfish and inconsiderate that you forgot that no matter how or why, you're carrying another person around inside you. Calling that a part of your body to do with what you like is not too dissimilar from shooting someone in your car and saying that it wasn't murder because the person belonged to you, since that person was in the car that belonged to you. You'll rant at the analogy, but tough shit. Murder your own kid if you feel the need, but don't go around espousing it to others.
Not every American believes in God. Not every American believes that each and every zygote is a "person". You are entitled to your POV and there are ways to ensure you never inceminate a woman who does not want to be pregnant -- in fact, we began this thread discussing the insanity of limiting access to birth control, if I remember correctly.
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.
I agree with your sentiment, but why don't liberals ever say "I" instead of "the state?" Why don't you raise money for it? I'll contribute.
Kaz, paying taxes = "raising money for birth control". What's your gripe about public funds for public health?
The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.
It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?
The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.
It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?
How about we add those abortions to the tab that the perpetrators of those crimes has to pay? I have much less of an issue paying for assisting victims of rape, but I'm still not totally convinced that it's the responsibility of the Government to do so. That's really where PRIVATE Charitable Organizations should be stepping in, so far as I'm concerned.
Except that private charities never have, and never will, Anachronism. I have no heartburn over compelling criminals to pay victims, where possible. I do have heartburn over compounding a crime victim's suffering by forcing her to bear her rapist's child.
