Obama Administration announces birth control is required coverage in employer health plans - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/20/obama-administration-guarantees-women-better-access-to-birth-control/[/URL] [QUOTE][B]Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius announced today that birth control will now be required coverage in the vast majority of employer sponsored health insurance plans.[/B] From [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/20/407994/obama-administration-approves-rule-that-guarantees-near-universal-contraceptive-coverage/"]Think Progress[/URL]: Opponents of contraception had [URL="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Catholic-Leaders_Protect-Conscience-Rights_12-21-11-pdf.pdf"]lobbied hard[/URL] for a broad exemption that would have allowed any religiously-affiliated employer to opt out of providing such coverage. Fortunately, the Obama administration rejected that push and decided to maintain the narrow religious exemption that it initially proposed. Only houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be [URL="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/pdf/2011-19684.pdf"]exempt[/URL]. Religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule. [URL="http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf"]Twenty-eight states[/URL] already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost. [B]Institutions that almost exclusively employ and serve members of a particular religion, like a Catholic church, may be exempt from the ruling. On the other hand, institutions like a Catholic hospital, which employ and serve the community at large, would be required to comply.[/B] Greater access to birth control will help ensure not just fewer unwanted pregnancies, but fewer abortions, a move that conservatives [I]should[/I] be for, but look for blowback from the conservative community, especially on the religious right. Institutions will have until January of 2014 to comply. [/QUOTE] Fantastic news. The article nails it: fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, something that SHOULD be pleasing all sides.

we're basically paying for young girls to have sex and smoke drugs while listening to gangster rap!

-snip-

[QUOTE=thisispain;34310626]we're basically paying for young girls to have sex and smoke drugs while listening to gangster rap![/QUOTE] Made me smile, but then I realized there's a large amount of people who actually believes this.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/hFjXg.png[/img] seriously though this is good

[QUOTE=djshox;34310582][URL]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/20/obama-administration-guarantees-women-better-access-to-birth-control/[/URL] Fantastic news. The article nails it: fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, something that SHOULD be pleasing all sides.[/QUOTE] Employers wont like that they have to pay more for insurance.

[QUOTE=djshox;34310582] Fantastic news. The article nails it: fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, something that SHOULD be pleasing all sides.[/QUOTE] A lot of people on "the other side" believe that birth control is wrong and immoral, so it probably won't please all sides.

[QUOTE=Noble;34310775]A lot of people on "the other side" believe that birth control is wrong and immoral, so it probably won't please all sides.[/QUOTE] Fuck them.

[QUOTE=Noble;34310775]A lot of people on "the other side" believe that birth control is wrong and immoral, so it probably won't please all sides.[/QUOTE] Thing I really hate about people like that is sometimes the mother has no choice, since the baby will just be dead at birth anyway or under certain circumstances not having an abortion would mean that it would kill them.

I can see the Fox headline now. OBAMA GOVERNMENT KILLS BILLIONS OF POTENTIAL HUMAN LIVES, MORE AT 11.

neat

[quote]Opponents of contraception had lobbied hard for a broad exemption that would have allowed any religiously-affiliated employer to opt out of providing such coverage.[/quote] I'm really surprised they haven't lobbied for the entire thing to be taken out. Maybe they're finally starting to learn their boundaries. [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/rainbow.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Noble;34310775]A lot of people on "the other side" believe that birth control is wrong and immoral, so it probably won't please all sides.[/QUOTE] Their beliefs and morals are not necessarily mine, I should not be forced to live by theirs (within reason ofcourse). If I want to wear a condom, I'll wear a condom and there isn't be a single goddamn person who has the right to tell me not to.

[QUOTE=Noble;34310775]A lot of people on "the other side" believe that birth control is wrong and immoral, so it probably won't please all sides.[/QUOTE] Yep. Technically hormonal forms of contraceptives can function as abortifacients, so plenty of pro-lifers are opposed to them.

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;34311080]Their beliefs and morals are not necessarily mine, I should not be forced to live by theirs (within reason ofcourse). If I want to wear a condom, I'll wear a condom and there isn't be a single goddamn person who has the right to tell me not to.[/QUOTE] Them spouting sanctimonious bullshit is one thing whereas forcing them to pay for birth control for other people is another matter entirely. It's not right for them to say, lobby to prevent birth control from being sold over the counter, at the same time it's not right for you to tell the government to throw condoms from helicopters. Neither position is any more morally right than the other.

[QUOTE=s0beit;34313455] It's not right for them to say, lobby to prevent birth control from being sold over the counter, at the same time it's not right for you to tell the government to throw condoms from helicopters. Neither position is any more morally right than the other.[/QUOTE] uh that's not true. everyone benefits from condoms. so that position is definitely more morally correct. no-one benefits from not having birth control over the counter.

[QUOTE=Noble;34310775]A lot of people on "the other side" believe that birth control is wrong and immoral, so it probably won't please all sides.[/QUOTE] I think that's what he's saying. It's a good solution to unwanted pregnancies but the right is just NOPE NOPE THAT'S CHEATING, NO SEX. [QUOTE]Greater access to birth control will help ensure not just fewer unwanted pregnancies, but fewer abortions, [b]a move that conservatives should be for, but look for blowback from the conservative community, especially on the religious right.[/b][/QUOTE]

Life begins at ejaculation!

life begins at the time people stop showering and fungus starts growing underneath their armpits.

Excuse me, I'm going to go celebrate this good news in the most fitting way possible: Having sex.

[QUOTE=Noble;34310775]A lot of people on "the other side" believe that birth control is wrong and immoral, so it probably won't please all sides.[/QUOTE] The guy who helped invent the birth control pill was catholic. They just have their heads stuck up their asses.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34310626]we're basically paying for young girls to have sex and smoke drugs while listening to gangster rap![/QUOTE] im okay with this

We will have way too many people depleting too many resources too fast, the future is still going to suck.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;34319128]We will have way too many people depleting too many resources too fast, the future is still going to suck.[/QUOTE] even though birth rates naturally fall in developed countries [editline]21st January 2012[/editline] as in, below replacement levels

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;34319128]We will have way too many people depleting too many resources too fast, the future is still going to suck.[/QUOTE]The issue isn't too many people. The issue is the distribution of the resources we have. Its horribly disproportionate and wasteful. If we had better infrastructure for said resources, population levels would be a non-issue. [editline]20th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lazor;34319144]even though birth rates naturally fall in developed countries [editline]21st January 2012[/editline] as in, below replacement levels[/QUOTE]Also this.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34319148]The issue isn't too many people. The issue is the distribution of the resources we have. Its horribly disproportionate and wasteful. If we had better infrastructure for said resources, population levels would be a non-issue. [editline]20th January 2012[/editline] Also this.[/QUOTE] We can't distribute resources evenly to 7 billion people and counting, this planet is meant to sustain at the most 2 billion. Nearly half the world lives in moderate to extreme poverty/starvation. If you look at our resource gathering, we have to continually go deeper into the earth to get to them, and it's much more dangerous and difficult than near-surface materials. Sorry this sounds like a rant, but it's the fact that we will basically have to depopulate most of the planet or start putting people on the moon.

Where in the solid hell did you get the notion that we can only sustain two billion people?

2 billion people would leave a lot of empty spaces

[QUOTE=Lambeth;34319576]2 billion people would leave a lot of empty spaces[/QUOTE]Shorter lines at movies though.

[QUOTE=Lazor;34319144]even though birth rates naturally fall in developed countries [editline]21st January 2012[/editline] as in, below replacement levels[/QUOTE] In a little process known as the demographic transition.