The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Email the author
Updated: 11 February 2012 | 12:54 am in Letters to the Editor
Women should have right to birth control
thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The decision by President Obama and Health and Human Services to guarantee preventive coverage for birth control regardless of where a woman is employed was the right thing to do.
This declaration protected a woman’s health decisions from religious imposition by taking them from the Catholic bishops and placing them in the hands of the person. Health care is a personal matter and the president ensured that it stayed that way while ending cost discrimination against women in health insurance coverage. This policy improves the overall care of a woman and her family while ensuring religious liberty.
Judith Wagner
Cedar Rapids
Rules of Engagement
Women should have right to birth control
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Peeping trial of accused Iowa City landlord moved to July
Iowa Senate Republican leader refutes ex-employee’s harassment claims
Iowa House leader confident education reform consensus could be reached today
Cedar Rapids telethon today to aid in Oklahoma tornado recovery
Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
i agree. women should have that right to birth control. and also the right to PAY FOR IT. if you don’t like the coverage provided by your insurer, then get another company. The bigger problem is the Obama administration feeling the need to trample on the right of the church and telling them what to do. a HUGE violation of the 1st amendment. where is the ACLU siding with the church on this one? isn’t this an ‘endorsement’ by the government? this would never stand in the courts, and Obama has since flip flopped (again). He realizes he is going to need every single vote possible to continue to scam the country for another 4 years.
How totally unrealistic and punitive, Matt. Lone individuals will always pay a higher rate for health insurance than those on an employer’s health plans, so your “let women pay” appeal has zero justice behind it. And, if those women do buy on a state-operated insurance exchange, then all taxpayers help subsidize their coverage.
Like it or not, we ALL subsidize activity we disagree with, that’s part of life in a representative democracy where we recognize common rights and freedoms. I have a complaint equal in merit to the Catholic Church’s: since the church is tax-exempt, I help pay for municipal services and other public services which any church avails itself of: I’m oppressed!
Matt, the church still has the freedom to form and promote its theology, but it does NOT have the right to impose that doctrine on its employees. Running a hospital or university which are open to the public imposes its own obligations on the church.
And, Mt. Mercy University has been paying for contraceptive coverage for YEARS for its employees: why are you hollering NOW? Because you’re taking your cues for outrage from the right-wing noise machine?
Based on this story Matt, I think many Catholic women have already let the Catholic church and its leaders know what they think of its stance on artificial birth control:
http://news.yahoo.com/98-catholic-women-used-contraception-church-opposes-201936745.html
You don’t have to like it, but Jeff’s right: as a part of living in a representative democracy, all of us, even YOU, have to recognize common rights and freedom and occasionally pay for things we may not agree with.
Um Matt, this is currently the law in 28 states and has passed court tests repeatedly. Better get a better argument than the court will reverse it.
No one is preventing women from purchasing birth control with their own money, but insurance companies should never have to pay for birth control. It is not a health care issue. Birth control is free – don’t have sex. Isn’t it discriminatory to provide birth control for women while not giving men condoms for free?
Don’t whine about those who need the hormone of birth control pills for other medical purposes – that isn’t the context.
And here I found myself missing your contributions, Glenn…
I found too many of the same old trolls with the same old answered arguments; too much waste of my time. But I didn’t have to join this one just to point out that no one HAS to have sexual relations, and they should be responsible to pay for their own contraception if they want to have sex.
Glenn, I don’t feel any need to “answer” your arguments. I believe that sexual behavior is a fundamental part of being human, and that all humans have a right to express themselves sexually.
You obviously reject that contention. However, you are seeking to punish folks who do not share your narrow view of sexuality, and there is no diminution of anyone’s freedom by mandating that employers cannot discriminate against women by denying them contraceptive coverage.
Glenn, there is more to sexuality than reproduction. But I know you’ll never accept that: I’m talking over your head to other folks who read this forum.
Jeff, my argument is simple. The demand is for free contraception. If people want to have sex, that is their business. But if they want others to pay for contraception, then it becomes everyone else’s business. No has to have sex. And if they want to have sex without worry about reproduction, then that is their responsibility and not anyone else’s.
If an insurance company does not want to pay for contraception – something which is not medically necessary because abstinence is free – then they should not be required to do so. Where in the Constitution does it ever give the government the power to demand insurance companies provide ANYTHING?!?!
Oh, and I know there is much more to sexuality than reproduction. My point is just that you should pay for your own recreation.
My “narrow view of sexuality” is God’s view. However, that is not the topic. The topic is whether or not anyone has the right to free contraception.
Glenn, you are suffering from delusions if you think you speak for Jahweh.
Such hallucinations are symptoms of psychosis. Please hustle to a mental health professional AT ONCE if you really think your views are those of Jahweh.
Glenn,
Why have insurance companies payed for male enhancement drugs such as Viagra or Cialis for years and opted out of covering the cost of birth control for women? Makes absolutely no sense!
In my estimation, all forms of birth control should always be covered by insurance and the cost of male enhancement drugs should be payed out of pocket… and btw, can we take all the Viagra and Cialis commercials off the air, I cringe everytime I see one…
I agreed that “male enhancement” drugs should NOT be covered by insurance. Insurance should never be for election items which don’t affect health. People put way to much emphasis on sex – there is more to life than sex, ya know. I’d be glad to get rid of those commercials, as well as the stupid ads in the magazines.
Still, BIRTH CONTROL, should not be an insurance issue. Either don’t have sex or pay for it yourself.
You do know that birth control pills have legitimate uses other than just contraception, right Glenn? Those other uses alone make them worthy of insurance coverage.
Oh wait, you’ve never benefitted from those “other” uses, have you?
Lori,
Look at my very first comment. I noted that the context was ONLY contraception and not other medical uses of the hormones in certain contraceptive pills. The argument is only about contraception.
Glenn, that may be what YOU said, but that’s not what everyone opposed to this issue is saying.
Birth control needs to be covered by insurance companies as a part of womens’ preventative health care, period. You don’t have to like it, but then we all have to contribute to things with which we fundamentally disagree. That’s a part of life in a free society.
I posted this on another thread… but I’m re-posting here for you, Glenn.
“There is no reason my physician needs to justify WHY I need a particular prescription for hormonal therapy/birth control. Certainly not to satisfy some mythical hierarchy that deems itself superior to my health care needs.”
“The issue of providing contraceptive benefits at no cost is REVENUE NEUTRAL. Even the insurance companies agree that it’s cheaper for them to provide contraception than it is to cover the costs of unintended pregnancy and childbirth. Not to mention the cost to society as a whole when women are denied equal opportunity to contribute to their families and to their own economic security.”
I stated that the context was NOT about using the same drugs for actual medical needs vs contraception – which isn’t a medical need.
Contraception is never guaranteed, so the only true contraception is abstaining. If one doesn’t want children then abstain from what causes them or pay for it out of your own pocket. As I noted, it is discriminatory against men anyway, because men still have to pay for condoms!
” don’t have sex. ” Well Glenn, we realize that’s probably easy for YOU to say !
It’s easy for ANYONE to say. You won’t die if you don’t have sex.
Whut? “You won’t die if you don’t have sex.”
Does that mean virgins are immortal like the “Highlander?”
Context. Not having sex will not cause one to die. Lack of food, you die. Lack of water, you die. Lack of sex – no effect on lifespan.
“Lack of sex — no effect on lifespan.” Perhaps, but it would certainly be a much diminished quality of life, at least for some of us. Is the length of life the most important factor to you ?
Glenn can (and probably will) enlighten us Karl, but I’m pretty sure that his book of fairy tales wasn’t too concerned with the idea of sex for pleasure, only procreation.
Lori,
I suggest you read Song of Songs (otherwise known as Song of Solomon) if you think pleasure wasn’t part of the original plan to make the two “one.”
You can suggest, Glenn, but don’t hold your breath.
Glenn, YOU won’t die if you just get lost and stop posting here…
There are health benefits to having sex:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex?page=3
I think the fact that is being overlooked is that these medications aren’t just for birth control.
That fact has been hammered here over and over Kurt.
Some people just NEVER learn…
Kurt, I think that explains why Glenn is always so grumpy! What a horrible way to go through life. I’m sure if I had Glenn’s mindset, I would be praying for the sweet release of death.
Jeff Klinzman,
So very tolerant of you and your ilk. Can’t stand opposing viewpoints.
No one is deny benefits of sexual relations. The point is that if you want to have recreational sex without worrying about conception, then pay for it yourself. No one has the right to demand others pay for their entertainment.
Glenn, you are so far outside the mainstream on this issue it isn’t even funny. The REAL issue here is the Catholic bishops chose to pick a fight with Obama about a health insurance benefit many states, including Iowa, ALREADY require insurors to provide.
I PAY for my health insurance, and yes indeed, our insurance covers contraception, so there’s nothing “free” about it. What your argument is based on is sexual jealousy, plain and simple.
You’ve got nothin’, and it is quite offensive that you act like the oppressed victim when it is YOU who wants to impose his values on peiople who do not share them.
Heal yourself, Glenn…
“don’t have sex”
But…but…then they’d be violating the edict of “go forth and multiply”!
The phrase is “be fruitful and multiply.” But in context it was for Adam & Eve to start the world’s population the first time, and then to Noah and his family to start a new population. No individual is commanded to have children. I realize there are many Christians who abuse that passage, and even denominations who abuse it to coerce their followers to have zillions of children, but that isn’t the intent of the passages.
You could always have a vascectomy, Glenn
If I did, I wouldn’t ask you or any insurance company to pay for it!
Uh, Glenn, MY vasectomy was covered by insurance! Somehow, knowing that fact will cheese you off has made my day more pleasant!
Jeff, But the government didn’t mandate it do so. That’s the issue.
Glenn, “the government” has “mandated” that I cannot refuse to educate a student based on his or her religion. The issue here is discrimination.
You also ignore the fact that any church, once it operates a business, must respect civil rights laws that govern ANY business. You also ignore that such coverage has been “mandated” for years by state insurance regs. So, please be more precise than just whining about “the government.”
You fell for the right-wing noise machine bait hook, line, and sinker…
“No individual is commanded to have children”
Depending on one’s chosen religon or sect Glenn, yes they are. Just ask members of the FLDS.
The context was what the Bible says vs what people claim it says, Christians or cults like the FLDS (who aren’t even close to being Christian). I still maintain that the Bible does not command us to have children.
All bow to Glenn’s “authoratah…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk
Good luck enforcing your edict, Glenn.
Yes, I mentioned FLDS in my example, but I was hardly referring to only christianity.
Thanks for playing though.
It would be off subject here but perhaps you should write a letter to the Gazette claiming Adam & Eve and great flood events are more than stories dreamed-up by primitive people. Be sure to include the talking snake. You might want to include some other creation myths ( such as Egyptian ) to bolster your arguments.
Karl,
Your comment is what is known as prejudicial conjecture – you’ve obviously not researched such claims because they have been thoroughly refuted by secular as well as religious scholars. I could also call your comments unargued prejudicial bias because it is all presumed with no evidence – just made up claims.
But let’s get back to the topic of discussion, which is about whether insurance should be forced to provide contraception coverage.
Why didn’t you squawk about insurance paying for contraception way back in 2000, Glenn?
Julie,
I have ALWAYS squawked about it. But the fact that now it is being forced makes it more insidious.
Yup, just as I thought. You’re squawking now because you’re poutraged over the right-wing talking points du jour.
He’d squawk no matter what, Julie.
This is another example of political outrage over nothing. The Obama administration threw something against the wall and it didn’t stick so they go back and tweak the ingredients until it does stick. Unfortunately for some people all they do is look for something, ANYTHING to criticize the President on. So far, this situation has been handled in a manner that works within the system. For that, I give credit to all involved.
Since Iowa, along with more than half the states has had some sort of this law already in place (and the fact that 98% of Catholic women already use contraceptives – SEE PAGE 4 : http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf) it only goes to support my contention that this is manufactured rage more than anything.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf
This whole argument is so ridiculous. I swear the democrats stay awake at night trying to find new ways to out spend each other. More programs we can’t afford to buy the votes of the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible. Seriously we are nearly 16 trillion in debt, they are raiding SS, taking from Medicare, calling the “unfunded wars” a savings and some are worried about who should pay for there birth control. We need to fund the programs for seniors who can no longer work
(Medicare & SS) and some food programs but everything in between, in my opinion, should be left up to the individual and there families-not the govt. When we run such deficits and de-fund our military capablities, who’s really going to care if you get the morning after pill for free.
What “…Democrats stay awake nights … trying to outspend…” in regard to this initiative are you referring to ? Which do the insurance companies find more expensive, pregnancies and child birth or birth control ?
Sue, any reasonable person would know that providing birth control is far, FAR cheaper than paying for a pregnancy, labor, childbirth and any complications that may result. Telling people to “not have sex” is unrealistic, expecially among consenting adults.
Of course if you have a plan to pay for raising all those children resulting from unplanned pregnancies, lay it on us. Just make sure you have a detailed plan, and not some generalized idea, please.
Not having sex is NOT unrealistic. But I’m only advocating abstinence if you don’t want children and don’t want to pay for your own contraception. No one is required to be responsible for another’s irresponsible behavior.
You live in a fantasy world if you really, truly believe that, Glenn.
Asking people, especially teenagers with raging hormones who will do what they want, when they want, is completely, totally unrealistic.
That’s what liberals have been teaching for the past 50 years – “Self control is impossible.” Gee, I wonder how everyone was able to control themselves for centuries.
Glenn. Read this testimony from a married, Catholic wife and mother on why there IS an ABSOLUTE need for contraception:
“Birth control saved my life and gave me a child.
About 9 months after the birth of my daughter, my left internal carotid artery spontaneously dissected. This dissection deprived all blood flow to the left side of my brain. The doctors did no know how I had survived and they were unsure what was keeping me alive. They treated me with heavy doses of blood thinner and through the grace of God and my doctors, the artery healed itself. When trying to figure out what caused this dissection, my doctors and I found only one incident of trauma to my body in the year leading up to the dissection and that was child birth. They recommended that I not get pregnant while on the blood thinners and when I came off them they still made that recommendation. Since pregnancy can put a lot of stress on your arteries, they highly recommended against it. I took their advice. I did not want to die in child birth. I did not want to leave my daughter mother-less or leave my husband with the task of raising her on his own. If I could prevent my untimely death, I was going to and we used birth control. We still wanted to add to our family and we did so through the adoption of our beautiful son. Now my children have a mother who loves them and would do anything for them, including using birth control.”
h/t jenthor
Think about that, Glenn.
Or think about this:
A fertilized egg is like a hard boiled egg, hardly sentinent, or viable. Brith control pills prevent that non-sentinent fertilized egg from implanting to the uterine wall, which to some means it prevents pregnancy, while to others it means an abortion.
A person’s views on birth control pills depends on when they believe a pregnancy begins, and different people have different opinions on that.
Julie Kirby,
The story doesn’t change a thing. The point is that she could pay for her own birth control – it should not be mandated to be paid for by someone else. Her husband could use condoms and they’d have to pay for them – the men’s contraceptive doesn’t come free. Pay for your own!
I will only say one more thing to you, Chatfield: You hold the contents of your wallet in higher regard than you do a single woman’s life.
And that is truly sad.
No Julie, I hold every woman responsible for their own actions, as I hold every man responsible for their own actions. When you can prevent contraception without others paying for it, and prevent it for FREE, let alone a minor cost or inconvenience, then why should everyone else have to pay for it?? That’s the problem with you and your ilk – everyone should be entitled to have everyone else pay for everything they want.
Karl, my link was referring in general to the spendocrat in the WH. I don’t know the answer, “what exactly this will cost the country,” do you? Please tell us because no seems to know. And what is it going to cost the individual to be covered under Obamacare? How about we just cover everything.
And to your second question, you obviously missed the point of my first comment.
P e r s o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y
Get a job, heap on all the bells and whistle you want from your policy and then pay for it yourself. This was a dumb partisan law and you guys are already fighting for the crumbs. Ain’t dependancy great?
Sue, it’s YOU who misses the point. When one pays insurance premiums, those monies go into a pool that pays for ALL people insured under that plan or carrier, not just the person who paid their premiums. Thus, even people who have insurance end up paying for some things they may not agree with.
Like I told Fred below, perhaps you should live off the grid, because that’s the only way you will avoid paying for anything with which you disagree.
Lori, I messed up by not using reply key for Karl but to your point. I’m sure paying for BC is far cheaper than paying for an abortion or the children to follow. That was Karl trying to get me to play his “what if” game. Again if Obama and his socialist congress would have focused on jobs rather than socialized medicine almost everyone involved could pay for the coverage they want.
I am not the one that said, “don’t have sex.” I’ve wanted too, cause let’s face it some should not procreate. Sorry for that visual. But I agree it’s an unrealistic expectation and I will leave it at that.
Sue, I was addressing your idea that people should “get a job” and buy insurnace. Not a bad idea on the face of it, if one can indeed buy an individual policy on the open market, but I hope you understand now that everyone who pays into the insurance pool of a plan or carrier pays into a common kitty the insurance company draws from to pay claims incurred by all those it covers. One’s individual premiums don’t cover only the expenses of the person paying their own premiums, but contributes to the common pool that covers everyone under that plan or carrier.
Critique this Karl,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/28/obamas_spending_addiction_110741.html
“Which do the insurance companies find more expensive, pregnancies and child birth or birth control?”
Who cares? I’m not going down that who pays for what bs. Pay for your own health care and get the policy you want.
First of all, your link has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the letter. Secondly, the”who cares” statement is meaningless, the insurance companies who are, first and foremost, in business to make money certainly care. Lastly, while avoiding the question you switched to another separate issue, how health care is paid for.
If birth control measures save insurance companies money, why weren’t those greedy capitalists providing it free already? Why do they have to have a government edict to force them to provide it?
The problem I have with it is that I don’t choose to buy insurance for routine expenses. It’s like saying insurance should pay for my tooth paste.
I really don’t know what the insurance companies position has been on this and what their latest reaction is. I quick (!) search didn’t turn up much — and a number of hits go back to Aug. If you find something significant share it. I agree there is merit to your “routine expenses” argument but other routine expenses insurance companies choose to pay in full (such as physicals) because they figure something caught early will cost them less in the long run. Is seems rational they might look at birth control the same way.
Fred, would you rather pay for routine cancer screenings, or any resulting cancer treatment that may come about from a lack of preventative measures?
I know which one I’d choose, and which one is likely far cheaper.
Lori, have you not heard of the recent debate in the medical profession about the effectiveness of breast cancer and prostate cancer screening? There are those who say those things are not cost effective because the cost of screening is the cost of screening everybody while screening only benefits a few. Have you never been told that you can do a self-exam for breast cancer?
I have personal experience with prostate cancer screening and it didn’t benefit me because I had BPH, and the corrective action taken would have been the same with or without screening, and screening didn’t cause me to get the procedure any sooner. That’s not to say that I don’t know people that have benefited from screening, but there have, in the last few years, been articles in the peer reviewed journals that have questioned the effectiveness of it.
Sure, Fred, I’ve been told to do breast exams. I’ve also been told by my ob-gyn that I need mammograms and the test on my “lady parts” every year.
Are you going to diagnose from afar and say I don’t need those screenings?
No Julie, I’m not diagnosing from afar. We all want Cadillac care of someone else is paying for it, but just google “effectiveness of breast cancer screening” if you think that it’s a cut and dried issue.
Oh, I’ve heard about it Fred, but like Julie, i’ve been told I need breast cancer screenings, need to do self-exams and need to get a cervical cancer screening every year. A breast self exam done by a layman is hardly a viable replacement for a clinical one and a mammogram, which is far more accurate than any self-exam. There IS some debate on how often those screening need to be done, but generally the older one gets, the more often they need to be done. The fact remains though that we’re all different and just because YOU didn’t need screenings, doesn’t mean others don’t either. The guidelines are in place for a reason, but they’re just that, guidelines, and an individual’s health status and history should always be taken into account. For some of us though, prevention is always worth the cost when comparedto possible treatment for cancer or other diseases that may result form neglecting to be vigilant about our health.
“For some of us though, prevention is always worth the cost”
Lori, like I said above, it’s always worth the cost if someone else is paying for it.
“it’s always worth the cost if someone else is paying for it.”
Way to sidestep the point I made.
None of us lives in a bubble Fred, and unless you find a way to do so,you’ll always pay for some things you don’t agree with, as we all will. For some of us, that means investing in preventative care in the hopes of avoiding more expensive treatments later on.
Yes Lori, and instead of us making up our own minds on what we want our insurance to cover and not cover, the government is going to decide for us. There once were places in this country where the employer paid for the employees housing and medical care, and you could only buy from the company store. They were called company towns and it took several decades for people to realize that they can easily devolve into something very much like slavery.
Perhaps you should consider living off the grid Fred. .
Chalk one up for Obama- he used political ju-jitsu on the Republican Synthetic Outrage Machine which left it flat on its back, wondering what happened to it.
I wonder if any of the conservative talking heads have owned up to the fact that they were set up to be punked on this issue…
Ya Jack, While everyone is fighting over who will pay for your “free” pills it’s not gonna matter because the country will be bankrupt. Crazy like a fox.
I doubt Jack uses BC pills, Sue.
You know what I meant-but good one!
I don’t think Jack is using any of “your “free” pills”. Are you implying the country will be bankrupt by insurance companies providing free birth control pills versus paying for prenatal, postnatal and child health care? Explain that. How does the phrase “crazy like a fox” which means someone is appearing to be crazy whilst shrewdly working to his own benefit applicable here? Who is the fox, how is he acting crazy, and what is the benefit ?
Call this intuition, but I doubt that the “answers” you may get will clarify anything.
Sue has lost her place in the script and is ad-libbing. Poorly.
If there are any answers I suspect your “intuition” will be correct. But be honest, you don’t really need intuition, just the evidence supplied by recall of the history of her posts over a period of months.
Not that bored Karl, sorry.
I don’t know Jack, what part of “pay for it yourself” don’t you understand.
I admit I messed up on a reply-
so SUE me!
Can’t answer so you claim to be too bored. What specific statement don’t you feel Jack understands? What was your “messed up” reply in a reply to Jack? ” Sue (you)”, for what ?
it appears that the mindlink to the Great Rightwing Consciousness has failed.
The response of our right-wing colleagues has confirmed one of my hypotheses. “Conservatives” are actually one collective consciousness that thinks and acts in unison, and without any regard for any one person’s individuality.
“Conservatives” have discovered the Vulcan mind meld!
Jeff just proved my point about how all liberals think alike. And to the liberal, sex is the end all and be all, and should be worshiped in whatever fashion it is practiced and the government should support perversity and pay for contraception and abortions so people don’t have to take responsibility for their own actions. The liberal position is that no one should be responsible for any of their own behavior!
I was joking, Glenn. You really BELIEVE this load of tripe!
You just proved how gullible some conservatives truly are, Glenn.