The consequences don’t disappear because the Magic Responsibility Fairy says so. Those children will be among us regardless of how pristine our personal character may be. How many of the people in our prisons are children of people who made very bad, irresponsible choices? We could send them a bill, I suppose, but they can’t pay it.
I assume that some of those have co-pay and deductible requirements, though, right?
Also, is there a more detailed list? I mean, it says they must include “items and services within at least the following 10 categories.” Any items? One item in each category? I don’t have the time or the energy to go through the Federal Register.
There are a lot of complaints, that I’ve heard, about requiring people to insure themselves against impossible conditions (maternity coverage for males, etc.). But contraception is in a different category, what I’m wondering is if there are other things in the category.
Well, as I said earlier, I think that conservatives fail when they refuse to pay for BC of women who can’t afford it. But are you making a case for the government to supply everyone in the country with “free” birth control? Because that’s what we’re talking about, and I don’t see where that is necessary to fix the problem you bring up.
I’ll refer you back to a post I made on page 1 that I think cuts to the heart of the matter, and which I have not seen a response to yet:
Re: Why there? Why is it so critical, so important to draw the line at contraception, of all things?
Because there is a significant number of people who thinks that contraception is either immoral in itself, or facilitates immoral behavior.
That’s really the only reason.
I was making the case that refusing to pay the costs of others’ bad choices isn’t always possible (i.e., externalities), so basing one’s policies on that is a bad idea. So, sure, in that arena, conservatives fail.
“Provide birth control to women who cannot afford it” sounds fine to me, barring some grand benefit to be had by making it universal.
Some can, others can’t. Certain preventative care items are required to be exempt from cost-sharing.
They way it’s set up is that there are benchmark plans in each state. So if you want to know the detailed requirements you should look for your state’s benchmark plan. You can find a (seemingly) current list of the benchmark plans here: http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/ehb-benchmark-plans/
Childrens’ immunizations, for one. The EHB list is deliberately vague. The best place I can point you is 45 CFR § 147.130, but even that mostly points to other lists that I don’t have at my fingertips.
Sure, but so far the evidence for drawing the line at contraception is flimsy to non-existent in my view. You mention heating and housing, and the personal responsibility case can be made there just as well as for contraception. Fair enough, but conservatives obviously have a much bigger beef with contraception.
As Hector says, it’s for reasons of morality. Nothing more, when you take away all the peripheral rationales.
There is nothing inherently wrong with sex. Proceed from that point and this is a simple matter of public health to which I’m happy to contribute for the greater good it would provide.
Or, you know, maybe another reason could possibly be the one that has been written about for the last 10 posts or so that has nothing to do with morality and doesn’t fit into your preconceived notions. It seems that you (both) can’t argue this on it’s merits so you make it a referendum on religion. If you have all the answers why are you writing here??
You know, maybe.
Children’s immunizations must be covered with zero co-pay, that is.
Well, with all due respect, I’ve not found the secular arguements put forth here persuasive. I spent a good deal of time during a long drive yesterday mulling the issue, challenging my own position. I was unable to come up with anything that does not end with morality as the deciding factor.
I’ve heard you and others. I’ve thought about it. Your position does not add up IMHO. You can call it a referendum on religion, but I don’t think that’s quite fair since I don’t see how to exclude it as a prime factor in this debate. Nobody is calling for generalized hostility toward religion. But I am saying the religious influence on this issue is dead wrong, and therefore ultimately harmful as a matter of public health.
Re: There is nothing inherently wrong with sex. Proceed from that point and this is a simple matter of public health to which I’m happy to contribute for the greater good it would provide.
I don’t really think the government should be taking a position on sex, whether it be ‘contraception is good’ or ‘contraception is evil’. I’m not unsympathetic to the Catholic arguments, even though I disagree with them. That said, I think it makes most sense for the government to pay for birth control so that people can make their own decisions about it. That seems like it would be the closest approximation to neutrality, even though no government policy is ever going to be totally neutral.
I wish you had told me ealier that I don’t know what I think but you do. Could have saved me some time this afternoon.
[QUOTE=Llama Llogophile]
I’ve heard you and others. I’ve thought about it. Your position does not add up IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
You do know what IMHO means, yes? I’m not sure how to disagree with you more politely.
What happens when there aren’t enough jobs to go around?
You are ignoring that men and women have different levels of incentive to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Women are far more likely to use contraception for the simple reason they are the ones that get pregnant, give birth, and usually also the ones raising the kid. Men… not so much (although DNA testing does make it harder to wiggle out of responsibility in these matters).
Condoms are birth control used by men (even if purchased by women). Pills/shots/etc are birth control used by women. Women are far more likely to pick up that pack of free pills and take them than the average man is to go out of his way to grab up those condoms.
Re: If they won’t buy a condom, will they go and pick up their free pack of pills?
Can we drop this ‘but they can buy a condom’ business, please. Condoms are much less effective than hormonal contraception.
Also, some IUDs are non-hormonal, and are in the nearly-foolproof LARC category.
FWIW, according to Planned Parenthood, combining a condom with coitus interruptus is also virtually foolproof.
From the Burnt Orange Report:
And this from Mike Huckaby:
So, blame it on the evil womanly libido. Of course, unless we’re talking about Sapphic activities or self-pleasuring, the male libido is also involved. And the first two situations won’t cause pregnancy.
Don’t Conservatives realize that married women use contraception too? Because they (and their husbands, usually) don’t want children, or don’t want children yet, or aren’t able to responsibly care for more children than they already have? No, Conservatives believe in sex for procreation only. Even in marriage. What grim lives they must lead. (Or they get their jollies in other ways & only engage in coitus to produce those cute kiddies who look so good in campaign photos.)
ETA: Condoms (& withdrawal) depend on the man taking the initiative. I’m all for cutting off men who won’t wrap it–especially outside of marriage. (Ever heard of STD’s?) That’s the No Sex type of cutting off–I’m not violent!
Emphasis added.
I’m not going to defend Huck because that was a really stupid thing to say. Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt and parse that in the least negative way, it was a huge fail on wording for someone who is supposed to be a seasoned politician.
But your comment about conservatives isn’t much better. It’s not only false, but also insulting.
Part of this problem, is the issue we have with all of these liberal/conservative discussions. It’s impossible to paint with any type of accurate brush the goal, and beliefs of 100 million adult Americans, be they right or left. There are clearly whack jobs on both sides of the isle. I believe that most on the right view this as a responsibility issue, most here think is more of a moral or religion issue with the right. I think this is partially because it’s much easier for the left to wave off the religious right aspects of the argument, and it’s much more difficult if not impossible to argue against the personal responsibility aspect that the middle to slightly right of center believes. YMMV.
I’ll take issue with this though. If (when?) Hannity and Huckabee(sp) talk about the evil women being unable to control their evil sexual surges, than I think they are nuts, and should be called out on that.
But let’s take the rest of the Huckabee’s comments, without that one (stupid) ‘libido’ comment:
“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let’s take that discussion all across America.”
Is that comment really so bad, especially if we divorced it from the dumb libido comment and from Huckabee who comes with his own baggage? I’ll admit it wasn’t the best written comment, but I think his point is this. Do we need more government in our bedrooms?
So Bridget, are you helpless to get and use birth control on your own? How many unwanted or unplanned children do you have in your home? Have you just been lucky, or did you actually take some (hate to write it again) personal responsibility? If your teenage son’s girlfriend or your daughter got pregnant, would you be disappointed in them? I bet you would, because you’d expect more standard, every day, common sense, adult behavior. If that’s the case, why are you so lowering the bar for the rest of society?
And one last note. Do you really mean this comment?
Because if Huckabee stated that women were unable to stand tall and take the initiative for their sexual health and wellbeing and that the government had to get involved, we’d hear what a right wing cave man he is. But you seem to be stating that women are somehow powerless or have less power than men have, so they need help. I can tell you that I’ve been told by strong women that I was in a sexual relationship with that no wrapper equaled no entry! They certainly were going to take in initiative if I didn’t. So which is it?