Are women who demand access to family planning services "vile and horrible"?

[TNF]

Inspired by outofbox6's ridiculous poll equating Sandra Fluke with Rush Limbaugh. Do you think that women who demand access to family planning services (which include birth control by definition) are "vile and horrible" as described by ChairmanSanchez?

Conservative claim they don't want to "subsidize someone's sex life," but this argument is (a) ludicrous when confronted with the fact that a lot of women use birth control  for things other than preventing unwanted pregnancies and (b) hypocritical when one takes into account the fact that drugs like Viagra are covered by many health insurance plans.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

No (sane)

[7,052,770]

If "pro-life" people were sincere they would be 100% in favor of the abortion-reducing contraception mandate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I won't make any universal judgements on a person's character for this, but trying to force someone to give you something when to do so would go against their beliefs is itself generally a horrible thing to do.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

They have a right to access if they can pay for it on their own or if it is agreed to in the initial contract. But yeah, Sandra Fluke is vile and horrible.

Edit: Also, Viagra and Condoms should not be part of an employee health insurance package.

[bedstuy]

They have a right to access if they can pay for it on their own or if it is agreed to in the initial contract. But yeah, Sandra Fluke is vile and horrible.

Edit: Also, Viagra and Condoms should not be part of an employee health insurance package.

Sure, but as a society, it is a huge benefit to have universal access to birth control for everyone who wants birth control.  You could also say that the fire department should only put out a fire at your house if you pay for a fire fighting service.  But, the problem is that fires spread and so does the misery of a lack of family planning.

Who do you think suffers in the most in poverty?  Who do you think gets aborted?  Who do you think suffers from broken families?  Who do you think is abused and neglected?  Who do you think grows up with a horrible life and continues the cycle again with their kids?  It's unwanted children and women who are dragooned into raising them when they can't do a reasonable job.

I understand the idea, everyone ought to be responsible and have enough money for birth control.  That'd be nice.  But, it's not going to happen in reality.  We have to deal with the problems in reality.  If you think protecting people's indirect involvement with birth control and catering to medieval beliefs is more important than actual human suffering, you should grapple with that reality.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

They have a right to access if they can pay for it on their own or if it is agreed to in the initial contract. But yeah, Sandra Fluke is vile and horrible.

Edit: Also, Viagra and Condoms should not be part of an employee health insurance package.

Sure, but as a society, it is a huge benefit to have universal access to birth control for everyone who wants birth control.  You could also say that the fire department should only put out a fire at your house if you pay for a fire fighting service.  But, the problem is that fires spread and so does the misery of a lack of family planning.

Who do you think suffers in the most in poverty?  Who do you think gets aborted?  Who do you think suffers from broken families?  Who do you think is abused and neglected?  Who do you think grows up with a horrible life and continues the cycle again with their kids?  It's unwanted children and women who are dragooned into raising them when they can't do a reasonable job.

I understand the idea, everyone ought to be responsible and have enough money for birth control.  That'd be nice.  But, it's not going to happen in reality.  We have to deal with the problems in reality.  If you think protecting people's indirect involvement with birth control and catering to medieval beliefs is more important than actual human suffering, you should grapple with that reality.

For the record, I support a public health system as there clearly is no turning back from Obamacare, and we might as well go all the way. If we have publically supported healthcare that supplies proper birth control, I'd be unopposed. But I simply don't think the manager at the Miami Subs I work with should have to pay for his employees birth control. Frankly, that isn't his problem.

Sandra Fluke wasn't advocating for public birth control, which she would pay for herself partially through her tax dollars. She wanted a private institution's health insurance to pay for it. The sad thing is, as bad as she is, her arguments were based on the medical condition of a friend and not contraception. So, I can't say I like her, but it's a shame that she had to be treated the way she was. I have quite a bit to say about her, but I want to clarify now before I get a barrage of attacks that I do not think she is a "slut."

[bedstuy]

They have a right to access if they can pay for it on their own or if it is agreed to in the initial contract. But yeah, Sandra Fluke is vile and horrible.

Edit: Also, Viagra and Condoms should not be part of an employee health insurance package.

Sure, but as a society, it is a huge benefit to have universal access to birth control for everyone who wants birth control.  You could also say that the fire department should only put out a fire at your house if you pay for a fire fighting service.  But, the problem is that fires spread and so does the misery of a lack of family planning.

Who do you think suffers in the most in poverty?  Who do you think gets aborted?  Who do you think suffers from broken families?  Who do you think is abused and neglected?  Who do you think grows up with a horrible life and continues the cycle again with their kids?  It's unwanted children and women who are dragooned into raising them when they can't do a reasonable job.

I understand the idea, everyone ought to be responsible and have enough money for birth control.  That'd be nice.  But, it's not going to happen in reality.  We have to deal with the problems in reality.  If you think protecting people's indirect involvement with birth control and catering to medieval beliefs is more important than actual human suffering, you should grapple with that reality.

For the record, I support a public health system as there clearly is no turning back from Obamacare, and we might as well go all the way. If we have publically supported healthcare that supplies proper birth control, I'd be unopposed. But I simply don't think the manager at the Miami Subs I work with should have to pay for his employees birth control. Frankly, that isn't his problem.

Sandra Fluke wasn't advocating for public birth control, which she would pay for herself partially through her tax dollars. She wanted a private institution's health insurance to pay for it. The sad thing is, as bad as she is, her arguments were based on the medical condition of a friend and not contraception. So, I can't say I like her, but it's a shame that she had to be treated the way she was. I have quite a bit to say about her, but I want to clarify now before I get a barrage of attacks that I do not think she is a "slut."

That's not what the law required though.  The employees, board of directors or shareholders don't have to pay for anything besides an insurance plan.  The employees are the ones purchasing birth control.  If it is a problem to give someone a health insurance plan which they used to pay for care, why is it not a problem to give them wages which they can spend on contraception?

And, let's not forget, birth control pills are medically indicated for women.  They serve a medical purpose.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

They have a right to access if they can pay for it on their own or if it is agreed to in the initial contract. But yeah, Sandra Fluke is vile and horrible.

Edit: Also, Viagra and Condoms should not be part of an employee health insurance package.

Sure, but as a society, it is a huge benefit to have universal access to birth control for everyone who wants birth control.  You could also say that the fire department should only put out a fire at your house if you pay for a fire fighting service.  But, the problem is that fires spread and so does the misery of a lack of family planning.

Who do you think suffers in the most in poverty?  Who do you think gets aborted?  Who do you think suffers from broken families?  Who do you think is abused and neglected?  Who do you think grows up with a horrible life and continues the cycle again with their kids?  It's unwanted children and women who are dragooned into raising them when they can't do a reasonable job.

I understand the idea, everyone ought to be responsible and have enough money for birth control.  That'd be nice.  But, it's not going to happen in reality.  We have to deal with the problems in reality.  If you think protecting people's indirect involvement with birth control and catering to medieval beliefs is more important than actual human suffering, you should grapple with that reality.

For the record, I support a public health system as there clearly is no turning back from Obamacare, and we might as well go all the way. If we have publically supported healthcare that supplies proper birth control, I'd be unopposed. But I simply don't think the manager at the Miami Subs I work with should have to pay for his employees birth control. Frankly, that isn't his problem.

Sandra Fluke wasn't advocating for public birth control, which she would pay for herself partially through her tax dollars. She wanted a private institution's health insurance to pay for it. The sad thing is, as bad as she is, her arguments were based on the medical condition of a friend and not contraception. So, I can't say I like her, but it's a shame that she had to be treated the way she was. I have quite a bit to say about her, but I want to clarify now before I get a barrage of attacks that I do not think she is a "slut."

That's not what the law required though.  The employees, board of directors or shareholders don't have to pay for anything besides an insurance plan.  The employees are the ones purchasing birth control.  If it is a problem to give someone a health insurance plan which they used to pay for care, why is it not a problem to give them wages which they can spend on contraception?

And, let's not forget, birth control pills are medically indicated for women.  They serve a medical purpose.

But what if the institution or business doesn't believe in supplying birth control due to the religious objections of the owners? Why should they pay for insurance that they object too? At the end of the day, they still are paying for these things.

How they spend the wages they earn is not the companies business. But the insurance involves the company. They cannot be seperated like the wages can be.

[bedstuy]

But what if the institution or business doesn't believe in supplying birth control due to the religious objections of the owners? Why should they pay for insurance that they object too? At the end of the day, they still are paying for these things.

How they spend the wages they earn is not the companies business. But the insurance involves the company. They cannot be seperated like the wages can be.

What if the owners are scientologists, should we allow them to opt out of providing mental health care insurance?  What if the owners are Christian scientist, should they be able to opt out of providing health insurance at all?

Well, that's the debate that had the Supreme Court.  Your position and that of the majority is pretty damn silly if you ask me.  But, I suppose it's the law now in this country full of ornery religious bumpkins.  Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer to protect the rights of rights of our precious religious nuts.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

But what if the institution or business doesn't believe in supplying birth control due to the religious objections of the owners? Why should they pay for insurance that they object too? At the end of the day, they still are paying for these things.

How they spend the wages they earn is not the companies business. But the insurance involves the company. They cannot be seperated like the wages can be.

What if the owners are scientologists, should we allow them to opt out of providing mental health care insurance?  What if the owners are Christian scientist, should they be able to opt out of providing health insurance at all?

Well, that's the debate that had the Supreme Court.  Your position and that of the majority is pretty damn silly if you ask me.  But, I suppose it's the law now in this country full of ornery religious bumpkins.  Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer to protect the rights of rights of our precious religious nuts.

They are the owners at the end of the day...

[bedstuy]

But what if the institution or business doesn't believe in supplying birth control due to the religious objections of the owners? Why should they pay for insurance that they object too? At the end of the day, they still are paying for these things.

How they spend the wages they earn is not the companies business. But the insurance involves the company. They cannot be seperated like the wages can be.

What if the owners are scientologists, should we allow them to opt out of providing mental health care insurance?  What if the owners are Christian scientist, should they be able to opt out of providing health insurance at all?

Well, that's the debate that had the Supreme Court.  Your position and that of the majority is pretty damn silly if you ask me.  But, I suppose it's the law now in this country full of ornery religious bumpkins.  Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer to protect the rights of rights of our precious religious nuts.

They are the owners at the end of the day...

Seriously?  Where does it end?  What if your religion is not paying taxes?  What if your religion is not abiding by OSHA regulations?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

But what if the institution or business doesn't believe in supplying birth control due to the religious objections of the owners? Why should they pay for insurance that they object too? At the end of the day, they still are paying for these things.

How they spend the wages they earn is not the companies business. But the insurance involves the company. They cannot be seperated like the wages can be.

What if the owners are scientologists, should we allow them to opt out of providing mental health care insurance?  What if the owners are Christian scientist, should they be able to opt out of providing health insurance at all?

Well, that's the debate that had the Supreme Court.  Your position and that of the majority is pretty damn silly if you ask me.  But, I suppose it's the law now in this country full of ornery religious bumpkins.  Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer to protect the rights of rights of our precious religious nuts.

They are the owners at the end of the day...

Seriously?  Where does it end?  What if your religion is not paying taxes?  What if your religion is not abiding by OSHA regulations?

Well, the OSHA point is a good one. That is the line. That is where the lives of employees come into play. You can't justify murder using religion, so if you have a construction worker on a rickety crane because of the owners religious beliefs, and he dies, then the employer is responsible. Taxes are also important. You cannot live without using a service paid for by the public. We have roads, hospitals, schools, water, etc. You have a moral duty to pay for what you use, and that is done through taxes.

[AggregateDemand]

A woman who can't provide birth control for herself is obviously unfit to provide for children. Sterilize.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If employers have a moral duty to pay for what they use, as you put it, then how is denying employees health insurance coverage justifiable?

I wasn't talking about employers as much as individuals in general, but yes, the point works here as well. Employers pay their employees the pay they deserve. While the minimum wage needs to be raised to adjust with the times, I don’t quite see how the health insurance or education of their employees are related to the service the average worker provides. Of course, the law as it stands is the law, and I will downright admit that I don’t have any better solutions besides calling for public healthcare, so I don’t particularly desire getting rid of employer provided health insurance as it stands. But I do believe that the religious views of an employer are important, and that they have a right to provide the health insurance most in line with the views of their company.

And I can't stand when people say a company cannot have values. Two of the most unfunny, boring, and self righteous pricks on the radio (Opie and Anthony) were fired for a violently racist tweet sent by one of the two. Sirius XM released a statement that read, in part, “the views expressed are the opposite of everything Sirius XM stands for.” Under the logic that a company or corporation cannot have values, the firing of Opie and Anthony would be illegitimate, as their views are supposedly equal to their employers. I am glad they are gone, and I am glad Sirius reserves the right to cancel their employment.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Employers pay their employees the pay they deserve.

What on earth does this mean?

A paralegal is going to be paid more than a fry cook.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Employers pay their employees the pay they deserve.

What on earth does this mean?

A paralegal is going to be paid more than a fry cook.

That is a statement of fact. It doesn't clarify what you mean when you say that the paralegal "deserves" to be paid more.

They have more training and expertise. Physical work is not the way to measure the value of ones labor. I'm not saying anything profoudn, this is also a statement of fact.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Employers pay their employees the pay they deserve.

What on earth does this mean?

A paralegal is going to be paid more than a fry cook.

That is a statement of fact. It doesn't clarify what you mean when you say that the paralegal "deserves" to be paid more.

They have more training and expertise. Physical work is not the way to measure the value of ones labor. I'm not saying anything profoudn, this is also a statement of fact.

The average rate of pay for a given kind of work is not directly determined by how difficult the work is or by how much training is required.

Then please enlighten me and inform me what is if I am wrong.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, and the people who claim that are themselves vile and horrible.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I won't make any universal judgements on a person's character for this, but trying to force someone to give you something when to do so would go against their beliefs is itself generally a horrible thing to do.

It's worth noting that virtually no one would agree to this unequivocally. There are rules that we expect everyone to abide by, regardless of what his or her personal beliefs dictate.

Thus the "generally,"  but the fact that it is not absolute does not mean that the principle should just be ignored.

[Cassius]

Yes. If they asked nicely, then maybe not. But if they have the bloody gall to 'demand' contraception, then yes.

[Mechaman]

But what if the institution or business doesn't believe in supplying birth control due to the religious objections of the owners? Why should they pay for insurance that they object too? At the end of the day, they still are paying for these things.

How they spend the wages they earn is not the companies business. But the insurance involves the company. They cannot be seperated like the wages can be.

What if the owners are scientologists, should we allow them to opt out of providing mental health care insurance?  What if the owners are Christian scientist, should they be able to opt out of providing health insurance at all?

Well, that's the debate that had the Supreme Court.  Your position and that of the majority is pretty damn silly if you ask me.  But, I suppose it's the law now in this country full of ornery religious bumpkins.  Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer to protect the rights of rights of our precious religious nuts.

I will admit that I do agree with Sanchez's position that it is much preferable to have a direct government funding for birth control medication (along with every medical procedure/drug) rather than forcing employers to directly fund for it via insurance.  However, since the moderate heroes in congress (ie, the Democratic Party) insist on holding the nation hostage to Insurance Companies, Inc. I guess that the contraception mandate or whatever the hell you want to call it is the lesser evil.

Really though, if there is a point to be made here it is that Insurance Companies are evil and need to be abolished, somehow.  Of course I realize this opens up to the lines of attack like "so you think that auto insurance should be covered by the state!  How about rent and homeowners!"  TO which I answer "yes of course silly goose."

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No (R), as long as they don't force people or business owners to provide them against their religious beliefs.

[7,052,770]

Sigh, why are people so intentionally unwilling to grasp a simple concept as "paying for someone's health insurance is NOT the same thing as paying the services someone gets with their health insurance?"

Health insurance premiums don't go into private account. They go into a huge pot of everyone's money, and then everyone's bills are paid out of that pot. The only argument that might work is that if you pay a health insurance premium at all, you're paying a tiny fraction of everyone's claims for  that company -- that is, if you have health insurance, you're paying for an minuscule part of anyone's birth control, anyone's abortions, anyone's whatever.

[politicallefty]

If "pro-life" people were sincere they would be 100% in favor of the abortion-reducing contraception mandate.

I completely agree and was thinking the same. Those that are pro-life and most strongly opposed to abortion rights should be the strongest supporters of ensuring access to contraception. When you oppose both abortion rights and contraception, it becomes clear that the intent is to control people's sex lives. I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising considering that they are largely the same people strongly opposing comprehensive sex education (or really any sex education at all beyond abstinence-only).