Opinion of the ObamaCare Birth Control Mandate

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Freedom Mandate

[SNJ1985]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

[Kamala]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

[SNJ1985]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

It is not comparable to something like inhalers for people with asthma. Nobody needs birth control in order to live.

[Kamala]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

It is not comparable to something like inhalers for people with asthma. Nobody needs birth control in order to live.

So only medicine necessary for life should be covered? No painkillers for cancer patients, or vaccines, or casts for broken bones, or anything else that is necessary for quality of life but not to stay alive?

I really love the Christian compassion you espouse.

[TPIG]

HM. The provision of birth control is not something the government should involve itself in.  You can't scream "Stay out of my bedroom" and then simultaneously scream "But Government needs to mandate that others pay for my bedroom activities". It doesn't work both ways.

[SNJ1985]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

It is not comparable to something like inhalers for people with asthma. Nobody needs birth control in order to live.

So only medicine necessary for life should be covered? No painkillers for cancer patients, or vaccines, or casts for broken bones, or anything else that is necessary for quality of life but not to stay alive?

Birth control isn't comparable to those things either. Not having sex is not comparable to not being able to walk.

[Kamala]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

It is not comparable to something like inhalers for people with asthma. Nobody needs birth control in order to live.

So only medicine necessary for life should be covered? No painkillers for cancer patients, or vaccines, or casts for broken bones, or anything else that is necessary for quality of life but not to stay alive?

Birth control isn't comparable to those things either. Not having sex is not comparable to not being able to walk.

Dude, I don't think you understand that birth control can be used to treat an extremely painful condition.

Like I know this goes against your whole "sex is evil and women enjoying it is evil" schtick, but maybe try to understand that birth control isn't used solely for not getting pregnant while having sex.

[SNJ1985]

That article says there are other methods of treating it.

[Kamala]

That article says there are other methods of treating it.

Birth control is the easiest, simplest, least invasive, and cheapest way to treat and/or prevent it.

If birth control isn't going to be covered, surgery sure as hell isn't going to be cheaper.

[7,052,770]

FM. Bosses shouldn't be able to decide what medical services and drugs their employees do and don't have access to.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

solid HM, this infringes on religious liberties.

[America Needs R'hllor]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

Good to know you're pro-choice now!

Also, very FM.

[JA]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

It is not comparable to something like inhalers for people with asthma. Nobody needs birth control in order to live.

So only medicine necessary for life should be covered? No painkillers for cancer patients, or vaccines, or casts for broken bones, or anything else that is necessary for quality of life but not to stay alive?

Birth control isn't comparable to those things either. Not having sex is not comparable to not being able to walk.

You've never had sex, have you?

[Cactus Jack]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

It is not comparable to something like inhalers for people with asthma. Nobody needs birth control in order to live.

So only medicine necessary for life should be covered? No painkillers for cancer patients, or vaccines, or casts for broken bones, or anything else that is necessary for quality of life but not to stay alive?

Birth control isn't comparable to those things either. Not having sex is not comparable to not being able to walk.

You've never had sex, have you?

Do you really need to ask?

[Lechasseur]

solid HM, this infringes on religious liberties.

[IceAgeComing]

HM. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to subsidize birth control or Viagra. Neither are medically necessary.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

It is not comparable to something like inhalers for people with asthma. Nobody needs birth control in order to live.

As someone who actually has asthma and tries to live an active lifestyle: both are actually pretty damn similar - in that your inhaler isn't always necessary (indeed for some people its never an emergency thing) but dramatically improves your quality of life.

Personally I think that its a good idea - the company that a person works for shouldn't be able to dictate the health insurance that a person has unless they are willing to provide a means for someone to get their own coverage...

[7,052,770]

As usual, no one "against" this mandate will have the courage to reply to this question, but just in case me posting this shames them into replying:

Should Jehovah's Witness bosses be able to decide that their employees don't get blood transfusion coverage?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm inclined to support religious exemptions, but otherwise I strongly support it as a way to prevent more abortions.

[Young Conservative]

Horrible policy that violates the freedom of the religion  and the market.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I really need to stop reading Thomas from NJ posts.  They make me feel embarrassed to be a Christian and I don't like that.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also

A 2012 study of more than 9,000 women found that when women got no-cost birth control, the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions fell by between 62 and 78 percent.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

solid HM, this infringes on religious liberties.

If forcing women to go without reproductive healthcare is a "religious liberty", religious liberties should be ignored.

[America Needs R'hllor]

solid HM, this infringes on religious liberties.

If forcing women to go without reproductive healthcare is a "religious liberty", religious liberties should be ignored.

Well, it's not 'forcing', it's leaving them without it, which, indeed, is horrible.
Also, I just love how religious liberty is always coming up when a policy helps women and gays.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

solid HM, this infringes on religious liberties.

If forcing women to go without reproductive healthcare is a "religious liberty", religious liberties should be ignored.

Well, it's not 'forcing', it's leaving them without it, which, indeed, is horrible.
Also, I just love how religious liberty is always coming up when a policy helps women and gays.

Two entirely separate issues here. We're talking about abortion. Abortion is morally troubling by default unless it is connected to the commonly cited exceptions. I wouldn't require businesspeople to fund abortions out of their pockets. That's the least we can do for the unborn. It's a win-win for all parties involved.