Opinion of the ObamaCare Birth Control Mandate

[Kamala]

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.

I hope you understand there’s more to women’s reproductive healthcare than just abortion...

[Frodo]

A little tongue-in-cheek, but then again not really....

For those calling themselves 'pro-life': if you care at all about shrinking abortion rates to a size small enough it can be drowned in a bathtub, you would consider this a freedom policy, and vote accordingly.  

And advocate for it. 

[Cashew]

Moderate hero option: It usually more akin to a supplement than actual health care, unless you believe that the normal female body is flawed and in need of treatment, but I still support subsidizing it anyway on utilitarian grounds.

[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?

Surprise, surprise, no blue avatar answered my question.

[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.

I hope you understand there’s more to women’s reproductive healthcare than just abortion...

There is. It's called making sure poor women can afford to raise children. We need a more expansive welfare state that supports hardworking parents whom hold in their hands the nation's future. That can take multiple forms, including tax cuts for poor people. But something needs to be done. Leaving poor families high and dry taking care of kids they can't afford is nothing short of an obamination.

[Kamala]

There is. It's called making sure poor women can afford to raise children. We need a more expansive welfare state that supports hardworking parents whom hold in their hands the nation's future. That can take multiple forms, including tax cuts for poor people. But something needs to be done. Leaving poor families high and dry taking care of kids they can't afford is nothing short of an obamination.

First of all, this implies that all poor women want kids. That's false. Even if the government will provide 100% of the resources to raise a child, it's still unfair to allow employers to not cover birth control in their health insurance. Women and their families shouldn't be forced to have children just because their employer's religious beliefs disagree with birth control.

Secondly, this still doesn't address the issue that an employer's religious beliefs should be able to dictate what kind of health coverage their employees get. As 2,868,691 said, would be it fine for a Jehovah's Witness to decide that their employees don't get blood transfusion coverage? Healthcare needs aren't something that change based on employers' beliefs.

Finally, what I meant by "birth control/reproductive health doesn't just mean abortion" is that many women use birth control pills to regulate or ease their menses, and/or treat conditions such as endometriosis, which I do. By eliminating this mandate, women are effectively at the mercy of their employer's religious beliefs as to if the treatment they use to alleviate endometriosis is covered by their insurance or not.

This is the "religious liberty" argument taken to an extreme; women will suffer, and some will die because their reproductive health ends up at the mercy of their employer.

I get you want to be a moderate hero, but this is the wrong hill to die on.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There is. It's called making sure poor women can afford to raise children. We need a more expansive welfare state that supports hardworking parents whom hold in their hands the nation's future. That can take multiple forms, including tax cuts for poor people. But something needs to be done. Leaving poor families high and dry taking care of kids they can't afford is nothing short of an obamination.

First of all, this implies that all poor women want kids. That's false. Even if the government will provide 100% of the resources to raise a child, it's still unfair to allow employers to not cover birth control in their health insurance. Women and their families shouldn't be forced to have children just because their employer's religious beliefs disagree with birth control.

Secondly, this still doesn't address the issue that an employer's religious beliefs should be able to dictate what kind of health coverage their employees get. As 2,868,691 said, would be it fine for a Jehovah's Witness to decide that their employees don't get blood transfusion coverage? Healthcare needs aren't something that change based on employers' beliefs.

Finally, what I meant by "birth control/reproductive health doesn't just mean abortion" is that many women use birth control pills to regulate or ease their menses, and/or treat conditions such as endometriosis, which I do. By eliminating this mandate, women are effectively at the mercy of their employer's religious beliefs as to if the treatment they use to alleviate endometriosis is covered by their insurance or not.

This is the "religious liberty" argument taken to an extreme; women will suffer, and some will die because their reproductive health ends up at the mercy of their employer.

I get you want to be a moderate hero, but this is the wrong hill to die on.

If they don't want to raise kids, they should still have to carry the child. Just they give up them up once they are delivered. Put them up for adoption.
My main reason for citing religious liberties here is that in my view employers should not be required to pay something as ethically troubling as for abortion-on-demand. If one does require birth control in order to live healthily, then that's generally covered under the mothers' life exception, imo. But it should generally be option of last resort.
I haven't familiarized myself with those rather less-debated and lesser-known corners in the abortion debate (not a woman, it doesn't generally effect me, though I obviously have heard of menstrual periods), and it hasn't really been covered much in ones I have followed. So please forgive me if I am kinda flying blind here. (one reason why I am using some vague language, btw).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While I am not a fan of mandates in healthcare and we should let people have options to bring costs down by not covering unnecessary services, I will say that if you want to bring down costs and the number abortions there are few cheaper ways to doing that then ensuring access to birth control.



This is why we should try to move away from employer based healthcare and have competitive exchanges where at least one provider covers that.

[SNJ1985]

Statistics from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Britain’s largest abortion provider) and the Guttmacher Institute (which has received money from Planned Parenthood and was founded as a subsidiary of it) refute the ''birth control leads to fewer abortions'' myth:

https://tinyurl.com/ycy5amys

https://tinyurl.com/qhbpmhw

[Kamala]

There is. It's called making sure poor women can afford to raise children. We need a more expansive welfare state that supports hardworking parents whom hold in their hands the nation's future. That can take multiple forms, including tax cuts for poor people. But something needs to be done. Leaving poor families high and dry taking care of kids they can't afford is nothing short of an obamination.

First of all, this implies that all poor women want kids. That's false. Even if the government will provide 100% of the resources to raise a child, it's still unfair to allow employers to not cover birth control in their health insurance. Women and their families shouldn't be forced to have children just because their employer's religious beliefs disagree with birth control.

Secondly, this still doesn't address the issue that an employer's religious beliefs should be able to dictate what kind of health coverage their employees get. As 2,868,691 said, would be it fine for a Jehovah's Witness to decide that their employees don't get blood transfusion coverage? Healthcare needs aren't something that change based on employers' beliefs.

Finally, what I meant by "birth control/reproductive health doesn't just mean abortion" is that many women use birth control pills to regulate or ease their menses, and/or treat conditions such as endometriosis, which I do. By eliminating this mandate, women are effectively at the mercy of their employer's religious beliefs as to if the treatment they use to alleviate endometriosis is covered by their insurance or not.

This is the "religious liberty" argument taken to an extreme; women will suffer, and some will die because their reproductive health ends up at the mercy of their employer.

I get you want to be a moderate hero, but this is the wrong hill to die on.

If they don't want to raise kids, they should still have to carry the child. Just they give up them up once they are delivered. Put them up for adoption.
My main reason for citing religious liberties here is that in my view employers should not be required to pay something as ethically troubling as for abortion-on-demand. If one does require birth control in order to live healthily, then that's generally covered under the mothers' life exception, imo. But it should generally be option of last resort.
I haven't familiarized myself with those rather less-debated and lesser-known corners in the abortion debate (not a woman, it doesn't generally effect me, though I obviously have heard of menstrual periods), and it hasn't really been covered much in ones I have followed. So please forgive me if I am kinda flying blind here. (one reason why I am using some vague language, btw).

Tim, "birth control" isn't just abortions. In fact, abortions aren't even considered to be the largest factor of birth control.

Birth control, and the Obamacare mandate, includes: oral contraceptives (the pill), IUDs, other forms of contraceptives such as female condoms, implants, patches, shots, etc, sterilization surgery, and others.

[Kingpoleon]

There is. It's called making sure poor women can afford to raise children. We need a more expansive welfare state that supports hardworking parents whom hold in their hands the nation's future. That can take multiple forms, including tax cuts for poor people. But something needs to be done. Leaving poor families high and dry taking care of kids they can't afford is nothing short of an obamination.

First of all, this implies that all poor women want kids. That's false. Even if the government will provide 100% of the resources to raise a child, it's still unfair to allow employers to not cover birth control in their health insurance. Women and their families shouldn't be forced to have children just because their employer's religious beliefs disagree with birth control.

Secondly, this still doesn't address the issue that an employer's religious beliefs should be able to dictate what kind of health coverage their employees get. As 2,868,691 said, would be it fine for a Jehovah's Witness to decide that their employees don't get blood transfusion coverage? Healthcare needs aren't something that change based on employers' beliefs.

Finally, what I meant by "birth control/reproductive health doesn't just mean abortion" is that many women use birth control pills to regulate or ease their menses, and/or treat conditions such as endometriosis, which I do. By eliminating this mandate, women are effectively at the mercy of their employer's religious beliefs as to if the treatment they use to alleviate endometriosis is covered by their insurance or not.

This is the "religious liberty" argument taken to an extreme; women will suffer, and some will die because their reproductive health ends up at the mercy of their employer.

I get you want to be a moderate hero, but this is the wrong hill to die on.

If they don't want to raise kids, they should still have to carry the child. Just they give up them up once they are delivered. Put them up for adoption.
My main reason for citing religious liberties here is that in my view employers should not be required to pay something as ethically troubling as for abortion-on-demand. If one does require birth control in order to live healthily, then that's generally covered under the mothers' life exception, imo. But it should generally be option of last resort.
I haven't familiarized myself with those rather less-debated and lesser-known corners in the abortion debate (not a woman, it doesn't generally effect me, though I obviously have heard of menstrual periods), and it hasn't really been covered much in ones I have followed. So please forgive me if I am kinda flying blind here. (one reason why I am using some vague language, btw).

So, to be clear:
- You think birth control=abortion
- You believe condoms, contraceptives, implants, and sterilization surgery are "lesser-debated" and "lesser-known corners of the abortion debate"

Tim, I apologize if this offends you, but we were obviously raised differently. My mother was a Labor and Delivery nurse, and I can assure you that medical care at birth and afterwards is taken very, very, very seriously. However, before conception, I really don't see an argument against birth control.

[Figueira]

This thread is a great example of why libertarianism is not socially progressive.

[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.

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.

I obviously disagree with you on abortion, but the thing is, we're not talking about abortion here. Like Kamala said, it's not even one of the main forms of birth control. Being a gay guy, I'm obviously not an expert on the matter, but it's quite clear to me.

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

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.

The birth control mandate doesn't cover abortions, unless you consider Plan B to be an abortion.