Quantcast

Why do some Conservatives want to limit women's access to contraceptives?

the_old_coach 2012/02/14 02:52:57
I'm a conservative Libertarian, though I admit I am fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

It is in women's--ALL WOMEN's--best interest to have contraceptive help. EVERY poll supports this, yet the issue seems like just more politics to me.

It is not really a Catholic Church issue, as many Catholic women say THEY use them. It is not abortion because birth control methods
prevent conception, so no fetus is created: Preventing a pregnancy from occurring
could not in any way be considered abortion.

No, it just seems like politics to me. What do you think?
Why do some Conservatives want to limit contraceptives
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Hula girl - Friends not Fol... 2012/02/14 04:29:06
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +9
    No one has said to limit contraception...WE JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT NOR SHOULD A CHURCH OR CHURCH NON PROFIT.

    They can go to Planned Parenthood it's cheep and they don't have a conscious.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Michael 2012/04/12 02:31:54
    Michael
    +1
    I am just trying to understand the argument that preventative contraceptives are for woman’s health.

    I have listened to both side of the argument intently, I’ve listened to MSNBC and FOX, I’ve listened to woman’s right groups and anti-abortion groups. I must say that the argument supporters present is as nonsensical to me as the opposition’s response.

    I see three things I just don’t understand about the supporter’s argument, and a few things that just seem superficial. Please if you can clarify for me, leave some comments.

    First point of confusion: In one sentence supporters say contraceptives must be part of free preventative care because women have a problem accessing these drugs. In the next sentence they say the Catholic Church needs to supply them because 90 some percent of women use them. If 90% of women use them, how can there be an access problem? Given the fact that there has to be some women who don’t want them, we can’t be talking about a big percentage of women having an access problem. Is there really an access problem? Enough of a problem that we have to make them free?

    Second point of confusion: Preventative care covers items like mammograms to help stop breast cancer, pap-smears to stop cervical cancer, PSA test to stop prostate cancer, blood work ...









    I am just trying to understand the argument that preventative contraceptives are for woman’s health.

    I have listened to both side of the argument intently, I’ve listened to MSNBC and FOX, I’ve listened to woman’s right groups and anti-abortion groups. I must say that the argument supporters present is as nonsensical to me as the opposition’s response.

    I see three things I just don’t understand about the supporter’s argument, and a few things that just seem superficial. Please if you can clarify for me, leave some comments.

    First point of confusion: In one sentence supporters say contraceptives must be part of free preventative care because women have a problem accessing these drugs. In the next sentence they say the Catholic Church needs to supply them because 90 some percent of women use them. If 90% of women use them, how can there be an access problem? Given the fact that there has to be some women who don’t want them, we can’t be talking about a big percentage of women having an access problem. Is there really an access problem? Enough of a problem that we have to make them free?

    Second point of confusion: Preventative care covers items like mammograms to help stop breast cancer, pap-smears to stop cervical cancer, PSA test to stop prostate cancer, blood work to stop heart attacks and strokes, flu shots to help stop the flu. In other words, everything in preventative care is to stop a disease. Are we now arguing that pregnancy is a disease? If not, coverage doesn’t belong in health insurance anywhere. In fact, health insurance only covers medically necessary procedures. In most cases, contraception isn’t a medically necessary procedure, which is why they aren’t covered now. (hold your comments, we will talk about medically necessary contraception in a minute). So we must decide, is pregnancy a disease, or isn’t it. If it is, let’s include it. If not, let’s not.

    Third point of confusion: For all of the talk about women’s health, I have never heard anyone discuss why a drug that has been classified as a group 1 carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans) by the World Health Organization is good for women’s health. Studies have shown that the pill increases a woman's chance for breast and cervical cancer. How can taking a carcinogen for a non-disease be good for a woman’s health?

    A superficial argument going on is contraception should be covered because some women need it for medical purposes. This is superficial because, this is such a minority of the use, and besides it is already covered for medical purposes. Even the Catholic Church allows this. In fact, there are separate billing codes (CPT codes) for contraceptive use and medical use just for this reason. So this is already covered and no one is suggesting it be taken away.

    One last thing that keeps me scratching my head, women in congress held a vote on a protest bill that would ban the sale of Viagra. Their point was if women can’t get the pill, men shouldn’t get theirs. I found this funny because Viagra isn’t covered by insurance now, and no one has suggested banning the use of contraceptives. In fact, one could argue that Viagra is for medical purposes and should be covered easier than making the argument that contraceptives should.

    Bottom line, it seems to me that the argument supporting contraception as a preventative service is; In the name of women’s health, we want to have free carcinogens to eradicate the disease of pregnancy because a very small portion of the population doesn’t have access because of cost. That is just nonsensical to me.

    I wonder what the arguments will be like when the line-item breakout for voluntary abortions start.
    (more)
  • Darryle Owens 2012/03/13 15:33:33
    Darryle Owens
    +3
    The Catholic Church is not restricting access to contraceptives. They just don't want to pay for them because they don't believe in them. Women can still go out and buy them on their own, as they've been doing ever since they started working at a Catholic institution. Women who work in Catholic churches or Catholic institutions know the situation before they begin working there. No government at any level should be telling a private employer or an insurance company that they have to pay for anything. Additionally, no benefit coverage is "free". If it's covered by an insurance plan, an employer pays for it, or employees pay for it through contributions and/or reduced wages. If this contraception issue is "restricting access", then any coverage limit for any service is also "restricting access", since the plan (and the employer) doesn't pay for anything over the limit. This "women's health issue" is a distraction -- this is not about contraception, it's about government overreach.
  • FoxHunter 2012/02/17 07:08:14
    FoxHunter
    +1
    Why does it seem like women are being systematically excluded from legislative conversations about contraception?
  • Darryle... FoxHunter 2012/03/13 15:34:36
    Darryle Owens
    +3
    Why is contraception part of a legislative conversation?
  • I am me 2012/02/15 04:43:06
    I am me
    +2
    What gets me is people think that birth control is just for the widely used purpose. When the fact is, birth control is and can be used as a hormone replacement as well. But no, that can't possibly be true. :-/
  • Darryle... I am me 2012/03/13 15:42:45
    Darryle Owens
    +2
    True or not (and it IS true), you can pay for the birth control yourself. Forcing your employer or your employer's insurance company to pay for it, whatever the use is, is the problem. If you or any woman wants to work for a company whose insurance plan pays for contraception, you can. Nine out of ten do cover it.
  • Michael I am me 2012/04/12 02:33:46
    Michael
    +1
    Yes, and the catholic church is ok with that, and insurance already pays for that use. So this is a non-issue
  • Mrs. V 2012/02/15 02:54:56
    Mrs. V
    +3
    They don't. That is just propaganda put out by the left. The truth is, no one is being denied access to contraceptives, they should just pay for them themselves.
  • the_old... Mrs. V 2012/02/15 03:31:54
    the_old_coach
    +2
    That is exactly the answer I wanted to see posted on here. Thank you very much!
  • Mrs. V the_old... 2012/02/15 04:18:44
    Mrs. V
    Should we also be forced to pay for alcohol for alcoholics?
  • Mrs. V the_old... 2012/02/15 04:22:53
    Mrs. V
    Also, I am 60, have 3 children and NEVER took contraceptives. I thought they were poison for women. I never had any of the complications other woman had with....., well,..... you know..... menopause. There are other ways to plan families other than contraceptives.
  • Asheera Jones 2012/02/15 02:15:37
    Asheera Jones
    +1
    THE BIBLE:
    the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god's name, in his holly temple!
    the 1984 NIV footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what "to thy thigh to rot, they belly to swell" meant: numbers 5:21 "or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness" to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.


    'Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer." Give them, O LORD -- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts...Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.'

    HOSEA 9-16

    the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
    3.3.3 ATHEISM: A HISTORY OF GOD (Part 1)- Evid3nc3
    2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism-AronRa
    The BEST emotional P*RN- Thunderf00t
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 36)
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 29)
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 28)

    http://www.evilbible.com/god
    http://skepticsannotatedbible...
    http://galerouth.blogspot.com/




    THIS IS THE LAW:
    ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, ...














































    THE BIBLE:
    the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god's name, in his holly temple!
    the 1984 NIV footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what "to thy thigh to rot, they belly to swell" meant: numbers 5:21 "or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness" to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.


    'Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer." Give them, O LORD -- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts...Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.'

    HOSEA 9-16

    the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
    3.3.3 ATHEISM: A HISTORY OF GOD (Part 1)- Evid3nc3
    2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism-AronRa
    The BEST emotional P*RN- Thunderf00t
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 36)
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 29)
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 28)

    http://www.evilbible.com/god
    http://skepticsannotatedbible...
    http://galerouth.blogspot.com/




    THIS IS THE LAW:
    ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

    NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

    consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent.

    http://galerouth.blogspot.com/



    THIS IS SCIENCE:
    FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:

    as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B and HCG--- so her body doesn't kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:
    It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    " Due to its highly-negative charge, hCG may repel the immune cells of the mother, protecting the fetus during the first trimester. It has also been hypothesized that hCG may be a placental link for the development of local maternal immunotolerance."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
    http://www.answers.com/topic/... -- Gale's Science of Everyday Things.

    just like a parasitic twin --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"
    http://www.thefreedictionary....

    pregnancy CAUSES HARM: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/...


    THE FETUS DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO FEEL PAIN --WHEN MOST ABORTIONS OCCUR.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...


    http://galerouth.blogspot.com/
    (more)
  • Bill Asheera... 2012/02/16 15:50:06
    Bill
    {THE BIBLE:
    the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god's name, in his holly temple!}

    It does not support abortion, this was a PUNISHMENT by God, not the priests (they did NOT perform the abortion) for SINFUL behavior. This was not abortion on DEMAND or PARTIAL BIRTH abortion. God can invoke any kind of punishment He wishes. Again, that is God doing it, not a man or a woman that just wants an abortion. Read the NIV version below...this time carefully.

    21 here the priest is to put the woman under this CURSE—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    Before you get on me about being a wing-nut, I am a non-theist. However, I do know how to read. I do believe that Creation Research is ENTIRELY wrong, that the creation model is fanciful and not (logically) verifiable and that the post-evolutionary studies of Darwinism (i.e. Stephen Gould) are more scientifically valid.

    All I can say is that I do not "rummage" through the Bible to convince an audience that something is contrary to popular belief by trying to argue nebulous religious passages. You end up losing the argument and s...
    {THE BIBLE:
    the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god's name, in his holly temple!}

    It does not support abortion, this was a PUNISHMENT by God, not the priests (they did NOT perform the abortion) for SINFUL behavior. This was not abortion on DEMAND or PARTIAL BIRTH abortion. God can invoke any kind of punishment He wishes. Again, that is God doing it, not a man or a woman that just wants an abortion. Read the NIV version below...this time carefully.

    21 here the priest is to put the woman under this CURSE—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    Before you get on me about being a wing-nut, I am a non-theist. However, I do know how to read. I do believe that Creation Research is ENTIRELY wrong, that the creation model is fanciful and not (logically) verifiable and that the post-evolutionary studies of Darwinism (i.e. Stephen Gould) are more scientifically valid.

    All I can say is that I do not "rummage" through the Bible to convince an audience that something is contrary to popular belief by trying to argue nebulous religious passages. You end up losing the argument and seem petty and are soon dismissed. There are many things in the Bible that self-contradict, mush less contradict science. You come off sounding like John Stewart. His gimmick: take a truth and stretch it beyond all recognition in parody to get a laugh. Some times funny, sometimes not - but always recognized as a stretch...and sometimes desperate (if trying to clobber a Republican.)
    (more)
  • Bill 2012/02/14 20:41:29 (edited)
    Bill
    A reason: 11.2M women * $600 year/woman = $6.27B/year
    $600/year is the Planned Parenthood (Parenthood????) estimate of BC pills.
    Do you really think the insurance companies are going to eat this loss?
    They will pass them along for other stuff. Please, stop kidding yourself if you think they will.

    Why obama MAY get away with it:
    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
    Alexis de Tocqueville
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/02/14 18:46:08
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    They do not - just that simple. This an Constitutional issue, not a contraception issue. No one is denying access, no one is saying women cannot take them, no one is saying they cannot buy them. This is a first amendment issue of religious liberty. Either one supports the Constitution or one does not.
  • Camaro1991 2012/02/14 18:09:09
    Camaro1991
    +1
    As a libertarian with conservative leanings, I can say it is an issue of religious freedom. What if you were forced to do things like this against your religious conviction.
  • Darryle... Camaro1991 2012/03/13 15:38:10
    Darryle Owens
    +3
    Agreed. But I think it goes beyond religious freedom. It is freedom in general. No government should force employers to pay for anything. If you want it, pay for it yourself.
  • Mary Philliber 2012/02/14 14:43:10
    Mary Philliber
    I should not have to pay for some else to use contraception. This is about the government telling us once again what we have to do. Everyone can get contraception. Its not like you cant go to a doctor or planned parenthood (which my daughter did because she has no insurance and got some for a low price) No, this is not about womens rights, this is about the government telling us what we should have for free. And when the government runs out of other peoples money nothing will be free. Maybe nothing we have will be left. (medicare, social security) Government needs to butt out
  • Arel 2012/02/14 14:31:02
    Arel
    +1
    No one is limiting anything. Contraception is available in many forms and many places and free to very low costs at health departments.
    This is not about womens rights it is about religious rights and the Catholic Churches is being violated.
  • kmay 2012/02/14 14:26:03 (edited)
    kmay
    +2
    BS!!

    Women already have total access and it is free when poor or in need!
    Where in ther Constitution is BC a right? Pay for it yourself.

    Gov has not right telling religious organizations or companies what to sell. Period.

    This IS a religious liberty issue not BC issue.
  • lady_c5_loadmaster 2012/02/14 14:21:50
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    +1
    They are not limiting you getting your contraseptives they just don't what to have to pay for them in the insurance plan because it goes against church teaching. You can still get them you just have to pay for them yourself. Contraception is a choice not an entitlement.
  • jams 2012/02/14 13:19:32
    jams
    +1
    Old people want to bleed the nation dry with their social security and their medicare and their free prescription drugs. They need the young to breed taxpayers.
  • Seonag 2012/02/14 13:15:32
    Seonag
    +2
    It's out there, available. No one wants to limit the access, just that many of us don't feel we should be paying for another persons birth control.
  • Jerry (Iron Priest)☮ R ☮ P ☮ 201
    +1
    It's not conservatism; it's Catholicism.
  • Broken 2012/02/14 12:22:13
    Broken
    +2
    I think you miscast the current controversy. It is NOT about keeping a woman from getting contraception. It IS about forcing an employer to pay for something they may find morally objectionable.
  • John "By God" American 2012/02/14 12:18:42
    John "By God" American
    What business is it of the government at any level of this discussion? If a woman wants a contraceptive, she can get the prescription and go get it filled at a local pharmacy. Easy as that...
  • Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA 2012/02/14 12:05:09
    Mel the Witch POTL PWCM~JLA
    Why should the public pay the bill? Limit women's access to contraceptives? yea right...
  • Patric 2012/02/14 11:51:16
    Patric
    +2
    why is obomma attempting to force the church to do some thing they are against ?

    why is obomma trying to force the church to pay for some thing they are against ?

    why is obomma crossing the church line ?

    how in the hell did obomma get some one to vote for him ?
  • jams Patric 2012/02/14 13:20:49
    jams
    Don't buy your contraceptives at Church and you're problem is SOLVED.
  • Patric jams 2012/02/14 13:27:27
    Patric
    YAWN,, go up....
  • jams Patric 2012/02/14 13:41:00
    jams
    Yes, massa.
  • Patric jams 2012/02/14 14:08:11
    Patric
    hmm,, seems as though you are consistent
  • Bill jams 2012/02/14 20:38:24
    Bill
    That's better.
  • jams Bill 2012/02/14 20:52:50
    jams
    Just what your mom said!
  • Bill jams 2012/02/15 13:31:56
    Bill
    Wow. Great reply, but very old. Let me translate: Yo Momma. Right massa?
  • kmay Patric 2012/02/14 14:33:48 (edited)
    kmay
    +2
    This was a calculated move by the WH
    [divide and conquer in action - women against religious]

    Reminds me of this saying by a German pastor Martin Niemoeller

    First they came for the Socialists, and I
    did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
    and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did
    not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me — and there was
    no one left to speak for me.

    Thank God the Bishops, Pastors, Rabbi's etc. are fighting back!
  • Patric kmay 2012/02/14 14:47:48
    Patric
    +1
    class war fare
    church / women war fare
    white / black war fare
    ____ / _____ war fare ( fill in the blank )

    obomma is good at this tactic, divide the people into seperate sections, one against the other ,, and then a minority of voters can elect him... the majority are fighting eachother
  • kmay Patric 2012/02/14 14:49:04
    kmay
    +1
    And his sheeple follow blindly along!
  • Patric kmay 2012/02/14 14:54:17
    Patric
    +1
    that the sheeple follow does not bother me ..

    that they are able to vote ,,

    that some of them are allowed to reporduce ,

    damn, what a mess we got our selves into, and it started with not getting enuff votes to keep obomma out of the white house the first time.

    hope we do not allow that mistake to happen again..
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/02/14 11:14:34
    Lady Whitewolf
    Dunno.... seems stupid to me.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/26 08:57:53

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals