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

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.

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/

{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.)