The Goat Pen

Contraception is the work of the debil

The spin from tardo group was so predictable.

Where the hell has anyone here said contraception should be banned? Umm nobody.

Its all about forcing a private group to pay for it. It shouldn't matter if they are religious affiliated or not. It isn't ANY business of govt to be involved in it.

Without a govt mandate most places cover it already because the company/owner and the insurer AGREED to do so. Our plan covers getting snipped and tubal ligation at 100% and I am fine with that because two private entities CHOSE to do that on their own.

That is the issue and of course the obtuse crew knows that already.

lol You are so full of it. You want points for admitting you could care less about birth control and women's reproductive health? All you did was confirm that you just wanted to latch on to the catholic clergy's gripe because it undermined oprama. Except that oprama sidestepped that mess - and now you're taking up the cause of the poor private insurance carriers. "Oh noooo - they'll go out of bidness!" "Will somebody SAVE BC/BS's constitutional rights puhleeeeze" lmao

You are a fucking hoot.

Contraceptive services is a broad term but with this administration and this bill it's my understanding that regular abortion is included in that term. Haven't researched it that much but that is my understanding. Kinda like "Family Planning" was not "abortion" several years ago but now "family planning" and "planned parenthood" are synonyms for "abortion services." There are attempts to change definitions and I think in this particular piece of legislation some early abortions are considered "contraceptive". I haven't seen that for myself so I don't know that is the case and it's hard to get actual true documents that you know havn't been messed with. I am not saying it is or isn't at this time. I just have heard rumors of such and have no first hand knowledge that the attempted change of definition is taking place. It wouldn't suprise me.

That said, I know the abortion pill is included in it (the morning after pill) so 100% without a doubt abortion is included and they are wanting the church to fund abortions through this bill even if it is "only" the pill form of abortion and not the suck the brains out at 9 months type of abortion. There has been a definition change there and because it can be a contraceptive then it is being categorized as such instead of an abortion pill and the dang thing is showing up in vending machines in some states.

So if not forcing the church to pay for a physicial, surgical abortion they would be forcing them to pay for a pill induced abortion. Same thing.

Why the insistance of someone being mandated to cover contraception? Is it some onerous cost? Why can't there be insurance plans that don't cover it and some that do, and let people decide which one they want? My guess is the cost between the two is not that much when it comes to premiums.

Do we really think that because it's covered by insurance that people are going to change their use of contraception? Of course nobody thinks that if they're totally honest with you. This is all a power play, government vs. individual freedom.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Contraceptive services is a broad term but with this administration and this bill it's my understanding that regular abortion is included in that term. Haven't researched it that much but that is my understanding. Kinda like "Family Planning" was not "abortion" several years ago but now "family planning" and "planned parenthood" are synonyms for "abortion services." There are attempts to change definitions and I think in this particular piece of legislation some early abortions are considered "contraceptive". I haven't seen that for myself so I don't know that is the case and it's hard to get actual true documents that you know havn't been messed with. I am not saying it is or isn't at this time. I just have heard rumors of such and have no first hand knowledge that the attempted change of definition is taking place. It wouldn't suprise me.

That said, I know the abortion pill is included in it (the morning after pill) so 100% without a doubt abortion is included and they are wanting the church to fund abortions through this bill even if it is "only" the pill form of abortion and not the suck the brains out at 9 months type of abortion. There has been a definition change there and because it can be a contraceptive then it is being categorized as such instead of an abortion pill and the dang thing is showing up in vending machines in some states.

So if not forcing the church to pay for a physicial, surgical abortion they would be forcing them to pay for a pill induced abortion. Same thing.

Mother of six. "Haven't researched it myself", "haven't seen it, "don't know for sure," " I'm not saying it is or it isn't," "just heard rumors", "no first hand knowledge." Hellfire, BOJ - we 'fools' get it. You don't know shit about any of this, yet you're convinced the media is trying to pull a fast one.

You know just as less about the morning after pill and how progestin inhibits fertilization, or prevents or delays ovulation. Check out the Mayo Clinic or AMA websites (or ask a hot chick).

sardis wrote:Why the insistance of someone being mandated to cover contraception? Is it some onerous cost? Why can't there be insurance plans that don't cover it and some that do, and let people decide which one they want? My guess is the cost between the two is not that much when it comes to premiums.

Do we really think that because it's covered by insurance that people are going to change their use of contraception? Of course nobody thinks that if they're totally honest with you. This is all a power play, government vs. individual freedom.

Well even Fox News talking heads are gracious enough to admit that a large segment of poor women can't afford their BCs. Of course a couple of them accuse the left of trying to keep the poor from procreating, and that this is all a form of class warfare. Some guy named Gutfeld.....do you think he's on to something?

Well even Fox News talking heads are gracious enough to admit that a large segment of poor women can't afford their BCs. Of course a couple of them accuse the left of trying to keep the poor from procreating, and that this is all a form of class warfare. Some guy named Gutfeld.....do you think he's on to something?

They cant afford their HDTVs and their cellphones either. We might as well just go ahead a pay for their beer and cigarettes.

bluetick wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:Contraceptive services is a broad term but with this administration and this bill it's my understanding that regular abortion is included in that term. Haven't researched it that much but that is my understanding. Kinda like "Family Planning" was not "abortion" several years ago but now "family planning" and "planned parenthood" are synonyms for "abortion services." There are attempts to change definitions and I think in this particular piece of legislation some early abortions are considered "contraceptive". I haven't seen that for myself so I don't know that is the case and it's hard to get actual true documents that you know havn't been messed with. I am not saying it is or isn't at this time. I just have heard rumors of such and have no first hand knowledge that the attempted change of definition is taking place. It wouldn't suprise me.

That said, I know the abortion pill is included in it (the morning after pill) so 100% without a doubt abortion is included and they are wanting the church to fund abortions through this bill even if it is "only" the pill form of abortion and not the suck the brains out at 9 months type of abortion. There has been a definition change there and because it can be a contraceptive then it is being categorized as such instead of an abortion pill and the dang thing is showing up in vending machines in some states.

So if not forcing the church to pay for a physicial, surgical abortion they would be forcing them to pay for a pill induced abortion. Same thing.

Mother of six. "Haven't researched it myself", "haven't seen it, "don't know for sure," " I'm not saying it is or it isn't," "just heard rumors", "no first hand knowledge." Hellfire, BOJ - we 'fools' get it. You don't know shit about any of this, yet you're convinced the media is trying to pull a fast one.

You know just as less about the morning after pill and how progestin inhibits fertilization, or prevents or delays ovulation. Check out the Mayo Clinic or AMA websites (or ask a hot chick).

Tic I know full well how the morning after pill works and I know how it used to be classified and how it is changing classification.

That's the point I am making. I have heard this legislation has a very wide definition of "contraceptive services" to include some early surgical abortions.

I have not been able to find the actual law complete with definitioins myself. Seems awful hard to come by but that was true before the health and human services finally came out and said that yes the gubment is gonna use your private health info and look at it as much as the please. In other words it's not private any more and by law they are gonna take it and that's why they mandated docs had to record it in their electronic medical reconds, so they can get that info easily. Before they came out and admitted it there were rumblings from some of the same sources but I couldn't find it myself.

Same here, there are rumblings but I can't find the actual legal definition of "contraceptive services" as it pertains to this particular bill. One day I may be able to when we are "allowed" to know more about it. It's hard to find anything "concrete" when it's written by lawyers until after the official "interpretations" and "regulations" come out which may or may not resemble the law as written.

The fact that Planned Parenthood gets money and is considered "contraceptive service" does lend me to believe that indeed the "definition" of contraception is changing because Planned Parenthood is an abortion org. no matter their protests to the contrary, and they are included in the gubment list of "contraceptive services providers".

On RU-486 just for you tic.

From wiki

An abortifacient is a substance that induces abortion

Pharmaceutical abortifacients

Main article: Medical abortion

Prostaglandin analogues, such as misoprostol or gemeprost[3] (both synthetic prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) analogues), are often used to terminate pregnancy up to 24[4] or 60[3] days of gestation, in combination with mifepristone (a progesterone receptor antagonist) or methotrexate (an antifolate). Misoprostol administered vaginally is more effective than when administered orally.[5] Misoprostol is approved in France under the trade name GyMiso for use with mifepristone for medical abortion. Misoprostol is used off-label with mifepristone for medical abortion in the U.S. Dinoprostone, given by the extra-amniotic route, can be used for late abortion (second trimester).[3]

Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor antagonist also known as RU-486.

Good enough for ya? Churches being forced to pay for RU-486 or any other abortifacient are being forced to pay for abortions whether it's actually RU-486 or one of the others that does the same thing it's still classified as an abortion, still classified as an abortifacient but that classification is now changing to "contraceptive".

That's what I was talking about.

bluetick wrote:lol You are so full of it. You want points for admitting you could care less about birth control and women's reproductive health? All you did was confirm that you just wanted to latch on to the catholic clergy's gripe because it undermined oprama. Except that oprama sidestepped that mess - and now you're taking up the cause of the poor private insurance carriers. "Oh noooo - they'll go out of bidness!" "Will somebody SAVE BC/BS's constitutional rights puhleeeeze" lmao

You are a fucking hoot.

You have lost your goddamned mind. Oprama's didn't sidestep anything. He keeps stepping deeper.

I don't care if a woman has insurance that covers every damned procedure in the book. If she is the policy owner or the biz owner or her employer CHOSE to cover it that is all between them. Wtf is that so hard to understand?

My concern is when govt comes in and says you must do this you have no choice. I don't care if it's secular or religious in nature. It isn't governments business. The fact that it is forcing religious organizations to pay for something in direct conflict with their teachings makes it even worse and is anathema to America.

The fact that the retards are trying sidestep as you say by trying to say the relig org doesn't have to cover but all insurance must cover it nd can't charge for is Alice in Wonderlandesque and shows how fucking stupid and dangerous the left is when it comes to business, jobs, economy, and basically anything to do with fiscal matters.

Anathema AND Alice in Wonderlandesque.

you've come a long way

grasshopper

bluetick wrote:

sardis wrote:Why the insistance of someone being mandated to cover contraception? Is it some onerous cost? Why can't there be insurance plans that don't cover it and some that do, and let people decide which one they want? My guess is the cost between the two is not that much when it comes to premiums.

Do we really think that because it's covered by insurance that people are going to change their use of contraception? Of course nobody thinks that if they're totally honest with you. This is all a power play, government vs. individual freedom.

Well even Fox News talking heads are gracious enough to admit that a large segment of poor women can't afford their BCs. Of course a couple of them accuse the left of trying to keep the poor from procreating, and that this is all a form of class warfare. Some guy named Gutfeld.....do you think he's on to something?

I don't watch Foxnews. I formed my opinions on my own. You ought to try it sometime, you just may someday realize how government is shredding the constitution all in the name of social engineering.

In other news, Mitt Romney (Mr. Inevitability) just won his fourth out of nine Republican contests.

He won the Maine caucuses (right next door to his home state of Massachussetts) by a whopping 3 percentage points over Ron Paul.

The Mittster is in trouble. He will probably win the nomination eventually, but he is still in trouble.

BOJ, this always plays the same. You take some indefensible position and bombard the thread with a shit ton of drivel, hoping to win by attrition.

I'm tired - you can have it. Birth control is abortion. And the media is in on the deception.

Sardis, that was you on the front lines trying to strike down sex ed in the schools too, wasn't it?

Time marches on, bro. Civilization advances, one way or the other.

bluetick wrote:Sardis, that was you on the front lines trying to strike down sex ed in the schools too, wasn't it?

Time marches on, bro. Civilization advances, one way or the other.

No, we were in parochial schools minding our own business until the government tried to shut us down along with the homeschoolers, but they were unsuccessful. I just hope to God our generation is as steadfast as our parents.

bluetick wrote:BOJ, this always plays the same. You take some indefensible position and bombard the thread with a shit ton of drivel, hoping to win by attrition.

I'm tired - you can have it. Birth control is abortion. And the media is in on the deception.

Not what I am saying at all. I am saying forcing the Church to pay for birth control is forcing them to pay for abortion. I just posted the definitions above and told you that the "definitions" of those drugs are being stretched and called "contraceptives" when they are used for early abortion. That's the main thing I am talking about.

But let me let you in on a little secret, I just had to handle and abortion issue last weekend. I see it all and this girl was using abortion as her personal birth control. She just didn't want to take her birth control and she has a 3 month old from the baby daddy out there now. Came up pregnant again and just couldn't believe it even though she had her free (taxpayer paid) birthcontrol pills. Then she wanted some other pills on the taxpayer dime to "take care of it". She is 19. Plenty of people out there would have given her one of the above drugs and called it "contraception" as she was right at a month pregnant and still hadn't missed a period yet (due this week). She wasn't "a little bit pregnant". She was pregnant.

Matter of fact abortions occur with plain old regular birth control pills. It's what abortion docs prescribed BEFORE abortion pills. They just prescribed an overdose of them, and it would have worked on the girl above too if she knew about that.

So yes forcing them to pay for birth control is indeed forcing them to pay for abortion, even if it's the regular birth control that doesn't cause abortions unless taken in overdose.

Just like the gubment forces ME as a taxpayer to pay for abortion when they give my tax money to Planned Parenthood. It's not right but they do it any way.

I think the gubment should force all taxpayers to pay for bullets for everyone. After all poor people need self defense too. They can't afford bullets so the insurance companies should be forced to pay for the bullets and that should even apply to anti gun groups as well as amnesty international. I mean they would be wrong to claim paying for bullets was paying for guns or paying for killing. After all the bullets can't do anything by themselves.

Whether or not the morning after pill is an abortifacient (it obiously is) is a sideshow. Whether you agree or disagree with the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control (they do) is a distraction.

The main event here is this: the Obama administration felt themselves entitled to force a religious organization to pay for something they morally oppose. They could have just as well tried to force Jewish schools to pay for pork in the cafeteria, or Muslim hospitals to provide minskirts and haltertops, or Quaker hospitals to pay for guns. All are equally absurd and outrageous to every rational people except the feminists.

Perhaps the feminists should experience a little reality therapy. Perhaps the Republicans should announce that, when they return to power, President Marco Rubio will create a new HHS rule which will require NOW and NARAL to provide free stainless steel chastity belts to all their female employees. The combinations to the padlocks on said chastity belts will only be given to husbands and boyfriends. This, after all, is "women's reproductive health care service" which the women MUST HAVE as a Constitutional right.

Furthermore, everyone who walks into an office of NOW and NARAL must be provided a free copy of "The Complete Works of Phyllis Schlaffley." After all, these women have a RIGHT to freedom of the press, and this right can only satisfied by books that teach them to be demure, deferential to men, and stay at home mom's.

Exactly.

This is no different than forcing Muslum people to buy pork, or only providing pork for the children in school etc. The gubment forcing someone to pay for something they are opposed to.

It would be no different if they were to force the church to pay for wine/beer/prostitution.

I personally like the idea of liberals having to buy hunting equipment/guns/knives/bullets for everyone.

I know, let's make athiests and democrats buy Bibles for everyone, and they must be King James versions.