Thursday, 26 January 2012
-
Another Reason to Love Obama: Free Birth Control
I couldn't be more excited about this new development from the Obama Administration.
Starting on August 1st, employers will be "required to cover contraception in their health plans, along with other preventive services, with no cost-sharing such as co-pays or deductibles. This means that after years of trying to get birth control covered to the same extent that health plans cover Viagra, our country will finally have nearly universal coverage of contraception."
This is a huge step in our country. This will not only help to protect women's rights, but it is also a step towards making men and women equal in the eyes of the government.
Do you doubt the positive impact that this decision may have? Then read on.
According to Think Progress, "family planning results in better health outcomes for women and their children—a woman who has a planned pregnancy is more likely to be in better health when she gets pregnant and more likely to seek prenatal care, and children who are born at least two years apart are healthier. Family planning is also the most effective tool we have in reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion."
Makes sense, right?
So thank you, President Obama. You're making steps in the right direction, and I appreciate the determination you've shown towards helping women.
So what do you think? Are you pro-free contraception? Do you think this a good decision, or a bad one?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to healthkicker's Healthkicker Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in healthkicker's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: msenergydrink
- About Me: While I tried to stay in college for as long as I possibly could, I picked up a Psychology minor, forcing myself to learn a little about mental health. What I didn't know was how closely linked mental and physical health, are to each other. Now that I've graduated, I've enjoyed writing about all different aspects of health for Healthkicker. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that there's no way to live healthy unless you're happy, too. I'm hoping to be able to give as much insight as I can, while picking up a few tips from everyone along the way!
 If there was one drink I could not live with, it'd be WATER. While I do thrive off of energy drinks, I drink about 15 glasses of water a day. As far as my favorite foods go, I'll eat anything with cheese, chicken, and asparagus. Also, ANY kind of fruit!
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 424 Views: 0 1019776 Comments: 0 11489 View all posts by msenergydrink
Comments (217)
I think all forms of contraception (including sterilization) should be free and easy to get. If you want a way to reduce unwanted pregnancy, reduce the poverty level, among other things, this is the way to do it.
One of the very few things this guy did right.
This plan is unjust. It amounts to a taxpayer subsidy for having sex and it forces organized religions like the Catholic Church to violate their doctrines.
People scream bloody murder when there is even a hint of religion intruding into government, but when the government imposes itself on religion it's "an exciting new development".
This exciting new development is a textbook violation of the 1st Amendment which protects religious faith from government oppression.
I think you are misunderstanding what the word 'free' means.
Nothing is free.
I'm kind of split about this. On one hand, I am completely against abortion, so anything that prevents abortion from being around is a plus to me. However, I also feel that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for something that only half of the population will use. That also applies for Viagra by the way. But I suppose if you think of it as half the population is paying for Viagra while the other half is paying for BC, it seems fair.
My absolute biggest problem with this is the promiscuity it may cause. But that in itself is a null argument since if people want to sleep around, they'll do it whether they have protection from unwanted things or not.
So I guess I'm alright with it.
I still dislike Obama though.
@StatelessPilot@revelife - I completely agree with you.
I don't know how I feel about this. People should be able to get birth control if they want, of course. There's places like Planned Parenthood for that, and I know it works because I have a ton of friends who get their birth control for free or really cheap from Planned Parenthood. My issue is with the fact that they're trying to force Catholic and Evangelical churches to support birth control on their insurances or whatever they're called. People go crazy if religions overstep their boundaries, but apparently it's okay if the government does it to the religions.
Yay, my tax dollars are going to your contraception -.- Another reason NOT to love Obama
@sunflowersforlove@xanga - x2@npr32486@xanga - @sunflowersforlove@xanga - @sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
my taxes go to programs i disagree with every day. but, being agnostic, i don't have a religion to conveniently hide behind. if i can't dictate tax policy based on my preferences, why can anyone else?
also...
@npr32486@xanga - if my taxes have to pay for Viagra, why not contraception?
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Most of the programs don't run directly contrary to my beliefs, although I agree, I'd rather the gov't tax less and let people buy their own stuff. Ron Paul 2012!
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - The redistribution of wealth is stealing. Stealing is unjust whether you agree or not.
Taxation for services such as police, fire and military is legitimate because they do not require the redistribution of wealth. Financing public services through taxation is just whereas robbing Peter to pay Paul is theft and immoral.
People must understand that their lifestyle and habits are their own responsibility. Requiring that others pay for them is immoral.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - you didn't even stick to the issue at hand. but then again, you rarely do.
and, for the record, i don't support redistribution of wealth. but i DO support an equal tax system. for starters, i think all forms of income should be taxed, including income made from investments. and i think tax breaks should be done away with altogether.
stealing is unjust, but so is greed.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I brought up taxation and wealth redistribution in the context of this discussion
This issue is one of the government forcing its subjects to pay for the sex habits of others and violating the 1st Amendment with regard to forcing religions to go against their values.
Obama's plan is therefore unconstitutional and a violation of basic human rights.
.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
"This issue is one of the government forcing its subjects to pay for the sex habits of others and violating the 1st Amendment with regard to forcing religions to go against their values."
your religion teaches you not to use contraception. nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is sinful to pay for it via taxes.
and besides, birth control pills are not used only as a contraceptive. i was put on them at a fairly young age due to irregular/freakishly heavy periods and moderate acne. it wasn't until much later that they became useful as a contraceptive.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - My arguments have nothing to with the particulars of my religious faith. They have EVERYTHING to do with the Constitution of the United States which protects religion from the government
Forcing any citizen to financially support programs that go against their religious beliefs is a violation of the Constitution. And forcing any citizen to financially support the sex lives of other citizens is theft and basically turns that citizen into a slave.
I have seen you complain vociferously about the imposition of religious beliefs and politics. Mixing religion with politics is completely constitutional.
Yet you have no problem with a plan that actually violates the US Constitution and makes one group of citizens slaves to another.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
"Forcing any citizen to financially support programs that go against their religious beliefs is a violation of the Constitution."
i think you'd have a tough time making that argument in a legal setting. one, it gives citizens who identify with a religion more rights than a citizen who doesn't. i don't want to pay for rich people's tax breaks. why should my preference be less important because i can't quote a religious text to back it up?
two, you'd have to demonstrate genuine religious belief. otherwise, just about anyone could argue that just about anything funded by taxes goes against their religious beliefs. how do you plan to draw the line?
not to mention, what about other religions besides Christianity? i doubt you'd honestly support a Muslim who says it's unconstitutional that his taxes pay for military exercises that place, say, an Islamic holy site in danger. or a Jew who doesn't want his taxes supporting businesses that are open on the Sabbath. or would you?
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - The legal case is clear and easy to make. I just made it and US Catholic bishops are making it even as we speak. And Constitutional protections keep one group of citizens from victimizing another group of citizens.
No citizen should be forced to pay for the sexual practices of another. Why should someone else be forced to be responsible for your menstrual problems? You are responsible for your own problems.
If I am forced by the government to take responsibility for your problems that means that you have power over me as I am forced to pay for your problems in addition to my own.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
"Why should someone else be forced to be responsible for your menstrual problems? You are responsible for your own problems."
then that should apply to all medication, or health care in general, don't you think? but then, insurance would be just as unjust as well. or are they off the hook because that's private sector?
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Correct. Socialized medicine shreds the US Constitution. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't get medical care if they need it. It just means that the government is not involved in the financing.
Government by nature cannot administer social programs without bankrupting itself and destroying the moral fiber of the populace.
Also, a government that controls our health, controls us. And that is tyranny of the first order.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - *shrug* well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
i'd rather have birth control than have no birth control like that one republican candidate didn't want and have babies popping out everywhere
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Dude. The government also provides free medication for erectile dysfunction...so, men can fuck around as much as they'd like to, but women are not allowed birth control? Bullshit. America is a sham because of close-minded people like you.
What. I think that's dumb. If I can pay $30 I should. It's good people who can't afford it can get help because they need it most, but why would it be free for everyone? Or did I just read this wrong?
It doesn't make any sense to do that because that's just really expensive for everyone. I just don't get the point I guess. Kind of taking something that wasn't much of an issue and making it into a big deal and a lot of money.
Free doesn't mean the drug companies work for free. Or whatever. SOmetimes you have to think about things and where they come from and how they get to be "free."