February 1, 2013

"Birth Control Rule Altered to Allay Religious Objections."

"Under the proposal, female employees could get free birth control coverage through a separate plan that would be provided by a health insurer."
The institution objecting to the coverage would not pay for the contraceptives. The costs would instead be paid by the insurance company, with the possibility of recouping the costs through lower health care expenses resulting in part from fewer births.
Is the system better with fewer births? You know, they are babies at first, but eventually they will be workers and therefore taxpayers, and we're especially going to need young workers to be the health care providers for the aging population that will need more and more care.

But if the social engineers are thinking about fewer births, they must also be thinking about more deaths. What better way to avoid costs than for the aging people to depart? How can they not be thinking about that too? At least they're sensitive enough not to spit it in our faces the way they celebrate the savings inherent in fewer births.

And do you really understand the new plan to accommodate religion? Do you see how the religious objectors are absolved from their connection to what they see as sin? Isn't it all sleight of hand? But what is absolution?

116 comments:

Balfegor said...

You know, they are babies at first, but eventually they will be workers and therefore taxpayers, and we're especially going to need young workers to be the health care providers for the aging population that will need more and more care.

Ah, that's the point of the immigration amnesty. To import a class of Latin American serfs.

Meade said...

Another possibility of recouping the costs would be to sell the aborted entities as food.

Ann Althouse said...

"Ah, that's the point of the immigration amnesty. To import a class of Latin American serfs."

I know. Which is why we need to be kind now, before we are at our most vulnerable.

Quayle said...

What difference does it make?

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"Another possibility of recouping the costs would be to sell the aborted entities as food."

That's uncalled for. They're actually not requiring that abortions be paid for. Only birth control. If you want meat production, there is another line to be crossed.

Meade said...

Aborting a collection of cells is birth control.

Crimso said...

"but eventually they will be workers and therefore taxpayers"

There's roughly a 50-50 (maybe 53-47) chance of that.

bpm4532 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bpm4532 said...

These people are insane. The company won't pay for it but the insurance company will? Talk about magical thinking. Where do they think the money comes from to pay for this all? The magical trillion dollar platinum coin fairy? Of course, the company will pay for it! Collectively all companies will pay for it via higher rates.

wyo sis said...

I wonder when old people become collections of cells? When we can no longer recognize our family? When we are in too much pain? When we can no longer expend enough energy to take care of ourselves? When we are too fat? When our kids don't want to be burdened (punished) with our care?

elkh1 said...

We've adopted the Japanese style of stimulating the economy, why not their style of de-population spiral?

Chip Ahoy said...

I was appled and cidered when I first read all that our own insurance companies paid for the avoidance of babies. I meant to say appalled and saddened.

But I'm glad that it's settled and everyone is happy and as long as the insurance companies are paying, then it's freeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eee-eeeeeeee-eee-ee-voice cracks eeeee-eeeeeeeeeeeee.

chuck said...

Is the system better with fewer births?

No people == free health care for all.

The left has simple and effective ideas about how to achieve their goals.

Revenant said...

Personally I think people who are against birth control are completely insane. I've also got zero patience for the Roman Catholic Church and its BS. None of that matters, though, because they do have a right to refuse to buy birth control and that right is clearly being violated.

There is no significant difference between "you have to pay for their birth control" and "you have to buy them insurance from a company that will give them free birth control on the side". No difference whatsoever, really, apart from the later option requiring twice the paperwork.

Pogo said...

"Which is why we need to be kind now, before we are at our most vulnerable."

I used to do lots of nursing home work. One of the most important lessons I learned was 'The state does not love you. It cannot, it will not.'

Nursing homes are for the most part state-run. The core culture of your caregivers will determine the quality of care delivered. Whether you or I or the majority of Americans are nice to this or that ethnicity is meaningless.

Our culture is no longer teaching Chrisitan charity, and I see little evidence in California or Minnesota that the illegals have bright it with them. Crime I see, not generosity or grace.

Your admonition is a false hope.

Anga2010 said...

Absolution (also referred to as "The sacrament of reconcilliation") is the restoring of life to your soul through confession, contrition and penance. Just so you won't have to ask that question again.
For your first question, yes, the birth control (contraceptive) system is better with fewer births. That seems a silly question tho.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Plus, many Catholic dioceses, health networks, religious orders and universities self-insure.

So the 'insurer' being told to provide free birth control... is the institution.

Besides, I don't buy birth control, and my kids are going to be subsidizing your retirement and medicare. So why should I also subsidize your desire to avoid producing subsidizers?

Deirdre Mundy said...

Plus, many Catholic dioceses, health networks, religious orders and universities self-insure.

So the 'insurer' being told to provide free birth control... is the institution.

Besides, I don't buy birth control, and my kids are going to be subsidizing your retirement and medicare. So why should I also subsidize your desire to avoid producing subsidizers?

MCD said...

Okay, I'm older now. I remember the bad old days when birth control, of several types, was rather expensive and not covered by insurance. I didn't make much money, ever (alas), but I managed to cover this expense. Now birth control pills are -- what? -- $10 a month. Why are we having this discussion?

MCD said...

Okay, I'm older now. I remember the bad old days when birth control, of several types, was rather expensive and not covered by insurance. I didn't make much money, ever (alas), but I managed to cover this expense. Now birth control pills are -- what? -- $10 a month. Why are we having this discussion?

Revenant said...

I know. Which is why we need to be kind now, before we are at our most vulnerable.

We have birthright citizenship.

By the time we are "at our most vulnerable", the descendants of the current illegal immigrants will be part of the "we".

Lydia said...

Obama offered basically the same deal last year, didn't he?

February 12, 2012: Under the new policy, religious employers that don't want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.

And it was rejected by folks like Cardinal Dolan.

What am I missing here?

Ambrose said...

Allay is a cool verb; you don't see that in headlines much. It's nice to have things allayed.

edutcher said...

It's becoming painfully obvious to just about all (perhaps even Choomie himself) that ObamaTax will not work and will cause a revolt among the people (20Gs /yr).

I think this is the opening gambit in the demos' attempt (unsuccessful in the end, I think) to back away from the abyss. They won't be able to accomplish it before the cataclysm it unleashes destroys them.

You do not pick fights with the One True Church.

Bob_R said...

The idea that a politician voting for Obamacare has thought past the idea of "free birth control" to any one of the many possible consequences assumes facts not in evidence. If they haven't thought of of vastly increased demand for high priced birth control (who is going to choose $100/year pills when they know there are $1,000/year treatments out there?), if they haven't thought of the shift of drug company research toward birth control (free money!) why would they think of fewer births?

MadisonMan said...

No difference whatsoever, really, apart from the later option requiring twice the paperwork.

Twice the paperwork requires 4 times the number of bureaucrats!

All those political appointee slushy jobs.

Win win!

Maguro said...

Amnesty now so that Rosalita will wipe Althouse's bum -gently - in 30 years.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Ripped from the headlines: Japan's Demographic Disaster

Same story being reported worldwide.

Yep. Contraception and population control is working out peachy keen.

Anyone who thinks differently is "insane."

Astro said...

I don't think the Catholic church is going to be any happier about being forced into a health care system that does an end-run around their objections. The same system they are forced into is still allowing abortions - they just shifted the up-front cost to 'everyone else'.

It's a bit like the way a state lottery is promoted as being 'for education' with all the money going to the state education department. Then the state assembly cuts the general appropriations for education by that same amount and spends the money elsewhere.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Skimming through the NPRM, I see that their plan for self-insured group health plans involves finding some third-party insurer that will provide contraceptive-only coverage in return for a partial refund of the fee it pays for participating in the insurance exchange. Somehow I don't think that's going to go very far towards recompensing whichever insurer gets stuck with Sandra Fluke.

Inga said...

Wyo Sis, in most states its when your EEG shows no activity, brain death.

It's been that way for many years now.

Jane said...

The notion that the insurance company is going to pay for this themselves without charging their customers relies on a cluelessness about how businesses work. It's only from premiums paid that an insurer has the money in the first place. I suppose the idea is that collectively, all policyholders pay for the free! free! contraception of employees of conscientiously-objecting employers. Another report also said that contraception for employees of self-insured conscientiously-objecting employers would be paid for from the commission that the government takes from policies purchased on the exchanges. (You did know about that, right? They're collecting fees, 3.5% I believe, or maybe that figure isn't finalized yet -- wonder if it'll be more or less than a comission collected by a private sector agent or online site.)

Inga said...

Not just old people either. St Croix has spoken about using the same criteria of brain activity with babies in utero. I don't know if he's for or against it, just know he's mentioned it.

Fr Martin Fox said...

You know, Obama could propose the gov't pays for it.

I wouldn't agree, lots of others wouldn't; but churches wouldn't have any unique complaint, businesses owned by religious people wouldn't have any unique complaint, and Obama would win in court.

So, liberals, why do you defend Obama's deliberate choice of an approach that specifically burdens consciences, and involves voluminous litigation costing everyone lots of money, with uncertain results...when he could have avoided this?

Hmm?

AJ Lynch said...

If they think this ruse passes the smell test, Obama and Sebelius are even dumber than Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel.

Dems went nuts when Wall Street firms claimed that "no, we did not use that taxpayer loan money when we paid big bonuses to our execs". Dems said the money went into one pot so the Wall Street defense was bogus. Now dopey Obama and Sebelius are trying the same defense "no, it's different money paying for the birth control".

What bullshit and what dopes.

mccullough said...

Putting aside the recent economic downturn, the US fertility rate is at about the replacement level. You can't have pay-as-you go entitlements like SS and Medicare at these levels without very high levels of taxation for all income groups. The Japanese and Western Europeans are in even worse shape.

Low skilled immigrants aren't going to change this.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...with the possibility of recouping the costs through lower health care expenses resulting in part from fewer births.

I've heard that argument plenty of times, but I've never seen any actual economic analysis of the scenario from the insurance company's perspective.

Of course paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for babies. But in most cases people will use birth control even if they have to pay for it themselves. ( Or not use it, even if it is paid for by someone else. )

A proper analysis has to balance the slightly fewer babies against the many more people's worth of birth control the insurance company will be paying for.

Bruce Hayden said...



These people are insane. The company won't pay for it but the insurance company will? Talk about magical thinking. Where do they think the money comes from to pay for this all? The magical trillion dollar platinum coin fairy? Of course, the company will pay for it! Collectively all companies will pay for it via higher rates.


Yeh, this is pretty much the same smoke and mirrors that they pushed before the election. An understanding of basic business makes their claim ridiculous. The companies, one way or another, are going to pay for the coverage. Nothing is free, not even the trillion dollars that the Fed is supposed to be printing this year.

Maguro said...

I've heard that argument plenty of times, but I've never seen any actual economic analysis of the scenario from the insurance company's perspective.

The fact that the insurance companies weren't giving away free birth control indicates pretty clearly that it doesn't save the insurer money. Unless we think that the government knows the insurance business better than the insurance companies do.

Lydia said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...
A proper analysis has to balance the slightly fewer babies against the many more people's worth of birth control the insurance company will be paying for.

And the type of birth control may itself be of the more expensive kind:

"Women who want contraceptives at a lower cost may think that their freedom is growing. What they may not realize is that supporters of the mandate are avowedly trying to change their behavior -- to move women from their current methods of contraception to more expensive "long-acting reversible contraceptives" like the IUD and implant, which work for years and can only be removed by a doctor. About 5 percent of women use them today, but in a recent study, researchers offered all methods for "free" but persuaded about 75 percent of a cohort of women to get LARCs inserted. This study, which proves that medical professionals can badger women into long-term sterility, is being hailed as a paradigm for the contraceptive mandate."

Synova said...

"Is the system better with fewer births?"

Are there fewer births?

I really and honestly think that abortion has NO relationship to birth rates whatsoever. It's just lots of dead fetuses and every bit as many children.

Women have abortions when they want to remain fertile, they just don't want a baby *now*.

So has someone done a study to see if the total number of children over a life-time (correcting and controlling for ideology, religious belief and socioeconomic factors) of women who have abortions is less than for women who do not?

Unless I see that study and it shows that liberal feminists with college degrees and no abortions have 2.4 children and liberal feminists with college degrees and one or more abortions only have 1.3 children... it's just a stupid lie.

bagoh20 said...

Oh great! So now, the bill for senior care is your first born, and if you don't have one, you must reduce your carbon foot print to zero at retirement.

BTW, what is a smaller footprint: cremation, or the burning of gas in the lawnmower that rolls over your grave every week? These things need worked out so we can make responsible choices under our government care.

kentuckyliz said...

I worked for a catholic college. They were self-insured. So having the company pay for BC and not the employer = the employer pays.

This thing is still going to SCOTUS on First Amendment grounds. The giant blob of lawsuits are still in the pipeline.

Revenant said...

Bliss, it doesn't actually matter if it is in the insurance company's best interests to offer the service.

The relevant fact, from a religious-objection point of view, is that the buyer is not legally *allowed* to choose a provider that doesn't give away "free" birth control.

gadfly said...

A distinction without a difference for the benefit of our low information Obama nuts. For the insurance companies to survive, they cannot "pay" for medical services provided unless they are first paid by the insured.

A simple solution would be to make the morning-after pill optional with an added premium or put a high co-pay on the drug to cause the pill user to pay. Fooling the people who want to be fooled is always a better plan.

Bruce Hayden said...

Oh great! So now, the bill for senior care is your first born, and if you don't have one, you must reduce your carbon foot print to zero at retirement.

Good idea. Hadn't thought of that. A lot of childless moochers out there who expect that other people's children will support them in their retirement.

But, to make this work, we will probably need at least one child per person, and that means two per couple. I only have the one kid - would that mean that I get half benefits? Get to go to the doctor half the time on Medicare?

garage mahal said...

The White House has struggled for more than two years to balance its commitment to women’s rights and health care for all with the need to protect religious liberty

As far as churches and religious organizations are concerned, they don't seem to be happy either way, so why keep struggling? fuck em then.

bagoh20 said...

I don't have any biological children, so I'm gonna hold my breath starting ....now.... . ... ... . .. . . . . . . .
.

gadfly said...

Synova said...
"Is the system better with fewer births?"

Are there fewer births?


As reported in Time:
The U.S. birth rate slid by 8% in recent years, reaching 63.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age in 2011, according to a report from the Pew Research Center. That is half the peak birth rate recorded in 1957, which was smack in the middle of the baby boom. This is the lowest rate since at least 1920, the earliest year for which there are reliable numbers.

Pogo said...

In which garage reveals the standard Democrat approach to the Christian religion: "Fuck em."

garage mahal said...

The social engineering conspiracy theory behind this religious exemption is pretty nutty too. But certainly not unexpected.

Inga said...

I say let Planned Parenthood be your birth control provider, and fund them well.

gadfly said...

Garage sez:
The White House has struggled for more than two years to balance its commitment to women’s rights and health care for all with the need to protect religious liberty.

OMG, you are getting the Obamasmokescreen (high quality stuff I hope) down pretty well. A 29 word sentence that has absolutely no meaning.

Garage for Dog Catcher because your leader is getting hungry.

Inga said...

More PP clinics needed, just like Walgreens one every few miles.

Maguro said...

More PP clinics needed, just like Walgreens one every few miles.

Sounds great. Would they offer drive-through abortions?

Inga said...

Just drive through prescriptions, sorry.

Synova said...

gadfly, there is no doubt whatsoever that Western fertility is in a downward spiral. That wasn't what I was questioning.

I managed to think "abortion" when we're talking birth control, so that's my error, but I think the principle is the same, ultimately.

We have ubiquitous birth control. At this point I don't think that pushing it, making it free, etc., is going to actually lower the average number of children that some or another segment of the population has over a lifetime. Everyone KNOWS how not to get pregnant. An untimely pregnancy is unlikely to increase a woman's lifetime fertility.

furious_a said...

but eventually they will be workers and therefore taxpayers...

Fewer births = lower costs -- is that what it's come to?

The Deep Ecology liberal see the undifferentiated mass of cells as a mouth to feed and yet more carbon footprint; the Personhood conservative sees it as a mind and a pair of hands.

somefeller said...

The social engineering conspiracy theory behind this religious exemption is pretty nutty too. But certainly not unexpected.

1. More contraception
2. More immigration
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

bpm4532 said...

$20,000/year for a "bronze" family plan (lowest tier) according to the IRS, but i'm sure this will be an underestimate. The shit is really going to hit the fan at some point. 1. Massive jobs will be lost.
2. The deficit will explode towards 2 trillion.
3. People will be encouraged to smoke to shorten lives, raise taxes near-term, and reduce healthcare expenses long-term.
4. People will be encouraged to drink and consume to excess to shorten lives and reduce healthcare expenses in out years.

Lydia said...

Inga said...
I say let Planned Parenthood be your birth control provider, and fund them well.

This made me wonder what effect Obamacare will have on Planned Parenthood. Will they still be needed if everyone has access to free birth control via Obamacare?

Inga said...

Lydia, let insurance ompanies be exempted from providing birth control products altogether. Use PP exclusively, payment according to income.

Viola! Problem solved. Catholic employers off the hook, everybody happy?

Lydia said...

I realized that's what you meant, Inga. But that doesn't seem to be the way Obama wants to play this game.

So...if he wins, what will become of Planned Parenthood. Maybe they've got some special provision for themselves in Obamacare. Who knows.

Richard Dolan said...

The obamacrats are treating the religious institutions' moral objection as if it were a mere accounting quibble, solved by shifting the debit from one subaccount to another. They refuse to accept that moral scruples honestly held are not amenable to being dismissed by semantic dodges, or that religious believers aren't looking for a phony way to get around fundamental tenets of their faith.

The euphemisms have an effect exactly opposite to the o-crats' intentions. Meade quite rightly mocks it as a modest proposal for the modern age. in addition to Swift, the boasting of "fewer births" through contraception/abortion reminded me of the euphemisms in Ishigoru's Never Let Me Go. Such efforts to hide the truth tend to backfire, leaving some embittered and others intensely sad.

caseym54 said...

Should nonsmoking elderly be charged more for Medicare? Clearly they will cost more in the long run.

Balfegor said...

Re: Revenant:

By the time we are "at our most vulnerable", the descendants of the current illegal immigrants will be part of the "we".

Not if La Raza and other ethnic activists have anything to say about it.

Whether we are nice to them or not will, I think, matter comparatively little to future generations if they see themselves as distinct, racially or ethnically, from the old people whose care they are expected to pay for. If they don't identify with the elderly why on Earth would they agree to a system that disadvantages them in favour of that elderly Other? You don't need resentment or revenge -- just pure self-interest.

Doing everything you can to suppress explicitly ethnic political movements and ethnic political appeals is the only way out of this trap.

wildswan said...

"Are there fewer births?"
There definitely are fewer births than there were in the past per women. But maybe you mean that a woman wants 2 children and has two children and then she aborts the third. Then in this case there aren't "fewer births" meaning "fewer births than she intended to have?" But here's something to think about. Most women who actually say how many children they want to have actually end up having fewer than that number. Statistically this is so. They want two, they have one; they want three, they have two. I don't say this is tied to having abortions, I don't think those who noticed this have an explanation. But it suggests to me that there are "fewer births than people want."

chickelit said...

Inga writes: Viola!

My ancestors homesteaded near that town.

n.n said...

Lydia:

Planned Parenthood will become a plain lobbying and advocacy business in its respective niche. There will still be a need to convince people of their choice, on television, Internet, newspapers, classrooms, etc. It requires a well funded "army" to properly educate a people to defy their nature and reject their personal interests.

I wonder why they haven't implemented the China model for involuntary birth control. Are Americans so docile that they will voluntarily comply with a self-defeating proposition?

Perhaps it's for the best.

Perhaps the problem is that individuals incapable of self-moderating behavior cannot enjoy liberty.

These men and women who presume to be our superiors are merely caring for an immature, reckless race of pleasure-seeking "children." They are protecting us from ourselves. We have developed an unmanageable sense of entitlement.

Incidentally, that's why they want to take our guns away. So we don't shoot ourselves in the foot. "Children" are notoriously irresponsible.

wildswan said...

"what will become of Planned Parenthood."

Planned Parenthood expects to benefit enormously from Obamacare. They expect another 300,000 minority abortions a year and they expect to be the go to guys for these abortions. Of course this abortion acceleration will cause the African-American birth rate to fall even faster. It is already below replacement level. The group will disappear unless Inga and the other liberals speak up. But they won't.

Kelly said...

My sister is pretty well off, she wants to thank all you doppy Obama care supporters for her "free" mirena that she use to pay for out of pocket, but is now fully covered. She also use to pay for her children's well baby visits herself, but that is also now fully covered by insurance as well .

Of course, her insurance has gone up over $100.00 a month for all this "free" stuff that she had wanted to pay for herself to keep the premiums down. Well done, lefty's. Maybe some people don't want all this "free" stuff? Or are you to thick headed to understand not everyone is helpless?

Theranter said...

I must be on drugs, I agree with Inga. However, Lydia is correct-they want to play the game with a different prize at the end. Why else wouldn't a solution as sensible, immediate and affordable as Inga's proposal be in place by now? 30 freakin years ago I received free bc from PP! 

Why is everyone okay with women being pimped by this admin to decimate our First Amendment? Just because you think it bitch-slaps the Catholics? Finally getting back at those pedophile priests? You immature dumbshits are falling for their diversion tactics hook, line & sinker. What about people that, for no religious reason at all, in fact, for medical reasons (like surviving breast cancer) know that hormonal bc is the most likely cause of many types of breast cancer, especially in women that use it prior to the birth of their first child (even the govt agrees with that research.) 

And whatever dumb fuck above said it is only for birth control needs to look again. It is for the whole enchilada-from bc to abortifacients to abortions, right up to a 9 month old baby that happens to still be in utero. 

What disgusts me the most is how any women could  see this as a "win" -- when all you've done is destroyed the respect that women in prior generations worked so hard and so long for to gain. And you 2-bit ho's did it over a lousy fucking 5.00 a month. Pathetic. 

(mad and typed on a phone=not well said but I feel better!) 

madAsHell said...

It will be one special rule at a time.

The white guys need to pay health care for the fat chick with pink hair and a ring in her clitoris.

betamax3000 said...

I was trying to make the horse have a baby: Pro-Horse Choice.

William said...

The Catholic Church has missed a lot of calls, but they were right on in their disapproval of eugenics and Marxism. In the name of diversity shouldn't we allow a few groups to flourish that are not in lock step with this year's liberal wisdom.

William said...

I think the Soylent Green solution to aging was sold in the wrong way. Of course no one wants to end up as hamburger patties. That's cannabilistic and barbaric. But that's not to say that there are no other uses for dead body. Perhaps the body could be allowed to ferment in some kind of mulching pit and be recycled for use as fertilizer. Who wouldn't want to be mulched and spread around the rose bushes in the White House gardens. You could even dedicate your mulch to a specific location. Veterans for Arlington, libs to grows crops in Biafra. I'm already an organ donor and see this as just another arc in the circle of life.

Scott M said...

Aborting a collection of cells is birth control.

A strand of hair is a collection of cells, as is a toe nail. Shove either of them up a uterus and you'll likely get an infection, not a new human.

bagoh20 said...

Frankly, if you look at young people who you don't even know as people who should support you because you're old, then you are just as bad as they are for expecting a free lunch. Free lunch - free dinner - what's the diff?

Inga said...

Viola is how we hicks say it.

Inga said...

Voila for the sophisticate.

wwww said...

Theranter said:
What about people that, for no religious reason at all, in fact, for medical reasons (like surviving breast cancer) know that hormonal bc is the most likely cause of many types of breast cancer, especially in women that use it prior to the birth of their first child (even the govt agrees with that research.)


BC causes slightly higher rates of breast cancer because of increased progesterone/estrogen. It lowers ovarian cancer risk because it shuts down ovulation.

Pregnancy skyrockets estrogen & progesterone. 1000s times above normal & these elevated hormones = cancer risk. It's why Guilliana Ransic's doctors won't let her get pregnant & she had to use a surrogate. She's on anti-cancer medicine that lowers the normal monthly hormones to reduce cancer risk. They would never allow her to carry a baby. Women esp in their 30s & 40s should be very careful to check breasts after pregnancy for about two years when the risk is normalized.

Hormones come with risk. Pregnancy introduces risk. so does bc. It's a matter of managing the risk.

JAL said...

The government thus calls the shots on who is religious enough for this exemption.

And the Hobby Lobby guy loses?

JAL said...

Because he isn't the right flavor?

His conscience isn't as important as the RC Church?

Synova said...

"But maybe you mean that a woman wants 2 children and has two children and then she aborts the third."

I was thinking that a woman would have a couple abortions and then later have the children she always wanted. But if she has a couple of kids already, she's less likely to "plan" to have more just because she had them at 24 and had "planned" to have them at 36 when her career was secure.

A lady I know had an abortion because she started having premonitions that something was wrong (doctor told her nothing was wrong... this is a friend who is waaaay to smart for religion but believes that she had psychic dreams). Later she got pregnant again and had her third child and sent hubby for a vasectomy.

Her *abortion* in no way reduced her ultimate fertility rate.

I think this is likely the way it usually works out.

Though huge numbers of women struggle with infertility. (And I wonder how many of those had an earlier abortion. Bad enough to have abortions first and then a baby and maybe realize that your previous pregnancies were babies too, but can you imagine aborting a healthy (or even unhealthy) baby and then not conceiving again?)

Revenant said...

If they don't identify with the elderly why on Earth would they agree to a system that disadvantages them in favour of that elderly Other? You don't need resentment or revenge -- just pure self-interest.

Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with racial politics. Our entitlement system is and has always been a Ponzi scheme. The population cannot keep growing indefinitely, ergo *some* generation is eventually going to get fucked over. Probably the younger baby boomers, would be my guess.

You don't need to be a supporter of La Raza to think "huh, the elderly are richer than me and receiving benefits they never paid for. Fuck that."

Achilles said...

This whole discussion is why the government should not be involved in health care. Planned Parenthood could support itself through donations. Insurance companies and hospitals would be just fine with out subsidies and interference. None of us should be forced to do what other people tell us we have to do. Inga should get her abortions and birth control. The rest of us should not have to pay for it. Now that the government is involved everyone hates the people they disagree with because the government forces half of us to go along with the the other half.

For now Inga and the other Julia's are happy because the government forces everyone to give them free stuff. But what happens when the other side wins elections and takes your freedom to have abortions away? The government needs to be removed from this equation entirely.

MayBee said...

This is the President of the United States involving himself in whether insurers and employers must provide free birth control for women. It's so micro! Are so many problems solved in our country that the President has time for such petty issues? Geez, it's embarrassing.

madAsHell said...

in most states its when your EEG shows no activity, brain death.

They're not dead!! They're Democrats!!

Michael Haz said...

The FedGov should simply take birth control pills, diaphrams, etc. out of ObamaCare and end the controversy. There is no reason why a woman can't walk into a pharmacy with a prescription from her MD and pick up her b/c pills, paid for by the FedGov.

Or cut out all the middlemen and make b/c pills available at any licensed bar.

Although the continued slutification of American women should be an important discussion, but won't be.

Glen Filthie said...

"...taxpayers, and we're especially going to need young workers to be the health care providers for the aging population that will need more and more care."
-------------
That is always the basis of a ponzi scheme Anne. You look young enough that you will be around when it fails too.

Our gov't has already bankrupted those kids that haven't been born yet.

Surely you aren't one of those liberal idiots who find math so hard that an objective opinion is impossible?

Glen Filthie said...

"...taxpayers, and we're especially going to need young workers to be the health care providers for the aging population that will need more and more care."
-------------
That is always the basis of a ponzi scheme Anne. You look young enough that you will be around when it fails too.

Our gov't has already bankrupted those kids that haven't been born yet.

Surely you aren't one of those liberal idiots who find math so hard that an objective opinion is impossible?

kentuckyliz said...

Inga's plan is a great bitch-smack to disobedient Catholic women! Make 'em go to an abortion mill for their birth control! Fuck 'em!

Inga said...

Kentucky Liz, a visit to PP can be like going to the dental clinic. Just think of it as unpleasant but necessary.

Make up your minds, I thought you didn't want health insurers to cover BC. Also shouldn't women be popping out kids to provide happy butt wipers for old folks?

Inga said...

And Kentucky Liz, what are Catholic women doing getting BC Products anyway? O_o

PP gives out more birth control pills than it does abortions and in the future some clinics could be exclusively BC clinics.

furious_a said...

They're actually not requiring that abortions be paid for. Only birth control.

Not so -- abortifacients (sp?) like RU-486 are to be paid for, also.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...

Ripped from the headlines: Japan's Demographic Disaster

Same story being reported worldwide.

Yep. Contraception and population control is working out peachy keen.

Anyone who thinks differently is "insane."

2/1/13, 7:34 PM
___________________________________

I read it yesterday and was flabbergasted. I had heard of Japan's demographic collapse discussed in general terms but had never seen any actual numbers until this article.

furious_a said...

PP gives out more birth control pills than it does abortions.

...BC wheel has, what, 30 pills? That"s a silly comparison, even for Inga.

PP is also the largest abortion provider in the country and gets almost a third of its revenue from abortion services.

Inga said...

Furious, PP doctors do exams, then write prescriptions, usually for a year for many women, IIRC, that's a lot of pills to prevent a lot of abortions. Shouldn't the goal be to PREVENT an abortion?

Jay said...

The “accommodation” is no different than the notice issued last year. The administration still intends to force health-insurance companies to provide the coverage.

Jay said...

Planned Parenthood could support itself through donations

It doesn't need donations. PP has hundreds of millions in revenue.

They also don't need government funding.

furious_a said...

Her *abortion* in no way reduced her ultimate fertility rate.

Russia has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, with frequent post-procedure complications where one in ten abortion seekers are left sterile by the procedure.

Meamwhile, not coincidentally, white Russians' birthrate and population is collapsing, and there aren't enough white Russian women of childbearing age to reverse the population decline even if they started having more children.

furious_a said...

Inga: Not disputing that, nor the prescription of non-abortive BC, just pointing out the non-triviality of PP's abortion services and revenue stream therefrom.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Inga-- actually, as of this month, all PP affiliates MUST offer abortion, or drop the affiliation: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/22/planned-parenthood-cranks-up-abortion-mills/

So.... 'BC only' PP unlikely...

Inga said...

Deirdre, perhaps they could work on changing that.

Renee said...

This isn't health care, it is a push of the goverment to control populaion

Theranter said...

 wwww
Well cha-ching 4dubuyaz,  you met your daily quota for your payment from your special interest group's PR campaign to malign pregnancy! What a good little lib u are! Is your keyboard like Inga's--head level at 46.5349 so can simultaneously heil the party as you spew the propaganda? 

Your little Guilianna is the perfect  example- she was on bc for at least a decade (and the synthetic hormones at the low levels in the pill are THE most dangerous, unlike the "skyrocketing" surge (which is organic) during pregnancy) and then she played around with massive doses of synthetic hormones in a very short period (not over an organic 9 month cycle, and certainly not in the ratios of prog&est present naturally in a woman's body) all to hyper-ovulate (another assault on the natural female reproductive process) then she bypassed the natural hormonal and tissue-altering (especially breast tissue) processes that occur upon conception and throughout the  little ride through the tubes into the uterus, and just had the kid shoved into her uterus, triggering an immune response that didn't help the boobies, or any other girly parts, as her body simultaneously  tried to regain homeostasis via kicking out wildly fluctuating hormone levels (unlike the measured, centuries-old organic one you are skillfully trying to scare stupid women with). 

You, not pregnancy, " introduce risk" - to Liberty- with your close-minded lacking any critical thinking anti-autonomous presence. (I can't say "self" because you have no "self" you are just another useful idiot.)

Renee said...

the comments on the article upset me, the demand for no cost birth control at the cost of the emplorer overided our 1st amendement.

The employer isn't preventing one from getting contraception in the market place.

Fertillity isn't cancer. Fetuses are not tumors.

Renee said...

Furious. Abortion was never illegal in Russia. Accepted form of birthcontrol before the Pill. They have high abortion rates, not due to lack of contraception, it's just abortion is that normalized there.

EMD said...

Yeah Government-run healthcare!

Of course this is the NHS, which would never happen here.

Jerome said...

Inga said...

"Wyo Sis, in most states its when your EEG shows no activity, brain death.

It's been that way for many years now."

What's bothering the rest of us, Inga, is that there are lots of things that have "been that way for many years now". But we appear to be in the midst of a "fundamental transformation", and those things may not be that way much longer.

O: "If you are happy with the brain activity you have now, well, you can keep that brain activity!" (Points shotgun).

Fr Martin Fox said...

I'll ask my question again--this is for liberals who agree with Obama about providing "access" to contraception and abortion and sterilization as part of health care.

Why are you defending President Obama's choice to do this by imposing obligations on employers, and thus on people's consciences...when the legality/constitutionality of this is uncertain, and it was unnecessary?

Had Mr. Obama proposed some direct subsidy from tax dollars (there are lots of ways to do it), there's very little chance a legal challenge would prevail, and while lots of us wouldn't like it, it doesn't present the same, direct burden to conscience that the HHS mandate does.

And, by the way, none of the last year's several attempts to re-work the mandate (and more to come) would have been necessary.

Why do you liberals defend his course of action? Why do reward him for it?

(Then there's Garage, who doesn't care about any of this; he just tells people and their consciences to "f*** off.")

Michael Haz said...

This issue is not rally about birth control pills, although it masquerades as a b/c issue. It's more about asserting federal government authority over the Roman Catholic church. Liberals hate the RC church because it has rules and laws and such. Liberals hate that, especially where it rubs up against their lack of morality, witness abortion.

The issue also plays into voting bloc strategies: you(weak)women can't figger out how to get b/c pills on your own so the benevolent government will help. And never mind that b/c pills cost far less than your last hair cut, we know you need help paying for them, so we'll jack up your monthly health insurance premiums $50 to pay for your $15 pills. And Huzzah! The women will become Dem voters.

It's remarkable that the BHO administration hasn't created a cabinet-level department for this. The Department of Homeland Vaginas. The DHV would be fully responsible for making b/c pills freely available to every post-pubescent girl and woman in America, whether she wants them or not. Kiosks on every corner. Make sex safe, abundant and free of any consequence whatsoever.

The DHV would also to send vaginas into combat, pay their student loans, and more. Like assuring all vaginas of equal pay for nearly equal work, unlike conditions on the WH staff, and other horribly unfair places.

It's only money and humans, what could go wrong?

kentuckyliz said...

So after PPACA, does that end the hugely profitable all-cash abortion business? It's all insured.

Inga, no one dies at my dentist's office. And notice I said *disobedient* Catholic women.

Of course, the RC church lets conscience rule according to CCC 1776-1802, so that's why we have happy out gays in church in spite of CCC 2357-2359 & 2396 and happily contracepting people in spite of CCC 2373-2379 & 2398-2399 here

They disagree and yet believe and worship with the faith community.

kentuckyliz said...

I agree with Fr.

It's an unfunded mandate. If Obama, Pelosi, and Sibelius really want free BC, plan B, sterilization, and abortion for all, let religious organizations exercise the First Amendment and decline to cover it, and let the government pick up the tab. If it's a right, it's not a right that cancels out other rights.

They won't do it though, because it would contribute to decreasing the pressure for single payer government takeover of health care.

They will cling bitterly to their Thelma and Louise strategy.

kentuckyliz said...

Are condoms free under PPACA?

If not, wouldn't that be gender discrimination?