Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed

[Zorba]

As pcgeek mentioned, my insurance does indeed cover some OTC drugs (not condoms though).

Why would my only option be sterilization if she has the option to have her birth control paid for?

If equality matters as much as the ACLU is harping, then it would be inconsequential to require males buying condoms as well, considering by other's own admission that it would cost far less than subsidizing BC.

Unless this isn't about equality of course..

I am not sure if you know this, but birth control is for both people engaging in the sexual activity and so are condoms. Just because the women takes the pill and the man puts on the condom doesn't make one just for her and the other just for him. If there was a pill for men, I am sure this law would cover it.

Condoms cost $3/dozen, the overhead cost of insurance covering them would cost more than the condoms themselves. I know you all don't really care about condom coverage, you just think that life is really hard for a white, middle-aged, Christian male in these country and everyone is out to hold you down. I bet you are also pissed that insurance covers hysterectomies for women, when they don't for men.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Here's an interesting read by a law professor regarding his thoughts on the HHS rule and its likely legal consequences:

http://volokh.com/2012/02/16/wheres-the-contraception-compromise/

He brings up two important points, one of which addresses your statement. Here's a quote:



He doesn't specifically list cases of why the policy wouldn't violate the free exercise clause but he seems to be on the same page as you. The more interesting question is the RFRA that he brings up which requires a strict scrutiny standard for any policy that brings a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. Haven't had much time to read into the RFRA but it definitely seems to be a problem for HHS's policy.

So if a religious group believes its ok to ignore work safety laws (for eg) due to certain tenets of their religion they get to circumvent them (perhaps) because of the free exercise clause or RFRA?

I just don't see the substantial burden here...

I think this is the fundamental argument here: how much does a religious organization get to ignore the law because of perceived rights as a religion?

 

[Riparian]

So if a religious group believes its ok to ignore work safety laws (for eg) due to certain tenets of their religion they get to circumvent them (perhaps) because of the free exercise clause or RFRA?

I just don't see the substantial burden here...

I think this is the fundamental argument here: how much does a religious organization get to ignore the law because of perceived rights as a religion?

That's basically what it always comes down to when you are talking about constitutional rights. It's always a balancing game because every right can be taken to an extreme that shows the folly of making rights a zero sum game.

I'm not that familiar with the RFRA but it is an enacted and effective statute as of now. The major Supreme Court cases on it have stated that it does not apply to states through the 14th Amendment but only to the federal government. Additionally, the RFRA has allowed the use of peyote for Native American religious ceremonies even though peyote is illegal on a federal level. In the end, "substantial burden" is something that the courts will decide.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I am not sure if you know this, but birth control is for both people engaging in the sexual activity and so are condoms.

Why wouldn't this be known?

Just because the women takes the pill and the man puts on the condom doesn't make one just for her and the other just for him.

That makes absolutely no excuse as for their being a discrepancy between birth control and condoms when it comes to insurance coverage.

If there was a pill for men, I am sure this law would cover it.

But there isn't.

Condoms cost $3/dozen, the overhead cost of insurance covering them would cost more than the condoms themselves.

You states this as fact. Where is your proof?

I know you all don't really care about condom coverage,

Why would you say that? I'm a sexually active college-age male. Condoms are indeed an expense. If women are required to have birth control paid for by insurance, why not men?

you just think that life is really hard for a white, middle-aged, Christian male in these country and everyone is out to hold you down.

Why do you attribute me to those specifications when I'm not? I'm not used to people who are so stupid as to be confident that they're right and yet be so wrong.

I bet you are also pissed that insurance covers hysterectomies for women, when they don't for men.

Why would I be? I do not have a need to have a uterus removed from my body. I do, however, have a need (or want), of birth control.

 

[Painman]

This is a great time in America for Righties to keep opening up their mouths and saying what they really think.

Especially for Rick Santorum.

Please, don't stop, on my account.

 

[Zorba]

Why wouldn't this be known?

You claim to understand that all forms of birth control are for all parties involved, but then you go on to say:

Why would you say that? I'm a sexually active college-age male. Condoms are indeed an expense. If women are required to have birth control paid for by insurance, why not men?

So you are once again saying "Pills are for women and Condoms are for men." There is no equivalent to the pill for men that is why only women's birth control pills are covered. Condoms are also not covered for women, so your whole "not covered for men" argument is pretty thin.

Why would I be? I do not have a need to have a uterus removed from my body. I do, however, have a need (or want), of birth control.

Because you are pissed off that insurance is going to cover a drug that is only taken by women and you find this unfair to men. That is pretty much the same thing. You know most insurance will also pay for an annual physical and an annual gynecological for women, while most men only get one one physical check up a year covered. It is so "unfair" that women get more coverage.

That makes absolutely no excuse as for their being a discrepancy between birth control and condoms when it comes to insurance coverage.

Again condoms are cheap and OTC. This just like my insurance will cover Prescription strength ibuprofen, but not OTC Advil. It will cover prescription allergy medicine, but not OTC Claritin. Another difference is condoms are available 24/7 and are effective the second you put them on, where the pill must have a prescription and must build up in your system for a full cycle.

 

[Ausm]

This is a great time in America for Righties to keep opening up their mouths and saying what they really think.

Especially for Rick Santorum.

Please, don't stop, on my account.

Nor mine! +1

 

[zinfamous]

Re-read what you wrote. You're of the mindset that BC is a "health care costs". But it's to prevent pregnancy and pregnancy is not a disease. I don't see the link to healthcare.

Fern

wow.