TOTALLY GEEKED!

In one year alone, the state saved $42.5 million in Medicaid. That's a lotta $$$.

So if we truly want people to avoid having kids they don't want and can't take care of, and we want them to also avoid abortions, get them all the free BC they need.

It was proven that for every $1 spent on BC, the state saved over $5.50 in entitlements.

Winner winner! Save on entitlements, fewer abortions, fewer unwanted and abused babies.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I'm not against BC at all. I'm against the government telling me or anyone that we have to pay for someone else's.

Big and bossy is not a government I like.

---

 So you wouldn't want to pay for someone's BC to avoid abortions? You would rather pay for their entitlements?

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Look, you are already paying for their Medicaid, their food stamps, their WIC, etc. Wouldnt you rather pay for their BC and NOT all those other things?

---

 That's the alternative...

flan

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Look, you are already paying for their Medicaid, their food stamps, their WIC, etc. Wouldnt you rather pay for their BC and NOT all those other things?

---

 We are paying for that through the goverment and our tax dollars.   Hobby Lobby isn't being forced to pay for food stamps and WIC as an employee benefit.  Hobby Lobby is a private company and should not be FORCED to pay for anything other than legal wages.

94% of the people in my state have health insurance. They get it through the exchange, Medicaid, and their employer sponsored plan. By making Medicaid, the plans on the exchange, and yes, all employer sponsored plans cover BC, 94% of the people in the state have access to free BC. It is the easiest, simplest way to make it accessible. You cannot argue that. Having it available through their health insurance makes it simple, accessible and is of little to no additional cost to the government.

If you want to change the way we have access to health insurance to avoid all the employer issues, I am all for that! But until we do, there is no denying that employer sponsored plans are the main way people have access to health care. If that is the case, and if you truly want to reduce the number of unwanted babies and abortions, you may have to take some good with the bad. Compromise that ends in fewer abortions, I thought, would be right up your alley.

So to be clear, you are against employers being mandated by law to provide birth control that will reduce the number of abortions needed? You do not want the number of abortions reduced if it means that an employer has to provide insurance which covers birth control?

Of course, my best preference would be for responsible adults who take responsiblity for buying their own birth control and paying for their own children and not expecting me or the government to do it.

But, I know - that's crazy talk.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

So to be clear, you are against employers being mandated by law to provide birth control that will reduce the number of abortions needed? You do not want the number of abortions reduced if it means that an employer has to provide insurance which covers birth control?

---

 I am against the government telling private citizens what they have to pay for for the benefit of someone else.  That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion b/c abortion is not NEEDED.  It is a choice.

There are lots of ways to get birth control.  Forcing someone else to pay for it is not one of them.

And YES, as a taxpayer, I would rather pay for a child than allow my government to take away individual liberties. 

---

 I am asking if you would rather a woman get an abortion than require her employer to cover BC. 

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

the morning after pill isn't an abortificant.

---

 Thank you!!!

 

Although, some people here don't believe science is accurate, so good luck with this one!

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

So to be clear, you are against employers being mandated by law to provide birth control that will reduce the number of abortions needed? You do not want the number of abortions reduced if it means that an employer has to provide insurance which covers birth control?

---

 I am against the government telling private citizens what they have to pay for for the benefit of someone else.  That has absolutely nothing to do with abortion b/c abortion is not NEEDED.  It is a choice.

There are lots of ways to get birth control.  Forcing someone else to pay for it is not one of them.

And YES, as a taxpayer, I would rather pay for a child than allow my government to take away individual liberties. 

---

 I am asking if you would rather a woman get an abortion than require her employer to cover BC. 

---

It's not an either/or scenario--and posting as such is beyond absurd.   

Bonny22Pye wrote:

---

the morning after pill isn't an abortificant.

---

That depends on the drug used and the timing.  Drugs that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting most certainly are.  In SOME instances, but not all, it will prevent ovulation, but if ovulation has occurred already - then it acts to prevent implantation. 

And many believe that conception occurs when the egg is fertilized. 

 

It's even on the Plan B website that it works 3 different ways and one of those is that it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching - and then claims it is not terminating a pregnancy. 

A fertilized egg can take 8-10 days to attach - so you are talking about destroying a 10 days old fertilized egg which most certainly IS terminating a pregnancy.

 

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/womens_health_issues/normal_pregnancy/stages_of_development_of_the_fetus.html

 

 

 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

So you would rather that a woman get an abortion than require her employer provide insurance that covers BC? Yes or no.

---

 That is not the choice.  It's not an either/or.  She can get her BC in other ways, or she can give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want it.  She's an adult and in charge of her body.  So, BE IN CHARGE and take care of that ****.  Don't expect someone else to do it for you.  It's the most ironic argument about women's rights I've ever heard.  It's MY body, don't tell me what to do with it, but by golly - YOU PAY FOR MY BC!

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

There has been a time or two I wondered what I was thinking when I chose to have kids. But it passed quickly.

---

 Well, that is completely normal!  It happens to me about once a week.  

 

My husband wanted to take his motorcycle out for a ride, I had a rough morning with the kids and it just came out "Mister, you be damn careful out there cuz I AM NOT RAISING THESE ASS CLOWNS ON MY OWN!!!!  

He stayed home for the sake of the AC's.  

"And I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly. Catholics should not be required to provide birth control." - Lawyerlady

I disagree. But not for the reason that most people might think if I just stopped there.

The Hobby Lobby decision was wrong because it gave a religious preference to a law. If they wanted to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, they should have removed the requirement for everyone, not just people with a religious aversion to it. The decision could have been written something like this "Since it would be in violation of the free exercise of religion to force Hobby Lobby to provide it, against their strongly held religious beliefs, and since the US Constitution doesn't allow US laws to prioritize one religious belief over another, including a belief in nothing. The requirement to force the purchase of Birth Control must be removed".

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

There has been a time or two I wondered what I was thinking when I chose to have kids. But it passed quickly.

---

 Lately, I've been having that passing thought a bit more.  An almost 11 year old girl will do that to you.  Her mouth is often not her friend these days.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

"Not sure how this thread turned to abortion, anyway, which has NOTHING to do with this subject. If they are going to carry the baby to term--they can give it up for adoption.

You also can't abort a 14 year old." - huskerbb


That's probably my fault. I posted my first post in this thread based more on the thread title than anything else.

I agree that you can't abort a 14 year old.

---

 As much as some might want to! 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

"And I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly. Catholics should not be required to provide birth control." - Lawyerlady

I disagree. But not for the reason that most people might think if I just stopped there.

The Hobby Lobby decision was wrong because it gave a religious preference to a law. If they wanted to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, they should have removed the requirement for everyone, not just people with a religious aversion to it. The decision could have been written something like this "Since it would be in violation of the free exercise of religion to force Hobby Lobby to provide it, against their strongly held religious beliefs, and since the US Constitution doesn't allow US laws to prioritize one religious belief over another, including a belief in nothing. The requirement to force the purchase of Birth Control must be removed".

---

 I would have no problem with that as the ruling. 

 

 

---

Me, either.