Shared publicly  - 
 
Government is going to require nearly every employer health care plan to cover abortificient birth control and anti-pregnancy counseling. Even if the employer objects on religious grounds. Yay government! <that is sarcasm> 
1
Jeff Stevens's profile photoErik Moon's profile photoMyke Baldwin's profile photoLorrie Toles's profile photo
35 comments
 
What is "anti-pregnancy" counseling?
 
I think that something that you need to remember is that even if you don't agree with the actions, beliefs, or the philosophy, they are still legal and protected for all citizens. There's really no reason why the government should do otherwise, from a legal standpoint.
 
And you have to remember that some of us regard it as murder so requiring us to pay for it is unacceptable. 
 
Legal and protected, sure. But to require the employer (or in this case the health insurance company) to pay for it? Cosmetic surgery and other elective medical procedures are legal and protected, but there is no requirement for employer health care plans to cover those. Abortificient birth control and anti-pregnancy counseling are not medically necessary (as a category) and thus coverage of those should not be mandated.
 
There are many things that are legal to do but morally objectionable...heck, becoming a lawyer for one. As far as I know, pacifists are still required to pay taxes which pay for our military.
 
I wouldn't start comparing defense spending (as dubious as it is) with Satanic Child Sacrifice (aka, "abortion").
 
just saying people in a democratic society end up paying for things they object to.
 
At least there is the possibility of a just war. There is no such thing as a a "just abortion".
 
+Jeff Stevens there are many things that many people find to be unacceptable. How do you propose that we cater to everyone while protecting the legal rights of the citizenry?

+Patrick Hall many people do not believe in the possibility of a just war. Case in point.
 
By the way, I'm fairly sure that an abortion debate is going to be equally successful on any web forum, regardless of whether or not Mafia Wars is available.
 
+Jason Dimaio Remove the Fed from as many things as possible completely. Now you can spend your money where you want.
 
Also while you can argue against a just war you really cannot argue against a just defense.
 
If we only spent money on things 100% of the public found just we wouldn't be in a big a hole as we are now. And we'd be living in anarchy probably.
 
I think the question here is: are the insurance companies entitled to choose the services they provide? It's not about the federal government using our tax money - but about the federal government telling private companies what services they must provide. The free market system cannot create a product that some (like +Jeff Stevens) wish to purchase. So now Jeff must use his own personal money to purchase something he doesn't morally agree with.

I think it's more like the government dictating that only black cars can be sold in the United States. It doesn't matter if you want a red car, or hate the color black, or feel like black cars are more dangerous at night (reduced visibility). The market product has been chosen.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think saying 'anti-pregnancy counselling' is a purposefully inflammatory phrase, rather than simply saying 'family planning'. Just because some people may not agree with it, does not mean that the woman, or family, in question does not have the right to have all of the available options outlined for them.
Saying that abortion is a legally available option does not constitute counselling someone to have an abortion. I guess I'm just not sure how saying 'you could have an abortion, if you really feel that you are in no position to have a(nother) child' is somehow 'anti-pregnancy counselling'. It doesn't seem that it would be advocating in either direction, simply making the knowledge available for a person to make their own informed decision.
 
Putting aside that it is objectively murder, it is one thing to spend tax dollars on things not everyone agrees on. But this is not tax dollars. This is the money of religious charities. Of private comapnies. Of private insured individuals. This isn't even a law passed by elected representatives. This is a regulation passed by unaccountable bureaucrats that forces people to spend their own money on things they find morally and religiously reprehensible. 
 
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it has to be a govrnement mandated corporate supplied and paid for benefit. 
 
I would never advocate forcing someone to pay for, or advocate for, medical procedures that they find to be morally inappropriate. I am, however, against the attempt to purposefully keep people ignorant of the options that are available for them, by refusing to acknowledge, or even mention that the options exist, just because someone may find them repugnant.
Trying to force someone to your point of view, by attempting to deny them the knowledge or information to make their own choice, is the issue that I have with this path. This is why I argue against gag orders on family planning counselling (in the form of "You won't get paid by us, if you so much as mention that it's a legal option available to them.").
 
I'm going to avoid the government benefit angle for a moment.
I believe there are such things as "justified abortion". Incest and Rape cause children that are not wanted, and anyone who attempts to reason that an innocent victim should bear 9 months of labor and the further emotional and physical scarring involved with having borne the child of an attacker when they do not wish to, should re-examine their idea of personal choice.
I know you won't agree with that Jeff (and others), but that doesn't make the person in the terrible situation any more comforted, supported or likely to recover from trauma that the abuse and the following pregnancy process will inflict.

IMO we allow there to be a choice because removing the possibility of choice skates very quickly towards the slippery slope of fascism.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
 
To reply to +Erik Moon - this isn't about telling people options, it's about requiring EVERYONE to pay for one of those options even though some people may never choose it and some people despise it. Heck. My health insurance provider has multiple plans that cover a wide range of services - why can't one of those plans not cover these particular services? Under this new legislation, there is no choice. This set of procedures/benefits must be a part of every single plan regardless.

It's all about CHOICE, right? Then why not let health care providers CHOOSE to provide a plan that individuals may CHOOSE to use for their coverage? Alternate plans would cover these particular services and individuals could CHOOSE them as well.

Naturally, these plans should state which services are covered and which are not. I'm not encouraging deception here. But you can't claim "defense of choice" when describing something that's been mandated.
 
To Bill Puschman - my apologies if I was unclear, I certainly don't advocate mandating that compaines pay for abortions, against their conscience. I do advocate that counselling on pregnancy decisions cannot be allowed to fail to mention that abortion is an option, whether or not the counseller is for or against it.
The person providing counsel can certainly feel free to say 'I don't support this option at all', but they can't simply fail to mention that the option exists, if someone comes to them and says 'Oh no, I'm pregnant and I don't want/can't afford/etc children at this point in my life'.
 
The employers are not paying for abortions or what have you. They are providing insurance that allows a patient and her physicians to make medical decisions without the input of said employers. And there is an exemption for religious organizations.
 
The employers (and employees) are absolutely paying; they pay into the system, the system pays for the drugs. The "exemption" applies only to organizations that have religious people as their customers. So an organization owned by a Catholic that provides either charity or commercial services to non-Catholics would not be covered. So Catholic Charities...either provide no coverage or provide coverage opposed to their religious principles.
 
Religious NON-exemption: http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/ ** "Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B). See the Federal Register Notice: Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PDF - 108 KB)"
 
Don't forget voluntarily sterilization: "Contraceptive methods and counseling. All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity."
 
I had a long drawn out rebuttal, but at the end of the day, is anyone here really going to listen? There is nothing that you can say that is going to make Jeff or his followers think anything other than what they already think. There is nothing that you're going to say that's going to make me think that it's a completely different issue than the paint job on a car, or that religion should be kept out of government or law. What's the point?
 
What, Jason, you don't think after 8 years of arguing about these things in a dozen forums that this time might be different!?!?! :)
 
Steve, I honestly don't understand your syntax. Perhaps the "discussion" has become too convoluted at this point to follow what you're saying or addressing.
 
Hey maybe they could get my insurance to cover EKGs for starters? That would be more useful to me.
 
I typed a big response and lost it all :( Blame Obamacare and get it repealed. Otherwise, <shrug>, majority rules.

And I know that pisses you off, but I have dealt with that kind of answer for things the government has done that I found highly morally objectionable for the last 10 years. Can't say I like that answer either.
 
Do you find it morally objectionable that they cover birth control?
 
+Jason Dimaio Just that since nobody can agree that maybe it would be better to keep the entire thing out of public hands.
 
Health insurance companies are much better off to pay for birth control then to find themselves paying for prenatal care and a child. Especially an unwanted child where the prenatal or preventive care is minimal or the financial ability to raise the child is in question.

On the other end of the spectrum- there are times that I believe that family counseling should absolutely be paid for by medical insurance. It's a far superior than watching a family deteriorate or individuals personal health fall apart because of the problems within the family. That's never been on the table though.
Add a comment...