Missouri Republicans Pass Two Anti-Abortion Bills Allowing Employers And Doctors To Deny Women Birth Control

Karla - posted on 04/04/2012 ( 105 moms have responded )

1,555

48

87

Missouri is now the top contender for the title of most insane and most anti-women conservative state in America. On Thursday, Missouri Senate and House Republicans passed two bills that could cripple women’s access to abortion and contraception. One bill allows employers to deny coverage for contraception and abortion services for religious reasons and the other bill gives doctors, nurses, and pharmacists the same power.



According to St. Louis Today :



“The Senate passed a bill that would let employers deny health insurance coverage for birth control for employees who cannot prove a medical need for it.” On the same day, the House “passed a bill that would shield health care workers from participating in anything that conflicts with their conscience.”




http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/31/...



One person commented:

If they truly believe this, why can employers only not cover birth control for religious reasons? Why can't an employer choose to not pay for blood transfusions, for example. Answer: because its about women's choices not religious "freedom".



In the United States we are regressing, not progressing.



Maybe this article was written with a slant, maybe it's not that much different than the old laws, I don't know. I do know that this is not going to make the Nation better in any way. I know that it's a farce to say this is about religious freedom.



Since when do employers have religious freedom and employees have none?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 04/12/2012

12,562

16

842

Nikki:



1. There is most certainly not a "doctor or hospital on every corner". In many rural areas, that doctor or hospital may be the only one around for a hundred miles or more.



2. If anybody has the right to become a medical professional but not perform procedures with which they do not agree, then that opens up a very slippery slope. If you or your child were in a serious accident and required a blood transfusion, would you be pleased if the attending ER physician said, "Nope. I'm a Jehovah's Witness, and blood transfusions are against my religion." Would you consider it God's will if you or your child bled to death while waiting for a non-JW doctor to arrive and approve the transfusion?



3. I do not believe in God or the Bible. Many people do not. Why should they have Biblical morals imposed on them? Would you also approve if Muslim doctors/nurses or employers were allowed to impose the morals of the Koran upon their patients and/or employees?



4. This is not solely about abortion. This is also about birth control, which in no way involves the ending of a life.



5. Adoption is not always an option. If the mother's life or health is being threatened by the pregnancy, or if the child has fetal abnormalities that are incompatible with life, then that rather takes adoption off the table.



6. If the heartbeat means that the baby is alive, and ending that heartbeat is murder, and your God knows what he is doing...then considering the number of miscarriages and stillbirths, doesn't that make your God the biggest murderer that ever existed?



7. And lastly, with the exception of a few old farts who are close to retirement, virtually EVERY SINGLE health professional out there entered into their field with the full knowledge that the birth control pill is a legally prescribed medication. If they are so adamantly against the pill or abortion, then why not go into a medical field where they will never have to encounter either, like dermatology, radiology, urology, or one of the countless other medical fields where they could practice without one bit of conflict with their religious values?

Janice - posted on 04/06/2012

1,890

18

63

I suppose if the US had UHC and the system did not cover birth control unless it was medically necessary I wouldn't be so pissed. And I suppose employers who pay for 100% of their employees health insurance costs *may* have the right to decide what is or isnt covered. However, when I am paying for coverage I don't get how the employer decided not me. Why do the employers, who often pay less than 1/2 the premium and none of the co-pays or deductibles , get to choose what is covered instead of the person paying the most.



And furthermore what is stopping any employer from excluding anything they don't believe in, once its okay for them to deny reproductive health coverage?

Johnny - posted on 04/06/2012

8,686

26

318

Danielle, this is about private insurance coverage, not the government paying for your birth control. Private insurance is a method of pooling risks, and we all end up paying for other people's "choices" whether they be good or bad. We pay for the guy in the next cubicle who is going to need extensive medication and surgery down the road for his clogged arteries for eating McDonald's every day. We pay for the slow, expensive hospital death from emphysema of the lady down in accounting who smoked two packs a day for the last 20 years. We cover people for doing all sorts of things that threaten their health and raise the cost of our insurance.



If people are entitled to eat junk food, become morbidly obese, smoke like chimneys, take part in dangerous hobbies, drink copious amounts of alcohol and still be covered for all of the resulting conditions, why would we not want a woman to be entitled to be covered for sex. At least sex burns calories and is good for your mental health.



Covering birth control actually LOWERS your insurance premiums over the long haul. The cost of having a baby and covering that baby as it grows up is far far greater than covering birth control for an employee's total reproductive lifespan.



This is about a small segment of the population insisting that its morals be imposed on the remainder. It is not about better health or controlling costs at all.



Of course, I didn't even point to the fact that very many women, including myself use birth control to deal with chronic conditions. In my case, endometriosis. I am not currently on the pill, and I do not need it at all for birth control purposes, but I may soon go back onto it to prevent the growth of extremely painful lesions in my urinary tract.

[deleted account]

So Erin, if I (an atheist) were an ER doctor and refused to treat any and all Christians becuase I find their religion immoral (which I do) then you'd be ok with that based upon what you wrote?

[deleted account]

I see no problem with this law. Noone should have to pay for a person to kill their own baby. Although I don't see why anyone would refuse birth control minus the Catholics, wouldn't the insurance company save money if you don't have a child? Kids are expensive when it comes to medical bills.
----
the FEHB (Federal Employee Health Benefit) covers abortions. NYSHIP (New York State Health Insurance Plan) covers abortions. Medicare covers abortions. Medicaid covers abortions but here's the interesting part - in NY, Medicaid will only cover abortion in cases of rape/incest or if mother's life is in danger. I always refer those customers to Planned Parenthood emphasizing that they will absolutely work on a sliding fee scale.

I have to do that for several self-funded plans as well, not just for abortion but for basic birth control and these are not religious employers.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

105 Comments

View replies by

Kasey - posted on 04/09/2013

1

0

0

I live in Missouri .and this bill really pisses me off!! I do not believe in abortion but that's beside the point. The issue I see is I am expecting my second. I am married. I have a severe latex allergy and cannot use condoms. This bill gives pharmacies the right to nor have to stock the morning after pill and BC. And if they do sell it with a script from a Dr. They still can say no and not give you your BC. Because they may think they might not need it. For example a girl is raped and a Dr gives a script for the morning after pill. If its not in stock it may be too late for her to get the pill and use it correctly or they could deny her it at all. In my case I would like to enjoy sec with my husband and be protected at the same time. It woulfnt be right if I am paying for insurance to get a script for BC so i can be responsible and control the amount of children I have . And then they deny me!!! Its infringing on women's rights!!! There was also a bikk they tried to pass threat failed that basically tried to allowed drs. To deny BC to patients but since it failed they are using the pharmacy law as a way around it. So for all of u saying this bill is OK. I bet a ton of you are on BC and would throw a fit if someone wouldn't let u have it because u don't "need" it. The abortion bill in just staying out of. I have too much to say about it.. oh and whocevee said abstinence. Yea that might work for a little teen girl... but what the f. I enjoy making love to my husband! And I would like to not keep populating the world. Sec (even in the bible) was even said to be for ENJOYMENT between a man and wife. .

Karla - posted on 07/06/2012

1,555

48

87

Erin, “I'm sorry if others think this is insensitive but I cannot ever conciously advocate the murder of children which is what abortion is. Setting aside religion it's still morally disgusting and wrong. I like this decision very much and hope to see more laws thwarting abortion until it's illegal.”



Erin, you hit the nail on the head, of course no one here is advocating murder. Most people don’t embrace abortion, but we know and love someone who has chosen abortion in their life and we are damned glad they didn’t die in a back alley at the hands of a quack, right? Now that IS Incentive, and that is what you are advocating, so good call – very insensitive indeed.



”Women don't have the right to abortions any way they have the right to seek one but whether they get one or not is not a right. People must learn to spearate the differences between the right to seek and the right to recieve things.”



Just like in 1864 or before, slaves had the right to freedom they just didn’t have the right to receive freedom and be free. Got it. Totally disagree, but I see how you think.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 07/06/2012

6,434

12

67

Erin, it's perfectly relevent to debate that we don't get to choose where most of our tax dollars go. My tax dollars go to congressmen getting Viagra because their health care is paid for by MY GD TAX DOLLARS. There are women at Ft Hood right now getting tubal ligations and birth control because it's covered by US Tax dollars. And yes I know this for a fact because my ex husband and I were stationed there 10 years ago. I got birth control with your tax dollars Erin along with IVs for when I had migraines so bad I couldn't walk. So thanks. :) I also got implanted birth control with New York tax dollars last year. So kvetch all you want it just humours me.

You see this is my issue with Pro-some lifers. They have no issue telling me I shouldn't be on birth control, that I shouldn't have abortion as an option if my child has a severe medical defect that will require them to live in pain and get costly physical therapy that my crappy insurance won't cover all of (I'm speaking of the US not Canada) so I will have to get assistance which the House is talking about cutting. Yet we don't want to have programs to assist people. You're only important until you're born then we don't give a damn about you any more.

Janice - posted on 07/06/2012

1,890

18

63

1. Birth control is not murder!

2. Our tax dollars should cover our health care not our employers and any medical issue should only be between the patient and their doctor.

3. You can blubber about abstinence all you want but it is not realistic. People have sex ....wait for it.... for fun!(gasp) It really doesn't matter if some people believe birth control is moral or not its a necessary 'evil'

Otherwise we might have lots of children, actually human being who really do exist, without food or clothing or healthcare. Then if we refuse to help these poor children, because if we help them that would make us socialists, then we are actually killing real life babies.

Erin - posted on 07/06/2012

195

0

6

Actually it's not relevant to this debate wether our tax dollars "go to things we don't use or see" it has nothing to do with this subject. I am fully aware of how the system works and I don't agree with it one bit. I don't care taxes go to welfair because of the general welfair clause of the constitution for the use of taxes. I do not though believe in using our dollars for abortion which I am fully aware is being done which is why the government is defunding Planned Parenthood as we speak and I can't wait if they are funding and performing abortions.

This law is not a war on women, it's war against socialist murder of babies, and forced coverage for relgious emplyers who have no desire to fund murder. Women don't have the right to abortions any way they have the right to seek one but whether they get one or not is not a right. People must learn to spearate the differences between the right to seek and the right to recieve things.

Erin - posted on 07/06/2012

195

0

6

To respond to other posters: no woman's personal beliefs or wants are more important than any other persons beliefs.The Constitution protects religous freedom, a freedom which will be in danger if we allow government to impose things of this nature on religious groups and religious employers. Every person has the right to be able to reasonably refuse services that are unconcionable. A person has the right not to do a service for ANY reason. Refer to "we have the right to refuse to service to anyone" as an example. I don't believe a woman's desire to kill a baby outweighs another persons right to refuse to kill or finance the death of a baby. That's what this crap is about, forcing people to fund other people's irresponsibility, who chose not to abstain from sex if they didn't want kids yet I find it outrageous to expect the people and employers to pay for this travisty and mass murder.

I'm sorry if others think this is insensitive but I cannot ever conciously advocate the murder of children which is what abortion is. Setting aside religion it's still morally disgusting and wrong. I like this decision very much and hope to see more laws thwarting abortion until it's illegal.

Erin - posted on 07/06/2012

195

0

6

Yes, no insurance program should cover abortions and certainly a Relgigous sect with adamant anti abortion views should have no responsibility to risk their potential place with their god to pay some or part of an abortion or offer insurance where the employees violate the employers concious beliefs. I think people should have to pay for all of their insurance themselves, unless they need assistance because they are truley needy. I don't believe the people should be paying for killing babies at all it does make me sick actually. I don't believe employers should have to pay any portion of insurance at all and if they do chose to as a benefit they ought to have the right to deny to pay for services that are unconcionable to them.

Karla - posted on 06/07/2012

1,555

48

87

Erin, "I see no problem with this law. Noone should have to pay for a person to kill their own baby. Although I don't see why anyone would refuse birth control minus the Catholics, wouldn't the insurance company save money if you don't have a child? Kids are expensive when it comes to medical bills."



Insurance is NOT having someone else pay for one's abortion - it is an industry in which we pay into to ensure we will have help when we need it. For instance, homeowner's insurance funds the rebuilding of a burnt house... so health care insurance with abortion coverage is a 'just in case' insurance plan. If someone chose such a plan why would you be against it? Abortion is legal, and does save lives of women.



And YES insurance companies would save money if women used contraceptives and therefore did not get pregnant. Insurance companies WANT to cover contraceptives. This discussion is about legislators being more concerned about the religious views of business owners, doctors, and nurses rather than the choices of women. (and that is why it's called "the war on women.")



Why would any legislator create a law that undermines a woman's ability to access contraception coverage and her choices about how to manage her own health? It goes against the woman, the insurance company and therefore the community at large. They are taking the views of the few and applying them to all, and it is wrong.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/07/2012

6,434

12

67

Erin, have you ever stopped to consider that your tax dollars are already paying for abortions since Federal taxes go to pay for the US MILITARY'S INSURANCE? And I know this for a fact because I was married to an active duty soldier and stationed at Ft, Hood. Military personnel and their spouses use federally funded health care and may use it for things you don't approve of such as birth control, vasecotomies and ABORTIONS. So sucks to be you.

What I find amusing about you and everyone else who kvetches about what 'their tax dollars go towards' is that they never stop to consider that their tax dollars are being used to fund things that they won't get to use. They kvetch about having to pay their tax dollars for birth control, but they also kvetch about having to pay into Welfare.

Also Erin, you obviously have no idea how our Private pay system works which is sadder than you not knowing how the Canadian system works. Insurance companies receive part of the payment when you have a child. Even Tricare got a cut when I had my fist daughter. Sheesh, please go do your research before typing next time, okay?

Erin - posted on 06/07/2012

195

0

6

I see no problem with this law. Noone should have to pay for a person to kill their own baby. Although I don't see why anyone would refuse birth control minus the Catholics, wouldn't the insurance company save money if you don't have a child? Kids are expensive when it comes to medical bills.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/24/2012

6,434

12

67

LOL True! And sometimes you have to wonder if Vice Presidents are chosen to avoid Presidential assasinations

Janice - posted on 04/24/2012

1,890

18

63

Jen "Sometimes losing is actually winning. Look at all they've managed to accomplish."



Can't argue with that!

[deleted account]

I think most everyone knew the country was heading towards a major major financial problem in the year before the election. I don't often jump to conspiracies but I still think Palin was put in to deliberately sew discord and lose. I honestly believe that. Sometimes losing is actually winning. Look at all they've managed to accomplish.

Karla - posted on 04/23/2012

1,555

48

87

From all accounts Palin was picked before being fully vetted, big mistake. I do kind of wonder if McCain preferred Obama as president though. ;-)

Lisa - posted on 04/22/2012

304

0

15

Jen sarah palin was chosen well before the bank failures began to cascade so that can't be true.

[deleted account]

Megan, I'll disagree with you on Palin. I think she was put there as a deliberate sabotage by the Republican party because they knew what mess the country would be in and ANYONE in the oval office would take the brunt of the blame and take their party with them.

Which is exactly what happened.

Otherwise, I don't think anyone out of Alaska would have heard of Mrs Palin the Quitter.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/22/2012

6,434

12

67

I'm from Western New York. I remember living in Texas and having people freak out because I was Catholic and didn't want to take someone's pamphlet about Hell.



I believe a lot of us have the mindset of: I love my country- I just don't like the morons running it at the moment. All the people in these states where their rights are being violated can do is vote the jokers out of their state and local government in November and if they don't vote they can't whine that their rights are being taken away.



As I've already stated, I now live in Canada. I'm putting in my absentee ballot for Obama in November because I've seen the other side and it is scaring the crap out of me that Mittens, Newt and Ron are the best the GOP could dig up. Seriously, does the GOP believe women are so dumb and easily blind sided by badly thought out comments that we will jump on their bandwagon because Anne Romney is claiming to know what SAHMs go through?



ETA: Wait they do... I believe part of the reason McCain had Palin as his running mate was simply to 'get women voters'. FFS, I'm not going to vote for your party simply because you have someone with 2 X chromosomes standing up there and telling me you know how I feel.

Lisa - posted on 04/22/2012

304

0

15

Look i love america to be honest, but i don't like the whole "state" setup as it allows each district to do stupid stuff like this. Sadly the deep south and parts of the midwest are far more religious then the rest of the country and try to push this crap all the time.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/22/2012

6,434

12

67

Same here, that's why I'm happy to be an American expatriot in Canada. They may be expensive and colder, but at least they keep religious rhetoric out of politics (They probably learned their lesson from PM King's anti semitism in the 30's and 40's)

Krista - posted on 04/18/2012

12,562

16

842

So you want birth control paid for work for a place that covers it

Um, yeah. Because you know, jobs are SO easy to come by that people are going to go to an interview and ask if contraception is covered, and if not, will say, "Well, never mind, then. Thanks!"

Seriously. I don't know what kind of interviews you've been to, but the most I've ever found out during an interview is that there are medical benefits. They sure as hell have not gone into the details of the drug formulary so that I know what specific DINs are covered.

Karla - posted on 04/17/2012

1,555

48

87

This is involving incidents where the insurance plan normally covers birth control and the business or institution waives that option. Women are paying for coverage, but the institution is allowed to deny a portion of what is normally covered. I don't see how that is okay.

With some of the laws, it won't even have to be a religious organization like a Catholic college, but rather a religious business owner (who's business does not have a religious foundation) that will have the right to decide individual employees' coverage.

I still go with my assertion that in the US, the organization's religious "rights" are trumping the individual citizen's religious rights. I really don't think that is what the founders had in mind.

User - posted on 04/17/2012

13

0

1

For denying birth control is for private organizations. I am a labor and delivery nurse. I can be made to work in any unit in a hospital based on need. I don't have a choice in that. If I refuse o would be fired. I don't have to work for planned parenthood but people who want their birthcontrol covered don't have to work for a religious organization. My insurance doesn't cover medication that I tolerate for depression and chronic pain. I have to pay for that and it is a lot more expensive than birth control. So you want birth control paid for work for a place that covers it, otherwise pay for it your self.

Johnny - posted on 04/17/2012

8,686

26

318

As a nurse, you can choose to practice in areas where you would not be required to perform abortions. You know, virtually all but a few areas of practice in a vast majority of health care institutions.



As well, these are not private organizations. They are publicly funded (through tax dollars) and they serve the public. They are not churches or solely religious groups. Many people who do not share the faith or wish to follow all the rules of the faith are employed by these groups.



And they are being prevented from denying birth control coverage, not being forced to provide abortions. Big big difference.

User - posted on 04/17/2012

13

0

1

They are talking about private religious organizations. When you work for some organizations you have to be a member of that organization. So you should agree with those beliefs.
I as a nurse will NEVER Assist in an abortion. If my boss ever tried to make me I would quit. I have helped many women who have lost babies, I have held and dressed 19 week old babies for their moms. I believe that abortion is murder so don't ask me to do it. If the life of the Mom was in immediate jeopardy I would assist as needed. That is not usually the case though. There Re times you have to chose one of 2 evils.

Janice - posted on 04/13/2012

1,890

18

63

Its important to note that many men using ED meds are old enough to be on medicare. So tax payers really are paying for these old men and their partners to have sex. Where as many women on birth control get their health insurance through their employer or buy it independently and are therefore not costing tax payers a dime!

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/12/2012

6,434

12

67

Besides can you imagine the religious discrimination lawsuits that could potentially be filed. Plus malpractice suits? Americans think their coverage is expensive now, wait until the fines start piling in. Can you say: UHC? Oh no wait, my bad, that would require everyone to pay into the system to pay for things like ED pills. Why is it that no one cares that we're paying for men to be able to have sex when they feel like it if they have an issue getting their soldier to salute?

These laws would be in violation of HIPAA (I typed it wrong earlier *head desk*) in violation of the Constitution and in violation of UN Human Rights because they prevent people from having control over their lives and their bodies by imposing religious rhetoric on the population.

Christ, I'm in British Columbia and unless you're in a large city you don't even have a clinic on every street corner. I'm in a medium sized city and we only have ONE hospital in the entire city! Even when I lived back in New York there weren't hospitals and clinics everywhere and I was in a large city and when I lived in Texas the only hospital I saw in the town I lived in was on Ft. Hood. But hey, I find it cute when people talk about things they know nothing about then don't come back and defend their stance.

[deleted account]

I think this would be great if they put it into law .... anyone has the right to be a doctor nurse etc and should not be pressured to proform prosedures that they do not agree with or conflict with there religion if you dont agree with their religion then go to another dr or hospital they are on every corner.
--
So if you're in the ER and your child needs emergency blood transfusions, you're ok with all the physicians telling you, "Sorry, we don't believe in that. You'll have to go to the hospital 20 miles away."

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/12/2012

6,434

12

67

Nicely said Krista, but I'll add my twonie as well. (The price of opinions have gone up since Canada decided to stop making pennies next year)



Nikki, this isn't a doctor making a decision it's an employer and under HIPAA your employer has no right to your medical records. Even if you work in health care your employer is not allowed to know anything except if you are able to lift over 50lbs and whether or not your PPD test (for TB) came back positive or negative. They are not allowed to know about your sex life nor should they have a need to know about it whether or not their precious religious beliefs agree with your personal life or not. It doesn't affect your job or their life if you're taking birth control of any kind.



Now I was raised Catholic. What if I was your employer and decided to dictate that on all Fridays you couldn't eat meat (Yes, I know 2nd Vatican decreed that you can eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent) and during Ash Wednesday and Good Friday you'd have to fast? Or what if your employer was an Orthodox Jew and decided that from now on all Employees had to keep Kosher and not eat anything with grains or yeast during Passover (along with assist in an office wide clean up to get rid of anything levened) and fast during Rosh Hoshana and Yom Kippor? Or maybe your boss is an Atheist and he or she doesn't feel you should be allowed to pray during the day, mention anything having to do with God at your work place and you should stop going to Church as well because that's not part of the new company policy. Would you agree to that as well? I doubt it because that would be someone else forcing their beliefs on you and it wouldn't be fair.



We're talking about medical coverage, not abortion. And BTW, birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies as well as maintains hormone levels and makes me not as likely to miss work due to swollen cankles or migrains.



I believe it's very judgemental and unChristian to tell people who don't believe as you do that they have lost touch with reality and need praying for. I believe it's people who believe it's perfectly ok to impose their personal beliefs on a wide group of people who may or may not believe in God who need the prayers since they have lost touch with the reality the God granted us all free will.

Nikki - posted on 04/12/2012

40

0

2

I think this would be great if they put it into law .... anyone has the right to be a doctor nurse etc and should not be pressured to proform prosedures that they do not agree with or conflict with there religion if you dont agree with their religion then go to another dr or hospital they are on every corner. Not to mention that the Bible specificaly states that an abortion is wrong (MURDER) if there is a heart beat then the baby is alive people.... and God knows what he is doing ...if you feel as if you can not keep the baby there is adoption for a reason. I am praying for you and people like you who seem to have lost touch with the reality of abortion

Karla - posted on 04/11/2012

1,555

48

87

I'm listening to more "Old Fart Rants" and found this one about Limbaugh's Comments on Fluke. Old Fart goes into facts about insurance that I think applies to this thread. He's a pretty salty old guy, but he makes great points!

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/10/2012

6,434

12

67

No problem. I'm still shocked that BC legislation was allowed to pass a bill basically telling the teachers they are prevented from doing something that they're allowed to do in other provinces without a province wide vote. Never mind what's happening down in the States with random states now wanting to get into women's reproductive rights. Shit is it 2012 or 1912 down there? I keep thinking I started a time warp when I moved. And meanwhile these same party members want to end medicare, medicaide and other 'entitlements'. It's enough to make you look for a brick wall.



I'm re-reading my 2nd post and I can see where you got the idea.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 04/10/2012

3,377

8

66

OHHH...LOL...



As someone just coming in and reading your post, it sounded very different. I almost shit my pants, thinking WTF...just happened to BC. I never heard anything, how could they do such a thing! haha



Sorry, misunderstood. ;)

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/10/2012

6,434

12

67

Meme, I was refering to bill 22 which was passed last month in BC to prevent teachers from legally striking. I was then stating that maybe the US should just pass a bill in which women are denied contraceptive coverage by their employers and see what happens next.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 04/10/2012

3,377

8

66

Prohibiting Birth Control in BC?



First I heard of that one. Are you saying no one can use birth control in BC?

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/10/2012

6,434

12

67

Except that the constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion and the UN would have some fun if this law started being imposed in more than one state. Maybe the US should just pass a bill like we did in BC prohibiting anyone from using contraceptives no matter what. Now that would be fun!

Krista - posted on 04/10/2012

12,562

16

842

Ah, but Megan...you're operating under the presumption that all of those rights are equal to a religious business owner's rights to demand that his or her morality be imposed upon his or her employees.



Silly girl.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 04/10/2012

6,434

12

67

I can stay in Canada now please?



I'm just confused I guess since I lived in New York state for most of my life (even the stint in Texas with the guy trying to teach me about Hell at a local Walmart didn't do me in) and now I live in British Columbia where though we may pass bills to prevent teachers from striking we don't pass anything having to do with someone else's body.



Wouldn't this law also intrude on a person's religious freedoms and the right to not have their health care needs be publicized since it violates HIPPA laws as well as the constitution?

Krista - posted on 04/09/2012

12,562

16

842

Not to mention the fact that it is ludicrous to say that an employer should be allowed to demand that their insurer not cover items that conflict with the business owner's personal beliefs. Can we say "slippery slope"?



You allow this, and next thing you know, you'll have some business owner demanding that Blue Cross not cover any of the pregnancy/childbirth expenses of an unmarried employee -- because otherwise, that would be "condoning her lifestyle".

Stifler's - posted on 04/09/2012

15,141

154

597

I don't understand the culture of employers paying for health and choosing what people are covered for. Everyone has individual needs that change. I just cut maternity and hip replacements etc. off my private health cover the other day so we pay $90 less a month.. YAY

Karla - posted on 04/09/2012

1,555

48

87

"Healthcare History Lesson" by Old Fart Rants

Oh, I'm lovin' this guy

Karla - posted on 04/08/2012

1,555

48

87

Jen,



Thanks for that information. I'm glad to hear some states are regulating that option.

Lady Heather - posted on 04/08/2012

2,448

17

91

Just wow Jen. I have to say out of all of this mess the thing that will always be most shocking to me is that a massive religious group is controlling medical facilities. That is so fraking outrageous, I don't even know what to think.

[deleted account]

Indeed Johnny. I almost marked your post as funny until I said to myself, 'no, that's not funny when you really think about it.'



Fortunately though for these women who do purchase these extra riders do so in complete privacy from their employer. The employer has zero right to know which women/men purchase this rider.



for now.

[deleted account]

I'm just going to toss this in here. As some of you know, I work for an HMO. We deal with mostly local companies with just few national ones tossed in. Now we have several religious employer groups who can and often do opt out of covering birth control, steriliization and abortion. However, for the contraception part we are required by the state to offer privately to any woman on those policies the option of purchasing a separate rider allowing them to buy contraceptives. I know it runs less than $20 a year but can't remember the price exactly. Now is this what they're trying to object to? The less than $20 per year which is ALREADY BUILT IN to the annual premium. Now before anyone quickly shouts that that's more than some families should have to pay for, I would let you know this: the riders that exclude birth control, sterilization and abortion do not reduce the premium by even 1 cent! So you're not paying anything additional (at least where I work) for covering these services. You only have to pay extra for them if you want to get it when your boss decides they won't include it in their plan.



I would like to know exactly why my coworker gets to choose what is not covered in my plan and I do not get to choose what is covered.



Especially when that coverage doesn't cost them a dime.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 04/08/2012

3,377

8

66

I think most people that work, pay into their private (work) insurance. I know I do and so does my husband, along with every other person that works at our places of work. That is 35 000 people within the company I work for and a few thousand people that work within the company my husband works for. That is close to 40 000 people that I know definitely pay into their employment health insurance.



We both (only) pay $10/pay, amounting to $40/month (together) BUT it only covers 80% of anything. So, there is a co-pay of 20% for anything we need, other than hospital type stuff and doctor visits (covered by our Government). It also only covers upto a certain amount for each thing.



My husband and I are lucky, though, where we both have plans we can coordinate our benefits. So, we do not pay for anything, since mine covers his 20% and his covers my 20%. This is not how it works for everyone within our companies, though. Before we were together, we both had to pay the 20%, which can get very expensive. My daughter's ADHD meds alone, would cost me $100/month for my 20%.



So, it is NOT uncommon to pay into your health insurance and have a co-pay portion. If you pay into your health plan, YOU should be covered for birth control. End of story!



ETA:

In 1986 the company I work for had approx. 120 000 employees. That's a lot of people paying into their health insurance with a 20% co-pay. ;)

Karla - posted on 04/08/2012

1,555

48

87

"Is pregnancy a disease?"



"I don't get it big Dan."



(if you know "O Brother: Where Art Thou" you will know I'm about to get hit in the head.)



Honestly Danielle, what the hell are you getting at?



"The end..."



The very sad irony of that statement is that it is not the end. This is a huge issue and your Pollyanna view that "everyone can take care of themselves" does not help those who simply cannot. I'm sure you know one or two and if you don't then I'm sorry.



Having paid for my own insurance out of pocket for 24 years, watching premiums go up, having riders to cover pregnancy, watching dental insurance become manageable only to suddenly be impossible again, I cannot be as flippant about the problem as right wing idealists.



Danielle, if you cannot support your statements or offer a educated rebuttal to what has been presented to you, then just say so; I for one will totally understand.

Johnny - posted on 04/07/2012

8,686

26

318

Is pregnancy a disease? Not generally, but for some women with certain conditions it can kill. Pregnancy has a lot more medical risks associated with it than many other things that insurance pays to medicate.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms