If Americans ARE Actually Paying For Someones Birth Control

How much of your money is actually going toward that birth control? $10? $2? Or a few cents? I'm interesting in knowing because I want to know why this is such a big deal.
I doubt anyone would be contributing more than a few cents, which is hardly anything to complain about...

 

it is not much but they don't want to feel like they are paying to kill babies with birth control for religious purposes.

 

People need to get real. Allowing unwanted pregnancies to occur... is a HORRIBLE idea.

 

Yes...a few cents would prevent a pregnancy, a few thousand dollars raises an unwanted child until the age of 18.

I know which one I'd prefer.

 

Not all arguments can be reduced to dollars and cents. Just think how much cheaper it would be if we didn't allow appeals in criminal cases. We could save a fortune. And, if we denied medical care to everyone over the age of sixty we'd sure save a lot of money.

I don't object to paying to support those born with disabilities that make it impossible for them to take care of themselves. I understand the liberal position that it would be cheaper to simply kill them as infants. Or, if we miss the opportunity, when they're older.

I personally don't mind paying for people who want to screw their way through law school to have birth control. It's good practice for when they become lawyers and make a living screwing people. I do object to the government requiring people who have a conscientious objection to birth control to do so. It's not unlike I support exempting people from the draft for conscientious objections. But, if the liberals want to force them into the military, I'm not surprised.

 

those girls at georgetown are doing no such thing to pay for their tuition, maybe a small minority but the rest just want to enjoy their time there and possibly could not afford birth control due to the high costs of college.

 

Why not?

I've seen scores of people essentially doing that REGULARLY when the topic is healthcare , and that is even more complex morally, politically and economically than the topic of abortion (IMO).

If we can prevent unwanted pregnancies... what is wrong with that? In fact, that should be our PRIMARY effort or goal.

 

Amen to that!!

 

Absolutely and people should quit doing it.

 

What does that mean (in the practical sense)?

 

Well, you could have addressed the examples I gave but you chose to be cute instead.

A. Complexity is not determined by your inability to understand.
B. No one objects with preventing unwanted pregnancies by those who don't want to be pregnant. The government mandating the prevention of unwanted pregnancies is another matter. The government mandating that churches who do not support birth control will provide birth control is unconstitutional.

 

It means, Johnny, that people who don't want to be pregnant should quit getting pregnant. It isn't a tough concept. I was married and paid for contraception for quite a few years. Then I had a vasectomy. I did not want to have an unwanted pregnancy. I understand the concept. Apparently you don't.

At the time, I was often working two jobs to make ends meet but I didn't not expect the Catholic Church to be forced by an insane administration to provide me with free birth control.

 

Not really; I'm calling it as I see it. I know that I don't have THE only solutions.

Where have you seen that happening?

I'm fine with leaving churches be, if they do not stand in the way of individuals' rights or medical benefits.

I will never stand for religion being imbedded into "law".

 

According to Sandra Fluke who testified before Congress with Obama's support, she spends $1000/year on birth control. If you're an employee at a company with 30 employees and 10 use birth control, that's $333/year.

 

As long as you are for applying practical solutions to the same (not mere abstinence), then we might agree.

 

If we can make people healthier, what's wrong with that? We need a broccoli mandate!

 

It is just about time for people to be able to pay for their own health insurance policies; keeping the "employer" completely OUT OF IT.

We need universal healthcare NOW!!

 

I don't know about other guys but if a hot chick wants to have a Ménage à trois only an idiot couple would not pay for the Birth Control to get some. If the Democratic cheap tricks cannot buy protection they probably need to have a health professional follow them around and treat them like a tuberculosis patient and make sure they use adequate protection.

It is a really big deal if Democratic cheap tricks breed.

So screw the Catholics, who from personal experience hang their cross on the bed post before doing it, but use protection.

I am sure there are plenty of Republicans who would like the job of Contraceptive Health Professional Inspector, since Democratic cheap tricks breeding is such a problem; it would solve the jobs problem right there, and with the added payoff of ensuring Democratic cheap tricks do not breed; the eventual cost savings on the future budget would be enormous.

 

If it's nothing to complain about, why are women complaining that they don't get enough help through government imposed sacrafice? Why is it nothing for the givers and everything for the receivers? This moral code, accepted primarily be default (and probably not fully understood by most) that makes any and all sacrafices a moral duty to be imposed by the state, makes all human lives the subject of some collective, to be used and disposed of as that collective sees fit. This somewhat marginal, trivial issue is merely an example to illustrate what has happened to us and is still happening to us.

 

Will you pay my internet service bill? If enough people are forced to pitch in by the gov't, you will only be sending me a few cents.

_

 

i would if you are low income, but im low income so this is ultimately a responsibility for the wealthy.

 

Did you have health insurance thru your employer?

Delaying pregnancy or spacing pregnancy is not addressed by a vasectomy..

 

2 cents, $2, $10... no, not worth complaining about.

What is worth complaining about is this...

We are supposed to live under the rule of law - it is what protects us from government. To that end, the American Constitution was written as a negative document that restricted government - and the people were free to live their lives as they saw fit, and administer the necessary everyday tasks of government on the state and local level.

If the people want to chop babies up, and teach 8 year olds how to put condoms on banana's, so when Johnny is banging Susie in the coat closet, they don't pass on an STD - then take it up on the state level.

As it is, the FedGov simply doesn't have the proper authority - it is not authorized by law to involve itself in these matters. That said, that understanding of the Constitution was abandoned decades ago - in effect, the United States has no rule of law. The FedGov can literally do anything it wants, to anyone it wants - it doesn't need a reason, it doesn't need the law, and it doesn't need to defend any of it.

The fact that Republicans try to fight against it on moral grounds is simply a misdirection by the Establishment that controls that party. It is red meat to their base - and to be fair, they are right insomuch as widespread immorality leads to dysfunctional families; dysfunctional families leads to a dysfunctional society; and dysfunctional societies collapse - just as America is collapsing today. That said, the misdirection comes in when the Establishment can successfully keep the debate on the squishy moral ground of "he said/she said... 'says you'... 'na-na, na-na, boo-boo'" - then mission accomplished.

America is dying - that much I should think is obvious; and moral decay is certainly a big part of that decline; but the very fact that these kinds of debates take place on the national level, with the presupposition that the FedGov should wave a magic wand and make everyone's lives whole, is indictable evidence of just how just how ignorant the average American is when it comes to proper governance.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans, having been indoctrinated in the government schools, sheepishly accept that power is being consolidated centrally, and haven't the first clue that they are fastening a tyranny upon themselves.

As I said, most Republicans argue this nonsense on a moral level; when properly the argument should be - is it Constitutional?? is it a legitimate function of government??

Here's a picture of what positive government gets you -

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That's worth 2 cents - and in the 10 seconds it took me to write this line?? That's another $480,000 flushed down the memory hole. Does $15+ trillion in debt, and increasing at $48,000 per second seem a bit dysfunctional to any of you??

No worries - nobody is paying attention to what their government is doing anyway - as long as the check arrives on time, and the condoms don't break, right??

 

This is not a monetary issue for me. This is an issue of taking responsibility for your actions. The left keeps finding a way for someone else to pay for error in their judgement.

Where does it stop? Maybe we should cover Jenny Craig for the obese? How about stop smoking treatments for smokers?

It should cost me nothing because you decide to have unprotected sex, eat too much or smoke. It's called take responsibility for your actions.

 

That's right. Then the liberals can make you buy your own birth control pills, require you to buy health insurance, and require you to eat healthy foods and exercise as the government demands. It's all about control and power.

I would personally be willing to donate to a fund to provide birth control and I would donate to a fund to provide cash incentives for deadbeats to have vasectomies and tubal ligations. But, I will not accept you or anyone else requiring a church to pay for those things.