Originally Posted by ASB65

But just to the devil's advocate here, do you know that most health insurance excludes fertility treatments? Which is way more costly than the average person can pay for out of pocket. It's a hell of a lot more expensive than birth control. But you don't see anyone screaming about that. (Except for the people who can't have a baby and need this.) I personally think health insurance companies should cover both contraception and fertility treatments. If you start getting into laws and dictating what health insurance companies should or should not cover, I think you should be fair all the way around. People who are outraged about the insurance companies not providing assistance to prevent pregnancy, should also be as outraged about the insurance not providing coverage to assist pregnancy. If people truly care about women's reproductive issues, they should be supportive of women who want to have babies as they are women"s rights to prevent pregnancy. That's all I'm saying.

But I also agree, contraception really is a non-issue in the whole political scheme of things. I doubt many people are going to cast their vote solely whether or not a woman can use contraception. Abortion is hot issue, contraception...not so much.

Amy, I really disagree with you about fertility treatments, and I'm going to make a great effort to explain why.

Let's see. . .the average couple doesn't have a great deal of difficulty conceiving a child, especially if they begin in prime child-bearing years. Birth control should be available so that people can have sex without pregnancy when they want to and so that they can have their children when they want to have them.

Some couples have trouble conceiving. But that isn't a threat to their own health, it's a threat to their aspirations, if you will. And many of them have trouble because they decided to delay having children until the woman was at least in her 30s. That reduced the chance of having them.

So insuring fertility treatments would be insuring for making people happier. But there's another huge problem here. Contraception usually works. Fertility treatments often don't work. If we insured for them, we'd all be paying huge premiums for the sake of the relatively few people for whom the treatments work. A lot of the trouble we're having paying for health care is because we insure so many cost-ineffective procedures--including many cancer treatments. (I've mentioned this many times.) People will spend amazing amounts of money on fertility treatments, with relatively little prospect of success. I don't that's the kind of cost that should be socialized.

I'll stop there. I do think your position is typical of your generation's attitudes. There's nothing more important to Xers, it seems, than having kids and doing everything possible for them.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

He represented Pennsylvania in both houses of Congress, but he was born in Virginia and his family basically lives there.

He won his first major election as the Congressman from the suburban Pittsburgh district I lived in--mostly a working-class district.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Freedom of religion does not mean Freedom from religion.

Oh, sure it does. For atheists it most certainly does. They are free not to subscribe to what they consider to be myths and superstitions.

I find it a bit ironic that people who support "pro-choice" would bash women who make a choice regarding their own reproduction. Just like it's no one else's business if a woman decides to have an abortion or use contraception, it's no one else's business to tell a woman she is wrong for not using contraception. It kind of sounds to me like the pro-choice people only support it when the woman "chooses" the way they think she should...Now maybe I misunderstood what some of these posters were saying who were complaining about the Catholic's views on contraception, but that's kind of how it came it off to me.

You are indeed misreading those statements. The criticism is aimed at the Catholic hierarchy, not individuals who are making informed choices about how they want to handle their own reproduction. I may privately think the Octo-mom is crazy, but I'm not going to stand in her way.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

And you know what? It is downright dangerous and irresponsible that the Catholic Church would take such a public position against birth control. People can die if they believe using a condom will double their sin.



This is not just some harmless belief that doesn't bother anyone. It flies in the face of all economic, environmental, and medical knowledge. It spreads disease and poverty, and now they're trying to use it as an excuse to skimp on health care benefits.

By treating their position and complaints as valid, we send a very bad message to the kids: "Don't have sex, but if you do, don't use condoms!" Did someone mention something about oppressive sexual messages coming out around the time when new artists might be approaching puberty?

Thank you for this piece of Millennial common sense, which actually reminds me of messages from lots of GIs. Also of the messages I tried to give my own kids. They were boys, but I know a mother very well with several daughters who gave them the same message. She knew they were going to have sex sooner or later and told them just to be goddamn sure they didn't get pregnant, and it seems to have worked.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Thank you for this piece of Millennial common sense, which actually reminds me of messages from lots of GIs. Also of the messages I tried to give my own kids. They were boys, but I know a mother very well with several daughters who gave them the same message. She knew they were going to have sex sooner or later and told them just to be goddamn sure they didn't get pregnant, and it seems to have worked.

My Silent mom told me the exact same thing, in pretty much that exact same language.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Amy, I really disagree with you about fertility treatments, and I'm going to make a great effort to explain why.

Let's see. . .the average couple doesn't have a great deal of difficulty conceiving a child, especially if they begin in prime child-bearing years. Birth control should be available so that people can have sex without pregnancy when they want to and so that they can have their children when they want to have them.

Some couples have trouble conceiving. But that isn't a threat to their own health, it's a threat to their aspirations, if you will. And many of them have trouble because they decided to delay having children until the woman was at least in her 30s. That reduced the chance of having them.

So insuring fertility treatments would be insuring for making people happier. But there's another huge problem here. Contraception usually works. Fertility treatments often don't work. If we insured for them, we'd all be paying huge premiums for the sake of the relatively few people for whom the treatments work. A lot of the trouble we're having paying for health care is because we insure so many cost-ineffective procedures--including many cancer treatments. (I've mentioned this many times.) People will spend amazing amounts of money on fertility treatments, with relatively little prospect of success. I don't that's the kind of cost that should be socialized.

I'll stop there. I do think your position is typical of your generation's attitudes. There's nothing more important to Xers, it seems, than having kids and doing everything possible for them.

Well, except for the statics I've seen is that 1 in every 6 couples experience infertility issues, so I think this is something that effects more of the population than you realize. And some of this because of delayed child-bearing but I honestly don't think that accounts for all of it. I know of several young people who also have had problems conceiving or were unable to. Like me, their diagnosis is "unexplained infertility". Although I don't have the scientific evidence to back this claim up, I do have to wonder if the reason for the high number of cases of couple having infertility problems might have something to do with all the chemicals, pesticides, and hormones we have today in our foods.

And again, just to be the devil's advocate here...your statement of "insuring people to just to make them happy" could go both ways. Isn't the ability have recreational sex another way of "just making people happy"? Our reproductive system was designed mainly for continuation of our species, although pleasure is also part of it. But when you get right down it, that's where babies come from and that is why we have a reproductive system in the first place.

And I don't see having children as a luxury, like John stated. I think that goes a bit too far. I think it is part of basic human nature to want to reproduce or have a baby. There are probably more wanted and planned pregnancies in our country than there are accidents. Lets say "hypothetically" that our government passed a law in which they were allowed to dictate which people could have a baby and who couldn't or how many children people were allowed to have. I think you would have a whole bunch of people up in arms on that one shouting about their unalienable rights.

I just find it a bit ironic that there are so many people who are willing to advocate for women's rights to use to contraception so they are able to have recreation sex, but when it comes to the issue of people wanting to have a baby but can't without medical assistance, people take the stance of "It sucks to be you. But that's not my problem."

Originally Posted by ASB65

As a person who dealt with infertility issues, I always hated that argument. It's a bit condescending. First of all, there really aren't a lot of healthy babies out there up for adoption. The adoption process is very costly and usually takes years before you actually get a baby. So when people make that statement, they are basically telling people they should consider adopting an older child (which usually come with a whole lot of baggage or an unhealthy baby which will need a lot of medical care.) Yet when a couple announces they are going to start a family, no one says to them, why are going to get pregnant with your own child, why not adopt instead? There are a lot of special needs children out there who need parents?...The answer is because, it is part of human nature for people who choose to be parents to want to have a biological child with their partner...And with today's technology, it is now possible for people who are unable to conceive on their own to be able to have their own biological child with assistance. I know this, because I have a 13 year old son who was conceived through invitro.

These are all very valid arguments. But ultimately, if someone cannot really afford the fertility treatments, how will they afford raising a kid? Certainly, a large medical debt hanging overhead doesn't help raise the kid, but healthcare costs are a very general problem in America. And of course, having your own biological child doesn't guarantee they won't have their own health problems!

So I'm not opposed to some health insurance plans covering it, but I dunno if fertility treatments really falls under the kind of thing that can be construed as a right. If basic, live-saving stuff was universally available, further options might not be so tightly bound up with whatever your employer happens to offer you. People might actually have choices in what kind of premium services they want to be covered for. The whole thing would certainly be a lot cheaper to everyone involved.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, and if Catholics really want to use contraception and get abortions, they can find another religion or break the rules ... and risk going to Hell, I suppose.
But that's their call, not anyone else's. Trying to frame it as a civil rights issue is kind of silly.

If it does become the law, Catholic groups will have to decide how to handle it. Probably the courts will eventually decide the matter, don't you think?
If they do, I have a feeling that they will rule the law to be unconstitutional.

White supremacy has never been a mandatory belief in any established religion.
Life beginning at conception has.

No, I'm not trying to frame it as a civil rights issue.

That is just a clear example of federal law preempting other entities like states and businesses - the issue is federal preemption not civil rights. I could have used environmental pollution controls, labor laws or a myriad of historic federal preemptions but civil rights tends to be the one most people can grasp as a clear and often-presented historic example of federal preemption (its on the History Channel, in one form or another, about every week).

I was assuming that you were okay with federal law preempting the discrimination of the nature prior to the Civil Rights Act (discrimination that goes far beyond your club exclusion example). So, the question to you was what is the basis for your discernment between federal law preempting those entities and now the Catholic Church. I asked if it was religion, but then wondered if you would have been okay with no federal preemption on civil rights if those states and businesses had claim their actions were based on religious belief.

It now seems to be that your discernment is based on the Catholic Church being an "established religion" and a determination if they have a "mandatory belief" system germane and counter to the federal law in question.

Then the question becomes who (and, how do they) make the decision on what is "established religion" and the validity that it contains a "mandatory belief" sufficient to counter federal law?

Your answer seems to be the court system and its determination of whether the federal law is constitutional.

I find that puzzling because our discourse started with this statement from you -

If the government or anyone else tries to do it, not so cool.

Given that the judicial system is part of the govt, it seems you are in fact cool with the govt telling the Church what to do. No?

I thought we had decided to leave this to the bureaucrats.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

The Court already has with Equal Employment Opportunites with a Religious organization. Voted it down 9-0. Can this Country really afford to lose each and every Catholic Hospital and Clinic in this country. I see a big firing event happening very soon before this law is fully implemented; so it will be by Volunteerism, Independent Contractor's and re-classification of 'Job Titles'. I am not a fan of the insititution called the Roman Catholic Church, but I am a fan of the Big Guy in the Sky.

But hey, I thought the Church were idiot's in supporting this ObamaCare legislation in the first place.

Dark Days indeed.

ah, I think you need to spend a little more time on parsing your EEO example. Do you really think that EEO does not apply at Georgetown University or Ascension Health hospitals? That would be some news to more that a few thousand employees.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I'll stop there. I do think your position is typical of your generation's attitudes. There's nothing more important to Xers, it seems, than having kids and doing everything possible for them.

Well, perhaps it is an Xer thing. But I do care about family and women's issues all the way around. I think people should be able to have contraception available so they can decide whether or not they chose to have a family and how big their family should be. But I also have deep compassion for couples who would very much like to have family but medically can't.

I also feel that if women want to have a career outside of motherhood they should be able to do so and should be able to have decent and affordable childcare. On the same hand, I also support women who choose not work outside of the home and want that to be their main focus and choose not to have a career. I think most Xers don't have a problem with stay at home moms, but I do think some of my older boomer sisters do and tend to look down on women who decide not have a career outside of the home.

So you can go ahead and count me in as one of those Xers who cares about the things that families are dealing with regardless which situation it may be.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I find it a bit ironic that people who support "pro-choice" would bash women who make a choice regarding their own reproduction. Just like it's no one else's business if a woman decides to have an abortion or use contraception, it's no one else's business to tell a woman she is wrong for not using contraception. It kind of sounds to me like the pro-choice people only support it when the woman "chooses" the way they think she should...Now maybe I misunderstood what some of these posters were saying who were complaining about the Catholic's views on contraception, but that's kind of how it came it off to me.

You are indeed misreading those statements. The criticism is aimed at the Catholic hierarchy, not individuals who are making informed choices about how they want to handle their own reproduction. I may privately think the Octo-mom is crazy, but I'm not going to stand in her way.

Well said. But that's fishy...where are these quotes of people saying things like "it's wrong for women not to use contraception"?

But tell me Kiff, why is it that the same people denigrating out-of-wedlock births are the same people saying stuff like this:

Originally Posted by ASB65

Just like it's no one else's business if a woman decides to have an abortion or use contraception, it's no one else's business to tell a woman she is wrong for not using contraception.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I find that puzzling because our discourse started with this statement from you -

If the government or anyone else tries to do it, not so cool.

Given that the judicial system is part of the govt, it seems you are in fact cool with the govt telling the Church what to do. No?

Yes, I was always confused about the phrase "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" until I understood how the government worked

Cheers.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The poll included that question also.
Which do you think works better for people who are trying to get Obama elected, selectively looking at polls to make yourselves feel better, or putting pressure on your candidate to keep his word?

A little of both, actually.

First one needs to point out the poll data cherry-picking done by folks, like yourself just for example, and completely demolish their false meme. I've already checked that one off.

The second is a lot more difficult. I have added my voice in a couple of usually-effective channels suggesting a big compromise might be very advantageous. Have to wait and see on that one.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Well said. But that's fishy...where are these quotes of people saying things like "it's wrong for women not to use contraception"?

I do not know. I do not recall seeing any as such.

But tell me Kiff, why is it that the same people denigrating out-of-wedlock births are the same people saying stuff like this:





Cheers.

I can't answer that. It may be a personal preference rather than a desire to see a law invoked.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I have added my voice in a couple of usually-effective channels suggesting a big compromise might be very advantageous. Have to wait and see on that one.

I would be curious to see what a further compromise would look like. The administration has already given exemptions for the churches themselves and for majority-Catholic organizations, plus a grace period. Any idea where there'd be more wiggle room, PW?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Business wise the solution is simple. The working people will simply loose their employment provided health insurance and then be forced by fed law (individual mandate) to aquire individual health insurance at their own expense. Ain't them there liberals supposed to be smart???

First, why do you think anyone is going to loss their job over this? Seems to be pretty far fetched, but I'm open to an explanaiton. You really believe that Georgetown Univeristy or Ascension Hospitals are is going to shutter its doors over this? Do you want to put some money on that bet?


As for the individual mandate, I've grown too tired to explain to people too dumb to know a good deal when offered. They've been bent over and abused by their finaical overlords for so long, there's really no way to help them.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Once again, this isn't about you and me or our personal views about birth control. This is about authority. As a so-called Christian, do you really want the government to have the authority to rule over your church or a government official to have the authority to dictate and control your preacher. THINK ABOUT IT KIFF. I mean, if the government says that killing certain people or groups is OK your preacher and church wouldn't have the power to oppose or preach that killing is bad.

Okay, same question to you as to Rani.

Who decides what entitiy federal law is applied to and which ones are exempt? Just how do you keep the govt out of that?

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's how it came off to me too, especially the part about comparing contraception to segregation.
As I said before, it's a very condescending attitude to take.

It looks like Obama has figured it out better than some of his supporters, and is willing to make a compromise:
Obama Tries to Ease Ire on Contraception Rule

Told you it was in the works.

I guess I got a two'fer. Called you on your cheery picked poll data, and got Obama to start figuring out a way to make-up with the Church.

Time for a brew-ski!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I do not know. I do not recall seeing any as such.



I can't answer that. It may be a personal preference rather than a desire to see a law invoked.

Since I believe the question was directed at me, I will answer that. Reproductive issues are not black and white as some people would like to make them out to be. I believe in a person's right to make responsible decisions regarding their own reproduction. And in a perfect world, everyone would always make responsible decisions, but we don't live in a perfect world, so the best we can do hope people will make responsible decisions and encourage them to do, while giving them access to the knowledge and facts so they can make informed choices. And this includes access to information on birth control as well as access to the actual birth control. It also includes people understanding the consequences of their actions if they choose not use it. I do think there are a lot of young (unmarried) people out there who get pregnant (either intentionally or unintentionally) without really understanding what they are getting themselves into and how the odds are stacked against them and their child...Not that these can't be overcome, but it does make life more challenging for them.

And even though I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in the right for people to make dumb choices and let the chips fall as they may. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government decides exactly what is "responsible" as a blanket statement concerning reproduction and make laws governing people's ability to make their own choices. I kind of like living in free country. And this is one of the areas where living in a free country applies...And if a couple wants to have 10 kids for religious reasons or otherwise, then that's their choice. Lets just "hope" they made a responsible decision and can adequately care for all of them. But I don't think there should laws mandating these such things one way or other.

But these things were not even my point. All I was saying is if you want to advocate for contraception, then the fair way would also to advocate for pregnancy assistance. Otherwise, it's a bit hypocritical or borders on discrimination.

Originally Posted by The Rani

No.
The judicial system interprets/enforces the Constitution, which was written to protect citizens from government encroachment.
Or at least, that's what it's supposed to do.

Nice try. The judical system is one of three branches of govt. What it interprets is the Constitutionality of the other two branches efforts - its' all govt. and you are obviously cool with it.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

But tell me Kiff, why is it that the same people denigrating out-of-wedlock births are the same people saying stuff like this:

Originally Posted by ASB65

Just like it's no one else's business if a woman decides to have an abortion or use contraception, it's no one else's business to tell a woman she is wrong for not using contraception.

Cheers.

I can't answer that. It may be a personal preference rather than a desire to see a law invoked.

It may be beyond the scope of this conversation. But there appears to be a disconnect. Denigrating out-of-wedlock births automatically chastises the discontinued usage of contraception. They can't be separated. Unless it is more to do with what PW was talking about:

Originally Posted by playwrite

]It's Always Been About Birth Control And SexI don't expect that even the liberals who have been denying this for years to ever come around, but it's never really been about abortion, it's always been about women not being properly punished for having unapproved sex. by Atrios at 18:26

This guy had an interesting tweet -I can see why, if true, that would be just about impossible for any one in our culture to admit.

This is a very punitive culture. And it is this punitive culture that stands in the way of a system that would be honor women and families by supporting them. Kaiser asked why we can't do it like the Europeans. This is another reason...

Cheers.

ETA: Yes, after reading the response, it does appear to be a disconnect...

Originally Posted by ASB65

I kind of like living in free country. And this is one of the areas where living in a free country applies...And if a couple wants to have 10 kids for religious reasons or otherwise, then that's their choice.

Some people with lots of kids are out-of-wedlock.

Best...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I would be curious to see what a further compromise would look like. The administration has already given exemptions for the churches themselves and for majority-Catholic organizations, plus a grace period. Any idea where there'd be more wiggle room, PW?

I'm curious too. It's going to take some major wonking and bringing womens' groups together with their "great satan" (just trying to be funny here).

I'm thinking some 3rd party coverage paid for out of the profits made by the insurance companies servicing the exempt institutions - taking Mike's non-transference of sin through a it's-only-business channel.

Might require legislation. I'm licking my chops over that prospect and the box that puts the House GOP Leadership and GOP candidates in as their T-baggers' heads explode.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

It may be beyond the scope of this conversation. But there appears to be a disconnect. Denigrating out-of-wedlock births automatically chastises the discontinued usage of contraception. They can't be separated. Unless it is more to do with what PW was talking about:



This is a very punitive culture. And it is this punitive culture that stands in the way of a system that would be honor women and families by supporting them. Kaiser asked why we can't do it like the Europeans. This is another reason...

Cheers.

Wait, I thought banning Sharia Law was everyone's offical postion.

I have been noticing more rock piles forming at various public squares lately. Hmm.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Rani, I think you are out your depth here.

Under the First Amendment, religion does not determine law in the United States. Do I need to repeat that? Religion does not determine law in the United States. The beliefs of a church that life begins at conception have no force of law.

The statement, "White supremacy has never been a mandatory belief in any established religion"--I assume you are using "established" to mean "mainstream," not in its technical sense--is false. The reason we have Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists in this country is that they split off in the 19th century to defend slavery.

In addition, religion does not determine medical practice in the United States.

Citizens of the United States are free to regulate their own behavior according to their religious beliefs--although only if they do not thereby pose a danger to others, including their own children. (That one has been litigated repeatedly.) But they are not entitled to claim the protection of the law for those beliefs. And churches have no power to compel people to observe their beliefs, except, I suppose, to bar them from their church. Which hasn't stopped the vast majority of Catholics from using birth control.

And last but hardly least, the Obama Administration is not trying to force anyone to have an abortion or use contraception. They're trying to make it possible for people to exercise those rights if they wish.

Wow! Simply awesome...

Particularly here:

The statement, "White supremacy has never been a mandatory belief in any established religion"--I assume you are using "established" to mean "mainstream," not in its technical sense--is false. The reason we have Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists in this country is that they split off in the 19th century to defend slavery.

Denying racism is the new racism...

Cheers.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Amy, I really disagree with you about fertility treatments, and I'm going to make a great effort to explain why.

Let's see. . .the average couple doesn't have a great deal of difficulty conceiving a child, especially if they begin in prime child-bearing years. Birth control should be available so that people can have sex without pregnancy when they want to and so that they can have their children when they want to have them.

Some couples have trouble conceiving. But that isn't a threat to their own health, it's a threat to their aspirations, if you will. And many of them have trouble because they decided to delay having children until the woman was at least in her 30s. That reduced the chance of having them.

So insuring fertility treatments would be insuring for making people happier. But there's another huge problem here. Contraception usually works. Fertility treatments often don't work. If we insured for them, we'd all be paying huge premiums for the sake of the relatively few people for whom the treatments work. A lot of the trouble we're having paying for health care is because we insure so many cost-ineffective procedures--including many cancer treatments. (I've mentioned this many times.) People will spend amazing amounts of money on fertility treatments, with relatively little prospect of success. I don't that's the kind of cost that should be socialized.

Yes and no. It is true that fertility treatments don't always work, but they frequently do. Some states require insurance to cover fertility treatments, but they typically cap the number of cycles and restrict it to people who are likely to have success. According to data from RESOLVE back when I was dealing with infertility (the early 1990s), the impact on insurance premiums was trivial. This info here is dated, but useful. Of key interest is the stat that when insurance pays for IVF, the number of embryos transfered goes down, reducing multiple births. That alone probably offsets the cost of the IVF.

I would rather have my tax dollars paid to subsidize someone's IVF that results in a baby than Avastin treatments that might add 2 months life to a cancer patient. Of course, I have a grudge against Avastin; it shortened by brother's life by 6-12 months.