Free Birth Control For All!

They were probably told the new law was to ban BC, or something.

ABC News wrote:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced sweeping new guidelines for women's health care which will change everything from distribution of birth control pills to administration of breast exams -- and will mean insured women will no longer pay anything out of their own pocket.

Beginning Aug. 1, 2012, all private insurance plans will be required to cover women's preventive services without a co-pay or deductible. The move is intended to help women have the chance to stop health problems before they start.

"We know that half of women, according to studies, forego or delay preventive care because they can't afford it and under the affordable care act that all changes," Stephanie Cutter, a White House advisor, told ABC News.

Beginning one year from today will be co-pay or deductible-free well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, breast-feeding support, domestic violence screening and all FDA approved birth control methods -- including emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill.

"Most private health care plans, including the private health care plan available to members of Congress, already include most of these services, including contraception. Family planning is something that keeps women healthy, and it was an important piece of today's announcement," Cutter said.

The idea of insurance completely covering birth control has come under heavy fire from conservative groups and pundits.

"Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex, and they're not going to use birth control anyway," Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said, while political commentator Dana Perino, also speaking on Fox News, said that "if you can afford a $5 frappucino at Starbucks, you can pay your $5 co-pay."

Meanwhile, conservative groups argue that covering the morning-after pill is the equivalent to using federal dollars for abortion. Cutter, however, says that the new law is about focusing on woman's health.

"It's already illegal to use federal dollars to provide abortions -- that is not part of our law. Today is about keeping women healthy, keeping women and their babies healthy," she said.

Many women won't see the benefits till January 2013. However, once the insurance kicks in it will pick-up automatically, so women across the country won't have to sign up for anything.

As for who is picking up the extra cost, White House advisors say they don't believe the changes will impact premiums -- but ultimately, that decision will be made by insurance companies.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Insurance will go up. Count on it.

Quote :

"Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex, and they're not going to use birth control anyway," Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said,

If you're using birth control pills, implants, injections, etc., it doesn't matter if you're "blasted out of your mind". You're still protected. Also, the most commonly used contraceptive for impulse sex is the condom, which is a) sold over the counter, and b) worn by the male.

Quote :

while political commentator Dana Perino, also speaking on Fox News, said that "if you can afford a $5 frappucino at Starbucks, you can pay your $5 co-pay."

Believe it or not, not every woman can afford (or even wants) a pricey coffee drink. Also, a lot of co-pays are much higher than $5. My co-pay is $25.

Quote :

Meanwhile, conservative groups argue that covering the morning-after pill is the equivalent to using federal dollars for abortion.

The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It does not dislodge an existing pregnancy. It prevents the release of an egg, thus preventing fertilization. No fertilization = no pregnancy.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Insurance will go up. Count on it.

Sadly, Harley, you're probably right.

Lady Anne wrote:

The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It does not dislodge an existing pregnancy. It prevents the release of an egg, thus preventing fertilization. No fertilization = no pregnancy.

IIRC, it prevented implantation of the fertilized egg. Still, not an embryo, much less a fetus.

Worst. Patriarchy. Evar.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It does not dislodge an existing pregnancy. It prevents the release of an egg, thus preventing fertilization. No fertilization = no pregnancy.

IIRC, it prevented implantation of the fertilized egg. Still, not an embryo, much less a fetus.

This is what Planned Parenthood says:

Planned Parenthood wrote:

Emergency contraception is made of one of the hormones found in birth control pills — progestin. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of the body work.

The hormone in the morning-after pill works by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormone in the morning-after pill also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

The hormone also thins the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.

Well, I wonder how Fox News is covering this?

Why, by giving airtime to Family-Pac spokesmoron Sandy Rios.

SHALL WE HAVE SOME QUOTES YES LETS.

Quote :

The generic brand [of birth control] is $9 a month. So now we're going to make it free and the theory is if we make it free they will really actually take it?

I mean, seriously, if they arn't taking it when it's as cheap as $9 a month, why will they take it when it costs nothing? Nonsense, I tell you!

Quote :

We’re $14 trillion in debt and now we’re going to cover birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures and manicures as well?”

TOTALLY THE SAME THING AND IN THE SAME LEAGUE THIS IS A PERFECTLY BALANCED COMPARISON!

Quote :

“Why in the world would you encourage your daughters, and your granddaughters, and whoever else comes behind you to have unrestricted, unlimited sex anytime, anywhere and that, somehow if you prevent pregnancy, that somehow you’ve helped them. I would submit to you that uncontrolled sexual behavior is what is harming our girls, not our lack of birth control — which by the way they don’t seem interested in taking anyway. Having a baby is not the worst thing. I think having multiple sex partners without any kind of restraint or responsibility is much more damning, why would you support that?”

GODDAMIT, WHO CARES ABOUT THE HEALTH RISKS IT'S THE SHEER MORALITY AND CHEEK OF THE THING THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE HERE! STOP RAISING SLUTS, DAMMIT!

I've gotta ask, however, the "Having a baby is not the worst thing [...] having multiple sex partners [is the worst thing]" What exactly was this mean? Worse than what? Having a baby is marginally less, what, damming? Morally or ethically incorrect? Risky to health? What? I don't understand this argument.

Also this statement was preceded by the line "If I may ask you as a woman." Whatever the hell that was supposed to mean. (IT'S SUPPOSED TO MEAN YOU'RE A WOMAN AND SHOULD NOT BE A SLUT, DAMMIT YOU SLUT!)

Quote :

“I’d like to say that the morning-after pill has other detrimental affects. In Great Britain where it was legalized first, there was an outbreak of older men taking young girls in for the morning-after pill so they wouldn’t get caught and so there are no consequences.”

Citation seriously fucking needed. And heaven forbid those older men be, you know, the girl's fathers or anything. (I'm reminded of a Daily Fail story about under-7's getting the pill. TOTALLY FOR CONTRACEPTION AND NOT AT ALL FOR OTHER HEALTH ISSUES ABSOLUTELY NOT SOCIETY OF SLUTS!)

Also extra props to this woman for using the line "Red China" with a straight face (4.41 in video). The only time I've heard that phrace used recently is in the Fallout games. But I'm not gonna quote that, go here for a write up or, if you can stand it, watch this video:



[/CAPSLOCK]

Oh my fucking God.



I would say more but I think I have lockjaw from all the gaping.

Quote :

We’re $14 trillion in debt and now we’re going to cover birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures and manicures as well?”

I've actually known people who needed medical assistance with nail care. I had an elderly friend who went to the doctor to have his nails trimmed because his fingers were so bent with arthritis that he couldn't do it himself, and if it wasnt done, they would get overgrown and cause injuries and difficulties in performing daily tasks. When his insurer stopped covering this, I helped him find a low-cost salon that would perform this service.

Quote :

“Why in the world would you encourage your daughters, and your granddaughters, and whoever else comes behind you to have unrestricted, unlimited sex anytime, anywhere and that, somehow if you prevent pregnancy, that somehow you’ve helped them. I would submit to you that uncontrolled sexual behavior is what is harming our girls, not our lack of birth control — which by the way they don’t seem interested in taking anyway. Having a baby is not the worst thing. I think having multiple sex partners without any kind of restraint or responsibility is much more damning, why would you support that?”

Don't you just love how these wackos assume that any woman who uses birth control is screwing everything in pants? They just assume that married women or women in a steady relationship with one man don't use birth control. Never mind that most families have fewer children than one might expect without the use of birth control--women only use birth control so they can fuck every guy in a 20-mile radius (and even if a woman is having sex with lots of different men, that's the business of no one but her and her partners, in my opinion). Those married women who limit the size of their family must just practice abstinence all the time.

Quote :

“I’d like to say that the morning-after pill has other detrimental affects. In Great Britain where it was legalized first, there was an outbreak of older men taking young girls in for the morning-after pill so they wouldn’t get caught and so there are no consequences.”

Or, you know, these guys actually cared about the girl and didn't want her to get pregnant because she wasn't ready for kids. Oh, wait. Men never care about the women (or girls) they have sex with. Also, if a guy didn't want to get caught having sex with someone, wouldn't it make more sense to use a condom, since then the evidence would not be inside her (unless the condom broke) and would instead be on its way to a landfill?

WD40 wrote:

(I'm reminded of a Daily Fail story about under-7's getting the pill. TOTALLY FOR CONTRACEPTION AND NOT AT ALL FOR OTHER HEALTH ISSUES ABSOLUTELY NOT SOCIETY OF SLUTS!)

If I had a daughter who was under 7, had reached puberty, and had been molested, I would definitely get her the morning after pill (if there weren't any dangers to her health from using it). Pregnancy is extremely dangerous in a girl that young, and even if she managed to bring a live baby into the world, there's no way she'd be emotionally ready for motherhood.

Also, a lot of birth control prescriptions are for health reasons. In the minds of these bozos, however, birth control is only used by sluts and if a woman is taking it for health reasons she should just stop and accept that her medical problems are God's will.

I am very excited over this. Probably would be more excited if my birth control wasn't already free. (Whoo, military insurance, they don't want you having no babies) But still this is totally awesome for everyone in the U.S. Fuck the haters. Most of the time, it's their daughters who have to sneak down to Planned Parenthood to get counseling and BC, since their parents are the ones who are complete fucking assholes about their kids knowing anything about sex.

Seriously, why don't they want their daughters to know? Even if their children stick to the "no sex until your straight marriage" thing, they're going to need to know what to do on their wedding night, aren't they?

I was hoping they would cover full hysterectomies but this is a start.

Lapin wrote:

Seriously, why don't they want their daughters to know? Even if their children stick to the "no sex until your straight marriage" thing, they're going to need to know what to do on their wedding night, aren't they?

Because then you're damming the baby river that must flow.

Nihilist wrote:

I was hoping they would cover full hysterectomies but this is a start.

Actually, I think they cover surgical sterilization as well.

Azzandra wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

I was hoping they would cover full hysterectomies but this is a start.

Actually, I think they cover surgical sterilization as well.

That's not the same as a hysterectomy though. Tubal ligation provides infertility, but you still get to bleed every month etc. Hysterectomy means complete plumbing removal.

So, what is the conservative answer to virgins with debilitating cramps / menstrual dysphoria / oh god just kill me there is no amount of advil...?

Or horribly disfiguring face-cancer hormonal acne?

Or Hirsutism?

Or Poly-cystic Ovarian Syndrome?

Sakurelf wrote:

So, what is the conservative answer to virgins with debilitating cramps / menstrual dysphoria / oh god just kill me there is no amount of advil...?

Or horribly disfiguring face-cancer hormonal acne?

Or Hirsutism?

Or Poly-cystic Ovarian Syndrome?

Well, God is obviously punishing you and you have to suffer.

Penguin wrote:

Lapin wrote:

Seriously, why don't they want their daughters to know? Even if their children stick to the "no sex until your straight marriage" thing, they're going to need to know what to do on their wedding night, aren't they?

Because then you're damming the baby river that must flow.

Amazing imagery. *approves*

Penguin wrote:

Because then you're damming the baby river that must flow.

This is why they never consider married women, or women in other sorts of committed relationships. After all, why else would a woman want a long-term man unless it's for the BAYBEEZ? These people think you should start popping out crotchgoblins the second the ring is on your finger, never mind if you actually have a secure financial situation. You have to have babies, and if you can't afford them, then clearly you're having them just to get a guvment check.

Seriously, when certain people hear how long I've been married, and that we don't have kids, they automatically go, "WHY NOT?! DON'T YOU WANT KIDS?!"

Yep. Gotta make more Catholics. The bonus problem with preaching that, too, is that it completely turns off common sense.

Teen: "I had premarital sex D:"
Priest: "Okay..."
Teen: "And... and I used a CONDOM!"
Priest: "That's not the sin."

Oh, this is wonderful news! If only it had been enacted earlier, so that I wouldn't have had to beg my parents for the cash to cover the IUD. Little sucker cost $900!

Another error that these people are making is that getting drunk and bringing home a one night stand every Friday/Saturday gets you a lot less sex than being in a committed relationship and living with your partner.

Penguin wrote:

Yep. Gotta make more Catholics.

Catholics? Try again. This is not even close to being confined to one flavor of Christian. Most of the people flipping the fuck out about birth control are Protestant (there are more of them). In my area, we don't have a strong Catholic presence, so it's mostly Protestants and their goddamned Quiverfull breeding-an-army-from-betwixt-my-thighs bullshit. Especially Southern Baptists. Fucking southern baptists.

rae wrote:

"WHY NOT?! DON'T YOU WANT KIDS?!"

Clearly, the correct answer is, "I love kids, especially with a dry red, but who grows their own food anymore?"

rae wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Yep. Gotta make more Catholics.

Catholics? Try again. This is not even close to being confined to one flavor of Christian.

Oh, I know. They're just the most populous one.

Saleha wrote:

Azzandra wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

I was hoping they would cover full hysterectomies but this is a start.

Actually, I think they cover surgical sterilization as well.

That's not the same as a hysterectomy though. Tubal ligation provides infertility, but you still get to bleed every month etc. Hysterectomy means complete plumbing removal.

I doubt they'll do a complete hysterectomy AND oophorectomy, if that makes any sense. Even then by this time all my docs will be male.

Sandy Rios wrote:

Why in the world would you encourage your daughters, and your granddaughters, and whoever else comes behind you to have unrestricted, unlimited sex anytime, anywhere and that, somehow if you prevent pregnancy, that somehow you’ve helped them.

Well of course we shouldn't help them - if a woman dares to sleep around as much as she wants to, then she might start thinking of her own accord when it comes to sex and relationships! No. I think they should be punished with nine months of pregnancy and a child to look after for the next 20 years for not following the role I believe she should follow. Who cares if the resulting child is collateral damage? The woman should be punished for sleeping around!!