I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...

chelseamb11

When did free birth control sudently become a God-given right? Argh.

Someone of course posted on FB about the HHS mandate and how it's not about religious freedom.  I seriously feel like I"m talking to a bunch of monkeys.  Someone seriously said "Well, what if my religion makes me hate black people so I give them less pay?"

Seriously?  There's a huge difference between an employer saying "I don't want to pay for this woman's birth control" and "I hate black people, dock your pay".  One is discriminatory.  The other isn't.

AHFEUGHEGWUHOGHG.

Why is this country so entitled?

bibliophile2010

I don't get it either. The entire disconnect between sex and babies baffles me, generally. The sudden entitlement to free BC baffles me, too. I mean, it isn't even mandatory coverage at the usual rate with the usual co-pay. It is free.

Generally speaking though, I've found FB to be a forum where many people are not interested in dialogue, so much as "being right." I definitely pick my battles there.

chelseamb11

I know. I need to pick mine too. It's hard with these hormones raging lol

lalaith50

That's exactly the problem. Birth control is a "right" because sex with no repercussions/responsibilities is a "right." (eyeroll.)

s-aries8990

I'm pretty liberal and even I (ME!) don't think that organizations should have to provide free BC. I think that it should be covered by insurance with a usual co-pay. I mean c'mon, for generics with a co-pay its like $10/month, without insurance it's like $30/month. The employer is already covering employee benefits, they shouldn't have to pay for their RX's.

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:7e3f16eb-217b-4127-969a-e0c2ac8c135a">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE]I'm pretty liberal and even I (ME!) don't think that organizations should have to provide free BC. I think that it should be covered by insurance with a usual co-pay. I mean c'mon, for generics with a co-pay its like $10/month, without insurance it's like $30/month. The employer is already covering employee benefits, they shouldn't have to pay for their RX's.
Posted by sydaries[/QUOTE]

<div>Here's my problem with this:</div><div>
</div><div>1) BC is NOT medicine. It isn't necessary. We shouldn't have to pay for people's elective face lift or boob job. </div><div>
</div><div>2) BC is so much NOT medicine, that it is poison. It is extremely unhealthy for the body. It is a group 1 carcinogen. It shuts things down instead of helping the body work. This is like health insurance covering people's cigarrettes.</div><div>
</div><div>3) BC is abortive. Catholics believe this is flat out murder. We do not want to be giving money to people to murder their children. This is extremely offensive to force people to do.</div><div>
</div><div>4) It is harmful to families and marriages. Because this isn't directly seen, I understand some people might not agree that it happens, but it does. Overwhelming numbers of divorces with BC, not so much with NFP</div><div>
</div><div>There is nothing positive about the pill. I shouldn't have to pay for others to wreak havoc on their own lives spiritually, emotionally, and physically. </div>

Riss91

Food is necessary, shelter is necessary - employers are NOT paying for that! Employers aren't even required to cover vision and dental. And NO ONE has said BOO about not covering BC for YEARS. Catholic and other organizations have opted out of paying for this for decades. Why hasn't it EVER been a problem? If people were really suffering from paying for their own pills, don't you think it would have come up long ago?

This is seriously an attack. There is no reason to pull this nonsense right now. No one was complaing. They just want to make a point that religious rights are not more important than free abortificient drugs. Which are harmful and unnecessary.

Resa77

That's a really good point.  What makes me so mad is that people are like "but I WANT BC, and I can't afford it, wah wah wah!" when things that are actually necessary to keep someone alive aren't free.  Seriously?!  Why aren't these same people throwing fits that diabetes testing materials and medications aren't free?  Why aren't we demanding free cancer treatment?  I mean, these are actually necessary.  Why is the thing that's not necessary the one that just HAS to be covered 100%?  Even without a moral argument, it's a messed up priority.

chelseamb11

Religious points aside. I don't expect everyone to be in accord with us that b/c is abortive or that sex needs to wait for marriage and always to be open to children.

The person I was arguing against was trying to tell me it was preventative medicine like a vaccine.  No, it's not unless you have a condition that only the pill fixes (which is so obnoxiously rare that I won't even get into it.  Preventative healthcare prevents DISEASE.  A BABY IS NOT A DISEASE!  People are so warped on the difference between medical necessity and medical convenience, it's disgusting.  I think it's bullish that I had a $400 copay to get a freaking IV in December because I was dangerously dehydrated and couldn't keep anything down.  BUt a woman's monthly birth control is free? Um no.

bibliophile2010

I totally agree, Chelsea. Obviously the Pill isn't medicine, but there is a bigger underlying problem of entitlement. Entitlement to "free" contraception. Entitlement to sex without consequences (which just.isn't.possible).

My husband and I frequently talk about how disconnected people are from the true cost of healthcare. Providing services for "free" further adds to that disconnect. For example, my daughter's well-child checks are "free" when we see the pediatrician. However, 1) we pay a lot more than "free" every month to have that coverage, 2) when we get the insurance statement, we see that the insurance company paid the doctor's office lots of money for the doctor's visit plus the cost of immunizations, and 3) we would happily pay a co-pay, because we are receiving a service from the physician. Certainly, our insurance premiums cost more than the doctor's visit out of pocket would, and I openly acknowledge that we are paying to cover us in extreme situations more than to cover us for doctor's visits, but lots of people don't understand all of those economics. They just see "free."

I had an acquaintance on FB go on and on about how she shouldn't have to pay OOP for an IUD (don't get me started on how much I hate IUDs), because she can't afford an unplanned, unpaid maternity leave. Putting arguments about maternity leave/coverage aside (and I have lots of those), the economics just don't make sense. If that is really how you feel (and again, I'm just talking economics; I have lots of other issues with that attitude), the $$ for an IUD is much less than the leave would cost you.

femme55

 Overwhelming numbers of divorces with BC, not so much with NFP There is nothing positive about the pill. 

I haven't heard this before, but I would conjecture that most people using NFP are highly religious and therefore much less likely to consider divorce in the first place.  I'm not sure there's a significant number of couples using NFP who aren't doing it for religious reasons, but correct me if I'm wrong.  I imagine if a woman couldn't use hormonal bc/IUDs but didn't have any religious objection to bc in general, she would just use barrier methods like condoms rather than NFP, because then she wouldn't have to put in the extra effort for charting, etc.

Along these lines, I was wondering what the church's position on bc would be in developing countries where many people are illiterate/uneducated and probably couldn't handle NFP, yet they are married so they wouldn't have to be taught to abstain.  If they just keep having children, the poverty/desperation gets worse and they can barely even feed the kids.  Also, what about in certain countries in Africa where literally 50% of the population is infected with HIV.  If a couple is married and one spouse is infected and the other isn't, would using a condom be permitted in the eyes of the church?  Or would they just be expected to abstain for the length of the marriage?

agapecarrie

Mother Teresa taught NFP to illiterate people. It can be done.  Condoms  are not permitted in a marriage relationship. Ever. A loving thing to do for a married couple if one is infected is to abstain. It would not be loving in ANY way for someone to have sex with their spouse if they are infected with Aids. even with a condom. 

 

 truth is not relative. It doesn't change for people or circumstances. Otherwise, its not truth. Remember, the church doesn't seem BC as wrong arbitrarily. It didn't just make up some rule for no reason. It teaches it because its harmful to the dignity of the person and to marriages. To learn more about it, please read Theology of the Body for beginners and Good news about sex and marriage by Christopher West. Eye opening. 

It is an extreme fallacy that condoms actually do anything. The failure is huge, and that's not just from improper use. If an illiterate person couldn't learn NFP, they couldn't learn how to use a condom properly.

The stats on divorce:

-Secular :   50% 

-marry in the church:  33%

Marry in the church, use NFP-- 2%

Marry in church, use NFP, go to mass  1%

Marry in church, use NFP, mass, and pray at home together---.09% (point zero nine)

I know of several couples that used NFP because it was natural, avoiding hormones, they had no other intentions at the time. This of course does not make it a large number overall, I don't know what that would be. 

Charting is less effort than condoms. 

professorscience

I've met several people who are not Catholic and have moved to NFP because it is a free method of birth control.

@Femme, there was a really interesting article several months ago about the "Open Letter to Melinda Gates."  It was in response to her announcement that she'd be donating billions of dollars to give girls in some African nations the depo-provera shot.  The announcement was met with way more opposition from the women who were intended the intended targets for this so-called charity.  The author of the "Open Letter" pointed out that Western culture really doesn't understand the emphasis many in Africa place on the size of one's family and argued for more EDUCATION for these women, rather than just injecting them with drugs intended to take away what most Africans regard as their most beautiful gift.

When we talk about just handing out birth control to people in impoverished nations, we're just, to use an old phrase, putting a band-aid on a much larger problem.  It's just like the conversation we had last week about abuse victims having a secret stash of birth control.  The access to birth control is not the problem, the ABUSE is.  And in impoverished countries, the access isn't the problem (as Carrie mentioned, a ton of couples in impoverished nations have learned and teach NFP) -- the problem is the widespread abuses of women, a lot of times due to poor educational resources.

monkeysip

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:1404c1db-e584-4814-b0d9-23f3e6bf15e5">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE] Overwhelming numbers of divorces with BC, not so much with NFP There is nothing positive about the pill.  I haven't heard this before, but I would conjecture that most people using NFP are highly religious and therefore much less likely to consider divorce in the first place.  I'm not sure there's a significant number of couples using NFP who aren't doing it for religious reasons, but correct me if I'm wrong.  I imagine if a woman couldn't use hormonal bc/IUDs but didn't have any religious objection to bc in general, she would just use barrier methods like condoms rather than NFP, because then she wouldn't have to put in the extra effort for charting, etc. Along these lines, I was wondering what the church's position on bc would be<strong> in developing countries where many people are illiterate/uneducated and probably couldn't handle NFP</strong>, yet they are married so they wouldn't have to be taught to abstain.  If they just keep having children, the poverty/desperation gets worse and they can barely even feed the kids.  Also, what about in certain countries in Africa where literally 50% of the population is infected with HIV.  If a couple is married and one spouse is infected and the other isn't, would using a condom be permitted in the eyes of the church?  Or would they just be expected to abstain for the length of the marriage?
Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

Femme, you seem like an intelligent person and usually have very good input, but I don't think you realize how offensive this really is.

Again, this isn't an attack on you, because you've been really reasonable and polite on these boards, but this is one of those kinds of mentalities that show how arrogant and prejudice liberal people can be sometimes (and I don't use "liberal" as a pejorative... I consider myself a liberal in many ways).

People in other countries may lack education and reading skills, but they're not stupid.  Not only are they definitely smart enough to learn something like NFP, but a lot of women in developing countries ALREADY KNOW IT.  NFP has become more scientifically grounded in the last few decades, but it's existed for centuries, if not millenia.  Women all over the world have known about their fertility signs and used it to space pregnancies before.  If anything, women in developing countries are more in tune with their bodies and have more respect for their own fertility.  This is why many find BC offensive.  I think it's probably a lot more difficult to teach NFP to women in the more "educated" parts of the world who have lost all knowledge of their fertility and what their body tells them.

agapecarrie

IN addition, many women who have issues with NFP have them because their bodies are thrown off by modern technology: artificial lights, computers, dryer sheets, etc are all screwing up the natural rhythms.

chelseamb11

Dryer sheets!? I never knew that.
Huh.

Riss91

A good synopsis of the latest with HHS "exemptions", etc:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/7883/

agapecarrie

The dryer sheets I think is more sensitivity and allergies

femme55

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:50b1901f-36f3-47c3-8b35-240dc23c367a">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall... : Femme, you seem like an intelligent person and usually have very good input, but I don't think you realize how offensive this really is. Again, this isn't an attack on you, because you've been really reasonable and polite on these boards, but this is one of those kinds of mentalities that show how arrogant and prejudice liberal people can be sometimes (and I don't use "liberal" as a pejorative... I consider myself a liberal in many ways). People in other countries may lack education and reading skills, but they're not stupid.  Not only are they definitely smart enough to learn something like NFP, but a lot of women in developing countries ALREADY KNOW IT.  NFP has become more scientifically grounded in the last few decades, but it's existed for centuries, if not millenia.  Women all over the world have known about their fertility signs and used it to space pregnancies before.  If anything, women in developing countries are more in tune with their bodies and have more respect for their own fertility.  This is why many find BC offensive.  I think it's probably a lot more difficult to teach NFP to women in the more "educated" parts of the world who have lost all knowledge of their fertility and what their body tells them.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

<div>I certainly didn't make the comment as a way to put down the intelligence of women in developing countries.  Before I went into my chosen field I strongly considered going into foreign service and interned in the Africa bureau at USAID, so I don't harbor some superior attitude toward those in less economically developed or formally educated areas.  I just don't know much about NFP and was wondering how feasible it was in these situations.  Before coming on this board I knew NFP existed but that's about it.  I see a lot of posts on here asking for help with NFP and talking about methods, temperature taking, etc. so I thought it might be difficult in practice.  The points in this thread seem to point out otherwise (esp. point about Mother Teresa).</div><div>
</div><div>Last year I saw an article on the CNN belief blog by a Catholic NFP instructor which stated that "birth control denigrates women."  I thought to myself at the time, "what on earth is she talking about" and was even somewhat offended.  I didn't fully understand the perspective until I started reading about it on these boards.</div><div>
</div><div>In any event, I am an outsider who frankly, in the past, had a very negative perception of the Catholic Church.  I would hear about things like the church being against the distribution of condoms in HIV-stricken countries, and think it was a horrible thing to do.  Then I would hear about the church being against birth control in high-fertility countries, but I wouldn't hear about them teaching and instituting effective NFP programs (not saying they don't do it, just that it's not reported).  So it's just a negative perception I have had based on what I have been exposed to, and I am trying to learn more from the church's perspective.</div>

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:6239d793-39f2-46fb-ba49-1435025ccf9f">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall... : I certainly didn't make the comment as a way to put down the intelligence of women in developing countries.  Before I went into my chosen field I strongly considered going into foreign service and interned in the Africa bureau at USAID, so I don't harbor some superior attitude toward those in less economically developed or formally educated areas.  I just don't know much about NFP and was wondering how feasible it was in these situations.  Before coming on this board I knew NFP existed but that's about it.  I see a lot of posts on here asking for help with NFP and talking about methods, temperature taking, etc. so I thought it might be difficult in practice.  The points in this thread seem to point out otherwise (esp. point about Mother Teresa). Last year I saw an article on the CNN belief blog by a Catholic NFP instructor which stated that "birth control denigrates women."  I thought to myself at the time, "what on earth is she talking about" and was even somewhat offended.  I didn't fully understand the perspective until I started reading about it on these boards. In any event, I am an outsider who frankly, in the past, had a very negative perception of the Catholic Church.  I would hear about things like the church being against the distribution of condoms in HIV-stricken countries, and think it was a horrible thing to do.  Then I would hear about the church being against birth control in high-fertility countries, but I wouldn't hear about them teaching and instituting effective NFP programs <strong>(not saying they don't do it, just that it's not reported)</strong>.  So it's just a negative perception I have had based on what I have been exposed to, and I am trying to learn more from the church's perspective.
Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

The bolded is so true for everything church related.  The church is so rarely reported positively by the media because the media is mostly controlled by liberals.  Any time it is reported is when someone messes up.  That's why there's this huge perception that sexual abuse is running rampant with Catholic priests when, in reality, there is no higher percentage of it here than any other religion or even denomination.  There is a higher rate of sexual abuse with coaches of HS students than there are with Catholic priests.  But the media doesn't ever show it.  The media is a REALLY scary thing (scarier than people realize.. they have too much power over this country, and most if it is literally being bought by the highest bidder)

monkeysip

@ Femme

I know you didn't mean any offense with your statement, so I believe that you don't actually have any feelings of superiority or anything.  But it isn't an uncommon sentiment among Americans and Westerners, even if they don't realize it.  It's our more modern form of cultural imperialism... "those Africans don't know how to control themselves, so we more intelligent and civilized men and women should send them a bunch of condoms" (instead of more important education, food, medicine, etc.).  Again, I know you're not saying that, it's just one of those common beliefs I encounter that I find very ignorant and really bothers me. 

TeaForMe

I'm sorry I don't have links to the studies, but if you go to woomb.org, you can find them. The billings ovulation method has been taught in areas of high poverty and low literacy for years and the effectiveness rate is outstanding. In regards to not handing out condoms or other BC in areas with high AIDS populations or poverty or famine, I once heard it put this way. If I am hungry, give me food, not a condom. If I am sick, give me medicine, not a condom. If I am illiterate, teach me, don't give me a condom. Sure, high birth rates may add to the problem, but again, there are other methods to combat that. PLUS, not all cultures even would approve of limiting their family size. And women in developing nations (I have heard) are more likely to have their children spaced further apart naturally because of breastfeeding and extended breastfeeding which delays ovulation. Just my two cents.

agapecarrie

Femme,

The thing is about all your points you just made in your last post--- everything there is about trying to treat problems by putting a band aid on it. Simply taking care of symptoms don't solve problems. It only makes it worse.

This goes on a medical level as well as a cultural level.

If I had a headache every day over and over, and kept taking ib profin for it, that is easing the symptom of the problem, it doesn't find the root cause. Possibly, the blood thinning nature might even cause more problems. Instead, a doctor would problably do a scan to see if there is a reason why the headache is caused, and treat it. 

Condoms for aids countries is not fixing the problem. It's encouraging it to get worse.

High fertility itself, is not a problem, it means things are working correctly.

BC is only a band-aid medically, isn't actually as effective as the stats that come with it, and is degrading to women, as it strips them of their fertility, the highest honor, allowing them to be used for pleasure without unity.

femme55

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:b68c95da-5a37-4193-9f57-142d7d5fbe88">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE]Femme, The thing is about all your points you just made in your last post--- everything there is about trying to treat problems by putting a band aid on it. Simply taking care of symptoms don't solve problems. It only makes it worse. This goes on a medical level as well as a cultural level. If I had a headache every day over and over, and kept taking ib profin for it, that is easing the symptom of the problem, it doesn't find the root cause. Possibly, the blood thinning nature might even cause more problems. Instead, a doctor would problably do a scan to see if there is a reason why the headache is caused, and treat it.  Condoms for aids countries is not fixing the problem. It's encouraging it to get worse. High fertility itself, is not a problem, it means things are working correctly. BC is only a band-aid medically, isn't actually as effective as the stats that come with it, and is degrading to women, as it strips them of their fertility, the highest honor, allowing them to be used for pleasure without unity.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

<div>I see your points.  </div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

lalaith50

People who are "poorer", like more illiterate or whatever in a third world country, actually can grasp more quickly the basic concepts of mucus aspects of NFP. If they're farmers, they understand - you plant the seed when it's wet, and that's what keeps it alive! If I remember correctly, I think I also heard someone who grew up around cows say that cows having mucus is a really basic thing that their owners are well aware of, and they even are able to observe it to the point of helping to know when a female cow is in heat! It's us wealthy "Westerners," who are sooooooo disconnected from the "natural" ways that life begins who are like, "what? my body gives signs that I'm fertile? No way, that simply couldn't be true. It's all just mysterious magic!"

Sorry I didnt say that really well, (I don't have time right now,) but yes, it's well worth looking into the success rates of, for example, the Billings Method being taught to women in third-world countries.

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:f6599090-0bc0-4179-aee2-27dd8cbd1697">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE]People who are "poorer", like more illiterate or whatever in a third world country, actually can grasp more quickly  the basic concepts of mucus aspects of NFP. If they're farmers, they understand - you plant the seed  when it's wet , and that's what keeps it alive! If I remember correctly, I think I also heard someone who grew up around cows say that cows having mucus is a really basic thing that their owners are well aware of, and they even are able to observe it to the point of helping to know when a female cow is in heat! It's us wealthy "Westerners," who are sooooooo disconnected from the "natural" ways that life begins who are like, "what? my body gives signs that I'm fertile? No way, that simply couldn't be true. It's all just mysterious magic!" Sorry I didnt say that really well, (I don't have time right now,) but yes, it's well worth looking into the success rates of, for example, the Billings Method being taught to women in third-world countries.
Posted by lalaith50[/QUOTE]

I think you said it well! We are so used to everything being artificial: our food, our intelligence, even our fertility (or lackthereof).  In third-world countries, people don't have the internet or bc or genetically modified corn to rely on.  They rely on NATURE, therefore they know it probably better than we do.

professorscience

To the credit of anyone who doesn't believe some people could "handle" NFP: I remember watching a video in an environmental science class in college that highlighted some of the Bush Administration plans to promote birth control in third-world countries.  That administration supported abstinence-only, NFP education.  In the clip they showed, I remember thinking the method of teaching seemed really, really complicated and that it was pretty pointless.

professorscience

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:79997d37-464f-4e98-9264-3e1b7ba28456">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE]It is because the law can only regulate behavior, not intent.   You don't believe in hormonal BC, so you don't want insurance for your small business to cover it.  A local shop owner here is a follower of Christian Science.  She does not believe in invasive medical procedures of any kind, including blood transfusions, even in order to save a life.  So, should she have the right to refuse for her insurance to cover a blood transfusion or major surgery for one of her employees who does not have the same religion?  Should the gas station owner down the street be allowed to not cover pap smears for his female employees because he doesn't believe in them? THAT is the issue.  If we do it for one, we have to do it for all.  
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]

<div>I think the major difference here is that the blood transfusion is not an elective treatment, whereas birth control in most cases is.</div>

monkeysip

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_i-feel-like-im-banging-my-head-against-a-wall?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54f388d2-0a3f-4427-9960-e2d04b99159dPost:79997d37-464f-4e98-9264-3e1b7ba28456">Re: I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall...</a>:
[QUOTE]It is because the law can only regulate behavior, not intent.   You don't believe in hormonal BC, so you don't want insurance for your small business to cover it.  A local shop owner here is a follower of Christian Science.  She does not believe in invasive medical procedures of any kind, including blood transfusions, even in order to save a life.  So, should she have the right to refuse for her insurance to cover a blood transfusion or major surgery for one of her employees who does not have the same religion?  Should the gas station owner down the street be allowed to not cover pap smears for his female employees because he doesn't believe in them? THAT is the issue.  If we do it for one, we have to do it for all.  
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]

Stage, I get your point.  You're saying that the law can only respect religious freedoms within reason.... just because your religion allows or doesn't allow for something doesn't necessarily mean you can impinge someone else's rights or deny basic healthcare.

I don't think anyone here disagrees. 

The point you're missing is that we are saying BC is not healthcare.  It doesn't actually prevent or treat any disease, and therefore, employers should not be required to provide it. 

Are there some women who use it to treat a disease/disorder?  Yes, but it is rarely because this is the only or even best option for them.  Most of the time, BC is only masking symptoms at best, or increasing the problem at worst.  It is the lazy prescription, when doctors don't want to actually investigate and treat what is really wrong.  BC has terrible and dangerous side effects, not just on women but even the environment. 

Most women still use it because of its contraceptive benefits, not any health benefits.  And pregnancy is not a disease or disorder, therefore, BC is not healthcare.

Lastly, why should there be no co-pay?  There are co-pays on so many much more beneficial and life-saving drugs and treatments... but for some reason BC should be completely free.

Riss91

Honestly.... I say let people choose to not offer pap-smears, blood transfusions, etc. They will find that fewer people want to work for them and they can decide whether that is a problem for their business or company.

And if the govt sees these things as necessities, it should provide it/subsidize it directly. This is where the mandate will fall apart. A previous lawsuit resulted in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which states the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

Basically, if something infringes someone's religious rights, even if it is a general, widespread practice, the govt should provide for it directly rather than force someone to behave against their conscience.

agapecarrie

The other side of it, is that I would not work for a Christian Science employer if I knew that I wouldn't be getting good health insurance from them. I completely respect their right to not pay for something they don't believe in.