Birth Control Question

[MDM4AU 337]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

[AUDub 11,426]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

Free? Payed for with the help of insurance means free?

Also, I have a close personal friend that takes birth control for reasons other than contraception. Were she an employee of Hobby Lobby, her medical autonomy would have been violated. How is that not having rights taken away?

[cptau 169]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

I have decided if might be the following. Since it allows women to be active sexually but prevents pregnancy, it allows women to act more like men. Both genders are thus more equal. Being pregnant and then caring for a child for several years might interfere with a woman's education, career, or reduce the available support for other children. If the woman decides to have a child the father is still legally obligated to support the child too so the male has to also take precautions.

[MDM4AU 337]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

Free? Payed for with the help of insurance means free?

Also, I have a close personal friend that takes birth control for reasons other than contraception. Were she an employee of Hobby Lobby, her medical autonomy would have been violated. How is that not having rights taken away?

Employees of HL can still purchase the 4 of 20 FDA approved BC options. They haven't been outlawed or taken off the market. BC is not a right.

There are a number of BC options that have to be covered at no copay or out of pocket costs for the member per ACA. There is not another Rx that has this distinction under ACA. Why is BC so important that it is the only Rx that must be provided at no cost to the member?

[cptau 169]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

Free? Payed for with the help of insurance means free?

Also, I have a close personal friend that takes birth control for reasons other than contraception. Were she an employee of Hobby Lobby, her medical autonomy would have been violated. How is that not having rights taken away?

Hobby lobby only refused to pay for 4 out of the 20 approved birth control drugs. The 4 they refused to support are designed to prevent a fertilized egg being implanted in the womb, a spontaneous abortion. So if a woman took one of the other 16, she is not effected by hobby lobby's decision. The other 4 drugs are still legal and not that expensive.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ben....please tell me where anything says getting birth control is a woman's right. And note even though they can't get four of them thru HL they can still get them free from Planned Parenthood, courtesy of you and me.

[channonc 466]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

If we want to go down this road, then why should employer paid insurance cover pregnancies? Those are much more expensive and just as much of a choice (in most cases). Paying for loads of unwanted babies is way more expensive in the long run then paying for birth control.

As Ben stated, there are lots of women who use bc, including IUDs, for medical reasons that are not related to preventing pregnancies.

If you are male, really stop and think, your wife or gf was never on birth control (either pills or IUD or ring)? For women who are making say $30-35K a year, paying out of pocket the full amount could end up getting very costly, but these same folks really wouldn't be able to afford a child.

[Weegle777 78]

What are the four bc methods that HL isn't paying for?

[channonc 466]

What are the four bc methods that HL isn't paying for?

Both types of emergency contraception (plan B & ella)

Both types of IUDs (copper & hormonal)

[autigeremt 6,970]

Birth Control is very important to a woman and her overall health. A lot of women use it to regulate their cycle and control heavy bleeding, which effect iron and other nutrient reserves. Hobby Lobby still covers the majority of options, so the real argument for the chain is the ones that cause post conception release of a fertilized egg along the cervix. They see it as a form of abortion, and clinically it is. A very, very early form of it.

So, can women still get birth control while working at Hobby Lobby? Yes! Should they use other forms of birth control as a responsible form of protection from getting pregnant? Yes, but it's on their dime.

One day food will become a right that is argued by the left and we will be forced to feed people who cannot feed themselves. In some ways we already do through food stamps. At some point the word "right" gets lost.......

[MDM4AU 337]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

If we want to go down this road, then why should employer paid insurance cover pregnancies? Those are much more expensive and just as much of a choice (in most cases). Paying for loads of unwanted babies is way more expensive in the long run then paying for birth control.

As Ben stated, there are lots of women who use bc, including IUDs, for medical reasons that are not related to preventing pregnancies.

If you are male, really stop and think, your wife or gf was never on birth control (either pills or IUD or ring)? For women who are making say $30-35K a year, paying out of pocket the full amount could end up getting very costly, but these same folks really wouldn't be able to afford a child.

First of all, I am not advocating for throwing BC coverage out the window. And pregnancy and birth and taking care of the child is not covered at no cost to the member, is it? And I am not talking about the obscure benefit plan that pays everything at 100% no matter what. And those plans will go away in the near future whent he cadillac plan tax imposed by ACA kicks in.

And can we stop with stating the well known fact that some women use BC for something other than birthcontrol?? Seriously. It has been said eleventy billion times as though eleventy million wasn't enough. And no one has oulawed any forms of BC. These women can still get it. Did you know plan B is only $10 a dose at Walmart? Is Plan B one of those birth controls that you are speaking of?

Women who can't afford a child should take that into consideration with the choices they make. Secondly, there are generic BCs available at Walmart for $4. Again, Plan B is $10. Condoms at Walmart are about $2 each.

And you have missed my point in your haste to defend this issue. Why is BC more important than insulin for a diabetic that it has to be offered for free? Should someone who chose to smoke and got lung cancer get Chemotherapy free? Should someone who contracted HIV through no fault of their own get their meds for free?

Channonc, why is your BC so important that you should get it free but the maintenance Rx I take everyday to live not?

[channonc 466]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

If we want to go down this road, then why should employer paid insurance cover pregnancies? Those are much more expensive and just as much of a choice (in most cases). Paying for loads of unwanted babies is way more expensive in the long run then paying for birth control.

As Ben stated, there are lots of women who use bc, including IUDs, for medical reasons that are not related to preventing pregnancies.

If you are male, really stop and think, your wife or gf was never on birth control (either pills or IUD or ring)? For women who are making say $30-35K a year, paying out of pocket the full amount could end up getting very costly, but these same folks really wouldn't be able to afford a child.

First of all, I am not advocating for throwing BC coverage out the window. And pregnancy and birth and taking care of the child is not covered at no cost to the member, is it? And I am not talking about the obscure benefit plan that pays everything at 100% no matter what. And those plans will go away in the near future whent he cadillac plan tax imposed by ACA kicks in.

And can we stop with stating the well known fact that some women use BC for something other than birthcontrol?? Seriously. It has been said eleventy billion times as though eleventy million wasn't enough. And no one has oulawed any forms of BC. These women can still get it. Did you know plan B is only $10 a dose at Walmart? Is Plan B one of those birth controls that you are speaking of?

Women who can't afford a child should take that into consideration with the choices they make. Secondly, there are generic BCs available at Walmart for $4. Again, Plan B is $10. Condoms at Walmart are about $2 each.

And you have missed my point in your haste to defend this issue. Why is BC more important than insulin for a diabetic that it has to be offered for free? Should someone who chose to smoke and got lung cancer get Chemotherapy free? Should someone who contracted HIV through no fault of their own get their meds for free?

Channonc, why is your BC so important that you should get it free but the maintenance Rx I take everyday to live not?

I am actually more heated about the IUD issue. Not all women can handle hormones and the copper IUD is one of the only alternatives for women in terms of birth control. Those who choose the hormonal IUD may do so for similar reasons as the IUD has significantly less hormones than your standard pill. In addition, these devices last anywhere from 3-10 years (depending on whether you choose hormonal or copper). These devices are expensive to put in,but my issue is that they do the same thing as birth control pills in terms of preventing pregancy, but suddenly there is some sort of moral objection because it is a device? A woman should have a right to make a decision on which method is best for her body, in terms of hormones and safety. This should be a decision made between she and her doctor. I wouldn't have agreed with it, but if HL had said they weren't covering BC at all (position of the Catholic church) then I would see the decision to be much more consistent. This is just cherry picking and it makes no sense.

And BTW- I wouldn't be opposed to many other prescription meds be covered in full.

[MDM4AU 337]

I don't mean to dismiss your personal situation. But, is it anymore cherry picking than what HHS and this Administration did in picking BC as the only Rx that is mandated to be offerd for free? Surely someone can help me understand this. Surely I am missing something. I just can't seem to find anyone who can, or is willing to, answer my question.

Why has BC become a more "essential" benefit than any other benefit covered by health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.?

And to everyone else, before you go and throw out the "Viagra, Visectomy" horse sh** I continue to see shouted from the twitter/interweb rooftops, Viagra and BC are not even remotely in the same class and there are no health plans that cover visectomies that don't cover tubal ligations or hystorectomies. If there is, those emplyees have a great discrimination case that I would support.

[channonc 466]

I don't mean to dismiss your personal situation. But, is it anymore cherry picking than what HHS and this Administration did in picking BC as the only Rx that is mandated to be offerd for free? Surely someone can help me understand this. Surely I am missing something. I just can't seem to find anyone who can, or is willing to, answer my question.

Why has BC become a more "essential" benefit than any other benefit covered by health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.?

And to everyone else, before you go and throw out the "Viagra, Visectomy" horse sh** I continue to see shouted from the twitter/interweb rooftops, Viagra and BC are not even remotely in the same class and there are no health plans that cover visectomies that don't cover tubal ligations or hystorectomies. If there is, those emplyees have a great discrimination case that I would support.

Here's the thing you are missing, and why insurers did not fight it. It much less expensive for insurer to cover the entire cost of bc (pills, IUD and emergency contraception) than to cover the cost of a pregnancy and the insurance of another person... especially a baby, as babies have way more health care needs (for good reason) than most adults. It is cheaper than dealing with the alternative. It is also a drain on our society to have to care for children who are not wanted.

Also, how is a tubal ligation any different than an IUD or BC pills in terms of what the end goal is?

[Weegle777 78]

The only bc that I have issue with is the emergency oh crap I got drunk and made a bad decision and got knocked up and now I want to kill the baby because I don't want the responsibility of raising a child abortion pill. I'm good with the others. Carry on.

[DKW 86 7,727]

The World aint perfect. Trying to micromanage companies and employees is a huge waste of time and energy.

I still do not get how we have 1300+ Organizations that are Exempted from the ACA and no one says a word.

[MDM4AU 337]

You still miss my point. The insurance compaines didn't come up with the free BC idea. Insurance companies don't want to cover anything for free. They want everyone to have some skin in the game if for nothing else to keep thier premiums competitive in the market.

There are BC options at Walmart for $4/mo. Only a few of 20 forms of BC available cost more than $10/mo. There are free options at health clinics and places like Planned Parenthood.

So, why is BC the ONLY Rx to be so essential that is should be free?

The healthcare needs of babies aren't more than a diabetic or an MS patient. There are outliers, sure. But annually, the average MS patient will cost more than the average baby. The average chemo patient will cost well more than the average baby. The "drain on society" talking point is not the reason for this and you know it. This has never been about the child for most on the left and the Sandra Flukes of the world.

End goal is not the real issue for people like HL. I think you know that. Tubal ligation is not an abortifacient.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

Free? Payed for with the help of insurance means free?

Also, I have a close personal friend that takes birth control for reasons other than contraception. Were she an employee of Hobby Lobby, her medical autonomy would have been violated. How is that not having rights taken away?

Even the Catholic church and its parachurch non-profits permit the use of birth control pills to treat things like ovarian cysts or endometriosis.

Her medical autonomy is still intact. In fact, at Hobby Lobby she'd still be covered since they cover 16 of the 20 methods out there. No one uses an IUD, Plan B or ella to treat such conditions.

Hobby Lobby is being vilified over one narrow aspect of the mandate they objected to, but they should be a poster child for how good companies treat their workers. For instance:

• HL starts full time workers at $14/hr. That's almost double the federal minimum wage. They start part-timers at $9.50. This is almost unheard of in retail. For comparison, progressive darling Costco starts it's full time workers at $10/hr. But hey, they cover all forms of BC so they're teh awesomz.
  
• HL provides a free walk-in medical clinic for their employees at their headquarters.
  
• In addition to the high starting wage, they offer excellent health care coverage including dental and vision (stuff that goes beyond even what the ACA requires), long and short-term disability and a generous employer match on 401k.
  
• They are open reasonable hours to allow workers more time with their families. They close no later than 8pm and are closed all-day on Sundays.
  
• They have raised the starting wage for full timers $1 per hour each of the last five years in a row.
  
• They do not object to covering birth control in general. The 16 methods they cover are the ones that 93% of American women choose for themselves. And in response to the "they cover vasectomies" argument...they also cover tubal ligations.
  

Balancing the free exercise of religion with secular goals is a tricky beast. But the bottom line is that the government did not choose the least restrictive means of providing this coverage they could have. Free exercise of religion does not just pertain to what you do in a pew on Sunday mornings. You don't relinquish your First Amendment rights when you leave the church walls, decide to open a business or decide how to spend your money. Granted it's not always absolute, but it's clear that while there is a right to religious freedom, there is no right to make someone else facilitate, pay for or otherwise provide you your chosen method of birth control.

[channonc 466]

With the latest SCOTUS decision, there are those in the country who have no idea what the ruling actually said and how it affects 98% of working women. The meme that rights have been taken away from women couldn't be a bigger and more pathetic lie. Overlooked is the fact that "free" birth control is still an essential benefit under this "affordable" care act.

Which leads to my question...why must it be free? What makes birth control so important that it should be free?

Free? Payed for with the help of insurance means free?

Also, I have a close personal friend that takes birth control for reasons other than contraception. Were she an employee of Hobby Lobby, her medical autonomy would have been violated. How is that not having rights taken away?

Even the Catholic church and its parachurch non-profits permit the use of birth control pills to treat things like ovarian cysts or endometriosis.

Her medical autonomy is still intact. In fact, at Hobby Lobby she'd still be covered since they cover 16 of the 20 methods out there. No one uses an IUD, Plan B or ella to treat such conditions.

Maybe not plan B, but IUDs certainly fit into that category, particularly the hormonal ones. My OBGYN recommends them for that reason. In fact, NIH lists an IUD as a treatment for endometriosis.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Then I would say that the government needs to fork out the money for that instead of putting a gun to the heads of private business owners to make them provide for it. If the gov't (meaning: me and you) are going to produce a new right out of thin air to cover all methods of birth control, that does not come pre-packaged with a right to force another to facilitate, pay for or provide it. If this is what taxpayers want, then taxpayers need to pay for it.

[cptau 169]

Then I would say that the government needs to fork out the money for that instead of putting a gun to the heads of private business owners to make them provide for it. If the gov't (meaning: me and you) are going to produce a new right out of thin air to cover all methods of birth control, that does not come pre-packaged with a right to force another to facilitate, pay for or provide it. If this is what taxpayers want, then taxpayers need to pay for it.

It not what the taxpayers want, it's what the majority of voters want. The groups overlap, but are not the same group of people.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Then I would say that the government needs to fork out the money for that instead of putting a gun to the heads of private business owners to make them provide for it. If the gov't (meaning: me and you) are going to produce a new right out of thin air to cover all methods of birth control, that does not come pre-packaged with a right to force another to facilitate, pay for or provide it. If this is what taxpayers want, then taxpayers need to pay for it.

It not what the taxpayers want, it's what the majority of voters want. The groups overlap, but are not the same group of people.

Either way, if anyone's going to pay for it, it should be the ones that clamored for it. You shouldn't get to target a group of others to foot the bill, First Amendment be damned.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Amen Titan.

[Kassc22 0]

As a woman who has used bc for strictly medical reasons since I was 16 years old I'm well versed in the methods available. I fully support the HL decision for many reasons but my number one reason is I don't believe BC should be free. Its cheap as it is. I certainly never had a problem paying for it, even making minimum wage, being without insurance, and a full time student on top of that. No one should have to pay for the lifestyle choice of someone else. Yes, I know its not always about having sex it is also about medical conditions. I don't believe someone else should have to pay for my medical condition outside of the confines of insurance which is a contract that basically says just that. HL had every right to add copper IUD's they are listed as having the same effect as Plan B. http://www.hhs.gov/opa/reproductive-health/contraception/emergency-contraception/

"The Copper T IUD is also very effective in preventing pregnancy. If put into place within five days after having sex, only one women out of 100 using the Copper T IUD will become pregnant"

That fits completely with their view that it is an abortifacient. To HL it is apparent they believe life begins when an egg is fertilized. That is perfectly within their rights.

[channonc 466]

HL had every right to add copper IUD's they are listed as having the same effect as Plan B. http://www.hhs.gov/o...-contraception/

"The Copper T IUD is also very effective in preventing pregnancy. If put into place within five days after having sex, only one women out of 100 using the Copper T IUD will become pregnant"

That fits completely with their view that it is an abortifacient. To HL it is apparent they believe life begins when an egg is fertilized. That is perfectly within their rights.

Except science doesn't support that theory, nor do OBGYNs.