Obamacare: Free Sterilization For All Females With Reproductive Capacity...

[eyer]

...regulation proposed by HHS Secretary Sebelius last year goes into effect this August 1.

The USSA Department of Health and Human Services (charged by the Executive Branch to implement the Affordable Health Care Act) has released an expanded list of prevention coverage for "women’s health and well-being", and since all of these services "have strong scientific evidence of their health benefits", all "must be covered and plans can no longer charge a patient a copayment, coinsurance or deductible for these services when they are delivered by a network provider."

If you click the link (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/), you can read HHS's official announcement and take a look for yourself at the scope of the free expanded services now mandated by the federal government, with "sterilization procedures" "for all women with reproductive capacity" listed for the category, "Contraceptive methods and counseling".

Now, wiki tells me the average age of menarche (a female's first menstruation) is 12.5 in the US, but is normal anywhere from 8-16 years of age...

...so if I read this new HHS edict to include federal government-mandated free sterilization to an American girl as young as 8, would I be wrong?

And can anyone tell me how in the world sterilization can be called a "health benefit" for a normal, 8-year old little girl?

And why does government support the sterilization of 8-year old girls, anyway?

And someone clear-up Obamacare abortion for me, would ya?

Before Congressional passage of the ACA, the House passed its ACA bill with the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which applied the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions, which forbids certain Health and Human Services (HHS) funds from being used to pay for abortions, to Obamacare.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was necessary because the original bill did not include any blanket restriction on using taxpayer funds for abortion. Neither did the original Hyde Amendment suffice, since Obamacare creates lots of new pathways for sending money directly to various health care projects, bypassing HHS and the Hyde Amendment restrictions altogether.

But the Senate passed its version of the ACA with no abortion restrictions at all, and the Obama administration convinced the House to remove its anti-abortion language before the Congress voted on ACA. So, as a result, the ACA bill that the President signed into law has no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.

Obama made a public display of signing an executive order that supposedly amends the health care legislation to preclude abortion funding...

...but the legal problem with that is that an executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation.

So, what's the real deal folks?

 

[mercury14]

Nothing about it is free, bro.

 

[mercury14]

Now, wiki tells me the average age of menarche (a female's first menstruation) is 12.5 in the US, but is normal anywhere from 8-16 years of age...

...so if I read this new HHS edict to include federal government-mandated free sterilization to an American girl as young as 8, would I be wrong?

And can anyone tell me how in the world sterilization can be called a "health benefit" for a normal, 8-year old little girl?

And why does government support the sterilization of 8-year old girls, anyway?

Yes you're completely wrong again.

 

[warrior queen]

Ffs! Do you always pick and choose the snippets that apparently back up your twisted thinking?
Even us non-USA folk can see through your bs!

 

[about_average]

I didn't read it, but since you're quoting it, "for all women with reproductive capacity"....
Since when are 8 year old girls considered women in the US?
I'm assuming, from the legal angle, it would be age of majority, 18-21, depending on the state.
I'm pretty sure that 8 isn't considered a woman.

 

[mercury14]

I didn't read it, but since you're quoting it, "for all women with reproductive capacity"....
Since when are 8 year old girls considered women in the US?
I'm assuming, from the legal angle, it would be age of majority, 18-21, depending on the state.
I'm pretty sure that 8 isn't considered a woman.

The first rule of conservative fearmongering though is that facts don't matter. All that matters is that dumb people are tricked into voting Republican.

 

[Nitely]

...regulation proposed by HHS Secretary Sebelius last year goes into effect this August 1.

The USSA Department of Health and Human Services (charged by the Executive Branch to implement the Affordable Health Care Act) has released an expanded list of prevention coverage for "women’s health and well-being", and since all of these services "have strong scientific evidence of their health benefits", all "must be covered and plans can no longer charge a patient a copayment, coinsurance or deductible for these services when they are delivered by a network provider."

If you click the link (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/), you can read HHS's official announcement and take a look for yourself at the scope of the free expanded services now mandated by the federal government, with "sterilization procedures" "for all women with reproductive capacity" listed for the category, "Contraceptive methods and counseling".

Now, wiki tells me the average age of menarche (a female's first menstruation) is 12.5 in the US, but is normal anywhere from 8-16 years of age...

...so if I read this new HHS edict to include federal government-mandated free sterilization to an American girl as young as 8, would I be wrong?

And can anyone tell me how in the world sterilization can be called a "health benefit" for a normal, 8-year old little girl?

And why does government support the sterilization of 8-year old girls, anyway?

And someone clear-up Obamacare abortion for me, would ya?

Before Congressional passage of the ACA, the House passed its ACA bill with the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which applied the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions, which forbids certain Health and Human Services (HHS) funds from being used to pay for abortions, to Obamacare.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was necessary because the original bill did not include any blanket restriction on using taxpayer funds for abortion. Neither did the original Hyde Amendment suffice, since Obamacare creates lots of new pathways for sending money directly to various health care projects, bypassing HHS and the Hyde Amendment restrictions altogether.

But the Senate passed its version of the ACA with no abortion restrictions at all, and the Obama administration convinced the House to remove its anti-abortion language before the Congress voted on ACA. So, as a result, the ACA bill that the President signed into law has no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.

Obama made a public display of signing an executive order that supposedly amends the health care legislation to preclude abortion funding...

...but the legal problem with that is that an executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation.

So, what's the real deal folks?

Give it a rest, Mr. Rove...

 

[eyer]

More traumatized vertical thinking from synapse-challenged mental midgets...

 

[eyer]

~I think I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body ~... ~ Have Tongue - Will Travel ~ ~ Free mustache rides ~

Criticism from a mind that produces such originality as above is soooo hard to so effortlessly discard...

 

[eyer]

I'm pretty sure that 8 isn't considered a woman.

I agree...

...I'm certain it is definitely a number.

 

[kbate]

Eeyore you aren't an idiot, but when you read the HHS insurance coverage guidelines as government mandated sterilization of an 8 year old, shouldn't make your posts or interpretations a bit suspect to some of us?

You do know that telling insurance companies to pay for a procedure is not the same thing as telling doctors to order a procedure?

Tell me, if a doctor orders sterilization as a life saving procedure for a 12 year old girl, do you want her insurance to pay or not?

 

[eyer]

Eeyore you aren't an idiot, but when you read the HHS insurance coverage guidelines as government mandated sterilization of an 8 year old, shouldn't make your posts or interpretations a bit suspect to some of us?

Can you steer me to where I, not you, wrote "government mandated sterilization of an 8 year old"?

Unless you can, the premise you chose to begin your reply with is completely irrelevant.

Here's the question, again:

Is sterilization of an 8-year old girl with "reproductive capacity" a federal government-mandated "health benefit" as part of the ACA?

Ie, simply, is the option available under the law?

 

[phrodeau]

Can you steer me to where I, not you, wrote "government mandated sterilization of an 8 year old"?

Unless you can, the premise you chose to begin your reply with is completely irrelevant.

Here's the question, again:

Is sterilization of an 8-year old girl with "reproductive capacity" a federal government-mandated "health benefit" as part of the ACA?

Ie, simply, is the option available under the law?

According to you, it is. Whom are you asking?

My state mandates that my insurance policy provides coverage if I should knock over a bridge with my car. That must mean the state has given me the option to freely knock over bridges.

 

[kbate]

...regulation proposed by HHS Secretary Sebelius last year goes into effect this August 1.

The USSA Department of Health and Human Services (charged by the Executive Branch to implement the Affordable Health Care Act) has released an expanded list of prevention coverage for "women’s health and well-being", and since all of these services "have strong scientific evidence of their health benefits", all "must be covered and plans can no longer charge a patient a copayment, coinsurance or deductible for these services when they are delivered by a network provider."

If you click the link (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/), you can read HHS's official announcement and take a look for yourself at the scope of the free expanded services now mandated by the federal government, with "sterilization procedures" "for all women with reproductive capacity" listed for the category, "Contraceptive methods and counseling".

Now, wiki tells me the average age of menarche (a female's first menstruation) is 12.5 in the US, but is normal anywhere from 8-16 years of age...

...so if I read this new HHS edict to include federal government-mandated free sterilization to an American girl as young as 8, would I be wrong?

And can anyone tell me how in the world sterilization can be called a "health benefit" for a normal, 8-year old little girl?

And why does government support the sterilization of 8-year old girls, anyway?

And someone clear-up Obamacare abortion for me, would ya?

Before Congressional passage of the ACA, the House passed its ACA bill with the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which applied the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions, which forbids certain Health and Human Services (HHS) funds from being used to pay for abortions, to Obamacare.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was necessary because the original bill did not include any blanket restriction on using taxpayer funds for abortion. Neither did the original Hyde Amendment suffice, since Obamacare creates lots of new pathways for sending money directly to various health care projects, bypassing HHS and the Hyde Amendment restrictions altogether.

But the Senate passed its version of the ACA with no abortion restrictions at all, and the Obama administration convinced the House to remove its anti-abortion language before the Congress voted on ACA. So, as a result, the ACA bill that the President signed into law has no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.

Obama made a public display of signing an executive order that supposedly amends the health care legislation to preclude abortion funding...

...but the legal problem with that is that an executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation.

So, what's the real deal folks?

Where did you come up with the bolded part? Did you see the word mandate or 8 year old in the HHS regulation?

You said above the bolded section, "Free services mandated" - the HHS regulation mandates nothing more than that payment be rendered for certain services under qualifying policies.

It does not state that anyone anywhere of any age must undergo any treatment of any kind.


Your insurance policy covers your broken legs. Did your doctor break your leg just to be certain your coverage is used?

Is sterilization of an 8-year old girl with "reproductive capacity" a federal government-mandated "health benefit" as part of the ACA?

Ie, simply, is the option available under the law?

Yes, if a doctor orders such a procedure the insurance company will be compelled to pay for it. But in no way is such a procedure mandated by the ACA.

 

[zipman]

...regulation proposed by HHS Secretary Sebelius last year goes into effect this August 1.

The USSA Department of Health and Human Services (charged by the Executive Branch to implement the Affordable Health Care Act) has released an expanded list of prevention coverage for "women’s health and well-being", and since all of these services "have strong scientific evidence of their health benefits", all "must be covered and plans can no longer charge a patient a copayment, coinsurance or deductible for these services when they are delivered by a network provider."

If you click the link (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/), you can read HHS's official announcement and take a look for yourself at the scope of the free expanded services now mandated by the federal government, with "sterilization procedures" "for all women with reproductive capacity" listed for the category, "Contraceptive methods and counseling".

Now, wiki tells me the average age of menarche (a female's first menstruation) is 12.5 in the US, but is normal anywhere from 8-16 years of age...

...so if I read this new HHS edict to include federal government-mandated free sterilization to an American girl as young as 8, would I be wrong?

And can anyone tell me how in the world sterilization can be called a "health benefit" for a normal, 8-year old little girl?

And why does government support the sterilization of 8-year old girls, anyway?

And someone clear-up Obamacare abortion for me, would ya?

Before Congressional passage of the ACA, the House passed its ACA bill with the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which applied the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions, which forbids certain Health and Human Services (HHS) funds from being used to pay for abortions, to Obamacare.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was necessary because the original bill did not include any blanket restriction on using taxpayer funds for abortion. Neither did the original Hyde Amendment suffice, since Obamacare creates lots of new pathways for sending money directly to various health care projects, bypassing HHS and the Hyde Amendment restrictions altogether.

But the Senate passed its version of the ACA with no abortion restrictions at all, and the Obama administration convinced the House to remove its anti-abortion language before the Congress voted on ACA. So, as a result, the ACA bill that the President signed into law has no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.

Obama made a public display of signing an executive order that supposedly amends the health care legislation to preclude abortion funding...

...but the legal problem with that is that an executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation.

So, what's the real deal folks?

The "real deal" is that this is one of the most idiotic displays of flawed logic and reading comprehension that I have ever seen.

 

[HAL_9000]

I am outraged!

No free vasectomies?

 

[koalabear]

http://funmeme.com/images/funmeme_com/WindowsLiveWriter/FunnySignsNumber8_5182/for-mom-condoms_4e6f37a1-fff2-493d-8d8c-e7aaa4b5db28.jpg

 

[kbate]

I am outraged! No free vasectomies?

I offer those.

 

[HAL_9000]

I offer those.

There has to be a catch...

 

[koalabear]

There has to be a catch...

Bring your own super-glue.

 

[kbate]

There has to be a catch...

No Catch. Simple operation, quick, absolutely painless and free.

 

[HAL_9000]

No Catch. Simple operation, quick, absolutely painless and free.

But what is the incentive?

 

[kbate]

But what is the incentive?

I'm sensing you aren't going to sign up.

 

[HAL_9000]

I'm sensing you aren't going to sign up.

You also have to sign something?

Hmmmm....

 

[eyer]

Yes...

Thank you.

The federal government "supports" sterilization of any woman with reproductive capacity - which includes all females with reproductive capacity, even if that female is an 8-year old little girl - because the Secretary herself is the one who proposed the procedure in the first place.

Her proposal becomes a mandate August 1; the procedure itself is mandated as a health benefit for all women - including 8-year old little girls - with reproductive capacity, as are the the dictates that no women can be denied that mandated procedure by inability to pay.

I have never implied, no matter whom comprehends otherwise, that the federal government has mandated that any woman - even an 8-year old little girl - actually be sterilized...

...but if any female - including an 8-year old girl - with reproductive capacity wants or needs (for whatever reason) sterilization, that procedure is now mandated by the federal government to not only be available, but also freely available to those who cannot afford its cost.

Thus, the federal government now supports and mandates that women - and 8-year old girls - with reproductive capacity are offered free sterilization as a health benefit.

Now...

...what's you take on Obamacare's stance on abortion, kbate?