Republicans Want More Abortions.

[4est_4est_Gump]

If the cost-benefit analysis tells them that providing contraceptives is best for themselves

Agreed

and their client they will do so

Disagreed., They dont give a flying fuck about this part

What business do you think they are in?

I am having great difficulty in understanding that last sentence.

 

[Aglaopheme]

How?

They began falling in 1997 without the mandated insurance coverage that you are wailing about. I think it is because one side is winning the philosophical debate about its inherent evil.

In short, I think that you are engaging in post hoc, ergo propter hoc...

So, you made it up. Okay.

Cute that you would use the term wailing. OMG!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, you made it up. Okay.

Cute that you would use the term wailing. OMG!

Made what up?

That government mandates struck down mean that there will be more abortions?

 

[lickitandstickit]

What business do you think they are in?

I am having great difficulty in understanding that last sentence.

Insurance, and making money..

I'm not disagreeing with you at all persay, I'm simply standing by my original post that, insurance companies wont pay jack shit if they dont have too. I should have added the cost analysis thing however.

You stated then, thats slander, and gave the cost benefit analysis, agreed, They dont give a fuck about the client though. Healthy or Dead are the only two things they would like their clients to be..

 

[Aglaopheme]

After three years, researchers counted the pregnancies. For hormonal IUDs and injections, the annual failure rate was five per 1,000 women. For hormonal implants and copper IUDs, the failure rate was zero. These methods wildly outperformed contraceptive rings (52 failures per 1,000), pills (57 per 1,000), and patches (61 per 1,000).

During the study, the abortion rate among teenage girls nationwide was 15 per 1,000 women. Among sexually experienced teens, it was 42 per 1,000. But among the girls in the study—99 percent of whom were sexually experienced—it was 10 per 1,000. That’s a 75 percent reduction in the expected abortion rate.

You can argue with the methodology. There was no control group, and the sample wasn’t random. But the odds were stacked against success. The girls were found at or through community clinics. Nearly three-quarters (compared with one-quarter of teenage girls nationwide) said they’d had intercourse in the previous month. Forty-eight percent had been through an unplanned pregnancy, 25 percent had given birth, and 18 percent had undergone an abortion. Sixty percent had been relying on condoms, withdrawal, or no birth control at all.

Pro-lifers also claim that the laws they’ve enacted in many states—parental involvement, waiting periods, restrictions on public funding—have prevented abortions. But even using their methodology and calculations, from ages 13 to 17, the asserted reduction is just four abortions per 1,000 girls. The LARC study beats that result by a factor of eight.

This study won’t end the policy debate. It certainly won’t silence the ideologues. But for sensible people who consider themselves pro-life, it ought to inspire reflection. Contraceptive advocates are offering you a 75 percent cut in the abortion rate. What are advocates of abstinence offering you? For that matter, what are you getting from any of the laws enacted by the right-to-life movement? For 40 years, activists and politicians on the right have sold you an agenda of piety without results. Now you have another choice.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...eversible_contraceptives_beat_abstinence.html


https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016...-unintended-pregnancy-driving-recent-abortion

HIGHLIGHTS
• The abortion decline between 2008 and 2011 was driven by a steep drop in unintended pregnancy, which in turn is most plausibly explained by more and better contraceptive use.

• New evidence contradicts arguments by abortion opponents that the 2008–2011 abortion decline resulted from more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term because of state abortion restrictions or because they chose to do so of their own accord.

• These findings have major implications for the U.S. abortion debate as, among other things, they validate that supporting and expanding women’s access to contraceptive services leads to a lower incidence of abortion.

 

[adrina]

This isn't government funded BC.

This is companies being able to tell their insurance companies not to cover BC because it violates their religious principles.

One company now gets to dictate to another company how to run their business. Even though it will end up costing the insurance companies more to cover pregnancy than it will BC. Women just happen to be the ones thrown under the bus.

It's not about free shit or irresponsible behavior.

Trump just said he'll tolerate no religious discrimination while just enabling it.

This is a legal nightmare.

 

[Wrmfd]

The prevention we need is to teach our children about responsible sex.
Maybe throw in some philosophy, like Plato's dialogues on Love, where we get the term Platonic Love.

How do you teach children risk vs. reward when there are no consequences for succumbing to the root of all evil- human desire.

And that's the deadly, evil harm socialists are intentionally inflicting overall - not just on the poor, innocent little human lives they champion their "right" to intentionally and tortuously kill simply for their own irresponsible convenience.

The "consequences" on those socialists allow to live are ravishing, too, from bastard children with only one parent (at best) to rely on for elementary life guidance that almost automatically condemns them to an entire life of socialism-dependent existence...whether that life is lived on the welfare system or in the prison system; from the incredibly horrific rates of sexually transmitted diseases (see http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/stdsstis/statistics/) across all age levels (better to have a increasing large and dependent supply to justify the increasing billions spent on socialist healthcare), all the way to socialists championing that a person can be any gender they wish, again pumping victims into their $$$-making socialist healthcare system to charge taxpayers more, from paying for "transition", to the increasing mental healthcare costs that can only raise from the already "normal: alarming rate of suicidal thoughts/executions legend among humans who can never seem to quite get a handle on simply accepting themselves for whom they truly are - warts and all.

In reality, the "consequences" - the more their socialist-pimped causes are dismissed and even championed - are devastating. And just like a socialist killing their own baby to try to rid the world of the proof of their criminal irresponsibility, socialists employ the same charadeful tactic to try to shield all these other "consequences" of their socialist-promoted causes, too.

 

[lickitandstickit]

This isn't government funded BC.

This is companies being able to tell their insurance companies not to cover BC because it violates their religious principles.

One company now gets to dictate to another company how to run their business. Even though it will end up costing the insurance companies more to cover pregnancy than it will BC. Women just happen to be the ones thrown under the bus.

It's not about free shit or irresponsible behavior.

Trump just said he'll tolerate no religious discrimination while just enabling it.

This is a legal nightmare.

Then the Insurance companies will find a way to make that money back in other ways, thats sort of what I was droning on about. One way or another, they will make money or get their money back. After that its cannon fodder on what I think was a bad idea.
I should have just left it as i originally stated. " I think this is a bad idea"

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That's a slander.

Unless you have a monstrosity like Obamacare dictating to them that which they must do, insurance acts on actuary science. If the cost-benefit analysis tells them that providing contraceptives is best for themselves and their client they will do so. But when you mandate that you must cover things like this and pre-existing conditions, it blows the science out of the water and leads to the destruction of the industry because then assigning rates is just a dart throw in the dark.

You are in la-la land.

This is Hobby Lobby telling UnitedHealth that they do not care that the "actuary science" says it is cheaper to cover birth control than carrying a baby to term because the corporation believes in ghosts and their ghost says it cannot go to paradise if the health plan offered to its employees coveres a scientific means to prevent pregnancy.

Just on its face can you not see how fucked up that is?

 

[Aglaopheme]

The men on the board for whom a partner with the need for birth control is a very hypothetical concern are foursquare behind this change.

But, hey, AJ just said that " access to protection do not lead to a lesser need for abortion." Birth control doesn't even work according to him.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Without freedom from religion, there is no freedom of religion.

That only applies to the government.

Not people.

You're advocating the government force anyone engaging in economic activity to possibly violate their religious beliefs in the name of equality.....which is about as directly anti-freedom of religion as it gets.

The majority isn't even safe in the long run. We just met the slippery slope.

That slippery slope of freedom~~oh noes!!

But this opens the way for anyone to refuse to pay for contraception.

That's the point.

This is the USA, people shouldn't be forced to pay for other peoples personal shit unless they are trying to back out of a legal (voluntary) contract.

Otherwise as a freedom loving american liberal who leans heavy as fuck to the capitalism end of economic theories I just don't think it's the governments place to force company X to provide goods and services they find objectionable.

Unless someone is being defrauded, backing out of a legally binding contract or engaging in some kind of other deceptive/malicious business practices posing a threat to life and liberties of others then IMO as a freedom loving liberal American capitalist, it's none of the government's business what goods/services are being voluntarily exchanged between people/legal entities, they just need to take their % and fuck off.

Personally, I think churches should be taxed and. It subject to such exemptions like the ones they had even prior to this change. They lost that right when the church and their wedge issues tied themselves to policies and candidates.

I think churches should be taxed on anything profit they turn just like everyone else too.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That's the point.

This is the USA, people shouldn't be forced to pay for other peoples personal shit unless they are trying to back out of a legal (voluntary) contract.

So why do I have to pay for your PTSD? Or lung disease? or appendicitis?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So why do I have to pay for your PTSD? Or lung disease? or appendicitis?

I can only assume you're talking about my VA benefits?

If so it's because you as a citizen of the USA entered into a legally binding contract with me saying you would in exchange for my services.

 

[ToucheAmore]

i'm fairly certain that he doesn't believe in anything. he just likes being an asshole about pretty much everything.

he's basically irksome with more emojis.

 

[Aglaopheme]

That only applies to the government.

Not people, not business.




That slippery slope of freedom~~oh noes!!



That's the point.

This is the USA, people shouldn't be forced to pay for other peoples personal shit unless they are trying to back out of a legal (voluntary) contract.

Otherwise as a freedom loving american liberal who leans heavy as fuck to the capitalism end of economic theories I just don't think it's the governments place to force company X to provide goods and services they find objectionable.

Unless someone is being defrauded, backing out of a legally binding contract or engaging in some kind of other deceptive/malicious business practices posing a threat to life and liberties of others then IMO as a freedom loving liberal American capitalist, it's none of the government's business what goods/services are being voluntarily exchanged between people/legal entities, they just need to take their % and fuck off.





I think churches should be taxed on anything profit they turn just like everyone else too.

Do you think employers should provide health insurance to their employees?

Do you think that employers should be able to say I won't cover your ass cancer, but I'll cover your penial cancer?

 

[adrina]

That only applies to the government.

Not people, not business.




That slippery slope of freedom~~oh noes!!

It used to. But not anymore. That's the problem. Companies now have freedom of religion and can apply it in ways that curtail the freedom of other companies and the people who are affected.

Pull your head out and get off your auto pilot diatribe.

This is serious shit.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Because you as a citizen of the USA entered into a legally binding contract with me saying you would in exchange for my services.

What a crock of shit.

Just found out that a friend getting close to discharge will not be paying property tax in Illinois because of their "service".

I didn't cut that deal either.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Do you think employers should provide health insurance to their employees?

If they want to offer that incentive for employment sure.

But in the same light I don't think they should be forced to provide that benefit either. It should be between the employer and the employee what the exchange should be.

Do you think that employers should be able to say I won't cover your ass cancer, but I'll cover your penial cancer?

Unless they agreed to cover the ass cancer when the terms of the exchanges being made (backing out of their legally binding agreements) I don't see any reason why not.

 

[Aglaopheme]

If they want to offer that incentive for employment sure.

But in the same light I don't think they should be forced to provide that benefit either. It should be between the employer and the employee what the exchange should be.



Unless they agreed to cover the ass cancer when the terms of the exchanges being made (backing out of their legally binding agreements) I don't see any reason why not.

But now they can back out of that agreement.

This latest rewriting of the federal policy, in an interim final rule that takes effect immediately, broadens the entities that may claim religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage to nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies, even ones that are publicly traded. Also included are higher educational institutions that arrange for insurance for their students, as well as individuals whose employers are willing to provide health plans consistent with their beliefs.

A separate section covers moral objections, allowing exemptions under similar circumstances except for publicly traded companies.

As part of the rule, made publicly available in the Federal Register late Friday morning, administration officials estimate that 120,000 women at most will lose access to free contraceptives — many fewer than critics predict.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It used to.

NOTHING has changed, 1A is the same today as it was 15DEC1791.

What a crock of shit.

Every service member gets a contract with the US Government, Department of Defense (that's you the people) I've got numerous copies of both my original and my re-enlistment contracts that all spell out very clearly, in black and fuckin' white, that the VA will be covering all my service related medical issues.

Just found out that a friend getting close to discharge will not be paying property tax in Illinois because of their "service".

I didn't cut that deal either.

The people of Illinois did through their government, just like many other states have through their various incentives, if you're an Illinois resident you have to own that deal.

 

[adrina]

Employees don't negotiate the coverage. Employers negotiate the coverage with the insurance company. Employers provide the coverage as negotiated. Employees do not pick from an a la carte menu as if it were a buffet.

The employer, company A, can now tell their insurance company, company B, to not offer coverage of a specific items (ie BC or blood transfusions etc) because it violates their religious beliefs.

Company A now has religious beliefs that can cause company B to lose money.

This is freedom?

Company B's recourse is to say well we can't sell you any coverage at all then.

 

[lickitandstickit]

Every service member gets a contract with the US Government, Department of Defense (that's you the people) I've got numerous copies of both my original and my re-enlistment contracts that all spell out very clearly, in black and fuckin' white, that the VA will be covering all my service related medical issues.
.

LOL unless they conveniently lose said paper work on what it is their covering from service related issues.. Yes, keep your paperwork, A lesson I've seen backfire on those that didn't.
Another entity far from perfection, VA services.

 

[adrina]

NOTHING has changed, 1A is the same today as it was 15DEC1791.

No it's not. The fact you are so blinded as to not see this is not surprising.

Companies now have religious freedoms.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But now they can back out of that agreement.

Only with regard to agreements that were made under duress of arguably illegal, not to mention totally un-american, government force that should have never happened in the first place.

Not really the same thing as breaking a legally binding contract.

 

[Aglaopheme]

No it's not. The fact you are so blinded as to not see this is not surprising.

Companies now have religious freedoms.

And moral.