Posted on 02/16/2017 11:13:24 AM PST by markomalley
While much of the siren call against federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court surrounds abortion rights, women's access to birth control should be equally as concerning. Ever since the Affordable Care Act required that insurers provide women's birth control without a copay, access to contraception has been under assault.
While lawmakers try to read the tea leaves on Gorsuch regarding abortion, his position on access to birth control is crystal clear. As a member of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch has twice sided against the ACA birth control benefit. In Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius and in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, Gorsuch argued that the ACA mandate to provide employees with birth control violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Cause forcing someone to fork over a $3 co-pay is a SEVERE VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!! /s
I bought my first condoms in decades last night.
If you can’t afford $8 for 30, I have no solution.
The cost of filing the insurance paperwork alone would be more than $8.
i seem to recall some dumb bimbo going to Washington and demanding that the taxpayers pay for her birth control?
somoeone calculated how many men she was sleeping with, based on her claimed utilization of whatever....
and it sounded like she was the One Stop Quickie Mart for the entire District of Columbia (including Capitol Hill!!!!)
no, anyone who wants birth control should just buy their own
and leave us poor taxpayers “OUT of their bedrooms” (which is what they always demand we do anyways)
Cheap, never fail and readily available.....an aspirin is the best birth control pill.
Just put it between your knees, and squeeze tight.
Most here will disagree with me on this, but I’m 10000% for providing free birth control - mostly the 5-year implants - to poor women. Better that than abortions. I know that ideally people need to take personal responsibility, but given poor, inner-city women will not, the 5-year implants are imo the best alternative.
Contrast Sandra “the Skank” Fluke, who is affluent but thinks others need pay for her condoms.
“Most here will disagree with me on this, but I’m 10000% for providing free birth control - mostly the 5-year implants - to poor women.”
I’m not into the government forcing a person (either natural or juridical) to do something that violates his/her conscience. That’s what the court cases were about.
Yes.
Three years after divorce...finally starting to move on.
Dating is much more complex than it was in the ‘90s.
“Insuring” things in healthcare has not made them cheaper. In fact, it has “insured” that each step of healthcare price increases will be politically masked (protecting health care providers) in higher insurance premiums, with insurers taking the brunt of political angst about the increases; not the doctors, hospitals and others. The ONLY “health care providers” besides insurers that have been attacked for healthcare cost increases is the “long hanging fruit” of the drug companies, as the politically convenient and non-Liberal (compared to doctors and hospitals) targets. Meanwhile, in spite of anecdotal evidence in a minority of cases, drug prices, adjusted for inflation, have been going down since JUST BEFORE GWBush added the Medicare drug plan, after which they quit going down as much.
Economics argues AGAINST “insuring” everything in health care, and definitely against most routine things. Without insurers guaranteeing everything is “insured” and without employers guaranteeing that in the health benefit programs, health care and health care product providers are left with having to market to individuals paying “out of pocket” or out of health savings accounts. They, the health care providers, also have less administrative costs and burdens on what the individual pays for them self. Competing on prices the customers can afford to pay directly WILL lower costs because it will gradually change how those things are provided as well.
Who said I am? I'm for lowering abortion, and to do that I'm all about providing poor women free long-term birth control. They don't have to take it.
Birth Control is not the reason that the democrats are in opposition to Neil Gorsuch. The reason is he is conservative and could be part of a take-down of Roe vs Wade which is a massive vote getter for the democrats.
Roe vs Wade was a wrong decision. It completely violates the 10th and 11th Amendments. Using the 14th Amendment as a basis is bogus. With a conservative majority, if someone brings that argumemt, Row vs Wade is history and Abortion will be returned to the states. That’s what the democrats are afraid of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.