Posted on 12/20/2012 7:52:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
And those who support birth control can mind their own business by NOT dragging everyone else into it and expecting them to pay for it or be held financially responsible for any clean up afterwards. That way, both sides are free to do as they please.
Getting funding out of the issue will solve the conscience problem. When funding is absent, those who want it can just buy it. Everyone is free to follow their own belief.
I believe you are correct that Jindal’s “triangulation” is to remove the issue from the table, in order to take it away from Democrats.
I stll say, it is wrong. Republicans will never get the vote of “womyn” for which this is an issue. They wil lose the vote of many Conservatives who dislike sexualizing their children at an ever-increasing rate. It also admits the “government belongs in healthcare” argument, by injecting even more government.
How do you do this, anyway? I don’t believe that BC is by perscription, now, because of any laws, is it? It is for medical reasons, isn’t it? How do you “legislate” this? That sounds like something Democrats would do.
Beyond all of this, there is still a moral issue, that I believe is faulty to ignore. BC is not a “medicine”. It is not curing or treating an illness. Almost its only reason for existance is to enable recreational sex. I don’t know why Consevatives drop this issue. I don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s recreational sex fund any more than I want to pay for her kegger-fund that’s needed to get a guy to want to lay her in the first place.
Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.
(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)
Goes without saying.
Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.
(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)
Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.
(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)
Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.
(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)
Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.
(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)
Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.
(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)
Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.
(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)
Moral issues are not the under the sole conservatership of the Catholic Church. The media quotes them more often because they can easily identify the leader. Moral conservatives use birth control.
Seeing it available over the counter is an excellent idea whose time has come. Many other drugs have made the leap from prescription to counter. It makes too much sense for it to be a huge issue.
Go Bobby Jindal.
If woman want to buy their contraceptives over the counter why should that anyone’s business?
As long as NO ONE ELSE has to pay for it, be fiscally responsible for the after affects, and warnings have to be on every package. It has to be sold as a "choice" thing, just like alchohol.
We all know when the babies are born deformed and women are dieing from blood clots the democrats will not waste the crises. They'll come rushing in to "Do something" and blame it all on us.
Argh! FR, get a gosh darn programmer who will write in code not to post identical posts right after each other! Your stupid posting page freezes and there is no way to know it didnt post!!! It’s 2012 and we pay you a ton of money!! Unfair! I am sick of apologizing for “my mistake” when I didn’t do anything wrong! Just trying to post one fricking time!
Just like any other drug that no longer requires a prescription. Politicians decide they want it available 'over the counter' and start passing laws and pushing the FDA to allow it to be sold without a prescription. Many drugs were once prescription only that are now available without one. Tens of millions of women have been using the pill for decades now. It's safe and there is probably no reason a prescription is required anyway.
By the way, it is already a conservative argument for many to get the government out of the drug regulation business. I would prefer it if far more drugs were available to the consumer without the need to spend a bunch of money at a doctor's office getting a prescription. If more things were available 'over the counter', an educated consumer could save a fortune. In some countries, prescriptions aren't required for most pharmaceuticals and somehow the people do just fine.
Almost its only reason for existance is to enable recreational sex. I don’t know why Consevatives drop this issue.
Umm, because conservatives like recreational sex too? Contraception really is a completely, entirely settled issue. There is only a very small percentage of conservatives that want to re-fight something that was collectively decided back in the 50's and 60's. Contraception is here to stay. Politicians like Santorum who want to preach to Americans and explain why contraception is "not okay" are part of the reason the younger generations avoid the Republican brand like the plague.
You’re right, why should it?
Why is it by perscription now? Are there medical reasons?
Why should a politician inject himself into this decision, making it “our business”? What will he do, pass a law forcing the medical profession to declare it “safe” whether it is, or is not?
The only reason we are even discussing this is because of Democrat stupidity in thinking that Government and public money belong in healthcare.
Since it’s just Sandra Fluke’s sex-entertainment fund, I don’t want to pay for it. I don’t want to pay to clean her up, afterwards, either.
So, you’re right. It’s not public business. Let’s get it out if political discussion. The Democrats were wrong to think they can force people to pay and support Government involvment with this, and Jindal’s approach is no better.
Obama should have been the one to come up with this idea, not Jindal.
Obama, if he wanted, would have been seen as making an accommodation to the Church and their mission organizations, regained some of that Catholic vote that he lost over the religious freedom issue, and the issue of birth control would be on the shelf, de-politicized.
However, the idea coming from Jindal serves, masterfully, political purposes that are not all that charitable. It is the Ends vs. Means arguement Catholics are generally trained up to recognize.
While it brilliantly does take the issue away from the sex Marxist Democrats, and it does come off as defending religious liberty, the Catholic can not broaden the use of contraceptive abortifacets in the process.
As a practicing Catholic, on this Jindal surprises as one might assume he knows better, regardless of the general opinion held by a now quite heathen, relativistic nation.
“Women should self-screen for most contraindications to OCs using checklists.”
Yeah, I sure don’t see how anything could go wrong with a fourteen year-old girl doing that...
Well, your description of the way things work at the FDA would certainly make me want to do away with it as a Federal agency. I hope that there is actually SOME medicine involved.
Jindal, as a Governor, I thought we were agreed, is taking a completely political view on this. I don’t think that anything he could propose would look anything like other former-prescrpition-drugs and their transition to OTC?
I like recreational sex, too, but I don’t want to subsidize someone elses. I think most Consevatives would feel the same way, and that’s the way to beat-back Sandra Fluke and the AHCA debacle the Democrats have us in.
I suppose you are thinking of me as, you equated to Santorum, wanting to ban BC or something. That is not the case. In that sense I am in agreement with you that BC is a “settled” issue. But I think you are wrong if you think that many people want to publicly pay for it for everyone. I also think a great many parents would not like to give up what little control they have in its use.
You know, as we discussed earlier, you can both win your point and lose it, too. The use of BC is, as you say, “settled” in America. In 50 years, though, that America will no longer exist. The culture(s) that will replace it, have also “settled” the issue. They don’t use it, and that is why they will replace us.
There are natural physical consequences to ingesting birth control pills. I wonder if they warn women.
That is the only reason I would see for the pills to be available only through a doctor’s cut of the action.
Since many secular doctors beleive the worst thing that could happen to a young woman is the birth of a baby, I would guess they do not tell women about the downside to birth control and the physical, mental and public mental health (social diseases) of sexual permiscuity.
Under natural law, man has free will and also, within Western ethical medicine, doctors have the duty to be honest with man in documenting the consequences and warning their patients and the pulbic at large so they are not ignorant as they make choices in life.
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.