Alan C. Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Video: Mandate Supporters: Give Us Free Birth Control, or Give Us Death MRCTV talked with supporters of the ObamaCare contraception mandate following the Supreme Court 'Hobby Lobby' decision - who said women are going to die if they don't get free birth control. Idiocy on parade. Women aren't being denied birth control; they can get it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 The free market creates something great and then the entitled scream, 'but I want someone else to pay for it!' Really, we need Stef's aliens analysis of this me thinks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanT Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Yeah, very disingenuous... Three questions jump to mind, How many women actually want this sort of birth control but can't afford it? How much would it cost to provide them with this service? How much is being spent lobbying government for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasmlab Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 After a few google searches, I saw that EC (morning after pill, an abortifacients, cost between $35 and $65 per dose. If you are going broke buying this stuff, you probably have bigger problems than your shitty job at Hobby Lobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjt Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I would like to share a super amazing secret that will solve all of these dumb peoples' concerns. There is a free form of birth control that no one has ever told you about... you will be amazed at just how simple, yet effective, it really is... it's called... "don't let a man blow his load up inside your vagina." 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Riffing off of tjt's comment, perhaps we could give Hobby Lobby a list of alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demosthenes_ Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Would it be true that they actually pay for the birth control through their insurance plan that is offered in their contract with Hobby Lobby? If their insurance no longer covers birth control but in their contract they are making more money by not having to pay more for insurance, what actually changes? I would understand the issue if birth control was no longer covered but paid the same in insurance, but I do not see why religious groups or women activists need to be so involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Did they not read the bill. If the companies refuse to pay for contraception, the cost is to be borne by the insurance company. None of these straw men and disasters are on the table, what happens is that the insurance company simply raises its rates for everyone else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinJames Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Shirgall is right. The law requires that all customers (all citizens) inevitably subsidize birth control. In the face of Obamacare, this ruling is rather irrelevant; symbolic. The argument is, nonetheless, hilarious: "I have the right to force my employer to buy me birth control!" or, "I have a right to force wealthier people to pay for my babies and non-babies!" Don't worry, ladies-- the progressives will make sure everyone has plenty of birth control. How else will they reduce the population and save the earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuger Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Sure, great -- Hobby Lobby gets out of directly subsidizing birth control in insurance plans offered to employees because the owner has the time and money to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court. And good for him, he stuck to his principles. Meanwhile, the rest of "We the Slaves" are still forced to pay for it through higher premiums and / or higher taxes. Totally sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Nah, now we go to the Supremes again and get the law thrown out for unequal treatment. Still aggravating that we have to spend some much time, effort, and money to undo such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 some people use contraceptives for medical reasons other than birth control, sebelias made that argument in her arguments. i'ts not like products have 1 use only and can be used for nothing else. free market for healthcare is going to save a lot more lives than what the government is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I would like to share a super amazing secret that will solve all of these dumb peoples' concerns. There is a free form of birth control that no one has ever told you about... you will be amazed at just how simple, yet effective, it really is... it's called... "don't let a man blow his load up inside your vagina." You can even take it one step further to ensure birth does not happen - abstain from sex. Why is that so difficult? If the ante is too high, sit the game out. The trouble is there's a moral hazard that was created by the state getting involved. If a woman is impregnated by accident, and no one is willing to financially plan around it, the state is there with its guns ready to imprison the father if he doesn't pay up. It really is a win/win scenario for women compared to what happened historically before advancement in prenatal medical care (~20% death rate resulting from pregnancy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkmaster_A Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 It's so weird. I mean, most people would say that if someone wants to have kids but has a medical condition preventing it, then health insurance should cover medication to fix that. But obviously insurance can't cover that AND cover birth control pills. These people must picture an insurance contract saying "if you have medical condition xyz, then we'll give you money; and if you don't, then we'll give you money!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 some people use contraceptives for medical reasons other than birth control, sebelias made that argument in her arguments. But Hobby Lobby only refused to fund abortifacients, not things like "the pill" which people can use to regulate their periods. While it's true that RU-485 can be used to treat Cushing's Disease, I'm not sure Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for THAT prescribed use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuger Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 And I'm all for cheap, safe, effective birth control -- even the morning after pill RU485 -- I have no moral issue with that (as I do have with a late term abortion where a baby is trying desperately to avoid the fatal instrument in kicking, screaming survival mode). But I damn well don't want to pay for it! And I also don't have enough money and time to fight it in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts