Page 29 of 46 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 455

Thread: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

  1. #281
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Others do, including the one from England.

    I am saying we need to look into this. It is stupid to allow teens unlimited access when we know there is a strong possibility that young adult women are misusing this, certainly not using it just for "emergencies". Just study it, what is the problem with doing this? It won't really prevent a whole lot of teen pregnancies in that time, not given the current evidence we have on this.
    You haven't posted any evidence. Your nonsense from an organization that believes that SSM promotes beastiality does not count as evidence.

    And no one is saying it shouldn't be studied. This is just another one of your dishonest arguments
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #282
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be the first to apologize if HHS rewrites or rescinds its mandate and adult females now have to pay for their own morning after pills and insurance companies won't have to. I don't believe that day will ever come as long as Obama is President.
    Again, if the insurance company pays for it, then the parent will see it when they get their EOB

    Problem solved!!
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #283
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I don't believe it.
    Of course you don't. It blows your moralistic blatherings out of the water.

    Emergency Contraception | National Women's Law Center

    ◾Thanks to the new health care law, all new insurance plans are required to provide insurance coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including EC, without cost-sharing. However, plans do not have to cover those brands of EC that are available without a prescription, unless a woman gets a prescription for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #284
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    no authority by government to dictate to parents that minors, be given access to a pill.

  5. #285
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,205

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Of course you don't. It blows your moralistic blatherings out of the water.

    Emergency Contraception | National Women's Law Center
    So, according to you and your source, a woman and her doctor can basically commit a fraud on an insurance company by getting a prescription for an over the counter drug and the government is in on the scam, forcing the insurance company to not only pay for the fraudulent prescription but to also pay for the doctor visit and the writing of the prescription. And people wonder why healthcare in America costs so much.

    I'm curious - since the morning after pill, by its name and purpose, is a pill to be used the morning after or shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, you're saying a woman would make an appointment for her doctor to prescribe a medication available over the counter. Since it's supposedly an emergency medication, I presume the prescription is for one pill because most women who aren't prostitutes wouldn't have multiple sexual emergencies would they?

    Nothing about this whole situation makes sense to me. However, thanks for the information and I'll have to do more research before I'm satisfied. I will say, however, that it's clear from what you're saying and provided that indeed insurance companies are covering the costs of OTC contraceptives provided the woman gets the medically unnecessary prescription. You've proven your assertion false.

  6. #286
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,961
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    So, according to you and your source, a woman and her doctor can basically commit a fraud on an insurance company by getting a prescription for an over the counter drug and the government is in on the scam, forcing the insurance company to not only pay for the fraudulent prescription but to also pay for the doctor visit and the writing of the prescription. And people wonder why healthcare in America costs so much.

    I'm curious - since the morning after pill, by its name and purpose, is a pill to be used the morning after or shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, you're saying a woman would make an appointment for her doctor to prescribe a medication available over the counter. Since it's supposedly an emergency medication, I presume the prescription is for one pill because most women who aren't prostitutes wouldn't have multiple sexual emergencies would they?

    Nothing about this whole situation makes sense to me. However, thanks for the information and I'll have to do more research before I'm satisfied. I will say, however, that it's clear from what you're saying and provided that indeed insurance companies are covering the costs of OTC contraceptives provided the woman gets the medically unnecessary prescription. You've proven your assertion false.
    The situation you describe is certainly possible under the new law, but I suspect it will be politically untenable. The image of the USG participating in a fraud (as you correctly describe) will not sit well.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #287
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    675

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Right. Just because a child is yours, why should you feed it? Just don't abort a fetus, that would be wrong. Once it pops out, it is on its own.
    If the child is mine why can't I determine what's best for it? Or should I depend on a government to make that determination for me? If a 13 year old is competent enough to deal in contraceptives then why should the society care at what age he/she is involved in child bearing. After all, if we are but the result of millions of years of evolution, then we certainly can be no more special than any other mammal? Right?

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I absolutely agree with your last statement, however, I fail to see how allowing a 13 yr old to act on her own in such circumstances helps her grow and learn and get the help she needs as she develops into a woman. I'm totally opposed to letting 13 yr olds grow up on their own and sink or swim without guidance in such serious matters.
    So am I. Unfortunately, we can't be there for every single one of them. At least we can try to prevent any more children from being born into such circumstances though.

  9. #289
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Yeah, I think that would probably be best.

    And aspirin probably wasn't the best analogy, but the fact is, just about every drug can be dangerous for some people. It's just that those drugs are not related to sex.
    It is not just because it is about sex and claiming every drug can be dangerous does not negate that the is specific lethal complexities with MAPs.

  10. #290
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,953

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I want to be clear here because I believe both you and Sangha are misleading and not representing what is actually happening in the US at this time.

    As I understand it, HHS mandated that the morning after pill had to be provided under insurance policies when the ACA was passed in 2010. Then, in 2011, they mandated that Catholic institutions, other than churches, had to include it in their insurance benefits plans free of charge to employees and they placed a one year moratorium on it once the Catholic mandate was challenged in court meaning it wouldn't take effect until August 2013.

    The court case, that is the subject of this thread, related to a reproductive rights organization challenging the legality of FDA mandates that any child under the age of 17 must have a prescription from a doctor in order to get the morning after pill. The court ruled that those under 17 would no longer be required to have a prescription in order to get the pill over the counter which indicates to me that prior to the court case all adult women 18 and above could get the morning after pill over the counter without a prescription.

    Are you claiming that the HHS mandate requiring that the morning after pill be covered by insurance plans only related to those who were given a prescription for the pill from their doctor, even those over 18 and above who didn't require a prescription to get the pill? Are you claiming that adult women went to the doctor to get a prescription for the morning after pill so that their insurance plan would cover it even though there is nothing in the HHS mandate that stipulates this must be done via prescription? Are you claiming that insurance companies were paying for this over the counter drug if a doctor prescribed it?

    I don't believe it.
    I guess you were mistaken.
    Apparently the MAPs were not to be covered by ACA from the beginning.


    While providing easier access to emergency contraception will likely increase its use by women and teens, One-Step’s $50 price could still present a barrier for teens and low-income women. Insurance plans typically don’t cover over-the-counter products, and the Obama administration has indicated that emergency contraception, even by prescription, doesn’t fall into the category of contraception that the federal Affordable Care Act mandates must be covered without any co-payments.
    http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/hea...8vPM/story.htm
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

Page 29 of 46 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •