• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump plans to roll back Obamacare birth control mandate

Nilly said:
Why do I get the feeling that if was talking about restricting access to firearms by imposing a 100000% tax on them you wouldn't be using the same logic of 'it's not a restriction, they're readily available, people still have access!!!'
Click to expand...

Infantile analogy. No one - no one - argues that access to guns is restricted because someone else doesn't buy them for you.

No one argues it because it would be stupid to do so. And ironically enough considering this post, that's something YOU would have no trouble seeing.
 
Josie said:
But it's not. An employer cannot ban you from receiving any medical treatment. You seem to think that if someone doesn't have insurance coverage for a treatment, then they cannot have that treatment. Don't you see how silly that is?
Click to expand...

Sure, if you just ignore the financial aspect of the situation.

Why, it's almost as silly as an employer refusing to cover contraceptives for an employee based on the employer's personal moral disapproval of abortion, which of course ends up increasing both the number of abortions and the amount we spend on social safety nets!

Look, I get it. You folks don't think employer's should be forced to cover something they don't want to cover. I agree, I'd rather go with single payer. But if we're gonna force employers to provide health insurance, it makes absolutely no goddamned sense to let them pick and choose which parts of health insurance they personally like or dislike. Wait, no, we're not doing that. We're ignoring literally every possible religious belief except one that happens to be popular in the United States. Deuce's religious beliefs regarding cancer treatment don't matter. Only contraception.
 
Nilly said:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/31/15716778/trump-birth-control-regulation





The rule only applies to religious and morality-based objections to female contraception. It does not apply to other things a religion may find morally objectionable, like psychiatric drugs, blood transfusions, or Viagra.

No war on women, indeed.

Conservatives once again ignoring that birth control reduces incidence of abortion. It makes you wonder whether this kind of thing really is about moral objection and not simply about control.
Click to expand...

LOL I can't believe you ask that question. Of course it is about control, religions are all about control and especially the control of women by men.
 
A man who okays his wife having his child only if she looks the same pre-pregnancy is repugnant. A man who denies women control of her body is a pig. A man who supports the denial of children's health care and food, is a pig.
 
Josie said:
But it's not. An employer cannot ban you from receiving any medical treatment. You seem to think that if someone doesn't have insurance coverage for a treatment, then they cannot have that treatment. Don't you see how silly that is?
Click to expand...

And where did I say women are being banned from medical treatment?

I'm saying that they are having their access to medical treatment limited from what it used to be.

Harshaw said:
It's not a "lawyer game" to say that one doesn't "restrict access" to something by declining to pay someone else's way for it. That's just plain obvious truth.
Click to expand...

Your lawyer game is your dishonest attempt to change your question from 'how is this an attempt to control women' to what amounts to 'why should govt pay for healthcare'.

You asked who/how/why this seems like an attempt to control women. My answer is simple, and specific to that question. This is an (attempted) rescindment of access to a medical treatment that is specifically used by women.

Josie said:
Do you usually have the feels for horrible analogies?

Why are you against choices? The employer can choose what their insurance plan covers - the employee chooses the insurance plan or not. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Click to expand...

Choices where only one option is realistically viable for most people aren't really choices at all.

Harshaw said:
Infantile analogy. No one - no one - argues that access to guns is restricted because someone else doesn't buy them for you.

No one argues it because it would be stupid to do so. And ironically enough considering this post, that's something YOU would have no trouble seeing.
Click to expand...

Except a limitation put on people's ability to access guns (say a background check or some number of hoops) is plenty often described as a restriction on access to guns. It's why you get so many people talking about how the right 'shall not be infringed'.

iguanaman said:
LOL I can't believe you ask that question. Of course it is about control, religions are all about control and especially the control of women by men.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the above.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Sure, if you just ignore the financial aspect of the situation.

Why, it's almost as silly as an employer refusing to cover contraceptives for an employee based on the employer's personal moral disapproval of abortion, which of course ends up increasing both the number of abortions and the amount we spend on social safety nets!

Look, I get it. You folks don't think employer's should be forced to cover something they don't want to cover. I agree, I'd rather go with single payer. But if we're gonna force employers to provide health insurance, it makes absolutely no goddamned sense to let them pick and choose which parts of health insurance they personally like or dislike. Wait, no, we're not doing that. We're ignoring literally every possible religious belief except one that happens to be popular in the United States. Deuce's religious beliefs regarding cancer treatment don't matter. Only contraception.
Click to expand...

That's not what the Hobby Lobby case confirmed at all. Their specific argument was about contraception, but the decision was about religious objections as a whole. And, no, Hobby Lobby won't be at fault for an unwanted pregnancy simply because they didn't pay for a specific kind of contraception.
 
Parrish said:
A man who okays his wife having his child only if she looks the same pre-pregnancy is repugnant. A man who denies women control of her body is a pig. A man who supports the denial of children's health care and food, is a pig.
Click to expand...

Did you wander into the wrong thread, Parrish?
 
Josie said:
But it's not. An employer cannot ban you from receiving any medical treatment. You seem to think that if someone doesn't have insurance coverage for a treatment, then they cannot have that treatment. Don't you see how silly that is?
Click to expand...

An employer can choose to make certain treatments more expensive. Increasing the expense of something has the effect of restricting it.

Josie said:
Do you usually have the feels for horrible analogies?

Why are you against choices? The employer can choose what their insurance plan covers - the employee chooses the insurance plan or not. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Click to expand...

Why are you against choices? The employee can choose what medical treatments to receives- the employer chooses to hire the employee or not. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
 
Nilly said:
Your lawyer game is your dishonest attempt to change your question from 'how is this an attempt to control women' to what amounts to 'why should govt pay for healthcare'.
Click to expand...

This is a bald-faced lie. At no point did I mention either the government paying for anything, or the general notion of "health care." This is and always was about a specific line item in employer-provided health insurance.

And wow, it's a bald-faced lie within an accusation of me playing "tricks" and "moving goalposts." The chutzpah of that is breathtaking.

Many people argue that a limitation put on people's ability to buy guns (say a background check or any number of hoops) are a restriction on access to guns. It's why you get so many people talking about how the right 'shall not be infringed'.
Click to expand...

Another asinine analogy, completely unlike and unrelated to anything actually argued here. Background checks are actual restrictions. Someone else declining to pay for your guns is not. The latter is an apt analogy. The former, yours, is not.
 
Nilly said:
And where did I say women are being banned from medical treatment?

I'm saying that they are having their access to medical treatment limited from what it used to be.
Click to expand...

And if they dislike their employer's health insurance plan, they can choose to not take it.

Nilly said:
Choices where only one option is realistically viable for most people aren't really choices at all.
Click to expand...

Don't like something about the place you work --- make the choice to tolerate it or work somewhere else. Don't like your employer's insurance plan? -- make the choice to tolerate it or go with another plan. No one is being forced into anything here.

Nilly said:
Many people argue that a limitation put on people's ability to access guns (say a background check or any number of hoops) are a restriction on access to guns. It's why you get so many people talking about how the right 'shall not be infringed'.
Click to expand...

Again, your analogy makes no sense.
 
Parrish said:
Are you a woman? Do you have sex?
Click to expand...

Do you have a comment about THIS topic? We're talking about employers and insurance coverage, dear.
 
Josie said:
Do you have a comment about THIS topic? We're talking about employers and insurance coverage, dear.
Click to expand...

yeah, My comment was are you a woman and are you sexually active?
 
Harshaw said:
This is a bald-faced lie. At no point did I mention either the government paying for anything, or the general notion of "health care." This is and always was about a specific line item in employer-provided health insurance.

And wow, it's a bald-faced lie within an accusation of me playing "tricks" and "moving goalposts." The chutzpah of that is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

Stop blowing hot air.

Harshaw said:
You need to answer these questions, or your claims don't hold water. Are you interested in supporting what you said, or aren't you?

If so, answer the questions. If not, then why are you wasting anyone's time?
Click to expand...

Q: how is this an attempt to control women?
A: it is specifically directed at female medical treatment

Q: "who's being stopped from getting birth control?"
A: no-one (and no-one said they were - but nice leading question)

Q: "Who is being prevented from acquiring birth control?"
A: no-one (and no-one said they were - again, lawyer games)

Q: "These are the claims you made."
A: Not a question, but no they weren't, just wanted to point out more dishonesty from you.

Q: Whose "access" is "restricted"?
A: women who previously had birth control covered by an employer plan, who will no longer receive that coverage will find their access effectively restricted compared to what it used to be

access
noun
1.the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speak with, or use;

restricted
adjective
1. limited in extent
Click to expand...


Q: "How, exactly?"
A: The proposal lets the employer withdraw coverage on specific women's medical treatment due to moral/religious reasons (but not other, non gender specific, medical treatments for the same moral reasons)

Next Q?
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Stop blowing hot air.

Q: "how is this an attempt to control women"
A: it is specifically directed at female medical treatment

Q: "who's being stopped from getting birth control"
A: no-one (and no-one said they were)

Q: "Who is being prevented from acquiring birth control?"
A: no-one (and no-one said they were)

Q: Whose "access" is "restricted"?
A: women who previously had birth control covered by an employer plan, who will no longer receive that coverage will find their access effectively restricted compared to what it used to be

restricted
adjective
limited in extent

Q: "How, exactly?"
A: The proposal lets the employer withdraw coverage on specific women's medical treatment due to moral/religious reasons (but not other medical treatments)
Click to expand...

There's no hot air. I've been arguing in a perfectly straight and consistent line. It's you who have been all over the place and accusing me of saying things I didn't.

And no, no one's access is "restricted" because someone else doesn't pay for it, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, and no matter how many faulty analogies you throw at it.

And even if it did, that doesn't amount to "control" over someone else. That's a paranoid fantasy, the kind of stuff which gives birth to terribly-written drek like "The Handmaid's Tale."
 
Josie said:
*eyeroll*
Click to expand...

How do you feel about the fact that only specific female medical treatment can be targeted for 'moral/religious' opposition and not other medical treatment that might affect both genders?

Harshaw said:
There's no hot air. I've been arguing in a perfectly straight and consistent line. It's you who have been all over the place and accusing me of saying things I didn't.

And no, no one's access is "restricted" because someone else doesn't pay for it, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, and no matter how many faulty analogies you throw at it.

And even if it did, that doesn't amount to "control" over someone else. That's a paranoid fantasy, the kind of stuff which gives birth to terribly-written drek like "The Handmaid's Tale."
Click to expand...

Sorry, I updated my post.

I quoted each of your questions (and paraphrased another one). Which of my answers to which questions do you have issue with. Be specific.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
How do you feel about the fact that only specific female medical treatment can be targeted for 'moral/religious' opposition and not other medical treatment that might affect both genders?
Click to expand...

Contraception does affect both genders. There's no reason to take contraception unless the other gender is involved.

Am I mad that this proposal will allow more employers to opt out of covering every contraceptive known to man? Nah. Why should I be?
 
Josie said:
Contraception does affect both genders. There's no reason to take contraception unless the other gender is involved.
Click to expand...

False. For example: Birth Control Pills: Benefits Beyond Preventing Pregnancy

And even when it is true, it is usually the women footing the bill - and it is invariably the women who experiences the most consequences should contraceptives not be used. So it is primarily affecting woman, rendering your point moot.

Josie said:
Am I mad that this proposal will allow more employers to opt out of covering every contraceptive known to man? Nah. Why should I be?
Click to expand...

No that wasn't my question. My question was how do you feel about the fact that target of this proposal is treatment specifically used by women whilst treatment that men isn't targeted?

And I'll add, what do you think is the reason for that?
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
False.
Click to expand...

You're right. There are other reasons why girls and women are on the pill. I wasn't thinking about those.

Nilly said:
And even when it is true, it is usually the women footing the bill - and it is invariably the women who experiences the most consequences should contraceptives not be used.
Click to expand...

True. And? The contraceptives that Hobby Lobby, for example, doesn't cover aren't the ones that most women would need anyway. :shrug:

Nilly said:
No that wasn't my question. My question was how do you feel about the fact that target of this proposal is treatment specifically used by women whilst treatment that men isn't targeted?

And I'll add, what do you think is the reason for that?
Click to expand...

I feel nothing about that. Employers aren't obligated to pay for anything for me. :shrug:

Why do I think birth control is being targeted? Because some people have a legitimate objection to paying for someone's abortion. I can't think off the top of my head of any medical treatment a man would seek that would kill a life. Can you?
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
Do you usually have the feels for horrible analogies?

Why are you against choices? The employer can choose what their insurance plan covers - the employee chooses the insurance plan or not. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Click to expand...

The employer is restricting choice by calling contraception immoral because of their religion. We do not allow religious laws so why allow religious restrictions? What if an employer feels all medical treatment is immoral because of their religion? Can they refuse to provide any coverage?
 
I don't get why people think employers should be able to influence what type of medical care employees receive. It seems obscene and authoritarian.

Why would anyone try to make it harder to plan whether or not they become pregnant? It's like they want to punish women who have sex with unplanned pregnancies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom