• 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!

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?


  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .
Hey everyone at DP, did you know that birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects? Anyone who'll deny this to a woman is a big fat ignoramus.

Nobody is trying to deny birth control to women. If she wants to buy it, there is nobody here arguing that she shouldn't be allowed to do so.

The entire argument is about whether someone else should be forced to buy it for her.
 
Last edited:
I have sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo been through this already here at DP, and it was like I was talking to a huge brick wall. I cannot stress this enough:

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects.

Hey everyone at DP, did you know that birth control helps regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects? Anyone who'll deny this to a woman is a big fat ignoramus.

Perhaps the same mentality that thinks that repeating a lie enough times will make it true is also prone to think that repeating an irrelevancy enough time will make it relevant.
 
No one, that I am aware of, wishes to deny women their birth control. The issue is whether or not it is the responsibility of the taxpayer, to pay for birth control for all women. I personally think it is the responsibility of the woman to pay for her own.

Come on, groups like the Catholic Church absolutely want to deny women birth control. The issue here is whether *ANY* health care is the responsibility of the taxpayer and we all know it's not. However, if it's going to be mandated, then all aspects of health care ought to be mandated. That includes birth control. If anyone started seriously arguing that lung cancer treatment, for instance, should not be covered, they'd be shouted off the stage, and they should be.

The same goes for birth control.
 
Nobody is trying to deny birth control to women. If she wants to buy it, there is nobody here arguing that she shouldn't be allowed to do so.

The entire argument is about whether someone else should be forced to buy it for her.

Yes, I get that. What I don't get is why people have a problem with it?
 
Perhaps the same mentality that thinks that repeating a lie enough times will make it true is also prone to think that repeating an irrelevancy enough time will make it relevant.

What is the lie? That women don't go on birth control to regulate monthly periods and reduces it's many, many, many side effects? Is that your stance?
 
Come on, groups like the Catholic Church absolutely want to deny women birth control. The issue here is whether *ANY* health care is the responsibility of the taxpayer and we all know it's not. However, if it's going to be mandated, then all aspects of health care ought to be mandated. That includes birth control. If anyone started seriously arguing that lung cancer treatment, for instance, should not be covered, they'd be shouted off the stage, and they should be.

The same goes for birth control.

I was referring to the posters here.
 
The government forces them to pay for lots of things. So what? This is health insurance, it's a health product.

:shrug: Now you're changing your argument. You said it was about what people paid for:

They have to pay for all sorts of medical and voluntary things because people pay them to do so.
 
The issue here is whether *ANY* health care is the responsibility of the taxpayer and we all know it's not.

Philosophically, or practically?

If practically, then, well, you're wrong, because the taxpayers foot the bill for quite a bit of it.

If philosophically, this flies in the face of your "so what" from earlier.

However, if it's going to be mandated, then all aspects of health care ought to be mandated.

Like cosmetic surgery for pure vanity?

That includes birth control. If anyone started seriously arguing that lung cancer treatment, for instance, should not be covered, they'd be shouted off the stage, and they should be.

The same goes for birth control.

It's a complete non-sequitur. The two are not alike. One is elective. The other is life-saving.
 
I completely understand your point, but if we don't help pay for her BC, we WILL be paying for her children when they are getting public assistance, and that costs a helluva lot more than any BC pills or condoms.

this is not a debate over whether or not she should have access to BC, it's a debate on whether or not we can force specific individuals to provide that access in violation of their faith.
 
Come on, groups like the Catholic Church absolutely want to deny women birth control.

Well that is bluntly not accurate. They want both men and women to choose not to take it.
 
this is not a debate over whether or not she should have access to BC, it's a debate on whether or not we can force specific individuals to provide that access in violation of their faith.

Doesn't Medicaid already cover a portion of birth control pills if not all the cost? I'm not sure.
 
Let her pay for her own contraceptives. It's her responsibility, and nobody else's.

How magnanimous of you. You don't mind paying more for less. Just what our health care system needs. A money's no object, its the "principle" that matters stance.
 
Let her pay for her own contraceptives. It's her responsibility, and nobody else's.

I used to think the same thing. However, you will have to pay a lot more for a child born to a poor family then you would for paying for just their birth control. Also, if the parents don't want the kid then the kid is born into a family that isn't supportive, which isn't good for anybody, especially the child.
 
Not really related to the thread, but I just heard on the news that an inmate (not sure which state) has been granted by a fed judge for a sex change operation, at taxpayer expense, and we are arguing about paying for birth control which is only common sense.

And not just any inmate, but a convicted murderer. WTF???
 
Well, there is a principle here: I shouldn't have to pay for what this woman can afford herself. Fluke can afford to pay for her own lattes, her own movie tickets, and her own contraception. She has a college degree, has served as a journal editor, and is apparently being bankrolled as well as otherwise supported by progressives.
 
I completely understand your point, but if we don't help pay for her BC, we WILL be paying for her children when they are getting public assistance, and that costs a helluva lot more than any BC pills or condoms.

You're making a whole lot of assumptions, and none of them speak well of the "she" in question, whoever that is. You describe an idiot.
 
Well, there is a principle here: I shouldn't have to pay for what this woman can afford herself. Fluke can afford to pay for her own lattes, her own movie tickets, and her own contraception. She has a college degree, has served as a journal editor, and is apparently being bankrolled as well as otherwise supported by progressives.


If that is your philosophy, then you're against the tax cuts for the rich.
 
Not really. Mandating that every policy contain contraceptive coverage means that every policy will contain that coverage and every policy will reflect the cost of that coverage. While that might be great for those who use contraceptives, but those who don't use them will be forced to carry a policy that does. Carrying such unwanted and unnecessary coverage only increase the cost of health insurance.
Who are you to decide what is "unnecessary coverage"? I hear conservatives bitch and moan all the time about the gubbamint interfering with doctors and telling them they know better what their patients need, but the fact is, it's conservatives like you doing it, not the gubbamint.


A lot of people are getting diabetes from their lifestyle choices and that's what's really raising the cost of health care and insurance, not birth control pills. Now I certainly don't think I should have to pay for someone elses poor lifestyle choices, especially if they're a loud mouth lazy conservative, but far be it for me to tell the insurance companies who or what they can or can't cover. The same should apply to you.
 
You're making a whole lot of assumptions, and none of them speak well of the "she" in question, whoever that is. You describe an idiot.

It most certainly is not an assumption. Look up stats of unwanted pregnancies.
 
You're making a whole lot of assumptions, and none of them speak well of the "she" in question, whoever that is. You describe an idiot.

We all do stupid things, don't we? Like smoke and not eat right. You really want to traverse that slippery slope?
 
this is not a debate over whether or not she should have access to BC, it's a debate on whether or not we can force specific individuals to provide that access in violation of their faith.

That is exactly it, isn't it? Of course it is.

Catholics have been supporting Planned Parenthood through their taxes for many many years. Why did they wait so long to make a stink about it?
 
We all do stupid things, don't we? Like smoke and not eat right. You really want to traverse that slippery slope?

OK, I guess you think anyone who doesn't get free birth control is doomed to having an unwanted child and being forced to live on government assistance. Because everyone does stupid things, I guess, and no one can think and plan for themselves without the government looking out for them. Or, you know, prioritize their incomes from the jobs they must have if this even applies in the first place.

I, myself, don't think of people in general as such drooling morons. But to hear some of you say it, most, if not all, women are.
 
That is exactly it, isn't it? Of course it is.

Catholics have been supporting Planned Parenthood through their taxes for many many years. Why did they wait so long to make a stink about it?

There has been a movement to cease sending taxpayer dollars to PP for some time now as well, you may have noticed it pops up here occasionally :). But that is a government purchase (with our money, agreeably), not something I directly engage in.

But this isn't about taxes going to PP, it's about whether or not we can force Catholics to purchase something that is against their religious beliefs.

It's the difference between saying "you oppose the war in Iraq, but you're still going to pay your taxes", and "you oppose the war in Iraq, so we're going to make you help shoot these Iraqi kids." The one is materially different from the other.

And yes, before you go hyperbolic on me, that is how Catholic doctrine see's it. Killing children is killing children to them, be they in the womb or out of it.
 
OK, I guess you think anyone who doesn't get free birth control is doomed to having an unwanted child and being forced to live on government assistance. Because everyone does stupid things, I guess, and no one can think and plan for themselves without the government looking out for them. Or, you know, prioritize their incomes from the jobs they must have if this even applies in the first place.

I, myself, don't think of people in general as such drooling morons. But to hear some of you say it, most, if not all, women are.

Yeah, in an ideal world everyone would be responsible for their actions, but in the REAL world it's a lot different. This is just about making access to BC easier anyway. And men would also be to blame for these situations. It takes two people to make a baby normally.
 
Let her pay for her own contraceptives. It's her responsibility, and nobody else's.
Great theory. I totally agree... in theory.

Fails miserably in practical reality, though. As a practical matter, it is in our bests interests to keep population... and, hence costs that WILL be shared, whether we like it or not... down.
 
Back
Top Bottom