Boxer: Contraception amendment a ‘radical departure’

[maddezmom]

Source: The hill

By Justin Sink - 02/29/12 04:11 PM ET


Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) blasted the proposed amendment from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would exempt employers and insurers from covering healthcare procedures they object to on moral or religious grounds as a “radical departure from what we’ve always done in this country.” Boxer made the comments during an interview Wednesday, and went on to say that Republicans “can’t help themselves” from engaging in battles over social issues, and criticized the GOP for attempting to attach the amendment to a highway transportation bill.

“The Blunt amendment is a radical amendment,” Boxer said on MSNBC. “It would not only take away the ability of women to get contraception through their insurance but it would threaten every single essential healthcare service, every single preventive healthcare service, if your employer or your insurance company had a moral objection.”

¬snip¬

“Let’s say you worked for someone who believes prayer is the answer to all diseases — you wouldn’t have any insurance,” Boxer said. “It is a radical departure from what we’ve always done in this country, which is to give a conscience clause to all religious institutions and all religiously affiliated institutions.”

¬snip¬

“Here’s the thing I want America to understand — we are on a highway bill, a transportation bill, a bill that has come out of four committees with bipartisanship support. [There are] 2.8 million jobs ... at stake.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/video/senate/213417-boxer-contraception-amendment-a-radical-departure

[HockeyMom]

1. Your right of religion ENDS

where somebody else's beings, unless you want a THEOCRACY where everyone must be of the same religion'

[maddezmom]

2. Women Of Color Benefit From Contraceptive Coverage In Employer Plans (test)

On Friday, February 10 the Obama administration released its final regulation implementing the preventive care provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Heeding the nonpartisan recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, the regulation will require all group and employer health plans, with the exception of some religious entities, to provide no-cost coverage of all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, among other types of preventive care. This means that in the next year, employees will have access to the full range of contraceptive devices and supplies without the burden of co-pays or deductibles. This policy will improve access to a vital health care service for millions of women, especially women of color who face a number of health disparities.

Studies show that planned pregnancies and the spacing of children improve the health of women and families, including fewer pregnancy complications such as premature birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality. Yet women of color experience much higher unintended pregnancy rates than their white counterparts: Black women are three times as likely as white women to experience an unintended pregnancy; Latinas are twice as likely. This new regulation guaranteeing access to no-cost contraception will give women of color a much-needed chance to close these gaps.

Women of color as a group also suffer higher rates of chronic diseases, including pregnancy-related conditions, which can be prevented with consistent use of contraceptives. For example, women of color have higher rates of gestational diabetes, which can lead to permanent Type II diabetes. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists lists simply being Native American, Asian American, Hispanic, African American, or Pacific Islander as a risk factor for gestational diabetes. Access to affordable contraception will help these women avoid unintended pregnancy and allow them to better manage their health before and during pregnancy by enabling them to plan wanted pregnancies.

In addition, oral contraceptives are often used to treat conditions unrelated to the prevention of pregnancy, such as polycystic ovarian syndrome, which is prevalent among women of color with a family history of diabetes and can lead to ovarian cancer if left untreated. Indeed, 14 percent of all women on "the pill" have used oral contraception exclusively for a non-contraceptive medical reason and 58 percent of women have used the pill for reasons in addition to or other than its contraceptive properties


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-arons/women-of-color-benefit-from-contraceptive-coverage_b_1307549.html

[Faygo Kid]

3. The GOP has declared war on women's health. No longer any doubt.

Check out the Limbaugh thread about his comments today. None of this has anything to do with "religious freedom" or "conscience." It has everything to do with control.

[Ian David]

4. What if the amendment only applied to using contraceptives while riding mass transit? n/t

[schmice]

5. If the employee doesn't want contraception coverage why can't she opt out of it?

Why should it be up to the employer? The employee is free to accept or reject that portion of the coverage. Isn't that the essence of freeeeedom that the right wing keeps screaming about?

[24601]

6. Nobody has to actually use it - but lotsa luck getting lower premiums.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. K&R for Senator Boxer! Sounds like this idiot was born a few centuries too late...

[RainDog]

9. maybe women in congress need to

beat the shit out of the Republicans who put this in the jobs bill until they take it out.

in the past, our nation's leaders have come to the point of physical struggle - and that's what the Republicans are trying to impose upon all women at this time b/c they are misogynist religious PIGS.

PIGS.

of course, I do first think Democrats should try to talk it over reasonably at first.

but the Taliban, the Ayatollah, and the religious police in Saudi Arabia have all demonstrated that religious extremists don't care about the niceties of law in regard to women.

I wonder what could have stopped them once they started removing women's rights from women in those nations?

[Smilo]

10. This goes further than people think.........

"Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would exempt employers and insurers from covering healthcare procedures they object to on moral or religious grounds"

It would be so easy for an employer to say "God, will provide, there is no need for health coverage". I can just imagine the bean counters working out which religion would give them the greater savings.

[IndyJones]

11. Where are the female owned companies asking if they can choose not to cover men's preventative

care? According to the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, I don't agree that any men's preventative procedures or vascectomies should be covered. Men can just pray. Think that would go over well with the male republicans? Maybe Issa can have an all woman panel come and talk about it.

[christx30]

12. They don't believe in vascectomies

They believe that no one outside a marriage should ever have sex, and only for procreation. I read a lot of freerepublic just because I like to keep an open mind about things. They shut up when I tell them that my wife and I use birth control because we have two beautiful children, and we don't want any more. We're not going to stop enjoying each other, because that would be bad for the marriage. They seem to think the government limiting how much you are allowed to discriminate is a violation of their first amendment rights. Lesbians get kicked out of a bar for a hug and a quick kiss and they complain, suddenly the lesbians are fascists and the whole thing was a planned event designed to further yadda yadda yadda.
Their argument is basically "Our religion says that we cannot allow anyone, even people that are not members of our faith to do... X" If the people that want to do X stand up for themselves, then suddenly the government is overstepping their bounds.
They don't understand that they have every right to live their lives however they want to. Get cancer? Pray it away. Put that Bayer Aspirin between your legs as birth control. Groovy. But the rest of us live in the real world. We aren't bound by the religious laws of a faith that we aren't a part of. Christians aren't going to stop eating pork just because Muslims and Jewish people don't. You have the right to your faith. But your faith does not have the right to prevent me from living my life.

[IndyJones]

13. But they do think that pre screening for prostate cancer is necessary.

So The Flying Spaghetti Monster is against that and all male preventative care. Yeah, I know that's lame and unreasonable, but if they can be that way with women's healthcare, why not be that way with men's healthcare?

[christx30]

14. Because they have

a talent for hypocrisy. And it's never about health care with them. It is about control. They could give a rip about unplanned pregnancies, or STDs. But their brand of religion is about controlling others, and birthing another generation of Christians to lead this country into the future without any nasty gays or minorities mucking up the works.

Why are they against women in combat?

"Our women folk need to be home raising the next generation of moral, charactered (sic), Christian patriots. They should not be out on the front lines ; ESPECIALLY not those who have husbands and children back home."

In their press releases, they claim to be pro-freedom, small government, pro-family, ect. But the truth is (and this took me a long time to realize), it's a sham. They are only in favor of freedom for themselves. If you want to allow certain things that they don't want, you are attacking their religious freedom.
It's best illustrated like this: You are coming out of a store and you see a man beating the crap out of a woman. You rush over and step between them, preventing the woman from getting hit. The man thinks you are interfering in his marriage. Suddenly, you aren't the person protecting someone that is unable to protect herself. You are violating his rights as a husband.
Everyone else has to live under a very strict set of guidelines that cannot be broken, lest you be called a "communist" or "pervert". People in other countries balk at their resources being stolen for use by Americans? Those people are terrorists. I'm against the individual insurance mandate. I will always default to the position of more freedom in 90% of issues. Gay Marriage? Guns? Health Care? Religion? Contraception? Property Rights? Eminent domain? I believe each person should have the right to make his or her own decisions on things. I may fuck up my life flatter than hammered shit, but I want the right to do it.

[IndyJones]

15. You're right. Very well stated.

[Thor_MN]

16. Right this very second, everyone has the freedom to not use contraceptives

No one should have the right to force someone else to not use, or use them. Put it this way, if you are not participating in the sex, it's none of your damn business, STFU.