Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And we are talking two separate effects here as well.

Hobby Lobby specifically, and their list of certain drugs, and the ruling as a whole which means none of them have to be covered.

 Polonius wrote:
Seems to me that paying for an IUD is a whole lot cheaper than paying for a pregnancy, not to mention raising a kid.

Stupid policy question: why do we not simply offer on demand contraception in this country? It's way cheaper than the alternatives.

That is beginning to look like one of the possible compromise solutions. It was even suggested as a possibility by Scalia in his opinion, IIRC, for the poeple who work for folks with religious objections (govt buys them birth control meds)

Of course, single payer, whatever they are calling Medicare for all these days, would make all of this go away.

 d-usa wrote:


Abortions required as a medical treatment should be covered.

Aren't they all technically "medical treatments?"

I'm assuming you mean for "live saving" type situations and not "whoops I don't want to be pregnant anymore" situations.

Abortions required as a medical treatment should be covered.

Medical treatment for what?

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's your answer. Don't do the crime.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg.

Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?

Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.

Because it's used for plenty of other reasons than "fething".

But you already know that and just choose to ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Abortions required as a medical treatment should be covered.

Medical treatment for what?

Anything that you disagree with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Abortions required as a medical treatment should be covered.

Aren't they all technically "medical treatments?"

I'm assuming you mean for "live saving" type situations and not "whoops I don't want to be pregnant anymore" situations.

As a means to treat other medical conditions.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's your answer. Don't do the crime.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg.

Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?

Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.

Because it's used for plenty of other reasons than "fething".

But you already know that and just choose to ignore it.

so what, non farking use is there for birth control?

im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...

what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!


I do think single payer is the way to go here though, precisely because its simpler, cheaper, more effective, is proven to work, and gets rid of issues like this where one party doesnt want to participate.

Because it's used for plenty of other reasons than "fething".

Thats illogical on its face. Again, when is an IUD used other than for birth control? Same for PLan B (and lets throw in plans b_E for good measure )

If Hobby Lobby were a sole proprietorship, should they have to pay for abortions?

 d-usa wrote:


Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.

They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.

At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.

At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide

I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's your answer. Don't do the crime.

OK, now I know you're just pulling my leg.

Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?

Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.

You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.

If someone is allergic to grass, why should I be forced to subsidize them walking out of their house to go to work? Just deal with your allergies buddy, tough luck.

With all due respect otherwise, if you're not joking, I can't really take you seriously on this subject anymore.

 d-usa wrote:


As a means to treat other medical conditions.

Aside from the medical condition of being pregnant?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:


You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor abstain from sexual activity.

No, he didn't. He suggested that someone who needs birth control medication should pay for it on their own.

If someone is allergic to grass, why should I be forced to subsidize them walking out of their house to go to work? Just deal with your allergies buddy, tough luck.

Exactly. Why should you be forced to pay for their allergy medication?

You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.

Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.

They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.

At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.

At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide

I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?

Yes, and AFAIK was never required to be covered.

 Frazzled wrote:

lets put it another way. Should they be forced to fund abortions as health care?

Only in cases of Medical Necessity. It's quite literally the SAME as plastic surgery.... if you are getting plastic surgery because you survived a motorcycle wreck that destroyed your jaw, well, that's not plastic surgery, that's reconstructive surgery and is covered by necessity. If a woman is pregnant and carrying the fetus/child to full term presents significant risk to her life/health, it can be medically necessary to abort.

 Frazzled wrote:

You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.

Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?

You know how to google big boy, go do it.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.

They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.

At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.

At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide

I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?

Yes, and AFAIK was never required to be covered.

You know what, you're right. I was thinking of ella.

But again, the semantic argument is there that both ella and Plan-B have the specific purpose of terminating a pregnancy.

Exactly. Why should you be forced to pay for their allergy medication?

I AM allergic to grass. No one gives me .

 Frazzled wrote:

You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.

Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?

You never put that question to me in the first place.

Condoms can prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

As for the rest, I don't know. I'm a guy. The subject doesn't come up between me and my doctor. Maybe a woman you know, or your doctor, would be willing to fill you in on the details. And there's also the internet.

 Frazzled wrote:

Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms,

For some people, it's a stylish fashion accessory?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

lets put it another way. Should they be forced to fund abortions as health care?

Only in cases of Medical Necessity. It's quite literally the SAME as plastic surgery.... if you are getting plastic surgery because you survived a motorcycle wreck that destroyed your jaw, well, that's not plastic surgery, that's reconstructive surgery and is covered by necessity. If a woman is pregnant and carrying the fetus/child to full term presents significant risk to her life/health, it can be medically necessary to abort.

I'm down with that.

 jasper76 wrote:


Condoms can prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

except that even in the commercials they specifically say they dont....

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.

Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?

You know how to google big boy, go do it.

In other words, you can't find one. Your honor I move for a directed verdict.

 jasper76 wrote:


As for the rest, I don't know. I'm a guy. The subject doesn't come up between me and my doctor. Maybe a woman you know, or your doctor, would be willing to fill you in on the details. And there's also the internet.

There it is!

Penis? No opinion valid!

Win, America!

I'm glad the War on Women through this outcome is being battled so fiercely.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms,

For some people, it's a stylish fashion accessory?

EF wins the thread.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You just suggested that someone who needs birth control medication for reasons entirely unrelated to contraception should abstain from sexual activity. You suggested women for whom pregnancy is a high risk endeavor should abstain from sexual activity.

Again, please cite what purpose there is for condoms, plan B, and IUDs other than birth control?

You know how to google big boy, go do it.

In other words, you can't find one. Your honor I move for a directed verdict.

In other words there is zero reason to waste my time with someone who doesn't know what he is talking about and already declared that anything I type is fake because he doesn't believe my background.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Except none if the drugs have the specific purpose of aborting a zygote.

They prevent ovulation, copper IUDs create an environment that is toxic to sperm, they are not abortion inducing drugs.

At high doses they can prevent implantation, but they are not prescribed at those doses.

At high doses narcotics will kill you, but that doesn't make them suicide pills and that providers should be able to refuse coverage because they cause suicide

I mean, isn't Mifepristone pretty much specifically for aborting a pregnancy?

Yes, and AFAIK was never required to be covered.

You know what, you're right. I was thinking of ella.

But again, the semantic argument is there that both ella and Plan-B have the specific purpose of terminating a pregnancy.

But they don't. Their specific purpose is to prevent ovulation and fertilization (aka: contraception) and not to terminate a pregnancy.

Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.

You got pwoned by a guy who thinks he's a wiener dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH

(i guess its fitting the wiener dog got pwoned by the guy with the quirrel avatar - we'll get you one day tree dweller!)

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.

You got pwoned by a guy who thinks he's a wiener dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH

(i guess its fitting the wiener dog got pwoned by the guy with the quirrel avatar - we'll get you one day tree dweller!)

Oh there are plenty of reasons. Sorry to disappoint you. We can all be thankful that the medical community doesn't have to rely on "random crap that Frazzled thinks he knows stuff about" to make important decisions.

Personally, my approval of this decision has far less to do with the actual findings, but more to do with the fact that it's a step closer to getting rid of the government mandate that employers provide healthcare.

I will admit, though, that the "war on women" nutjobs on my FB feed are cracking me up.

 cincydooley wrote:
Personally, my approval of this decision has far less to do with the actual findings, but more to do with the fact that it's a step closer to getting rid of the government mandate that employers provide healthcare.

I agree, other than TRICARE (for military people) the vast majority of employer group coverage options suck, when compared to individual coverage. It's a case where, you're part of a group, so you pay a bit less than if you were on your own, but you are also more limited in your options for *what* is covered.

 jasper76 wrote:
But why don't we just leave these issues to trained medical professionals and their patients, shall we?

In much the same manner should we halt this discussion and leave the matter of legal rulings to the judges?

 easysauce wrote:

so what, non farking use is there for birth control?

im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...

what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!


I do think single payer is the way to go here though, precisely because its simpler, cheaper, more effective, is proven to work, and gets rid of issues like this where one party doesnt want to participate.

In some cases it is not uncommon for a woman to be on birth control, including an IUD, because of irregular/heavy/painful periods. In this case under double effect the primary intention of the device is to assist the woman with her medical condition, the contraceptive benefit is not the main purpose

cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Abortions required as a medical treatment should be covered.

Aren't they all technically "medical treatments?"

I'm assuming you mean for "live saving" type situations and not "whoops I don't want to be pregnant anymore" situations.

Here in Ohio, there's a very sharp line between "life threatening" and not. Basically, unless the baby has a chance to kill you, and you're already in the hosptial, doctor's can't perform a medical abortion outside of an abortion clinic. The bar for medically necessary is really high, such that even if the pregnancy is doomed, and the woman is suffering, they can't help if she's not actually likely to die.

cincydooley wrote:Personally, my approval of this decision has far less to do with the actual findings, but more to do with the fact that it's a step closer to getting rid of the government mandate that employers provide healthcare.

Prepare to be disappointed. I doubt that's going anywhere. Certainly not in the courts, and likely not through legislative change either.