This is concerning the Associated Press opinion piece by Amanda Marcotte on co-pay-free contraception printed in the Sun Journal Aug. 5.
She misrepresents the pro-life position as one that wishes to punish sex. Her position seems to be more that babies are a punishment rather than a gift; that sex is strictly for recreation for any two persons who wish to engage in it.
Sex, of course, is the way that the human race procreates. For a married couple, when they give to each other fully, it not only gives pleasure but unifies the relationship. The result of that sexual union may be children, of course, which the married couple is uniquely equipped to nurture and raise. That is why every society for centuries has promoted marriage as the basic unit of society ... until now.
A couple may resort to natural methods of spacing births when there are good reasons to do so. Natural family planning is as effective as artificial methods when used properly, and avoids the need for unnatural chemicals and methods, some of which work by inducing abortion, e.g., IUDs.
For those who follow those beliefs, the mandate to cover the co-pay for contraceptives means requiring them to go against their long-held beliefs, which is against the First Amendment and should be found unconstitutional.
Jonathan Dandridge, Hubbarston, Mass.
Report a correction
"Natural family planning is
"Natural family planning is as effective as artificial methods when used properly" This is wrong by any study on contraception.
This isn't FREE birth control, its birth control without a co-pay. You still need to pay for insurance.
I don't want to subsidize the 2/3 of Americans that are overweight yet I still pay for my insurance.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The law of unintented consequences...
I, and a lot of American taxpayers and rate payers, are getting a little weary of paying for other people's so called "rights." No one gives a darn if you pay your own way in life; it's when I have to subsidize it...that I take issue. This is especially true when I have to subsidize the risky behaviors and the "wants" of others.
This is a basic issue with a lot of what is going on in America today. Everyone wants a free ride and wants to tell me what I must do...when I pay taxes that is a MUST DO or they will garnish my bank accounts! When I pay for health insurance that is a MUST DO; especially now under the current administration or I will be fined!
Wake up America before we just sign over our entire paycheck to the government to cover everyone with a sense of entitlement for every perceived “right” concocted by the left and or special interest group.
It is an incremental degradation of my rights and I will voice that loud on clear in November and hopefully a majority feels that way and we send the tax and spenders packing.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Very well stated, sir. The
Very well stated, sir. The rights of no man should ever come at the price of placing a burden on the back of another man. As government grows, freedom contracts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This is a blantant attempt to impose a set of religious beliefs
on all the rest of us who do not agree with them. Its a tactic by the religious right in coordination with the Romney Campaign to create an issue where there is none. Religious Institutions are already exempt because of the First Amendment. Religious affiliated institutions i.e. institutions created and owned by religious organizations but having an exclusively secular purpose so the institution can accept Federal funds without violating the First Amendment are in no way compromised. They have already agreed that these affiliated institutions can do things not consistent with the owner's religious views. That's the deal they have made. They should stick to it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If I only knew this was a right...
Hmmm, if I only knew when I reached adulthood that having other people pay for safe sex was a "right" instead of my personal responsibility. I could have saved a lot of money by demanding someone else pay. I wonder if I can use this argument to have taxpayers cover the cost of my car and mortgage after all I really need those things too! How repugnant it is that they don't agree with me. Oh well back to work.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No one's asking you to pay
No one's asking you to pay for their sex. They are asking that contraceptives being covered as well as antibiotics or a cancer screening. The insurance companies had no problem covering Viagra...what the hell. Contraceptives are vital to a woman's physical, emotional, financial, and economic health. Who are you to say otherwise???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It isn't a right...but
It isn't a right...but it's a hell of alot cheaper than paying for the aftermath. How much cheaper is the pill vs 18 years of supporting a child.I'm all for personal responsibility, but I'm also a realist. We, as a society, have said that we don't let kids starve or live on the streets. We will either put them in orphanages, foster care, or pay their parents to make sure the kids are ok. So unwanted kids or kids to people who are below the poverty line cost the state significant money. So while you may not like it, providing the pill free of charge is cost effective.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I say it is a right, my right
I say it is a right, my right to decide when I will have children!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Then...
Don't have sex.
Ta da.
You do have the right to decide. But the pill is a convenience because you don't have to have sex. That said, I think the pill should be free because unwanted pregnancies are not in the best interests of the public.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'll agree not to have sex if
I'll agree not to have sex if you'll be the one to break it to my husband.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."That said, I think the pill
"That said, I think the pill should be free because unwanted pregnancies are not in the best interests of the public."
Isn't that what abortions are for? To thwart unwanted pregnancies?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I absolutely believe that
I absolutely believe that access to contraceptives is a basic health care right and the very idea that someone believes that because of their particular religious views I should be denied this health care benefit is positively repugant! The audacity to say I don't believe in it so you shouldn't be able to have it is just beyond the pale. And wouldn't denying me that benefit violate the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No one is denying you your
No one is denying you your "right" of access to contraceptives. What they're telling you is to pay for them yourself. Your behavior; your wallet. Quite simple.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No, it's a "health" issue and
No, it's a "health" issue and should be covered under my "health" insurance.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Smoking is a health issue;
Smoking is a health issue; sexual behavior is not. Both are generated by individual choices.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The way insurance works
Insurance represents a pool of subscribers who pool their money and get insurance coverage in return. The larger the pool the more things get covered because there is a greater variety of needs . I, for example , am well past the age where I need maternity coverage. My pool, however, covers young mothers so in a sense my premium is covering care I don't need or want. As a senior, I am susceptible to illnesses that young people rarely have. Their premiums pay for me. No one is required to use all of the services provided in the coverage ergo no one is required to violate their conscience or forced to use birth control they don't believe in. As for businesses which provide health insurance, they are required to accommodate the needs of people who have many different beliefs otherwise they are discriminating which is also against the Constitution. Religious institutions have already been excused from this requirement by both state and federal law. There is a difference between following your conscience and imposing it on others which some people fail to grasp. The Constitution specifically prohibits the imposition of religion by government.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.A very simple solution...if
A very simple solution...if you don't believe in birth control, don't use it!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Religion has it's limits.
"For those who follow those beliefs, the mandate to cover the co-pay for contraceptives means requiring them to go against their long-held beliefs, which is against the First Amendment and should be found unconstitutional."
What if I'm a devout Christian, and feel that a women's place is in the home and not working? Should I be allowed not to hire any women?
Or I'm a Christian Scientist, and don't cover health insurance at all.
The bottom line is that while considerations can be made, a line has to be drawn, and it's in the public's best intrests to have cheap birth control
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (7)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.