Christians try to prevent Americans from enjoying Sex

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
From Rolling Stone

A record number of women — mostly Democrats, many of them galvanized by the threat the Trump administration poses to reproductive freedom — were swept into Congress during in the 2018 midterm elections. The results were still being tabulated on Wednesday when Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services quietly finalized two rules empowering employers, universities and nonprofits to refuse birth control coverage to women.
A third rule, also announced Wednesday, would require insurers on the Affordable Care Act marketplace to charge women a separate monthly bill for abortion coverage — a change that advocates say would be so prohibitively expensive it could force insurers to stop offering the procedure altogether.
This would extend the carveouts granted to religious institutions to any for profit corporation that adopts religion for tax or marketing purposes.
 

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,489
1,957
Do you have a boss? Do you want her to decide how you enjoy yourself in bed?
Self-employed so no, I don't have a boss. And I go buy condoms when I want to ensure safe-sex practices. I'm not sure why you think any of this has, in any way, in relation to a company deciding what someone can or can't do in a bedroom. Everyone is definitely still free to get birth control.

Can't have rules and regulations without gov involvement. You can make a argument about some aspects of that that may overreach or dont reach enough but it would be impossible to make a valid argument that gov plays 0 role at all.
Then maybe don't have rules and regulations?

If people want the government to have oversight in people's healthcare coverage, then that means you're giving up that freedom to the whims of the government. Regardless of who is in power, and more importantly, to the specific whims of whoever is in power that now has a say over that access.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raid and motulist

mudslag

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2010
139
9,922
Then maybe don't have rules and regulations?

If people want the government to have oversight in people's healthcare coverage, then that means you're giving up that freedom to the whims of the government. Regardless of who is in power, and more importantly, to the specific whims of whoever is in power that now has a say over that access.

How can we have protections against abuse, malpractice, scams, bad business practices, ect? If you can come up with an ingenious way to prevent those without "rules and regulations" then you'ed be on to an entire new way of doing business. Im guessing you'll hit a brick wall long before that though.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
How can we have protections against abuse, malpractice, scams, bad business practices, ect? If you can come up with an ingenious way to prevent those without "rules and regulations" then you'ed be on to an entire new way of doing business.
Easy enough. Extend the castle doctrine to extend to ones bank account.
 

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,489
1,957
condoms don't work as well as the pill, or an IUD.

18 percent failure rate.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf

The most effective methods are prescribed by a doctor. Who will charge for her time. A pharmacy will dispense them at a steep cost-- if the employees do not religiously object. And so on.
And the pill and IUD have a 100% failure rate in regards to preventing STDs.

I'm sorry, this whole argument you're using about condoms just sounds (unintentionally ironically) like the old Christian literature warning people against sex.

As for a doctor charging for his/her time, yes. That's how it works. I also charge people for my time when I have meetings with them. Also, if I have medicine to get at a pharmacy, I pay for it. With money, that I make from my job. And if that pharmacy doesn't have that medicine, I go to a different one. And if that pharmacist chooses not to dispense a medicine on religious grounds, then their employer should have the option of whether that person should be employed there or not. And if it affects their ability to do business, then that individual won't be. Meanwhile, I will have already went elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvisDeene

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,323
29,836
Catskill Mountains
... A third rule, also announced Wednesday, would require insurers on the Affordable Care Act marketplace to charge women a separate monthly bill for abortion coverage — a change that advocates say would be so prohibitively expensive it could force insurers to stop offering the procedure altogether.
This would extend the carveouts granted to religious institutions to any for profit corporation that adopts religion for tax or marketing purposes.
Straight to the Supreme Court... oh, wait...

OK, then straight to Camden NJ [or a local alternative] where it was said that one could get an abortion done fairly safely by some defrocked anesthesiologist or dermatologist who charged on a sliding scale from $30 to $150 back in the 70s before Roe v Wade. Everyone knew someone who knew someone who could come up with a phone number for such services. The $150 model came with reference to a local motel for an overnight stay and an on-demand visit from the practitioner "in case anything went wrong"...

I'm sure the equivalent are back in business now thanks to Republicans making it more difficult for women without means to obtain a safe and legal abortion. Or hey, there's always the coat hanger.

You know there's something past ironic and into demonic about Republicans closing down legal avenues to legal abortion and in so doing, ending up implicitly advocating for the elevated risks to women of injury and death via extra-clinical or self-induced abortions.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlliFlowers

mudslag

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2010
139
9,922
And the pill and IUD have a 100% failure rate in regards to preventing STDs.

Which is why both together are better.



As for a doctor charging for his/her time, yes. That's how it works. I also charge people for my time when I have meetings with them. Also, if I have medicine to get at a pharmacy, I pay for it. With money, that I make from my job. And if that pharmacy doesn't have that medicine, I go to a different one. And if that pharmacist chooses not to dispense a medicine on religious grounds, then their employer should have the option of whether that person should be employed there or not. And if it affects their ability to do business, then that individual won't be. Meanwhile, I will have already went elsewhere.

Don't assume everyone has the option to just up and go somewhere else. Shockingly there are people with limited travel abilities and there are even smaller towns in this country who don't have multiple pharmacy locations. What works for you does not equate the same to all others.
 
Last edited:

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,489
1,957
Your first link references the Bush Administration and is from 2008. But if you want to base your stance on an absurd indecent from a decade ago that has no additional examples, then I guess, sure?

And in your second link, she clearly got her script back and did exactly as I suggested in the previous post: she went to a different pharmacist and it was filled. And her reasoning for it not being filled was entirely based on her own speculation, but getting a script filled last minute when you have 5 days to do so is careless. Even if the pharmacist will fill it, you still have the possibility of it being out of stock and needing to be ordered, or the pharmacist will need to consult with a doctor, or whatever else really. It's easier to believe that pharmacies aren't always like getting one hour photos, rather than pharmacists have it out to punish people.

Which is why both together are better.

Don't assume everyone has the option to just up and go somewhere else. Shockingly there are people with limited travel abilities and there are even smaller towns in this country who don't have multiple pharmacy locations. What works for you does not equate the same to all others.
Oh yeah? I used to live in one of those small towns. 5,000 population once you factored in the "metro area," and if you needed any sort of a bigger town, it was a 40 minute drive. No bus. No train. No any type of access out other than car. There were still over half a dozen pharmacies there. Even right across the street from each other. I'm not sure what percentage of the country you're basing your "exception to the rule" argument on, but it's minuscule.

If you're going to use the same argument of "insert here something that people have to travel to do that I disagree with," I still wonder: if these people don't have a pharmacy nearby, then should I also assume they don't have a grocery store nearby either and they don't eat?
 

Bug-Creator

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2011
550
2,129
Germany
I used to live in one of those small towns. 5,000 population
There were still over half a dozen pharmacies there.
May I ask how long ago that was?

Cos around here everything (not just pharmacies nut also doctors, grocery shops and so on) got and still gets massively thinned out in rural areas over the past 20 years.
 

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,489
1,957
May I ask how long ago that was?

Cos around here everything (not just pharmacies nut also doctors, grocery shops and so on) got and still gets massively thinned out in rural areas over the past 20 years.
It was about 8 minutes before I hit "submit" on the post. I looked up the town and pharmacies to get the actual number.
 

mudslag

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2010
139
9,922
Oh yeah? I used to live in one of those small towns. 5,000 population once you factored in the "metro area," and if you needed any sort of a bigger town, it was a 40 minute drive. No bus. No train. No any type of access out other than car. There were still over half a dozen pharmacies there. Even right across the street from each other. I'm not sure what percentage of the country you're basing your "exception to the rule" argument on, but it's minuscule.

Again your example is does not equate the same for all others. You're trying to dismiss the point I raised without actually dismissing it. There are a lot of smaller towns around the country with a far fewer people then even a 1000.



If you're going to use the same argument of "insert here something that people have to travel to do that I disagree with," I still wonder: if these people don't have a pharmacy nearby, then should I also assume they don't have a grocery store nearby either and they don't eat?

That would be ignorant, one is not the same as the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayMysterio

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,489
1,957
Again your example is does not equate the same for all others. You're trying to dismiss the point I raised without actually dismissing it. There are a lot of smaller towns around the country with a far fewer people then even a 1000.

That would be ignorant, one is not the same as the other.
You're making an argument for a single theoretical person you have in mind, not for the normal small towns. I'm also aware of towns smaller than 1000... the town I grew up in, according to a search just now, has 530-550 people in it. And according to a second search, it has five pharmacy options.

And the second part is not an ignorant argument at all. Unless someone is an off-grid homesteader living miles and miles away from civilization, growing their own food and raising their own meat, the average person lives within a relatively close proximity to basic life functions. This includes grocery stores, gas stations, and yes, even pharmacies.

Over 80% of Americans live within 10 miles of a CVS: https://qz.com/1146577/cvs-and-aetna-aet-82-of-americans-are-within-10-miles-of-the-pharmacy/

That's not "any pharmacy," that's a single specific chain. Not including Walgreens, Rite-Aid, independent pharmacies, or pharmacies connected to hospitals or other medical facilities.
 
Last edited:

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
600
1,242
Governments shouldn’t require employers to provide health care coverage to employees. Generally speaking, governments shouldn’t dictate the terms of contracts which private parties are free to enter into. Enforcing private party contracts is a proper role of government; dictating the terms of such contracts is not.

That said, if the government is going to require employers to provide health care coverage which meets certain specifications, employers shouldn’t be exempted (or not exempted) from that requirement based on their religious beliefs.

I think that various RFRAs are unconstitutional, though that’s not what courts have generally found. They represent government discrimination based on religious beliefs. If you have certain religious beliefs, you aren’t required by government to do certain things (or aren’t prohibited by government from doing certain things). However, if you don’t have those religious beliefs, you are required by governments to do those things (or are prohibited by government from doing those things).
 
  • Like
Reactions: hulugu

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,371
UK
Governments shouldn’t require employers to provide health care coverage to employees. Generally speaking, governments shouldn’t dictate the terms of contracts which private parties are free to enter into. Enforcing private party contracts is a proper role of government; dictating the terms of such contracts is not.

That said, if the government is going to require employers to provide health care coverage which meets certain specifications, employers shouldn’t be exempted (or not exempted) from that requirement based on their religious beliefs.

I think that various RFRAs are unconstitutional, though that’s not what courts have generally found. They represent government discrimination based on religious beliefs. If you have certain religious beliefs, you aren’t required by government to do certain things (or aren’t prohibited by government from doing certain things). However, if you don’t have those religious beliefs, you are required by governments to do those things (or are prohibited by government from doing those things).
The difficultly is that equality laws generally require people to make reasonable adjustments. So therefore we should on religion as well.
 

s2mikey

macrumors 68020
Sep 23, 2013
2,462
2,520
Upstate, NY
condoms don't work as well as the pill, or an IUD.

18 percent failure rate.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf

The most effective methods are prescribed by a doctor. Who will charge for her time. A pharmacy will dispense them at a steep cost-- if the employees do not religiously object. And so on. lots of opportunities for busybodies.
Nope, the most effective method to avoid pregnancy is abstinence or careful planning. It’s pretty easy to avoid pregnancy but you can’t tell women that either since they get all worked up. In other words, keep your legs closed or be smart about the act. Asking people to be responsible though "infringes" on their rights or whatever so we can’t possibly do that.

My bad. :rolleyes:
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Nope, the most effective method to avoid pregnancy is abstinence or careful planning. It’s pretty easy to avoid pregnancy but you can’t tell women that either since they get all worked up. In other words, keep your legs closed or be smart about the act. Asking people to be responsible though "infringes" on their rights or whatever so we can’t possibly do that.

My bad. :rolleyes:
Hey, try not be so tone-deaf. Its 2018, not 1955.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,910
Trump has killed off the religious right. They are non-existent.

If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Otherwise, ****. Bye Felicia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dingster101

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,040
16,523
The Misty Mountains
From Rolling Stone

This would extend the carveouts granted to religious institutions to any for profit corporation that adopts religion for tax or marketing purposes.
This is outrageous. I don’t think Trump personally gives a damn about this, other than making some religious zealots in his base happy.

....then maybe the government shouldn't have any say on healthcare?
How did you come to that brilliant conclusion?
[doublepost=1541856851][/doublepost]
Nope, the most effective method to avoid pregnancy is abstinence or careful planning. It’s pretty easy to avoid pregnancy but you can’t tell women that either since they get all worked up. In other words, keep your legs closed or be smart about the act. Asking people to be responsible though "infringes" on their rights or whatever so we can’t possibly do that.

My bad. :rolleyes:
What a ridiculous statement. Are you actually telling women to only have sex to procreate? How biblical of you. :oops: