Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by splitpea, Sep 10, 2014.
Remind me how refusal to cover female birth control isn't about controlling women's sexuality?
You are misinformed. Hobby Lobby covers the following forms of birth control in addtion to vasectomies.
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
I'm athiest and pro-choice and just can't see anything wrong with HL converting vasectomies and not covering the morning after. Someone explain what is wrong here, please.
If vasectomies caused fetal demise HL would not cover them either.
The fact is, they cover virtually every form of birth control; except for the few that are abortifascient (potentially). It has nothing to do with women's sexuality, and everything to do with not wanting to purchase drugs that end pregnancies for their employees.
Some people think that if someone doesn't want to cover certain forms of birth control because they have a moral issues with abortion then they're trying to "control woman's sexuality". Women are perfectly free to buy their own morning-after pills if they want to -- no-one is controlling their behaviour or choices there.
HL doesn't come down to birthcontrol, gender or otherwise. It comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of pregnancy. There are many hours between the end of the sex act and the beginning of implantation. But for those who feel that life begins at the sex act, anything after that is murder. It doesn't matter that the morning after pill prevents pregnancy, like an instant birth control pill. Much of this could be fixed by renaming the pill using some form of the word 'before'.
Some people believe life begins at fertilization. For them, these meds can kill
Isn't the entire point of the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy BEFORE fertilization?
They also cover viagra and the American male's God-given right to go in bareback.
Hobby Lobby is willing to cover birth control, as well. There are just four methods that they feel violate their religious beliefs. The SCOTUS agreed that they are not required to cover these four methods. The truth is that the "morning after" pill is very inexpensive. How many times per year should a woman need to use this pill? Hopefully, it is a very rare occurrence.
So at what point does the sould become implanted in the fetus? Does it just pop in to existance once the two pieces of the puzzle get together or does it fly in through the opening and BOOM! right up into the egg as it's getting made into a fetus? Is half the soul contained in the male sex cell and half in the female and they remain dormant until the two connect? I'm just not quite sure about this matter.
And how come the soul knows to only go into a human fetus. With so many things getting it on out there, isn't one going to invaritably slip into a different species every now and then?
Unless these meds, you know, prevent fertilization. Then they don't.
I'm surprised we haven't seen some company challenge vaccination coverage up to this point.
No, the morning after pill (and many other hormone-based forms of contraception for women) prevent implantation of a fertilized egg along the lining of the uterus. With the exception of intrauterine devices (IUDs), which cause some inflammation and scarring in addition to releasing hormones that regulate the menstrual cycle, they do nothing to prevent the actual meeting of sperm and egg (fertilization).
As SLC Flyfishing stated, some people believe that life begins at the stage when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Granted, there's a fairly high percentage of failed implantations even within nature, but that doesn't alter the belief.
Morning after and Mirena can potentially prevent implantation by altering the uterine lining. They also use hormones that can (hopefully) prevent ovulation but that's never a guarantee. Some studies say they don't prevent implantation, others say they can. HL doesn't feel comfortable and the SCOTUS says that is acceptible, end of story.
Copper IUD's work both by preventing implantation and preventing fertilization. The copper creates an inflammatory state inside the uterus which is designed to kill sperm passing through, and kill/prevent implantation of the fetus should any sperm manage to make it by and fertilize the ovum.
You do know hobby lobby covers female sterilization? That's called parity. You have a problem with parity?
Potentially? Come on, be honest: they're not abortifascients.
No, they can't. They just prevent ovulation. That's it.
And that statement has 6 references attached to it on the wiki page.
It's not. Plenty of women are not covered by BC & they are free to practice sexuality as they see fit, the have been for centuries.
Yes they are, depending on your parameters for what constitutes abortion, when life begins, etc.
I see your wikipedia page, and raise you one Lexicomp (google that one as a source)
If anyone has access to Lexicomp and can provide a link to levonorgestrel's mechanism of action, please do. Unfortunately for me, if I provide the link it will give away too much identifying data on me because my access is through my school's library and the name of the school will show in the address. Here's a copy and paste from the site:
So based on the potential for preventing implantation, I hope you can see why the HL people would oppose to purchasing such drugs.
Fortunately for women who work for HL, they cover virtually every other type of contraception, including surgical sterilization. If they really wanted to control women's sexuality and reproductive choices, you'd think they wouldn't cover those things.
As much as you'd love to imagine otherwise, HL's objection is based completely in the 4 drugs they don't provide being potentially abortifascient. End of story.
I added a screenshot from my "uptodate" app's Lexicomp page on Levonorgestrel's Mechanism of Action:
And another reference (in case anyone was wanting more). This is from my drug reference app, Epocrates:
Mechanism of action:
Alters tubal transport of ova and/or sperm, preventing ovulation or fertilization; alters endometrium possibly preventing implantation.
Of note, if it alters transport of ova through the tubes, the. It doesn't exactly inhibit ovulation as this reference suggests. It may inhibit fertilization; but if not it can alter the endometrium (uterine lining) preventing it from allowing implantation.
Woah there, Mr. Medical. The Morning After Pill may (MAY) cause blastocyst death. A fetus, or even embryo, never comes into it.
Meh, simple mistake in terminology. It doesn't change the argument. I think I got my point across.
I dunno man, words have meaning.
Blastocyst (the only think the Morning After Pill might might might (but probably not) prevent from implanting in the womb):
All are those images are human beings and all are alive. The only difference is the point in development. And that is the whole point. There are some who feel it is wrong to kill even a blastocyst. The HL owners are among them. And the SCOTUS says that they don't have to be involved in said killing of they don't want to. That's the end of the story and I suggest you get comfortable with it.
The only real difference in those 3 images is cell number and development. Given enough time, that blastocyst will (without outside intervention) become an embryo, then a fetus, then an infant, child, teen, adult etc. Unless there is an abnormality, or outside interference (and that is where planB comes in).
A) They have an incorrect belief then.
B) The pills they refuse to cover don't even work if the egg is fertilized.