50 % of Americans are against Obamas contraceptive policy

[-TSS-]

I would imagine that most employers, at least if they are men, would be more than willing to hire young and attractive women but at the same time would be worried about losing them straight away as the women are likely to get pregnant before their 30's. Therefore, any plan to promote contraceptives or other kind of birth control should be well received by the employers.

Btw, I know the law may differ from state to state in the US and from province to province in Canada but as a general rule, are the employers obliged by law to take back women employees who have been away for a long time because of pregnancy and maternity-leave?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Btw, I know the law may differ from state to state in the US and from province to province in Canada but as a general rule, are the employers obliged by law to take back women employees who have been away for a long time because of pregnancy and maternity-leave?

US federal law (FMLA of 1993) standardizes minimum maternity/paternity leave to 12 weeks, and states may add more protected time off. Leave is unpaid and the employer must be of minimum size (# of employees).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993

[Wolf Larsen]

Make contraception free and available everywhere! Make free abortion on demand available everywhere too!

Down with the religious fanatics and religious institutions who are trying to oppress women! A woman's body belongs to herself!

In addition, it's time to start taxing religious institutions. They are businesses. If you don't believe me, look at the luxury in which some of these pastors live in! I bet you the Pope and other high functionaries of the Catholic Church don't live too badly either.

In addition, religious institutions have absolutely no business denying people medical care. This is a medical issue, not a moral one. If you want a moral issue look at the fact that the insurance companies are bleeding the medical care system dry!

Women in the Soviet Union had the right to an abortion in 1919. That was the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky. If you want women's rights and women's equality and women's liberation it will be necessary to have a workers revolution. After workers revolution there will be free contraception, free abortion on demand, equal pay for equal work, free quality childcare for working women, etc.

And just as important there will be separation of church and state. Religion will have no place in politics. The religious fanatics will not be able to dictate to women what they can and cannot do to their bodies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Women in the Soviet Union had the right to an abortion in 1919. That was the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky....

..and they lost the "right" to abortion in 1936 until 1954 under Stalin. Yea commies!!!

[guyser]

Make contraception free and available everywhere! Make free abortion on demand available everywhere too!

Expand that thought man ! Why stop there?

Free beer...hell free DUFF BEER...oh yeeeeah...for everyone !

Free food! Free sex ...oh wait, that is sort of free .....I think.

Down with the religious fanatics and religious institutions who are trying to oppress women! A woman's body belongs to herself!

...and her man you mean?

In addition, it's time to start taxing religious institutions. They are businesses. If you don't believe me, look at the luxury in which some of these pastors live in! I bet you the Pope and other high functionaries of the Catholic Church don't live too badly either.

They already do tax them.

In addition, religious institutions have absolutely no business denying people medical care. This is a medical issue, not a moral one.

I normally dont go to Our Lady of Fatma for kidney stones, and I dont got to Toronto General Hospital to pray. You however can knock yourself out.

Women in the Soviet Union had the right to an abortion in 1919. That was the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky.

Of course they normally aborted the woman along with the baby but meh.....no big deal.

More vodka for the men.

Edited February 25, 2012 by guyser

[Moonlight Graham]

From the OP article link on the story:

Surveys on this topic tell a mixed story because many Americans know little about the issue. Recent CBS and Fox polls indicate support for the new policy, using questions that describe the new policy in some detail. But in the CNN poll, when asked their opinion of the Obama policy with no details spelled out, support was much less and a large partisan divide emerged. A recent Pew poll also suggests Americans are closely divided, and that poll may hold the key to the differences. Nearly four in ten Americans say they have heard nothing at all about this controversy.

That tells the story right there. The poll is kind of meaningless to gauge anything about the policy.

[Wolf Larsen]

Somebody made reference to Stalin and how he reversed some of the gains of the October Revolution. This is very true. The early Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky brought free abortion on demand. Women in the Soviet Union also got the right to vote a year before in the US. Women also got free quality childcare in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries.

The Trotskyists have always fought Stalinism. Trotskyists champion women's rights!

Under capitalism women's rights are trampled upon. We still don't even have an ERA amendment!

Somebody mocked my statement in favor of free quality childcare and free contraceptives and free abortion on demand for women. Working women pay taxes! Working women should get something for their taxes! Under Obama and Bush all we get for our taxes are tax bailouts for the rich and endless war.

[kimmy]

So... apparently some guys aren't exactly clear on how "the pill" works:

Boges: Curious. In what universe does the pill cost $3,000?

sharkman: when it comes in a pez dispenser I guess. What kind of person needs that much protection? How does your sex life become the Gov's responsibility?

Rush Limbaugh, of course, started it. "She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraceptives" was among the many, many comments he made about Sandra Fluke. Others have echoed the idea, although without Limbaugh's choice selection of adjectives. They all sound like morons.

Here's the thing, guys: if you're "on the pill", you're "on the pill". You don't take one each time you have sex. You take one a day, every day. It doesn't matter if you have sex once a week or 10 times a day, the dose is the same and the cost is the same.

I hope that this clears up some misconceptions. If not, get Mrs Sharkwoman to explain it to you.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's the thing, guys: if you're "on the pill", you're "on the pill". You don't take one each time you have sex. You take one a day, every day. It doesn't matter if you have sex once a week or 10 times a day, the dose is the same and the cost is the same.

Mostly true...I've known several women who do not take the full cycle (menstrual week) placebo pills, while others skip ahead to the next month's pills to try and avoid their period altogether (e.g. for going on vacation).

[Shady]

Boges, to answer you earlier question, it's only in liberal entitlement-society propaganda that the pill costs $3000.

Walmart and Target have been offering $9 birth control since 2007. Once again, the issue really isn't about contraception.

http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/6747.aspx

Here's the thing, guys: if you're "on the pill", you're "on the pill". You don't take one each time you have sex. You take one a day, every day. It doesn't matter if you have sex once a week or 10 times a day, the dose is the same and the cost is the same.

Great. That doesn't change the unconstitutionality of the mandate. Don't ask religious institutions to pay for it for you, and I won't ask you to pay for my condoms.

[cybercoma]

Great. That doesn't change the unconstitutionality of the mandate. Don't ask religious institutions to pay for it for you, and I won't ask you to pay for my condoms.

Have you ever been given a prescription for condoms? Has a doctor ever told you that you need to use them for irregular or painful menstruation or perhaps some other sort of hormonal reason?

[Guest American Woman]

Great. That doesn't change the unconstitutionality of the mandate. Don't ask religious institutions to pay for it for you, and I won't ask you to pay for my condoms.

Do you need a physical, a prescription, for your condoms? No, you don't have that expense. And are you the one who is going to get pregnant if a condom fails? Again, no. Furthermore, men have been known to rely on women being on the pill so they don't have to use a condom.

Fyi, there's nothing "unconstitutional" about including all prescriptions in health plans that cover prescriptions.

[Shady]

Do you need a physical, a prescription, for your condoms? No, you don't have that expense.

Condoms are just as expensive as the pill. And no, I don't need a prescription for those, but what about Viagra? I want that covered if your stuffs covered.

And are you the one who is going to get pregnant if a condom fails?

That's irrelevant to the the contitutional aspects of religious freedom. Regardless, I'm going to be obligated for half of the financial burden of that pregnancy, under the law.

Again, no. Furthermore, men have been known to rely on women being on the pill so they don't have to use a condom.

Agreed. Then women shouldn't oblige. But again, that doesn't trump constitutional rights.

Fyi, there's nothing "unconstitutional" about including all prescriptions in health plans that cover prescriptions.

FYI, there is when you're trampling on somebody's first amendment rights. If you think forcing religious institutions to pay for sterilization and abortion inducing drugs is constitutional, then you're already lost.

Anyways, sharkman already pointed this out. But pregnancy isn't a disease, and sex isn't mandatory. If you wanna have your sex drugs and products paid for, I suggest not looking toward the Catholic church. You think that'd be kind of obvious. But not in our entitlement society.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Anyways, sharkman already pointed this out. But pregnancy isn't a disease, and sex isn't mandatory. If you wanna have your sex drugs and products paid for, I suggest not looking toward the Catholic church. You think that'd be kind of obvious. But not in our entitlement society.

Right....this is just more of the collision between the biological discontinuity between the sexes and political process(es) that cannot be eliminated with free reproductive services and products. Equality under the law will always be vexed by such differences. I've always found it curious that the fight rages on for "free" reproductive rights compared to demanding the right to die in combat.

[Guest American Woman]

Condoms are just as expensive as the pill. And no, I don't need a prescription for those, but what about Viagra? I want that covered if your stuffs covered.

Really? You need viagra? I'm ok with that being covered. Didn't know that it wasn't.

As for condoms being just as expensive as the pill ... methinks you don't know much about it if that's what you truly believe.

That's irrelevant to the the contitutional aspects of religious freedom. Regardless, I'm going to be obligated for half of the financial burden of that pregnancy, under the law.

So who do you think is responsible for the other half? The woman - plus she's the one who gets to deal with being pregnant.

Agreed. Then women shouldn't oblige. But again, that doesn't trump constitutional rights.

No, women shouldn't oblige. For so many reasons. Just pointing out the facts. It doesn't have anything to do with "constitutional rights," however ....

FYI, there is when you're trampling on somebody's first amendment rights. If you think forcing religious institutions to pay for sterilization and abortion inducing drugs is constitutional, then you're already lost.

Churches aren't being "forced" into anything. Beyond that, I'd like to know what you think the Constitution protects. Here's the thing. The institutions run by religions aren't insurance carriers, so it's not up to them to decide what insurance will or will not cover. Furthermore, institutions that hire outside their religion and admit students outside their religion are already going outside of the boundaries of their religion.

Anyways, sharkman already pointed this out. But pregnancy isn't a disease, and sex isn't mandatory.

Did I say it WAS a disease? You think health care plans only cover "diseases?" It's a condition that requires medical care, therefore it's a medical issue.

Never said it was "mandatory," either. You think health care plans only cover what's mandatory?

If you wanna have your sex drugs and products paid for, I suggest not looking toward the Catholic church. You think that'd be kind of obvious. But not in our entitlement society.

As I already said, churches are exempt.

Edited March 6, 2012 by American Woman

[olpfan1]

My # 1 rule in life is if you offend religious people you are on the right path

[Shady]

My # 1 rule in life is if you offend religious people you are on the right path

That's my #1 rule regarding leftists.

[Shady]

Really? You need viagra? I'm ok with that being covered. Didn't know that it wasn't.

Covered by whom?

As for condoms being just as expensive as the pill ... methinks you don't know much about it if that's what you truly believe.

As I already linked to, the pill is available for as little as $9 dollars per month. That's if you don't want to access the many clinics that already recieve federal funding for contraception, and offer it free to people in need.

So who do you think is responsible for the other half? The woman - plus she's the one who gets to deal with being pregnant.

So what? That doesn't mean you can infringe on people's constitutional rights.

No, women shouldn't oblige. For so many reasons. Just pointing out the facts. It doesn't have anything to do with "constitutional rights,"

Actually, it does have to do with constitutional rights. Especially if you're forcing religious institutions to pay for these things, as well as sterilization and abortion inducing drugs.

Churches aren't being "forced" into anything. Beyond that, I'd like to know what you think the Constitution protects. Here's the thing. The institutions run by religions aren't insurance carriers, so it's not up to them to decide what insurance will or will not cover.

Yes, they're being forced to purchase coverage for things that are against their religion. Do you honestly expect religious institutions to pay for abortion inducing drugs?

Furthermore, institutions that hire outside their religion and admit students outside their religion are already going outside of the boundaries of their religion.

No they're not. That doesn't make any sense.

It's a condition that requires medical care, therefore it's a medical issue.

Many things are conditions that require medical care. Many things are medical issues. Like transgender surgeries, which this particular activist also wants religious organizations to pay for.

As I already said, churches are exempt.

Specifically churches, but not religious organizations.

Look, the federal government already spends millions of dollars on contraceptive programs provided by many different organizations and clinics. It's beyond me why some people think they're owed this entitlement, especially from church organizations.

[cybercoma]

As I already linked to, the pill is available for as little as $9 dollars per month.

You really ought to keep your opinions to yourself, since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the pill. A woman doesn't just go pick the pill that she wants in most cases. They have different ratios of hormones and must be prescribed by a doctor. Those $9 pills you're talking about may not be appropriate for every woman. Moreover, you refuse to acknowledge that the pill serves purposes beyond contraception. Maybe you should learn more about what it is you're talking about before giving an obviously uneducated opinion about it.

[kimmy]

Great. That doesn't change the unconstitutionality of the mandate. Don't ask religious institutions to pay for it for you, and I won't ask you to pay for my condoms.

What, exactly, are "religious institutions"?

I keep asking... if a hospital or a college are religious institutions, can Chick-Fil-A be a religious institution too?

(I gather that according to the Blunt amendment, the answer to that question is "yes", any employer can get whatever exemptions they want, as long as they cite a religious reason. Employees of Kimmy-World Enterprises will be disappointed to learn that their insurance plans now cover only prayer and bandages, as I've just converted to Christian Science. Sorry, lol!)

Another thing that has me a little puzzled is how it keeps changing from "the government paying for your contraception" to "religious institutions paying for your contraceptives" depending on which claim is more convenient for the argument you're trying to make that day.

-k