Thousands of children are deprived of birth due to lack of vasectomy regulation

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I must be completely missing the point, so if someone could help me out here:


A vasectomy is an outpatient surgical procedure that prevents a male from having kids.

An abortion is an outpatient surgical or chemical procedure that is used after prevention has failed.


What are we comparing? 

[FayeforCure]

Abstinence is the most failed form of birth control ever. As long as there have been people they have proven they do it and not just to have children. Sex has long been defined as a need and yet we act like it is an indiscretion particularly if a woman does it.(hence insurance coverage for viagra)

Am I missing it or isn't this a statement about the right claiming contraceptives should not be covered by insurance if the employer's church want some babies.(regardless of what the perspective parents want)

Thank you Jeffrey.

The fact that sex is defined as a need for men is clear from insurance coverage for viagra (see my added comment above). Yet SEX isn't considered a need for women as "they should choose absinence over the pill." 

In addition women should tolerate all kinds of government regulation over other aspects of their healthcare 
"because they cannot be trusted with their own decision making."

[Gonzo]

Abstinence is the most failed form of birth control ever. As long as there have been people they have proven they do it and not just to have children. Sex has long been defined as a need and yet we act like it is an indiscretion particularly if a woman does it.(hence insurance coverage for viagra)

Am I missing it or isn't this a statement about the right claiming contraceptives should not be covered by insurance if the employer's church want some babies.(regardless of what the perspective parents want)

Thank you Jeffrey.

The fact that sex is defined as a need for men is clear from insurance coverage for viagra (see my added comment above). Yet SEX isn't considered a need for women as "they should choose absinence over the pill." 

In addition women should tolerate all kinds of government regulation over other aspects of their healthcare 
"because they cannot be trusted with their own decision making."

Faye,

I do not see where it says that sex is a need for men, it merely says it is a need. Let's not mischaracterize that statement. Women need it just as much as men.

In my discussion of the my opposing the government forcing the Catholic church to provide health care that includes birth control and abortion services, I made clear my thoughts on the matter. I do not support abortion for anthing but the most dire of circumstances and under no means should it be publicly supported. Some have drawn the analogy that it is akin to telling devout Jews that they are legally required to serve and consume bacon on Sunday mornings. Are you in favor of that?

In regard to contraception, I think I made it clear as well, if you cannot afford to be responsible, then maybe you should not do it. Seriously, the pill costs $10 most places and condoms are about the same. A vasectomy is covered under insurance after a deductible or copay is made as is a tubal ligation. I really do not understand the vehemence on this topic. Do you really want the government in charge of your reproductive rights?

[Ajax]

Have a sense of humor.  It's pretty funny.  The people over at the Onion are probably sorry they didn't think of this.

Yeah we think it's funny when we talk about regulating men's contraception............. but "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance"  , so why should cost-effective men's contraception be offered by insurance?

Men should use abstinence or buy their own, just like those self-righteous men tell their women.

Government interference in women's healthcare is a-okay, but when we try to do the same with men's healthcare......it's just "funny"

I just took the proposed bill as a tongue-in-cheek way to get some attention so that the legislators could promote their position.  If I mistook their intentions and they were serious...well, I just can't believe they really meant that.  I took it as satire. 

I don't think you meant to imply that I ever said "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance", because I didn't.  I just wanted to clarify that. 

And I don't think government interference in anyone's healthcare is "a-okay."  In fact, this whole discussion is a result of too much government intereference in healthcare. 

I do laugh at a lot of inappropriate things, though.  This apparently was one of them. 

[BridgeTroll]

Perhaps ALL elective procedures should not be covered...  Vasectomy is certainly elective... so far...

[Ajax]

Perhaps ALL elective procedures should not be covered...  Vasectomy is certainly elective... so far...

If an insurance company wants to design a product that covers elective procedures, and there's a market for it, then I don't have a problem with it.  My problem is when the federal government starts designing the product.  And deciding how much it costs.  And tells everyone they have to pay for it...

[BridgeTroll]

Perhaps ALL elective procedures should not be covered...  Vasectomy is certainly elective... so far...

If an insurance company wants to design a product that covers elective procedures, and there's a market for it, then I don't have a problem with it.  My problem is when the federal government starts designing the product.  And deciding how much it costs.  And tells everyone they have to pay for it...

Agree...

[FayeforCure]

Have a sense of humor.  It's pretty funny.  The people over at the Onion are probably sorry they didn't think of this.

Yeah we think it's funny when we talk about regulating men's contraception............. but "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance"  , so why should cost-effective men's contraception be offered by insurance?

Men should use abstinence or buy their own, just like those self-righteous men tell their women.

Government interference in women's healthcare is a-okay, but when we try to do the same with men's healthcare......it's just "funny"

I just took the proposed bill as a tongue-in-cheek way to get some attention so that the legislators could promote their position.  If I mistook their intentions and they were serious...well, I just can't believe they really meant that.  I took it as satire. 

I don't think you meant to imply that I ever said "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance", because I didn't.  I just wanted to clarify that. 

And I don't think government interference in anyone's healthcare is "a-okay."  In fact, this whole discussion is a result of too much government intereference in healthcare. 

Thanks Ajax.

Government SHOULD be there to protect the people.

Women stand united against the Republicans attacks on their healthcare needs.Even if we must use a male analogy to make our points clear.

The Republicans have alienated women and their reproductive rights. They are against contraceptives; prenatal testing; and stem cell research. If you are a mother, a father of girls, or just an informed citizen, you should be outraged about these attacks and you should make your voices heard... We cannot go back to the days when women were second class citizens!!

[BridgeTroll]

The Republicans have alienated women and their reproductive rights. They are against contraceptives; prenatal testing; and stem cell research.

Actually Faye... again... repeatedly... you show NO interest in what anyone is ACTUALLY for or against.  You construct some phony strawman then rail against it.

Reps are NOT against contraception.  Most are against making religious organizations go against their creed... and government interference in the practice of their religion.  Many are also against government paid for elective prescription contraceptives.

They are NOT against prenatal testing.  They are against the promotion of abortion in the event of a less than optimistic screening.

They are NOT against stem cell research.  They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...

[ben says]

They are NOT against stem cell research.  They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...

Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope" What exactly is the downside here?

[Fallen Buckeye]

For anyone interested, we will be standing up for religious freedom and speaking out against the HHS mandate in front of the Federal Courthouse on Friday, March 23 at noon. We will gather for a peaceful protest against the HHS mandate that unjustly forces citizens to surrender their right to free exercise of their religious beliefs.

I am sure that we will be joined by many women despite the fact that they are in apparrent danger of being made second class citizens. Here's a link with some more information:

http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/

[Garden guy]

I find it hilarious that the church is bitching about government in their business yet they love the whole idea of that same  government allowing them to run their business scams with that nice big tax exemption....this is just one of the many examples of the right thinking they are "special"

[Fallen Buckeye]

If healing the sick, sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, caring for the disabled, defending the unborn, taking in the orphaned, visiting the sick and imprisoned, educating children, aiding refugees, and building stronger families are scams, then we are guilty.

[BridgeTroll]

They are NOT against stem cell research.  They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...

Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope" What exactly is the downside here?

How 'bout a simple one... like say... creating fetus to harvest cells etc to make replacement parts...  For me... the key word is harvest.

[FayeforCure]

They are NOT against stem cell research.  They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...

Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope" What exactly is the downside here?

How 'bout a simple one... like say... creating fetus to harvest cells etc to make replacement parts...  For me... the key word is harvest.

Wow embryonic stem cell research does no such thing.

It recycles medical waste from ivf clinics with the express permission of the donors.

I do NOT see any "fetus created" nor any "harvesting" in this image do you?