[link]       Your employer now gets to decide whether or not you get birth control covered by insurance. Hooray for leaving healthcare decisions up to women and their doctors! Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
Trump Admin rolls back contraceptive mandate

Prev 1 2 3 Next (showing 1-25 of 68)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:07:23 PM EST (GMT-5)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/...

Your employer now gets to decide whether or not you get birth control covered by insurance. Hooray for leaving healthcare decisions up to women and their doctors!
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:10:03 PM EST (GMT-5)
But at least they’re open to banning bump stocks
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:18:16 PM EST (GMT-5)
Omg, I hadn’t gotten this far in the article yet…

“The administration lists health risks that it says may be associated with the use of certain contraceptives, and it says the mandate could promote “risky sexual behavior” among some teenagers and young adults.“

^^That is counterfactual garbage. Access to birth control is strongly correlated to a decline in teen pregnancies, and has never been shown to increase sexual activity in teens.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:19:15 PM EST (GMT-5)
They're doing it for religious reasons again, which is total bullsh*t.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:19:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:18:16 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Omg, I hadn’t gotten this far in the article yet… “The administration lists health risks that it says may be associated with the use of certain contraceptives, and it says the mandate could promote “risky sexual behavior” among some teenagers and young adults.“ ^^That is counterfactual garbage. Access to birth control is strongly correlated to a decline in teen pregnancies, and has never been shown to increase sexual activity in teens.


I always thought that “risky sexual behavior” was more about spreading STDs than about 'increased sexual activity'...
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:27:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
...and I think that prescription birth control can actually dissuade condom usage and contribute to the spread of STDs.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:30:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:19:15 PM Rag_Doll_ wrote:
They're doing it for religious reasons again, which is total bullsh*t.

Not just religious anymore. This would allow any employer to drop contraceptive coverage, for any reason. That’s why they added a “moral objection” exemption.

Yet another way women’s healthcare gets segmented and treated differently from any other healthcare. Imagine allowing a religious or moral exception for something like blood transfusions. Or psychiatric meds. If your boss is a devout JW or Scientologist, they can object to carrying health coverage that covers those things. It would never happen.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:34:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:27:06 PM CowDung wrote:
...and I think that prescription birth control can actually dissuade condom usage and contribute to the spread of STDs.


Access to affordable contraception saves lives, and improves quality of life for millions of women. No one should be denied a certain type of healthcare because their boss is a religious nut or a sexual puritan.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:35:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:27:06 PM CowDung wrote:
...and I think that prescription birth control can actually dissuade condom usage and contribute to the spread of STDs.
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:34:09 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Access to affordable contraception saves lives, and improves quality of life for millions of women. No one should be denied a certain type of healthcare because their boss is a religious nut or a sexual puritan.


That is beside the point about 'risky sexual behavior', isn't it?
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:41:46 PM EST (GMT-5)
“Risky sexual behavior” is actually what’s beside the point here. Or do you not get how condescending and paternalistic that kind of reasoning is?
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:44:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
What about young men who exhibit "risky sexual behaviour"?
Isn't there a way to take away THEIR health care?
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:45:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:41:46 PM birdsong4j wrote:
“Risky sexual behavior” is actually what’s beside the point here. Or do you not get how condescending and paternalistic that kind of reasoning is?


You labeling it as 'counterfactual garbage' seems to make it a point...
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:48:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
Please show me the study that links the contraception mandate to increased STI rates.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 2:49:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:41:46 PM birdsong4j wrote:
“Risky sexual behavior” is actually what’s beside the point here. Or do you not get how condescending and paternalistic that kind of reasoning is?
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:45:43 PM CowDung wrote:
You labeling it as 'counterfactual garbage' seems to make it a point...


You endlessly talking bollocks negates any point you might be strugglng to make.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 3:12:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:48:22 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Please show me the study that links the contraception mandate to increased STI rates.


Not specifically the mandate, but condom usage is far less frequent when the female is on the Pill. Wouldn't you consider the lack of condom usage to be 'risky sexual behavior'?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 3:16:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
Are they for covering limp dick drugs or nah?

1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 3:48:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:48:22 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Please show me the study that links the contraception mandate to increased STI rates.
On Friday 10/6/17 - 3:12:51 PM CowDung wrote:
Not specifically the mandate [link]

So what you’re saying is, you can’t. Because such a link does not exist.

1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 3:49:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
They still can't comprehend that if birth control is covered/easier to obtain that there'd be fewer abortions.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 3:56:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
Also no, btw, not using a condom when there’s another BC method in use is not necessarily “risky sexual behavior.”
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 4:17:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 3:56:37 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Also no, btw, not using a condom when there’s another BC method in use is not necessarily “risky sexual behavior.”


Can any method of BC other than a condom or abstinence prevent the spread of STDs? If not, failure to use a condom increases the risk of spreading STDs and is indeed 'risky sexual behavior'- - particularly in adolescents who aren't monogamous.


1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 4:20:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 2:48:22 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Please show me the study that links the contraception mandate to increased STI rates.
On Friday 10/6/17 - 3:12:51 PM CowDung wrote:
Not specifically the mandate [link]
On Friday 10/6/17 - 3:48:20 PM birdsong4j wrote:
So what you’re saying is, you can’t. Because such a link does not exist.


The fact that the mandate itself hasn't been studied as it relates to 'risky sexual behavior', doesn't mean that the link doesn't exist. There is indeed a relation between condom usage with and without oral birth control. The mandate provides for oral birth control, not condoms.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 5:07:36 PM EST (GMT-5)
It's naive to think that teens denied oral contraceptive birth control will substitute with condoms, particularly when oral contraceptive may have been the only contraceptive in use. Many will forego contraceptives altogether. So they can get pregnant and be told they have to carry the baby to term. Then they can decide to give up the baby for adoption or try to take care of a baby on their own. And by on their own, I mean without assistance from the government, because y'all don't want to provide any social welfare assistance either. Because people should be responsible for their own choices, dammit!
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 5:21:21 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/6/17 - 3:56:37 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Also no, btw, not using a condom when there’s another BC method in use is not necessarily “risky sexual behavior.”
On Friday 10/6/17 - 4:17:39 PM CowDung wrote:
Can any method of BC other than a condom or abstinence prevent the spread of STDs? If not, failure to use a condom increases the risk of spreading STDs and is indeed 'risky sexual behavior'- - particularly in adolescents who aren't monogamous.


Lol. You're such a tool.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 5:23:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
I personally can not wait to read CD's response to spoons above post.
1 month ago - Friday 10/6/17 - 5:29:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
By the way, in other women’s health news, the house has voted to ban all abortions after 20 weeks, (ostensibly) on the basis of debunked junk science that claims the fetus can feel pain at that point.

But there’s no war on women, guys! Trust me!

Prev 1 2 3 Next (showing 1-25 of 68)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit