Use of Contraception Is Not Your Boss’ Business


Read more of our coverage on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases here.

This month, a for-profit arts-and-crafts chain and a for-profit custom cabinet manufacturer will go before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue against a woman’s right to use her insurance plan to access contraception. If you think you’ve entered a time warp, you are correct. If you also think this sounds like bosses trying to control the private lives of their employees, you’re right again. The leaders of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation have invited themselves into their employees’ bedrooms and medicine cabinets under the guise of religious freedom, and these bosses are seriously out of line. Quite frankly, an employee’s use of contraception is none of their business.

The lawsuits by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood challenge the contraceptive coverage requirement under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which says that certain preventive health-care services like contraception must be covered without copay or cost sharing. The owners of both corporations claim that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates their businesses’ religious liberty. The only problem is—and this is the crux of what the Supreme Court will have to decide—corporations don’t have religious liberty. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are not private institutions whose primary purpose is to further their religion and values. Their purpose is to make money, period. I know I’m not the only one who doesn’t understand how businesses that sell do-it-yourself bracelet kits and cabinet doors can claim to be religious.

The ACA already ensures that religious rights are respected by exempting churches and houses of worship from the contraceptive requirement. The ACA also gives religiously affiliated nonprofits the option to use a third-party insurer to provide coverage, thus ensuring that their own insurance funds don’t directly support the purchase of birth control. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood do not qualify for an exemption—and they shouldn’t. They are not religious enterprises, despite their owners’ beliefs. Hobby Lobby Founder and CEO David Green and Conestoga Wood’s owners, the Hahn family, have personal religious liberty and are certainly entitled to use or not use contraception in their private lives, but it’s ridiculous to claim that their corporations have religious liberty. These people cannot force their personal religious beliefs on their employees. Talk about a scary precedent!

It’s important to remember that both corporations’ employees pay, through their premiums and their labor, for the health insurance they use to access contraception. This means that they are entitled to use their insurance as they and their doctors see fit. No one is forcing bosses to go to CVS and buy birth control for their employees. If we allow our bosses to start making decisions about what kind of health care we can access through our insurance, will our children still receive vaccines? Will we be able to get blood transfusions? What about tubal ligations? These are just a few of the “radical procedures” that various religions and beliefs have objected to over the years. If the Supreme Court decides in the corporations’ favor, your health-care decisions could suddenly be on your boss’ desk.

Not only do 99 percent of sexually active women use contraception at some point in their lives, for a variety of reasons, but contraceptive use is common among women of all religious denominations. An estimated 27 million women are currently benefiting from the ACA’s coverage of contraception and other preventive health services without copay or cost sharing. You might say that Green and the Hahns are a little out of touch with the needs and financial realities of American women. While the extra $15 to $50 a month for birth control may not seem like a big deal on a CEO’s salary, it can be a make-or-break issue for employees.

It’s incredible to me that these bosses have prioritized their corporations’ religious liberty, which doesn’t legally exist, over their employees’ health-care needs and over respecting their employees’ personal religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has an obligation to protect Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga Wood’s employees and all Americans from this infringement.

Besides, we’re not so sure that these bosses are actually as concerned about religious liberty as they are about controlling women’s sexuality, as the amicus briefs filed in support of Hobby Lobby show. It’s funny, though—the company doesn’t feel the need to curtail men’s sex lives by restricting access to Viagra. I wonder if that’s covered by their insurance plans?

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Lisa Maatz on twitter: @LisaMaatz

  • KingMeIam

    My contraception use isn’t my boss’ business. I also don’t expect her to pay for my condoms.

    • Shan

      2 + zebra ÷ glockenspiel = homeopathy works!

      • lady_black

        I love that! Where did you get it?

        • Shan

          Posted a thing with a link but it’s gone to moderation. I’m hoping it gets released soon so I’m waiting to find out how far up on the “RH trust list” I am at this point. (edit) Google the whole “equation” and click the “rationalwiki” link that shows up.

        • King Rat
          • Shan

            Nice! I’m so glad you have Grownup RH Poster status already!

          • King Rat

            I have had it for months. So don’t be a sad.

          • Shan

            Not sad! Happy for you and remaining hopeful that I get mine soon, too. :)

          • King Rat

            It might take months, or never happen. L-dan still doesn’t have hers. A few of us got it like 6 months ago, and then they reversed the policy. I tried to ask for L-dan on facebook, but they ignored my request (L-dan didn’t ask me to request it, but she was constantly stymied by links going into moderation).

            I would suggest that you contact RHRC on facebook, through private message, and ask if the mods can let you post links:P

          • L-dan

            I’ll just stick to adding spaces and being non-grownup. I frequently still go “well shit, I’m an adult?” so that fits fine.

    • lady_black

      Your boss isn’t paying for anything. You’re earning your healthcare insurance with your labor. You better believe your boss is deducting it as a payroll cost. Now, that being said, my health insurance won’t pay for condoms either. Nor will it pay for dressings, vitamins, contraceptive foam or sponges, Aleve or any other over the counter drug or device. But I’ll bet your health insurance covers vasectomy. And I’ll bet when Vasogel trials are complete, your insurance will pay for that too. And I’ll bet it covers your “low-T” medication, penis pumps and injections, etc. And unlike hormonal contraception for women, none of those things treat actual diseases that have nothing to do with sex or contraception. So you just go ahead and stuff your sophistry someplace.

      • L-dan

        *applause* Thanks for spelling it out. I really don’t get how anyone thinks condoms = hormonal birth control/IUD/diaphragm. The latter batch require some sort of interaction with medical personnel, just as a first obvious difference.

        • KingMeIam

          So you don’t want birth control as OTC? I guess you hate freedom.

          • L-dan

            While I can see an argument for hormonal BC over the counter, no. They do require some instruction regarding the medical risks, etc. It means the prescription is in your medical record if you show up with something that could link back to them, or to remind your doctor to point out that the antibiotic they’re prescribing may interfere with them. Etc.

            For diaphragms and IUDs, are you nuts? Hell no, I don’t want to install my own IUD.

          • King Rat

            If you can’t install your own IUD then you clearly do not deserve one!

          • Shan

            “If you can’t install your own IUD then you clearly do not deserve one!”

            I know, right? Everybody knows we lose our Real Woman Card if we’re too squeamish to embed fishing tackle into our own cervix. I almost lost mine for getting pain meds during childbirth. The only reason I got to keep it is because they didn’t work.

          • L-dan

            *wince* ouchie What a wonderful time to discover they don’t work for you.

          • Shan

            Wasn’t that bad, but don’t shoot me. With #1, the midwife tried to give me “gas and air” (the equivalent of laughing gas you get at the dentist) but the timing as all wrong and all it did was make me throw up. With #2, it was all happening so fast the pain made me BEG for drugs even though that wasn’t in my birth plan. So they gave me an injection into the IV line (that’s another story about why I had one in the first place) but all that did was numb my FACE and by the time I was able to get around to being able to form the words “WRONG DIRECTION” I’d already delivered. Seriously, it was maybe 20 minutes later.

          • L-dan

            *sad trombone*

            Well, not really. My pelvis and innards are cranky about even tampons or a diaphragm, and I don’t tolerate cramping pain well. So I’m not a very good candidate for an IUD anyway. Sour grapes!

          • King Rat

            I don’t like people touching my innards, and I can’t tolerate pain.

            You might like these two links btw:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/a-tumor-the-embryos-evil-twin.html?_r=0

            http://www.edge.org/conversation/genomic-imprinting

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110925185434.htm

            Three! Bait and switch!

          • L-dan

            Lol, nice. I haven’t dug too deeply into genetic imprinting and epigenetics, but both certainly help make some points toward it not being as simple as DNA = this organism. DNA sitting in a test tube is not a person or a chicken, or a liver, it needs to be expressed, and be expressed in particular ways to generate anything.

            The last makes a lot of intuited points a lot more clear regarding the invasiveness of a fetus.

          • King Rat

            I only understood the first half of the last one. I had trouble when they started talking about transposons.

          • Shan

            Interesting. I’ve just been having a conversation about heterogeneity in human genetics with a friend of mine. Something about mutating the androgen receptor. She’s a geneticist so she’s WAY ahead of me there, obviously. I told her she could practice her upcoming lecture on me…

          • L-dan

            BTW, I think I replied to this with a link…and therefore went into limbo. But I’ve had a few “I swear I posted that” things without links just vanish lately, so hopefully you got it in your inbox.

          • King Rat

            I never got the link in my email. Try pasting it without dots.

            BTW, an asshat is now telling me that:

            1) the fetus is not ‘using’ the woman’s body, because pregnancy is natural! and ‘using’ is just a rhetorical trick used by babykillers!

            2) I had to slam him with all of the latest research on sentience, because he’s all like ‘scientists dont agree’

            Speaking of #2…

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120106110214.htm

          • L-dan

            http://www . nature . com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-the-jumping-genes-518

            see if that works.

            I love transposons. They’re a great women in science highlight (Barbara McClintock, nobel prize), they underlie a ton of what we do in the way of modern genetic manipulation, and they’re one of the first brain-breakers you run into after plain Mendelian genetics.

          • King Rat

            It worked! And the best thing is, if you do it that way, I can just highlight the link, click ‘search google’ and it’s found!

          • L-dan

            Ah google, making me feel like I’m actually living in the future. That and the amount of computing power in my frickin’ phone.

            And 3-D printing. And nanobots…

            All in all, I’m ok that we didn’t get hovercars. I don’t want to really think of what LA would look like.

          • lady_black

            LOL. Not that you could, even if you wanted to. Doctors need another doctor to insert their IUD.

          • KingMeIam

            If birth control pills go OTC, then you’ll have to pay for them yourself instead of insurance paying for them.

            And we know you’re not going to like that.

          • Arekushieru

            Hmm, someone really doesn’t like the poor. Play a tiny violin for the privileged white guy?

          • Shan

            If they go OTC, and especially if places like Wal-Mart, Target and Dillons etc. expand their $4 list, they will become available to a lot more women who can’t afford health insurance coverage, never mind the several hundred dollars it can cost for the well-woman exam that BC pills are currently held hostage for. That idea, I like.

          • KingMeIam

            hey…dummy the Walmart $4 pill plan doesn’t require insurance.

            And any women who is too dumb to allocate enough money for a yearly wellvisit to her obgyn obviously doesn’t give a shiyat about her own life.

          • Shan

            Tsk. Why so angry? Hoist by your own petard because I think OTC contraceptives could be a GOOD thing?

          • L-dan

            Could be, hence why I think there’s an argument to be made. There’s a lot of good points on both sides of that one. I haven’t made up my mind yet and find the status quo plus insurance coverage mostly means I don’t find it compelling enough to spend a lot of thought on when there’s other things to worry about.

          • Shan

            I go back and forth on it as well, but the fact that ACOG put put a statement in favor of OTC contraception makes me tend to lean that way.

          • HeilMary1

            Maybe those women are working 60-100 hour work weeks for slave wages and have no time or money left over.

          • KingMeIam

            Yet they have time for sex and placing themselves at risk of pregnancy. Ha ha ha ha ha.

          • Shan

            Great idea. “No sex for the poors!” Awesome solution. So realistic and humane.

          • Turd Sandwich

            Is that like “no Ferrari’s for the poors?”
            What about “no 50″ TVs for the poors?”

            Or are you somehow able to refrain yourself from spending beyond your limits when it comes to those things?

          • L-dan

            I don’t know about you, but sex itself doesn’t cost me anything.

            More like, no vaccinations for poors, they should just stay away from the infected. You know, curtail normal life activities to work around the gap in the preventive care insurance provides.

            Or no preventive visits for them. If you can’t afford your own Pap smears sucks to be you when cervical cancer hits.

          • Shan

            Those things aren’t covered on health insurance, as they shouldn’t be because they’re not related to health care. Birth control NOT being covered on health insurance doesn’t cause an increase in the cost of it for either the group plan members or the employer. All it does is make birth control an added cost on TOP of the premiums the employee is already paying for what would have already been covered if the “boss” hadn’t decided to be such a sanctimonious asshat.

          • Turd Sandwich

            I’m trying to follow your logic. Are you arguing that adding extra coverage wouldn’t cost extra?

          • Shan

            No. I’m saying that the cost of the coverage the vast majority of people *already have* is not going to be be reduced by excising coverage for birth control. So the actual result would be that people who choose to use the BC methods their employers object to covering would have to pay for it twice: once via the healthcare coverage they’re already paying for – which isn’t reduced if they do NOT have to pay for it – and then again paying for it out of pocket because their employer is a sanctimonious asshat.

          • Shan

            “Are you arguing that adding extra coverage wouldn’t cost extra?”

            Just to clarify: No, I’m not arguing that. There ARE direct costs associated with adding coverage. But there are also cost savings associated with making contraception more widely available and thereby avoiding unintended pregnancies and closely-spaced births (which have adverse health outcomes). There have been multiple studies done over DECADES that show this.

          • HeilMary1

            Sex with one’s spouse only takes 5 minutes, but doctor and pharmacy visits across town for people with NO cars can take hours.

          • L-dan

            hmm..so do you have an actual point, or you’re just here to troll for ‘gotcha’ points by thinking you know what I do and don’t like?

          • King Rat

            I am a better king than you.

          • expect_resistance

            Yes you are.

          • KingMeIam

            Your penis is definitely bigger.

          • Shan

            A for effort.

            I mean, c’mon, people.

          • L-dan

            Pee on him…someone told me that’s how rats show dominance!

            (and it’s too amusing at the moment for me to look it up and potentially let facts get in the way!)

            yes, sometimes I *am* 12.

          • King Rat

            I came up with second best

          • King Rat

            BTW, with this nick, it’s funny how some people still assume im a chick – all because only a woman would be debating abortion, right?

            Anyways, I like the ambiguity of it. No one has called me a wh0re though, so, I guess that’s a hint.

          • Shan

            You could be a man-wh0re.

          • King Rat

            Yeah, when I have used a male nick in the past, people have accuse me of just wanting to use wimmens for the sex0r

          • Shan

            Well, obviously women who are pro-choice will let anybody get in their pants because ABORTION!

            Speaking of which, I need to make another appointment at the clinic. Last time I went in, they told me I wasn’t pregnant again yet so I didn’t get that last X on my punchcard.

          • King Rat

            :((

            When you get the last X on your punchcard, you also get link posting privs here:P

          • King Rat

            Hey! I know how you can do it! Spend a few tens of thousands of IVF therapy, get 10 embryos implanted, AND ABORT THEM ALL.

          • King Rat

            AT THE SAME TIME

          • Shan

            AWESOME! If only my insurance would pay for it!

          • L-dan

            Maybe they’d at least offer a quantity discount?

          • Shan

            No, no discount. I like paying over the odds for my reproductive health care. It’s one of the perks of womanhood, ya know.

          • L-dan

            I hear ya. Keeps me from spending it on really silly stuff like Lotto tickets.

          • Shan

            Oh, yeah. I’d buy loads more tickets if I didn’t have to keep buying food and clothes and such for those damn kids I forgot to abort. It sneaks up on you, right? You think, “I’ll go do the abortion thing tomorrow” and then BAM! You’re in labor and they won’t do it, for some reason.

          • L-dan

            LOL

          • expect_resistance

            I believe that OTC birth control can be covered under the ACA if your doctor writes you a prescription for it.

          • Shan

            Er…wouldn’t having a prescription make it NOT OTC?

          • expect_resistance

            Right. But it’s a way to get it covered as a “free” option but it’s kind of a lose-lose because you probably have to pay a co-pay to see a doctor for a prescription. My doctor explained it to me that I could get the Today Sponge covered under the ACA with a prescription from her even though I can buy it over the counter. I know it sounds kind of weird. I’m still trying to figure everything out. I’ve just really glad I don’t have to pay $90 for a diaphragm.

          • King Rat
          • fiona64

            I guess you are too stupid to know that one size does not fit all when it comes to oral contraception …

          • Melinda Hampton

            Birth control OTC is a great idea. It’s my body, why should a doctor be involved.

        • lady_black

          They ought to know better, but they don’t, or pretend not to. Had another whackadoo tell me birth control was “like deodorant soap, or a nice haircut.” I pointed out that no prescription is needed for deodorant soap, and some people go years without cutting their hair, with no ill health effects or financial ruin.

      • KingMeIam

        When hormonal pills are taken for reasons that don’t include contraception, they are almost always covered.

        It’s contraception that it’s being discussed. Try to keep up.

        • L-dan

          This has to be the most wtf nonsequiter ever. You are not even making sense as far as responding to Lady Black’s post.

          Are you trying to say that contraception isn’t healthcare? Without actually addressing why vasectomies, penis pumps, etc do qualify as healthcare?

          I’ve got news for you, insurance covers a fair bit of quality of life variety healthcare…like my hearing aids, and those penis pumps Medicaid paid way too much for. Why in the world should contraception be cut from the pack?

          • KingMeIam

            What the insurance company covers should be up for the insurance company to determine.

            My insurance company doesn’t cover dental. That doesn’t mean I stopped bushing my teeth and going to the dentist.

          • L-dan

            That’s because dental insurance is generally entirely separate from medical.

            There is now a set baseline for insurance. Things they are required to cover. This certainly gets rid of a lot of plans that were basically taking money without covering much of anything, and means that one can have some expectation of basics being covered rather than being surprised because their employer switched plans. My hearing aids probably aren’t in those requirements, actually, I just have a better than average employer-provided plan. Most preventive care is.

            Several states have mandated that contraception be covered by insurance for quite a while now without outcry. The only reason this is controversial is people demanding the right to dictate to their employees based upon their religious beliefs. If one has earned healthcare as part of their work package, it really isn’t the employer’s business what that is used for. They can shop plans, but they really shouldn’t have a say in what the minimum requirements for all plans is set at.

          • HeilMary1

            If women don’t use birth control, they can die or rack up $5,000,000 infected c-sections that cause their husbands to divorce them. They can have multi-million dollar disabled kids who will always live on public assistance. But you just keep on being penny wise and trillion dollar foolish on behalf of the Koch brothers and the pedophile priest-serving Vatican.

          • lady_black

            You need dental insurance to cover dental. Your health insurer won’t with one notable exception. Surgery to remove impacted wisdom teeth. Only because it’s considered maxillofacial surgery and not dentistry. The ACA has regulated what must be covered to sell health-insurance in this country. They have every right. One of the saddest situations faced in this country were people paying for what they thought was coverage, only to find they had none at all. For most people, nothing has changed about their health insurance. Except that it may be more affordable. have no yearly or lifetime caps, and not excluding pre-existing conditions.

          • cjvg

            Is that because you employer has a religious conviction against the coverage of dental procedures?

            Interesting, which religion has moral objections to dental health?

          • Shan

            Yeah, I’d love to see all the KingMelams of the world go “WTF?” if their employer decided it was against their sincerely held religious convictions to stop covering dental services (or whatever).

          • Shan

            “What the insurance company covers should be up for the insurance company to determine.”

            Wait, I thought you said it should be up to the employer. And also, what about the states that have flat out banned certain types of coverage? FREE MARKET VIOLATION!!!

          • expect_resistance

            Most health insurance doesn’t cover dental which is really stupid. I have to buy separate insurance for dental.

        • HeilMary1

          In case you hadn’t noticed, men never die or suffer gross injuries from deadly childbirth complications.

        • Ivy Mike

          Okay. So, explain the heebie-jeebies about contraception. Why does that seem to send people into conniptions? It’s not like there’s anything wrong with it.

          • L-dan

            I know, right? And why the heck should your employer have their nose that deeply into your healthcare?

            I’ve known people taking drugs where the doctors said ‘you need to agree to go on birth control before I will prescribe this’ because the effects on a fetus would be so nasty. But that’s *for* contraception, not for the other health conditions, and would be turned down under religious ‘contraception for anything but contraceptive purposes’ rules.

            People should not have to appeal something this basic to prove their case is ‘deserving’.

          • Ivy Mike

            Well, we certainly shouldn’t decide upon laws governing medical coverage by attempting to humor crazy superstitions.

          • lady_black

            Your boss has no business in your healthcare, period. That’s between you and your insurer, or third party administrator.

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            I think most people who frequent this site know why contraception gives some people the heeby-jeebies: contraception, properly used, allows men AND women to control their fertility, and means that men and women can have sexual intercourse for their own private purposes without the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. That upsets those who believe that sexual intercourse that doesn’t result in pregnancy is wrong/sinful/whatever. Those people are determined to impose their belief system on everyone.

          • lady_black

            Too bad for them. They are badly in need of attitude adjustments.

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            Indeed they are, and we have to keep fighting them.

        • lady_black

          The hormonal pills are contraceptives. It’s nobody else’s damn business why they’re being taken. Only yours and your doctor, and certainly not your boss’s. Insurance companies? They’ve been covering contraceptives for over a decade. Ever since the EEOC said they had to, to the same extent other prescriptions are covered. In the meantime, they realized covering contraceptives save them money.

        • Jennifer Starr

          It’s none of your employer’s business why they’re being used.

        • cjvg

          Because multiple unrelenting pregnancy and childbirth is still the biggest killer of women!

        • Shan

          “When hormonal pills are taken for reasons that don’t include contraception, they are almost always covered”

          I don’t usually do this, but you need to post a citation for this. Seriously. Because if you’re right, women and their doctors could just say “yep, bad periods/actne here, only the Pill will fix that” and completely undermine the who objection thing. But like I said elsewhere, nobody should have to lie to get healthcare. And If I didn’t mention this before, the licence needed because someone hasn’t neen bothered to do the science?

        • fiona64

          It’s none of your business, or a supervisor’s, what medications a woman is taking, or the reasons for the prescription. Try to keep up.

    • Ivy Mike

      You should have negotiated your healthcare package better. Still, I bet it covers vasectomies. You should avail yourself.

      • lady_black

        If only he would.

      • KingMeIam

        You’re right….my coverage covers vasectomies. And my coverage covers tubal ligations if I was a woman.

        It doesn’t cover condoms.

        If the women on this thread were having an honest debate, they’d be demanding condoms be converted under insurance as well.. But they aren’t. They are just demanding “free” stuff for themselves. So this seems like the real issue is that they just don’t want to pay for it.

        • fiona64

          You are not arguing in good faith … but you know that. Condoms are *not* the most effective form of contraception … but you know that, too.

          Oops.

          Sounds like someone just wants his condoms covered.

          • HeilMary1

            And rebates for his FREE Viagra.

        • Arekushieru

          Sorry, but this argument was dealt with upthread. If the poor widdle privileged white man wanted to have an honest debate he would read those earlier comments. Oops.

        • HeilMary1

          Liar, they ALREADY paid for contraception with their premium payments.

  • BillyBob1234

    I’ve never understood the fight over contraception coverage. As David Boyle, a California attorney who submitted a brief on his own behalf, put it: “Sex is only a human want (like bowling or stamp collecting), not an actual need.” Sex is a recreational activity like baseball or fencing. People say contraception should be covered by insurance because it’s preventive medicine because it prevents possible health problems related to pregnancy and birth and such. Well, safety equipment for sports prevents injuries, so, by that logic, it’s preventive medicine too! After all, a baseball helmet prevents head injuries caused by baseballs. Fencing masks prevent eye injuries caused by being poked in the eye. So why are you not fighting equally hard to make sure there’s a law mandating insurance companies cover sports safety equipment?

    • Ivy Mike

      Hoo-boy. So much failure. First, sex is not a “want”…it is perhaps the strongest biological urge most living things will experience, overshadowing survival in many cases. Does baseball compare? Stamp collecting?

      Second, the protective equipment that you described for sports is not medical in nature, is not ingested internally nor inserted inside a person, and does not require the intervention of medical professionals to use.

      Third, we are not discussing laws mandating the use of safety equipment in sports because we’re not discussing that topic at all…we are discussing contraception.

      Fourth, the attorney you cite is an idiot.

      Are we clear?

      • HeilMary1

        For Billy who just got banned:
        Try getting all men to give up sex, and since they won’t and already make all women pay for their STDs, etc., how about keeping maternal death-preventing contraception affordable for women who’ve already paid for YOUR Viagra and STD treatments!

        • BillyBob1234

          “For Billy who just got banned:”
          I’ve been banned? Huh?

          “Try getting all men to give up sex,”
          Why would I try that? I don’t try to make anyone give up bowling, stamp collecting, baseball, or fencing.

          “and since they won’t and already make all women pay for their STDs, etc.,”
          Men make women pay for their STDs? Huh? Are you saying men force women to pay to treat men’s STDs? Are you saying men force women to pay to treat women’s STDs? Are you saying men make women pay the price for getting STDs in the first place? If so, how?

          “how about keeping maternal death-preventing contraception affordable for women who’ve already paid for YOUR Viagra and STD treatments!”

          There are no women who’ve paid for my viagra and STD treatments because a) I’ve never used viagra and b) I’ve never been treated for an STD.

          • Arekushieru

            “Why would I try that? I don’t try to make anyone give up bowling, stamp collecting, baseball, or fencing.”

            Then you just proved our point. Oopsies.

            Whether or not you have used STD treatments or Viagra is irrelevant. They’re still covered. Just like the way antis like to claim contraception is covered whether or not a woman actually uses it, which is kinda, y’know, the whole POINT of this thread??? Ignorant anti is ignorant.

          • KingMeIam

            Viagra is covered by roughly 85% of insurance plans….the same preventer that covers birth control pills. FYI

          • Arekushieru

            So? That doesn’t prove me wrong, sorry to say.

          • KingMeIam

            It proves that your faux outrage is rather selective.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, what? What outrage? You just proved me RIGHT. Why would I be outraged? Unless of course you have difficulty comprehending simple concepts? I was saying that antis oppose contraception because (they think) it is still covered by the government, whether or NOT it was actually used. However, for the use of Viagra, whether or not it is actually used, not so much. After all, how can that NOT be true given that there are OVER 85 % OF PLANS that cover Viagra? Hmmm? So. you. just. proved. me. right. Oops.

          • BillyBob1234

            “Then you just proved our point. Oopsies”
            So your argument is “BillyBob1234 said he wouldn’t try to make anyone give up bowling, stamp collecting, baseball, or fencing. Therefore, it’s justified to pass a law requiring insurance companies to cover contraception without co-pay.” Well, that’s clearly a non-sequitur.

            “Whether or not you have used STD treatments or Viagra is irrelevant. They’re still covered. Just like the way antis like to claim contraception is covered whether or not a woman actually uses it, which is kinda, y’know, the whole POINT of this thread??? Ignorant anti is ignorant.”

            Look, my point is very simple, and you don’t seem to get it. My is that you people are being inconsistent because you think there should be a law requiring insurance companies to cover contraception without a co-pay, yet you don’t think the same way about other preventive things like sports safety equipment.

          • lady_black

            Other preventive things ARE covered. Not sports equipment. Preventive *medical* care. Vaccines. Colonoscopy. Mammography. Contraception. One of these is not like the other ones. That would be sports equipment. The insurance company saves money providing contraception. The reason why it’s a savings is obvious, if you’ve priced the cost of a pregnancy lately. And that’s a cost they can incur repeatedly if the use of contraception isn’t encouraged.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, contraception is considered medical because it prevents health problems. Well by that logic, sports safety equipment is medical too for the exact same reason. As for contraception saving money, why have a law mandating it coverage then? Insurance companies will do it on their own out of rational self-interest. It’s completely unnecessary.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What’s the problem with mandating it? Will the Pope get the sads?

          • BillyBob1234

            There’s no major problem with mandating it. I just find it puzzling that you would put in the effort to do so. There’s no major problem with passing a law mandating that people breathe oxygen. It’s just unnecessary. Sports safety equipment is preventive, and it’s medical by your logic because it prevents medical problems, so why not mandate that that be covered without a co-pay? I just find your behavior so baffling.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Over 98% of women use or have used it, And it’s medicine, which is what insurance is for. And no one is mandating its use–if you don’t want to use contraception you don’t have to. It really shouldn’t even be controversial in this day and age. Are you against insurance covering any medicines?

          • BillyBob1234

            No, I’m not against insurance covering any medicines. It’s just that people say contraception is medical because it’s preventive, so why not pass a law covering EVERYTHING that’s preventive?

          • Dez

            You do know that birth control has multiple medical uses for women? It seems that you either are ignorant of that or are purposely ignoring that fact.

          • BillyBob1234

            OK, I’ll concede that’s a good point.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, I just recently got the pill for endometriosis, so I don’t spend four days each month not able to go to work, doubled up in pain and bleeding heavily.

          • Shan

            Interesting. A colleague of mine just started taking it for that as well. I don’t know why they waited so long to prescribe it, though. She’s been suffering for YEARS.

            And? It’s apparently not covered under her husband’s insurance plan so she has to pay $85 a month for it. I told her that’s BS and she should check into why.

          • Dez

            Sorry to hear that. Same thing happens to me too but for one or two days. Usually I have to call in to work because of the pain and puking.

          • Shan

            Good god, that’s so unfair. I don’t even get cramps since I had kids, and only a handful of times before then, a couple of which were really awful – worse than labor pains and lasted longer than it took to actually give birth. I can’t imagine DAYS of it. And puking, too? Cripes.

          • L-dan

            Tried that, despite it being usually about a day (though clicking over into perimenopause means instead of a miserable day, it’s a couple hours, then fine, then a few more hours, then fine…spread over three days…grrrr). Sadly, whatever’s kicking my guts, it appears not to be endometriosis, or at least not amenable to that treatment.

            And at this point, I don’t really feel like surgery for something I probably only have to put up with for another decade tops. Which says something about how much I don’t much like the idea of surgery. :p

          • Dez

            Thank you.

          • L-dan

            Another point is that we cover preventive care like nicotine patches. Some insurance covers mindfullness meditation (and I think I can use my HSA on it, regardless), diet and exercise counseling, pre-diabetic interventions, etc. to avoid the health effects down the line. (not sure which of these are covered by basic insurance now…pre-diabetes and nicotine patches are more likely since they require prescriptions/medical devices) We do this because it’s less expensive both monetarily an in general costs to society if we can manage some of the health issues that affect huge swaths of the population this way.

            Birth control deals with the health of fully half of the population. It makes sense on every level to just have it available. It doesn’t even increase the cost of an employer’s insurance plan, or plans overall.

            We cover some preventative things and not others primarily based on whether it requires interaction with medical people. We don’t cover condoms and safety gear like kneepads primarily because they don’t require that interaction. You walk in and pick them up off the shelf. You need a doctor’s visit for the covered forms of birth control. Spermicidal gels and the sponge aren’t covered either, for example.

            My vision insurance covers my prescription lenses that I have to go to an eye doctor for. It won’t cover the reading lenses I drop over those when I’m doing stupid fine embroidery that needs a little extra boost.

          • lady_black

            Nicotine patches, gum, lozenges and the like aren’t prescription anymore. Chantix and Welbutrin are. The nicotine stuff is just age restricted like tobacco.

          • L-dan

            *gets out old lady cane* I’m obviously a bit behind the times. :p

            Thus, probably not covered by insurance now. Hopefully it’s at least cost effective to switch to those vs. packs of cigarettes.

          • BillyBob1234

            Interesting point. Do you think insurance should cover things like reading lenses? Why or why not? Should it cover corrective laser eye surgery? Why or why not?

          • lady_black

            Eye surgery, maybe. Vision insurance is a separate thing.

          • L-dan

            No on reading lenses. They’re easily accessible, don’t require medical assistance, and are inexpensive enough that people buy them in packs since they’re so damn easy to lose. They’re hunks of low magnification plastic set in frames.

            Laser eye surgery, usually no. You can correct with glasses or contacts just fine. At that point it’s cosmetic surgery. So I can see the point of insurance, which does the “this less expensive treatment is sufficient, so you have to pay yourself if you want the more expensive one,” thing all the time.

            For those who are beyond getting decent vision from glasses, yes, it should be covered.

          • BillyBob1234

            “Laser eye surgery, usually no. You can correct with glasses or contacts just fine.”
            Isn’t that like saying contraception shouldn’t be covered because, instead of having sex, you can just masturbate?

          • L-dan

            *blink* in what universe?

            Vision is about vision. Lenses correct the physics there pretty much entirely. In milder cases, laser surgery is a more invasive way of getting that result. For example, I have weak spots on my retinas that mean I’d be at greater risk, even beyond the regular surgical risks, opting for surgery.

            Sex, is not just a matter of physics. Masturbation is great for getting orgasms. Sex is not just about orgasms, or women would have bailed on it a long while back given the statistics on how many of them get one via intercourse.

            Just to hit the tip of the iceberg.

          • BillyBob1234

            “Sex is not just about orgasms, or women would have bailed on it a long while back given the statistics on how many of them get one via intercourse.

            Just to hit the tip of the iceberg.”

            Just the tip of the iceberg? Do go on.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The statement that sex is not just about orgasms is kind of self-explanatory and rather obvious.

          • L-dan

            How about no?

            Do you have a way in which masturbation vs. sex remotely resembles laser surgery vs lenses?

            Sorry, while I’m happy to debate in good faith, I’m not really buying the autistic 31 yr. old computer programmer when your points, language and debate style match at least one previously banned troll to a T. If you have a point that you think digging deeper into the iceberg addresses, fine, otherwise, nope.

            You concede points, then bring them right up again (hint, autistic doesn’t mean amnesiac). You come back to abstinence again and again, despite conceding that contraception has wider usage in health care and despite not answering why we should focus on contraception but not on the many other bits of health care that involve things that are even more ‘personal choice’ based.

            I’ll respond where it’s warranted, but at this point, I’m considering you a troll here.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, I don’t know what to say. My point is that people people act as though abstinence is such a burden as though sex is a necessity. I can see arguments the arguments for covering contraception, though.

          • King Rat

            It is. Because it’s one of the strongest drives out there. Very few people can remain abstinent. Don’t put yourself on a pedestal just because you can spend your entire life masturbating. A lot of people don’t have your options, and need sex for that whole social bonding element that is so fucking important.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Just because sex is not a necessity for you does not mean that sex is not a necessity. Everyone is not like you. That’s what you don’t seem to be able or willing to understand.

          • L-dan

            Addiction is powerful because it jacks into some powerful parts of our brains.

            So does sex (not quite the same parts…but as a broad analogy, it will do.).

            It’s like me telling my friend not to do that hand-flappy thing (I suspect Asperger’s but there’s no diagnosis there afaik). Why is it such a burden to not do that?

            Well, they can’t, without a lot of effort; effort that is often better spent elsewhere in their lives. That’s his decision to make, not mine.

          • fiona64

            Just the tip of the iceberg? Do go on.

            Why, so you have something else for your spank bank? What a creepy-assed question. I do not believe for one minute that you are an Aspie, BTW.

          • Jennifer Starr

            My insurance covers my prescription eyewear.

          • lady_black

            Uh, duh.

          • KingMeIam

            Hobby lobby, the Catholic Church et al aren’t banning the pill for non-contraception uses like endometriosis or PCOS.

            This came out in the whole Sandra Fluke lie that she told members of Congress. I guess you’re ignoring that fact.

          • Shan

            Hobby Lobby doesn’t object to the pill at all. Try to keep up.

          • Dez

            I’m sorry, are you my Obgyn? How do you know my personal medical issues to know why I use birth control?

          • Shan

            Oh, yeah. HIPPA, anyone?

          • Dez

            Yup. Since women have patient rights, the reason a woman takes a medication should be between her and her doctor. It would be a total violation for a boss to ask any employee what medication their taking and why. Might as well let your boss go through your medicine cabinet and ask deeply personal questions about why you take each one. No thanks.

          • Turd Sandwich

            You’re right. It’s a violation for a boss to ask.

            However, it isn’t a violation for your insurance company to ask. Which is why we should separate health care insurance from employment. Imagine the hassle is auto insurance was tied to your job.

          • Shan

            So, are you making an argument here for single payer or (gasp) national health insurance?

          • Turd Sandwich

            That would be a lot better than this ACA bullshit.

          • Shan

            So stop whining about contraception. You’re TOTALLY in the wrong forum FFS.

          • Turd Sandwich

            I’m pretty sure this article is about contraception. And I’m sorry I brought up the fact that ACA is terrible legislation and one of the terrible things is mandating no-copay on only certain prescriptions which was done for purely political reasons.

          • Shan

            “And I’m sorry I brought up the fact that ACA is terrible legislation and
            one of the terrible things is mandating no-copay on only certain
            prescriptions which was done for purely political reasons.”

            If we had universal healthcare all this bullshit would be moot and NOTHING would have a copay. Kind of like, oh, Canada and the UK.

          • KingMeIam

            Your free to move to those places if you think the healthcare is great. Have fun.

          • Shan

            “However, it isn’t a violation for your insurance company to ask.”

            Hrm…not sure about t hat. Got anything you can link us to?

          • Turd Sandwich

            HIPPA doesn’t mean your insurance company can’t get info. Duh.

          • Shan

            HIPPA means your doctor doesn’t have to give unnecessary info to the insurance company. Prescription for X drug, they don’t have to tell anybody what it’s for.

          • fiona64

            Hi, 5×5′s second of two new incarnations! Duh!

          • Jennifer Starr

            He’s not a physician. He’s not even a college graduate.

          • fiona64

            What lie would that be? Citation needed.

            And HIPAA means that it’s none of an employer’s business what purpose a given employee has for using a legal prescription from a physician.

            What is it with you frigging creepers who want to get into everyone’s bedroom business?

          • KingMeIam

            Sandra Fluke lied about the cost of birth control. It does not cost $1000 per year. If she thinks so, she is either stupid or just a liar. But she’s a lawyer now, so I’m going with liar.

            Also, she mentioned her “friend” who couldn’t get coverage from Georgetown because the “friend” was told that her condition did not warrant medical birth control pills (read: not actually needed for birth control, but needed for another condition). The “friend” couldn’t provide proof of an ailment. Where was this friend? Who is she?

            She didn’t exist.

          • Shan

            “Sandra Fluke lied about the cost of birth control. It does not cost $1000 per year.”

            Mine would have cost more than that without insurance.

          • Mandy

            It sounds like you think there is only one form of Birth control that every single women every where takes… I’ve been on the Patch form of BC for a little over 2 years for purely medical reasons. Without insurance it costs around $80 every month. $80 x 12 = $960. Not exactly $1000 every year but pretty dang close.

            Like many people on BC I take mine continuously to avoid periods all together so add in that cost of extra patches and that would get you over $1000 every year easy. Luckily I do in fact have insurance with my family still and so I only have to pay a co-pay of $60 every 3 months.

          • Shan

            Mandy, don’t forget the cost of the physician visit it takes to get the prescription in the first place. That would be another several hundred dollars without insurance, right?

          • Mandy

            I’ve actually been lucky enough to always have had insurance under my parents plan so I’m not sure about the costs for an uninsured person. Some quick Google-ing about pap smear costs seem to estimate costs can range anywhere from $30-500!

            I also found one story from 2013 about a doctor, Dr. Cheryl Bettigole, a family physician in Millville, N.J., who was initially caught off guard when some of her patients called to complain that their bills for their Pap smears were hundreds of dollars more than she, or they, had expected. The article is named How a Routine Pap Smear ended up costs $1,000. Seems like the labs add in all these extra tests (checking for STDs, yeast infections ect) that quickly add up and patients often don’t find out until they are billed at a later date. So yeah, the costs of getting to a office with an OBGYN, getting examined, AND getting a pap smear definitely can add up for a low income woman.

          • Shan

            Just so. Billing sucks and people just tend to buckle under every invoice as if they’re all valid.

            I’ve had a lot of medical bills coming in lately and I know what you mean about all the random invoices from “WTF who are you?” people. Simple example: Last mammogram I had, there were two charges. One from the picture-taker who did the boob-smash and one from the picture-reader who interpreted the images. ACA language says only one service per year so I had to fight it and say “Hey, look, when I had my PAP smear there was one person taking the sample and someone else analyzing the results, it’s the same thing. It’s one service.” They fixed it.

          • Shan

            “It’s just that people say contraception is medical because it’s preventive”

            No, they’re not. Good god, man.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Do you need a prescription from your doctor to get a cup or shin guards? Do you buy them from a pharmacy? They’re not medical. Hormonal birth control is.

          • King Rat

            Faye Valentine just showed up at Rawstory, and she is trying to tell me that feeding your kid/diapers is HARDER than gestation, and that in fact, they are the SAME EXACT THING. Then she accused me of being ignorant about biology.

            So funny, considering what I just wrote at the top of this page.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Faye Valentine–aka Xalisae and Linda Flowers–she’s a frequent visitor at Jill Stanek’s site and I think at Secular Pro-Life as well. Not a pleasant person.

          • King Rat

            yeah, you told me about her a few months ago

            thinks she’s hot shit because she has studied some biology

            also thinks that feminism = forced gestation

          • lady_black

            Everyone has studied some biology. Middle school doesn’t count, and that’s where I place most anti-choicers.

          • L-dan

            heh yes. Knowing what a frog’s guts look like doesn’t really qualify one for much in the way of in-depth discussion. Nor does taking that one bio class in college that’s specifically for the non-science majors to get their science requirment.

          • lady_black

            Even college biology is not the same study as maternal-child health courses. Biology gives you the what, where, when, how and why. It can definitely help you understand the reasons we do what we do in rendering health care, but it doesn’t really tell you much about what goes wrong and what to do about it.

          • L-dan

            Because feminism is really about telling women what they have to do. I get really sick of that brand.

          • Arekushieru

            Ugh, she also appeared quite frequently on Twitter, too. I am quite appalled that she uses the name Faye Valentine. Faye Valentine is a LOT wiser than that woman will ever be.

          • lady_black

            Does this idiot have any kids??? Was she there when they were born?

          • King Rat

            She had a crisis pregnancy…but she had the kid anyways…she painfully pushed all 9lbs of him out of her vajayjay, and it hurt like hell, but she did it, because she’s a strong, beautiful feminist… HEAR HER ROAR. She suffered because making babies is what women were built for! Praise evolution!

            (I am not making this shit up)

          • lady_black

            Oh damn. I was so hoping I could make an excuse for her, but I can’t. She does know better.

          • King Rat

            My suspicion is that she is one of those people who:

            1) gets a high out of slut-shaming

            2) it’s possible she didn’t make the right decision by having the kid, knows this, and feels threatened by people who did choose abortion

            3) genuinely does love her kid, and feels that she made the right choices, and because of this, feels that everyone else should think just like her

          • L-dan

            I don’t know. I’ve known folks with easy pregnancies who did have that sort of opinion. While pregnant, all the care was basically a matter of taking care of themselves…not running around dealing with an external little time and energy drain. So I can see feeling that way.

            I can’t see extrapolating it to say it’s that way for *everyone* and therefore their reasons for wanting an abortion are moot and they shouldn’t get to have them. That’s a complete logic fail.

          • lady_black

            My sister had very easy pregnancies. She would never say something like that. Anyone can take care of an infant. The only problem is they turn into teenagers. But raising a child will never kill you, or even make you incontinent.

          • King Rat

            myintx compared pregnancy to a kid eating Doritos on the sofa

            EXACT SAME THING

          • L-dan

            Dammit…this pregnancy stained my Regency Fainting Couch! Die demon spawn die!

            just like that

          • Jennifer Starr

            Such bull. Feeding kids and diapers may not be easy, but it’s a hell of a lot easier than carrying a pregnancy and giving birth.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, OK, I can see the justification for covering contraception now. The one thing I still don’t understand, and I hope you don’t mind me asking, is why lack of coverage is considered such a burden for low-income women. Couldn’t they just abstain until they’ve saved up enough money for contraception? From the way people talk, you’d think sex was a necessity.

          • lady_black

            Yeah, I’m sure poor men would be all up in that, you idiot.

          • BillyBob1234

            The men could abstain too.

          • lady_black

            Why should they? You are what, 12? People don’t get married and abstain. Admit it. You’re a cherry, and have no idea what you’re talking about, right?

          • BillyBob1234

            Just because married people who can’t afford contraception don’t abstain doesn’t mean they couldn’t.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Unless the married couple is asexual, sex is an important part of a marriage.

          • Shan

            If they could, the RCC would have gone out of business a LONG time ago.

          • BillyBob1234

            Funny you should mention the RCC. The clergy somehow manage to be celibate.

          • Jennifer Starr

            On paper. Reality is quite a different matter.

          • L-dan

            I would bet actual money that the majority of them do not manage lifelong celibacy.

            Between the abuse scandals, the tales out of the Vatican, reports of African priests raping nuns, similar tales when reading about the Magdalene Laundries…there are a *lot* of priests that have not remained celibate.

          • King Rat

            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100227354/gay-scandal-at-the-heart-of-the-vatican-pope-francis-faces-his-first-crisis/

            In the PBS documentary, there were actual videos of priests at gay clubs. And videos of priests the next morning…after a gay sex orgy with the men he picked up at the gay sex club.

          • lady_black

            I could stand on my head until my face turns purple, too. Or jab myself repeatedly with a sterile needle. Or explain normies to AS sufferers. It’s like trying to teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates me and annoys the pig. I don’t want to do any of that. I shouldn’t HAVE to do any of that.

          • Shan

            Oh, FFS.

          • L-dan

            Right. Sex, one more thing poor people aren’t supposed to have because only the better off ‘deserve’ it.

            Providing healthcare to everyone is, in general, a greater boon, and its lack is a greater burden, on the low-income. Why single out contraception?

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, when low-income people want a new video game, people expect them to save up for it because video games aren’t a necessity. Why should sex be any different?

          • Jennifer Starr

            You do realize that people who are married use contraception as well, right?

          • BillyBob1234

            Yes, I am aware of that fact.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you expect them to abstain as well?

          • BillyBob1234

            Why not?

          • King Rat

            Sex is something that’s gonna happen anyway, so deal with that, in the real world. Abstinence doesn’t work, and simply telling the poor to abstain from sex will definitely not work.

            Furthermore, a healthy sex life actually improves psychological health, which can have an affect on your physical health. And, sex in humans is not simply for procreation – it also exists for pair bonding (because children are very needy and take a long time to raise). A healthy couple should have a healthy sex life – for themselves, and for their kids.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, OK, I concede that’s a good point.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And that low-income women also have medical conditions that hormonal birth control can treat?

          • L-dan

            apples and oranges

            We’re arguing that health insurance is good and contraception should be covered under health insurance.

            All of the things health insurance provides are a greater burden for the poor to provide themselves without health insurance.

            Thus, why single out contraception as ‘why is it in health insurance’ by arguing about poor people at all?

            Your argument literally makes no sense.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, I can see the logic in covering contraception. My point in that particular post, however, is that, for the most part, people take contraception because they want to do a recreational activity called sex. Since sex isn’t necessary, most who take contraception could avoid the need for it by not having sex until such time that they can afford it. So why is it such a burden? I don’t see how that line of reasoning applies to any other medical thing.

          • lady_black

            YOU abstain from sex, if that floats your boat. Sex is a need, not a want.

          • BillyBob1234

            If sex is a need, not a want, then how come people like the pope live to a ripe, old age? As for abstaining from sex, I’ve never had sex in all my life.

          • fiona64

            I can easily believe that …

          • Jennifer Starr

            Saving yourself? Asexual?

          • BillyBob1234

            No luck finding someone to do it with.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well it’s never too late to find that.

          • lady_black

            You take your extremely limited experience and assume that’s universal. It’s not. It isn’t even normal. I believe you’ve never had sex, but I bet you masturbate. That’s your sex drive. A tiny minority of people are born asexual. But those people don’t drive the behavior of the human species.

          • BillyBob1234

            Yes, I masturbate. That’s one strike against the argument that sex is a need. Just masturbate instead.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Some people prefer a sexual relationship with another actual human being. Not just with their right hand, a bottle of lotion and a magazine. That may be enough for you, but not for most people.

          • lady_black

            OK. Stop masturbating. Just stop doing it for six months.

          • Shan

            ” I don’t see how that line of reasoning applies to any other medical thing.”

            You could apply it to vaccinations, I suppose, and say “If you don’t take your children outside, they won’t catch any diseases, so if you can’t afford health insurance, just keep your kids indoors until you can save up enough money.”

          • BillyBob1234

            But people NEED to go outside in order to do things like going to school or work.

          • Shan

            Yes, humans need to interact with other people socially. Sometimes that interaction involves sex. It’s part of the human condition.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, sports involve human interaction. Do people need to play sports? Is it part of the human condition?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sex is a very important part of committed romantic relationships and of marriage.

          • lady_black

            No, and NO.

          • Shan

            We won’t die off as a species without it, not like we would if everybody stopped ALL interaction, including sex.

          • lady_black

            Not really. They have online schools, and children don’t work.

          • BillyBob1234

            But that would harm the kids’ development!

          • Shan

            Similarly, involuntary abstinence can be harmful for couples.

          • lady_black

            Yep. And it would harm my relationship with my husband not to have sex.

          • L-dan

            Then you’re also arguing about it covering erectile dysfunction treatments too?

            Regardless, we’re back to a public health issue. Sex is more than recreation. There are reasons it’s pretty strongly embedded in the species.

            Shall we stop covering treatment for lung cancer when caused by smoking…which is recreational? Shall we stop covering people’s diabetes treatments and tell them to suck it up and stop eating the ‘wrong’ things? Antidepressants, well being not-depressed isn’t a need, is it? Plenty of people slump along just fine for decades that way.

            It’s a thin, thin argument for why heath insurance shouldn’t cover contraception.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, OK, point made.

          • KingMeIam

            So pay for condoms with health insurance?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Are there condoms that require a prescription?

          • fiona64

            Maybe he needs to have custom-made ones because those in the drug store are too large …

          • Jennifer Starr

            But do they make them in microscopic sizes?

          • lady_black

            Video game? Seriously?

          • King Rat

            Low income people are also more likely to be in abusive relationships with fewer avenues of escape. Many women can’t trust their abusive partners to use a condom. Abusive men also set out to keep their partner pregnant, because once she has kids with him, she is tied to him.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, OK but what about low-income women who aren’t in abusive relationships? Why would a woman have sex with an abusive man anyway?

          • King Rat

            Never having been in an abusive relationship I can’t tel you why, but life is complicated, very complicated.

            Did you know that rapists have parental rights in 31 states?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t mean to be rude, but how old are you? You’re coming across as awfully naive.

          • BillyBob1234

            I’m 31.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And are you married? Have you been in any actual relationships?

          • fiona64

            The inky relationship he’s in involves his right hand.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, I once had a girlfriend in first and second grade but nothing that could be considered a relationship ever since.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Is there a reason? Again, not trying to be nosy, but your situation is not most people.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, human relations are a mystery to me. I just don’t see how you can meet and get to know anyone once high school is done. All the friends I have now I met in junior high or high school.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You go to places, you travel, you talk, you meet people–you work, you meet people on the job. It’s not that difficult. Didn’t you date people in high school or in college? Granted,it’s been about 23 years since I graduated High School and I wasn’t in the uber-popular crowd but I had about three boyfriends during that span. And two boyfriends in college.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, when I go places, I never really get to know anyone all that well. I mean how well do you get to know someone in a foreign country when you’re a tourist? As for work, I just see my co-workers at work and then go back home. Never get to know anyone them really. And, no, I never dated in high school or college. Never really got to know anyone in college. Just have a few classes at most with someone and then go back home.

          • L-dan

            Oddly, I get to know people in foreign place on the internet through gaming…then go visit them. So much less intimidating than talking to strangers. Though I did that too in Irish hostels…mostly “so where are *you* from and what have you seen here already?” since we were all travelers.

            Nowadays, I find nurseries and tea shops wherever I go so I can talk ‘shop’ with foreigners with similar interests.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I understand your situation. Personally I’ve always been a pretty sociable person, and I have the gift of gab ( a kind way of saying that I’m a chatterbox and I can talk people’s ears off:) ) In college I used to go to the common dining area between classes and I met some friends there, and we would go out on the weekends, and when I was in London I used to go to a pub nightly with another student or group of students and people just seemed to come over talk to us–and I met people when I went to see a play by myself and went out for a meal afterwards and we exchanged phone numbers, addresses, etc. And with the world getting smaller through social networks it’s easier than ever to keep in touch, though I don’t think I’d like a long distance romance, because there are certain things that can’t be done long distance.

          • L-dan

            I’m the opposite, quite introverted. I’ve tended to start nearly all of my significant relationships long distance, even pre-internet. ^^

            Granted, my longest and most significant started in a pub, dancing. But even that was still long distance for a long while.

          • Shan

            (Unobtrusive “yay!” for introverts)

          • L-dan

            And yet, you think that with that dearth of experience, you have any right declaring how most people should comport themselves?

          • BillyBob1234

            I’m not telling anyone how to live. I just found it baffling at first why there was such a rage over covering contraception without a co-pay. Then I just didn’t see why people who have trouble affording contraception couldn’t just abstain until such time that they could.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And do you understand a little better now?

          • lady_black

            No, he really doesn’t understand. He has severe AS, and is as socially impaired as they come.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, I understand the coverage part better, and I can accept that low-income will have sex anyway and that sex affects health, but I still don’t understand why abstinence is treated as though it’s not a viable option. If a couple that can’t afford contraception has sex anyway, isn’t that due to a lack of self-control?

          • L-dan

            It’s kind of the same reason we have needle-exchange programs. Yes, shooting up drugs is generally bad for those involved. However, not having clean needles is 1. bad for them, 2. bad for those they have contact with who might not be doing drugs, and 3. therefore bad for public health in general as sharing needles spreads diseases. We can’t entirely get people to stop shooting up, but it’s a benefit to society in general to limit the spread of those diseases, thus needle exchange. It’s also compassionate to limit the spread among that population even if they’re doing something deemed immoral, or considered to stem from lack of self-control. Basically…it costs society less to deal with reality as it is than to demand adherence with some social morality instead.

            And sex isn’t even in the same category where most of us would say ‘having sex is bad.’ Most people think sex is an overall good thing, even if many really want to limit it to being between certain couples.

            Contraception allows for spacing children, which research finds to be overwhelmingly good for those using it, their children, and their families. It allows for the pair-bonding within a couple that society thinks is a good thing. It reduces stress immensely for people who can get pregnant. It’s a broad social good, with little downside and more bang for the buck than most.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, OK, I can understand from a public health perspective why covering contraceptives should be done, but, on a personal level, if you wanted to have sex but couldn’t afford, why would abstaining until such time that you could be such a huge personal burden?

          • L-dan

            Um, you’re asking on a personal level when I’m talking on a systemic policy level.

            That question is different for me vs. someone without a job, vs someone with an abusive relationship, vs someone selling sex or working a job with a high risk of assault, vs someone married in a relationship that views sex as an obligation. Policy *can not* answer that question for all of those people. It can deal with the reality that not everyone gets to have abstinence as a realistic answer to the question.

            Additionally, requiring abstinence, forever, until one maybe gets to the point of affording contraception is pretty damn cruel in a society that shows less and less social mobility. It says ‘this very human expression of intimacy is off limits to you until you have money.” That is heartbreaking, frankly. There are people for whom you’re saying “don’t have sex, ever.” Yeah, that’s an unreasonable burden, and an unreasonable expectation.

            And again, from a public health standpoint, how the heck do you even regulate that? Saying “abstain till you can afford it” does almost nothing. People will have sex without contraception…some will do that even if it’s available. Then we, as a society, end up dealing with the fact that some children will result from that at some point. And that becomes a societal issue since, if someone can’t afford contraception, they’ll have trouble with a passal of kids too.

          • Shan

            Nicely said. Especially that part in the middle.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There’s no problem with abstinence if someone chooses to do so. No one is forcing anyone to have sex or use contraception.

          • BillyBob1234

            True, but why is involuntary abstinence such a horrible thing?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sex is an important part of an adult romantic relationship, whether married or not married. I know this hasn’t been your experience, personally, and that’s fine for you, but it is important for the vast majority of people.

          • BillyBob1234

            Just how important is it then?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Couples have broken up and gotten divorced because of sexual incompatibility, and it can place stress on a relationship and affect other parts of that relationship as well. So yes, it’s actually very important.

          • BillyBob1234

            Are you saying a couple might break up if it can’t its hands on contraceptives? Are you saying involuntary abstinence might result in a couple breaking up?

          • Shan

            It’s true, if the “involuntary abstinence” part is due to one partner not wanting to have sex with the other.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t know how to explain this to you, because unless you’ve actually been in a relationship or a marriage I don’t think you can really understand. You seem to think that since you don’t need sex that everyone must be the same way, but your personal experience is not typical. For most people, sex is a basic need.

          • goatini

            Don’t bother going any further with this one, this “involuntary abstinence” nonsense is one of the latest misogynistic scams from the MRAs. They call it “incel”, for “involuntary celibacy”. They believe that the world owes “incels” sex, and that women who turn down “incel” men for dates or sex are unfairly oppressing them.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I think BillyBob’s basic argument/whine was ‘I’m not getting any, so I don’t see why others should.” Pretty lame.

          • L-dan

            Honestly, most of the rage is over people a. not wanting to have to provide contraceptive coverage at all.

            b. secondary rage that people want contraception dropped from the ‘preventative care provided without a co-pay’ section.

          • Shan

            b. Is pretty ridiculous, too. It’s already heavily subsidized to get to the $10-15 copay, at least the kind I took was. Without coverage, it would have been $65/mo. With insurance, it was a $15 copay.

            As for a)….my particular rage-on about that is because dropping BC coverage doesn’t reduce plan premiums either for the insured or the employer. All it does is allow the employer to punish the employees for their BC choices by forcing them to pay for it TWICE.

          • L-dan

            Basically. I have lots for reasons for the rage at attempts at either a, or b. There is just no way that limiting access to contraception makes a lick of sense.

            It’s on a level with me raging at asshats teaching creationism in science classes.

          • Shan

            Asperger Syndrome? I’m not trying to be weird or anything. I know people who have it and they’ve said virtually the same things and asked very similar questions about very basic social things they just can’t “get” at all.

          • BillyBob1234

            To lady_black and Shan, yeah, I have Asperger’s.

          • lady_black

            Yeah. It doesn’t take a PhD to figure that out. Social relationships are learned behavior. It’s going to take extra effort in your case, but it can be done. And it will be well worth it not to spend the rest of your life pissing people off.

          • lady_black

            You are probably somewhere on the Autism spectrum, and that isn’t meant as an insult. Get help. It will improve your life.

          • lady_black

            Well THERE YA GO! That’s your problem. You’ll get my bill.

          • lady_black

            Mentally, ten

          • BillyBob1234

            I’m sure my college professors would be surprised to hear that.

          • lady_black

            There’s a lot more to “mentally” than just intellect. And with that logic you got going on, I’ll bet the only college experience you have is using the restroom in a college once. You would fail college, because you can’t think critically.

          • BillyBob1234

            My bachelor’s degree in computer science would beg to differ.

          • lady_black

            Rape.

          • BillyBob1234

            So you’re saying that making sure contraception is covered under health insurance would ensure that rapists use it, thereby offering some protection to the victim.

          • lady_black

            Where did I say that, turdlips?

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, you seemed to be implying it. That’s all. Just making sure.

          • lady_black

            The question was “Why would a woman have sex with an abusive man?” Fear and consent aren’t the same thing. Rape occurs in abusive relationships, and reproductive coercion and tyranny happen in abusive relationships. The question you ought to be asking is why women won’t have sex with you?

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, King Rat brought up women having sex with abusive men as a reason for why not covering contraception without a co-pay would be such a burden. In order to better understand his point, I probed further by asking why that would happen in the first place. You answered rape. So that sounded as though rape were a reason that not covering contraception without a co-pay was such a burden for low-income women. I then tried to make sense of that by saying, “So you’re saying that making sure contraception is covered under health insurance would ensure that rapists use it, thereby offering some protection to the victim.”

          • lady_black

            I’m sorry. I can’t discuss this with someone who has no clue. Rape is a crime, and no it doesn’t matter whether a rapist uses contraception. It’s still a crime, and no less of a crime if he puts a condom on.

          • BillyBob1234

            I totally agree.

          • King Rat
          • goatini

            Oral contraceptives are taken daily to be effective. Sub-dermal or other types of hormonal contraceptives are effective throughout a pre-determined date range. I realize that the point you’re making is “s1u++y s1u+s need to be monitored on the frequency of their s1u++yness”, so I just wanted to make these very obvious facts clear.

          • lady_black

            No that ISN’T why contraception is medical. It’s medical because it is prescription medication, prescription medical device, or invasive surgery. It has nothing to do with being preventive. Lots of things are preventive. Medical gloves and hand washing for instance. Nobody expects insurance to cover those.

          • fiona64

            Stop being deliberately disingenuous; it makes you look (even more) stupid.

          • BillyBob1234

            I’m no being deliberately disingenuous. Why would you think that?

          • L-dan

            Because it’s been explained several times here already and you just keep cycling back to “but sex is fun, we can’t cover fun as a medical thing.”

          • BillyBob1234

            Not because it’s fun, just unnecessary. However, I do accept some of the reasons offered to me for covering contraception without a co-pay.

          • L-dan

            So now this is about the co-pay? i.e. it would be fine if it weren’t considered ‘preventative’ medicine, just ‘regular’ medicine and provided with a co-pay?

            When, of course, the argument actually happening in the real world is covering it at all.

          • BillyBob1234

            To L-dan and Jennifer Star, I can see the logic in covering contraception without a co-pay. I was just confused as to why not having that would be considered such a burden for low-income women. That’s all.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I am glad that you can see the logic.

          • Shan

            There are a LOT of “low income” women who don’t have health insurance, though.

          • L-dan

            It’s considered a burden for women. Low income women are burdened more.

            Having to pay for any health care is a burden. I see no reason to single out particular sorts of things that have been overwhelmingly considered ‘health care’. The ‘no co-pay’ parts are designed to put a greater emphasis on prevention than has historically been the case. Basically acknowledging that it’s more cost effective and better for public health than dealing with things that could have been prevented. Contraceptive coverage is one small part of the preventative and basic care covered.

          • BillyBob1234

            Well, I just don’t see big deal with abstaining until you’ve saved up enough money for contraception. That’s all. However, I can now see why people want it covered without co-pay.

          • expect_resistance

            I think the burden of birth control has fallen unequally on women. If you’re low income it’s even more of a burden.

            An excerpt from the “Birth Control” chapter of Our Bodies, Ourselves for the New Century.

            “Men and Birth Control: Most women and men assume that the responsibility for birth control should fall on women. One reason is that women have more at stake in preventing pregnancy than men do, for we bear the children and, in most cultures, are primarily responsible for raising them.

            Placing total responsibility for birth control on women is inappropriate and unfair. It usually means that we must make arrangements to see a practitioner for an exam and a prescription, go to the drugstore, pay for supplies, and make sure they don’t run out. With the Pill or IUD, we feel the effects and, more seriously, take whatever risks are involved. If we don’t have some kind of birth control and a man presses us to have intercourse, we need to say no and make him accept our refusal. If we become pregnant, it is said to be our fault. Total responsibility often creates anger and resentment that can’t help getting in the way of our sexual pleasure.”

          • lady_black

            Not like you would have any idea.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I would prefer, personally, that teens wait for sex, though I accept that won’t always happen so they need to be prepared with facts and protection. But sex is an important aspect of romantic relationships for consenting adults.It’s very important.

          • expect_resistance

            Bingo!

          • expect_resistance

            Seat belt laws, helmet laws.

          • ksimms

            Because that wouldn’t make sense. Everything could be considered preventative. Insurance is adding new products and services to their coverage everyday, why should an employer arbitrarily be allowed to block a specific part of that coverage? I have at least two friends who take contraception NOT to prevent pregnancy, but because it stabilizes their hormones, thus preventing discomfort and greater medical costs or their insurance companies. Where does it stop? Can a company or individual decide to not pay 20% of their taxes because they’re pacifists and don’t believe in war or the military?

          • lady_black

            Sports safety equipment is not a prescription medication, nor is it a prescriptive medical device. Actually oxygen IS a prescription item. Just stop now. You look like a clown.

          • lady_black

            NO. Is there something wrong with you? Contraception is considered medical because for women, contraception involves prescription medications, prescription medical devices, or invasive surgery. It’s about the nature of the beast, not it’s purpose. Regular hand washing will prevent the transmission of disease. But we aren’t asking health insurers to buy hand soap. It’s not medication. It’s not a medical device.

          • Arekushieru

            No, it’s only a non-sequitur because you fail at comprehension. And reading your OWN writing. You say you’re not any MORE likely to try and make men give up sex than to try and make anyone give up bowling, stamp collecting, baseball, fencing, etc…. What’s a result of having sex for women? Using birth control. What’s a result of having sex for men? Using Viagra, perhaps? Yet you argue so incessantly about the former, saying it’s not preventative medicine, yet fail to do the same for Viagra, which is NOT preventative medicine. Therefore equating man sex with good, woman sex with bad. Proving our point that this isn’t about learning why we oppose delisting contraceptive services, and more about how you feel women shouldn’t be having non-procreative sex. Thanks for playing!

          • fiona64

            And WTF does this have to do with anything? You wouldn’t be “paying” for a woman’s contraception, either. Insurance is part of the *compensation package* that a person gets from their employer, or purchases privately. It’s no more your business what prescriptions a woman you’ve never met gets through her insurance than anything else on which she spends her compensation (i.e., salary).

          • BillyBob1234

            So what if I’m not paying for a woman’s contraception? That’s beside my point. You people seem really into supporting MANDATING insurance companies cover contraception with no co-pay because it’s preventive, so my question is why aren’t you doing likewise with sports safety equipment?

          • fiona64

            Because, sweetie, you don’t have to get a prescription for a cup. I am certain that they make one small enough for you.

          • BillyBob1234

            So you think OTC contraception shouldn’t be covered by insurance companies without a co-pay.

          • fiona64

            You really are desperate, coming up with that asinine straw man. Oral contraception is not one size fits all.

          • BillyBob1234

            How is that a straw man? You said, “You don’t have to get a prescription for a cup.” That implies that if something doesn’t require a prescription, it should be covered without a co-pay.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She just told you that oral contraception is not one size fits all.

          • BillyBob1234

            Does oral contraception require a prescription?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Mine did.

          • BillyBob1234

            OK then. So oral contraception should be covered, but OTC medication should not.

          • Jennifer Starr

            OTC medication already isn’t covered.

          • BillyBob1234

            Do you think it should? Why or why not?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it shouldn’t be. And most contraception is not over the counter. Mine certainly is not.

          • BillyBob1234

            But if it’s sold in pharmacies and is preventive, why shouldn’t it be covered? It’ll prevent health problems, and that saves money, right?

          • Jennifer Starr

            This has been explained to you multiple times now. And since most contraception is NOT OTC anyway, it’s a moot point.

          • KingMeIam

            It’s because they don’t want to pay for it. That’s the bottom line.

          • Shan

            Yeah, we’d all rather have unintended pregnancies and/or abortions than pay for contraception. FFS.

            *facepalm*

          • fiona64

            These men are just pissed that women have medical parity now. I remember very well when Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) and many other plans covered Viagra and Cialis for ED, but not oral contraceptives. They covered vasectomies, but not tubal ligations. And some plans even required an expensive rider for pre-natal care and delivery … and if you didn’t get it before you got pregnant, you could be denied for a pre-existing condition.

            That we now have health care parity is pissing off the men who do not understand the public health implications of unwanted pregnancy, breast and uterine cancer, etc. Or, they just plain don’t care because hey, it doesn’t happen to them (although breast cancer does rarely occur in men) … and those sluts just should have kept their knees together if they didn’t want to be pregnant.

          • KingMeIam

            “Medical parity” would mean that you pay for your birth control. Just like men do.

          • Shan

            We would have even more “medical parity” if the ACA required vasectomies to be covered as tubal ligations are. I’m pretty disgusted by that omission. The ACA should also include language for covering the eventuality of a male BC pill if it’s not introduced onto the market OTC.

          • Arekushieru

            What birth control? The only birth control that men have are condoms, at the moment. And if they aren’t covered BOTH men and women have to pay for them. If you’re talking about vasectomies and tubal ligation, tubal ligation is a MUCH more expensive and time consuming surgery than a vasectomy. And more women will be turned away more often from having a tubal ligation than men will with a vasectomy. If you are comparing a vasectomy to something else, you are comparing apples and oranges, something you’ve erroneously complained about US doing.

          • goatini

            What kind of prescription medication do men use for contraception? Please be specific.

          • goatini

            I fought my insurance plan almost 35 years ago for this specific type of discrimination – vasectomies were covered, but tubal ligation was not. I won.

          • goatini

            Claritin-D was covered when it was prescription only. Claritin-D is now OTC and is not covered. Hope this helps explain things to you.

          • Shan

            Yes. It usually renews every year and the physician will require a checkup and pelvic exam first.

          • fiona64

            Yes, dummy, it does … As you are well aware.

          • lady_black

            Birth control for women generally requires a prescription drug or device. Spermicides just aren’t very good.

          • Shan

            “Spermicides just aren’t very good.”

            Especially when they cause a *raging* UTI.

          • lady_black

            OTC contraception isn’t covered.

          • BillyBob1234

            OK then. Do you think it should be? Why or why not?

          • lady_black

            No. Because it’s not a prescription drug or medical device, and it’s already NOT COVERED. This discussion about “OTC contraception” is over. Hardly any contraceptives are OTC.

          • BillyBob1234

            OK then. So the statement “So you think OTC contraception shouldn’t be covered by insurance companies without a co-pay” isn’t a straw man after all.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, it still is. Because no one is arguing for OTC contraception to be covered, and most contraception is not OTC so it’s a moot point.

          • BillyBob1234

            “No one is arguing for OTC contraception to be covered.”
            Exactly my point. The statement “So you think OTC contraception shouldn’t be covered by insurance companies without a co-pay” isn’t a straw man after all because that is, in fact, what people think.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it’s not what people think. What part of ‘no one is arguing for OTC contraception to be covered’ did you fail to understand?

          • lady_black

            I never said it was. I said OTC medications of any kind are not covered by insurance. You must be thinking of another poster.

          • BillyBob1234

            “You must be thinking of another poster.”
            Yes, fiona64.

          • goatini

            “OTC contraception”, as applied to what is available for females, has low efficacy when compared to prescribed contraceptive medicines and devices.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If viagra is covered under your insurance provider, then you pay for it, even if you don’t use it yourself.

          • BillyBob1234

            To be perfectly honest, I don’t understand why viagra is covered. It’s not as if men need to get erections.

          • ksimms

            Isn’t driving a choice, or a “want”? Why should we pay for the costs of those injured in car accidents?

          • HeilMary1

            Liar, all women’s premiums pay for men’s Viagra and STD treatments, whether liar you has used them or not.

    • fiona64

      So much stupid in so little space …

      • BillyBob1234

        So little comprehension in so much space.

        • fiona64

          I comprehended that your analogy was stupid just fine, thanks,

          • BillyBob1234

            You only comprehended my analogy after I spoon fed it to you.

          • lady_black

            LMAO.

          • fiona64

            You keep telling yourself that, dumbass. I am sure you find the notion comforting.

          • BillyBob1234

            It was abundantly clear what my point was in my first post. You then said, “And WTF does this have to do with anything?” and then pointed out that no one was being forced to pay for a woman’s contraceptives, thereby missing my point. At that point, I had to go the extra mile to make my point clear by succinctly stating my point about sports safety equipment not being covered.

          • fiona64

            The only point you had was being a disingenuous prat.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Incidentally, why did this David Boyle submit a brief on his behalf? Was he worried that someone was going to put him on the pill?

  • Braddo

    There is an argument to be had regarding whether the government should be able to dictate the design of private employer supplied health insurance, but that has already been decided by the Supreme Court, so arguing about it now is not productive. Given that government can dictate the terms, this case is purely an argument about who can discriminate, on what basis, and whether religious beliefs can be used to trump everything.

    Lisa is right – this is about controlling women’s sexuality. And it is about transforming religious liberty from a personal right into an offensive weapon in the culture wars.

  • King Rat

    Medicare has spent over 100$million dollars on penis pumps over the last 5 years. Where is the outrage?

    • Shan

      It’s contraception that it’s being discussed. Try to keep up.

      • King Rat

        The thing is, it worked as an ironic joke. You should have not let on and pretended to be clever; pp

        • Shan

          No, I meant to be an a$$hole to the other guy so it oesn’t count. And I can’t even go tot he whole other complicated everything else. That’s just me.

    • fiona64

      That’s medically necessary. Remember, we were told by an anti-choice male that if a man couldn’t get a hard-on, he might get depressed and commit suicide. That’s why Viagra should be covered under these plans and oral contraception should not. We have to make sure that Grandpa can get wood … and it’s all a bunch of grandpas making these calls.

      • King Rat

        I was reading your discussion with Prevail, and took part to a limited degree. What the fuck is it with these guys who say that no, forcing you to remain pregnant does not abrogate your rights one iota! And no, the fetus does not superhuman rights, no no. They completely fail to see, and I am not sure if it is because of flat out dishonesty, or just plain stupidity, that by banning abortion, ONLY fetuses get special rights, and ONLY women are discriminated against.

        I have noticed one other thing too, with their shit analogies. They like to claim that feeding a baby and changing it’s diapers is the equivalent of pregnancy. And since you can’t neglect your baby to death ex utero, you certainly can’t neglect/abort it in utero! Yet…they say, with a straight face, that it is morally acceptable to let your born child die by denying it bone marrow, because bodily donation is an extraordinary burden!

        Do they not see the inconsistencies? Let’s review..

        Pregnancy/feeding a baby = same thing

        Aborting a pregnancy/refusing to feed your baby = morally reprehensible

        Letting your kid die because you wont’ donate bone marrow = morally permissible

        ????

        One woman on Patheos, who claimed to be a professional critical thinker (taught it in school) told us that when she thought she was pregnant, she hoped and hoped that the pregnancy would miscarry, because she really didn’t want to have a kid. However, she is eternally opposed to abortion because we are sociopaths who dehumanize the unborn.

        So…

        1) Wishing death on your ‘child’ is morally permissible

        2) Being pro-choice is morally repugnant

        OK!

        It’s all clear now.

        • colleen2

          “What the fuck is it with these guys”

          They think that women are things with 3 functions. We are masturbatory aides, we are gestation devices and we are the world’s main source of cheap or free labor. Really, an examination of what Republicans and the religious right means by ‘Traditional marriage’ should make any decent person want to puke.

          • King Rat

            I was watching a documentary on women in Afghanistan, and one quote jumped out at me: “Women exist for pleasure and profit”.

          • colleen2

            Exactly, and fundamentalist religion functions to enforce and encourage that mentality. It is the great fatal flaw of patriarchies.

    • Turd Sandwich

      If that’s correct, there should be outrage.

      Penis pumps, like contraception shouldn’t be covered under insurance – or Medicare. In fact , too much is spent on old people shit in the first place. That would be a great way to cut a billions out of the budget. But nobody likes to let grandma pass away in peace.

      • King Rat
        • L-dan

          I honestly don’t care if they provide them as medical devices…it’s the overcharged part that bugs me.

          • lady_black

            Yes, me too. I have no problem with the devices. It’s the over-paying.

          • King Rat

            Same. And the double standard – men can have penis pumps, women can’t have contraception.

        • Turd Sandwich

          Thanks for the link. That’s ridiculous. And not because it’s penis pumps. I imagine that those actually are legit for certain people ….but for Medicare (<65 yo) people??? WTF?

          Men go impotent. Women's vag dry up. Yes, we get old.

          • Shan

            Nothing to do with contraception, though.

          • lady_black

            You aren’t too bright, are you? Old people enjoy sex to the longest day they live, so long as they’re relatively healthy. Most cases of impotence in older males is as a result of vascular issues (arteriosclerosis), prostate surgery, or medication side effects. These drugs and devices help with that, and I have no problem with them being covered. I also have no problem with estrogen vaginal treatments for women, as dryness and atrophy are painful and can lead to infections, whether she’s sexually active or not. I’ve spent most of my career working as a charge nurse in long term care (it was the niche where I felt most satisfied.) If I had a dollar for every time I’ve walked into a room for bed checks on night shift and caught some old goat fapping, I could have retired early. That NEVER goes away. Like everything else, it slows down, but it never goes away.

          • Shan

            “If I had a dollar for every time I’ve walked into a room for bed checks
            on night shift and caught some old goat fapping, I could have retired
            early.”

            I SO have to tell my kids this.

          • lady_black

            It’s true, I swear. One employer even sent me to a seminar about sex issues in long-term care. It’s hard for young folks to believe, I guess. But people of all ages have sexual needs.

          • Shan

            Yes, I was just thinking of it in terms of letting my kids know fapping is perfectly normal throughout a lifetime.

            And I worked in a hospital as a “twinkie” when I was a teenager and saw/heard ALL kinds of things. People will do sex stuff on the verge of death. And people will do sex stuff which sends them to the ER with various objects lodged on/into their genitals or other orifices. So I imagine old-folk fapping is a lot less distressing. Except for the heart stress, I guess.

          • lady_black

            Oh yeah. I could tell you all kinds of stories from when I was a surgical staff nurse about things people stick in body orifices, too. We couldn’t laugh at them to their face, but in the nurse’s lounge, hooo boy!

          • HeilMary1

            That reminds me of a hilarious episode of “Scrubs” — surgeon Turk gives his nurse/fiance Carla a lovely pen which turns out to be an ass pen he removed from a patient!

          • lady_black

            Wow. That isn’t very nice… But it is funny.

          • KingMeIam

            It’s interesting that you upvoted KingRat’s comment about $100 million being spent on penis pumps.

            Are you conflicted about this? Do you approve of the money being spent or not?

          • Arekushieru

            Um, irrelevant. lady-black was merely supporting King_Rat’s comment simply showing Billy Bob’s hypocrisy.

          • lady_black

            I find it strange and disturbing that you think you can read my mind and discern my motivations, when you can’t even discern why bargain basement birth control pills won’t work for every woman. You really do believe yourself to be superior to stooped wimmins, don’t you? Not for any good reason. You just think your penis makes your rights look bigger.

      • colleen2

        That would be a great way to cut a billions out of the budget. But nobody likes to let grandma pass away in peace.

        You really are disgusting.

      • lady_black

        What are you barking about? Hospice care and end of life discussions are included in the ACA.

  • fiona64

    According to Slate,com, Hobby Lobby also wants to make ant MD visit wherein contraception is discussed, which would be every woman’s annual exam, as we know, ineligible for coverage under their plans.

    • Shan

      Jeez, I saw that earlier. Insane.

    • expect_resistance

      WTF that’s nuts! What next?

      • ksimms

        Well, first of all, a boycott of Hobby Lobby. And second, a lawsuit where Hobby Lobby must reimburse their employees for any out of pocket expenses for contraception. Medical benefits are a part of compensation, and even more so if their employees are paying a portion of the premiums.

    • lady_black

      Excuse me? Exactly where does that fit in with their willingness to pay for contraceptives other than the morning-after pill and IUDs? Link please?

      • Shan

        It’s in the language of the suit, having to do with the ACA requirement to cover “counseling and education” for whatever contraceptive method.

        • lady_black

          Oh, that won’t be happening. It’s nobody’s business what you discuss with your doctor, and it WILL be covered.

          • Shan

            That’s what I meant about the bit of a stretch. I think the article is doing a bit of fear-mongering, sad to say.

          • Shan

            I agree. What I thought was “a bit of a stretch” was Slate’s claim that it wouldn’t be. There’s enough real shit going on without getting people amped up over things like that.

      • fiona64

        My bad; it was ThinkProgress:

        http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/19/3415983/hobby-lobby-contraception-counseling/

        Quote: The two plaintiffs in these cases object not just to covering specific
        types of birth control, but also to providing counseling about that
        birth control.

  • Turd Sandwich

    Contraception is cheap. Both prescription and non-prescription. If you want to use it, go for it. And pay for it. Insurance shouldn’t be for cheap, everyday things. If you think it should be, you clearly don’t understand the purpose of insurance in the first place.

    It would be like expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the gas in your car.

    • L-dan

      Antibiotics are cheap too, should we not cover them under insurance?

      • Turd Sandwich

        No. Only if the antibiotics required are very expensive and REQUIRED -like Zyvox.

        And because I know you’re going to reply “but some contraception are expensive.” Yes, it is. But designer contraceptive like Seasonique, etc. are definitively not required to live – unlike expensive antibiotics which could kill you if you didn’t take them to fight things like VRSA.

        And, hey, so why should contraceptives get special “no-copay” status under ACA anyway? That’s bullshit to begin with.

        • L-dan

          Well then. If you’re of the opinion that there’s no reason for insurance to cover prescription drugs unless they’re expensive, we’re pretty much at an impasse since I see no reason for that position at all.

          Have fun trolling.

          • Turd Sandwich

            You probably expect auto insurance to pay for your oil changes too.

          • King Rat

            I expect auto insurance to pay for my gimp outfit.

          • Turd Sandwich

            Now that’s something I could get behind. Literally.

          • Shan

            So, go on. Tell us why the no copay thing is all…bad and wrong.

            But don’t forget, no contraception references.

          • Shan

            I finally broke down and Googled “gimp outfit” so I could see what you were talking about. It’s a good thing I have my therapist on speed dial. Those images are going to take a long time to un-see.

          • lady_black

            Hahahahahahaha. I had to Google that too. Bondage has never been an interest to me.

          • King Rat

            Should you gain such an interest, the ACA should pay for it.

            Anyways, the ‘gimp’ meme came to prominence in the movie ‘Pulp Fiction’ wherein a crime lord has an unfortunate meeting with some gay bdsm rednecks.

          • lady_black

            I have liability insurance, and comprehensive and collision insurance. What PART of that implies they ought to pay for oil changes?

        • Shan

          “And, hey, so why should contraceptives get special “no-copay” status under ACA anyway? That’s bullshit to begin with.”

          So what DOES deserve the special “no-copay” status under ACA anyway?

          • Turd Sandwich

            “So what DOES deserve the special “no-copay” status under ACA anyway?”

            Absolutely nothing.

          • Shan

            So stop bitching about contraception like a butthurt bitchman and make a rational argument against the ACA no copay thing.

          • King Rat

            I like it when you talk dirty.

          • Shan

            That’s what he said.

          • lady_black

            The insurance lobby doesn’t agree with you. They have a vested interest in promoting behavior that positively affects their bottom line profitability. What the insurer pays for a single unplanned pregnancy that gets carried to term would cover contraceptives for a lifetime. For all non-religious insurers, this is a no-brainer.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Turd exhibits the emotional and psychological base of authoritarianism = the fear that someone somewhere is getting something for nothing and/or having a good time.

        • lady_black

          Look, the thing you keep ignoring (and it’s a HUGE thing to ignore) is that many, MANY people pay extra for a prescription drug rider on their health insurance policy. I have that. My health insurer is Blue Cross and my prescription insurance is through Express Scripts. Legally they can’t give inferior service to females by refusing prescriptions for contraceptives. This isn’t new, either. They have had to cover contraceptives just like any other prescriptions for over a decade now. IN the meantime, insurers have realized that covering contraceptives improves their bottom line. The insurance lobby had MAJOR input into the ACA, so I can only conclude that this is how the insurers wanted it, or it wouldn’t be on the list of preventive drugs, devices and procedures. The insurance company has a fiduciary interest in promoting things that save them money, like *contraception.* This has NOTHING to do with “needing something to live.” What about the word “preventive” implies it’s something someone needs to live? It means something they need to remain healthy. Seasonale and Depo-Provera are used for women who should avoid menstruating for health reasons, and they are necessary for those conditions. Example: endometriosis.

        • Arekushieru

          Pregnancy IS a life-threatening condition. Antibiotics prevent a life-threatening condition that is less potentially life-threatening for women than pregnancy. Oops.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Ridiculous comparison.

      • Turd Sandwich

        How so?

        Please explain.

      • Turd Sandwich

        Still waiting for you to explain your “ridiculous comparison”comment. What’s the matter can’t think of anything?

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      “Contraception is cheap.”
      ……………..
      This tells me you are not a woman and you have never had an intimate relationship with a woman.
      So I ask myself, why is this gavone here? And none of the guesses I come up with make you look good.

      • Turd Sandwich

        Condoms aren’t cheap? The pill isn’t cheap? Ha, what bullshit.

        Hell, even IUDs are cheap if you look at the cost/year. Either you’re an idiot or don’t know how to shop. Would you like me to link the Walmart and Target $4 prescription page for you?

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          You have never had an intimate relationship with a fertile woman. Abundantly clear to anyone who has had such.
          I iz laffing.

          • Turd Sandwich

            Yeah, sure. I clearly know more about the actual cost of contraception than you do.

            Hint: you never NEED $300/month pills. I bet you’re like the idiots I see who won’t buy generic medicine and insist on buying name brand at 10X the cost because “it’s not the same.”

          • Shan

            What’s your issue with contraception, Turd?

          • Turd Sandwich

            I don’t have an issue. It’s great stuff. I use it all the time. And it’s cheap. Which is why this whole “it’s not covered under insurance” whining is completely moronic and unnecessary. If an employer (or rather their insurance company) doesn’t want to cover it for whatever stupid reason…SO WHAT?? Buy it elsewhere.

          • Shan

            Same thing as vaccinations. Should those be covered elsewhere? What is your “FUCK YOU!” issue with contraception?

          • Turd Sandwich

            Do certain insurance companies object to vaccinations? I hadn’t heard that.

            If so, so what. Are you unable to get your vaccines elsewhere?

          • Shan

            Problem is not “insurance companies” objecting to vaccinations, it’s company-companies whose business it isn’t.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            He cannot find a woman who will not say “FY?” to him or do him free?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            God knows it does not need it and never will. What a whiny wanker.

          • KingMeIam

            You’re a “God” believer know?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I have always been religious. Why do you ask?

          • KingMeIam

            So your belief system is based in fantasy. Just like the guys who are against paying for your birth control.

          • Arekushieru

            Her belief has nothing to do with why YOU will never need birth control, now DOES it, ignorant whiner?

          • KingMeIam

            Nobody NEEDS birth control. They might WANT it.

            Comprende?

          • Arekushieru

            Sure, so you might WANT medical treatment after a near fatal car crash but you don’t NEED it. Comprende?

          • KingMeIam

            If you don’t understand the difference between getting treatment that is required for you to live and something that is not, then I cannot help you.

            So please proceed.

          • Arekushieru

            If you cannot understand that endometriosis and pregnancy are LIFE-THREATENING conditions just like being in a near fatal car crash is, then I cannot help you.

            So please proceed.

          • KingMeIam

            A lot of people dieing because of pregnancy in whatever country you live in? Because here in the United States, it’s pretty rare.

          • lady_black

            Actually, it’s a shamefully high number. And Catholic hospitals are doing their part to keep things that way, or even make the numbers go up.

          • Shan

            More nitpick derailing.

          • Arekushieru

            I live in CANADA, asshole. And dieing from blood loss in a broken bone is pretty rare, here even when ACTUALLY compared to maternal mortality rates in the US. O.O.P.S.I.E.S!

          • fiona64

            A lot of people dieing because of pregnancy in whatever country you live
            in? Because here in the United States, it’s pretty rare.

            No, dumbass, it isn’t even remotely rare here in the US. We are number 50 in maternal mortality and getting worse … as has already been explained to you repeatedly. But, just for fun, I’ll share the stats AGAIN.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/maternal-mortality-rate-infographic_n_1827427.html

            http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

            http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/deadlydelivery.pdf

          • KingMeIam

            So you think 0.01% of pregnancies that result in death is not rare.

            Got it. You sound smart.

          • Arekushieru

            Says the guy who can’t look up the comparison rates to other countries with similar medical advancements, that REALLY tells you how ‘rare’ something is. Btw, I would like to see the rates of death from blood loss due to a bone fracture…. No? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

          • KingMeIam

            Noting incidence and/or prevalence is what determines whether is rare or not. You are a moron of you think otherwise

            Btw, since you wanted to know. The mortality rate for leg fractures is 0.04%. Which is 4X the mortality rate for pregnancy. So, using YOUR methodolgy for rarity, maternal death from pregnancy is rare . Just so ya know..

          • fiona64

            So you think that it’s okay to force women to assume risk that you’ll never have to.

            Got it. You sound like a misogynistic moron.

            Oh, sorry … I didn’t mean to repeat myself like that.

          • King Rat

            A broken leg won’t kill you. It will just be inconvenient. So, no actual need to get it fixed.

          • KingMeIam

            A broken leg can most certainly kill you. I know what you’re trying to same, but terrible example.

          • King Rat

            No need to set the leg, as long as you are treated for infection.

          • KingMeIam

            Ever heard of blood loss? Don’t play dumb.

          • King Rat

            It depends on the break. People have had their legs broken – usually kids in abusive homes – those legs were never set, yet they managed to survive. Only they walk with a limp, because the bones did not fuse properly.

          • lady_black

            Every fracture doesn’t cause “blood loss” in the medical sense of requiring treatment for blood loss. Here’s another analogy. Let’s not cover sutures, unless you’re bleeding to death. The laceration will heal eventually. It might not be attractive or quick, but it will heal 100% of the time.

          • lady_black

            “Can” but probably won’t. Pregnancy can kill too.

          • fiona64

            And pregnancy can most certainly kill you too, 5×5. But we’ve explained that to you already.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah a twenty-something year old guy with ‘some college’ who thinks he’s an intellectual and an engineer suddenly thinks he’s qualified to make women’s medical decisions. Excuse me while I laugh.

          • lady_black

            Um NO. We’ve already covered that. Women DO need birth control. And if you think about it, men need it too, at least those who are in a relationship with a woman they love.

          • goatini

            For females to be able to fully participate in society as equals to males, highly effective contraception is required. The most effective contraception methods are obtained by medical prescription. End of story.

          • fiona64

            Again, sweetie, the pill is not “one size fits all.” Some women *do* need the more expensive formulation.

          • KingMeIam

            They don’t “need” it. They “want” it.

            There’s a difference.

          • ansuz

            My sister has tried at least eight types of oral BCP under $100. She had allergic reactions to several classes, and the other types that she tried did not help with her crippling periods. The ones she uses now are roughly $125/month.
            My sister has a ridiculously high ability to function through pain, and she could barely make it to the washroom when she was on her period without BCP.
            My sister needs her $125/month birth control.

            (And, no, I don’t know if that’s before insurance or after insurance.)

          • L-dan

            What? You mean some dude on the internet is talking out of his ass because he’s never actually needed to use hormonal BC, never had or known someone with poor reactions to various brands, and thinks that his experience sums up everyone everywhere? I’m shocked!

          • KingMeIam

            I don’t believe you. What the name of the brand?

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, what? She doesn’t have to tell you that. THAT is HER private business.

          • fiona64

            Why do you care? Are you a creeper?

            Once again, for the terminally stupid, one size does not fit all.

          • lady_black

            Yes they DO need it. Again, you aren’t a physician, a nurse, or a health professional of any kind. Do you know what endometriosis is? Someone with that condition will want to avoid menstruating at all, because every period they have brings them closer to infertility and a host of other nasty consequences. How about you stick to whatever it is that you know (whatever THAT is) and leave health care to the professionals.

          • Shan

            “every period they have brings them closer to infertility”

            I know a woman that happened to. She can’t have children now (and she and her husband very much wanted them) because she was never treated properly. She ended up with so much scarring that she became infertile. For so many years she was just patted on the head and sent away with her atrocious, debilitating periods. Because that’s just a female thing, right?

            Oh, and? She’s in her 40s now and only recently got prescribed birth control to mitigate her endometriosis. And she’s still paying $85 a month for it.

          • lady_black

            As you probably know, endometriosis causes endometrial cells to grow places they don’t belong (the ovaries, fallopian tubes, other organs and inside the abdominal cavity.) These cells behave just like the endometrium of the uterus, responding to hormone fluctuations and being shed as bleeding. This causes intense pain, unnecessary blood loss, and in the case of invading the ovaries and fallopian tubes, scaring. These women are best served by hormonal methods that inhibit menstrual bleeding at all times other than when they are actively trying to conceive. And these shmendricks try to refer to these drugs as “designer” contraceptives. They have no clue about women’s reproductive disorders and come off looking very ignorant.

          • Shan

            I actually didn’t know very much about endometriosis until I watched an episode of House recently where they explained exactly that about the endometrial cells growing in random places. I had previously thought my co-worker’s scarring (and perhaps because that’s the way she explained it to me years ago) was due to the multiple ablation surgeries she’d been put through in an attempt to mitigate her problems. She’s considering a hysterectomy now.

          • lady_black

            P.S. I’m sorry your friend had such a rough time of it. I would have looked for a specialist. A teaching hospital is a great resource because they are up on the latest research. A doctor who doesn’t listen to you is a red flag that this is not the doctor for you. What was that old joke, what do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of their med school class? DOCTOR.

          • Shan

            I would have told her to do all kinds of other things myself, too, if I’d known her before it was too late. She’s smart and funny and, I hope it has nothing to do with the course her life took that made her so unhappy, Mormon. LDS type like my grandma and aunts and uncles and so on, not the FLDS ones who live on compounds and do the polygamy/child-bride thing.

          • fiona64

            Dr. Oz had a program a while back on which he said that the surest way to have your valid medical concerns dismissed/ignored was to be female … and took his colleagues to task about how they all needed to do better. It is disgusting that it happens at all (and yes, it happened to me for the better part of 20 years … what turned out to be Hashimoto’s thyroiditis was dismissed with “well, here’s a different anti-depressant … oh, that one didn’t help either? Well, you’re medically resistant, so you’ll just have to live with it … and try eating less if you want to lose weight” … at a time when I was consuming about 500 calories a day and still gaining).

            So, yeah. Shop around, even in your HMO if that’s the plan you have, until you find a doctor who listens.

          • King Rat

            I used to watch ‘Mystery Diagnosis’ and this poor woman, who had always been a size 2, mysteriously started to gain weight no matter how little she ate (less than 500 cals per day) and exercised. Turned out she had Cushing’s syndrome. But the doctors accused her of being a dishonest secret fatty. Deplorable.

          • KingMeIam

            I guess it’s a good thing that endometriosis is covered under the Hobby Lobby plan.

            Oh wait, did you not know that?

          • Arekushieru

            What the HELL does that have to do with preventing menstruating, that the birth control pill does???

          • KingMeIam

            If you don’t understand that using oral contraceptives are covered when they are being used for medical reasons, then I cannot help you.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, obviously, you fail to read posts before looking like a fool, so please do go ahead and do so, next time: As you probably know, endometriosis causes endometrial cells to grow
            places they don’t belong (the ovaries, fallopian tubes, other organs and
            inside the abdominal cavity.) These cells behave just like the
            endometrium of the uterus, responding to hormone fluctuations and being
            shed as bleeding. This causes intense pain, unnecessary blood loss, and
            in the case of invading the ovaries and fallopian tubes, scaring. These
            women are best served by hormonal methods that inhibit menstrual
            bleeding at all times other than when they are actively trying to
            conceive. And these shmendricks try to refer to these drugs as
            “designer” contraceptives. They have no clue about women’s reproductive
            disorders and come off looking very ignorant.

          • KingMeIam

            So you agree with me that endometriosis and the treatment of it is covered under the Hobby Lobby plan.

            Is that what you were confused about?

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, you obviously didn’t read the very LAST part of the post. SO typical.

          • Shan

            “So you agree with me that endometriosis and the treatment of it is covered under the Hobby Lobby plan.”

            It doesn’t actually matter that Hobby Lobby already does cover the forms of hormonal birth control that treat endometriosis. Their case, along with Conestoga’s, that’s up before SCOTUS would, if they win, open the door to allowing ANY employer who claims they have a “sincerely held religious belief” that requires them to exclude certain types of coverage from their plan to be able to do it.

          • lady_black

            Sweetheart, oral contraceptives are ALWAYS being used for medical reasons. YOU don’t get to 1) know those reasons, OR 2) sit in judgment of whether the reasons are “worthy.”

          • lady_black

            This isn’t about the condition being treated by birth control. That’s none of Hobby Lobby’s business what the drug is being used for. Nor your business. It’s about your “birth control is cheap, and anyone who doesn’t use the $4-$9 Wal-Mart pills is an idiot” argument. That is NOT always the case, and you know it. YOU don’t think ANYONE’S contraceptive medication should be covered, for some odd reason.

          • fiona64

            No, 5×5, er, KingMelam, it is not a matter of mere “want.” As has been explained to you repeatedly, in all of your new post-ban incarnations, NOT ALL HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION IS THE SAME.

          • lady_black

            Actually, generic medicine is exactly the same. The problem is that they don’t make generics for all drugs.

          • goatini

            Generic drugs need only contain 80% of the active ingredients of the name brand. The ingredients used for the binders and excipients need not be the same as the name brand. So there can be quite a difference in efficacy between name brand and generic drugs. There are some generic drugs that I am okay with, and others that I am not okay with.

          • Turd Sandwich

            Wrongo chap. Bio equivalence is defined as between 0.8 and 1.25. Do you know what that means? It means they are medically equal.

            Your perceived benefit was cognitive bias kicking your ass… And is not reproductive in a double blind study. Thanks for playing though.

        • fiona64

          The pill can cost anywhere from $4 to $400/month, depending on the formulation and a person’s insurance. You are a) betraying a ridiculous naivete about the realities of women’s health care and b) that you are male just by your assumptions that the pill is always $4 a month, and that it’s one size fits all.

          • KingMeIam

            That’s quite disingenuous. Nobody except complete morons pay $400/month for birth control.

            Do you pay this much? Really? Because I have some property to sell you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What would you possibly know about it? Are you a physician?

          • KingMeIam

            Better. I have sisters, and a mom. And they don’t pay $400 a month for birth control.

            Do you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you’re not a physician, then. And you think that just because mommy and sissy don’t pay that amount that no one does. Yeah, that’s some real qualifications there.

          • KingMeIam

            Yes, some people do pay that much. Stupid people.

            I’m sure you don’t pay that much.

          • Arekushieru

            Yes, some WOMEN do pay that much. Intelligent women who know better than YOU what is and isn’t effective for them.

            I’m sure you would pay for the cheap brand and then be surprised when your ‘girlfriend’ suddenly got pregnant. And, no, I don’t think I’m UNDERESTIMATING your intelligence. Sad.

          • KingMeIam

            Show me the proof that the $400/month pill has higher efficacy than the $4/month pill. Site your research.

          • Arekushieru

            Site YOURS. I am NOT the one claiming that one or the other is more efficient or both are the same. *I* simply said that the reason women know their bodies better than you and will know better what is and isn’t effective for them, is because of intelligence, not ‘stupidity’. Unlike you, because the reason he assumes he knows someone ELSE’ body better than that person is because of ‘stupidity’ not intelligence.

          • KingMeIam

            Ha ha. You can’t provide the proof. I knew it.

          • Arekushieru

            Ha ha. You can’t provide the proof. I knew it. Also, someone doesn’t know the rules of debate. But I knew that about YOU, as well. Oops.

          • fiona64

            Once again, for the terminally stupid, not all women can use the same pills. There are only limited types available at $4/month. What is effective for one woman may well *not* be for another. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

          • goatini

            Another genius that doesn’t know the difference between “cite” and “site”.

          • KingMeIam

            BTW, since when did physicians ever actually know the cost of anything they were prescribing?

          • lady_black

            Oh you have sisters and a mom, huh? So does my brother. And he’s just as clueless as you.

          • fiona64

            You don’t read very well, do you, dumbshit? I already informed you that I got a tubal ligation many years ago.

            You are clearly misinformed about the nature of hormonal contraception … and a whole slew of other things to boot.

        • lady_black

          IUDs and birth control pills are not “one size fits all” like the bottle opener you use to open the bottles of beer you swill. You also can’t just walk into WalMart, and buy birth control pills. You have to be a man to even think the way you do. I haven’t needed birth control for a long time, but when I did I was uninsured and it cost as much as a week’s worth of groceries. The DOCTOR writes the script, honey. Not WalMart, and not the patient. Also, I’ve never seen a woman wear a condom. EVER.

          • KingMeIam

            You’ve never heard of the female condom.

            So you’re an uninformed idiot. Got it.

          • Arekushieru

            You haven’t heard that the female condom isn’t NEARLY as effective as other forms of birth control OR that some women are allergic to latex.

            So you’re an uninformed idiot. Got it.

          • KingMeIam

            Yeah, I never made any claims that are contrary.

            Try to pay attention.

          • Arekushieru

            Actually, yeah, you have. Calling someone an uninformed idiot because (you think) they haven’t heard of the female condom are contradictory claims. Do try to keep up with your OWN writing.

          • KingMeIam

            ” Also, I’ve never seen a woman wear a condom. EVER.”

            That’s what she wrote. Scroll up.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, that’s HER, personally. So, right back atcha.

          • KingMeIam

            Yeah, and I was replying to HER.

            Stop butting into business that isn’t yours – especially since you didn’t bother to read her comment.

          • Arekushieru

            Her personal EXPERIENCE. So she has never seen anyone USE it, does NOT mean that she has never HEARD of it. DO try to keep up. And you are typing on A PUBLIC FORUM. So stop yer whining.

          • lady_black

            You mean like YOU butted into my conversation with your nonsense about female condoms? Hypocrite.

          • goatini

            This is a message board, not a confidential letter.

          • lady_black

            Yes. Nothing about that implies that I’ve never heard of female condoms. That means I personally have never seen any woman who actually uses female condoms as contraception. Female condoms are just a bad idea, like that attachment they used to sell for vacuum cleaners that gives haircuts. They are far too difficult to use, awkward, expensive and inefficient. I know far more about contraceptives and their use and effective rates than you’ll ever know on your best day.

          • Shan

            “like that attachment they used to sell for vacuum cleaners that gives haircuts”

            OMG, that was the most hilarious thing I’ve read in AGES.

          • lady_black

            Yeah, isn’t it? Or the device that scrambles eggs inside the shell. Products with no real point. Female condoms are sort of like those.

          • fiona64

            I am beginning to think that KingM is yet another of 5×5′s new aliases, created for the sole purpose of trolling. The only posts s/h/it has made are on this site … from which 5×5 was banned. So far, that’s three new handles, most of them created for the purpose of agreeing with itself …

          • goatini

            I just thought the same thing. Same vicious, dismissive misogyny.

          • lady_black

            As a matter of fact, I HAVE heard of the female condom. It’s never really caught on, because it’s 1) very awkward, and 2) NOT AT ALL CHEAP! Female condoms aren’t a real solution, and you know it.

    • Mandy

      What kind of money are you rolling in where $50-80 every single month is considered cheap?! ($50-80 is the cost of Ortho Evra aka the Patch form of BC. There is no generic available.)

      • L-dan

        Or an IUD, or depo-provera, etc. For some reason everyone things BC = The Pill and only The Pill and that The Pill works for everyone perfectly. It’s like magic! And the various brands and forms of The Pill aren’t actually different at all because they’re all The Pill!

        I notice that pretty much everyone with this line of thought is male.

        • Mandy

          Exactly. That’s why I like to chime in with some first hand experience and remind people that hey, there are those of us on BC that is not The Pill, that is not cheap, and not available in generic form.

          People seem to be sadly uneducated about ALL the contraceptive options these days. Sadly I was one of them. Growing up in the deep deep South my school’s sex ed never even discussed how to use condoms let alone any type of birth control that a girl would use. I learned about the Pill from friends (mostly fellow Catholic girls ironically. Though some where for medical reasons & some where pregnancy prevention.) But yeah, I didn’t learn or realize that there were options other than just The Pill until I was in college. COLLEGE! Which is not only ridiculous but dangerous.

          People really do need to be better educated about all the options out there. Girls esp, but like you mention, guys need this knowledge too. Apparently there are plenty of male politicians who have no idea how birth control OR women’s reproductive organs work!

      • KingMeIam

        Take the pill instead. $4 per month.

        • Mandy

          Like a small number of people, I can’t take pills. At all. Haven’t taken one in almost a decade. Ones I took before them were often crushed up and put in applesauce or similar foods. Every single medication I am on is in non-pill form. Nose sprays/ inhaling powder, liquids, ect ect. I’ve had the same doctor for most of my life now and she understands this and helps me work around it. There are multiple non-pill options available as BC. Most of them are in fact MORE convienant that trying to remember to take a pill every single day at the same time. The Patch & the Ring are put on/in once every week. The shot is every 3 months I believe. For women who want less hassle or less risk these options are available. IUDs & the Implant are expensive off the bat but save women money in the long run and leave less risk (no worries about missing a pill for 5+ years!)

          None of theses are cheap however. None have generics (as far as I know.) Why are you trying to force women everywhere to all take one version of this simple medication. Do you want to force people with mental health problems to all just use one generic medication too? Even though there are better options with less side effects that would help them better?

          Medication, ANY medication is not a one size fits all approach. It’s up to a person and their doctor to figure out what works best for them with the least side effects. Educate yourself and stop trying to insist that all women settle for a type of medicine that might not be the best option for them.

          • KingMeIam

            You can’t take pills? What do you have achalasia? Can you eat? If so you can take the pill. Stop being a drama queen.
            Otherwise put the pill in you PEG tube.

            And yes those other forms are more expensive…but they aren’t required. If you are to lazy to take a pill everyday, maybe you should skip sex altogether.

            And genetic meds work just fine for people with mental health conditions. You sound like a pimp for the pharmaceutical industry.

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, seriously, way to diagnose women’s health without being one yourself
            OR a physician, ASSHOLE. Perhaps taking the pill would cause severe
            vomiting, cramping, extreme pain, etc…. Either way, since it’s
            something you will NEVER have to face, therefore will NEVER have to
            worry about such side effects, you should just SHUT THE FUCK UP until
            such time arrives. And you wonder why women seek out abortions.
            Seriously, it’s no WONDER some women think all men are jerks and wannabe
            rapists.

    • lady_black

      Uh no, actually it’s nothing like expecting collision insurance to pay for gasoline. Good handle. by the way. It fits you well.

  • BillyBob1234

    I’m getting a sense of hostility here, so I will try to wrap things up. As much as I’d like to respond to everything said to me, I’ve come to the conclusion it just isn’t worth the time and effort pursuing every point I’ve made because people are now accusing me of repeating points that have already been addressed, and, frankly, I don’t feel like explaining why that isn’t the case, especially since my main points have been addressed satisfactorily. I’ll just have to accept that some things I brought up won’t be answered satisfactorily. Other points just aren’t worth arguing over any further.

    I will just sum up what I found to be the most persuasive answers. Basically, sports safety equipment shouldn’t be covered because it’s not medical as evidenced by it not needing a prescription and not being sold in pharmacies, and it doesn’t need any kind of medical intervention.

    Lack of contraception coverage is an undue burden to low-income women because sex is a very human form of intimacy and important in relationships, and saying to people that they don’t get to express it in relationships if they can’t afford to is heartbreaking.

    Not covering contraception is a slippery slope because we cover treating lung cancer for smokers, and smoking is a recreational activity.

    It makes sense from a public health perspective to cover contraceptives because people will have sex anyway.

    • Shan

      Yeah, basically. I’m sorry you feel that way about the hostility. But you ask questions in the same way lots of the asshats we’re used to who try to ask “gotcha” questions. That’s not really your fault if you have to ask questions in a flowchart-type way in order to be able to understand the answers. I get that, personally. Really.

      • fiona64

        I don’t think s/h/it is an Aspie, actually. I think s/h/it is 5×5. The only posts s/h/it has made are on this article.

    • KingMeIam

      BB1234, you’re getting a sense of hostility because these women don’t like paying for their birth control. It was funny at first. They claimed that it was for equal rights etc, which I actually thought was a good reason. But, then it turned out it was just because they are cheap. And I cannot support being cheap.

      • Shan

        Wait, you’re the one who got your shorts in a knot over BC being available cheaper OTC.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Actually, if I’m paying my insurance premiums, I’m paying for my birth control.

        • KingMeIam

          But what if your insurance doesn’t pay for your birth control?

          Do you think you can force them to? Are you forcing someone to pay for something that they don’t want to pay for?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Yes. If you are an employer, you must follow employment law. If you break employment law, you can be sued by individuals and the US government. As it should be.
            Do not want to follow employment law in the US, do not hire employees. Eezey peezey.

          • KingMeIam

            The “it’s the law” argument is not a good argument.

            People used that to justify slavery, just so ya know.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And how is contraception like slavery? Contraception shouldn’t even be controversial in this day and age. Even the majority of Catholic women use it.

          • KingMeIam

            So what. The majority of people use toothepaste. Does that mean health insurance should pay for it?

            Jennifer, you just want something for free. That is clear.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I pay my premiums. I’m not getting anything for free.

          • KingMeIam

            You pay your premiums for what is covered.

            If birth control isn’t covered, you’re not paying for it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            My insurance does cover birth control. Do you have an actual point?

          • fiona64

            Just the one on top of his head …

          • Shan

            “If birth control isn’t covered, you’re not paying for it.”

            Premiums aren’t lower when it’s NOT covered, though. That’s been known for years, since before most insurance plans started covering contraception.

            http://www . guttmacher . org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060112.html

          • ksimms

            Dude, just stop, you and your aptly named buddy, BillyBob1234, are losing this argument badly. Stop embarrassing yourself.

          • L-dan

            OK, and why shouldn’t it be covered like any other prescription?

            For that matter, why should it not be considered basic preventive care that health insurance is required to cover? Do we really need to be concerned that insurance companies are being forced to meet some minimum standards? If so why? And which other aspects of those minimum standards are beyond the pale?

          • lady_black

            It’s the LAW, coleslaw. Choke on it.

          • HeilMary1

            We pay for your sex offending-enabling Viagra, mother killer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And toothpaste is not a prescription medication.

          • lady_black

            If toothpaste was by prescription, damned right I would expect prescription insurance to cover it. I have this thing about getting what I paid for.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            And we changed the law. We have come a long way from Biblical times when slavery was an acceped economic institution.
            It is the law is an excellent argument. One of the best.

          • colleen2

            It was also once the law that women were legal chattel . Despite what you and your sick, sick religion and political party wants we are not going to return to that bullshit.

          • HeilMary1

            Selfish gestational slaver, we’re not your incubating cows. We don’t owe you the shredding of our lady parts, vital organ failures, sepsis limb amputations, deaths, etc. as punishment for sex with your buddies. Just because you have criminal reproductive Munchausen by Proxy psychosis doesn’t mean our government should indulge your disgusting misogynistic mayhem.

          • L-dan

            By ‘someone’ you mean the insurance company, which is not a person? Because I don’t really care about the company’s non-existent feelings at having to hew to some minimum level of coverage.

            If the company owner was an anti-vaxxer, would it be appropriate to allow the company not to cover vaccines?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Why? Because of so-called ‘conscience’? I don’t see why an employer’s or insurer’s ‘conscience’ should be troubled by someone else using contraception. I don’t see why it should even matter.

          • lady_black

            The law says otherwise. Contraception coverage is the law. So … bounce.

          • HeilMary1

            Unaffordable contraception = $50,000 to $5,000,000 childbirths, idiot.

      • fiona64

        Actually, I pay for my insurance premiums, sweetie … and that covered my tubal ligation many, many years ago.

        I still think you’re just pissed off because you can’t get someone to pay for your condoms.

      • lady_black

        Oh goodie! Post your address so we can send you the bill. You’re right. I am cheap. I don’t like being told to pay for something twice because I happen to have boobs.

        • Shan

          Anyone can have boobs these days. Pft. ;-)

          • lady_black

            You know what I mean, Shan.

          • Shan

            Yah, I do. I’m just in a weird mood. :-)

        • fiona64

          Maybe s/h/it will pay for my groceries, too. Hey, this is a good idea!

      • expect_resistance

        No. Try again.

      • HeilMary1

        Cheapskate hypocrite liar you pretends we don’t already pay our share in addition to paying for your pedophile sex tourism Viagra.

    • fiona64

      Your “points” were addressed on numerous occasions, by numerous people. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

  • xuinkrbin

    “Use of Contraception Is Not Your Boss’ Business” — Which is probably a good reason for Employers to not provide insurance coverage for it; using One’s cash, instead of an Employer’s Self insured plan, for example, leaves the Employer completely out of the picture.

    • fiona64

      Yeah, why don’t you go talk to the GOP, who bitched so much that single-payer was taken off the table during ACA discussions?

      • HeilMary1

        Don’t forget racist forced-birther/CHILD-FREE Pat Buchanan who helped kill national day care in the 1970s! Selfish child-hating child-free forced-birthers prove their contempt for already born kids when they oppose basic support for already born kids!