Why is birth control coverage such a contentious subject? (against, USA, racial)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
viagara =/= birth control.
Sorry that this is so difficult for you to understand.
It's not medically necessary, either.
The Pill is 60 years old. Women have menstruated for centuries without estrogen supplements. It's not medically needed, either in 99% of the cases. If there is a medical need we cover it. Seems pretty fair.
The Pill is 60 years old. It's not medically needed either in 99% of the cases. If there is a medical need we cover it. Seems pretty fair.
By using your logic, all women are one size fits all for birth control pills.
Would that work for a chemo cocktail, or would it kill a lot of people?
That doesn't matter, they're a small portion of the population.
You don't get to determine what my medical needs are. You are not my doctor.
The pill was difficult to purchase until the early 70s.
Around the time of Roe v. Wade.
And computers were around since the 1940s. When were they readily available?
So my choice is I pay for their pill or I pay for their child? Here's another choice: they pay for their pill or they pay for their child.
You can fantasize but those who deal with reality have made the choice already, that's why BC (which benefit men, woman and all of society) is the winner. This is why things get so contentious, people are stuck on "what would be in a perfect world if everyone thought like me" instead of "look what we have here...let's do what we can".
By using your logic, all women are one size fits all for birth control pills.
You don't get to determine what my medical needs are. You are not my doctor.
The pill was difficult to purchase until the early 70s.
Around the time of Roe v. Wade.
And computers were around since the 1940s. When were they readily available?
Your logic circuit must be tired. Some people use Tylenol and some like Ibuprofen and some plain aspirin. They are over the counter and cost pennies.
You work with your doctor to find what works for you then go pay for it. I've advocated national health so that's not a concern. If you have a medical condition we cover the pill. Otherwise pay a few bucks.
We aren't in the 1970's. Irrelevant to the discussion and my suggestion.
So my choice is I pay for their pill or I pay for their child? Here's another choice: they pay for their pill or they pay for their child.
Again.....IN THE REAL WORLD.....this country is not going to let children starve in the streets because their parents are poor.......and IN THE REAL WORLD......you and I are going to be taxed to support those children.
Me.....I would rather pay pennies to provide for the pill than pay thousands to provide for unplanned children.
Can't you see that you are fighting against your own best interests? Why would you want to pay more taxes instead of less?
You can fantasize but those who deal with reality have made the choice already, that's why BC (which benefit men, woman and all of society) is the winner. This is why things get so contentious, people are stuck on "what would be in a perfect world if everyone thought like me" instead of "look what we have here...let's do what we can".
This is the base line for left/right politics.
Well said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
