Home | About | Donate

Despite Leaving Key Questions Unanswered, New Contraceptive Coverage Exemptions Will Do Clear Harm


Despite Leaving Key Questions Unanswered, New Contraceptive Coverage Exemptions Will Do Clear Harm

Adam Sonfield

Birthcontrol should be basic healthcare.

The new federal regulations will also be facing challenges in court. Already, as of October 17, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington had announced lawsuits, as had the American Civil Liberties Union (on behalf of a major hospital workers’ union) and the Center for Reproductive Rights (on behalf of Medical Students for Choice). More lawsuits appear imminent.


Wish you’d noted the public-comment period on these proposed final rules, which happens to overlap with the time when employers will be offering new insurance coverage to employees. The time for negotiating new coverage is essentially gone for 2018.

And any insurance company with a brain will offer a cheaper policy that covers contraception than one that carries a higher risk of pregnancy and of complications. Prenatal care and delivery, including the risk of extended perinatal care, is much more expensive than any form of contraception. That’s why insurance companies want to make being a woman capable of pregnancy a preexisting condition.


“bkswrites” is right, of course…but the legislators are mostly male, and virtually all insecure in fact of a woman who might be able to make their OWN choices about how they choose to have their own bodies used.

So, they do NOTHING but support “Viagra for all males” at the same time, to keep impressing upon women how unreasonable they are to expect the right to have any choice over how their own body is to be used or abused by males.

This anti-birth-control movement is the sole province of insecure and pathetic males who seek domination over women by keeping them “barefoot and pregnant,” and thus subservient to their need to bolster their own fragile egos by “keeping women in their place.”

Why are so many men so threatened by the very idea of a woman choosing her own life’s course?


I’ll never understand why an employer’s “religious objection” should take precedence over INDIVIDUAL WOMEN’s wishes for control of their own bodies. Something is very wrong with this, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling for Hobby Lobby’s owners.

Nobody but an individual woman should have any say-so in her reproductive decisions, well maybe her Dr (& husband?).


Part of it is the double standard where boys are allowed to sow wild oats, but a woman is suppose to be chaste. To the real conservative, women should not be having fun with sex. Only boys are allowed to do that. Now don’t ask me where the women that boys are suppose to have sex with come from if women are suppose to be chaste, that part was never defined. But bad girls have sex. Boys become men when having sex.
And then you have the bare foot and pregnant part, esp. for white women because they are suppose to be having babies because white supremacy is depending on them. Otherwise white people will become a minority in their own land. Don’t get me started on that part. But if you listen to them, white women are not pumping out enough babies and minorities are pumping out too many. Which would sort of make sense if they made sure minorities got birth control to stop the pumping out the babies part.
All in all, it is a two part whammy on women, sex is immoral for women, ok for men. And women should be having many babies, esp. if white. I have been trying to make sense of it since the 50s’ when I was told having a women would make me a man. But stay away from the Irish women because they fuck like bunnies. It is what my grandmother told me. So I married an Irish woman. Hey, don’t blame me, I am just being a man and sowing my wild oats. Can’t help it if women are sluts /S.