Home | About | Donate

'This Attack Is a New Low': Trump Rebuked for Rolling Back Birth Control Mandate


#21

Greenwich you explained it perfectly!


#22

It’s a matter of privileging institutional morals or religious dictates over personal practice. That amounts to establishment of every institution thus recognized, in violation of the 1st Amendment.

And look, these are “interim final rules.” I can’t see how they can take effect before they’re even published in the Federal Register, let alone subjected to public comment. We have until December 5 to shut them down. The actual documents are available now at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2017-21851.pdf and https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2017-21852.pdf, and we are invited (as we must be) to submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov or by various hard-copy routes, including hand delivery. So let’s get to work, understand exactly what “CMS-9940-IFR” and “CMS-9925-IFC” say and make reasoned comments about them. It’s up to we the people to show that our country runs by democracy, not dictat.

This is a proposed interpretation of established law, nothing more than instructions to executive departments to stand with private institutions that may remove contraceptive coverage from their employees’ insurance, defending those institutions rather than the citizen employees in the inevitable lawsuits that will follow. We can insist on the preservation of Congressional action, signed by the President, over what amounts to a line-item veto by a different holder of the executive office.

We can also remind our employers that they are more likely to pay higher premiums (or pass them on to us) when contraceptive coverage is removed from insurance policies, because pregnancy carries higher risk and higher cost. Not to mention that pregnant employees are going to miss work, need to be assigned to lighter duties, and take parental leave. This is not really any kind of gain for an employer. It will be a matter of public record when an employer applies for exemption, making them subject to boycotts and loss of established and trained employees.

Fight fire with fire. Use the system; that’s what keeps it working.


#23

OMG!!! This lady needs to be really really careful!


#24

On this and many other fronts, we are going to have to fight creatively. In this case, we need to also be fighting to get birth control pills over the counter. If they are cheap and at the grocery store, there is less impact by them not being covered by health insurance. Sure I’d prefer everyone had access to free birth control and free yearly checkups but in the absence of that women (and their partners) need as many solutions as possible.


#25

shame on a government that returns to old issues to create havoc instead of concentrating on the important issues of the here and now


#26

It reduces women to baby making drones. It neither celebrates or acknowledges women as capable human beings. There would be far fewer unwanted pregnancies if there were far greater responsible fathers or at least equality in society. This is punitive and bigoted.


#27

Mostly it’s ignorantly ideological. Covering birth control does NOT raise premiums for insurance, because pregnancy is far riskier and more expensive even if everything goes well. It’s also expensive to employers in productivity and presence of employees.

But we have until Dec.5 to “comment” before the rules become final. By that time there will also be lawsuits against any companies applying for exemptions. You can’t change the law by dictate. It will not stand.


#28

Thank you. I read your post and it has some very good points. I tend to look at social consequences in a different frame but you are exactly right on. I can’t dismiss some of the other implications though.


#29

Ok. Googled her. Seems this video was a long while ago and Kay went missing. Mystery about what actually happened to her?


#30

The solution to the Nation’s modern birth control and abortion abuse of our women seems so simple: Until fairness is established, ALL women refuse to have sex with men! Then, bands of women “settle the score” with any pussy-grabber types who think they can just TAKE what they want. How long do you suppose any government could survive a total sexual boycott by the victims of that government’s corrupt policies?


#31

“Donald Trump’s latest dictate is a perfect execution of his passions: controlling women and robbing people of healthcare…”

Nonsense. I doubt he cares one whit about these or any other social/moral/political issues; he’s simply acting to execute the oligarchs’ self-serving agenda of inflaming the culture wars. A distracted society is a complacent society.


#32

It’s vengeance on Obama. His only ideology is to undo what O accomplished. It might be prompted by Pence’s ideology. Sorry, got to shut his mouth coming at me from LVNV.


#33

N, you overlooked something, sweetie. Cognitive dissonance requires a certain amount of cognitive capacity and functioning to begin with. Do you see any evidence of the prerequisite anywhere in the OC? Neither do I…


#34

That’s a pretty good post.


#35

D, I understand your reasoning but disagree. We all know pregnancy, although natural, can be very dangerous. Unfortunately, so can birth control hormones. I support that medicine being free to all consumers but not being available over-the-counter. Anyone taking hormones should be under a competent doctor’s supervision and monitoring.


#36

Like Donald, men always have the option of rape. Boycotting is a cute beginning, though.


#37

Lysistrata! Where are you when we really need your help?
;-})


#38

You sound like a libertarian, so perhaps you don’t understand that the issue that Trump is supporting here is the sacred libertarian freedom of an employer to hire or fire anyone, and provide any lever of pay or benefits he cares to, for any reason or no reason at all. This is all in accordance with the “free market”, or in other words, if an employee does not like getting birth control with their employer medical benefits, they can find another fucking job! You say that almost no employers provide birth control benefits - well THE INFALLIBLE, ALL POWERFUL OMNISCIENT INVISIBLE HAND OF FREEDOM decided that (Pay no attention to that club of billionaires behind the curtain).

Of course, they can also get another job if they arent paid enough, they are of a race the boss doesn’t like or any other reason - there are plenty of other working stiffs exercising their “free will”, to place their their hats in their hands waiting outside the door.

So, as far as this minor birth control thing - the fight against socialist big government is just starting! Once Sesion’s team of crack lawyers are done with it, the whole socialist Civil Rights Act will be gone. Remember - the only right a libertarian believe in is the right to make money by any means without limit as long as you don’t say it was “coercion” (where the endless ways of putting a worker over a barrel is NEVER “coercion”).


But hey! As we heard so often here from the “Trump Left” over and over again:

NEVER HILLARY - TRUMP WON’T BE SO BAD!

NEVER HILLARY - TRUMP WON’T BE SO BAD!

NEVER HILLARY - TRUMP WON’T BE SO BAD!


#39

Wait. Didn’t you know collectively bargaining for wages and benefits–raising your price–isn’t the free market? The free market only applies when convenient for ownership. Otherwise, it’s the duty of the government to intervene to keep the cost of labor low. So, government policy on behalf of one portion of the market is good policy, ergo Trump is awesome!


#40

Impotent men have no need for birth control.