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.
Apples and oranges. The female equivalent of ED is treated with meds that are normally covered. Those are apples and apples.
If there is ever a male BC pill and that is covered under the mandate, then all is equal.
Condoms aren't prescription so they can't apply.
This is all ridiculous anyway, didn't you libs want the government out of your bedroom?
Ridiculous? Hell no it isn't.
Further, that's not what I believe. I believe that laws need to protect against those who would be discriminated, and to defend the right of each woman to her own body, I believe govt needs to be a big-ass large institution, particularly since this country is big-ass huge, and that since it is OUR government (and not some evil entity that needs to be dispensed with, as right wingers keep saying), it needs to find solutions to problems encountered by Americans. Problem #1 right now is Americans have been without healthcare for too damned long - which makes this an embarrassment of a country compared with all European and Nordic nations.
Government is there to serve us all, not exclusively the evangelical Bible bangers and the Ayn Rand worshippers.
Also, the government (contrary to what you believe) is NOT there exclusively to supply defense and law enforcement.
This has got to be the only frikkin' country in which right wingers believe the govt should be there only to provide military defense, protect the rich, enact Bible-banging laws and laws against the scapegoated, and pay health insurance to salaries to Republican and Libertarian policy makers.
Now, to get back to this - how is women's inability to experience an orgasm paid for by private insurance? I know nothing about this, so perhaps you could discuss this. Is it paid for? We already know that men's inability to ejaculate is being covered by ALL health insurance.
Because many religions including catholics want to force you to do as they do in Rome
And it is all about religion and nothing else. Which is why religion (the proselytizing brands - I have nothing against religions that mind their own business and stay out of my uterus) irk the hell out of me.
How is free contraception for women anti-man ? Anything that reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancy is pro-males who want to have intercourse without worrying as much about having a kid, child support, skipping town, std's, etc. He still can't rely totally on the woman using the bc or it working, but still. better than nothing.
I guess free contraception for women would be anti-man to any man that wants the chance to impregnate women any damned time he wishes. lol
No, but women are acting like helpless whining children when they won't take responsibiltiy for their own bc. The men will not get pregnant, we will. Just now, in 2013 all of a sudden women become poor little victims who have to be saved by daddy government when we have been doing it ourselves for years.
LOL! Whining? Whining about WHAT? A person who protests something, points out inconsistencies and wrongs, and refuses to submit, is whining? So what you want is for women to s t f u and just submit to your f'd up right wing, male-dominated ideology? You're a right winger, so of course you're going to scapegoat even your own. So awesomely cool of you. You should be ashamed of yourself to abide by a typically misogynist, male-oriented, authoritarian, f'd up ideology as is the right wing. Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath that that's going to happen in this century.
Women (most, anyway - dunno about you) will not submit. Stop whining about women "whining."
I don't suppose it ever occurred to these people that if you don't want a child, cannot afford to care for a child, then maybe *just maybe* you shouldn't be having sex? .
I don't think I should be required to pay for animals in rut, sorry.
20yrsinBranson
It hasn't occurred to you also that people who are doing fine and have kids, can end up in poverty, as has happened in the past 30+ years with the Reagan trickle down lies which have dominated our country? Nah, of course not! That can't possibly be!!
As for people getting pregnant, maybe they should check with you first before they do.
make '''the pill''' OTC, and then pay for it just like you pay for advil
too bad the liberals lack common sense
Too bad the FDA lacks common sense.
Most docs think it should be non prescription.
But there is the day after pill as non prescription for those 18 and over,
but it does cost over forty dollars.
Depending on how active one is, that could add up pretty quickly
I saw that study, women who were on the pill were choosing more effeminate men, and when those same women went off the pill their choice in men changed to more masculine or 'macho' men. When on the pill they were happy with their mate, but when they went off the pill they were more attracted to more macho types of men. In other words, women on the pill were marrying the wrong men, and as soon as they went off the pill they'd wonder why the hell they married this wimpy guy.
That doesn't indicate they were marrying the wrong men, just different men.
If a woman isn't planning on having children, then that will move "strong protector" down on the priority list of what she's seeking in a relationship. If she later decides she wants children then the man she picked because he was a good conversationalist will not be meeting her needs anymore.
It seems natural to me. People change over time and their needs and desires change with them.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to these people that if you don't want a child, cannot afford to care for a child, then maybe *just maybe* you shouldn't be having sex?
20yrsinBranson
It certainly has occurred to me But I planned my family and am not
part of the problem.
It's the ones on welfare we need to address. The babies, barely adults
having babies, and more babies... without papas. For those folks, the pill is
"heaven sent" as far as I'm concerned.
Only those with 50+ full time employees are mandated to have health insurance for their employees, and they were always mandated to do so. That didn't start with Obamacare.
So if there are <50 employees your employer is not required to offer health insurance, but as an individual you are required to provide your own health care insurance? Is that correct?
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.
But I planned my family and am not 
