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.
"It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus)."
Many have criticized the FDA for not eliminating the 'or prevent implantation' from the guide. I think that info may still be on Plan B packaging labels; maybe someone who uses it can check.
I know some recent research doesn't support the 'prevents implantation' claim. Still, I have no problem with someone who thinks Plan B can destroy a fertilized egg, given the 'scientific certainty' it doesn't is relatively new.
Thank you for the FDA quote. However, as you said, their isn't any reliable evidence supporting the claim. It seems the FDA viewed the active ingredient, progestin, as possibly having a part in altering the endometrium; yet, no studies point to this actually being the case in a simulated environment.
I cannot in good conscience label a decision that diminishes access to highly effective birth control, based on physiological misconceptions, a just one.
You just don't get it do you? Basically, those who cannot afford birth control, cannot afford a baby. Covering for contraception is a whole lot cheaper than paying for welfare and Medicaid. But hey, have it your way.
My question would be...a person has to be working to get health insurance via the employer. A working person can afford to pay for their own contraceptive. All our welfare crap takes care of those not working for which, of course, those working have to pay. So what's the problem?
IUDs and emergency contraception are both highly effective, non-abortifacient forms of birth control which Hobby Lobby employees no longer have covered in their ACA policy. More importantly, this case sets a controversial precedent concerning the role of religious expression in private, for-profit entities.
Seeing as how women's voting rights weren't backed up by the constitution until 1920 indicates that it is not a static legal framework, but an ever-evolving one.
Those "working" women can buy supplemental insurance for such coverage on their own from their own salary!
Are you so really deluded to believe that this is about "free stuff," which isn't "free" by any stretch unless you consider your paycheck and other compensation "free."
???
How is it that people are so obtuse as to not realize that as a result of this ruling, anything, absolutely anything, can, and doubtless will, be objected to on religious grounds.
The only silver lining is that I think this will prove to be the tipping point for a lot of voters.
Anyone with any brains will understand that the AFA (aka, Obama Care) is a nasty mess that needs to be repealed. It doesn't work and will never work. Actually, any judge with an honest legal education in Constitutional law would rule the AFA totally illegal now that BO has tweaked this and tweaked that with his pen without going through Congress. BO has to authority to change a law passed by Congress on his own. These changes make this law null and void by rights of Constitutional law.
Nope, Medicare is an example of universal healthcare for seniors.
Not really. Medicare is a program into which employees and employers contributed. The problem with this program is that we have "allowed" Congress to rape that account of the "principle" so there is no principle to earn interest...they replaced what they stole with I.O.U.'s which cannot earn interest. If the principle were left alone Medicare would be earning it's way. Combined with Social Security which was set up basically the same way and also raped of its principle, the same results prevail. We must keep government fingers out of the $'s in the accounts.
Thank you for the FDA quote. However, as you said, their isn't any reliable evidence supporting the claim. It seems the FDA viewed the active ingredient, progestin, as possibly having a part in altering the endometrium; yet, no studies point to this actually being the case in a simulated environment.
I cannot in good conscience label a decision that diminishes access to highly effective birth control, based on physiological misconceptions, a just one.
We could go around for a few days with links to various studies re Plan B, including ones the FDA relied on when they issued the notice. For discussion sake, let's say the HL objected only to the IUD.
You'd still consider the decision unjust and legally wrong, still diminishing a women's access to bc contrary to the ACA.
I'd still consider the decision legally right, and a decent balance between an employer's religious freedom and an employee's freedom to accept or reject the offered coverage.
Get real. Government should stay out of personal lives...period. Wholesale abortion is murder which is against the law. Don't forget, abortion, over time, has probably led to more "expecting mothers" to die than we will ever know. Frankly, I do not believe that the Federal government should ever have anything to do with this issue. That is an issue that States should deal with. It is Federal government that has so far, far overstepped all authority given to them by the Constitution. So much of what Federal government has usurped is far over and above their authority and as per our Constitution is a States issue.
Your claim about the legal status of abortion is incorrect. The abortion of a non-viable fetus is not considered murder by law. States such as Colorado tried to make this so in 2008, but failed. Even in Texas, which has highly restrictive measures on abortion, does not deem it murder outright.
If you are referring to abortion procedure, under Roe vs. Wade, the due process clause of the 4th Amendment was sited as grounds for both federal and state governments to limit interference with a woman's right to choose for herself.
Your claim about the legal status of abortion is incorrect. The abortion of a non-viable fetus is not considered murder by law. States such as Colorado tried to make this so in 2008, but failed. Even in Texas, which has highly restrictive measures on abortion, does not deem it murder outright.
If you are referring to abortion procedure, under Roe vs. Wade, the due process clause of the 4th Amendment was sited as grounds for both federal and state governments to limit interference with a woman's right to choose for herself.
Amendment IV, Seizures, Searches and Warrants. Whoever made that interpretation is stretching their imagination.
My address to murder is the fact that abortions practiced by non-licensed doctors that result in the death of the expecting mother can certainly be considered murder.
Back to the fact that the ACA is a mess and must be repealed asap...that is the only way to clean up the mess it has made already and will make much worse as time goes on.
Amendment IV, Seizures, Searches and Warrants. Whoever made that interpretation is stretching their imagination.
My address to murder is the fact that abortions practiced by non-licensed doctors that result in the death of the expecting mother can certainly be considered murder.
Back to the fact that the ACA is a mess and must be repealed asap...that is the only way to clean up the mess it has made already and will make much worse as time goes on.
My mistake, I meant 14th Amendment.
Regarding unsafe abortion practices, in MedReviews article, "Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality," Drs. Haddad & Nour state the following in the abstract:
"Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur."
Therefore, you are correct in that unsafe abortion practices are the result of significant incidents of maternal death. However, leaving abortion up to states would most likely result in more of these incidents due to restricted access in more conservative states.
I'm curious as to why you believe ACA is a failure when 8 million citizens have enrolled and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $5 billion in federal net cost will be saved this year and 89% of non-elderly citizens will be insured by 2016, up from 80% before ACA. From the data we've seen so far, our health care system appears to be improving.
Last edited by Middling Swordsman; 07-05-2014 at 01:18 PM..
Reason: The article is originally from MedReview LLC, not NCBI.
Regarding unsafe abortion practices, in MedReviews article, "Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality," Drs. Haddad & Nour state the following in the abstract:
"Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur."
Therefore, you are correct in that unsafe abortion practices are the result of significant incidents of maternal death. However, leaving abortion up to states would most likely result in more of these incidents due to restricted access in more conservative states.
I'm curious as to why you believe ACA is a failure when 8 million citizens have enrolled and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $5 billion in federal net cost will be saved this year and 89% of non-elderly citizens will be insured by 2016, up from 80% before ACA. From the data we've seen so far, our health care system appears to be improving.
Oh, and how exactly did that $5 billion get saved?
"That net downward revision is attributable to many factors, including changes in law, revisions to CBO’s economic projections, judicial decisions, administrative actions, new data, numerous improvements in CBO and JCT’s modeling, and lower projected health care costs for both the federal government and the private sector."
In other words you still haven't felt the full pain of the UACA and it still cost $1.839 trillion over a 9 year period from 2015 - 2024 only offset by $456 billion in new taxes.
What else did the CBO say about that same time?
"But if current laws do not change, the period of shrinking deficits will soon come to an end. Between 2015 and 2024, annual budget shortfalls are projected to rise substantially—from a low of $469 billion in 2015 to about $1 trillion from 2022 through 2024—mainly because of the aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. CBO expects that cumulative deficits during that decade will equal $7.6 trillion if current laws remain unchanged.
Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences. Federal spending on interest payments would increase considerably when interest rates rose to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing would eventually raise the cost of investment by businesses and other entities, the capital stock would be smaller, and productivity and wages lower, than if federal borrowing was more limited. In addition, high debt means that lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, high debt increases the risk of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates."
And you folks still haven't told us how you plan to pay for SS which will, in that same time period, see two depleted trust funds. OADI and Medicare HI.
No doubt your answer is to just tax and spend more. Drowning the baby in the bath water right before you flush it down the drain. Rinse and repeat.
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.
