The Huffington Post:
Criticizing President Barack Obama’s health care reform law on Wednesday, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) likened the requirement that private insurance plans provide contraception coverage to two of the most devastating attacks on American soil.
“I know in your mind, you can think of the times America was attacked,” he said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “One is Dec. 7, that’s Pearl Harbor Day. The other is Sept. 11, and that’s the day the terrorists attacked. I want you to remember Aug. 1, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.”
Wednesday marked the first day private insurers must include birth control coverage in their plans without charging a co-pay, per requirements in the Affordable Care Act.
What is he thinking? Over 7000 people lost their lives on Pearl Harbor Day and on 9-11. Both incidents were vicious, sneak attacks on the United States of America. No one has taken away anyone’s religious liberty. Every one still has a right to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe. No one is forcing contraception on anyone. No one has violated their religious beliefs if they don’t use contraception. His comparison is disrespectful to all those who lost their lives on 12-7-tji41 and
Why are people so gullible and hysterical? Apparently they lack the ability to think for themselves and they allow people who have a political agenda to manipulate facts and scare them. What a shame.
If someone is opposed to birth control, then by all means, avoid using it. Meanwhile, August 1, 2012 is a lifesaver day to most women, especially poor women.
Politics….heck of a thing, isn’t it?
Oh, and Alan Grayson is running for office again (FL-9). Want to go over some of the outrageous things he has excreted out his pie-hole?
Hmmmmm … does this mean I’ll be seeing less ‘poor people’ roaming the streets with their five plus children in tow?
@slowpoke, nah, I think he is a jerk. You like him or something?
@SA, I sure hope so. I mean that very sincerely.
People shouldn’t have children they can’t afford or take care of. I think that is a conservative value, actually. I am just not one prone to hanging labels on things.
@SA, just because people can procreate doesn’t mean that they should. I feel the same way about dogs and cats also. Some dogs and cats are better parents than people.
@Second Alamo
It means that more women will be able to find breast tumors early enough
not to have to die from breast cancer.
They will also be able to avoid ovarian cancer because of early detection.
As far as I know, women are not being forced to use birth control.
Or have I gotten that wrong?
Preventing illnesses and preventing unplanned pregnancies is wrong? Infamy?
@Second Alamo
Where are the ‘poor people’ roaming the streets?
I’m assuming that Slowpo and 2nd Alamo are males.
Punchak, visit any Walmart in the afternoon if you want to see groups of children hovering around an obviously non-working parent. Show me a non-working parent who can afford five children, and I’ll show you where your tax dollar is being spent! It takes two incomes to be able to even afford to own a home and raise a single child these days, so where do you think the financial support for a single income family with five is coming from? Do the math. Another child means more from us for them. So now where will all those contraceptives be used? Try the black market.
SA, hopefully contraception will work like everything else. You get a month’s supply and then you go back for more.
Black market contraceptives? How does that work? So we have fewer crooks having unwanted kids? That works also.
I am going to be bold and suggest that no one with 5 kids can afford a baby sitter. It takes one hell of a job.
People are not being force fed birth control – just access to it if they choose to use it. Compare the cost savings of providing BC and preventing an unwanted child – I will go for the BC on a dollar basis, without considering the conditions the unwanted child will grow up in.
For the people who feel that access is against their religious belief – how do you feel about Muslim woman who want a drivers license and must have a photo without a veil, burqa? What about a Sikh without his turban? That is more of an infringement on religious beliefs that just providing access to BC. I support the clear photo for ID purposes, yet it does trounce on their religious beliefs, but I guess some feel that is OK, since they are not Christians.
@Pat, good for you for thinking of that. I hadn’t. You know, I don’t feel badly for them. No one says they must drive. If they want to drive, that’s what they have to give up. Of course, I am sort of not very enlightened on the subject of religious veils etc.
I don’t think people have unlimited rights to practice religious beliefs. Obviously the fundamental Mormons can’t have multiple state sanctioned wives. Obviously no one can marry 12 year olds. Peyote is regulated, Santeria and voodoo have forbidden practices, snake handling is illegal in some states. –just to cite a few examples.
Slowpoke, how about addressing the comparison to 9-11 and Pearl harbor. Is this a typical Republican thought or is it a rogue remark.
I really don’t see it as interferring with religious rights at all. No one is forcing anyone to USE contraception.
George Allen started with the crap the other night. This seems so simple. If you don’t want to use contraception or if your religion forbids it, then don’t.
What have I missed? It sounds to me like those who think contraception is immoral also think it is immoral for everyone else and want to keep it from the rest of us. Does anyone else get that impression?
It’s a rogue remark that smacks of the religious zealot part of the Republican party. He way overshot his target, and you are going to see it more and more and more as we become more polarized as a nation. Not seeing this discussed anywhere but HuffPo. I wonder if HuffPo is going to analyze Elizabeth “Sitting Bull$hit” Warren’s discussion of how much better China is than the US.
Better at what? Cheap labor?
Truthfully, I wish the Republicans would stop with the religious remarks that are off the reservation. it makes it impossible for someone like me to ever support any one of them.
@Second Alamo
I went to Walmart once.
Maybe there wouldn’t have been five kids, had the mother been able to
get free contraceptives.
Excelllent point. @punchak
At spending money on infrastructure projects. Of course, being a liberal, she glosses over the fact that China has money and we don’t.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone using contraceptives. I just don’t want to be forced to subsidize it financially.
For the first time ever, I just had an inexpensive medical procedure denied that is supposed to be covered. In response to rising costs, my employer recently changed to a different medical insurance company.
The modus operandi of this company seems to be to force people to spend time and effort to get covered items paid for. Coverage was always good before, but now this seems to be happening to a lot of people. My costs have increased while the quality of care has decreased.
I wonder if this is one of the “benefits” of Obamacare?
Would you rather pay for bunches of unwanted kids? I prefer to pay for contraception.
Actually the drug companies are paying this time and its about time. They have been raping the American public for years.
How do you feel about subsidizing drugs in general for those on medicare? How about contraceptives on medicaid? You are doing it now. I guess Seniors aren’t using contraceptives but they are sure using a lot of other rx’s.
you are paying for many men to use Viagra – and Cialus – how does one feel about that – so, we subsidize the male part, but not the female part. Sounds normal.
If someone is too dim to invest in personal contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy, I doubt that including contraception in insurance plans will make much difference.
I would prefer not to pay for Viagra or Cialis either.
@Kelly
This has nothing to do with viagra or cialis. Erectile dysfunction isn’t even close to pregnancy. The fact that you even brought it up shows me that you just consider this discussion sexual. It really isn’t.
People are too dim and too poor and too irresponsible and too a lot of different things to invest in personal contraception. You are paying for the result of them being too _____. Do you think you are money ahead investing in contraception for pennies (if you are a drug company who will be paying) or raising a child to age 18. I raised 3 of the little devils and I have kicked in on a few gkids also. Let me tell you which is cheaper.
You won’t be paying for it, Mr. Paternalistic. The insurance companies are. Yes, they will find a way to soak us. I don’t doubt that but they have been soaking me forever. Even if it cuts out 10% of the unwanted pregnancy, money will be saved.
No offense, but I am telling you I think you are way to entrenched in the middle class and way too male to understand the problem.
As for paying for Viagra and Cialis, just who SHOULD pay for it then? I think if you need it, you should pay for it. Actually, that isn’t totally correct. I think it should be treated like any other rx and those who need it should co-pay if that is the kind of plan they are on. Those who can’t afford the co-pay should save up. Its just another drug.
Who should pay if someone needs trouble with “leaky pipes? What is it called, flomax? Its medicine to treat enlarged prostates that are often the root of the problem in that area? Yes, those problems cause sexual (gasp) as well as other problems that affect quality of life.
I don’t think we get to be the arbitrators of other people’s medical conditions.
@Punchak. So let me get this straight, you are saying that poor people are too stupid to realize that the cost of contraceptives is way way less than the cost of raising yet another child, and that is why they have so many children. That is unless having another child is actually looked upon as a financial benefit to those who receive tax payer funds for child support, food stamps, housing, free lunches, etc. etc. That is the problem, not the lack of free inexpensive contraceptives. As a matter of fact I thought that social services did provide free contraceptives, so how do you explain that?
Not everyone is eligible for medicaid and medicaid-like services. How about the lower middle class? They don’t qualify for jack.
Having another child is no longer a financial benefit. SA, you are behind the times as Mr. Howler. GEEZ.
Most of the problem comes from people too young having children. People who have children too young haven’t established themselves and often havent completed their education that allows them to have a decent earning capacity.
Moon – I was the one to bring up Viagra and Cialis – because it is a drug that is often covered in health plans, while Birth Control is often not covered at all.
@Moon-howler Seniors aren’t using contraceptives
Moon I would use contraceptives but at my age, I forgot what they’re for!