except it covers means to destroy embryos (RU-486) after conception, which is abortion Voting away legislative authority to the executive is not the same thing as voting on mandates for abortifacients.
Major wrote that this regulation has nothing to do with abortions. Commodore countered that by writing that it includes the 'abortion' pill. Is Commodore wrong about the regulation?
did i say he was? commodore wrote that forcing insurance companies to cover this was the height of arrogance. that's what i was responding to is commodore right? thank you
btw, bobrek, not to single you out but the biggest problem with this debate is old men like you moralizing what's best for young women
pro-lifers are trying to protect the rights of the baby through legislation, not moralize young women. Common mistake.
they already have access, this just forces the rest of us to pay for it Not about what's best for young women, it's about what's best for the unborn. Namely, a right to their own existence. I'm as libertine as anyone when it comes to what you do with your own body (I don't believe in any drug prohibition or the FDA or prescription requirements). But taking the life on an innocent is never justified. Obama making us pay for it is unconscionable.
its legal, deal with it, you can't pick and choose what other people are using their healthcare benefits for
I'm not an expert on these things, but is this the morning after pill? If so, isn't it available without prescription so it wouldn't be covered by insurance anyway? If this is a separate prescription drug, then more than half the states already require insurance cover it as-is, if I understand correctly. Why wasn't anyone complaining about all those? Do you believe every single individual regulation on every topic should be voted on by the legislature? This would be incredibly inefficient and silly. 535 people don't remotely have the time to get properly educated on every military, safety, food, space, underwater, health, nuclear, etc regulation we could have.
He thinks the baby's right to existence/life out weighs any choices you think the mother should have. Which is what I just said. You could just go look this stuff up yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation Spoiler
i know his view, the federal government doesn't have the authority to ban abortion, read your link, educate yourself
This is the fundamental problem anytime a debate about abortion comes up. Each side looks at the issue through a totally different lens, and thus the two sides end up talking past each other. For pro-lifers, it's about protecting a life. For pro-choicers, there's no life being saved. Thus, neither side "gets" the other.
Correct. The pro-choicers view a fetus as a piece of property (like furniture) of the mothers to be destroyed at their disposal where as pro-lifers view it as a human with rights. What's amazing to me is the debate falls exactly in line with political views some how (liberals are usually pro-choice and conservatives pro-life). As if size of government has anything to do with defining a fetus. This debate has nothing to do with the federal government banning abortions. Stop digging.
Yes, or at the minimum all regulations should sunset if not voted on within a given timeframe. Or why not have the agency "experts" (hah) draft nonbinding regulations and submit them for a vote? It's a fundamental tenant of representative democracy that the laws that govern us are actually voted on. If we wanted to live under decrees and edicts and proclamations from unelected agencies and ministers, we would still be part of the British Commonwealth.
or women having them, i know thanks. on a sidenote i love these catholics (which i am and actually i'm getting ready for church) coming out the woodworks wearing their religioin on the their sleaves. what was santorum's position on priests ****ing kids?
