Policy Options Conservatives are ready to support in a post Roe world (1 Viewer)

[dickey moe]

Wonder if this will expedite the development of the male contraceptive that is supposedly in progress. And time to go long in condom manufacturing (pun semi-intended). 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Wonder if this will expedite the development of the male contraceptive that is supposedly in progress. And time to go long in condom manufacturing (pun semi-intended). 

I believe every health care plan gives the pill (for women) for free. 
 

Condoms are sold on every corner. And given away through some organizations. 
 

Horny young people are dumb and don’t care. I am very lucky that I didn’t have to deal with any unwanted pregnancies growing up 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I believe every health care plan gives the pill (for women) for free. 
 

Condoms are sold on every corner. And given away through some organizations. 
 

Horny young people are dumb and don’t care. I am very lucky that I didn’t have to deal with any unwanted pregnancies growing up 

A big piece of the puzzle is that most of the options for women are quite destructive to their bodies, and condoms are probably one of the least reliable form of control in general, right?   IMO, we badly need something on the male side of the equation to balance that out.  

So the 2 you listed, while more readily available, are 91% and 85% effective from what I see.  

ETA:  closest we have is vasectomy which is 99% effective, and 90%+ reversible.   Are women then going to start requiring proof of this before sex? 

 

[FairWarning]

Do you still talk to her?  Did she end up regretting the decision, or was that something that weighed on her, but she ended up thinking it was the correct choice? 

She died from cancer 5 years ago, lived a hard life.  She had a child who died at 6 Months, and it was a very hard pregnancy. She left the father, but not before she was pregnant again(didn’t know it at the time).  There were a lot of factors, but she made a lot of poor life choices also.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

For those who listen to pods, Freakonomics reupped a great episode where they talk about one of their studies about the legalizing of abortions and the drop in crime in the country.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Interestingly, this very topic was the topic of the sermon in my church Sunday. It's a suburban mainstream large church. I don't know for sure of course, but the voting precincts around the area all were in favor of Donald Trump in the last election. Again, I don't know for sure, but my guess is the congregation would describe themselves as overwhelmingly Pro Life.  If I had to guess, I'd describe the congregation as mostly Conservative.

Our church makes a very clear separation of state from church. There are intentionally no US flags in the building. That kind of thing. 

We pray for our leaders including the President at every service. I've been going there a long while and we've prayed the exact same way for President Bush and President Obama and President Trump and President Biden.

We intentionally stay away from politics for the most part. 

But the pastor in his sermon said this Sunday:

What I find so interesting and so alarming is how many people who are Pro Life and all about a baby when its in the womb, as soon as it's born, they stop caring. Where is our concern and care for the 7 year old in the inner city that is starving to death? We fight so hard for these babies to be born and then we just turn a blind eye and move on to the next pregnant mom to revile. 

In my opinion, this is the kind of sermons that churches need to be giving. I don't know how common or uncommon my church is. I just am relaying what I've seen personally. 

 

[FairWarning]

Freak is a good podcast. 

 

[Coach Beard]

I believe every health care plan gives the pill (for women) for free. 

Incorrect.  Burwell v Hobby Lobby in 2014 struck down the contraceptive mandate.  

 

[Stealthycat]

I guess I am not up on state by state laws on what you are getting at here.   So my questions with that are:

1. How many of those reflect the federal terms of when that fetus is a "person" or not - do they include viablility, etc..? 

2.  If not, how much of those decisions were because legally they think the fetus is alive at all stages, or it's because whoever besides the mother made that decision and harmed the fetus did so against her will?  

I could see how it would come off as inconsistent, but if a lot of them are written because of the idea of taking the choice from the mother and harming her body in the process, I don't think it is that inconsistent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#:~:text=The Unborn Victims of Violence,listed federal crimes of violence.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

 

[KarmaPolice]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#:~:text=The Unborn Victims of Violence,listed federal crimes of violence.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

I get that, and after looking at our WI law it says similar.     I find this interesting, and like I was asking before - were the genesis of these laws in the context of more from the side of the mother (ie somebody removing her choice and her child) and having extra punishment in crimes, or is it a case of truly inconsistent definitions?  

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Incorrect.  Burwell v Hobby Lobby in 2014 struck down the contraceptive mandate.  

“There’s a good chance you can get low-cost or free birth control pills if you have health insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act(aka Obamacare), most insurance plans must cover all methods of birth control at no cost to you, including the pill. However, some plans only cover certain brands of pills or generic versions. Your health insurance provider can tell you which types of birth control they pay for. Your doctor may also be able to help you get the birth control you want covered by health insurance. Learn more about health insurance and affordable birth control.

If you don’t have health insurance, you’ve still got options. Depending on your income and legal status in the U.S., you could qualify for Medicaid or other government programs that can help you pay for birth control and other health care.”

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/how-do-i-get-birth-control-pills

“most” I guess

 

[Stealthycat]

I get that, and after looking at our WI law it says similar.     I find this interesting, and like I was asking before - were the genesis of these laws in the context of more from the side of the mother (ie somebody removing her choice and her child) and having extra punishment in crimes, or is it a case of truly inconsistent definitions?  

the genesis of the laws were that everyone knows an unborn baby is a living human being ......... we have laws that protect them and punish anyone who harms them

except if the mother wants an abortionist to kill the unborn, end the pregnancy and remove the dead unborn and that makes perfect sense 

not

consider this - a guy drunk driving runs into a car, killing the woman and the unborn, he'll be convicted and sentenced to prison for both deaths. If that woman was 2 miles from an abortion clinic, on her way to have the baby killed .... in just an hour or two later has she not been in that wreck, that same baby would have been dead, pregnancy ended, and nobody would have been charged with anything 

same baby dying - one was a murder by our laws, one was not

That inconsistency has been around and is rarely talked about or considered, its flawed logic and reason to say its a murder on one hand and not on the other

 

[Nugget]

“There’s a good chance you can get low-cost or free birth control pills if you have health insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act(aka Obamacare), most insurance plans must cover all methods of birth control at no cost to you, including the pill. However, some plans only cover certain brands of pills or generic versions. Your health insurance provider can tell you which types of birth control they pay for. Your doctor may also be able to help you get the birth control you want covered by health insurance. Learn more about health insurance and affordable birth control.

If you don’t have health insurance, you’ve still got options. Depending on your income and legal status in the U.S., you could qualify for Medicaid or other government programs that can help you pay for birth control and other health care.”

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/how-do-i-get-birth-control-pills

“most” I guess

Where birth controls stands in the court system

Seems like health insurance companies would be better off paying for birth control than paying for deliveries. But maybe they have a vested interest in getting more customers born into their for profit health insurance system. 

 

[FairWarning]

Where birth controls stands in the court system

Seems like health insurance companies would be better off paying for birth control than paying for deliveries. But maybe they have a vested interest in getting more customers born into their for profit health insurance system. 

It’s always a money issue.  Seeing how many insurance commercials are run,  your second sentence must be in their interests.