Obama Looking For Way To Get Women Free Abortifacients

This is something that has them Highly Concerned

(NY Times) The Obama administration, reeling from back-to-back blows from the Supreme Court this week, is weighing options that would provide contraceptive coverage to thousands of women who are about to lose it or never had it because of their employers’ religious objections.

The administration must move fast. Legal and health care experts expect a rush to court involving scores of employers seeking to take advantage of the two decisions, one involving Hobby Lobby Stores, which affects for-profit businesses, and the other on Wheaton College that concerns religiously affiliated nonprofit groups. About 100 cases are pending.

One proposal the White House is studying would put companies’ insurers or health plan administrators on the spot for contraceptive coverage, with details of reimbursement to be worked out later.

Another would give the administration itself a larger role in offering cost-free coverage to women who cannot get it through their employers, although the option for a new government entitlement appears unrealistic for financial and political reasons.

The White House is under such pressure that no one has been able to work out details of how the alternatives would be financed or administered.

Details schmetails, Obama has free abortifacients to provide to his base, religious beliefs be damned! The lawsuits so far have all been about covering abortifacients, not standard contraception, a point that the Times finally gets around to within their discussion of the Supreme Court’s female justices having a tizzy over the Wheaton decision.

The Obama administration says the cost of providing contraceptives will be offset by savings that result from greater use of birth control, “fewer unplanned pregnancies” and improvement in women’s health. But, Mr. Condeluci said, “It may be years before the savings are realized.”

It’s a cute talking point, but it doesn’t address the fundamental protection laid out in the 1st Amendment about government restricting the free practice of religion. Again, this debate boils down to Constitutionalists vs moochers.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Obama Looking For Way To Get Women Free Abortifacients”

  1. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    Damn, liberal commies sure are shallow. All they care about it, or their primary focus over the last 6 years is who will pay for their free sex? Who will pay the repercussions of their sex without consequences desires?

    Most other people care about jobs, retirement, caring for their homes, their families, leaving a nation better off than they had it, more free’er, more prosperity.

    But, I guess…. screw that, eh?

  2. Jeffery says:

    The Hobby Lobby ruling will facilitate the gradual absorption of the ACA into a national Single Payer Plan over the years.

    Also recall that abortion is a legal procedure in the US.

    So how does the government supplying birth control to individuals violate the Constitution or your First Amendment right to practice your religion?

    Some people believe that pregnancy starts at conception (the exact moment a sperm combines with an ovum) and some people believe that pregnancy starts at implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine wall.

    Morning after pills such as Plan B and Ella, block ovulation for 3 to 5 days, and may block implantation. Neither induces abortion of an implanted embryo.

    IUDs, kill sperm and make the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation and can cause an implanted embryo to be expelled and can be called an abortifacient.

    A little straight talk: Conservative men are universally outraged that women can have sex, even lots of sex, even lots of enjoyable mind-blowing sex, without the fear of pregnancy to control their behavior. This entire argument is about the social control of women by men. Effective birth control results in FEWER abortions.

    When most women, Blacks, Hispanics, gays, non-Christians and all liberals abandon the Republican Party, who will be left? Caucasian, Christian, Conventional (straight), Conservative men. The 4C’s or the C4’s, whatever you prefer. You will need to double down on your gerrymandering, state’s rights and voter suppression to maintain your influence. Americans are voting with their feet when it comes to your message.

  3. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    So how does the government supplying birth control to individuals violate the Constitution or your First Amendment right to practice your religion?

    It doesn’t and you know it doesn’t. If Obama really wanted women to have free birth control and free abortifacients, then he would push the HHS to supply them to whomever asked for them. Instead, right now there is still an income check. And instead, he pushed to have someone else pay for it – and that was deemed unconstitutional in that narrow ruling. IMO, ACA is wholly unconstitutional and a raping of it.

    But again, this is not about “birth control” cuz if it was, Obama would have just given it to the women who want it. they already are pushing it through the school system, so … why the change to push employers to do it?

  4. Jeffery says:

    gl,

    The Teach typed: “but it doesn’t address the fundamental protection laid out in the 1st Amendment about government restricting the free practice of religion.”

    That’s what I was asking about. If you say there are no concerns about the gov’t paying, I’ll accept that.

    You’re a little confused about the economics of employer based insurance, which is a benefit in lieu of wages to an employee. So the employer is not really paying for the benefit, the employee is. The employer is just arranging the insurance, and in this case, telling the employee what he or she can purchase. This will all be largely avoided as we transition to a single payer system.

  5. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    You’re a little confused about the economics of employer based insurance, which is a benefit in lieu of wages to an employee.

    Nope, no confusion there. That is exactly what it is. Employees total salary package could include the insurance and retirement benefits.

    So the employer is not really paying for the benefit, the employee is.

    And there you go countering your first sentence.

    If you say there are no concerns about the gov’t paying, I’ll accept that.

    Nope, no concerns. Congress can pay for whatever it wants. Doesn’t mean it can force me to take it.

    This will all be largely avoided as we transition to a single payer system.

    Sadly, this may have been your only true statement ever.

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    I can’t wait to see what happens when you experience the benefits of a single payer system. If you desire, I can introduce you to the phenomenon here in Louisiana. We have had a single payer system for indigents since the 30’s. It is were medical students are trained. I want you to imagine large rooms filled with hundreds of people. People that are suffering and chronically ill, yet can not ever seem to get the care that is needed due to the “system”. This is the same system that is being put in place as we speak. Every day we get new rules and regulations designed to limit the ability of people to get the care they need. You are not aware of these changes, but you will ultimately feel the impact.

  7. jl says:

    J”conservative men are outraged that women can have sex without the fear of pregnancy.” Really? Do have data to support that? Or is it in the same pile of data you’re still looking for to prove AGW? Actually, it’s just the fact that there are other players in this little drama, and “conservative men” are not forgetting about religious rights. Women are free to buy their own bith control, Hobby Lobby pays for 16 different kinds of birth control, and those whose religious views are against supplying certain types of BC get their rights recognized, also. A win- win for everybody. Jeffery- as usual you have no idea what you’re talking about. Remember, this all stems from the RFRA, signed by Clinton. The SC simply said that that legislation allows HL to do what they do, nothing more, nothing less.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6121 access attempts in the last 7 days.