Will GOPs Back Bobby Jindal’s Push to Put the Pill Over the Counter?

Oh, well. We’ve gone round and round about this. I think I have been clear enough. I think you have.

Over-the-counter or by-prescription should have nothing to do with politics. It is medical. For elective things like BC it has moral and other issues.

Obamacare makes medicine political. I think Sandra Fluke was a disaster for the Democrats as a poster-child for government involvement in sexual medicine. She sucks, and she’s ugly. She makes the issue ugly. She makes the Catholics look reasonable, by just defending what they believe.

You never answered my assertion that this is not the end, but just the beginning of what will be demanded as “healthcare” under Obamacare. This “over-the-counter” strategy won’t work to keep public money from being used to murder babies in the womb, or perform surgery to sexually mutilate people.

This isn’t a solution. It’s a dead-end. By trying to end the debate it validates Obamacare and invites the escalation.

I think Sandra Fluke was a disaster for the Democrats as a poster-child for government involvement in sexual medicine. She sucks, and she’s ugly. She makes the issue ugly. She makes the Catholics look reasonable, by just defending what they believe.

I don't get why you think this. Sandra Fluke worked very well for the Democrats. We laugh at it, we think she's ridiculous, but that is not how the voters saw it. I mean, we lost man - and we lost pretty bad. The election wasn't that close and you really can't even take much solace in our holding the House considering we only achieved that due to gerrymanding - more of the American public actually voted for Democrat House candidates by over 1 million votes.

Look, conservatives like us see Sandra Fluke and think shes a buffoon, but the American public just aren't with us on that. Same with ridiculous stuff like The Life of Julia. We see something like that and giggle at the Democrats admitting they are socialist nannystaters - unfortunately a voting majority agreed with the Obama campaign (especially women) and thought The Life of Julia is perfectly reasonable.

We're not winning these debates. The public is not with us at the moment. Lets just make the conservative argument and push to get government out of the business of regulating birth control pills. There is no reason these can't be over the counter at this point.

You never answered my assertion that this is not the end, but just the beginning of what will be demanded as “healthcare” under Obamacare.

Yes, Obamacare is bad. I agree, more bad stuff is going to come down the pike. What of it? Of course we agree on this, but we just lost an election. We lost this debate. We should keep pushing for repeal, though the odds of it happening now are slim to none. Elections have consequences and the Democrat victory this past November pretty much guarantees Obamacare's implementation. Just because Obamacare is going to result in more bad stuff, doesn't mean we shouldn't get government out of the business of forcing people to pay costly doctor bills to get a prescription for something like birth control pills.

These individuals call themselves moral Christian women.

They may call themselves moral. If their consciences are malformed or depraved, they might not be culpable for such acts. Nothing can make an intrinsically immoral act moral.

The marital act, when actively and artificially cut-off from its purpose, the begetting of children, is a misuse of the act. Nothing anybody has stated in this whole thread has provided any reason to hold otherwise.

You simply state that those of us who study and understand Natural Law will have to change our minds to agree with you and the majority. This is why earlier in this thread I referred to this as a wedge issue to be used against those ally themselves around. The response demonstrates it. Arguments about Natural Law, protecting minor children from easy access, and the historical holdings of all Christians and other non-Gnostic major religions is met with either a non-response, or a "so many are doing it" answer (usually the province of liberals). Before Jindal introduced this damnable suggestion, the fissures were not exposed.

Moral female Christians use birth control. It is a Practical choice that doean’t weigh heavily on the conscience, if at all.

Christian leaders were unanimous in speaking out against artificial birth control for almost 2,000 years. In fact, all Christians were united in their position that contraception was a violation of God’s will until the 20th century. As late as 1920, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church stated its uncompromising rejection of all forms of artificial birth control.

All of that changed in 1930 when the Lambeth Conference of 1930 passed a groundbreaking resolution that allowed the use of contraception. Soon after, other Protestant churches followed suit, and now almost all have no objection to using contraception within marriage.

The Catholic Church has continued to stand apart. Besides “freeing up” our sexuality, the Pill was seen as a development that would reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. In 1973, the year abortion was legalized in the U.S. and statistics were first gathered, there were approximately 615,000 abortions performed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Abortion Surveillance statistics). That annual number has increased substantially since then, reaching a peak in 1990 at 1.4 million.

The ascendancy of pornography, which is filtering into mainstream media, is an assault on the well-being of women. From a very young age, girls are subjected to the pressure of conforming to the “norm” of no-strings sex and promiscuous behavior as projected in the movies, TV shows, and magazines all around them. All this has helped to solidify the image of women as sex objects.

Current statistics on the number of single mothers living in poverty contradict the belief that women’s lives would improve substantially with the advent of artificial birth control. From 1960 to 2000, the proportion of children in single-parent families headed by females has more than tripled in Europe and North America, and many studies have shown that coming from single-parent families plays a major role in the persistence of poverty.

More importantly, ghe birth control pill increases the risk of breast cancer by over 40% if it is taken before a woman delivers her first baby. This risk increases by 70% if the Pill is used for four or more years before the woman’s first child is born.

Ask yourself just how moral is any of this? Thank you, Dr. Sivana, for including me on your ping to this thread.

The morality of making birth control available to people who view themselves as both moral and Christian is that it is available to people who view themselves as moral Christians.

Further, contraception is transparently available to the segment of the population that engages in behavior that results in abortions.

There are laws that govern the sale of products to the under aged. If they can’t buy a can of spray paint, they can’t buy contraception w/o parental permission.

The practical and economic appeal goes far beyond a narrow philosophy that is maintained buy the most erudite religious thinkers.

The practical and economic appeal goes far beyond a narrow philosophy that is maintained buy the most erudite religious thinkers.

Actually, practical and economic considerations are far narrower than philosophical considerations. Natural Law is a philosophical construct, not only religious, and was largely described by great pagan thinkers like Aristotle and Plato.

Lots of "practical" acts are also immoral ones. For folks in certain areas, being a drug dealer may be the most practical way to get by financially. For some clerks, stealing from the till might be a practical way to pay the rent.

And of course, most modern birth control pills are sometimes abortifacient. I have never yet met someone defending the practice who bothered looking up which ones are more likely to cause an early abortion by preventing implantation. They either didn't care, or didn't want to know.

There are laws that govern the sale of products to the under aged. If they can’t buy a can of spray paint, they can’t buy contraception w/o parental permission.

This article is about Jindal promoting a plan to change that, and allow a 14 year old girl or a 13 year old boy to purchase said items at the corner convenience store as easily as buying Aspirin. It would be (under the Jindal plan) EASIER than buying the spray paint.

The examples you give of practical immorality are errant. Neither of those is practical at all. They are neither practical as policty or as individual choice - they are both acts predicated on desperation.

Please reference the specific Jinda agenda which legalized the sale of medication of this nature to underage children without adult consent.

Self medicating has its pitfalls. Individuals will perhaps sue the manufacturer instead of their physician for unintended outcomes. There will be huge headlines regarding each particular result.

This results in more self education as people will not simply take what the doctor prescribes. In general, I like philosophical constructs. In reality, I would like to prevent the need for abortion and for ending quasi contraception clinics that actually exist to perform abortion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.