Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TAKES DIRECT AIM AT BIRTH CONTROL COVERAGE FOR 62 MILLION WOMEN
Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. ^ | Oct. 6, 2017 | Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc.

Posted on 10/06/2017 6:42:31 PM PDT by mdittmar

New Rule Permits All Employers to Opt Out of Birth Control Coverage, Sweeping Step Toward Completely Dismantling the Birth Control Benefit

“The Trump Administration just took direct aim at birth control coverage for 62 million women, eliminating the guarantee that health insurance would cover contraception.”

WASHINGTON, DC — The Trump administration has taken direct aim at birth control coverage for more than 62 million American women, eliminating the guarantee they had for coverage for birth control regardless of who they work for. On Friday morning, they announced a sweeping new rule to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all insurance plans must cover birth control without a co-pay or otherwise ensure access to birth control coverage for women whose employers or schools can legally opt out of providing coverage.

Statement from Cecile Richards, President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:

“The Trump administration just took direct aim at birth control coverage for 62 million women. This is an unacceptable attack on basic health care that the vast majority of women rely on. With this rule in place, any employer could decide that their employees no longer have health insurance coverage for birth control.

We’re talking about a fundamental right -- to be able to decide whether and when you want to have children.

(Excerpt) Read more at plannedparenthood.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: proaborts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: mdittmar

Bravo President Trump!


21 posted on 10/06/2017 7:02:02 PM PDT by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdnaMode

“The left is acting like birth control is being banned.”

I love the “preventing womens’ access to birth control” crap. If you have that insurance, you have a job and are getting paid for it. Buy it yourself. Or quit and get a job with a company that provides it. Ask your husband and/or boyfriend(s), as the case may be, to chip in. If they don’t, dump ‘em all.

Why is this everyone else’s problem????


22 posted on 10/06/2017 7:11:28 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

Yet only 120,000 women are actually affected by this.

And they can still buy BC for a few bucks a month


23 posted on 10/06/2017 7:13:12 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

Hes not denying them it. He just won’t make everyone else pay for it. Not even that, he makes it optional for businesses to not pay for it.

Anything that takes away government mandates on people or businesses is a wonderful thing.


24 posted on 10/06/2017 7:13:28 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Women hate paying for anything with their own money.

Govt money, husbank’s money - no problem.


25 posted on 10/06/2017 7:14:41 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

They spend at least that much on kleenex or toilet paper a month.


26 posted on 10/06/2017 7:15:40 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EdnaMode

On purpose of course. All commie/alinsky tactics.


27 posted on 10/06/2017 7:17:03 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

Car insurance does not cover routine maintenance like regular oil changes or filling up your gas tank.


28 posted on 10/06/2017 7:18:08 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mrmeyer; mdittmar
We’re talking about a fundamental right -- to be able to decide whether and when you want to have children

it's called keeping your legs shut Cecile you ignorant slut

You'll have to convince these people they don't have a right to have sex without consequences.

Overheard a young twentysomething woman toss off this line to her friend: "He asked me if I wanted to sleep over, I said No" and offered some reason she was busy that night -- but implied some other night might be fine. It's an aggressively casual attitude towards sex, isn't it.

29 posted on 10/06/2017 7:19:28 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
husbank’s money

Husbank. Heh.

30 posted on 10/06/2017 7:20:58 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

Can we compromise by saying if a woman signs up for welfare in any form, she has to get a Norplant or IUD at state expense? If you cannot afford the children you have, you aren’t allowed any more. When you’re off welfare, you can have the implant out.


31 posted on 10/06/2017 7:39:56 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

Studying the snowflake generation I would gladly pay for sterilization of these ladies. God knows we don’t need them to reproduce others.


32 posted on 10/06/2017 7:41:39 PM PDT by oldasrocks (rump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

Totally agreed. The “preventing women’s access to birth control” stuff is ridiculous. They’re acting as though it’s no longer available.


33 posted on 10/06/2017 8:34:43 PM PDT by EdnaMode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Agreed.


34 posted on 10/06/2017 8:41:12 PM PDT by EdnaMode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins

They’re saying it will effect less than 1% of the women.


35 posted on 10/06/2017 10:37:04 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
a fundamental right -- to be able to decide whether and when you want to have children.

Seems like women should be able to make those decisions themselves WITHOUT the government being under the sheets with them. I could have sworn they wanted the government OUT of the bedroom. Now they want it IN the bedroom.

36 posted on 10/06/2017 11:17:02 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Maybe they will keep their legs crossed more often, and the pussy whipped males will have to go back to making America great again instead of sniffing panties.

Sex is a cancellation prize, every one gets it for a price.

37 posted on 10/06/2017 11:37:45 PM PDT by Herakles (Diversity is a globalist scam for power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Herakles
Sex is a cancellation prize, every one gets it for a price.

I think you meant to say "consolation prize."

38 posted on 10/06/2017 11:52:43 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
a fundamental right -- to be able to decide whether and when you want to have children.

Seems like women should be able to make those decisions themselves WITHOUT the government being under the sheets with them. I could have sworn they wanted the government OUT of the bedroom. Now they want it IN the bedroom.

I'm seeing another dynamic at work here, one to which the feminists will not admit.

Modern culture contains an unspoken social expectation of sex during dating. Not marriage. Dating.

Feminists don't want to openly admit to that.

With the sex a given, mandatory thing, and no longer a choice, the horse is already out of the barn, and the birth control pills and abortion clinics are an attempt to go yelling and screaming after it while waving a bridle.

Until men and women can step up to the plate in the moral sense, we will continue to hear frightened, defensive language along these lines:

"An emerging trend to extend a right to life before birth, and in particular from conception, poses a significant threat to women’s human rights, in theory and in practice. These efforts, often rooted in ideological and religious motivations, are part of a deliberate attempt to deny women the full range of reproductive health services that are essential to safeguarding women’s fundamental rights to life, health, dignity, equality, and autonomy, among others. These attempts to grant a right to life before birth—and therefore recognize prenatal legal personhood—seek to bestow rights on a zygote, embryo, or fetus that would be equal or superior to the rights of women."

Source: https://www.reproductiverights.org/document/whose-right-to-life-womens-rights-and-prenatal-protections-under-human-rights-and-comparati

39 posted on 10/07/2017 12:04:47 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

If the EPA were really concerned about the E, we would already have outlawed hormone introduction.

Morality is good for the environment, too. Who’d-a-thunk-it.


40 posted on 10/07/2017 3:44:28 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51; Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson