>>If the woman needs the birth control pill for valid medical reasons, it seems detestable to me to say that her employer's right to exercise their conscience is more important than her health. <<

Few do.  But since doctors know you can get the pill and it usually hasn't been linked to disasters, they tend to prescibe it over alternatives.
Of course you can't be sure you aren't giving a Yasmin.

The answer to your disregard for conscience is to close the business and let the sluts go on welfare.  You're going to see a lot of that.

Oh, and right now if a woman goes to PP for an abortion and says its rape, or its a statutory rape because she's so young, Planned Parenthood doesn't call the cops and doesn't refer her to counseling.  If you think rape victims are really served by that then you should continue to oppose "forcible rape" reforms.

Yell,

I agree, considering that 1/3 of teenage girls are prescribed the pill for conditions such as acne, where there are obvious effective alternatives. But when:
1. Respecting the employer's conscientious objection would cause her severe financial hardship.
2. The woman either has no medical alternative to the pill or the alternatives are cost prohibitive.
3. The woman needs the pill for documented and valid medical reasons. Valid medical reasons would include those where deprivation would reasonably present a near future threat to her life, bodily functions, or physical comfort.

When those three conditions are satisfied, then I think it's detestable to respect the employer's conscientious objection to the pill.

To your second point. I doubt covering contraception will bankrupt companies to the extent that other mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will.

To your third point. What the hell does maintaining the woman's privacy have to do with "forcible rape" reforms?

BeoWolfe,
I'm talking about poor women. I disagree with general coverage.

Speaking of poor women, they:
1. Are vulnerable to economic coercion.
2. Thanks to idiotic republican abstinence programs in schools, falsehoods about sexuality and contraception perpetuate among the poor.
3. Men often resist using condoms, and poor women are easily economically pressured to give in.

As in, she would be in severe physical pain because her ovaries are bursting!

> Justinian I wrote:

> As in, she would be in severe physical pain because her ovaries are bursting!

That's not a definition.  That's an example. 

Zarf,
As in the pain would be so severe and chronic that no reasonable person would believe a person ought to live with that kind of pain when there is a medical solution. For example, I do not mean pain like the kind of back pain that is commonly experienced.

Beowolf: Oh, now I understand.  Your saying all women are whores.
If they aren't rich they have no control overthemselves and by no choice of 
there own will get impregnated unless someone steps up
and force feeds them birth control pills.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually, I am saying that poor women can not necessarily afford birth control pills for documented and valid medical reasons.

But to you, I implied that poor women can not always be held morally responsible for having irresponsible sex because there are often greater power imbalances between men and women among the poor.

Flint,

That has nothing to do with anything I posted.

Zarf,

You're welcome .

Beo,

I think you missed this statement:

But to you, I implied that poor women can not always be held morally responsible for having irresponsible sex because there are often greater power imbalances between men and women among the poor.

And actually:

1. "here you say women have sex for money"
- No, I said that some poor women are economically dependent on a man, which is not the same as prostitution.
2. "here you say women are ignorant"
- Because the policies of the republican party fail the poor by feeding them misinformation that are less likely to be corrected as a result of accessing correct information.
3. "here you repeat that you believe woman are dumb and whores"
- Again, I'm talking about poor women not women in general. And I didn't say dumb, I said ignorant. The poor and working class are generally ignorant, but not because of a lack of natural capabilities.
- Again, prostitution is not the same as economic dependence.

Poor women might have irresponsible sex for economic support, but it's deplorable to hold them morally responsible because of their lack of options.

Btw, not all things are the same. Providing birth control to poor women when they need it to control Endometriosis, for example, is different from providing them with free laptops.

Edit: An interesting, somewhat relevant study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871080/

Kemp,

I think you're confused by having taken my statements out of context.

Of course there are state interests in squashing rights and getting more involved
in people's lives. That's why we have those rights and why defending them is paramount
to freedom.

You miss the point. Sometimes the state has a compelling interest, which is to say that it is reasonable to concede certain freedoms in order for the state to perform its essential functions. For example, if the state is under attack by invading armies, it might be reasonable to concede that the government is entitled to draft citizens in to military service. This may not be true anymore, considering that contemporary warfare favors volunteer armies, but circumstances were different in earlier time periods.

If you think a $50 dollar cost as a result of a medical condition
(isn't the average cost significantly less?) is a huge burden that women need 
government to help them with, that's about the most sexist thing I've ever heard. Not 
only does that have to be the cheapest medical condition in the history or horrible 
conditions requiring government assistance, but anyone who can't afford it is obviously 
on welfare already. And the government DOES pay to terminate human life. So you're 
kinda getting your way already: Employers who don't want to be a part of killing 
human life are paying for it after all, through their taxes.

It's a huge burden if you are living paycheck to paycheck and require other medicines. Also, you took me out of context. I was not advocating a policy, only exploring whether or not it was right to privilege the conscientious objection of an employer over the life or health of a woman. That doesn't mean there aren't way to satisfy both the conscience of the employer and the woman's life by approaching health insurance differently. I only meant that if we grant the birth control mandate, then allowing an exemption for conscientious objection is despicable in some contexts.

You really are a big-government, anti-freedom guy after all! You do 
know that this, empirically, results in lower standards of living, right? And that 
freer people are happier than slaves (empirically), right?

Way to abandon your claimed preference of measure. Those poor working women! 
They're too DUMB to respect themselves or take care of themselves! Government needs 
to save them with $9/month for birth control!

Now you conflate my talk about the birth control mandate with an objection I had with BeoWolfe. I did not say the government ought to save women from themselves by providing them with free contraception. I simply protested BeoWolfe's attitude that women should "just shut their legs." That's a sexist attitude. I merely corrected him that many poor women experience sex under economically coercive circumstances, and should therefore not be so harshly criticized for perceived sexual irresponsibility.

>>I agree, considering that 1/3 of teenage girls are prescribed the pill for conditions such as acne, where there are obvious effective alternatives. But when:
1. Respecting the employer's conscientious objection would cause her severe financial hardship.
2. The woman either has no medical alternative to the pill or the alternatives are cost prohibitive.
3. The woman needs the pill for documented and valid medical reasons. Valid medical reasons would include those where deprivation would reasonably present a near future threat to her life, bodily functions, or physical comfort.

When those three conditions are satisfied, then I think it's detestable to respect the employer's conscientious objection to the pill.<<

Who are you kidding? That never happens.  Sandra Fluke is out there campaigning about her monkey glands, not saving her life.

>.
To your third point. What the hell does maintaining the woman's privacy have to do with "forcible rape" reforms?<

What kind of selfish bitch gets raped and demands the man get away with it?  Men who fit rape into the pattern of their lives, and get away with it, are going to keep raping women.  For the good of OTHER WOMEN, she should be ordered to report the rape, like it or not.

I didn't take you out of context, Justinian I. You're arguing that a woman's birth control, which can cost as little as $9/month, is owed to her by her fellow countrymen, even if they object to killing human life any time after conception. You're arguing that the $9-$50 monthly burden is too much for invalids, so their countrymen owe it to them, regardless of whether or not they object to it morally.

Anyone with a job can handle a $9-$50 monthly cost. If "other medicines" are so costly, they're the problem. Not the cheap birth control available in this country. And, again, anyone without a job is already on welfare and the state is handling their medical bills with money from people who object to killing human life after conception. The state already does violate their first amendment right in providing contraception: They're not given a tax deduction so that they do not contribute to that end. The state already does what you're demanding.

"I did not say the government ought to save women from themselves by providing them with free contraception."

I'm pretty sure you did. You're arguing that the government is right to require people, even against their will, to provide contraception for women. You're making no argument about women purchasing it themselves. You're very clearly claiming that someone else should pay for it. Now you're playing rhetorical games, as if "free" and "someone else has to provide it for them" aren't the same thing.

"I simply protested BeoWolfe's attitude that women should "just shut their legs." That's a sexist attitude."

How? Please explain this accusation. I provide my own condoms. If I was pretending I could't, I wouldn't demand anybody buy them for me. I would, effectively "just shut my legs" (and my mouth). And I'd be mocked by everyone, including you, if I seriously demanded free condoms. Your attitude is sexist, because you're treating women as if they're inherently inept.

Yes, birth control can be used for other purposes than contraception. But it's dirt cheap. Your argument that it's dirt cheap price is SO onerous that the first amendment should be infringed upon is ridiculous. While you agree that the healthcare/insurance industry is messed up by government and it shouldn't be an issue, that's not what you're arguing here. You're arguing that the first amendment isn't worth $9-$50 bucks a month. That's pretty cheap.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> I didn't take you out of context, Justinian I. You're arguing that a woman's birth control, which can cost as little as $9/month, is owed to her by her fellow countrymen, even if they object to killing human life any time after conception. You're arguing that the $9-$50 monthly burden is too much for invalids, so their countrymen owe it to them, regardless of whether or not they object to it morally.>

Blah blah blah blah. Keep putting words in my mouth. I do not care about the moral conscience of the an employer when the woman needs it for reasons other than contraception and can not otherwise afford it. I don't care about how affordable $50.00 a month is for you. You aren't living pay check to pay check.

<Anyone with a job can handle a $9-$50 monthly cost. If "other medicines" are so costly, they're the problem. Not the cheap birth control available in this country. And, again, anyone without a job is already on welfare and the state is handling their medical bills with money from people who object to killing human life after conception. The state already does violate their first amendment right in providing contraception: They're not given a tax deduction so that they do not contribute to that end. The state already does what you're demanding.>

Then its not an issue.

<I'm pretty sure you did. You're arguing that the government is right to require people, even against their will, to provide contraception for women. You're making no argument about women purchasing it themselves. You're very clearly claiming that someone else should pay for it. Now you're playing rhetorical games, as if "free" and "someone else has to provide it for them" aren't the same thing.>

You don't agree with the principle that those who can not afford life-saving medicine and can't afford it should not have their medicine subsidized by the state? So let them die?

<How? Please explain this accusation. I provide my own condoms. If I was pretending I could't, I wouldn't demand anybody buy them for me. I would, effectively "just shut my legs" (and my mouth). And I'd be mocked by everyone, including you, if I seriously demanded free condoms. Your attitude is sexist, because you're treating women as if they're inherently inept.>

Then congrats on being a gentleman.

Poor women are ignorant because of government abstinence only education /= women are inherently inept.

Birth control pills for medical reasons other than contraception /= paying for condoms.

<Yes, birth control can be used for other purposes than contraception. But it's dirt cheap. Your argument that it's dirt cheap price is SO onerous that the first amendment should be infringed upon is ridiculous. While you agree that the healthcare/insurance industry is messed up by government and it shouldn't be an issue, that's not what you're arguing here. You're arguing that the first amendment isn't worth $9-$50 bucks a month. That's pretty cheap.>

What's cheap is saying that a grown woman's life isn't worth $50.00 a month because she can't afford it.

5-7 words then enter.

On a smart phone it literally looks like this in length:

111111111112222222222222333333333333344444444444444555555555555666666666666666677777777777888888888999999910101010101010101111111111111111