Mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds

[Darth Executor]

Institutions like Georgetown argue that being forced to provide the option is a violation of their moral beliefs. The finesse by the Obama administration was to instead ask the insurance companies themselves to provide the option in every policy they sell, with the added argument that this was something with which they'd readily agree, as it would result in lower costs.

Finesse is a pretty good word for government mandated accounting fraud.

[Darth Executor]

Institutions like Georgetown argue that being forced to provide the option is a violation of their moral beliefs. The finesse by the Obama administration was to instead ask the insurance companies themselves to provide the option in every policy they sell, with the added argument that this was something with which they'd readily agree, as it would result in lower costs.

Finesse is a pretty good word for government mandated accounting fraud.

[CodewordConduit]

As per usual, I'm a bit of an exception here in that I had one of those due to early hospitilisation, but my cervix is located in a funny old place and the doctor had to really jab around. It hurt, and I really disliked it, but I went through with it. Saw the baby, tiny, little heartbeart right there; very reassuring given the circumstances. However, when I went back for a routine scan much later on, my bladder wasn't full enough for the regular ultrasound, and they said that if I wanted it today I'd have to have the probe again. I freaked out and left, rearranging my appointment for a couple days' time.

I would hate for there to be a precedent for this sort of thing when it isn't medically necessary, and allowing it in one case could then set a precedent for doctors to unnecessarily override the mothers' say in a much wider variety of cases than this one here. Also, it isn't doing anything to solve the underlying societal problems that drive many women to abortion, it is basically the threat of sexual assault if you decide to go ahead and abort. It won't exactly be a deterrant (and would any person argue for an unwanted vaginal ramming to be a reasonable deterrant, seriously?), and it doesn't endear undecided people towards what pro-lifers are ostensibly standing for.

[JimL]

Institutions like Georgetown argue that being forced to provide the option is a violation of their moral beliefs. The finesse by the Obama administration was to instead ask the insurance companies themselves to provide the option in every policy they sell, with the added argument that this was something with which they'd readily agree, as it would result in lower costs.

The church, and by extension religious institutions, do not have the authority, whether they believe they do or not, to dictate their morality onto individuals, they only have the right to preach it. President Obama may have even gone to far, in my opinion, in his concession to the church itself, as it has no more dictatorial power regarding morality over its flock than it does over those outside the church.

[Darth Executor]

The church, and by extension religious institutions, do not have the authority, whether they believe they do or not, to dictate their morality onto individuals, they only have the right to preach it. President Obama may have even gone to far, in my opinion, in his concession to the church itself, as it has no more dictatorial power regarding morality over its flock than it does over those outside the church.

It is Obamandias dictating his morality on the church by forcing it to pay for people's contraceptives. To see this as a violation of their employees' rights just shows how stupid you really are.

[Nathan Poe]

It is Obamandias dictating his morality on the church by forcing it to pay for people's contraceptives. To see this as a violation of their employees' rights just shows how stupid you really are.

An insurance company is your church?

[Pilgrim]

An insurance company is your church?

To be fair, this is an over simplification. Your employer pays into any health insurance plan that you get. It's not an either or end game here. The reason you can get such good insurance from certain employers is two fold, 1. they can negotiate a better deal with the insurance company than you can alone and 2. they pay into the plan to help offset costs. They do this either by actually paying into the plan or by negotiating to off set your cost. Either way they have a fiduciary stake in the plan. The idea that your employer has no financial obligation in the insurance plan seems misplaced to me.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Further contextualized, however, is the fact that insurance providers will provide contraceptive services for free and the strong evidence showing that such preventative care will save insurance providers money. So even though religious institutions will be "remotely cooperating" with an entity that provides contraceptive care, they won't be paying for it by means of insurance payments.

—Sam

[Dee Dee Warren]

Excuse me I did not come here to have an invasive procedure, I came here to have a life-destroying metal instrument scrape the inside of my uterus

When I see a pregnant man I might listen to his opinion.

So you have no opinion on the North American Man-Boy Love Association?

[Catholicity]

would hate for there to be a precedent for this sort of thing when it isn't medically necessary, and allowing it in one case could then set a precedent for doctors to unnecessarily override the mothers' say in a much wider variety of cases than this one here. Also, it isn't doing anything to solve the underlying societal problems that drive many women to abortion, it is basically the threat of sexual assault if you decide to go ahead and abort. It won't exactly be a deterrant (and would any person argue for an unwanted vaginal ramming to be a reasonable deterrant, seriously?), and it doesn't endear undecided people towards what pro-lifers are ostensibly standing for.

I'm in agreement with CWC on the mandate of Transvaginal Ultrasounds, for some women, especially those who've suffered abuse it can be an invasive and triggering procedure. However I am also for the mandatory Normal Ultrasound procedure and use of a dopplar to detect fetal heartbeat. I am also for mandated true counseling of women, who seek out abortions as opposed to what is typically provided now (i.e. the lie of being told that its actually a safe procedure and don't worry you'll be fine etc...) You know actually getting to know these women and trying to help them solve the issues that are driving them to abortion clinics in the first place, and rather than seeing death as option 1, we might look at their situation and help them choose life over death (adoption if that's the right choice, keeping the baby if that's the right choice by directing them to social services letting them know there is assistance and hope, helping them get there, locating good prenatal care, good counseling services that are available) And in the long run its actually cheaper to direct a mother in crisis to pro-life pregnancy centers to help them out because they are largely privately funded in the first place rather than let the government suck all of our money into funding abortive clinics anyhow. Just a few thoughts....

[Darth Executor]

An insurance company is your church?

Another brain collapsing stupid Nathan Poe post. I feel charitable tonight so I'll answer: the insurance company is not paying for anything. They are being asked to lie and pretend it's "free" by the [s]prince[/s] jester of lies. The money is still coming from the customer (in this case the RCC), they're just being asked to cook the books to make it look like it isn't.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Another brain collapsing stupid Nathan Poe post. I feel charitable tonight so I'll answer: the insurance company is not paying for anything. They are being asked to lie and pretend it's "free" by the [s]prince[/s] jester of lies. The money is still coming from the customer (in this case the RCC), they're just being asked to cook the books to make it look like it isn't.

That isn't true if providing contraceptive services is at least revenue-neutral for the insurance company. According to the government's experiences in Medicaid, along with multiple studies of private-sector insurance, insurance companies look to decrease total outlays since the cost of providing contraception will be significantly less than the cost of pregnancy and birth.

No book-cooking necessary.

—Sam

[JimL]

Another brain collapsing stupid Nathan Poe post. I feel charitable tonight so I'll answer: the insurance company is not paying for anything. They are being asked to lie and pretend it's "free" by the [s]prince[/s] jester of lies. The money is still coming from the customer (in this case the RCC), they're just being asked to cook the books to make it look like it isn't.

You might then appreciate a single payor, universal health care system, then your church wouldn't have to worry about being forced into cooperating in what they consider to be immoral activity. They can then continue to preach their beliefs, and let people decide for themselves.

[Darth Executor]

That isn't true if providing contraceptive services is at least revenue-neutral for the insurance company.

Accounting doesn't work that way. You are required to keep accurate books for a good reason. You can't just move the transactions around however you want and then claim it's ok because they balance in the end. Doing that can land you in prison, except when the schizophrenic government decides it's ok because its head wants to get re-elected.

According to the government's experiences in Medicaid, along with multiple studies of private-sector insurance, insurance companies look to decrease total outlays since the cost of providing contraception will be significantly less than the cost of pregnancy and birth.

You mean the RCC is paying for the reduction of births and pregnancies via contraception (you know, the thing they oppose), but since the insurance company makes out like a bandit in the long run, they're not really paying for it?

RCC Payment -> Contraceptive Payment -> Expense reduction

The part in bold does not suddenly cease to exist just because the part in italics does.

[Darth Executor]

You might then appreciate a single payor, universal health care system,

Sure, I love inevitable financial meltdown, particularly since so many on the left are murdering much of the next generation of taxpayers before they are even bored. Nature is merciless and over the long run it will punish stupidity without mercy.

then your church wouldn't have to worry about being forced into cooperating in what they consider to be immoral activity. They can then continue to preach their beliefs, and let people decide for themselves.

I have a better idea: how about the Democratic party stops trying to buy votes by giving subsidies to people who don't even need them?