U.S. top court rules for companies on birth control mandate

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,542
Reputation
6,942
Daps
91,387
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
I'm not dumb enough to go out without protection. And plenty of women are against birth control for non religious reasons. Why is it dumb to pay for what you do to your body out of your own pocket?

The name birth control is a misnomer. Come back with medical research instead of telling me your opinions.
 

Koapa

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
5,715
Reputation
880
Daps
31,883
Reppin
Arlington, Tx.
I'm hesitant to call you guys dumb, but your points of view are absolutely stupid. I have absolutely no problem with you as posters, but you epitomize what I hate about humans.

Birth control isn't just used for women to prevent child birth, its also used to regulate their menstrual cycle. It's amazing how LITTLE men know about women on this site. It's even more amazing that you guys have this OPINION because i'm 100% sure everyone who agrees with this ruling has the same OPINION.


I get it if it's a medical issue. If you are diagnosed with a disorder yea go for it but majority of everybody I knew or know that took birth control meds wasn't taken it for a that purpose. It was taken to prevent birth and you have every right to do that. But that should be a personal choice and you should pay for it. Birth control meds don't even cost that month. According to planned parenthood, the birth control meds will cost between $15-50 dollars a month.


I know that some private companies are debating this issue through the religion aspect but I'm not.
 

The_Sheff

A Thick Sauce N*gga
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
26,892
Reputation
5,473
Daps
124,617
Reppin
ATL to MEM
I'm not dumb enough to go out without protection. And plenty of women are against birth control for non religious reasons. Why is it dumb to pay for what you do to your body out of your own pocket?

Why are erectile dysfunction meds covered then?


But back to the topic at hand, these clowns dont want to pay for contraceptives, dont want to pay for abortions, but also dont want to pay for kids whose mother cant afford them. Is it better to just let kids starve to death than to pay for birth control in these idiots eyes?
 

tmonster

Superstar
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
17,900
Reputation
3,205
Daps
31,791
I wonder if they will refuse to cover a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock...that would fly in the face of their religious beliefs too I would assume.
:ohhh:...........breh......that was brilliant.....how come I haven't heard this argument before or thought of it?:lupe:
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,542
Reputation
6,942
Daps
91,387
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
I get it if it's a medical issue. If you are diagnosed with a disorder yea go for it but majority of everybody I knew or know that took birth control meds wasn't taken it for a that purpose. It was taken to prevent birth and you have every right to do that. But that should be a personal choice and you should pay for it. Birth control meds don't even cost that month. According to planned parenthood, the birth control meds will cost between $15-50 dollars a month.


I know that some private companies are debating this issue through the religion aspect but I'm not.

Lesbianest, how many women have you ever talked to about their personal medical history. Why would anyone willingly tell you that they are on birth control to control their hormones?
 

The 2020 New Member

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
19,769
Reputation
1,142
Daps
22,073
Reppin
:)
Why are erectile dysfunction meds covered then?


But back to the topic at hand, these clowns dont want to pay for contraceptives, dont want to pay for abortions, but also dont want to pay for kids whose mother cant afford them. Is it better to just let kids starve to death than to pay for birth control in these idiots eyes?

I see what you're saying, I think. I just think that argument is short sighted. I don't agree with this decision 100%. I'm not throwing a party right now. I just think the precedent trumps the "What about the babies, though?!" stance. The kids are already hungry. This decision isn't going to change that.
 

Koapa

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
5,715
Reputation
880
Daps
31,883
Reppin
Arlington, Tx.
Lesbianest, how many women have ever talked to about their personal medical history. Why would anyone willingly tell you that they are on birth control to control their hormones?


A lot of people are open about birth control and why they take it. Birth control is not really a secretative issue.
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,542
Reputation
6,942
Daps
91,387
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
I wonder if they will refuse to cover a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock...that would fly in the face of their religious beliefs too I would assume.


:ohhh:...........breh......that was brilliant.....how come I haven't heard this argument before or thought of it?:lupe:

Sorry it won't work. I learned this after going to many baptisms where the parents were separated. And I quote,"At this time we would like to welcome child X to the front to welcome him into our family. Now it's our understanding that the parents are not together. We are still a church. We still abide by the religious teachings of the bible. But we will not hold that against the child, because the gift of life is God's work."

You will never win that argument.

Once I heard this a few years back, that's when I stopped arguing, "Well why are gays condemned for life but not kids born out of wedlock?"
 
Top