tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
I guess, like Rush, you don't understand how the Pill works.
Yes, I do, Kalikshama. I liked Norplant better, since it can't be forgotten, but I think enough women had problems that they pulled it. I haven't been in the market for women's birth control, in a number of years.
And if you ain't fucking, you probably don't need it, no matter how many fathers want so desperately to believe that it's just for the acne.
Let's also not delude ourselves into thinking that birth control is being singled out in the insurance gap. Let a woman who is trying to get pregnant educate you on what all sort of reproductive health areas aren't covered.
Implanon at a Glance
A matchstick-sized rod that is inserted in the arm to prevent pregnancy
Safe, effective, and convenient
Must be inserted by a health care provider
Costs between $400 and $800 up front, but lasts up to three years
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-implant-implanon-4243.htm
Replaced the Norplant.. but can only be used for three years... then what?
To the bolded part....
Adolescent girls and young women are frequently prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, and for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.
Other Medical Benefits
Because there is less menstrual bleeding when taking birth control pills, you are less likely to get anemia (low number of red blood cells, which carry oxygen from the lungs to the tissues). Birth control pills lower your chance of getting endometrial (lining of the uterus) cancer, ovarian cancer, and ovarian cysts.
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html
It does have other uses.
Rich, I am rather surprised at your stance here.
To add to kalika's post 104.....
The following Commission Decision finds reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occured under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in two charges challenging the exclusion of prescription contraceptives from a health insurance plan. The Decision is a formal statement of Commission policy as applied to the facts at issue in these charges.
2000... might be worth a read.
Conclusion
There is reasonable cause to believe that Respondents have engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, by failing to offer insurance coverage for the cost of prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. Charging Parties are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of their prescription contraceptives for the applicable back pay period. In addition, the District Office is instructed to determine whether any cognizable damages have resulted from Respondents' actions.
In order to avoid violating Title VII in the future:
Respondents must cover the expenses of prescription contraceptives to the same extent, and on the same terms, that they cover the expenses of the types of drugs, devices, and preventive care identified above. Respondents must also offer the same coverage for contraception-related outpatient services as are offered for other outpatient services. Where a woman visits her doctor to obtain a prescription for contraceptives, she must be afforded the same coverage that would apply if she, or any other employee, had consulted a doctor for other preventive or health maintenance services. Where, on the other hand, Respondents limit coverage of comparable drugs or services (e.g., by imposing maximum payable benefits), those limits may be applied to contraception as well.
Respondents' coverage must extend to the full range of prescription contraceptive choices. Because the health needs of women may change -- and because different women may need different prescription contraceptives at different times in their lives -- Respondents must cover each of the available options for prescription contraception. Moreover, Respondents must include such coverage in each of the health plan choices that it offers to its employees. See 29 C.F.R. part 1604, App. Q&A 24; Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1081-82 n.10 (1983).
The charges are remanded to the field for further processing in accordance with this decision.
One of the points made was the following...
14. In addition, Respondents cover Viagra where patients complain about "decreased sexual interest or energy," whether or not the individual has been diagnosed as impotent. Letter from Respondents to EEOC, August 25, 2000. Respondents' assertion that their plan covers treatments only for abnormal medical conditions is not credible in light of these facts.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html
To my knowledge, this is not something Bush objected to... yet now its become an issue?
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread