white house proposes contraceptives compromise - 2 views
-
patrick boian on 04 Feb 13the government shuld not have to provide free birth control for women if their not going to use methods of not getting pregnant
- ...2 more comments...
-
Bryan Pregon on 05 Feb 13re:patrick -- perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but outside of abstinence what "other methods of not getting pregnant" are there besides medical birth control options? Like other articles posted here, I was as interested in reading many of the comments on the NYTimes site after the article, there were very compelling arguments on each side. I found myself siding with many who said that employers should not get the choice to opt out of providing this coverage. This was one such post: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. Does anyone believe for one second that we would be debating whether a Jehovah's Witness-owned company should cover blood transfusions for its employees? I seriously doubt it--which means that the debate we are having is not actually about religious freedom at all. It's about whether contraception is an essential part of women's health care, just like blood transfusions."
-
Ryan Loye on 05 Feb 13i agree with Patrick if women don't wont to get pregnant they should stay to the precautionary treatments to not become pregnant
-
kdarrington342 on 07 Feb 13I think this page will help you boys understand a little more about what birth control actually is: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill Personally, I think that it should be covered by insurance. Besides being a popular contraceptive, it control many different hormones in a woman's body. It's used to cure things like ovarian cysts, and irregular periods. It can relieve those pesky cramps that you get on your period, or just at random points of the month. It will clear your acne, and even help prevent cancers. And, the hormones being consumed by taking the pill, can balance our emotions, possibly making us more tolerance of ignorance towards women's health. The church aspect of this story is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Them refusing to cover a product that would help their employees be healthier, prettier, nicer, and more likely to remain cancer free, is unreasonable. Just because the typical use is frowned upon by their religions, doesn't mean it's right to make their employees spend their hard earned money on measures to maintain a healthy body, that could be covered by their companies insurance.
-
Natalie Wilson on 08 Feb 13I don't see why taking measures to prevent a pregnancy is so bad. People are always saying that teenagers are getting pregnant at a young age when the truth is, maybe these girls can't afford it. No, they should not be having sex so young but sometimes you have to face the fact that girls are having sex at a young age and instead of turning a blind eye, they should take measures to prevent the pregnancy from happening. Just like Kirsten said, it does more than just preventing pregnancies. Some girls need it and can't afford it.