Basically, women who are irresponsible and immature want a right to have access to birth control and they want it at the expense of the rest of the public. They want a law that gives our hard earned tax dollars to organizations that will dispense birth control. I have a better idea. If a woman can not afford birth control, she should keep her legs closed. If a man can not afford birth control measures, he should keep it in his pants. If a married couple does not want to have children, then they need to come up with the money to have prevention measures. I surely should not be paying for their birth control for them. Neither should you, as a tax payer.
...liberal women's rights groups Thursday announced a new legislative push, charging that women were "still fighting for the right to contraceptives"...the feminist groups voiced their support for the Prevention First Act, a new piece of legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill's provisions include authorization for appropriations for family planning services grants; prohibitions on health insurance providers from excluding or restricting contraception from covered drugs and services; promotion of information on emergency contraception; expansion of Medicaid's coverage of family planning services; and a requirement that hospitals receiving federal funding must offer and provide, on request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.
So my health care coverage along with everybody else's should go up for something completely voluntary? We should require RU-486 be dispensed by hospitals? We should have more tax dollars go into Medicaid to provide for a completely voluntary medication? No frickin' way!
Why is this considered a right by some? Why should taxpayers and consumers pay for the voluntary medications of others? This is just plain immoral. Follow the link for the whole article.
It gets worse. There is now a bill introduced in Congress that would force pharmacists to provide RU-486 (so called "emergency contraception") even if the pharmacist has a moral objection to doing so.
Congressional Democrats and other advocates of emergency contraception on Wednesday introduced a bill that would require pharmacies to offer emergency birth control, even if the pharmacists object to doing so on moral grounds...The two-pill package prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus, and pro-life advocates consider that a form of abortion.
Some pro-life pharmacists have come under fire for refusing to offer the pills because of their personal moral objections. The Access to Birth Control Act, introduced in the House by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and in the Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), would require pharmacies that carry contraceptives to offer Plan B.
Pharmacists have "an obligation to serve women, provide them with access to medication," Maloney said at a news conference in Washington, D.C. "It is about health care. It's about the basic right to birth control."
The proposal would require pharmacies to "ensure that the contraceptive is provided to the customer without delay."
So is there no such thing as a privately owned business any more? If I own a pharmacy, since when is it the responsibility of Congress to determine what drugs I would carry or choose to dispense? It is none of their business. There are already heavy regulations by the FDA that make some drugs way too expensive and hard to obtain. We already have laws that make me show identification to get some Sudafed and I have to sign a log book as if I am some felon.
Not all pharmacies carry all drugs. It is a matter of choice on their behalf to carry a product or not. It is also a business owner's right to choose whether or not to sell something.
It is not a matter of life and death for an irresponsible woman who could not keep her legs closed and gave her body to a man when she had no business doing so. It IS, HOWEVER, a matter of life and death to the zygote looking for a fertile womb. Actions have consequences.
This bill strips away the freedom of business ownership, it is immoral on those grounds if nothing else, and it is immoral to require under penalty of fines, pharmacists to violate their own consciences.