Right to Contraception Act.

[Shaul]

That is not what this bill was about. Please Please Please try to understand this. This bill had nothing at all to do with "providing contraceptives.

It is hard to discuss this issue with someone who just does not understand what the issue is.

This bill had nothing to do with "providing contraceptives"!!!

Yes, it does, actually. It includes provisions for access to Federal funds (via the Affordable Care Act) and unfunded mandates upon the states to provide contraceptives. Perhaps you should read the actual Bill text. It can be found here, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1999/text But you are right that it is hard to discuss something with someone who doesn't understand what the issue is. But it is YOU that apparently doesn't understand.

Those who favour limited government would be strongly in favour of this bill if they understood it. The only function of this bill would be to limit the government. To prevent the government from using its power to take away reproductive rights.

That is flat out wrong. This Bill would expand the government by increasing both spending and meddling into spheres it doesn't need to. So, it is clear you don't understand either this Bill nor what the concept of limited government is.

 

[F1fan]

It is partisan because the Democrats that introduced the Bill, despite understanding it had no chance of passage, introduced it to grandstand on it during elections. Sorry if you don't understand politics.

Well then democrats understand that many, if not most, republicans intend to use the government to tell women what they can and can't do with their reproduction. So you admit that democrats are in favor of not interfering with women's liberty, and that republicans are in favor of limiting their liberty.

Fiscal conservatives and libertarians, as examples would oppose it.

False, libertarians don't want government to limit liberty. This bill ensures women will have the liberty to have access and use contraception.

Providing contraceptives is not a necessary government function. Those that favor limited government understand that only necessary functions should be done by government.

The bill isn't about providing contracenption. It's about protecting the liberty of women so they can have access, and use, contraception when they decide to. Republicans so no, they want to tell women what liberties they get. Do you approve?

 

[Estro Felino]

What?! One of the prime arguments of pro-"choice" people is that health is a private matter.

Even sex is a public matter, in my view. Included in the wider notion of health.
I would re-open the state brothels in Italy, that were closed by some leftist puritans in the fifties. Sex should be considered as something enjoyable, not a way to procreate. That is why abortions should be paid for by the State too.

Sexual health should be one of the first priorities for a Government.

 

[fantome profane]

This Bill would expand the government by increasing both spending and meddling into spheres it doesn't need to.

So quote the part of the bill that talks about "spending".

No, the bill prevents the government from meddling with peoples choice to use contraceptives. When it talks about "providing" contraception it refers to the way any drug store would "provide" anything else they sell, not making it free or paid for by the government.

 

[Shaul]

Well then democrats understand that many, if not most, republicans intend to use the government to tell women what they can and can't do with their reproduction. So you admit that democrats are in favor of not interfering with women's liberty, and that republicans are in favor of limiting their liberty.

That is a non sequitur and doesn't follow. Republican policy is to the matter up to the states. Which is a balanced and neutral stance. Democrats are simply grandstanding and cynically exploiting the ignorance of gullible and ignorant elements of society.

False, libertarians don't want government to limit liberty. This bill ensures women will have the liberty to have access and use contraception.

The Libertarian Party position is that the government should not meddle in healthcare issues. "

Libertarians believe that healthcare prices would decrease and quality and availability of healthcare would increase if providers were freed from government meddling and control."​

Healthcare | Libertarian Party

The bill isn't about providing contracenption. It's about protecting the liberty of women so they can have access, and use, contraception when they decide to. Republicans so no, they want to tell women what liberties they get. Do you approve?

This Bill includes provisions for providing funding for contraceptives. Here is the text of the Bill, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1999/text

 

[Shaul]

Even sex is a public matter, in my view. Included in the wider notion of health.
I would re-open the state brothels in Italy, that were closed by some leftist puritans in the fifties. Sex should be considered as something enjoyable, not a way to procreate. That is way abortions should be paid for by the State too.

Sexual health should be one of the first priorities for a Government.

If the government funds something, it controls it. Which means that a government so disposed could either promote abortion or forbid it. Think about it.

 

[Estro Felino]

If the government funds something, it controls it. Which means that a government so disposed could either promote abortion or forbid it. Think about it.

It would be women's free choice.

 

[fantome profane]

Listen to Tim Scott talk about why he voted against this bill. He never actually talks about why he voted against this bill, he just starts talking about abortion.

When Tim Scott says "I'm not making this stuff up" he is making this stuff up. And contraception actually prevents abortion.

 

[F1fan]

That is a non sequitur and doesn't follow. Republican policy is to the matter up to the states.

Of course, they know red states want to intrude on women's reproductive rights. The pattern is there to see. They hide under "state's rights". Do republicans in those red states ever respond to their policies that harm women and limt their liberties? No. They hide behind bogus "moral" claims.

Which is a balanced and neutral stance. Democrats are simply grandstanding and cynically exploiting the ignorance of gullible and ignorant elements of society.

What's the problem with republicans protecting the nation's women, and their reproductive liberties? What's the problem, they are all citizens. What makes sense in covering the archaic intrusion of liberties in red states? Because they are republicans too, and their real motive is control over women in their states? Bad long term political move.

The Libertarian Party position is that the government should not meddle in healthcare issues. "

Libertarians believe that healthcare prices would decrease and quality and availability of healthcare would increase if providers were freed from government meddling and control."​

Healthcare | Libertarian Party

That's a claim, where's the evidence? Since when does a profit motive ever get set aside when competition isn't relevant? No one in Missouri is going to fly to New Jersey because they have cheaper healthcare. No, people want affordable healthcare where they live. The honor system doesn't work in healthcare anymore than it does selling cookies.

This Bill includes provisions for providing funding for contraceptives. Here is the text of the Bill, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1999/text

Good, protect a liberty nationwide, and allow women more affordability of a product that is sold for profit. Got a problem with that? Or should poverty limit what choices a woman can do in regards to her reproductive status?

 

[Altfish]

You do start to think that male (and some female) GOP members don't understand sexual relations, contraception and abortion.

 

[F1fan]

Listen to Tim Scott talk about why he voted against this bill. He never actually talks about why he voted against this bill, he just starts talking about abortion.

When Tim Scott says "I'm not making this stuff up" he is making this stuff up. And contraception actually prevents abortion.

Tim Scott is a skilled idiot.

 

[Pogo]

Even sex is a public matter, in my view. Included in the wider notion of health.
I would re-open the state brothels in Italy, that were closed by some leftist puritans in the fifties. Sex should be considered as something enjoyable, not a way to procreate. That is why abortions should be paid for by the State too.

Sexual health should be one of the first priorities for a Government.

While I generally agree with you, could you put a disclaimer in your posts that you are not an American and your opinions while reflective of modern thought are not to be confused with with "American" sensibilities in our current repressed state.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, it does, actually. It includes provisions for access to Federal funds (via the Affordable Care Act) and unfunded mandates upon the states to provide contraceptives. Perhaps you should read the actual Bill text. It can be found here, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1999/text But you are right that it is hard to discuss something with someone who doesn't understand what the issue is. But it is YOU that apparently doesn't understand.

Quote the text then that says that.

 

[Revoltingest]

What?! One of the prime arguments of pro-"choice" people is that health is a private matter.

It is indeed....until one becomes Typhoid Mary.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Even sex is a public matter, in my view. Included in the wider notion of health.
I would re-open the state brothels in Italy, that were closed by some leftist puritans in the fifties. Sex should be considered as something enjoyable, not a way to procreate. That is why abortions should be paid for by the State too.

Sexual health should be one of the first priorities for a Government.

We go by the preamble here in the states but unfortunately, it now focuses on we the corporations who are now declared as we the people.

Now you know the rest of the story.....

 

[Pogo]

What?! One of the prime arguments of pro-"choice" people is that health is a private matter.

And it becomes public when a persons lack of ability to exercise this private matter ends up costing the public in unnecessary support for their lack of basic support.
In this case, it is ultimately a cost to society argument.

 

[Pogo]

We go by the preamble here in the states but unfortunately, it now focuses on we the corporations who are now declared as we the people.

Now you know the rest of the story.....

Huh? preamble and Citizens United?

 

[Pogo]

I see this as a good thing. There are too many of us, we don't live in harmony or equilibrium with our environments, technology replacing capitalism and manufacturing amd fewer of us will mean everything that's not us is going to live and breath easier.

And bringing some of those excess people from elsewhere here to stabilize our population will make us all more prosperous which is the main driver in decreasing the birth rate and someday bringing us to a stable equilibrium not based on Malthusian limits.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is a non sequitur and doesn't follow. Republican policy is to the matter up to the states. Which is a balanced and neutral stance.

No, it's not. They want it to be left to the states so they can repress and discriminate. Even long ago when Dems were the Conservative party Conservatives have relied on states rights to shield and enable their hatred and discrimination. Slavery, reproduction, LGBT, religious, we see Conservatives long using states rights as an excuse to repress amd hate and deny rights to others.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it does, actually. It includes provisions for access to Federal funds (via the Affordable Care Act) and unfunded mandates upon the states to provide contraceptives. Perhaps you should read the actual Bill text. It can be found here, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1999/text But you are right that it is hard to discuss something with someone who doesn't understand what the issue is. But it is YOU that apparently doesn't understand.

That is flat out wrong. This Bill would expand the government by increasing both spending and meddling into spheres it doesn't need to. So, it is clear you don't understand either this Bill nor what the concept of limited government is.

No, contraception availability is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and secondarily including them in basic health care is cost effective which is why it is in keeping with the ACA, but this is only possible if the right to them is possible in the first case.