Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    Hot Air:


    Bobby Jindal, who’s wooing religious conservatives ahead of 2016, has been pushing this idea since 2012. He anticipated the loophole in yesterday’s Hobby Lobby decision: Even if the feds can’t require a (closely held) corporation to cover contraception for its employees, there’s nothing stopping HHS from requiring insurers to cover it for “free,” i.e. through a cost-spreading mechanism that ropes in the wider population. That would solve the religious-freedom objection — Hobby Lobby’s money would no longer be directly applied to pay for abortifacients to which it objects — while guaranteeing that birth control remains effectively subsidized for employee. The only losers are … everyone else, now collectively on the hook for the subsidy.


    Jindal’s alternative: Why not boot the pill out of the realm of health coverage altogether by making it available OTC? If the morning-after pill is available without a prescription, it stands to reason that a morning-before pill should be. Costs would drop, personal responsibility would be championed, and the religious-freedom problem to all this would be solved. Congress could, as Jindal suggests, even adjust Health Savings Accounts so that they include OTC medicines, which would further reduce the financial burden. And politically, it would complicate the Democrats’ dopey “war on women” messaging by decoupling the contraception debate from the debate over abortion. How do you push a “Republicans don’t believe in reproductive freedom” message if GOPers like Jindal want to make the pill OTC?


    Philosophically, it’s consistent with limited government principles. It removes unnecessary government regulations and increases choice.


    It doesn’t impose new burdens on businesses or religious institutions, nor does it require an increase in government health care spending.


    And politically, it would also be beneficial to Republicans. It would make it a lot more difficult for Democrats to portray the GOP as being only interested in obstructing Democrats rather than supporting their own ideas, and harder to accuse Republicans of being broadly against access to birth control…


    If Democrats oppose the move, they’ll have to explain why they want to force women to go through their doctors to obtain birth control and make it harder for uninsured women to gain access.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    Go for it ... And when the bible thumpers go beserk claiming that their teenage daughter is able to obtain birth control without parental consent, against their religious beliefs ... or when the wingnuts go crazy that the federal gubmit is undermining their parental rights ... then ya'll will disavow the idea, claim amnesia and blame Obama for corrupting the youth of 'merica.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Go for it ... And when the bible thumpers go beserk claiming that their teenage daughter is able to obtain birth control without parental consent, against their religious beliefs ... or when the wingnuts go crazy that the federal gubmit is undermining their parental rights ... then ya'll will disavow the idea, claim amnesia and blame Obama for corrupting the youth of 'merica.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly what would happen

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hot Air:

     

    Bobby Jindal, who’s wooing religious conservatives ahead of 2016, has been pushing this idea since 2012. He anticipated the loophole in yesterday’s Hobby Lobby decision: Even if the feds can’t require a (closely held) corporation to cover contraception for its employees, there’s nothing stopping HHS from requiring insurers to cover it for “free,” i.e. through a cost-spreading mechanism that ropes in the wider population. That would solve the religious-freedom objection — Hobby Lobby’s money would no longer be directly applied to pay for abortifacients to which it objects — while guaranteeing that birth control remains effectively subsidized for employee. The only losers are … everyone else, now collectively on the hook for the subsidy.

     

    Jindal’s alternative: Why not boot the pill out of the realm of health coverage altogether by making it available OTC? If the morning-after pill is available without a prescription, it stands to reason that a morning-before pill should be. Costs would drop, personal responsibility would be championed, and the religious-freedom problem to all this would be solved. Congress could, as Jindal suggests, even adjust Health Savings Accounts so that they include OTC medicines, which would further reduce the financial burden. And politically, it would complicate the Democrats’ dopey “war on women” messaging by decoupling the contraception debate from the debate over abortion. How do you push a “Republicans don’t believe in reproductive freedom” message if GOPers like Jindal want to make the pill OTC?

     

    Philosophically, it’s consistent with limited government principles. It removes unnecessary government regulations and increases choice.

     

    It doesn’t impose new burdens on businesses or religious institutions, nor does it require an increase in government health care spending.

     

    And politically, it would also be beneficial to Republicans. It would make it a lot more difficult for Democrats to portray the GOP as being only interested in obstructing Democrats rather than supporting their own ideas, and harder to accuse Republicans of being broadly against access to birth control…

     

    If Democrats oppose the move, they’ll have to explain why they want to force women to go through their doctors to obtain birth control and make it harder for uninsured women to gain access.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe one needs to see a doctor before getting on the pill. It's not as simply as just handing any pill to any woman. There are different kinds of pills.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    There's that pesky crystal ball again....uh huh....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    It's "deja vu ... all over again".

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    Considering the onslaught of big government and the war on women (sic), not a bad idea to go OTC.

    Glad to see progressives conflating handing this stuff out as part of a big government school program. This is the problem wo progressives: they are so unwilling to let people work this stuff out without government interference for themselves and their families.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Considering the onslaught of big government and the war on women (sic), not a bad idea to go OTC.

     

    Glad to see progressives conflating handing this stuff out as part of a big government school program. This is the problem wo progressives: they are so unwilling to let people work this stuff out without government interference for themselves and their families.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Now you're just being a duplicitious liar... in other words, you're normal ideologically ignorant posts.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The big liar charge: This is a key artifact in knowing when you have the progressives on the ropes.

    so, you didn't say something about bible thumpers going bezerk when they discover their daughters are getting both control?

    someone here is a liar, and it ain't me.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hot Air:

     

    Bobby Jindal, who’s wooing religious conservatives ahead of 2016, has been pushing this idea since 2012. He anticipated the loophole in yesterday’s Hobby Lobby decision: Even if the feds can’t require a (closely held) corporation to cover contraception for its employees, there’s nothing stopping HHS from requiring insurers to cover it for “free,” i.e. through a cost-spreading mechanism that ropes in the wider population. That would solve the religious-freedom objection — Hobby Lobby’s money would no longer be directly applied to pay for abortifacients to which it objects — while guaranteeing that birth control remains effectively subsidized for employee. The only losers are … everyone else, now collectively on the hook for the subsidy.

     

    Jindal’s alternative: Why not boot the pill out of the realm of health coverage altogether by making it available OTC? If the morning-after pill is available without a prescription, it stands to reason that a morning-before pill should be. Costs would drop, personal responsibility would be championed, and the religious-freedom problem to all this would be solved. Congress could, as Jindal suggests, even adjust Health Savings Accounts so that they include OTC medicines, which would further reduce the financial burden. And politically, it would complicate the Democrats’ dopey “war on women” messaging by decoupling the contraception debate from the debate over abortion. How do you push a “Republicans don’t believe in reproductive freedom” message if GOPers like Jindal want to make the pill OTC?

     

    Philosophically, it’s consistent with limited government principles. It removes unnecessary government regulations and increases choice.

     

    It doesn’t impose new burdens on businesses or religious institutions, nor does it require an increase in government health care spending.

     

    And politically, it would also be beneficial to Republicans. It would make it a lot more difficult for Democrats to portray the GOP as being only interested in obstructing Democrats rather than supporting their own ideas, and harder to accuse Republicans of being broadly against access to birth control…

     

    If Democrats oppose the move, they’ll have to explain why they want to force women to go through their doctors to obtain birth control and make it harder for uninsured women to gain access.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe one needs to see a doctor before getting on the pill. It's not as simply as just handing any pill to any woman. There are different kinds of pills.

    [/QUOTE]

    You saying women are too stupid to read the label on medications ?

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Considering the onslaught of big government and the war on women (sic), not a bad idea to go OTC.

     

    Glad to see progressives conflating handing this stuff out as part of a big government school program. This is the problem wo progressives: they are so unwilling to let people work this stuff out without government interference for themselves and their families.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Now you're just being a duplicitious liar... in other words, you're normal ideologically ignorant posts.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The big liar charge: This is a key artifact in knowing when you have the progressives on the ropes.

    so, you didn't say something about bible thumpers going bezerk when they discover their daughters are getting both control?

    someone here is a liar, and it ain't me.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey spanky, you're the a55hat who called the pill an abortifacient that kills babies ... but now it's okay because it's a whacko wingnut allowing teens to kill their babies and not an evil 'librul'.

    Pull your head out of your backside and stop being a duplicituous liar.

    [/QUOTE]

    I can't even spell abortifacient.  You must have me confused with someone else.

    tell me, where is the lie?  Are you just throwing mud around, trying to distract me from your failure?

    Which of the Alynski rules are you aiming at? Maybe I can help you out.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hot Air:

     

    Bobby Jindal, who’s wooing religious conservatives ahead of 2016, has been pushing this idea since 2012. He anticipated the loophole in yesterday’s Hobby Lobby decision: Even if the feds can’t require a (closely held) corporation to cover contraception for its employees, there’s nothing stopping HHS from requiring insurers to cover it for “free,” i.e. through a cost-spreading mechanism that ropes in the wider population. That would solve the religious-freedom objection — Hobby Lobby’s money would no longer be directly applied to pay for abortifacients to which it objects — while guaranteeing that birth control remains effectively subsidized for employee. The only losers are … everyone else, now collectively on the hook for the subsidy.

     

    Jindal’s alternative: Why not boot the pill out of the realm of health coverage altogether by making it available OTC? If the morning-after pill is available without a prescription, it stands to reason that a morning-before pill should be. Costs would drop, personal responsibility would be championed, and the religious-freedom problem to all this would be solved. Congress could, as Jindal suggests, even adjust Health Savings Accounts so that they include OTC medicines, which would further reduce the financial burden. And politically, it would complicate the Democrats’ dopey “war on women” messaging by decoupling the contraception debate from the debate over abortion. How do you push a “Republicans don’t believe in reproductive freedom” message if GOPers like Jindal want to make the pill OTC?

     

    Philosophically, it’s consistent with limited government principles. It removes unnecessary government regulations and increases choice.

     

    It doesn’t impose new burdens on businesses or religious institutions, nor does it require an increase in government health care spending.

     

    And politically, it would also be beneficial to Republicans. It would make it a lot more difficult for Democrats to portray the GOP as being only interested in obstructing Democrats rather than supporting their own ideas, and harder to accuse Republicans of being broadly against access to birth control…

     

    If Democrats oppose the move, they’ll have to explain why they want to force women to go through their doctors to obtain birth control and make it harder for uninsured women to gain access.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe one needs to see a doctor before getting on the pill. It's not as simply as just handing any pill to any woman. There are different kinds of pills.

    [/QUOTE]

    You saying women are too stupid to read the label on medications ?

    [/QUOTE]

    Wanting women to be responsible for themselves = war on women.

    wanting women dependent on big government = women's lib.

    what a strange twist on words. Go figure.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hot Air:

     

    Bobby Jindal, who’s wooing religious conservatives ahead of 2016, has been pushing this idea since 2012. He anticipated the loophole in yesterday’s Hobby Lobby decision: Even if the feds can’t require a (closely held) corporation to cover contraception for its employees, there’s nothing stopping HHS from requiring insurers to cover it for “free,” i.e. through a cost-spreading mechanism that ropes in the wider population. That would solve the religious-freedom objection — Hobby Lobby’s money would no longer be directly applied to pay for abortifacients to which it objects — while guaranteeing that birth control remains effectively subsidized for employee. The only losers are … everyone else, now collectively on the hook for the subsidy.

     

    Jindal’s alternative: Why not boot the pill out of the realm of health coverage altogether by making it available OTC? If the morning-after pill is available without a prescription, it stands to reason that a morning-before pill should be. Costs would drop, personal responsibility would be championed, and the religious-freedom problem to all this would be solved. Congress could, as Jindal suggests, even adjust Health Savings Accounts so that they include OTC medicines, which would further reduce the financial burden. And politically, it would complicate the Democrats’ dopey “war on women” messaging by decoupling the contraception debate from the debate over abortion. How do you push a “Republicans don’t believe in reproductive freedom” message if GOPers like Jindal want to make the pill OTC?

     

    Philosophically, it’s consistent with limited government principles. It removes unnecessary government regulations and increases choice.

     

    It doesn’t impose new burdens on businesses or religious institutions, nor does it require an increase in government health care spending.

     

    And politically, it would also be beneficial to Republicans. It would make it a lot more difficult for Democrats to portray the GOP as being only interested in obstructing Democrats rather than supporting their own ideas, and harder to accuse Republicans of being broadly against access to birth control…

     

    If Democrats oppose the move, they’ll have to explain why they want to force women to go through their doctors to obtain birth control and make it harder for uninsured women to gain access.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe one needs to see a doctor before getting on the pill. It's not as simply as just handing any pill to any woman. There are different kinds of pills.

    [/QUOTE]

    You saying women are too stupid to read the label on medications ?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think most people are too stupid to read labels on anything.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Bobby Jindal: make birth control pills available over the counter, without a prescription

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hot Air:

     

    Bobby Jindal, who’s wooing religious conservatives ahead of 2016, has been pushing this idea since 2012. He anticipated the loophole in yesterday’s Hobby Lobby decision: Even if the feds can’t require a (closely held) corporation to cover contraception for its employees, there’s nothing stopping HHS from requiring insurers to cover it for “free,” i.e. through a cost-spreading mechanism that ropes in the wider population. That would solve the religious-freedom objection — Hobby Lobby’s money would no longer be directly applied to pay for abortifacients to which it objects — while guaranteeing that birth control remains effectively subsidized for employee. The only losers are … everyone else, now collectively on the hook for the subsidy.

     

    Jindal’s alternative: Why not boot the pill out of the realm of health coverage altogether by making it available OTC? If the morning-after pill is available without a prescription, it stands to reason that a morning-before pill should be. Costs would drop, personal responsibility would be championed, and the religious-freedom problem to all this would be solved. Congress could, as Jindal suggests, even adjust Health Savings Accounts so that they include OTC medicines, which would further reduce the financial burden. And politically, it would complicate the Democrats’ dopey “war on women” messaging by decoupling the contraception debate from the debate over abortion. How do you push a “Republicans don’t believe in reproductive freedom” message if GOPers like Jindal want to make the pill OTC?

     

    Philosophically, it’s consistent with limited government principles. It removes unnecessary government regulations and increases choice.

     

    It doesn’t impose new burdens on businesses or religious institutions, nor does it require an increase in government health care spending.

     

    And politically, it would also be beneficial to Republicans. It would make it a lot more difficult for Democrats to portray the GOP as being only interested in obstructing Democrats rather than supporting their own ideas, and harder to accuse Republicans of being broadly against access to birth control…

     

    If Democrats oppose the move, they’ll have to explain why they want to force women to go through their doctors to obtain birth control and make it harder for uninsured women to gain access.

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe one needs to see a doctor before getting on the pill. It's not as simply as just handing any pill to any woman. There are different kinds of pills.

    [/QUOTE]

    You saying women are too stupid to read the label on medications ?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think most people are too stupid to read labels on anything.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think most people are too stupid to tell that having the government pay for your birth control isn't a right, it's welfare.

     

Share