Repeal the HHS Mandate. Do it for America’s Health.

Repeal the HHS Mandate. Do it for America’s Health. July 1, 2014


The ink is not dry on the Hobby Lobby decision, and already the outline of the counterattack is forming.

On and on, round and round, deeper and deeper down into the pit of acrimony and hate we go.

I have a solution for this. It’s simple, straight-forward, and it will work.

Repeal the HHS Mandate.

The HHS Mandate is not necessary. It is based on a lie and has been protected by lies. It has served no reasonable purpose other than to divide the country and pitch us headlong into protracted court battles over issues that should never have been pushed into our faces in the first place.

It is especially sickening to see the public discourse about this agency rule sink to mindless slander, self-righteous posturing and now incitement to violence on public venues. All this because a back-room, hand-appointed industry-heavy committee wrote themselves a little regulation attacking those they perceived to be their political enemies (i.e., traditional Christians) and our president signed it.

The HHS Mandate is, at base, irrational. President Obama compromised his presidency, scarred his place in history and raised up a whole army of political opposition against himself by signing and defending this needlessly divisive agency rule.

He lied to people who had trusted him and deceived the Congress in order to be able to do this stupid thing. Then, he lied to the American people about what he had done. The Mandate, which was born of lies, has been defended with lies and is itself a lie.

The Hobby Lobby lawsuit was not about contraception, and it certainly is not in opposition to women’s equality or women’s health. Unlike many employers today, Hobby Lobby has always provided health insurance, including insurance paying for contraception, to its employees.

They drew the line at paying for contraceptives that were known abortifacients, specifically IUDs and the morning after pill.

Let’s put the issue of abortifacient aside for a moment. The most significant point in all this is that IUDs and the morning after pill are absolutely not good for “women’s health.” They also are not in any way necessary to women’s equality.

The current argument is that women must have IUDs and these IUDs must be paid for by a third party payor in order to maintain good health and achieve equality.

You heard that right. That’s the gist of it.

This argument is talking about IUDs. You know, as in IUDs that have been the object of class action suits for endangering women and have resulted in infections, infertility and quite a few funerals. According to the deep-thinking apologists for the HHS Mandate, women must have IUDs that are paid for by insurance, or their health and hopes of equality will be compromised.

The media has been hard-selling the lie that IUDs are all better now. They tell us that IUDs of today no longer do the nasty things that IUDs of yesterday did. They say that today’s IUDs are coated with sperm-killing hormones in addition to uterus-inflamming, conceptus-implantation-preventing copper wire. The bad old days are all gone now.

I wonder sometimes just why people are so stupid with their health. If IUDs killed women 20 years ago, if they hurt like the infernal regions to put in 20 years ago, if they perforated uteri and caused infections 20 years ago, then why are they so much better now?

Answer: Because it takes a while for the bodies and numbers and problems to pile up. But they are beginning to. And they will multiply as time goes by. It’s a sad state when trial lawyers who come along and mop up the damage are the true defenders of women’s health.

When discussion of the morning after pill comes up in debate, we hear about rape victims.

However, when the morning after pill is being pushed on young women, what they hear is “plan b,” meaning, essentially, have-sex-tonight and take-the-pill tomorrow and do it again anytime you want because, you see, it’s “safe.” The morning after pill is being touted and sold as a ubiquitous, totally harmless form of post coital birth control.

We know these things cause nausea, vomiting and cramping. Even their rah-rah proponents admit that much. We also know that ordinary birth control pills, with their much lower (and safer) dosage of hormones, can have devastating side effects. But we’re supposed to believe that using the morning after pill as birth control is not only harmless, it’s actually necessary for women’s health.

The morning after pills is being promoted as an over-the-counter remedy that is sold and bought like aspirin, and that is not a good thing for women’s health. High dosages of artificial hormones have long-term effects. These effects are so politicized that we will almost surely never hear the truth of it until the trial lawyers come along and start their mop-up work.

Some side-effects, such as cancer, as so long-term and difficult to connect that it’s doubt that anyone will ever put it together.

The stories you’re hearing about Hobby Lobby are lies.

The arguments in favor of the HHS Mandate are lies.

The Mandate itself is a lie.

What is true is that the HHS Mandate is destructive to the body politic and to our rights as free citizens. There is and always has been ways to provide insurance coverage for almost all employees without limiting or even involving First Amendment rights.

I think that the true purpose of the HHS Mandate is to attack the religious freedom. I think the Mandate was written by people who are actively involved with organizations that have fought traditional Christians in the culture wars for so long that they’ve become mentally bent with their hatred. I think the HHS Mandate was an act of hatred. It certainly was not an act of good governance. Subsequent events have demonstrated that rather clearly.

There is a simple way to do something really good for this country. It needs to be done as soon as possible.

Repeal the HHS Mandate. Start over with a fair committee to write real regulations designed to implement the legislation fairly without trampling on political opponents or enriching special interests. In other words, keep the promises President Obama made back when he was lobbying for passage of the Affordable Health Care Act.

Repeal the HHS Mandate and get this country out of this needless and stupid fight. The HHS Mandate is just an agency regulation. It is the product of a corrupt committee of special interests and one man’s vanity. And we are letting it damage our country. That is idiotic.

Repeal the HHS Mandate.

Do it for the sake of America’s health.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

48 responses to “Repeal the HHS Mandate. Do it for America’s Health.”

  1. My mother worked as a CMA in a ob/gyn’s office in the early 1980’s, and she witnessed first hand the horrific side effects of IUDs. Fast forward thirty years, and after I was diagnosed with PCOS, my gynecologist pushed (and I mean pushed hard) for an IUD as treatment, which I stubbornly refused, in part with my mother’s stories in mind.
    And I am eternally grateful I stuck to my guns. About a year ago, a dear friend was rushed to emergency surgery, and nearly died, from an ectopic pregnancy, a “gift” of the IUD she was using. IUDs, because they work in part by causing inflammation, increases one’s risk of ectopic pregnancy– which really does threaten women’s lives. IUDs are not safe.

  2. I have a better solution. Repeal Obamacare. It is unAmerican to force people to buy things they don’t want, against their conscience, or cannot afford.
    I see though you’re taking a closer step to being a Republican. Soon we’ll get you to advocate repealing the whole enchilada. Come and join the dark side. 😛

  3. We could begin by getting the House to pass it to the Senate. Then starting putting pressure on the Senate. Begin with the committee chairs/leadership and people who sit on the pertinent committees. Both Rs and Ds need pressure, btw. It’s easier to talk to them in campaign years — like now — than any other time. Talk to every candidate in a race and make an issue of it with every single one of them. Then, whoever gets elected, bird dog them about it. If we all do that, all over the country, it will certainly make them nervous. Then, if they don’t do what we want, find someone to run against them in the next election.

  4. The House is amenable, and has passed various bills to undo the Affordable Care Act, but because of repeated failures to get those bills considered beyond the House, the legislative emphasis has moved elsewhere. The obstacle is the Senate, especially Harry Reid, who will do what he can to keep a bill of this nature from coming to a vote. I have little hope of persuading the Senators of my state to support a “Repeal and replace” approach, as it’s been called, but I’m sure other readers are in a different position.

  5. We might come next term. If the republicans can’t win big this November they don’t deserve to be called politicians.

  6. I’ll dig out the bill. They need to pass a specific piece of legislation. Also, they need to specifically repeal the HHS Mandate, which is a regulation. If they had done it at the first, one house would have been enough. Didn’t even need the Senate, since it was a regulation. They’re using this for a political issue.

  7. You guys don’t get what I’m talking about. There are so many ways to kill this, and they ain’t doin’ none of them. It would have been ez pz at the start. I’m not sure exactly how the feds do it, but there are always ways if you are serious about a thing. This is 18 years of lawmaking talking. They aren’t trying to kill the HHS Mandate.

  8. The republicans don’t deserve the title now (nor dems) They won’t do anything before November that might cost them votes, e.g., immigration for just one example. Throw all the bums out.

  9. Okay, point taken. I still think that support for repealing the mandate has to be cultivated within the Senate, because the Obama administration will oppose any move to repeal the HHS regulation that established the mandate, and the Senate will back up the Administration.

  10. You fail to bring out the real criminality of the Mandate, and the reason why it and its background, beginning with the ruination of poor Rep.Stupak, have been consistently enacted by lies. I shall make a historical parallel.

    A few months ago I made a thumbnail sketch, in this blog, of the horrible history of Catholic Ireland under three centuries of Protestant English rule, making the point that by the end of it the Catholic Irish had been reduced to a pulverized peasantry, penniless, ignorant and leaderless, with no middle class or aristocracy or any consistency. What is relevant to our debate here is that the destruction of the Irish educated classes, in spite of the frightful massacres and repeated wars that dotted the history of the island, were not the result of military oppression or of massacre; they were, in the main, the result of laws. As the Irish Protestant Edmund Burke said, the English laws against Irish Catholics – or “penal laws”, as they are shamefully called – were “a complete system, full of coherence and consistency, well digested and well composed in all its parts. It was a machine of wise and deliberate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”

    The Mass, of course, could not be said: to have it said or to say it meant life imprisonment. But neither could Catholics be educated: to set up a Catholic school was equally a matter of life imprisonment. And Catholics were to be robbed by law: “Every Roman Catholic was… to forfeit his estate to his nearest Protestant relation, until, through a profession of what he did not believe, he redeemed by his hypocrisy what the law had transferred to the kinsman as the recompense of his profligacy.” The law encouraged Protestants to steal from their Catholic relations, or even pretended relations; and not just large amounts, but everything – every bit of property they had. “When thus turned out of doors from his paternal estate, he was disabled from acquiring any other by any industry, donation, or charity; but was rendered a foreigner in his native land, only because he retained the religion, along with the property, handed down to him from those who had been the old inhabitants of that land before him.”

    “….Catholics, condemned to beggary and to ignorance in their native land, have been obliged to learn the principles of letters, at the hazard of all their other principles, from the charity of your enemies. They have been taxed to their ruin at the pleasure of necessitous and profligate relations, and according to the measure of their necessity and profligacy. Examples of this are many and affecting. Some of them are known by a friend who stands near me in this hall. It is but six or seven years since a clergyman, of the name of Malony, a man of morals, neither guilty nor accused of anything noxious to the state, was condemned to perpetual imprisonment for exercising the functions of his religion; and after lying in jail two or three years, was relieved by the mercy of government from perpetual imprisonment, on condition of perpetual banishment. A brother of the Earl of Shrewsbury, a Talbot, a name respectable in this country whilst its glory is any part of its concern, was hauled to the bar of the Old Bailey, among common felons, and only escaped the same doom, either by some error in the process, or that the wretch who brought him there could not correctly describe his person,—I now forget which. In short, the persecution would never have relented for a moment, if the judges, superseding (though with an ambiguous example) the strict rule of their artificial duty by the higher obligation of their conscience, did not constantly throw every difficulty in the way of such informers. But so ineffectual is the power of legal evasion against legal iniquity, that it was but the other day that a lady of condition, beyond the middle of life, was on the point of being stripped of her whole fortune by a near relation to whom she had been a friend and benefactor; and she must have been totally ruined, without a power of redress or mitigation from the courts of law, had not the legislature itself rushed in, and by a special act of Parliament rescued her from the injustice of its own statutes…”

    It says enough about the power of brute prejudice, of a kind we see in the highest places today, that this unanswerable attack on a disgraceful law lost Burke an election he should have won. The English had been taught to hate CAtholics so much that they evidently thought that nothing done to them could be wrong or unjust.

    Rebecca, this is the real purpose of the Mandate; this is why the political and media leadership of your country has fought for it so obstinately, so savagely, and so underhandedly; this is why it took even a narrow defeat with murderous rage. It is because the real purpose of this abomination is to exclude Christians and especially Catholics from economic life. In a world in which money is the only power that can really affect politics – as Obama and his people know all too well – it is intolerable to them that there should be a number, however small, of rich people and of company owners who take their Christianity seriously. In this day and age it is not yet possible to make it legal for a man of the government’s party to simply steal the property of his dissenting relatives; and besides, there is not – or not yet – a simple test of identity to separate the government’s friends from its enemies, as membership in the “Protestant” church was in Burke’s time. But they can impose a tax for a purpose that no Christian can accept, and then savagely penalize them – not by jailing them, which is not what they want, but by fining them into ruin.

    Look at it in this light, and the whole mechanism becomes lucid, clear, rational and perfectly designed for its purpose. It is intended to make it impossible for Christians to have any independent economic activity in the USA, by making sure that they either have to resign their principles or be taxed into bankruptcy for them. Of course, they could not possibly declare their purpose; of course they lied from beginning to end. But that, and nothing else, is what this Mandate does.

    Incidentally, this also gives you an insight into the real view that Obama and his henchmen have of the political process in your country, and of the nature of political power. This law is not meant to strike at Catholic or Christian faith. It does not try to obtain conversions. It does not set up anything like the imposing apparatus by which republican France, after 1875, worked tirelessly to break the ancestral Catholicism of its masses. The only thing that matters, the thing for which they have fought, the thing for which they have lied, the thing for which they ruined Bart Stupak and compromised the word of the President of the United States of America, was to be sure that no rich Catholics or Christians should exist. Wealth had to remain exclusively among people who had no problem with paying tax to distribute IUDs and abortifacients with a shovel. Because in the eyes of Obama and his crowd, only the very rich are politically significant. This attempt to winnow the Christians from their numbers makes it perfectly clear.

  11. I’m afraid they may not, because they are too anti-immigration. They also alienate a lot of voters that way. Our country is founded on immigration.

  12. True. The key to doing this is persistence, and using the power the House has to get it done. This is fairly complicated for me to explain. Too much for a com box, and not really something I’d want to put in a post, either.

    All I can say in this venue is that the Ds are committed to keeping the Mandate, and the Rs are not committed to getting rid of it. We don’t have real friends in the political sphere. At best we have those who won’t attack us. We do not have defenders.

  13. No Manny. It’s not naive. It is a reality that both parties are bad news for this nation. There is a third choice, and that choice requires a lot of work, but I am convinced it is the right one. That choice is to go to work reforming those parties (both of them) from the ground up.

    I am convinced that whichever party wins, the people of this country lose.

  14. A friend of mine’s use of the IUD led her to have an incompetent cervix. She miscarried her first and had to have stitches put in and go on bed rest to carry her second.

  15. We’ll see. Immigration plays on a national election, such as the presidency. I don’t think local senators and congressman get effected by it much. And even the little bit it effects cuts both ways.

  16. You feel that way because of the lack of leadership from the top. This president has polarized everyone. It’s the president’s job to pull the parties together.

  17. I just read Justice Ginsburg’s dissent which gives a brief overview of how the contraception mandate came about. It had nothing to do with taking away anyone’s religious freedom. You should read it.

  18. Worse, even than your friend, I saw a hysterectomy in a young 20’s woman because of a perforation be an IUD.

  19. Justice Ginsburg wasn’t in the room. Plus, she went off on this, to the point that Justice Sotomayor didn’t sign the minority opinion, even though she voted with the minority on the decision.

  20. I feel that way because I’ve been up close and personal with it for a long time and I know what I’m talking about. Both parties are the enemy of this country, just in slightly different ways. No matter who wins, we the people lose.

  21. But that argument has been around from the beginning of the republic. It’s the state of nature. Someone has to corrall the parties, and that’s the responsibility of the president.

  22. The parties and the prez somewhat have one another by the throat. I don’t know as much about how the Rs work, but the Ds are awfully hard to corral. I’m not saying that the prez isn’t the party leader. Just that it goes both ways and the leadership is not anywhere close to leadership. President Obama’s leadership has certainly been off the cliff in many areas. However and as an example. I’ve been an elected D official throughout his presidency, and he didn’t lead me anywhere.

    You have a point Manny, it’s just not an absolute point.

  23. I think Hobby Lobby is taking care of its employees and big deal it doesn’t cover 4 contraceptives. But this sets a dangerous precedent of people imposing their religion on others in the name of “religious freedom”. The push for contraceptive coverage was from Congress, not Obama. It amended the ACA to include it. It was not to take away religious freedom as you imply.

  24. Bill, you don’t have your facts straight. The entire court case was about the HHS Mandate, which is an agency rule, promulgated by a committee and signed by President Obama. This happened after President Obama specifically promised both Congress and the American people that the Affordable Health Care Act would not infringe on religious freedom.

    President Obama lied.

    Congress had nothing to do with the HHS Mandate with the single exception that it sat on its hands and let it take effect rather than refuse it at the get go. This was due to a well-orchestrated press dealio that the president put together to intimidate. He’s a master at orchestrating the press, and the press is a willing partner with him in it.

  25. Replace it with universal single payer public insurance like civilized countries have. It will cost you less and you’ll have less bureaucracy.

  26. What Justice Ginsburg’s tale shows is the sneakiness that was employed to force free contraceptives on the entire nation – something they could not get passed if it had been in the language of the bill.
    Mikulski offered a sneaky amendment that merely said that “preventive services. NOWHERE in the text of the bill was there any mention of contraceptives.

    Instead, what the Democrats sneakily cooked up was this: Make sure that the bill says that “preventive care” must be covered. Then, we will have “preventive care” determined by a supposedly outside neutral board – all of the members of which are appointed by the Obama administration. Further, we will consult the newly created “Institute for Medicine” which is almost all appointed by Obama and includes people very closely connected with Planned Parenthood. They will recommend in their oh so scholarly report that “preventive care” means all sorts of things that congress would never have passed.

  27. The push for contraceptive care did not come from Congress. Ginbsburg misleadingly reports that a few Democratic Senators, added some tricky language to the bill, none of which mentioned Contraceptives at all.

    If you read her dissent closely, here is the important sentence:

    “As altered by the Women’s Health Amendment’s pas-
    sage, the ACA requires new insurance plans to include
    coverage without cost sharing of “such additional preven-
    tive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehen-
    sive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and
    Services Administration [(HRSA)],” a unit of HHS. 42
    U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Thus charged, the HRSA devel-
    oped recommendations in consultation with the Institute
    of Medicine (IOM).’

    Not a word about Contraceptives

  28. The reason they are not trying is because they are afraid that they will be labelled anti-woman by killing it. So, they keep quite and wait until the next election

  29. I don’t think so. I think the reason they’re not trying is three-fold.
    1. It makes a great wedge issue for campaigns, and
    2. Some of them come from districts where it would be a tough vote, so the leadership is covering for them, and
    3. The big money interests don’t want them to because of the interlocking boards among THEIR constituencies.

    Numbers 2 and 3, particularly 3, is the basic reason.

  30. Here are the facts as to that supposedly independent panel

    We have been told that an “independent” panel from the Institute of Medicine put together the recommendations upon which the current mandate …. But it’s worth noticing that the “reproductive rights” activists were well represented on that panel.

    Human Life International further compiled:

    Claire Brindis is a member of the Board of Directors of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, as well as a member of NARAL’s Pro-Choice California “1969 Society,” which has been called by NARAL “a group of our most steadfast and generous donors.”

    Angela Diaz is a former board member of “Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health,” anadvocacy group that “work[s] to improve access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion.” Until just a few weeks ago she served as the senior vice president of the International Women’s Health Coalition and was on the board of directors from 2007-2010. Her biography on the IWHC’s website (which was recently removed) stated that she “has a deep and long commitment to IWHC’s mission and to the organization.” The IWHC is a pro-choice advocacy group that declares that “access to safe abortion is a human right” and that abortion and contraception are “universal and inalienable” rights.

    Francisco Garcia has donated between $11,750 and $13,000 to candidates that support abortion since 2004. These pro-choice candidates include Raul Grijava and Barack Obama.

    Kimberly Gregory, as indicated by public records, has donated $35,200 to the California Victory 2010 of the Democratic National Committee in support of Barbara Boxer.

    Paula A. Johnson is the Chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and is affiliated with the pro-abortion National Organization of Women (NOW). This year she will be the winner of NARAL’s 2011 “Champion for Choice” award. Public records indicate that since 2003 she has given between $9,550 and $11,000 each to the political campaigns of Pro-Choice candidates including Martha Coakley, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. She also has made contributions to Emily’s List, an organization dedicated to “electing pro-choice Democratic women.”

    Roberta Ness has donated at least $2,500 to pro-abortion candidate John Kerry and to the Democratic National Committee.

    Magda G. Peck is associated with a host of organizations that advocate for abortion and free access to contraception, and was on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs and served as both vice chair and chair of the board.

    E. Albert Reece donated $1000 in 2010 to the campaign of pro-abortion politician Barbara Mikulski, the sponsor of the amendment that paved the way for recommendation 5.5.

    Linda Rosenstock, committee chairwoman, has since October 2004 donated over $40,000 to pro-choice political candidates including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the Democratic National Committee.

    Alina Salganicoff is the Vice President and Director of Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a major proponent of abortion and contraception on demand. She donated $950 to the Barack Obama and Judy Feder campaigns in 2008.

    Carol Weisman has made $4,500 in political donations to pro-abortion candidates including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry and Judy Feder since 2000.

    As the Public Discourse website put it over the summer:

    “The vast majority of the committee members demonstrate a more than casual commitment to the goals of the abortion lobby. In fact, according to information available from the public record, these committee members have donated a total of $116,500 to pro-choice organizations and candidates. Public records show that not one of the fifteen committee members has financially supported a pro-life political candidate. This committee was purportedly assembled for the purpose of providing outside, objective, and expert advice to the HHS policymakers. Whatever one thinks of the relevant issues, one would be hard-pressed to argue that this IOM committee is politically nonpartisan.

    Of course the political involvement of the members does not necessarily invalidate the findings of the IOM. Nor does support for a pro-choice candidate necessarily indicate an unalloyed loyalty to a cause. Yet the unbalanced makeup of the IOM’s supposedly objective committee—a makeup that does not reflect the distribution of either the lay population or of the medical community in America—should raise questions about the objectivity with which they undertook their mission.

    The committee held three “open information-gathering sessions” to receive expert testimony regarding the preventive services that should be mandated and funded. However, nearly all of the invited speakers were known advocates of contraception and abortion on demand. Michael O’Dea notes:

    At both meetings, the invited speakers represented organizations which advocate coverage of contraception, without cost sharing of expenses. Those organizations include the Guttmacher Institute, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, Planned Parenthood, The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Society for Family Planning.

    “The Abortion-Rights Advocates Who Compiled the HHS Mandate” Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online

  31. It was Sebelius, an Obama appointee who drove the new HRSA preventive care guidelines which for the first time in history declared pregnancy a disease to be prevented, lumping it in with prevention of all kinds of other diseases such as cancer, measles, polio, etc.

    The HHS mandate falls precisely at Obama’s feet – he is the author and he got the HRSA and the IOM to do the formalities for him.

  32. IUD worked for me for 4 years. Was no problem at all. I imagine others have had success with them also.

  33. My mother is 89. Smoked like a diesel since she was 17. Never had lung cancer.

  34. She also eats straight junk food. Never had: High blood pressure, heart trouble, or high cholesterol.

    She was also overweight until she decided to lose it when she was in her 70s.

    There is hope for all of us. 🙂

  35. There is nothing wrong with insurance companies covering contraception. Outside of a certain few, mostly Catholics, it is widely accepted as a desirable preventive service.

  36. I don’t think, outside of religious objections, there is any argument that a thorough health care plan includes contraceptive coverage. Religious objections cannot be accommodated if they impact nonreligious people.

  37. It is wrong to call it “health insurance.” Birth control actually makes a healthy body not work, so is the opposite of a health promoting treatment.

  38. The Democrats in congress should do it for their party. The mandate has gravely hurt the Democratic Party. Are they really more loyal to an imperial President’s narcissistic whims than they are to the party, or are they being blackmailed?

  39. I absolutely agree. I have the impression that a lot of the Ds are convinced that it is impossible for them to entertain ambitions of national office without the support of Planned Parenthood.

    I also think that the President organized them, particularly the women, right down to the talking points before he signed the thing.

    That, and a good number of them are pro choice/pro abort (there is a difference) from long before they were ever elected, and many others owe their election to $ from pro choice people.

    There’s more, but that will do for an answer for now. 🙂

  40. The problem with the “preventive care” thing is that it makes a false assumption. If every girl were automatically pregnant every month from the time she reached puberty, then I would agree that free contraception is desirable and necessary (as long as it prevents conception rather than murders an unborn child). But the fact that girls and women have to actively have intercourse in order to get pregnant, and that nobody dies from lack of sex, means that sex is a choice. People can choose not to have sex and save money on both birth control and child birth. Also, our fertility rate is below replacement level, so having more children isn’t a bad thing. In fact, I’ve heard more recently from women who are past childbearing age (especially those with only one child) that they wish they had more children!

  41. We are indeed all different in what how our bodies react to different things. My methods of bc never adversely affected me and succeeded in doing their job! My food choices are not always the best either—so far I haven’t had high BP, cholesterol or heart trouble. Hope my luck holds out!