As you know by now, I believe strongly in rights for women and I absolutely can not stand it when politicians, (mostly celibate) clergyMEN, and anyone else starts telling me (and my daughter) what I can and can not do with my reproductive organs and how much they expect me to pay for these "rights."
I don't understand why this is even a debate about religious freedom. This is not an attack on religion, it is an attack on women thinly disguised as an attack on religion. To me, the argument is simple: religious institutions accept government money, thus they must follow the healthcare mandate that has been put to them by the government that gave them the money. If the institution has female employees they should not be able to say which ailments/conditions/medications/etc. they are willing to pay for. That is discrimination. That's why I believe this is a war on women. Believe me, if this was about paying for erectile dysfunction meds or prostate exams, the guys would be allllll over that.
Why are men at the forefront of this controversy? I am just amazed that once again men are waging war against women. Yes, men are waging this war. Have you seen the charming gentlemen who suggested we stick an aspirin between our knees?
And I find it frightening that I haven't hardly heard a peep from a woman. Where are the women? Why aren't the women speaking up and saying exactly what they want? I'm not saying that every woman is on my side. I know there are women out there who agree with these guys, but even they aren't speaking out and saying this is what they want.
What is going on??? Where are our voices??? Why do we as women sit there and allow men to tell us what to do with our own bodies???
Ladies, men would never let us get away with this kind of behavior. Why aren't more women angry? Why aren't women concerned about this latest attack?
Don't let these men make laws that affect your bodies without at least speaking up - for or against. Let them know how you feel and let them know what you want.
Do you really want to pay $100 or more in co-pays each month for contraception? Do you really want an unplanned pregnancy because you couldn't afford your co-pay?
I sure don't.
Here is my birth control story: I am almost 40 years old. I can not have another baby. I am too old and I am too poor to afford another one. The Hubs and I are a bit "explosive" together. He looks at me cross eyed and I get pregnant. I got pregnant with Gomer when I was on the Pill and then I got pregnant with Adolpha the first day I went off the Pill. After Adolpha I knew we were done with our family and I asked my doctor for his advice since the Pill was not effective for me and no one who's married likes condoms. He recommended an IUD. I love it. I have had the same IUD now for 5 years and 1 month. The expiration in the United States on the Mirena is 5 years. (In other parts of the world, the same Mirena is "good" for another 2 years - don't even get me started on the drug companies and their B.S.) I need another IUD. When I got the one I have now, I paid a co-pay of $750. In those days, the Hubs had a good job and good insurance and we could afford that. Today we are both self-employed and we pay a small fortune for crappy insurance that probably will cover very little of my new IUD. I haven't even had the guts to call my doctor to find out what my new IUD will cost (I can only imagine). Instead, I'm hoping that France got it right when they said my Mirena would work effectively for 7 years, because if it doesn't I'm afraid the system is going to have another welfare baby on their hands.
.jpg)
.jpg)
250 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 250 of 25028 states already have laws on their books similar to the rule the administration has imposed. About a decade ago, the law (enacted by the Bush adminsitration ) demanded that every employer with more than 15 workers provide equal coverage for men and women (specifically, you can’t pay for Viagra while not paying for the Pill). Nearly a third of those states don’t offer an exemption even for churches — let alone an exception for the church-affiliated charities, universities, hospitals and other employers that are pushing to be left free from the federal rule. (And even in states that have no birth control coverage requirements, some Catholic-affiliated institutions have chosen to offer it voluntarily — including Georgetown University in the District.). Obama’s sole contribution was to expand the mandate to all employers and to require no co-pay. The insurance company is paying for this with your premiums, not your tax dollars. If you object to your insurance covering contraception on moral grounds. Drop your insurance!!!!
Well put, I commend you.
I just want to say THANK YOU for bringing this issue to your blog. I'm a non-practicing Catholic, largely due to their "rules" yet the lack of enforcement of their clearly out-of-line leadership. However, with that said, I don't think anyone should be forced to *take* birth control, but I do strongly believe that women in general should have affordable options. And that's all this healthcare plan is - OPTIONS for women. If you are a devout Catholic, then DON'T USE THEM.
And for those of you saying I don't want to pay for someone else to get to use them. Well take a number, I don't want to pay for diabetics, cancer patients and the like, but we all do so get over it. Some day you might change your mind.
All in all - thanks for putting a rough subject on your blog - as a woman, I very much appreciate the discussion.
...and I have a 6 year old boy because Depo FAILS. (Although he is the best thing that ever happened to me, I was definitely not ready at 19 to get pregnant... so yes, BE CAREFUL)
There is no such thing as free. The morons who say "birth control should be free" forget that someone else has to pay for it. Pay for your own goddamn birth control.
You have a right. To pay for your own fucking birth control.
Dear Jen et al.
I have a solution to your birth control problems. Go out, buy a pair of snow pants, down jacket and toque (you'll have to google that one) and get your ass to Canada. I cannot believe you had to pay $750 for an IUD! Our taxes are insanely high, our weather sucks, and we do have our fair share of ass hat politicians, but our government is pretty separated from the church, for reals. Jesus fucking Christ, I cannot believe what is going on down there!
Just so you know, Mirena in france costs "only" 150euros or $225, which is partially covered by insurrance (maybe not all) at 50-80%... and it used for 5 years at a rate of hormon delivery of 20 micrograms, this decreases to 11 micrograms after 5 years. ie http://www.espace-bsp.fr/produits/np/mirena_np.pdf
So my dear take your chances.
I would not do it as myself to got pregnante with #3 under pill and breasfeeding!
It sucks big time in the US for contraceptive product prices.
You said you didn't have a problem with someone receiving government assistance and having cable service in their home. That assistance should be reserved for people who really need it, those who can't pay for their basic needs. If you can afford to have cable service, then your basic needs better all be taken care of and have no reason to need assistance.
I'll take that as a compliment that you wanted me to comment on every word in your post. You said "True change will only come when there is no more poverty, no more abuse, no more discrimination, a priority on access to good education for all and fair and living wages." That would be nice, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. Sadly, there will always be poverty, there will always be abuse, there will always be discrimination. But that doesn't mean we should give up trying to change things. We shouldn't stand for misuse of public funds and benefits.
I agree, the priority should be on education, because for some, it's the only way we're going to break the poverty cycle. But we can't keep enabling those who are taking advantage of the system.
Finally, someone who has their head on straight! Thank you Jensational!
I can't even bring myself to reply to some of the previous comments, absolutely disgusted by the foul mouths and attitudes of some of the followers, but I did want to add, Jen, I had a Mirena fitted whilst living in England, and had it for 9 years! The only reason my doc in the USA removed it was because I asked for it. She said as long as I was still receiving "benefit" from it, ie. still no periods, then there was absolutely no need to have it removed. I think the 5 years recommendation is to ensure the companies are still reaping the rewards :)
What you continue to miss is that Obama has said these church AFFILIATES will NOT have to pay for this. Insurance companies will pay, and are HAPPY to pay, because birth control is way cheaper than a birth.
maarmie, you can't argue with someone like this. They are so closed to anything that's right and true and good and helpful that there's just no hope for them. They are all about ME ME ME and don't have any understanding of human kindness or compassion. Just leave them to suffer alone.
Oh you poor, lonely woman. No wonder you are so unhappy. Why don't you do some reading on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
In this economy do you really think most people have a choice of where to work? And Catholics are not being asked to pay for ANYTHING to do with birth control. Insurance companies are happy to pay for it because it's much cheaper than babies.
MikeFeb 20, 2012 12:14 PM
28 states already have laws on their books similar to the rule the administration has imposed. About a decade ago, the law (enacted by the Bush adminsitration ) demanded that every employer with more than 15 workers provide equal coverage for men and women (specifically, you can’t pay for Viagra while not paying for the Pill). Nearly a third of those states don’t offer an exemption even for churches — let alone an exception for the church-affiliated charities, universities, hospitals and other employers that are pushing to be left free from the federal rule. (And even in states that have no birth control coverage requirements, some Catholic-affiliated institutions have chosen to offer it voluntarily — including Georgetown University in the District.). Obama’s sole contribution was to expand the mandate to all employers and to require no co-pay. The insurance company is paying for this with your premiums, not your tax dollars. If you object to your insurance covering contraception on moral grounds. Drop your insurance!!!!
I would like to punch any woman in the uterus who thinks it's ok for a man to have any say about her body.
If churches take Federal money, they follow Federal law. Period.
There are two groups that these men are pandering to, one overtly, and one COVERTLY. Overtly, they are pandering to the extreme religious, legalistic right who have taken over the Republican party. COVERTLY, they are pandering to mega-glom insurance companies who are not beholden to the people they insure, but rather the shareholders who want profit on their investment.
Insurance companies have absolutely done this to themselves by being greedy and stupid. Rest assured - this is less to do with religion, and more to do with profit.
My husband and I cannot have more children due to a severe stroke that nearly killed me 6.5 days after the birth of my, now nearly 7 year old son. Birth Control of any kind (other than condoms) is the ONLY way for us since I cannot do the pill, etc due to the above stated. My question/comment is... (and, this never occurred to me BEFORE my stroke) Why is contraception the woman's responsibility?! I say snip, snip to the hubs! -cheaper and less headache for women!
I agree completely. I'm wondering why all these women posting here are not asking their men to get vasectomies? It is a quick out patient trip, somewhat painless and no more worries.
Have any of you heard about vasectomies? One simple procedure covered by 99% of insurance plans - and your done. No more risks to your health, no more co-pays or fees. Consider the savings if nothing else. Besides - if you don't want children it is a safest option out there. We did it and it has been wonderful not to worry and certainly zero expense is nice every month.
To avoid writing an entire novel in response, I'm going to try to keep this in concise points.
1) The religions in question believe in a blanket "no BC" rule. That includes men, too. So it's not an attack on women's rights. Men can't use it either.
2) If you don't agree with these religious beliefs (as I don't), don't attend this church or work for them. Simple as that.
3) Ever notice how cheap condoms are? You can get a box of 36 for $9 at Walmart. If we'd like our BC pills to be this cheap, maybe we should recognize that we're not entitled to anything and let the free market speak. When the pharm companies aren't making any money because no one can afford their exorbitantly priced pills (and the gov't/insurance companies aren't paying them at those high prices in order to provide it to you), they'll be sure to find a way to drop those prices in order to stay in business.
4) Philosophical thought: If this is REALLY about women's reproductive rights instead of women's ANTI-reproductive rights, then where's all the feminists championing for free IVF and adoption? After all, HAVING children is just as much a woman's choice as NOT having them. Why should birth control and abortion get special treatment from the gov't?
Federal law would equal the Constitution- which includes the First Amendment.
If you don't believe in the non-BC belief of the religion(s) in question, then exercise your own right to freedom of religion and don't attend their church or become one of their employees. Simple as that. I don't believe in this whole non-BC nonsense, so I choose not to affiliate with this religion in any way. That's my right as an American. But it's NOT my right to take away their freedom to believe and conduct their business that way.
I do agree with you on the profits thing. Whether gov't is paying for it or insurance companies are, those pharmaceutical companies are getting paid at those exorbitantly high prices for their BC. We think, "Oh goody! We're getting it for free!" But in reality all we're doing is having the pharm companies continue to charge that ridiculously high price with no incentive to lower it because the gov't or insurance companies will continue to pay it. If we really want the pharm companies to feel the pressure of lowering prices to stay in business, the best way we can do that is refuse to have ANYONE pay those stupidly high prices: including the gov't and insurance companies. Then maybe we'll be able to get BC for $10 at Walmart (the current price of a 36-count box of condoms).
If having sex (and needing BC provided as a result) is a medical necessity, then why isn't being able TO have children not considered a necessity? If we're going by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, then by golly, we need to get free IVF and adoption, too! We also need to get free tickets to Disney World and free puppies!!
P.S. Sex may be physiological, but so is getting pregnant. If we're so "evolved" that we can prevent one biological imperative, then why is it such an outrage to suggest we be evolved enough to have self-control in regards to another aspect of our biology?
I find it very interesting that insurance will pay in full for a man to have a vasectomy but women have to deal with this kind of bullshit. The whole thing just makes my blood boil! And women who agree with these outdated policies, I don't get it. Do you really want to rewind back to the 1950's?? Oh, and Santorum needs to jump off a bridge.
Every time I post about this topic, I lose Facebook and twitter followers. Not that I care as I don't need those people following me, but the point is - people are living in the 1800s. This is a war against women, make no butts about it - anyone who tells you different is blind. But I will say, I speak with my pocketbook. I donate to Planned Parenthood and other related reproductive organizations. I proudly identify myself as feminist and get irritated when other women are like "Oh we have our rights now so why do you keep fighting and complaining". I say shame on any woman who doesn't fight for their rights - esp reproductive. I think many women are brainwashed to aspire to be like Paris Hilton and all those braindead wastes of space on reality tv. WAKE UP people.
i have several issues with this.
i can understand wanting healthcare to provide free birth control (i even think some state clinics give free birth controls, even state funded clinics hand out free condoms - don't like the feel of them... well, too bad. not everyone like vegetables, but we eat them any way!). but I don't think it should be handed out at churches. that's what the argument is about at the congress level.
religion and state should be separate.
one friend said that she plan on putting her child on birth control as soon as she starts her period to avoid pregnancy. that bothers me. why? because she is assuming that her child is probably having sex before her period or shortly after. Should we all assume that our children are having sex at that early age and not explain to them the consequences of having sex at such a young age? And instead of confronting it, explaining to them the choices that they make.... no, just put them on the pill, give them shots of HPV, etc... what's next so we can avoid uncomfortable parenting?
oh yes, have the government tell us what we can and cannot eat, do, and read... what's the point of being a parent when we have the government?
I agree with you on all points.
My husband and I have thought about adoption. the cost (may be up to $40k or more), and the risk of not getting it back if the birth mother decides to keep the child is so high now. We just rather not adopt to avoid stress, heartache, etc.
The government doesn't help you out when you just paid for birth mother's clothes, rent, food, and medical expense.
SO TRUE!!!
there is not such thing as a free lunch!
Obama is requiring EVERYONE to pay for insurance. If you do NOT pay for insurance, You WILL be charged a HEFTY fine when tax time comes around.
It is NOT FREE people!!!
Did you hear about the government research that you shouldn't get mammograms until age 55?
When all doctors and OTHER researchers say you should start sooner to catch anything that may happen? And many women DO catch things before age 55.
Now, if the government has a hold of your health care... they can tell you what you can eat (like, no fast food, no bacon, no Paula Deen - whom Michelle Obama loves HER food, no pudding), what you can do (because there is a research out there that being on your cell phone while pregnant is bad - can hurt the baby - so, you shouldn't be on your cell phone for 9 months)... you shouldn't use the microwave because of all the radiation that comes off of it. ...
now... if the government has a hold of your health care... what else can they get a hold off. Think about it.
What rights will you have?
If I want to eat McDonald's once a week, I should be allowed to. We all make our choices.
Why should we let the Government make them for us?
You can claim expenses for a failed adoption using the adoption tax credit. You would need to wait until the year after the attempt to file for the credit.
However, That credit is going away starting in 2013 unless new legislation is passed.
We have a couple of years before that mandate. For right now, you CAN drop your insurance with no penalty. But, what I meant was to drop your employer sponsored insurance and purchase one that would meet your moral standards. I'm sure there is one out there that does not cover contraception.
Have you heard about this?
Lawmaker: 'Radical' Girl Scouts out to destroy 'American family values'
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10469492-lawmaker-radical-girl-scouts-out-to-destroy-american-family-values
99% of Catholics don't use birth control. Stop repeating the misinformation you hear on MSNBC. Oh, and just to educate you a bit, the Church has no prohibition against taking the Pill for medicinal purposes, so you don't have to throw up.
"I don't understand the problems with it" is just your ignorance. If you can't even be bothered to understand the doctrine, please shut up. The last thing this discussion needs is another lazy, intellectually incurious voice.
Great, just what this world needs. Another liberal woman screaming that she needs "free" birth control because otherwise a bunch of men are putting the hurt on her good times. Please STFU.
If you don't like the Catholic Church's viewpoint on this, may I recommend a couple of things:
1) DON'T BE A CATHOLIC
2) Don't work for a Catholic. It's still a free country for now. Go work for someone who shares your view that your neighbors should have to pay for your stuff.
3) Lobby for Catholic institutions to stop getting federal or state money. I'm a Catholic and am totally on board with that.
4) And then step up and fill the gap in your community when the Catholics stop operating the soup kitchen, food pantry, battered women's shelter, hospital, school and other services in your community. And please pay more taxes to cover those costs.
I did the math, and it would take about $.15 a day to pay for your IUD. Sorry, but if you can't be counted on to find that in your budget, don't look to me for it.
I'm always amazed at how many of you libs are screaming "keep your morals out of my uterus" at the same time you're screaming "pay for my stuff so I can have all the sex I want without worrying about the consequences". Which is gonna be ladies? You want my morals out of your life, fine. Then I'm taking my dollars with me.
Birth control is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. It's not "health care", it's personal responsibility. You want it, then get your sisters at Planned Parenthood (via Susan G. Komen) to pay for it.
The Huffington Post really needs another snarky, whiny liberal woman b*tching about how life is going to be unlivable if the Catholics don't provide her with birth control pills that cost $9 a month--or are free at Planned Parenthood? Really? Geez, I would have thought they had plenty of that brand of hack already in the stable.
I'm not Catholic, but I am super-duper conservative. I also have the copper IUD. Just wanted to state that before I said anything else.
While I agree that any institution taking money from the government needs to be careful about the strings attached to that money, I strongly dislike the idea of the government telling insitutions/insurance companies what to do/what to cover/i.e. how to run their business. I dont want the government in health care AT ALL.
I do not believe in government welfare, and when I have fallen on hard times, I go to MY CHURCH and my family for help and not to the government. When I have recovered from hard times, I donate to the church and to shelters. I donate time and money, and I have found, when spending time with unwed poverty-level mothers, that they ALL have access to "free to them" birth control. Not just condoms or BCPs, but NuevaRing and the IUD and even tubal ligation but NONE of them use it. I ask them "Why don't you?" and they all said they didn't really care if they got pregnant again, even though they all have 3-4 children and cannot support those.
I'm saying that because many of you keep saying that "free" birth control will lead to fewer welfare babies, but that just isn't true. Welfare mothers can get "free" birth control in all different types, but since the government takes care of their babies/families, they just don't care.
I plan to vote Santorum.
Maybe if priests could get little boys pregnant, they'd be concerned about birth control and reproductive rights as well....
This, ladies, is what passes for "debate" on the left. Can't make the argument? Then call people names, change the subject or make a completely idiotic statement that only you think is witty.
Well said Kristen! I know it's hard to even imagine what the poor, illiterate and addicted go through at all. There are cultures in this country where the men won't participate in anything -- won't wear condoms, don't care if you get pregnant, don't even want to know about periods and such, wouldn't dare pull out because they THE MAN! We wouldn't have to worry so much about birth control if men would act more responsibly. There are so many men that once they are turned on, they want it so badly that they can't stop to think. I don't have a condom, I don't like condoms, I'll lose my erection if I use a condom, "Don't worry baby, I'll pull out", I need my pill that ensures that every time I want to have sex I can...ALL B.S. Why should women have to spend money on keeping you guys from getting us pregnant. Many times we're having sex with you to make you happy. We already buy all the undergarments, makeup, hair products, shoes to match different outfits, tampons, tampons, tampons, shoes men want us to wear to be more sexy, undergarments/lingerie men want us to wear to be more sexy, hair removal, hair removal, hair removal. This is ridiculous! Help us all NOT have to pay more for a very basic need of today's society which is birth control. Sorry for the rant!
I am 37 with an 11 year old daughter, and in 27 days we will be welcoming our IUD baby girl into the world. I had Paraguard. I don't say this to scare you, but you might want to look into other options, like asking a doctor tie, burn, yank out, and discard if your tubes. Okay, so maybe I did tell you this to scare you...hey, did I mention that I am 37 and a month a way from delivery? I wanna punch myself (and definitely my husband) in the throat every time I think about changing diapers, or going through menopause with a teenage daughter in the house. Anyway, point is, I bet the copy for HUBS to get a little snippy poo is more affordable than the IUD. Just a thought.
Seriously? I can't believe you aren't smart enough to get this. Even if the church didn't accept federal monies (which, by the way, goes to helping Americans), they would still be required to pay for birth contol. This is a direct attack on American freedoms and we should all be concerned about that.
I agree Mr. Aspirin is an idiot but what about a woman that talks about 1000%? You canno have more than 100%. Drives me crazy, just like the athlete that says I give 159%. No you don't. You can't give 150%. If you give or agree with every ounce you have, that is 100%. If you want to be taken seriously then act like you deserve to be taken seriously.
please write a punch for limbaugh
Here is another gem- in your state none the less!
http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/kansas-pregnant-women-little-lie-your-doctor-wont-hurt-you
I just wanted to let you know some OB/GYN's will put an IUD in for someone that hasn't had a child. My Gyn just told me they normally don't b/c it is more painful at first, but that it was my choice.
I know I'm very late to the party but I just saw this post today and I couldn't agree more. I'm a 27 year old single woman with no kids. Since I was 17 I have been on some form of contraceptive, not to prevent unwanted/ unplanned pregnancies but because my doctors believe I have endometriosis. By being the pill it is supposed to help stop the endometriosis from getting worse. I was basically told if I want to be a mother someday I need to be on the pill until that time comes or I would probably struggle to get pregnant. Obviously no one wants to have that problems so I followed what the doctor said and got on the pill.
It pisses me off to hear people talk about this subject who have no clue. I have a friend from college who wrote about this subject on her facebook and said that she agreed with the politicians and religious leaders and went on to say that pill is for irresponsible woman. REALLY!?! I feel that I have been very responsible for going to a doctor with a problem and getting a solution that will hopefully allow me the opportunity of having my own children someday. Let me just say that I gave her a piece of my mind the next time she called and she was dumbfounded that there were more then one reason to take the pill.
Currently I pay 12 dollars a month for my prescription and that is with assistance from the pharmacy I use because I don't have prescription coverage through my insurance. Without the help I would be looking at close to triple that amount each month. I can only imagine what I would have pay if these idiot politicians get there way, if I would be allowed to take the medicine at all. Women need to stand up for themselves and let there voices be heard. No man should be telling me what I can and can not to do with my body or my daughter's body (presuming that I have one someday)
What about fertility too? It's not just birth control, though I totally agree with you. If men can have coverage for Viagra, why can't we have coverage to have babies? As an infertility sufferer it's really frustrating to go to the pharmacy for something as simple as Clomid and for for the pharmacist to say, "Just so you know your $8 (yes, only $8) prescription is not covered, because it's for fertility. I know it's only $8, but you're telling me my insurance company can't afford to cover an $8 medication? How ridiculous is that? I wish more women were like you, Jen. And I hope if more of us talk about it in the blog world, then maybe the real world will catch on.
Since you brought it up again, I just have to mention the majority of religious institutions don't accept money from government. Nor should they.
Neither do the majority of private companies.
Governments don't belong telling anyone anything at all. Neither does anyone that doesn't pay the bills. That is the biggest fight we have. It is not the governments job to tell anyone how to live, what to spend their own money on, or any such thing.
I really don't care what type of birth control you choose to use, that is your personal choice.
But when a person chooses to take a job, they don't get to demand anything from their employers. That isn't the way the world ever worked.
Not to mention most of these religious institutions won't continue if these laws pass, they will close. Were talking about 25% or more of hospitals simply gone because people want to invalidate the First Amendment of the Constitution. That means many millions of people simply won't have any medical care anywhere near them. And countless other religious based services simply because they value freedom more than being told what to do.
And then of course there is all those gigantic companies that don't have to comply at all because the CEO are goods friends with obama and gave him tons of money. Precisely how does that fit into your worldview?
You also complained about the price of all these drugs. Yes they are high. There is a reason for that. For every thing normal people pay for, the hospitals, drug companies, and medical institutions have to make up for what they are forced to give out for free to people with medicare, medicaid and people they know are illegal and will never pay. Not to mention all the crap states tell Insurance providers they have to cover, like unneeded plastic surgery, hair transplants, etc.
And then they need to turn around and purchase massive insurance policies because these same people that run the governments have good friends that are trial lawyers. They get to sue doctors, hospitals , etc for ridiculous amounts of money for things that basically equal hangnails. And they win because the judges are friends as well, and they all get a kickback.
Now we have huge issues with health care. The problem however does not lie anywhere but with state and federal governments. Get them out and health care and insurance prices would drop like a rock.
If you were too young to remember healthcare before all these government mandates, ask your parents and grandparents how it worked. You'll be shocked how well everything worked when clueless bureaucrats didn't get there totally clueless greedy hands into screwing everything up.
If the institution has female employees they should not be able to say which ailments/conditions/medications/etc. they are willing to pay for. That is discrimination. That's why I believe this is a war on women.
actually, they can because they are the ones paying for it.
If the employees do not like it, they can work somewhere else.
Freedom works both way.
Post a Comment