As far as I could tell, condoms weren't on the hit list. What WAS on the hit list would be hormonal birth control - specifically the kind that would prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Condoms are something that the *Vatican* wants banned, not Virginia.

Originally Posted by djplong

As far as I could tell, condoms weren't on the hit list. What WAS on the hit list would be hormonal birth control - specifically the kind that would prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Condoms are something that the *Vatican* wants banned, not Virginia.

If the egg is fertilized, conception has taken place already. Hence, according to this law, this new person has rights-the right to life. This "hormonal birth control" would not qualify as a contraceptive method, since it can not prevent conception. Nuff said!

Of course, you *do* know what the upshot would be with that, yes?

It means that any miscarriage would, by law, have to be investigated to see if there was something like involuntary manslaughter.

I mean, in extreme cases, you're talking about having the Period Police.

According to what I've read, there are a lot more conceptions than you might think. One study said as many as 33% of pregnancies end in miscarriages.

Putting a personal bend on this, my ex-wife might have had to prove she did nothing wrong when she miscarried.

Even *Alabama* just voted down such a referendum.

...because the government would *never* abuse it's powers or try to do any power trips. (..he said while reading another story about TSA abuses)

Given the continual retractions from the medical community on so many issues it does confuse the majority of us. Coffee is good for you coffe is bad for you. Over doing vitamins will damgw your health,,,maga doses of vitamins extend longevity blah blah blah.

Medicine will never be a settled science. In the mean time people live on make errors, commit themselves to the wrong course in life.

Many states have a continual struggle with the legalities of "personhood" or the legalities of "a viable fetus" when it comes to crime and negligent acts.
If a person shoots a pregnant woman or runs over in her in a car accident did the perpetrator kill one person or two?

If I am the surviving father and my expectations of fatherhood had been crushed isn't it likely that i would feel that I lost two people?

One of the complaints of the VA law is that it is intrusive but is it anymore intrusive than an abortion?

Not so obvious is the denigration of a society when the sancity of life is lowered. Evolutionist explain those with the strongest desire to survive do

The case in Virginia will continue to be challenged but it is beneficial dialogue

I think this is really all about who has to pay for it. The laws being considered around the country are to allow insurance companies to just not be obligated to pay for birth control.
It's not to make hormonal birth control illegal.

Birth control would not be illegal, it would just not be covered by insurance. I don't see why it should, logically. What medical problem is it addressing. I think there is a reason beyond just preventing pregnancy that lead to a prescription of birth control pill, but I don't remember what. I'm sure someone is going to remind me.

I remember one snarky comment on this forum in another thread that if this is the case then Viagra shouldn't be covered. But men who are prescribed Viagra are prescribed this drug because of a medical problem and condition. This is not the case with birth control for a healthy woman.

Should vasectomies then not be paid for by insurance?

And there is no medical necessity involved in Viagra..... although some would probably raise it to a life and death issue.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

Should vasectomies then not be paid for by insurance?

And there is no medical necessity involved in Viagra..... although some would probably raise it to a life and death issue.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

Should vasectomies then not be paid for by insurance?

And there is no medical necessity involved in Viagra..... although some would probably raise it to a life and death issue.

Mental health and sexual health is a bonafide medical necessity, I would think. You have a point with vasectomy, though.

Is vasectomy coverage by insurance companies mandated by law?

I'm sorry, but if regulating a woman's period isn't covered, neither should the completely one-sided argument in favor of Viagara be allowed.

Or perhaps it should be but only if the man is married and can supply documented proof that the sex was with his wife and was for procreation only. We can call this The Santorum Ammendment. (He's made statements as to what sex should and shouldn't be for)

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Mental health and sexual health is a bonafide medical necessity, I would think. You have a point with vasectomy, though.

Is vasectomy coverage by insurance companies mandated by law?

I don't have a clue. There must be a link somewhere that will tell you.

Originally Posted by djplong

I'm sorry, but if regulating a woman's period isn't covered, neither should the completely one-sided argument in favor of Viagara be allowed.

Or perhaps it should be but only if the man is married and can supply documented proof that the sex was with his wife and was for procreation only. We can call this The Santorum Ammendment. (He's made statements as to what sex should and shouldn't be for)

You were just commended by Barefoot in another post, but IMHO this reference to a "Santorum Amendment" is quite "snarky".

Richie: I'll go this far. I'll admit that I can see how someone can interperet that as "snarky". I wasn't intending to be that way. I was intending to point out that Santorum is the only major candidate who is actually on record as for what kind of sex is "ok" (to my knowledge).

Specifically, he said it was for married couples only and for the purpose of creating children. So, if that's the case, in a hypothetical Santorum administration, Viagara shouldn't be covered unless it for sex to produce a kid for a married couple.

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie: I'll go this far. I'll admit that I can see how someone can interperet that as "snarky". I wasn't intending to be that way. I was intending to point out that Santorum is the only major candidate who is actually on record as for what kind of sex is "ok" (to my knowledge).

Specifically, he said it was for married couples only and for the purpose of creating children. So, if that's the case, in a hypothetical Santorum administration, Viagara shouldn't be covered unless it for sex to produce a kid for a married couple.

You mean Santorum will do this by Executive Order?

I'm guessing Santorum is all for the state-ordered trans-vaginal probe approved by the republican legislature and governor of Virginia, Santorum's home state.

I am just amazed at the folks who are up in arms to have a simple, painless transvaginal ultrasound on women who are pregnant...not virgins mind you. FYI, the size of the probe being used is about the diameter of a slender tampon. I manage an ultrasound department at a teaching hospital, so I have seen the probe. So give us all a break on the inference that the procedure is tortuous.