Jump to content

New Massachusetts Law Guarantees Birth Control Coverage -- WOOHOO!!!


Scout
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has signed legislation that aims to protect insurance coverage for birth control regardless of changes in federal policy.

 

BOSTON (AP) — Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has signed legislation that aims to guarantee insurance coverage for women's birth control regardless of changes in federal policy.

 

    Baker joined Democratic lawmakers and women's health advocates on Monday at a bill-signing ceremony in the Statehouse library. The measure won overwhelming approval in the Legislature.

 

    The new law requires insurers to continue coverage, without co-payments, of at least one form of each contraceptive approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

 

    Supporters said Massachusetts is the first state to take action since Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order allowing employers to opt out of providing birth

control coverage by claiming religious or moral objections.   The law would also supersede any move by Congress to repeal birth control coverage required under the federal Affordable Care Act.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/massachusetts/articles/2017-11-20/new-massachusetts-law-guarantees-birth-control-coverage

----------------------------

AMEN!  Kudos to Sandra Fluke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

18 minutes ago, Scout said:

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has signed legislation that aims to protect insurance coverage for birth control regardless of changes in federal policy.

Good for them.  This is the way healthcare SHOULD be handled, by the states. 

Too bad it doesn't help you any.  But you're all dried and withered up anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has signed legislation that aims to protect insurance coverage for birth control regardless of changes in federal policy.

 

BOSTON (AP) — Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has signed legislation that aims to guarantee insurance coverage for women's birth control regardless of changes in federal policy.

 

    Baker joined Democratic lawmakers and women's health advocates on Monday at a bill-signing ceremony in the Statehouse library. The measure won overwhelming approval in the Legislature.

 

    The new law requires insurers to continue coverage, without co-payments, of at least one form of each contraceptive approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

 

    Supporters said Massachusetts is the first state to take action since Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order allowing employers to opt out of providing birth

control coverage by claiming religious or moral objections.   The law would also supersede any move by Congress to repeal birth control coverage required under the federal Affordable Care Act.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/massachusetts/articles/2017-11-20/new-massachusetts-law-guarantees-birth-control-coverage

----------------------------

AMEN!  Kudos to Sandra Fluke!

Fluke..

Enough money to spend the summer in Europe...

But wants the tax payers to pay for her birth control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Golfboy said:

Good for them.  This is the way healthcare SHOULD be handled, by the states. 

Too bad it doesn't help you any.  But you're all dried and withered up anyway.

 

 

Whines the abandoned, boring old fuck who sits alone all day long whoring for criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Z09 said:

Fluke..

 

......wants the tax payers to pay for her birth control

 

100% FALSE.  This is what Rush used to say, so we know the lofty sources from whom Z09 gets his information!   :lol: :lol:  This is a VERY stupid comment.  Not one ounce of truth in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

100% FALSE.  This is what Rush used to say, so we know the lofty sources from whom Z09 gets his information!   :lol: :lol:  This is a VERY stupid comment.  Not one ounce of truth in it. 

 

Uh, you wanna rethink that????

 

Quote

In the latest installment of our In Context feature, here are the full remarks of Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, testifying before a Democratic congressional panel convened by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, on contraception coverage and women's health.

Leader Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I'm a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I'm also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, or LSRJ. And I'd like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies, and all of the student activists with us, and thank them so much for being here today.

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we're so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I'm here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them -- them, not me -- to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they've struggled financially as a result of this policy.

One told us of how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance, and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.

Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget any more. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face this same choice.

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Women's health clinics provide a vital medical service, but, as the Guttmacher Institute has definitively documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio and Blunt legislation, that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage, and then respond that the nonprofit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis; particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer very dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance, because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

When this exception does exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals, because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, a woman's health takes a backseat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body. In 65 percent of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20 percent of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verification of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay -- so clearly, polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that, in the middle of the night in her final-exam period, she'd been in the emergency room. She'd been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me: "It was so painful I woke up thinking I'd been shot." Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor's office trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats and awaking and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As she put it: If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy -- that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school -- wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it. Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age -- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis -- she may never be able to conceive a child.

Some may say that my friend's tragic story is rare. It's not. I wish it were. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can't be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication, the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis. Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she's struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified not to have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown's policy, she hasn't been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don't have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously, because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman's reproductive health care isn't a necessity, isn't a priority.

One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered on the insurance, and she assumed that that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health.

As one other student put it, this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs. These are not feelings that male fellow students experience, and they're not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking, what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up the Jesuit creed of "cura personalis," to care for the whole person by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for us as students, they would help us. We expected that when 94 percent of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university.

We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere and -- even if that meant going to a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that in the 21st century anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I've shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the health care we need. The president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed, and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.

Thank you very much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MidnightMax said:

 

Uh, you wanna rethink that????

 

 

Not unless you show me the text where she says the gov't should pay for free birth control.  Good luck.

I'm SURE you read it - so you should highlight the pertinent passage for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scout said:

MAX:  Still waiting for you to highlight the text where Fluke says she wants the taxpayers to pay for birth control.

She is advocating that the govt. MANDATE insurance companies to provide BC. Which results in the taxpayers paying more for their insurance coverage.

 

"

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Women's health clinics provide a vital medical service, but, as the Guttmacher Institute has definitively documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio and Blunt legislation, that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage, and then respond that the nonprofit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis; particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer very dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance, because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs."

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, superds77 said:

She is advocating that the govt. MANDATE insurance companies to provide BC. Which results in the taxpayers paying more for their insurance coverage.

 

"

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Women's health clinics provide a vital medical service, but, as the Guttmacher Institute has definitively documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio and Blunt legislation, that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage, and then respond that the nonprofit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis; particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer very dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance, because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs."

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/

You could have just told MAX he is totally wrong and that I'm right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

 

This comment was made by Sandra Fluke.

 

Lets see...per the Georgetown Law page the program is three years...36 months.  So, spread $3,000 over 36 months and it would cost, per her testimony, $83 per month, less than $21 a week.  I find it hard to believe that someone cannot carve $3 a day out of their spending.  Wonder if they go to Starbucks?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

This comment was made by Sandra Fluke.

 

Lets see...per the Georgetown Law page the program is three years...36 months.  So, spread $3,000 over 36 months and it would cost, per her testimony, $83 per month, less than $21 a week.  I find it hard to believe that someone cannot carve $3 a day out of their spending.  Wonder if they go to Starbucks?

 

Probably has a smart phone too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Why, then both you and I would be wrong?

 

She is absolutely advocating that the federal govt. MANDATE BC coverage by insurance companies.

 

Which has nothing to do with the taxpayers.  THank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scout said:

You could have just told MAX he is totally wrong and that I'm right. 

 

Oh, really now???

 

Let's see here.

 

SHE wants GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE COVERAGE. AND THOSE GOVERNMENT ADVANCED TAX PAYMENTS ALONG WITH MEDICAID THAT IS UNDER THE CURRENT LAW MEANS>>>>

 

THAT ONE CAN EASILY DEDUCE THAT SHE WANTS GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR HER BIRTH CONTROL!!!


See how EASY that was to spank your little A$$ with that SIMPLE FACT!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MidnightMax said:

 

Oh, really now???

 

Let's see here.

 

SHE wants GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE COVERAGE. AND THOSE GOVERNMENT TAX PAYMENTS ALONG WITH MEDICAID THAT IS UNDER THE CURRENT LAW MEANS>>>>

 

THAT ONE CAN EASILY DEDUCE THAT SHE WANTS GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR HER BIRTH CONTROL!!!


See how EASY that was to spank your little A$$ with that SIMPLE FACT!!!

 

 

FALSE.  She requested a mandate for insurance companies to pay for birth control like THE gov't ALREADY DID. 

Her request has nothing to do with taxpayers, but could very well make insurance LESS expensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Of course it does. When the govt. (i.e. the taxpayers) MANDATE increased costs we all pay more.

FALSE.  The mandate was already in effect re any gov't spending.  You don't seem to grasp this issue at all. 

 

Should insurance companies also drop cancer coverage because that TOO increases costs?

 

Time to put SUPER in the 'not too bright' seating area. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

Oh, really now???

 

Let's see here.

 

SHE wants GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE COVERAGE. AND THOSE GOVERNMENT TAX PAYMENTS ALONG WITH MEDICAID THAT IS UNDER THE CURRENT LAW MEANS>>>>

 

THAT ONE CAN EASILY DEDUCE THAT SHE WANTS GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR HER BIRTH CONTROL!!!


See how EASY that was to spank your little A$$ with that SIMPLE FACT!!!

 

 

 

When you start that spanking, let me know!  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scout said:

FALSE.  The mandate was already in effect re any gov't spending.  You don't seem to grasp this issue at all

Then what was she complaining about if there was already a mandate? Regardless mandates INCREASE costs.

2 minutes ago, Scout said:

Should insurance companies also drop cancer coverage because that TOO increases costs. 

Insurance companies should be able to offer whatever contractual agreements they wish. One policy with cancer coverage, maybe some without but the purchaser of any particular contract would know what is/is not included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scout said:

FALSE.  The mandate was already in effect re any gov't spending.  You don't seem to grasp this issue at all. 

 

Should insurance companies also drop cancer coverage because that TOO increases costs. 

 

^^^ NEXT she is going to be telling us that MANDATING THAT PEOPLE WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS MUST BE GIVEN COVERAGE WON'T RAISE PREMIUMS EITHER!!!
 

Go ahead, make that claim NOW!!!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...