RE: regarding a facebook interaction

[Guest guest]

Thank you, thank you! 

 

In a free country, there are certain things we all agree on, such as murder is wrong. There are some things we disagree on.Sikhs think one should not cut hair, so their beards flow down to the feet and across the floor.

In a free country, we should not force them to shave.Jews think one should not eat pork.In a free country, we should not force them to eat pork.   The Catholic church thinks contraception is immoral and they don't want to pay for it or compell it.

 They are entitled to their opinion.If freedom means anything, that is exactly what it means.Thgey are entitled to their opinion, even though we might not agree with it. Compelling people against their will is charcteristic of dictatorship.

Do we indeed have a dictatorship?and if so, who is the purported dictator?To: nfpprofessionals From: pedullad@...

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:03:16 -0400Subject: Re: regarding a facebook interaction

 

Great response. There is also the simple and fundamental fact that health insurance ought only to pay for interventions that benefit health. This person's confusion is perhaps a bit understandable, since we've made health care, and health insurance, ways of accomplishing all sorts of social goals not at all consonant with health, and now there is all too often widespread confusion about what healthcare is.  Is this not a great demonstration -- albeit quite scary -- of the prediction of JPII that when democracy loses its moral core, it is prone to becoming a thinly veiled totalitarianism, a veritable 'tyranny of the majority " ?

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

regarding a facebook interaction

 

I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: " To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it.

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.

You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket. "

I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB friend?

Thank you!

Warmly,

O'Connor, RN, BSN

A Gift: NFP/FA Services

Certified CCL TC

Novice Marquette Instructor

[Guest guest]

Could start by meeting them where they are. When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium. Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra” coverage. When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care” (which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general” premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal contraceptives and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up. Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation. Finally, the “right” to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreate”, that is the purpose of sex and everytime SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil. Try that.Les Ruppersberger, D.O. From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of cindy4lifeoconnorSent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:09 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: regarding a facebook interaction I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: " To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have myprescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it. Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket. " I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB friend?Thank you!Warmly, O'Connor, RN, BSNA Gift: NFP/FA ServicesCertified CCL TCNovice Marquette Instructor

[Guest guest]

Tell your *FRIEND* that she is absolutely right.  The government should have absolutely nothing to do with either one of our reproductive choices.  They should not be in the business of providing any sort of coverage for anything at all to either of us especially if neither one of us have paid any premiums.  When did your friend pay a premium for congressionally issued insurance coverage?  And ... yes, a paying customer does have the right to voice their opinion about what is and is not covered, including sex, but then everyone else has the right to decide whether or not they are going to buy the product.  That is perfectly fair.

 

I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: " To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it.

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.

You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket. "

I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB friend?

Thank you!

Warmly,

O'Connor, RN, BSN

A Gift: NFP/FA Services

Certified CCL TC

Novice Marquette Instructor

--

[Guest guest]

The very least of our worries in all of this is paying for your kids, its everything else that we are going to have to pay for, and the sex is just the beginning,  that is the really big monstrosity.

Tell your *FRIEND* that she is absolutely right.  The government should have absolutely nothing to do with either one of our reproductive choices.  They should not be in the business of providing any sort of coverage for anything at all to either of us especially if neither one of us have paid any premiums.  When did your friend pay a premium for congressionally issued insurance coverage?  And ... yes, a paying customer does have the right to voice their opinion about what is and is not covered, including sex, but then everyone else has the right to decide whether or not they are going to buy the product.  That is perfectly fair.

 

I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: " To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it.

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.

You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket. "

I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB friend?

Thank you!

Warmly,

O'Connor, RN, BSN

A Gift: NFP/FA Services

Certified CCL TC

Novice Marquette Instructor

--

--

[Guest guest]

You might also tell your friend that the more kids you have the more the system benefits.  Paying for kids is the only healthcare investment that I can think of that produces a return on investment.  We need your kids, and everyone elses, so that there will be future tax payers and others who work and pay premiums.  His proposition works in exactly the opposite way.  Paying for him to have contraceptive sex (and that is what we would be paying for) will shrink the number of tax paying workers and premium paying citizens.

In order for his argument to work, you must assume:1. Kids are a burden -- even a curse!  Look at how angry this friend of yours is (how did you get a friend like that?) that there are people like you proving him wrong every day in his words " YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD " ... God help us!  If it were up to guys like this not only would they not pay for us, the would take our insurance away completely if we broke the rules because if you have kids you shouldn't even be allowed to have healthcare.  That is the argument has to be rejected in all this.

2. Health care must be about health.  Contraceptive sex leads to promiscuity, the spread of disease, increases in the divoce rate, abuse of women, etc.  Why would anyone want to pay for something that is so unhealth and bad for society?  The other assumption here is that people cannot learn to control themselves when it comes to sex.  Humans are no better than animals.  We need to reject that too.

2. Finally, I would like to say something about the liberal mentality that is behind his comment.  I thought the liberal mentality was all about the children.  In this post that you recieved, we can see the true colors of the liberal mentality on how much it really cares for kids.  BTW ... If his contraceptive sex doesn't work and results in a child then he will also insist that you pay the bill so he can commit murder.

 

I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: " To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it.

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.

You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket. "

I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB friend?

Thank you!

Warmly,

O'Connor, RN, BSN

A Gift: NFP/FA Services

Certified CCL TC

Novice Marquette Instructor

--

[Guest guest]

Thank you Dr. Les, I will try that one today!

 

Could start by meeting them where they are.   When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium.  Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra” coverage.   When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care” (which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general” premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal contraceptives and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up.  Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation.  Finally, the “right” to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreate”, that is the purpose of sex and everytime SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil.  Try that.

Les Ruppersberger, D.O. 

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of cindy4lifeoconnor

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:09 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: regarding a facebook interaction

   I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: " To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it.

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket. "

I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB friend?Thank you!Warmly, O'Connor, RN, BSNA Gift: NFP/FA ServicesCertified CCL TC

Novice Marquette Instructor

[Guest guest]

Here's the interactions as it stands:

O'Connor

Yesterday

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomAcquaintancesFRGSee all lists...CatholicsStay at home mom and wifeThe Couple to Couple League - Natural Family PlanningNorfolk AreaHampton Roads friendsHoly TrinityFriendNavy FriendsCatholic Mommy GroupAPSEVACCHSFamilyGMMhrCHKDFriends of familyNFPSTMCampBirthWorksClose FriendsLighthouse Catholic MediaLVHABE friends and familyCollegeCharisOutdatedHusbandLimited ProfileMOPSA Gift: Fertiltiy Appreciation/Natural Family Planning ServicesLighthouse Catholic MediaThe O'Connor FamilyMoms Meettown Central Catholic High SchoolLa Salle UniversityMarquette UniversityCedar Crest CollegeFamilyGo Back

The unfortunate results of *free contraception* " Had a patient with severe osteoporosis. She need an iv treatment called reclast. Unfortunately it costs $2000 and she will have to go without it. She HAS insurance. Its just that her husbands employer had to switch them all to a high deductible plan this year and they have to cover the first $5000 themselves. Never had to do that before this year. Turns out the increase in premiums this year for her husbands smal business went up 20 percent. Why? Free birth control. So sandra fluke gets her free pills and my patient goes without a needed medication. " - Dr.

Like ·  · Share

s likes this.

s Well, I don't " like, " but it doesn't get much clearer.

Yesterday at 8:52am · Like ·  1

Leonie O'Shea Strutton To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it. 

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket.

16 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease I would be looking at the *source* of the increase of premiums causing the employer to switch policies. Insurance company. There is no flippin' way that birth control is 20% of the payout for any policy and thus a legitimate cause of a 20% hike in premiums. Insurance companies are businesses and they want to make money. If they feel they can make money pitting GOOD people against each other about who deserves their prescriptions and who doesn't THEY WILL. 

My mom's health insurance premiums went up 37%, and they had to switch to an 80/20 policy. This has really hurt my parents and caused them to suffer and put off medical treatment. And you know what, *neither* policy had " free " birth control. In fact, it was not even a covered medication. 

So I'd really question whether all those women and the BCPs really kept someone from getting their health care...or was it the machinations of a huge corporation with HUGE profits?

16 hours ago · Like ·  1

O'Connor Children are " goods " for society. Who is going to take care of you when you are old in a nursing home? -- our children. Who is going to pay taxes to support the items you will need? Our children.

In places like italy, they do not have enough children to support the social structures and government because there are too many older people and not enough younger people. They have to now pay people to have babies. Seewww.pri.org for more info on this

PRI: Public Radio International

pri.org

PRI programs like The Takeaway, This American Life, The World, BBC World Service...See More

15 hours ago · Like · 

Leonie O'Shea Strutton We pay people to have babies, every year, it's called the child tax credit!

15 hours ago · Like

Leonie O'Shea Strutton Um and last time I checked Italy is a majority Catholic country, the home of his holiness the POPE, so I don't think religious objections to birth control are really a problem there.

15 hours ago · Like

O'Connor http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4739154.stm

BBC NEWS | Europe | Italian women shun 'mamma' role

news.bbc.co.uk

Christian Fraser on why Italian women - overburdened with work, childcare and ho...See More

14 hours ago · Like · 

Lupton Pease I think this is a very nuanced type of thing to think about and discuss. 

I know Leonie and I see children (in general) as a wonderful thing for society. We have three each! However, it's one thing to talk about how wonderful children are and a completely different thing to talk about preventing unwanted pregnancies. Yes, children give us many gifts and we need them. But we don't need *families* not being able to plan for, eagerly anticipate and joyfully parent those wonderful gifts. And medical contraception is part of that. Yes, I KNOW about NFP/FAM and it's wonderful. I like it too. But I also realize it's not the be all end all of family planning. It can be VERY difficult for some women. It can be burdensome for others. It can be the demise of a relationship for some women. Some women do not have partners that will respect their choice to abstain. 

When we look at societies with a very low standard of living and extreme poverty, one of the best ways to improve the quality of life for *everyone* is to educate and empower women. Including access to family planning. This results in less poverty, less starvation, more prosperity, and more education. I think the same rings true in every society. 

I know in the late '70s / early '80s my mother and her sister both had to go to court in order to prove to a JUDGE that they were " allowed " to get the surgery they needed to relieve extreme pain and the damage of a serious disease. Back then, some people (including doctors, insurance companies, and catholic hospital administrators) didn't think it was " right " for them to be given a hysterectomy so young. After all, their husband might want another baby! My mother was 2 " from a colostomy bag because she was FORCED to wait so long. And those people were only acting on their beliefs - what they believed was " moral. " I don't want someone else's definition of what their God says to be the final arbitrator on my access medical care. It doesn't always work out well  

As I said, very nuanced. Not black and white.14 hours ago · Like

O'Connor In a free country, there are certain things we all agree on, such as murder is wrong.

There are some things we disagree on.Sikhs think one should not cut hair, so their beards flow down to the feet and across the floor.In a free country, we should not force them to shave.Jews think one should not eat pork.

In a free country, we should not force them to eat pork. The Catholic church thinks contraception is immoral and they don't want to pay for it or compell it.They are entitled to their opinion.If freedom means anything, that is exactly what it means.

Thgey are entitled to their opinion, even though we might not agree with it.Compelling people against their will is charcteristic of dictatorship.Do we indeed have a dictatorship?and if so, who is the purported dictator?

14 hours ago · Like

O'Connor From the Heritage Foundation: " In addition, mandated coverage of preventive services with no cost-sharing will increase health care costs, since cost of services will simply be passed from the insurer to the patient through higher premiums. Moreover, as Heritage expert Ed Haislmaier explains, “Prohibiting enrollee cost-sharing for specific services will stimulate greater use of those services, further increasing premiums.” Even the Administration admits that these mandates will increase premiums... " (the Heritage Foundation)

From Population Research Insitute: " Western Europeans are not having any babies, " he recently pointed out, in a candid interview with a group of reporters, including D. Greydanus of the National Catholic Register. " The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The population of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people. " (1) (www.pop.org)

Pope or no Pope, Italy is dying --they are well below replacement value.

Population Research Institute

www.pop.org

Population Research Institute is an international non-profit which w...See More

14 hours ago · Like · 

Lupton Pease Honestly, I think society is better of if people don't have kids they don't want. I just can't see it another way. I see prevention of an unwanted condition as preventative medicine. 

And I think my mother felt pretty dictated to when she spent years in pain and suffered and almost had to wear a bag full of poop her entire life.

13 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease I'm sure it will work out to a solution that everyone can live with. I just hope that every person with the position affords others' beliefs the same consideration no matter what those beliefs entail. After all, it should be up to the employer?

13 hours ago · Unlike ·  2

O'Connor When the employer believes that contraceptives (for the use of contraception, not medical treatment), sterilization (not for medical treatment), abortion (not for medical treatment) are against their morals, why should they have to comply with sin? They have no objection to the use of abortion for ectopic pregnancies, they have no objection to hysterectomies when it is to treat cancer, they have no objection to using hormonal pills to treat conditions *off label* as long as they are not preventing a life from forming or implanting. But for recreational sex, I don't think the Catholic institutions (Churches, Schools, Social Agencies) should have to pay for their employees to be complicit with their employees sins. It's against the first amendment. Their employees have the right to buy other health insurance to cover what their employer doesn't cover, or find some agency (I know there are plenty out there) that offers low cost contraceptives.

12 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease When an employer believes that blood transfusions and organ transplants are an absolute sin, should they have to pay for anti-rejection medications and comply with sin? 

As long as it's a fair and equal policy for EVERY employer and every belief system, then at least it's fair. I don't think it's useful to society at large, but it's fair. And I draw the line for Churches and organizations whose mission is all/mostly about the religion and hires people of that faith. The US has carved a special place for those institutions. It's not perfect, but it's ours and works for the most part. That is a private, religious sphere and they can do whatever they want (and do for the most part in hiring, etc). However, in my opinion, when a person of any faith engages in business in the public sphere with people of other/no faith (hospitals, universities, then the rules become a bit different in my opinion. When you have to comply with equal hiring and accomodation laws because you're doing business, then I believe that employer should be required to abide by a different set of rules. And if they don't like it, retreat back to the private, religious sphere under the umbrella of your faith.

12 hours ago · Like ·  1

Lupton Pease I've gotta head off to bed with this fussy baby We're headed out to DC in the morning. Didn't want you to think I skipped out on our convo Talk to you later. And could you message me the official name of your business please? Thanks!

11 hours ago · Like

O'Connor What if the government mandated those people who believe organ transplants and blood transfusions to all who needed them, regardless of belief system? People would be up in arms over the rights of the Jehovah Witnesses - but mandating a company to pay for something that is already readily accessible??

11 hours ago · Like

O'Connor When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium. Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra” coverage. When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care” (which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general” premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal contraceptives and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up. Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation. Finally, the “right” to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreate”, that is the purpose of sex and every time SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil.

a few seconds ago · Like

 

Could start by meeting them where they are.   When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium.  Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra” coverage.   When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care” (which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general” premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal contraceptives and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up.  Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation.  Finally, the “right” to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreate”, that is the purpose of sex and everytime SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil.  Try that.

Les Ruppersberger, D.O. 

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of cindy4lifeoconnor

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:09 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: regarding a facebook interaction

   I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: " To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to " pay for my reproductive choices " since all I'm doing is " having sex " , then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it.

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket. "

I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB friend?Thank you!Warmly, O'Connor, RN, BSNA Gift: NFP/FA ServicesCertified CCL TC

Novice Marquette Instructor

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

About this whole "wanted" versus "unwanted" kids, i hate to be too dramatic here, but who are we too make the decision that no life is better than a "hard" life?

I will use a personal example here. I always knew i was adopted, but never knew details about my biological mother's situation. Years later i found out that she had been raped by a man on his way out to VietNam. The year was 1965 and Roe V Wade was not yet legalized. Yet, my mother, bless her heart, chose to give me life, and put me up for adoption even though i wasn't "wanted". I now have a beautiful life, a wonderful husband, 6 beautiful children, a thriving medical practice...even though i was not a "wanted child". Adoption is a much neglected topic these days, but so is the issue of making value determinations on the quality of someone's future life... blessings, rebecca

To: nfpprofessionals Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:57 AMSubject: Re: regarding a facebook interaction

Here's the interactions as it stands:

O'Connor

Yesterday

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomAcquaintancesFRGSee all lists...CatholicsStay at home mom and wifeThe Couple to Couple League - Natural Family PlanningNorfolk AreaHampton Roads friendsHoly TrinityFriendNavy FriendsCatholic Mommy GroupAPSEVACCHSFamilyGMMhrCHKDFriends of familyNFPSTMCampBirthWorksClose FriendsLighthouse Catholic MediaLVHABE friends and familyCollegeCharisOutdatedHusbandLimited ProfileMOPSA Gift: Fertiltiy Appreciation/Natural Family Planning ServicesLighthouse Catholic MediaThe O'Connor FamilyMoms Meettown Central Catholic High SchoolLa Salle UniversityMarquette UniversityCedar Crest

CollegeFamilyGo Back

The unfortunate results of *free contraception* "Had a patient with severe osteoporosis. She need an iv treatment called reclast. Unfortunately it costs $2000 and she will have to go without it. She HAS insurance. Its just that her husbands employer had to switch them all to a high deductible plan this year and they have to cover the first $5000 themselves. Never had to do that before this year. Turns out the increase in premiums this year for her husbands smal business went up 20 percent. Why? Free birth control. So sandra fluke gets her free pills and my patient goes without a needed medication." - Dr.

Like · · Share

s likes this.

s Well, I don't "like," but it doesn't get much clearer.

Yesterday at 8:52am · Like · 1

Leonie O'Shea Strutton To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have myprescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to "pay for my reproductive choices" since all I'm doing is "having sex", then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it. Lets see you get up in front of

Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket.

16 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease I would be looking at the *source* of the increase of premiums causing the employer to switch policies. Insurance company. There is no flippin' way that birth control is 20% of the payout for any policy and thus a legitimate cause of a 20% hike in premiums. Insurance companies are businesses and they want to make money. If they feel they can make money pitting GOOD people against each other about who deserves their prescriptions and who doesn't THEY WILL. My mom's health insurance premiums went up 37%, and they had to switch to an 80/20 policy. This has really hurt my parents

and caused them to suffer and put off medical treatment. And you know what, *neither* policy had "free" birth control. In fact, it was not even a covered medication. So I'd really question whether all those women and the BCPs really kept someone from getting their health care...or was it the machinations of a huge corporation with HUGE profits?

16 hours ago · Like · 1

O'Connor Children are "goods" for society. Who is going to take care of you when you are old in a nursing home? -- our children. Who is going to pay taxes to support the items you will need? Our children.In places like italy, they do not have enough children to support the social structures and government because there are too many older people and not enough younger people. They have to now pay people to have babies. Seewww.pri.org for more info on this

PRI: Public Radio Internationalpri.org

PRI programs like The Takeaway, This American Life, The World, BBC World Service...See More

15 hours ago · Like ·

Leonie O'Shea Strutton We pay people to have babies, every year, it's called the child tax credit!

15 hours ago · Like

Leonie O'Shea Strutton Um and last time I checked Italy is a majority Catholic country, the home of his holiness the POPE, so I don't think religious objections to birth control are really a problem there.

15 hours ago · Like

O'Connor http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4739154.stm

BBC NEWS | Europe | Italian women shun 'mamma' rolenews.bbc.co.uk

Christian Fraser on why Italian women - overburdened with work, childcare and ho...See More

14 hours ago · Like ·

Lupton Pease I think this is a very nuanced type of thing to think about and discuss. I know Leonie and I see children (in general) as a wonderful thing for society. We have three each! However, it's one thing to talk about how wonderful children are and a completely different thing to talk about preventing unwanted pregnancies. Yes, children give us many gifts and we need them. But we don't need *families* not being able to plan for, eagerly anticipate and joyfully parent those wonderful gifts. And medical contraception is part of that. Yes, I KNOW about NFP/FAM and it's

wonderful. I like it too. But I also realize it's not the be all end all of family planning. It can be VERY difficult for some women. It can be burdensome for others. It can be the demise of a relationship for some women. Some women do not have partners that will respect their choice to abstain. When we look at societies with a very low standard of living and extreme poverty, one of the best ways to improve the quality of life for *everyone* is to educate and empower women. Including access to family planning. This results in less poverty, less starvation, more prosperity, and more education. I think the same rings true in every society. I know in the late '70s / early '80s my mother and her sister both had to go to court in order to prove to a JUDGE that they were "allowed" to get the surgery they needed to relieve extreme pain and the damage of a serious disease. Back then, some people (including doctors, insurance companies, and

catholic hospital administrators) didn't think it was "right" for them to be given a hysterectomy so young. After all, their husband might want another baby! My mother was 2 " from a colostomy bag because she was FORCED to wait so long. And those people were only acting on their beliefs - what they believed was "moral." I don't want someone else's definition of what their God says to be the final arbitrator on my access medical care. It doesn't always work out well As I said, very nuanced. Not black and white.

14 hours ago · Like

O'Connor In a free country, there are certain things we all agree on, such as murder is wrong.There are some things we disagree on.Sikhs think one should not cut hair, so their beards flow down to the feet and across the floor.In a free country, we should not force them to shave.Jews think one should not eat pork.In a free country, we should not force them to eat pork. The Catholic church thinks contraception is immoral and they don't want to pay for it or compell it.They are entitled to their opinion.If freedom means anything, that is exactly what it

means.Thgey are entitled to their opinion, even though we might not agree with it.Compelling people against their will is charcteristic of dictatorship.Do we indeed have a dictatorship?and if so, who is the purported dictator?

14 hours ago · Like

O'Connor From the Heritage Foundation:"In addition, mandated coverage of preventive services with no cost-sharing will increase health care costs, since cost of services will simply be passed from the insurer to the patient through higher premiums. Moreover, as Heritage expert Ed Haislmaier explains, “Prohibiting enrollee cost-sharing for specific services will stimulate greater use of those services, further increasing premiums.†Even the Administration admits that these mandates will increase premiums..." (the Heritage Foundation)From Population Research Insitute:"Western

Europeans are not having any babies," he recently pointed out, in a candid interview with a group of reporters, including D. Greydanus of the National Catholic Register. "The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The population of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people."(1) (www.pop.org)Pope or no Pope, Italy is dying --they are well below replacement value.

Population Research Institutewww.pop.org

Population Research Institute is an international non-profit which w...See More

14 hours ago · Like ·

Lupton Pease Honestly, I think society is better of if people don't have kids they don't want. I just can't see it another way. I see prevention of an unwanted condition as preventative medicine. And I think my mother felt pretty dictated to when she spent years in pain and suffered and almost had to wear a bag full of poop her entire life.

13 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease I'm sure it will work out to a solution that everyone can live with. I just hope that every person with the position affords others' beliefs the same consideration no matter what those beliefs entail. After all, it should be up to the employer?

13 hours ago · Unlike · 2

O'Connor When the employer believes that contraceptives (for the use of contraception, not medical treatment), sterilization (not for medical treatment), abortion (not for medical treatment) are against their morals, why should they have to comply with sin? They have no objection to the use of abortion for ectopic pregnancies, they have no objection to hysterectomies when it is to treat cancer, they have no objection to using hormonal pills to treat conditions *off label* as long as they are not preventing a life from forming or implanting. But for recreational sex, I don't think the Catholic

institutions (Churches, Schools, Social Agencies) should have to pay for their employees to be complicit with their employees sins. It's against the first amendment. Their employees have the right to buy other health insurance to cover what their employer doesn't cover, or find some agency (I know there are plenty out there) that offers low cost contraceptives.

12 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease When an employer believes that blood transfusions and organ transplants are an absolute sin, should they have to pay for anti-rejection medications and comply with sin? As long as it's a fair and equal policy for EVERY employer and every belief system, then at least it's fair. I don't think it's useful to society at large, but it's fair. And I draw the line for Churches and organizations whose mission is all/mostly about the religion and hires people of that faith. The US has carved a special place for those institutions. It's not perfect, but it's ours and

works for the most part. That is a private, religious sphere and they can do whatever they want (and do for the most part in hiring, etc). However, in my opinion, when a person of any faith engages in business in the public sphere with people of other/no faith (hospitals, universities, then the rules become a bit different in my opinion. When you have to comply with equal hiring and accomodation laws because you're doing business, then I believe that employer should be required to abide by a different set of rules. And if they don't like it, retreat back to the private, religious sphere under the umbrella of your faith.

12 hours ago · Like · 1

Lupton Pease I've gotta head off to bed with this fussy baby We're headed out to DC in the morning. Didn't want you to think I skipped out on our convo Talk to you later. And could you message me the official name of your business please? Thanks!

11 hours ago · Like

O'Connor What if the government mandated those people who believe organ transplants and blood transfusions to all who needed them, regardless of belief system? People would be up in arms over the rights of the Jehovah Witnesses - but mandating a company to pay for something that is already readily accessible??

11 hours ago · Like

O'Connor When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium. Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra†coverage. When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care†(which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general†premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal contraceptives

and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up. Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation. Finally, the “right†to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreateâ€, that is the purpose of sex and every time SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil.

a few seconds ago · Like

Could start by meeting them where they are. When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium. Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra†coverage. When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care†(which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general†premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal contraceptives and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up. Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity

coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation. Finally, the “right†to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreateâ€, that is the purpose of sex and everytime SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil. Try that.

Les Ruppersberger, D.O.

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of cindy4lifeoconnorSent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:09 PM

To: nfpprofessionals Subject: regarding a facebook interaction

I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: "To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have myprescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to "pay for my reproductive choices" since all I'm doing is "having sex", then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it. Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket."I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB

friend?Thank you!Warmly, O'Connor, RN, BSNA Gift: NFP/FA ServicesCertified CCL TCNovice Marquette Instructor

[Guest guest]

Here's an anecdote from "sidewalk counseling" I was standing outside a clinic one day when mother and her daughters enter clinic. I offered them help etc.They go in, a short while later they exit. They appeared to almost 'fall out' of clinic. Anyways...the mother of the young woman seeking an abortion says..."We're not doing it. No way. Can't. You were ( in reference to her daughter) "unwanted" just like this baby at the time and we didn't abort you."It was a surreal moment- obviously the mother and daughter were single moms, but chose to keep their children despite being unplanned, unwed and"unwanted." Life rarely, as we know, goes according to "plan."

To: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:44 AM Subject: Re: regarding a facebook interaction

Dear ,

About this whole "wanted" versus "unwanted" kids, i hate to be too dramatic here, but who are we too make the decision that no life is better than a "hard" life?

I will use a personal example here. I always knew i was adopted, but never knew details about my biological mother's situation. Years later i found out that she had been raped by a man on his way out to VietNam. The year was 1965 and Roe V Wade was not yet legalized. Yet, my mother, bless her heart, chose to give me life, and put me up for adoption even though i wasn't "wanted". I now have a beautiful life, a wonderful husband, 6 beautiful children, a thriving medical practice...even though i was not a "wanted child". Adoption is a much neglected topic these days, but so is the issue of making value determinations on the quality of someone's future life... blessings, rebecca

To: nfpprofessionals Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:57 AMSubject: Re: regarding a facebook interaction

Here's the interactions as it stands:

O'Connor

Yesterday

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomAcquaintancesFRGSee all lists...CatholicsStay at home mom and wifeThe Couple to Couple League - Natural Family PlanningNorfolk AreaHampton Roads friendsHoly TrinityFriendNavy FriendsCatholic Mommy GroupAPSEVACCHSFamilyGMMhrCHKDFriends of familyNFPSTMCampBirthWorksClose FriendsLighthouse Catholic MediaLVHABE friends and familyCollegeCharisOutdatedHusbandLimited ProfileMOPSA Gift: Fertiltiy Appreciation/Natural Family Planning ServicesLighthouse Catholic MediaThe O'Connor FamilyMoms Meettown Central Catholic High SchoolLa Salle UniversityMarquette UniversityCedar Crest

CollegeFamilyGo Back

The unfortunate results of *free contraception* "Had a patient with severe osteoporosis. She need an iv treatment called reclast. Unfortunately it costs $2000 and she will have to go without it. She HAS insurance. Its just that her husbands employer had to switch them all to a high deductible plan this year and they have to cover the first $5000 themselves. Never had to do that before this year. Turns out the increase in premiums this year for her husbands smal business went up 20 percent. Why? Free birth control. So sandra fluke gets her free pills and my patient goes without a needed medication." - Dr.

Like · · Share

s likes this.

s Well, I don't "like," but it doesn't get much clearer.

Yesterday at 8:52am · Like · 1

Leonie O'Shea Strutton To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have myprescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to "pay for my reproductive choices" since all I'm doing is "having sex", then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it. Lets see you get up in front

of

Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket.

16 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease I would be looking at the *source* of the increase of premiums causing the employer to switch policies. Insurance company. There is no flippin' way that birth control is 20% of the payout for any policy and thus a legitimate cause of a 20% hike in premiums. Insurance companies are businesses and they want to make money. If they feel they can make money pitting GOOD people against each other about who deserves their prescriptions and who doesn't THEY WILL. My mom's health insurance premiums went up 37%, and they had to switch to an 80/20 policy. This has really hurt my

parents

and caused them to suffer and put off medical treatment. And you know what, *neither* policy had "free" birth control. In fact, it was not even a covered medication. So I'd really question whether all those women and the BCPs really kept someone from getting their health care...or was it the machinations of a huge corporation with HUGE profits?

16 hours ago · Like · 1

O'Connor Children are "goods" for society. Who is going to take care of you when you are old in a nursing home? -- our children. Who is going to pay taxes to support the items you will need? Our children.In places like italy, they do not have enough children to support the social structures and government because there are too many older people and not enough younger people. They have to now pay people to have babies. Seewww.pri.org for more info on

this

PRI: Public Radio Internationalpri.org

PRI programs like The Takeaway, This American Life, The World, BBC World Service...See More

15 hours ago · Like ·

Leonie O'Shea Strutton We pay people to have babies, every year, it's called the child tax credit!

15 hours ago · Like

Leonie O'Shea Strutton Um and last time I checked Italy is a majority Catholic country, the home of his holiness the POPE, so I don't think religious objections to birth control are really a problem there.

15 hours ago · Like

O'Connor http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4739154.stm

BBC NEWS | Europe | Italian women shun 'mamma' rolenews.bbc.co.uk

Christian Fraser on why Italian women - overburdened with work, childcare and ho...See More

14 hours ago · Like ·

Lupton Pease I think this is a very nuanced type of thing to think about and discuss. I know Leonie and I see children (in general) as a wonderful thing for society. We have three each! However, it's one thing to talk about how wonderful children are and a completely different thing to talk about preventing unwanted pregnancies. Yes, children give us many gifts and we need them. But we don't need *families* not being able to plan for, eagerly anticipate and joyfully parent those wonderful gifts. And medical contraception is part of that. Yes, I KNOW about NFP/FAM and it's

wonderful. I like it too. But I also realize it's not the be all end all of family planning. It can be VERY difficult for some women. It can be burdensome for others. It can be the demise of a relationship for some women. Some women do not have partners that will respect their choice to abstain. When we look at societies with a very low standard of living and extreme poverty, one of the best ways to improve the quality of life for *everyone* is to educate and empower women. Including access to family planning. This results in less poverty, less starvation, more prosperity, and more education. I think the same rings true in every society. I know in the late '70s / early '80s my mother and her sister both had to go to court in order to prove to a JUDGE that they were "allowed" to get the surgery they needed to relieve extreme pain and the damage of a serious disease. Back then, some people (including doctors, insurance companies, and

catholic hospital administrators) didn't think it was "right" for them to be given a hysterectomy so young. After all, their husband might want another baby! My mother was 2 " from a colostomy bag because she was FORCED to wait so long. And those people were only acting on their beliefs - what they believed was "moral." I don't want someone else's definition of what their God says to be the final arbitrator on my access medical care. It doesn't always work out well As I said, very nuanced. Not black and white.

14 hours ago · Like

O'Connor In a free country, there are certain things we all agree on, such as murder is wrong.There are some things we disagree on.Sikhs think one should not cut hair, so their beards flow down to the feet and across the floor.In a free country, we should not force them to shave.Jews think one should not eat pork.In a free country, we should not force them to eat pork. The Catholic church thinks contraception is immoral and they don't want to pay for it or compell it.They are entitled to their opinion.If freedom means anything, that is exactly

what it

means.Thgey are entitled to their opinion, even though we might not agree with it.Compelling people against their will is charcteristic of dictatorship.Do we indeed have a dictatorship?and if so, who is the purported dictator?

14 hours ago · Like

O'Connor From the Heritage Foundation:"In addition, mandated coverage of preventive services with no cost-sharing will increase health care costs, since cost of services will simply be passed from the insurer to the patient through higher premiums. Moreover, as Heritage expert Ed Haislmaier explains, “Prohibiting enrollee cost-sharing for specific services will stimulate greater use of those services, further increasing premiums.†Even the Administration admits that these mandates will increase premiums..." (the Heritage Foundation)From Population Research

Insitute:"Western

Europeans are not having any babies," he recently pointed out, in a candid interview with a group of reporters, including D. Greydanus of the National Catholic Register. "The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The population of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people."(1) (www.pop.org)Pope or no Pope, Italy is dying --they are well below replacement value.

Population Research Institutewww.pop.org

Population Research Institute is an international non-profit which w...See More

14 hours ago · Like ·

Lupton Pease Honestly, I think society is better of if people don't have kids they don't want. I just can't see it another way. I see prevention of an unwanted condition as preventative medicine. And I think my mother felt pretty dictated to when she spent years in pain and suffered and almost had to wear a bag full of poop her entire life.

13 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease I'm sure it will work out to a solution that everyone can live with. I just hope that every person with the position affords others' beliefs the same consideration no matter what those beliefs entail. After all, it should be up to the employer?

13 hours ago · Unlike · 2

O'Connor When the employer believes that contraceptives (for the use of contraception, not medical treatment), sterilization (not for medical treatment), abortion (not for medical treatment) are against their morals, why should they have to comply with sin? They have no objection to the use of abortion for ectopic pregnancies, they have no objection to hysterectomies when it is to treat cancer, they have no objection to using hormonal pills to treat conditions *off label* as long as they are not preventing a life from forming or implanting. But for recreational sex, I don't think the

Catholic

institutions (Churches, Schools, Social Agencies) should have to pay for their employees to be complicit with their employees sins. It's against the first amendment. Their employees have the right to buy other health insurance to cover what their employer doesn't cover, or find some agency (I know there are plenty out there) that offers low cost contraceptives.

12 hours ago · Like

Lupton Pease When an employer believes that blood transfusions and organ transplants are an absolute sin, should they have to pay for anti-rejection medications and comply with sin? As long as it's a fair and equal policy for EVERY employer and every belief system, then at least it's fair. I don't think it's useful to society at large, but it's fair. And I draw the line for Churches and organizations whose mission is all/mostly about the religion and hires people of that faith. The US has carved a special place for those institutions. It's not perfect, but it's

ours and

works for the most part. That is a private, religious sphere and they can do whatever they want (and do for the most part in hiring, etc). However, in my opinion, when a person of any faith engages in business in the public sphere with people of other/no faith (hospitals, universities, then the rules become a bit different in my opinion. When you have to comply with equal hiring and accomodation laws because you're doing business, then I believe that employer should be required to abide by a different set of rules. And if they don't like it, retreat back to the private, religious sphere under the umbrella of your faith.

12 hours ago · Like · 1

Lupton Pease I've gotta head off to bed with this fussy baby We're headed out to DC in the morning. Didn't want you to think I skipped out on our convo Talk to you later. And could you message me the official name of your business please? Thanks!

11 hours ago · Like

O'Connor What if the government mandated those people who believe organ transplants and blood transfusions to all who needed them, regardless of belief system? People would be up in arms over the rights of the Jehovah Witnesses - but mandating a company to pay for something that is already readily accessible??

11 hours ago · Like

O'Connor When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium. Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra†coverage. When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care†(which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general†premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal

contraceptives

and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up. Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation. Finally, the “right†to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreateâ€, that is the purpose of sex and every time SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil.

a few seconds ago · Like

Could start by meeting them where they are. When one pays for insurance for maternity coverage (which someone not wishing to be pregnant does not) it includes child care and there is an additional premium. Others who do not have maternity coverage do not pay for this “extra†coverage. When it comes to contraceptives being included in “preventive care†(which it only prevents pregnancy) that is funded through the “general†premium which everyone pays. Further, the general premium also covers blood clots, cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver tumor treatments – all of which are side effects of hormonal contraceptives and since the rates of these diseases are constantly going up in younger women the costs go up so the premium goes up. Your sexual choices of having children are being paid for by you with the added maternity

coverage; their sexual choices for the above diseases and STD’s which costs BILLIONS per year as documented by the Kaiser foundation. Finally, the “right†to procreate is inherent and intrinsic to humanity and human nature; there is no right to “not procreateâ€, that is the purpose of sex and everytime SHE subverts procreation she is saying no to life, no to love and yes to an intrinsic evil and YOU choose to not fund evil. Try that.

Les Ruppersberger, D.O.

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of cindy4lifeoconnorSent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:09 PM

To: nfpprofessionals Subject: regarding a facebook interaction

I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: "To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have myprescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to "pay for my reproductive choices" since all I'm doing is "having sex", then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it. Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket."I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB

friend?Thank you!Warmly, O'Connor, RN, BSNA Gift: NFP/FA ServicesCertified CCL TCNovice Marquette Instructor

[Guest guest]

WHat a profound and moving testimony ! SO we see how God once again has the uncanny "ability" to bring good out of the worst circumstances; in fact, the worse they are, the better His answer to them. Praise God for you, and for that, and for your MOM!

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

regarding a facebook interaction

I put up a quote from Dr. Peck on my facebook and a *FRIEND* commented: "To quote a friend: If I pay premiums into an insurance program, I have just as much right to have my

prescriptions covered as anyone else in the program. If you're going to deny birth control coverage because you don't want to "pay for my reproductive choices" since all I'm doing is "having sex", then I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for newborn care under the same policy. After all, why should I have to pay for YOUR sexual choices? You had no right getting pregnant, starting a family, and expecting ME to pay for it.

Lets see you get up in front of Congress and fight for your right to procreate.

You want to have kids? Then YOU pay for them. NO insurance. PERIOD. Pay for your OWN sexual choices out of your own pocket."

I want to respond, but I'm at a loss. Can anyone help me respond eloquently and with charity to this FB

friend?

Thank you!

Warmly,

O'Connor, RN, BSN

A Gift: NFP/FA Services

Certified CCL TC

Novice Marquette Instructor