PDA

View Full Version : 0bamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent



Janice
08-11-2012, 01:50 AM
http://i.imgur.com/ZJpbS.jpg

Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent

(CNSNews.com) - Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the regulation earlier this year.

It says that all health care plans in the United States--except those provided by actual houses of worship organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for churches per se--must provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives to “all women with reproductive capacity.”

In practical terms, "all women with reproductive capacity" means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating.

MORE@CNSNews (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-sterilize-15-year-old-girls-free-without-parental-consent)

Doubtless most of the country will never hear of this new law. The MSM will simply sweep it under the carpet to protect Maobama.

AmPat
08-11-2012, 11:28 AM
Oh thank goodness. Everybody knows it is much better to remove parents from the decision loop and leave these decisions in the hands of 12 year old girls, gov't bureaucRats, and liberal "doctors.":rolleyes:

Gina
08-11-2012, 12:03 PM
Does Sebelius really think that at 15 a girl can make such a life-changing, permanent decision? Holy cow what a moron.

The govt raising my children. Dang.

Starbuck
08-11-2012, 02:07 PM
I've been saying for years - as part of a comic routine - that the world would be more perfect if all 13 year old boys underwent a vasectomy. Then, when they earn enough money and wish to have children, they can pay to have it reversed. The result would be a huge "dirt bag elimination" among the 21st century American population.

But I never thought someone would actually do it.:biggrin-new:

Thorn
08-12-2012, 03:50 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ZJpbS.jpg

Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent

(CNSNews.com) - Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the regulation earlier this year.

It says that all health care plans in the United States--except those provided by actual houses of worship organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code reserved for churches per se--must provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives to “all women with reproductive capacity.”

In practical terms, "all women with reproductive capacity" means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating.

MORE@CNSNews (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-sterilize-15-year-old-girls-free-without-parental-consent)

Doubtless most of the country will never hear of this new law. The MSM will simply sweep it under the carpet to protect Maobama.

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of eugenics in the morning.

noonwitch
08-13-2012, 10:18 AM
As it stands now, it is virtually impossible for parents/guardians of developmentally disabled teens and young women to find doctors who will perform sterilization procedures on their at-risk daughters to prevent them from becoming pregnant. Doctors don't like to do the procedures on young women, even when they have the mentality of 3 year olds, with the bodies of 22 year olds. Parents who are raising mentally challenged daughters should have the legal right to have their daughters sterilized-avoiding not just pregnancy, but avoiding menstruation, also.


It reads to me like this is a policy meant to address that, and the wording of not requiring parents to sign is one that recognizes that not all developmentally disabled people are being cared for by their parents, some have legal guardians appointed. The problem would be with youths who are court wards, and in the custody of the state-people like me (foster care workers) should not have that responsibility for the kids in their care. The law would have to be specific in this regard.

AmPat
08-13-2012, 01:54 PM
As it stands now, it is virtually impossible for parents/guardians of developmentally disabled teens and young women to find doctors who will perform sterilization procedures on their at-risk daughters to prevent them from becoming pregnant. Doctors don't like to do the procedures on young women, even when they have the mentality of 3 year olds, with the bodies of 22 year olds. Parents who are raising mentally challenged daughters should have the legal right to have their daughters sterilized-avoiding not just pregnancy, but avoiding menstruation, also.


It reads to me like this is a policy meant to address that, and the wording of not requiring parents to sign is one that recognizes that not all developmentally disabled people are being cared for by their parents, some have legal guardians appointed. The problem would be with youths who are court wards, and in the custody of the state-people like me (foster care workers) should not have that responsibility for the kids in their care. The law would have to be specific in this regard.
Ah, so we are to fall for the wording argument? :rolleyes: The Constitution is falling victim to the meaning of "is," the DOE was intended to wean us off dependency on foreign oil, The DOEd was supposed to make our children smarter, and Abortion was only for those terrible yet apparently common examples of rape and incest. let's just trust the wording, shall we?:rolleyes:

Thorn
08-13-2012, 08:01 PM
As it stands now, it is virtually impossible for parents/guardians of developmentally disabled teens and young women to find doctors who will perform sterilization procedures on their at-risk daughters to prevent them from becoming pregnant. Doctors don't like to do the procedures on young women, even when they have the mentality of 3 year olds, with the bodies of 22 year olds. Parents who are raising mentally challenged daughters should have the legal right to have their daughters sterilized-avoiding not just pregnancy, but avoiding menstruation, also.


It reads to me like this is a policy meant to address that, and the wording of not requiring parents to sign is one that recognizes that not all developmentally disabled people are being cared for by their parents, some have legal guardians appointed. The problem would be with youths who are court wards, and in the custody of the state-people like me (foster care workers) should not have that responsibility for the kids in their care. The law would have to be specific in this regard.
http://modernsocialworker.blogspot.com/2011/08/eugenics-race-and-womans-right-to-chose.html

http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

And you are defending it?

noonwitch
08-14-2012, 08:43 AM
http://modernsocialworker.blogspot.com/2011/08/eugenics-race-and-womans-right-to-chose.html

http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

And you are defending it?


I am defending the rights of parents and legal guardians to have their developmentally disabled children sterilized, not the government's right to force sterilization upon anyone of any capacity.


It's not eugenics. I don't support this because I want a "pure gene pool" or any of that type of crap. I support it to improve the quality of life for developmentally disabled young women. They are easy targets for creepy men-especially those who are either totally dependent on others or those who have some independence. Or, for those who do have some independence and form a romantic relationship with a partner of similar status, they can have a marriage, a sex life and no one has to worry about them having children they can't care for. It should be up to the families, and they should be able to pursue a practical solution to a situation.

For those that we used to call "profoundly retarded"-those who wear diapers, those with no ability to speak or understand language, and who don't understand sex, childbirth, and other things, it is more merciful to make sure they don't have to deal with childbirth and menstruation. And, less disgusting on the latter part for the caregivers.

Thorn
08-15-2012, 10:48 PM
I am defending the rights of parents and legal guardians to have their developmentally disabled children sterilized, not the government's right to force sterilization upon anyone of any capacity.


It's not eugenics. I don't support this because I want a "pure gene pool" or any of that type of crap. I support it to improve the quality of life for developmentally disabled young women. They are easy targets for creepy men-especially those who are either totally dependent on others or those who have some independence. Or, for those who do have some independence and form a romantic relationship with a partner of similar status, they can have a marriage, a sex life and no one has to worry about them having children they can't care for. It should be up to the families, and they should be able to pursue a practical solution to a situation.

For those that we used to call "profoundly retarded"-those who wear diapers, those with no ability to speak or understand language, and who don't understand sex, childbirth, and other things, it is more merciful to make sure they don't have to deal with childbirth and menstruation. And, less disgusting on the latter part for the caregivers.



Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking cross the floor
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking out the door

You never will get where you’re going
If you never get up on your feet
Come on, there’s a good tail wind blowing
A fast walking man is hard to beat

Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking cross the floor
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking out the door

If you want to change your direction
If your time of life is at hand
Well don’t be the rule be the exception
A good way to start is to stand

Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking cross the floor
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking out the door

If I want to change the reflection
I see in the mirror each morn
You mean that it's just my election
To vote for a chance to be reborn