Warning for low-income female residents of Oregon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Oregon’s low-income women are about to be subjected to a level of invasive questioning and religious disrespect by government-funded health-care providers on an unprecedented scale. Women receiving government-funded health services will now be questioned about their pregnancy intentions by multiple government service providers—including Medicaid primary care doctors, home visiting staff, and in some counties, even WIC food-supplement providers. As a result, low-income Catholic women seeking government aid in Oregon will be repeatedly subjected to contraception counseling, even though it is contrary to their religious beliefs…
…"This Medicaid metric, as well as the wider governmental use of the One Key Question initiative, should be especially troubling to those concerned about religious liberty. Faithful Catholic women who seek government aid in Oregon will find themselves bombarded by intrusive questions about their family planning decisions and will be lectured to use forms of contraception they believe to be gravely and intrinsically immoral. These programs also endanger the conscience rights of primary care doctors who object to the use of contraceptives—especially those with abortifacient effects—for religious or moral reasons.
Unfortunately, Oregon is just the beginning. Nationwide, implementation of programs that give financial incentives for health-care providers who push contraception and who track and report women’s private reproductive intentions to the government may be just around the corner."
Wow. I imagine there are a lot of people that will applaud this initiative and even say it’s about time. :sad_yes:

Scary. Seriously scary.
 
Let me get this straight - is there anyone here that thinks it’s just fine for a twenty year old with three kids and no husband to just keep on having babies with no viable means off support except public assistance? Sometimes we need to remember that over 95% of those living in industrialized nations do not see the use of artificial birth control as sinful or evil, including the vast majority of Catholics. I not saying that just because the majority thinks something is right, that it is right ,- I am just thinking about the real world in which we live.:rolleyes:
 
Let me get this straight - is there anyone here that thinks it’s just fine for a twenty year old with three kids and no husband to just keep on having babies with no viable means off support except public assistance? Sometimes we need to remember that over 95% of those living in industrialized nations do not see the use of artificial birth control as sinful or evil, including the vast majority of Catholics. I not saying that just because the majority thinks something is right, that it is right ,- I am just thinking about the real world in which we live.:rolleyes:
I don’t think there is anyone here who believes that it is fine for a single woman to keep on having babies.m

However the following scenario I am about to describe happens all too commonly. I once used the health care available for low income people. This was in Hawaii and I was glad to have it available for basic health care. I was questioned about my contraception plans and I said I was using the most fool proof birth control ever, abstinence. They looked at me like I was crazy and proceeded to outline the other forms of birth control available. So yeah, there is pressure out there to put females of childbearing age on contraceptives.

Mention abstinence and to most people it’s like trying to walk on water.
 
My thoughts on this:

As a Catholic who kept having babies (I have nine), my doctor did continually tell me about contraception and ask what I wanted. I went to a different doctor who showed more respect.

My question about this issue is: why is it that we are chastised as ‘judgmental’ for suggesting single women quit having multiple babies with multiple fathers, but the same people who call anyone judgmental for saying that, feel free to tell Catholic women (or Mormons) that they have no right to have multiple babies.

My bigger problem is with the double standards in society today.
 
Let me get this straight - is there anyone here that thinks it’s just fine for a twenty year old with three kids and no husband to just keep on having babies with no viable means off support except public assistance? Sometimes we need to remember that over 95% of those living in industrialized nations do not see the use of artificial birth control as sinful or evil, including the vast majority of Catholics. I not saying that just because the majority thinks something is right, that it is right ,- I am just thinking about the real world in which we live.:rolleyes:
If you start down that path, you begin to eliminate a lot of public funding for those in need, because “they did it to themselves.” Just be warned.

Since a woman with multiple children born out of wedlock is one fo the two responsible parites to her situation, are you prepared to truly make her and the father’s accountable by forcing them to cope on their own?

Or is this solely an attempt to violate religious freedom by pushing illicit means ahead of time?

I get the sentiment, but the approach is all wrong.
 
If you start down that path, you begin to eliminate a lot of public funding for those in need, because “they did it to themselves.” Just be warned.

Since a woman with multiple children born out of wedlock is one fo the two responsible parites to her situation, are you prepared to truly make her and the father’s accountable by forcing them to cope on their own?

Or is this solely an attempt to violate religious freedom by pushing illicit means ahead of time?

I get the sentiment, but the approach is all wrong.
I think the answer is that society needs to return to encouraging and stressing those ‘out of date’ values, such that 20 year olds are not having child after child out of wedlock in the first place; such that they value not only morality, but the consequences of the behavior, to themselves, their children, and all of society.

Sadly, we are so hellbent these days on ‘freedom’ and the oversexualization of everything, that I don’t really see that happening.

[A tangent, but we’ve reached a point where I’m reading that there’s actually something ‘wrong’ with people who choose not to have sex before marriage, and my 20 year old daughter has been told all too often by ‘friends’ that there’s something wrong with her for waiting until marriage, that it’s unhealthy, even.]
 
I don’t think there is anyone here who believes that it is fine for a single woman to keep on having babies.m

However the following scenario I am about to describe happens all too commonly. I once used the health care available for low income people. This was in Hawaii and I was glad to have it available for basic health care. I was questioned about my contraception plans and I said I was using the most fool proof birth control ever, abstinence. They looked at me like I was crazy and proceeded to outline the other forms of birth control available. So yeah, there is pressure out there to put females of childbearing age on contraceptives.

Mention abstinence and to most people it’s like trying to walk on water.
Thats the number one problem imo, instead of suggesting abstinence, they are telling these young people its ok to go ahead and give in to lust, its perfectly normal and fine, so we will just try to deal with the results instead of dealing with the actual problem.

This ‘we already know people are going to indulge in sinful behavior, but we are only going to deal with the negative results’ type of thinking could get out of hand quickly.
 
If you start down that path, you begin to eliminate a lot of public funding for those in need, because “they did it to themselves.” Just be warned.

Since a woman with multiple children born out of wedlock is one fo the two responsible parites to her situation, are you prepared to truly make her and the father’s accountable by forcing them to cope on their own?

Or is this solely an attempt to violate religious freedom by pushing illicit means ahead of time?

I get the sentiment, but the approach is all wrong.
They did do it to themselves, if only they got an abortion then they wouldn’t be attacked by Catholics for being parasitic welfare queens, all they would have to do is go to confession. Wait, you mean we aren’t trying to abort bastards out of existence? Oh, well, then maybe we should try a different tactic.
 
I think the problem with young women who have multiple children with different fathers is not that they need contraception, they need self respect. Without it, they will give in to importunate men (“if you really love me . . .”) again and again.
At least they haven’t aborted the babies. Probably because they want someone who will love them, since the fathers have disappeared.
Many of those girls will eventually mature and discover that you can’t buy love with sex.

.
 
“Why not take a more compassionate attitude? Even though we might prefer that girls not get pregnant before marriage, let’s not make a big deal of it. If we say that it’s a fault, let’s add that it’s a very minor fault; a venial sin at worst. And while we’re at it, let’s allow the poor girls to get abortions.”

From an article by David Carlin. Sometimes compassion makes things worse.
 
Jim G., the quote you posted from the David Carlin article gave me the impression he was advocating for abortion in some circumstances - no, quite the opposite.

The next paragraph:
So we relaxed our social rule against premarital sex and pregnancy and childbirth. The result of course was that we got an explosion of all these things. In short, we got an explosion of sexual irresponsibility among young persons, who have a general tendency toward irresponsibility to begin with.
So, he was really outlining, summarizing how we as a society rationalized the need for ABC and abortion!

Last part of the article:
So far, the catastrophic consequences of all this have not shown up in obvious ways. But they will. Wait and see.
It is very dangerous, it has the power to destroy us – this “chemical” combination of (a) the un-Benthamite notion that we can have rules that produce nothing but good results and (b) feelings of compassion whenever we hear a sad story. And the powerful and ubiquitous “progressive” propaganda machine is expert at telling sad stories.
Mimi
 
Jim G., the quote you posted from the David Carlin article gave me the impression he was advocating for abortion in some circumstances - no, quite the opposite.

The next paragraph:

So, he was really outlining, summarizing how we as a society rationalized the need for ABC and abortion!

Last part of the article:

Mimi
Mimi, you are right. I think he is making the point that where once certain sexual behaviors were subject to social disapproval, now they are not. We no longer “judge” such behaviors to be bad. As a result we got more of them–a lot more, to the greater detriment of society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top