Talk:Contraceptive mandate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): I. Ly, UCSF, B. Hyland 17, Sydney Martinelli, Richard.Ishimaru.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should Article be renamed

I am concerned that the title of the article is misleading. The mandate doesn't only apply cover contraceptives, it also covers sterilizations and some abortifacients. A better title would be "HHS mandate".

• The U.S. calls it the contraceptive mandate, apparently; and sterilization is a permanent, and almost fool-proof, method of contraception. Abortifacients are not mentioned in the insurance: neither birth control pills nor emergency contraception cause abortions. See Emergency contraception. --Monado (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased

This article is much to heavily biased in favor of contraceptive users. The opening paragraph did not even mention the relentless attack on religious freedom. Why should we pay for what we consider immoral?

Two things. I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying; however, you forgot to sign your post. Who am I talking to? Thanks. --XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an economic freedom issue as much as it's a religious freedom issue. There are people who just don't have a need for contraception (due to being sterile, or not sexually active, or actively trying to have children). Why should a person be forced to pay for something they know they won't use? DanBishop (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this is about the insurance coverage legislation, which is being described according to its implementation and timing, not characterized as good or bad. --Monado (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to talk about religious freedom, you could certainly expand on why some people think that their religious freedom is being infringed on; and someone else could explain why it's wrong for a manager or company owner to limit their religious freedom. It would certainly be simpler to get the employer out of the equation and provide everyone with state health insurance. --Monado (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have identified some WP:WEASEL words and phrases and tagged them appropriate. I am concerned that the section I tagged only presents one side of the debate. It is a barrage of statistics presented as incontrovertible facts in favor of contraception use. Do the sources mention the HHS mandate? This is WP:SYNTH. At the very least, background on the religious belief about contraceptives and chastity should be provided side-by-side. I daresay that the practice of abstinence could reduce unintended pregnancies as well! Elizium23 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This

This is the topic that all the fuss was about at the 2012 Hearing on religious freedom which sparked the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy.

I've only just started the article. Can't I have a few hours to work on it before you decide there's "no context"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It might have been a better idea to develop the article in your own sandbox area first before creating something as puzzling as the first draft of this article was in the main article space. But certainly I'd expect an admin to hold off on the speedy-delete because you've put this message here. Zad68 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time I start an article. A lot of articles I've created got AfD treatment, but a glance at my user page will show you that they almost always survive. The star and dagger superscript indicate AfD survivors. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

Merci y grazia, Roscelese. It always helps when more than one person edits. I strive for neutrality, but your edits made it "more neutral". :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

this article needs the same material linking to the broader principles at stake for the stakeholders, I will attempt to provide the necessary material if not deleted over at the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy page.MrsKrishan (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

POV-check

The points of view of these two articles cannot possibly be both described as neutral at the same time. Bwrs (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of an entirely separate article doesn't affect the neutrality of this one. If there are specific issues with an article, please raise them - don't make a vague wave at another article and expect us to understand what you're asking to be changed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the viewpoint of some religious people and/or Republicans and/or U.S. conservatives that this is a religious freedom issue (at least for them). Perhaps its a matter of different sides framing the issue to their advantage. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. After further review, I think this article is developing rather nicely. Bwrs (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the comment by Fr. James V. Schall because it reads like he wrote it. The comment sticks out like an absolute sore thumb, and reeks of personal bias. This issue doesn't involve the "classic metaphysics of Aristotle". Zachwulf (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)zachwulf

Perception of a double standard

Perhaps in response to Rush Limbaugh's overblown remarks, Nicole Skibola wrote:

• The idea that Viagra is a medical necessity for men, while contraceptives are not for women, has been a blatant form of sex discrimination in our society for over a decade. The message is clear: that female sexuality is only legitimate to the extent that it fulfills our designated role in society as child-bearing vehicles, and that women's ability to control their participation in society is not important. As Janet Benshoof argues in her piece in the Chicago Tribune, "there are strong stereotypes about women that are behind this discrimination. Men are meant to have erections and sexual pleasure. Hence, fund Viagra. Women are designed to get pregnant, become mothers, and not be sexual. Hence don't fund 'unnatural' contraception or abortion." [1]

Let's include Janet Benshoof's remarks, if they are germane to a neutral description of the reaction to the mandates. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that comment is that Viagra coverage is not mandated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.130.25 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Contraception Mandate - not subsection on Conscience clause

Just a note; a mandate is a simple regulation, and can be written on easily as NPOV, even if you include arguments for and against. Going straight to the recent controversies over EXCEPTIONS granted or not to the Federal contraception mandate and the separate arguments skews the article from its topic. NOT arguing that it shouldn't be included, just that it should not be in the lead, but should be a subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Contraceptive mandate (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120314132256/http://www.nwlc.org:80/resource/denying-coverage-contraceptives-harms-women to http://www.nwlc.org/resource/denying-coverage-contraceptives-harms-women

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Expanding Topics

I found that the section regarding contraceptives in schools was a bit too short, and I would have preferred to see greater research regarding that topic, and more detail surrounding the effects of contraceptives in schools. As teenage pregnancy is very relevant, I think this would have been a necessary addition. Also, I found that the article was very geared toward female contraception, and I would have liked to see an article that favored or disagreed with the exclusion of male contraceptives. Though males cannot become pregnant, their bodies are also an important factor in pregnancy.

All in all, I found that the sources were relevant and quite recent, which did allow for adequate detail.

--Jennifer.norris (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If anything, the section regarding contraception in schools should be removed. It is not related to health insurers or employer-sponsored health plans. Of the two citations in this section, one describes a program expansion that was requested by school officials and the other encourages condom availability. Neither has anything to do with a mandate. --SeeJaneEdit (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contraceptive mandate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702150143/http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html to http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)