Wednesday, May 29, 2013

User:Bulbhot9


View the original article here

Applying for Obamacare Health Insurance Not Easy

Obamacare supporters and protesters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to find out the ruling on the Affordable Health Act June 28, 2012 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

Applying for benefits under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul could be as daunting as doing your taxes.

The government's draft application runs 15 pages for a three-person family. An outline of the online version has 21 steps, some with additional questions.

Seven months before the Oct. 1 start of enrollment season for millions of uninsured Americans, the idea that getting health insurance could be as easy as shopping online at Amazon or Travelocity is starting to look like wishful thinking.

At least three major federal agencies, including the IRS, will scrutinize your application. Checking your identity, income and citizenship is supposed to happen in real time, if you apply online.

That's just the first part of the process, which lets you know if you qualify for financial help. The government asks to see what you're making because Obama's Affordable Care Act is means-tested, with lower-income people getting the most generous help to pay premiums.

Once you're finished with the money part, actually picking a health plan will require additional steps, plus a basic understanding of insurance jargon.

And it's a mandate, not a suggestion. The law says virtually all Americans must carry health insurance starting next year, although most will just keep the coverage they now have through their jobs, Medicare or Medicaid.

Some are concerned that a lot of uninsured people will be overwhelmed and simply give up.

"This lengthy draft application will take a considerable amount of time to fill out and will be difficult for many people to be able to complete," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group supporting the health care law. "It does not get you to the selection of a plan."

"When you combine those two processes, it is enormously time consuming and complex," added Pollack. He's calling for the government to simplify the form and, more important, for an army of counselors to help uninsured people navigate the new system. It's unclear who would pay for these navigators.

Drafts of the paper application and a 60-page description of the online version were quietly posted online by the Health and Human Services Department, seeking feedback from industry and consumer groups. Those materials, along with a recent HHS presentation to insurers, run counter to the vision of simplicity promoted by administration officials.

"We are not just signing up for a dating service here," said Sam Karp, a vice president of the California HealthCare Foundation, who nonetheless gives the administration high marks for distilling it all into a workable form. Karp was part of an independent group that separately designed a model application.

The government estimates its online application will take a half hour to complete, on average. If you need a break, or have to gather supporting documents, you can save your work and come back later. The paper application is estimated to take an average of 45 minutes.

The new coverage starts next Jan. 1. Uninsured people will apply through new state-based markets, also called exchanges.

Middle-class people will be eligible for tax credits to help pay for private insurance plans, while low-income people will be steered to safety-net programs like Medicaid.

Because of opposition to the health care law in some states, the federal government will run the new insurance markets in about half the states. And states that reject the law's Medicaid expansion will be left with large numbers of poor people uninsured.

HHS estimates it will receive more than 4.3 million applications for financial assistance in 2014, with online applications accounting for about 80 percent of them. Because families can apply together, the government estimates 16 million people will be served.

Here are some pros and cons on how the system is shaping up:

Pro: If you apply online, you're supposed to be able to get near-instantaneous verification of your identity, income, and citizenship or immigration status. An online government clearinghouse called the Data Services Hub will ping Social Security for birth records, IRS for income data and Homeland Security for immigration status. "That is a brand new thing in the world," said Karp.

Con: If your household income has changed in the past year or so and you want help paying your premiums, be prepared to do some extra work. You're applying for help based on your expected income in 2014. But the latest tax return the IRS would have is for 2012. If you landed a better-paying job, got laid off, or your spouse went back to work, you'll have to provide added documentation.

Pro: Even with all the complexity, the new system could still end up being simpler than what some people go through now to buy their own insurance. You won't have to fill out a medical questionnaire, although you do have to answer whether or not you have a disability. Even if you are disabled, you can still get coverage for the same premium a healthy person of your age would pay.

Con: If anyone in your household is offered health insurance on the job but does not take it, be prepared for some particularly head-scratching questions. For example: "What's the name of the lowest cost self-only health plan the employee listed above could enroll in at this job?"

HHS spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said in a statement the application is a work in progress, "being refined thanks to public input."

It will "help people make apples-to-apples comparisons of costs and coverage between health insurance plans and learn whether they can get a break in costs," she added.

But what if you just want to buy health insurance in your state's exchange, and you're not interested in getting any help from the government?

You'll still have to fill out an application, but it will be shorter.


View the original article here

Rand Paul says tax code should remove mention of marriage

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that while he believes in the "historic and religious definition of marriage," he believes the federal tax code should be reformed in a way to make it "more neutral" and not exclude same-sex couples.

“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” Paul said in an interview with the National Review. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

Paul did not address in the interview how he might deal with other advantage and privileges extended to legally wed heterosexual couples, like federal spousal benefits, pension plans, health care, and Social Security survivors benefits.

The Supreme Court will soon hear a pair of cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and California's law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling is expected by June, and gay rights activists hope that a favorable decision could pave the way for gay marriages nationwide. In an interview that aired Wednesday morning, President Obama said he did not believe laws banning gay marriage would "stand up to constitutional muster."

"My hope is that the Court looks at the evidence and — in the California case, for example, the only reason presented for treating gays and lesbians differently was, 'Well, they’re gay and lesbian.' There wasn’t a real rationale beyond that," Obama told ABC News.

View Comments

View the original article here

International Democratic Union

(Articles will be created soon)Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

GOP Congressman Says Supreme Court Doesn’t Actually Get To Decide Whether Laws Are Constitutional

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)

Still smarting over last year’s ruling upholding Obamacare, freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws are constitutional.

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas, didn’t have the heart to correct Bridenstine’s peculiar view of the Court’s role.

BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.

Watch it:

There is certainly good reason to doubt the way this Supreme Court reads the Constitution — Citizens United alone proves that point. Our current court gave sweeping legal immunity to wealthy corporations. It took away Lilly Ledbetter’s right to equal pay for equal work. It shrinks reproductive freedom because women may “come to regret” the choices they make if they have control of their own bodies. And it appears poised to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

But the idea that this particular Court distorted the Constitution to uphold Obamacare does not even pass the smell test. In the words of Judge Laurence Silberman, a leading conservative who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush, the case against the Affordable Care Act has no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.”


View the original article here

Former Sanford aide cracks Argentina joke after papal election

The former chief of staff to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who was censured by his state legislature in 2009 after admitting an affair with an Argentine woman, joked on Twitter that "nobody complains when the College of Cardinals goes to Argentina.”

The tweet was a reference to Wednesday's election of Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the next pope. Bergoglio will assume the name Pope Francis I.

Sanford drew fire in 2009 when he disappeared for nearly a week in June with his whereabouts unknown by his wife and his security detail. He told his staff he would be hiking on the Appalachian Trail. He was later spotted by a reporter at the Atlanta airport returning from Argentina; Sanford subsequently admitted having conducted an affair. Sanford is in the midst of a congressional campaign for South Carolina's 1st District, vying for the seat vacated by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) upon his appointment to the Senate.

In an interview earlier this year with The Hill, Sanford said that he "lived in a soap opera world," but hoped voters would forgive him.

“The reality of humanity is if you live long enough you’ll fail at something. And I failed, period. There’s no getting around it,” he said. “What I learned in the wake of that is that there’s this amazing reservoir of grace. A lot of people have told me they’re not going to judge me on my worst day any more than on my best day. I hope they’d look at the whole of what I’ve been doing in this community for 52 years and public office for 20 years.”

--Cameron Joseph contributed.

View Comments

View the original article here

Pope Francis elected by Vatican cardinals

Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was selected as the new pope on Wednesday, taking the name of Francis.

Pope Francis succeeds Pope Benedict XVI, who formally resigned on Feb. 28.

Vice President Joe Biden will lead the U.S. delegation to Francis's installation mass, the White House confirmed Wednesday afternoon.

President Obama was notified that the Vatican selected a new pope while he was in a closed-door session with House Republicans.

Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors passed Obama the note during the meeting, according to a senior aide in the room. The aide said that Obama announced the news to the rest of the lawmakers in the room who cheered in response.

"On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I offer our warm wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis as he ascends to the Chair of Saint Peter and begins his papacy," Obama said later in a statement. " As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us, he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than two thousand years—that in each other we see the face of God."

Obama also noted that Francis is the first pope from South America.

"As the first pope from the Americas, his selection also speaks to the strength and vitality of a region that is increasingly shaping our world, and alongside millions of Hispanic Americans, those of us in the United States share the joy of this historic day," Obama continued in the statement. 

"Just as I appreciated our work with Pope Benedict XVI, I look forward to working with His Holiness to advance peace, security and dignity for our fellow human beings, regardless of their faith. We join with people around the world in offering our prayers for the Holy Father as he begins the sacred work of leading the Catholic Church in our modern world."

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) wished the new pope congratulations.

"I'm happy that they were able to come to a choice as quickly as they did," Boehner said according to Buzzfeed. "I think that reaching out to beyond the traditional continent of our Church is another big step in the right direction for the Church."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a similar statement.

"Catholics across Kentucky and the entire U.S. celebrate the election of Pope Francis I, and I join Americans of all faiths to congratulate him on becoming the spiritual leader of the world’s more than one billion Catholics," McConnell said.

Ahead of the selection, there was much speculation that an American might be chosen as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

In an interview with ABC News released earlier Wednesday, Obama dismissed the idea that a potential American pope would be closer to the White House.

"I don't know if you've checked lately, but the Conference of Catholic bishops here in the U.S. don't seem to be taking orders from me," Obama said.

Catholic bishops in the U.S. have been strong critics of the administration's birth control coverage mandate, which many critics charge infringes on religious liberty.

The American cardinals that were said to be in the running for the papacy included Timothy Dolan of New York, Sean O'Malley of Boston, and Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C.

"It seems to me that an American pope would preside just as effectively as a Polish pope or an Italian pope or a Guatemalan pope," Obama added during the ABC interview.

Benedict stepped down last month, the first pope to willingly resign in more than 600 years, citing health concerns and his age.

Benedict had visited the United States in 2008, meeting with then President George W. Bush at the White House and visiting Ground Zero in New York City. Obama met Pope Benedict at the Vatican in 2009.

Eight years ago, President Bush sent his brother Jeb - then the governor of Florida - to lead the U.S. delegation to Benedict's inauguration, sparking rumors about the younger Bush brother's presidential ambitions. A congressional delegation of 21 House members - the largest ever - also attended, headed by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).

President Bush and first lady Laura Bush led the delegation to John Paul II's funeral in 2005.

--Julian Pecquet contributed.

--This story was first published at 3:22 p.m. and last updated at 5:21 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

The Obamacare Train Wreck Three Years In

Obamacare is in trouble, a victim of its own complexity.

Enacted in 2010 as a 2,700 page bill, the law called for the creation of more than 150 new federal boards, commissions, panels and programs. It has spawned more than 20,000 additional pages of regulation so far—and that’s after only three years of an eight-year implementation schedule. Welcome to the future!

There’s a reason for this mind-numbing complexity: Obamacare is the boldest attempt at government central planning in American history. The law gives federal officials power over all major decisions in American health care: what kind of health plans, benefits and levels of coverage Americans must buy; what is permissible for insurers in terms of administrative costs, profit levels, or premiums; what’s acceptable as preventive care; what benefits business owners, religious organizations and charities must offer; how states must run their new, untested health insurance exchanges… the list goes on and on, including new mandates and hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and fees—not to mention fines and penalties for noncompliance.

In the era of Obamacare, what you want in health care is irrelevant; you will get what government officials tell you that you must have. This is classic central planning.  And history teaches us that central planning on this large a scale is doomed to fail.

Official Washington already is struggling with the economics of this monster. Last year, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Katherine Sebelius announced her department could not implement the long-term care component of Obamacare. Financially, she said, it was simply not workable. And just this month Sebelius announced that she was postponing a program designed to allow small businesses to offer more than one plan for their workers. Meanwhile, more than half the states have declined to set up a ‘health insurance exchange” under the burdensome terms and conditions of the law, leaving it to Washington to do it for them.

Enrollment starts on October 1, 2013. But can Washington figure out how to do it without a monumental managerial mess?

Henry Chao, an HHS official involved with implementing the health insurance exchanges, says he is hoping that in setting up and enrolling millions of Americans in the exchanges that we all don’t have a “Third World Experience.” That may turn out to be an even bigger insult to the Third World than Chao intended.

Bet on more excuses. “We need more time” is the ultimate bureaucratic plea (edging out even “not enough money,” “not enough staff” and “the software doesn’t work right”). But time is not the real issue here. Indeed the problems that HHS is trying to tackle will become even more complex with the passage of time, making future planning and implementation even more difficult. The problem is that central planning in any complex sector of the economy is unworkable—a lesson that Washington progressives either cannot or will not learn.

And, yes, look for Obamacare apologists to launch the blame game. It’s always somebody else’s fault. None of this would be happening if the governors would just be more compliant, if the doctors would enroll in obedience school, or if the people would just stop squawking and accept what the bureaucrats are jamming down their throats.

But the progressives miscalculated the politics as well as the economics of Obamacare. In the run up to passage, poll after poll showed the proposal losing in the court of popular opinion. But the president and his allies in Congress did not care. They knew what was good for us, and they were determined to give it to us—whether we liked it or not. And so, they passed a purely partisan bill, chock full of broken promises, with the full support of big corporate lobbyists whose clients gained greater access to taxpayers’ money.

Three years on, the polls show Obamacare remains a loser. And lawmakers who created this monstrosity are getting as nervous as Dr. Frankenstein. Distancing themselves from the implementation, they are using words like “train wreck” (Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.) and  “ beyond comprehension” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV).

Perhaps blaming the bureaucrats may yet prove a successful strategy.  But in passing Obamacare, it was the lawmakers themselves who guaranteed higher costs, massive disruption of Americans’ existing insurance coverage, and a level of federal intervention into health care decisions that is unprecedented. And they own it – all of it.

-Robert E. Moffit Ph.D is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a co-author of ‘Why Obamacare is Wrong for America.’

First appeared in The Blaze.


View the original article here

Stryker gets FDA warning letter after inspection

KALAMAZOO, Mich. -- Orthopedic maker Stryker Corp. said Tuesday that it received a warning from government regulators about quality control issues and unapproved marketing of medical devices.

The company said it got the letter from the Food and Drug Administration following a November inspection of its Portage, Mich., facility.

Stryker did not release the letter, but said the FDA cited the company for not notifying regulators about a product recall. The FDA also cited the company for marketing medical devices, including the Neptune Waste Management system, without a government-approved application. The Neptune device is a suction system used in the operating room to dispose of body fluids.

Stryker noted that it has already submitted plans to the FDA for correcting the problems cited in the warning letter.

The FDA regularly issues warning letters to companies that don't follow regulations for manufacturing and marketing drugs, medical devices and other products. The letters are not legally binding, but the FDA can take companies to court if they are ignored.

Stryker shares rose 42 cents to $66.64 in afternoon trading.


View the original article here

User:RobynScog


View the original article here

Portland, Oregon Becomes Fourth American City To Adopt Paid Sick Day Law

Our guest blogger is Jane Farrell, a Research Assistant for economic policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Portland became the fourth American city to approve a paid sick days law Wednesday, an important step forward today that will help the city’s workers, employers, and residents. Portland joined three other cities – San Francisco, Washington DC, and Seattle – and one state, Connecticut, in modernizing its workplace policies and acknowledging an important reality: everybody gets sick but no one should be at risk of losing a job, infecting coworkers or customers, or missing a day’s pay because of an illness.

While the economic and social benefits of paid sick days are numerous, Portland City Councilmembers nevertheless weighed the evidence in favor of and against paid sick leave carefully. Ultimately, they unanimously decided that this policy would help make Portland a stronger city and community. Worker-friendly policies like paid sick leave help reduce turnover, saving businesses time and money they might have spent on training, hiring, and replacing employees. It also strengthens worker loyalty and increases worker productivity.

Paid sick leave also helps lower health care costs by reducing the number of costly emergency room visits Portland hospitals will have to finance or subsidize. While 40 percent of private sector workers across the US lack even one paid sick day, Portland residents who previously lacked this protection can now rest easy – and work even more diligently – knowing they are safe and covered.


View the original article here

DAY'S END ROUND-UP

FROM THE BLOGS:

Banning large sodas is legal and smart
Lawrence O. Gostin for CNN writes that banning the larges drinks should not only stand up in court, but would also be a major step in addressing the nation's obesity epidemic.

Can poor people be trusted with guns?
Fox News' John Lott believes Democrats only want guns in the hands of the wealthy.

Obama's nominees for Secretary of (illegal alien) Labor
Michelle Malkin is worried about a potential Secretary of Labor nominee's lobbying past.

Wonkbook: Everything you need to know about the Ryan budget
Evan Soltas of Wonkblog outlines Ryan's recently announced budget, and details the reactions that have already begun pouring in.

OTHER NEWS SOURCES:

Ryan: Obama outreach not 'terribly charming'
The GOP congressman isn't convinced that Obama's outreach is entirely genuine, The Hill's Jonathan Easley reports.

DCCC outraises NRCC in February by $1.3M
The Hill's Alexandra Jaffe reports that the campaign arm of the House Democrats had its second record breaking month in a row.

View Comments

View the original article here

Enver Hoxha

(Difference between revisions)

Enver Hoxha was the Stalinist dictator of Albania from 1944 to his death in 1985.

In 1967, he banned all religions from Albania.


View the original article here

Is There a Doctor in the House? Probably Not

One reason for the shortage is the aging of both doctors and their patients.

According to a 2012 Physicians Foundation survey, nearly half of the 830,000 doctors in the U.S. are over 50 and approaching retirement. They are also seeing fewer patients than they did in 2008.

The patient pool is getting older, too, with some 8 million people reaching retirement age every day. Older people need more health services, and some 15 million will be eligible for Medicare in the coming years.

Entering the system in 2014 will be the 30 million additional people with access to services through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

"There were shortages in doctors when Massachusetts did their version of the Affordable Care Act," said Ruselle Robinson, a health care business attorney and former general counsel to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

"It's hard to say how this will play out with all the new people being added to health care next year," Robinson said.

Younger doctors are also part of the shortage problem. Saddled with medical school debt that can average $250,000 on graduation, many are choosing higher-paid specialties like cardiology or surgery.

"When students leave med school a lot of them are thinking about how I can make the most money," Saag said. "Somehow, we have to figure out a way to reward primary care providers so more will enter that area."

One way to reduce such debt and get doctors into the system more quickly is accelerated education, making medical school three years instead of four — something that is not new but not widely followed.

NYU has such a program now, as does Texas Tech, which is graduating its first class this year under the new schedule. It takes nearly a decade to educate a doctor and the hope is one less year would help cut down on the financial burden.

(Read More: College Roulette: Ask for Financial Aid, or Not?)

"It's not clear yet as to whether this is a good model and how viable it will be," said Dr. Andew Filak, senior associate dean at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

"For some students, three years would be adequate," Filak said. "For others, some more time might be necessary to assure that the student has the fundamental knowledge and experience to move on to a residency program."

Other solutions include letting nurse practitioners be more involved at the primary care level. Sixteen states now allow them to see patients for checkups, and ordering and interpreting diagnostic tests.

Some would like more states to adopt similar programs.

"We need to have a lot more nurse practitioners on the job," said Terry Fulmer a nurse and the dean of Bouve College of Health Sciences at Northeastern University.

"Obviously, they don't have the education of a physician, but they are highly trained professionals. And if the outcome is equal to what a doctor would do, it doesn't matter how many hours' training a nurse has," Fulmer said.

Another way to work around the doctor deficit is more team-based care, in which a physician-led team of at least two health care professionals (nurses and doctors) work with each other, the patient and the family.

Getting more medical professionals into the pipeline won't be easy. Though Obamacare authorized more government funds to increase training for primary care doctors, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, that money is set to be cut in the ongoing budget battles.

(Read More: Your Company's Next Health Plan: Drop the Doughnut)

There is some hope. More than 45,000 students applied to medical school last year, up 3.1 percent from 2011. First-time applicants, considered to be a barometer of interest in the field, set a record, increasing by 3.4 percent.

"I think more medical students these days are going in with their eyes wide open and for the right reasons," said Dr. Joel Blass.

"Even dealing with all the regulatory and insurance requirements, I think it's all moving in the right direction," Blass said.

And one expert says it's not so much a scarcity of physicians but of using them in the right way.

"We don't need more physicians, but rather better "team-based workflow tools" to ensure that everyone on the team can work to the highest level of their ability in a safe and efficient manner every day," said Dr. Lyle Berkowitz, Associate Chief Medical Officer of Innovation for Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

"That means using information technology and freeing physicians to spend their time on more complex patients," Berkowitz added.

But many physicians are questioning their profession. In a recent survey of U.S. doctors, more than 84 percent said the profession was in decline. Nearly 60 percent said they wouldn't recommend medicine as a career.

More than 75 percent said they were overextended and as result, nearly 6 percent of doctors said the were working fewer hours than they did in 2008.

"Our medical system is in chaos, and the shortage is part of it," Saag said, who added that Alabama and other nearby states have a shortage of HIV specialists.

"Whether it's getting more doctors or a health care system we can all understand, something needs to change and soon."


View the original article here

Applying For Obama Plan Not Easy

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

International Democrat Union

(Difference between revisions)

The International Democrat Union is a worldwide organization of conservative political parties. It has 54 members and its youth organization is the International Young Democrat Union.


View the original article here

Family Research Council: Unmarried People Should Be Denied Birth Control And Punished For Having Sex

The right-wing Family Research Council — which uses its advocacy muscle to try to block comprehensive sexual health programs in public schools — is now going a step further, suggesting the young Americans who have premarital sex should be punished because they don’t deserve the right to engage in sexual intercourse.

According to senior FRC fellow Pat Fagan, the Supreme Court’s “first assault on marriage” was a 1972 case that overturned a state law banning unmarried people from purchasing birth control. Fagan claims that court decision effectively sanctioned premarital sex, “brushing aside thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, [and] culture.” Appearing on a radio show with Tony Perkins, the head of the organization, Fagan asserted that “society never gave young people that right,” and instead has an obligation to stop, punish, and shame that type of sexual behavior:

FAGAN: The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. [...]

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

In fact, a full 80 percent of unmarried evangelical Christians report that they are having sex. Despite the emphasis on abstinence within the evangelical community — a misguided approach to sexuality that typically shames young adults about their bodies, ignores the existence of the LGBT community, and fails to equip adolescents with the resources they need to effectively manage their sexual health — it’s clear that premarital sex is the norm, not something that threatens the very fabric of modern society.

And ignoring the reality that teens are having sex has had serious consequences across the country. The states that push ineffective abstinence-only health classes have higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher rates of STDs, and higher concentrations of HIV infections. Even the evangelical community itself has started to realize that denying teens sexual health resources isn’t working, and has begun to move in the direction of supporting contraception and sex education.

The United States’ teen birth rate has actually recently plunged to a record low — but that wouldn’t be the case if Fagan had his way and unmarried Americans were denied access to birth control. According to the Guttmacher Institute, that decline in unintended teen pregnancies is “almost exclusively” the result of more young people using contraception.

(HT: Right Wing Watch)


View the original article here