Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Playinghardball

(11,665 posts)
Tue Sep 16, 2014, 01:49 PM Sep 2014

The Strange Case Of A Father Who Sued The Obama Administration To Keep His Daughters From Getting... [View all]



Providing two college-age women with health insurance that covers birth control, according to an attorney for Missouri state Rep. Paul Joseph Wieland (R) and his wife Teresa, is the equivalent of giving your children free access to a “stocked unlocked liquor cabinet.” In case the judges hearing his client’s case did not find that analogy particularly compelling, he also compared birth control to pornography.

If the Wielands’ lawsuit succeeds, they will win the right to deny their three daughters — two of whom are adults — a health insurance policy that covers contraception. Wieland and his wife claim that they “cannot provide, fund or in any way be a participant in the provision of health care coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortions or abortifacient drugs and devices, such as Plan B, ella, and copper IUDs, or related education and counseling, without violating their sincerely-held religious beliefs.”

The Wieland family is insured through a health plan Missouri offers to its employees. They allege that Missouri expanded this plan in 2013 to include contraceptive care in order to comply with federal rules that require employer-provided plans to include this care. The gist of their argument is that they should be allowed to continue to remain on Missouri’s health plan for state employees, but that they should also be offered a special carve out so that their plan does not cover contraception and other reproductive services that Paul and Teresa Wieland find objectionable.

More here: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/11/3566209/the-strange-case-of-a-father-who-sued-the-obama-administration-to-keep-his-daughters-from-having-sex/

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
They cannot speak for their adult children. Let's hope that those 2 daughters sinkingfeeling Sep 2014 #1
it doesn't say the daughters are in college, only that they are "college age" KurtNYC Sep 2014 #21
I look forward to hearing about his daughters getting knocked up TlalocW Sep 2014 #2
Said it before I could packman Sep 2014 #25
It's not unusual for that to happen. B Calm Sep 2014 #42
Ah, because taking away birth control will ensure that his daughters louis-t Sep 2014 #3
So this family does not want their insurance plan to have access to birth control. What about all jwirr Sep 2014 #4
Why should men have to pay for policies that cover maternity benefits? Downwinder Sep 2014 #6
Exactly. We could all find some reason we want out insurance company to do it our way. That jwirr Sep 2014 #7
I had a home owners policy for years and never collected for the Downwinder Sep 2014 #9
I've never met a man who wasn't born. Scuba Sep 2014 #8
Strangely, birth is also the leading cause of death. Glassunion Sep 2014 #12
It's true! Life is a 100% fatal sexually transmited disease. n/t eggplant Sep 2014 #35
100% mortality rate. riqster Sep 2014 #36
How many were financially liable for their birthing costs? Downwinder Sep 2014 #13
Single-payer, whispered a voice on the breeze. Orsino Sep 2014 #5
Yes, said a returning echo. jwirr Sep 2014 #10
single payer echo echo echo librechik Sep 2014 #11
If you don't like birth control BrotherIvan Sep 2014 #14
But if you like judging others and controlling them... Orsino Sep 2014 #18
And these idiots are different from the Taliban how, exactly? Initech Sep 2014 #15
Fundies aren't happy unless they've got their noses in other people's business. xfundy Sep 2014 #16
You know, maybe if they were putting their nose near other people's "business"... politicat Sep 2014 #24
I see... riqster Sep 2014 #37
HE doesn't have standing. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #17
Just because something is available doesn't mean you have to partake. Vinca Sep 2014 #19
Fuck Them. They are on TAXPAYER FUNDED HEALTHCARE ... Volaris Sep 2014 #20
And I Can't Support Policies.... Laxman Sep 2014 #22
Two things come to mind. A Simple Game Sep 2014 #23
More like "Strange Father of the Case" underpants Sep 2014 #26
In light of the Hobby Lobby decision I don't see how the court can deny the parents, cheapdate Sep 2014 #27
Doesn't matter either way Bartlet Sep 2014 #32
Until the conservative makeup of the SCOTUS cheapdate Sep 2014 #33
It says that two of them are adults. gollygee Sep 2014 #39
I don't either. I thought you had to show direct harm to be a party to a lawsuit. cheapdate Sep 2014 #40
Why doesn't he tell the other truth Cartoonist Sep 2014 #28
Fuck 'email matt819 Sep 2014 #29
love the poster LOL nt steve2470 Sep 2014 #30
“stocked unlocked liquor cabinet.” Bartlet Sep 2014 #31
Time for single payer! Quantess Sep 2014 #34
The ACA is really bringing them out of the woodwork isn't it? drm604 Sep 2014 #38
Typical. FlaGranny Sep 2014 #41
What a wonderful father - assuming his daughters will become whores while away at school. baldguy Sep 2014 #43
What's so strange????? This is the logical follow on to the Hobby decision and CK_John Sep 2014 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Strange Case Of A Fat...