Bloomberg Strikes Again: NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless

Has The Mayor Totally Eaten Away At The Public's Desire To Do Good?

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

It’s the “no bagels for you” edict.

“I can’t give you something that’s a supplement to the food you already have? Sorry that’s wrong,” Richter said.

Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a “cholent” or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless.

Richter said he was stunned. He said his family has eaten the same food forever and flourished.

“My father lived to 97; my grandfather lived to 97, and they all enjoyed it and somehow we’re being told that this is no good and I think there is a degree of management that becomes micromanagement and when you cross that line simply what you’re doing is wrong,” Richter said.

But Mayor Bloomberg, a salt-aholic himself, was unapologetic.

“For the things that we run because of all sorts of safety reasons, we just have a policy it is my understanding of not taking donations,” Bloomberg said.

Told that his administration recently enacted the policy, the mayor was Grinch-like.

“If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

Richter said that over the years he’s delivered more than two tons of food to the homeless. He said Mayor Bloomberg is eating away at his ability to do good.

The ban on food donations was made by an inter-agency task force that includes the departments of Health and Homeless Services.

Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below …

  • Jonathan Cooksey

    Bloomberg is a moronic assinine fool who does NOT deserve re-election. People of NY, please wake up and boot this idiot out of office.

    • Jessica

      He’s in his third term, which he broke the law to be able to serve. Nobody’s booting him anywhere.

  • Porked

    Bloomturd is in his glory in the U.S. In Russia, he would have to “work”.

  • The Commonsensualist

    Ok; so separate church and state and feed the hungry at churches and let more people donate : )

  • God, not G-d, what blashemy

    That’s because it’s all being diverted to the Russian Jews. We are GOYIMS, we’re different from them. Maybe God should tell them we all bleed red.

    • God, not G-d, what blasphemy


    • Paul

      You have tinfoil wallpaper don’t you.

  • LM

    Um , so Bloomberg wants the government (ie texpayers) to supply the food to the homeless when there are people being innovative and providing fresh foods…Have you tasted unhealthy government funded school lunches? Please Mayor Bloomberg, you’re kidding right? Typical government bureaucracy…

  • William

    Bloomberg has no chance of sqeezing himself through
    the eye of a needle. A man more beref of a moral underpinning does not exhist in the three boroughs.
    He is not a liberal, he is not a moderate; he is a one percenter,
    a group who will embrace any methods they deem necessary in
    order to maintain their wealth. He’s been at this project going into
    an illegal 3rd term. Evil is his heart. Dead is his spirt.

  • Marisa

    Dear me. I would think they should allow the individual homeless person decide what they want to eat if there’s extra available. It’s not like they’re living some great life.

  • Inwood

    Yeah, but if donated food has been stored unsafely, and the homeless shelter folks get sick–who gets sued and put out of service? Not the city, but the shelter–and then everyone screams about how bad food was deliberately given to the poor.

  • ken karger

    Wish the stupidity stopped with Bloomberg. Many years ago we had a similar incident in Fort Worth, Texas. A minister was ordered to stop giving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to the homeless because they had not been made in an ‘approved and inspected kitchen’. Are you serious? So the dumpster is a better choice than a church sandwich or a bagel? It just goes to prove that more government is merely more stupidity no matter how you slice it. Pun intended.

  • Cassandra LeFavi

    What can this man be thinking? Starving to death is not healthy either! Has he ever been hungry? How could he look at a child who has not had a meal all day and say this.

  • Debby

    One nation under God. Know food for the poor…….. WWJD?

  • Will

    You Southern Teabaggers should post your nonsense on the Alabammy Times website or whatever you bunch of YEE-HAW hayseeds have that’s comparable to this site (assuming your hick news outlets even have websites yet).

    As a New Yorker, I emphatically state the only attention or consideration you teabag ldiots deserve is the same type of attention and consideration that war hero William T. Sherman gave you, but multiplied by a thousand. To hell with all of you.

  • Will

    Anyone who voted for this dirtbag deserves to end up in a ditch, with nothing. They deserve to be struck with every curse and malady imaginable.

  • Faith

    This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in awhile. It has nothing to do with “conservatives or liberals”. This is just RIDICULOUS. The government needs to stay out of everyone’s business. Not allowing someone to donate to people that otherwise won’t eat is just complete hubris and arguing about whether it’s the fault of conservatives or liberals is just as bad. Stop pointing fingers at those things and point them at STUPIDITY and too much government.

    • Bohemond

      But the issue of too much government interfering in everyone’s lives is *precisely* the liberal-conservative divide.

  • Louise

    We need a new Mayor. He should have no damn say. We had no say in him still being in office. Is he thinking with his behind. Someone should take away his means of eating what’s next is he going to remove beds from homeless shellters that he doesn’t find to be satisfactory. He should be ashamed of himself. How does this idiot sleep at night I bet you with a full salty stomach. He should choke on his next meal.

  • Jan

    Hope he’s starving in the streets so he can understand what a little bit of food means.

  • Jeff Rosen ret NYPD Sgt

    OK, I’m certainly not a fan of Bloomberg, frankly I can’t stand him, but to be fair your headline is misleading. He’s not banning food donations to the homeless but banning food donations to city homeless “shelters”.

    • Paul

      Ye, but you’ll often find homeless people near those shelters.

  • Jeff Hagerty

    These people have completely lost their minds AND their humanity. Its time to clean house… from the top down.

    Lets get people into power that actually care about the people their supposed to be serving.

  • Eagle in NYC

    The Little Tyrant would rather you starve to death than risk your health by eating some sodium chloride. Better dead than fed.

  • ari

    really sick…this is a man who forced children to drink Snapple which is almost pure sugar and chemicals. then again, he endangers the life of his own kids so why would he care about anyone else

  • Magdalena

    The rich makin decisions for the poor, it never ends…

    • Magdalena


  • Ric

    tyranny vs. freedom.

    this policy is un-American.

    whoever supports this idea is an enemy of freedom.

  • Autumn

    It is the social obligation of society to look after those widowed, orphaned, homeless. And one way is to take advantage of the surplus of food that we as Americans seem to have an abundance of. If Bloomberg won’t allow food to be donated what is his solution to the crisis then at hand? Surely it’s not taxing more money for a government funded program that will get bogged down in bureaucracy anyways! I say let food be donated!

    • Leslie

      You don’t see the big picture with this. Now nanny bloomie will try to guilt those businesses supplying the food to provide “healthier” options. This will allow bloomy to gain full control over all food providers in the city, if they want to be charitable. Oh, there is going to be much more to this.

  • Mary

    There is a law above the law and that’s God’s law…He should feed them anyways, and just do what’s right in the eyes of God…What mayor Bloomberg and his cronies are doing is criminal…….

  • tbwest

    nazi bloomberg–tying to kill the homeless so his pos city can look better on paper–I myself would rejoice to see someone assasinate him.He is freinds to the illuminate–not the people.

  • Jon C Stennis

    I’m going to City Hall to drop a deuce on his desk so that he can analyze its fiber content. I’ve been feeling a tad bit irregular lately and he might be able to point me in the direction of why that is.

  • D. Brown

    IS HE KIDDING???Talk about your egomanical edicts! He’s a out of control!!!

  • bernice finlayson

    This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The homeless have need of food, so feed them. They don’t need some artsy nutritionist telling them what they need. If they are happy to receive what they have been receiving that is all that matters. Bureaucracy gone mad. And I am an RN and care about people’s welfare.

  • Joyce

    This is not crazy{forgiveable], or stupid{understandable], but criminal{impeachable]

  • Brett

    To complain and tell Mayor Bloomberg just how dumb and unethical this is, please give his office a call at 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK if you’re calling from outside NYC). Tell his secretary that you oppose this policy of banning food donations to homeless shelters, and believe it should be changed immediately.

    Good luck.

  • Jp

    Has the fecal Bloomberg policy been evaluated for its nutritional value? Because if it has, then I would like to see him have a large spoonful, and if he deems it not safe to eat, then perhaps it should be tossed out.

  • sandra

    Bloomberg, and the members of his administration, have never been hungry or even worried about where the next meal for their families will come from. If they did they would never, ever put dietary restrictions on what can be distributed by food pantries.

  • Syren

    Ok. Let’s take away his excuse about what CAN’T be distributed and what can be. I’m all for better nutrition, but if he’s doing this just to keep the Occupiers from continuing, he’s just another pandering bigot.

  • MIke Brainard




    • Andrew Burd

      ease up on the sugarcoating..

  • Lisa Cooper

    Bloomberg’s edict is pure evil. No sane person could defend it in any way whatsoever. The edict is also another coordinated Machiavellian tactic to squash the Occupy movement, and it’s practice of providing free meals. There are other cities enacting these laws as well. The idea of passing out pennies to the homeless so they can pay $.01is excellent. ‘Wonder how long it will take for Bloomberg to criminalize the passing out of pennies?

  • Russ

    The mayor is hoping they starve and move to another city so he won’t have to deal with them.

  • Jelena

    Voters get the government they deserve. That means, you, New York

  • chuck

    What I think it is if there is not enough food in the centers for the homeless then they will go elsewhere so he gets rid of them

  • Kevin Jackowski

    sad to say that it doesnt shock me one bit that Bloomberg allowed this. He is so out of touch with the common folk it borders on the pathetic. Let alone Ill bet my paycheck that every person involved in the decision to enact that rule has never starved a day in there life. Thhey never had to worry about where there next meal is coming from or how to pay for it. Do you really think its about the salt. mark my words in the near future youll see one of the vendors that supplies food to allthese homeless shelters are the ones whio whispered in Bloombergs ear that if we ban food donations ill get more business which mean more money. Id look into who benefits from the loss of the food donations. they think were all stupid and cant read between the lines. Honeslty. What company is going to get ricjh from this change…… Anybody csre to look into it.???? Some friend of some politician is jumping for jot right now, Knowing that the only people hurt by this are the ones who nobody wants to listen to,, Namely the homeless and poor. PLease somebody find out what food vendor is going to make millions from this change

  • Bob Deschenes

    It’s a shame to prevent good food going to hungry homeless people. This society has gone crazy.

  • Kevin Jackowski

    sad to say that it doesnt shock me one bit that Bloomberg allowed this. He is so out of touch with the common folk it borders on the pathetic. Let alone Ill bet my paycheck that every person involved in the decision to enact that rule has never starved a day in there life. Thhey never had to worry about where there next meal is coming from or how to pay for it. Do you really think its about the salt. mark my words in the near future youll see one of the vendors that supplies food to allthese homeless shelters are the ones whio whispered in Bloombergs ear that if we ban food donations ill get more business which mean more money. Id look into who benefits from the loss of the food donations. they think were all stupid and cant read between the lines. Honeslty. What company is going to get ricjh from this change…… Anybody csre to look into it.???? Some friend of some politician is jumping for jot right now, Knowing that the only people hurt by this are the ones who nobody wants to listen to,, Namely the homeless and poor. PLease somebody find out what food vendor is going to make millions from this change.

  • George M

    Absolutely ludicrous. If you are homeless and hungry I think the salt content of the food you receive is probably the least of your worries. I suppose Barron Bloomberg is ok with the homeless foraging for food in the trash cans of the city at least until he makes possession of discarded food a crime as well. He should get out of his lofty tower and into the real world once in a while.

    • MP

      Please read the article more carefully. The homeless shelters are still giving out food, they are just not accepting donated food. Of course, this article is intentionally written to mislead people into believing what you describe.

  • Toby Benjamin

    Non-profit food donations to the homeless: extensive nutritional information.
    Genetically modified, pesticide soaked food: no labeling required.

    Welcome to America. The land of the free, and the home of the Whopper.

  • Brandon Slattery

    This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats. Michael Nutter, the Democratic Mayor of Philadelphia, is doing the same thing!

  • Donna

    Well– if he wants to regulate the food then maybe he should take the money out of his pocket! Then he can watch the salt-fat and any other thing he doesn’t think is good– himself!! I bet he eats things that he has on his own NO EAT list! I can not stand what is happening here! Maybe if he traded places with them for awhile he wouldn’t be so harsh! It would be a good lesson to anybody who things they wipe their b___ with golden toilet paper!!

  • Ninja

    Awful. Prevent food for the homeless with bs of a “health concern” YET he hasn’t kicked out every fast food chain or taken GM foods off the shelves. Did this idiot wake up and think “Gee, today I’ll jab that stick a little harder on the ones who are already down”? I’d scream to everyone who voted for him but I’m sure their elections are as rigged as everyone else’s.

  • homelessme

    I am homeless and if someone wanted to give me bagels I would gladly accept them. It doesn’t matter so much to me about the salt content. I try to healthier foods, but they are out of my price range.

    I am not the type of person people think of when they here homeless, but there are more like me than people want to believe.

    I have a job and lived a very stable life until the recession hit. I am just trying to hang on until I get my life back together and every little bit of free food helps.

    You can read about what it is really like to be homeless at my blog.

  • Ruski

    Many people here are pinning this on him being rich.

    I disagree. Rich people donate quite a lot.

    This BS has nothing to do with him being rich.

    It has everything to do with him being a commie.

    • Brandon Slattery

      I thought Communists believed in sharing food and food for everyone?

      • Bohemond

        How many millions of people people did Stalin deliberately starve to death?

  • None Of Your Business

    How many more centuries do we have to put up with that jackass in the Mayor’s office? How much do you want to bet he rams through yet another law granting him yet another term? Who says the United States doesn’t have dictatorships?

  • WTF

    Remember, God loves desperate, homeless, hungry and well-trained snipers with PTSD.

    • randeesavage

      U rock, dude! Theburger’s already got a hole in his head, it’s almost redundant.

    • Balana

      ROFL! This is like someone who is dying of thirst in a desert and being informed that the ice cold bucket of water must be analyzed for chemical content before it can be ingested. 1/3 of the homeless are veterans. Really shameful. I salute Bloomberg with my middle finger.

    • Ray Simpkins

      You wonder why people keep voting these Liberal Rule Makers in again and again and again! From me, a one time Democrat who woke up years ago! No parties perfect but these guy are over the top. Screw Bloomberg! Donate the bagels and soup anyway, a picture of the police taking the food back and blocking the way to the hungry homeless would be great press and front page news!!

      • Suzy

        Bloomberg converted to Republican and has also ran as an Independent but he is not a liberal. And if you think about it both sides make “rules” that don’t make sense. Have you heard about all the Republicans lately making “rules” about women’s reproductive rights. Get a bunch of people together, protest Bloomberg and the agencies and make them change the policy.

        • bob

          Suzy; you cannot be further from the truth. You have believed the lies that the liberal media and officials like Nancy Pelosi has spread, and I have to call you on it.

          NO Republican has proposed anything rule or legislation or anything else regarding woman’s reproductive rights. None PERIOD! The debate is strictly as to who should pay for Birth control. Obama believes that the Govt should. But thankfully, there are a few conservatives fighting against this issue. They are not saying you cannot have birth control. They are not saying that birth control should be limited. They are not trying deny any access to birth control. They are obnly saying that it is NOT the Govt roll or responsibility to be paying for YOURS or ANYONE elses birth control. If you want to have sex, fine; but YOU pay for your own Birth Control. If you cannot afford it, than don’t have sex. Its a ssimple as that. If you cannot afford a car, than you either take public transportation or you walk. The Govt doesn’t give you a car.

          That is the problem with you Liberals. You feel that you are entitlted to everything and if you cannot afford something, than the Govt should pay for it. Well the Govt is made up of MY tax dollars. They don’t just make money appear. Secondly, the Govt is BROKE!!!! there is no more money in the till. Wake up.

          Back to the issue, there is NO ONE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOU GETTING BIRTH CONTROL !!!!!

          • Jay

            You’re kidding, right?

          • Pam

            BOB…YOU can’t be serious can you? Why is it that YOU as a MAN can get viagra (so you can have sex) paid for by your insurance company but women can not get birth control MEDICATION paid for by their insurance company. AND please tell me exactly WHY I should be subjected to conferring with my employer and explaining to my employer why I want to take a contraceptive medication and let my employer NOT my doctor and myself decide if my health insurance (which I PAY a premium to every month) will pay for it? Have you ever heard of HIPA?? I am not supposed to have to share any of my health information with anyone who I don’t want to share it with. I really, really, really don’t understand why my employer who, in the MAJORITY of instances is not a medical professional., may make a choice about MY health and over ride myself and my doctor? You are right, the laws don’t keep me from getting contraceptive medications, but a very large amount of women use these same medications to control medical issues that have nothing at all to do with birth control as well as those who may use it for birth control.

            So……if the my health insurance (I know you said “govt”…but that is addressed below.) doesn’t buy me a car and they shouldn’t buy me my medical treatments WHY is it that YOUR health insurance should pay for you to get a chubby so YOU can;’t have sex. IF YOU (MEN) CAN’T AFFORD YOUR OWN VIAGRA, DON’T HAVE SEX…….Why aren’t you saying that also??? I’m so glad you as a guy made this horribly offensive and biased post because it shows exactly what the feeling is out there by these MEN who have introduced these regulations.

            WHAT Obama did was introduce an initiative to make medical insurance EQUAL for men and women. EQUAL coverage for everyone. IT’s bad enough that the insurance company can already over ride our doctors when it comes to treatments and medications since they (who don’t know me or my situation) can deny what my doctor says I need for my own health and well being…I sure as hell don’t want anyone else butting their nose into my health business and I don’t think you would appreciate that either.

            The other aspect of these biased regulations is are those talking about religious morality. ALL of the Repub candidates have said it’s an attack on the church….. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE??!!!! Yes, I do understand religious freedoms, however I also understand EQUALITY. If I as a non religious business pays my insurance company a premium that covers medical procedures and medications for my employees, then the Catholic CHURCH can pay for the SAME medications and procedures that I pay for. Also……the law also allows for women who have ovarian cysts or need hormone treatment etc to get their medication covered by their health insurance (insurance to which they make a monthly premium payment.) It’s called EQUALITY!!! Covered equally no matter who you work for.or what you medication is for.

            Lastly…..YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO WAKE UP!!! Medical insurance coverage is NOT PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT OR WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS. DUH!!!! it’s paid for by the employer and the employee. They are called premiums payments. They are usually taken out of each check of an employee along with their taxes. HOWEVER, what your tax dollars ARE PAYING FOR, are all the young girls who have several to unlimited children (because not having sex if you can’t afford birth control DOESN’T work.) YOUR TAX DOLLARS are going to all the girls and their children who are living off of food stamps and welfare checks. Many are also getting govt stipends to help them pay their rent or buy houses, buy their Ipods, fancy cars etc.

            Soooooo……IF you want to continue to support the WAR on women with the attitude of “if you can’t afford birth control, don’t have sex…..go ahead, but you will be losing many, many MANY more of your tax dollars than you would should women be treated fairly and have equal rights when it comes to medication coverage based on decisions made in conjunction with their doctor. (by-the-way….the latter would cost you ZERO of your tax dollars.

            WAKE UP BOB and get with reality.

            • Bohemond

              What business is it of the Government’s to determine what coverage MUST be included by a private insurer and private employer? And, no, your distinction doesn’t really hold water: you are still expecting to be given something at others’ expense, as decreed by government mandate– even where that mandate bulldozes the free-exercise rights of a religious institution. Would you like to see synagogue-run soup kitchens required to serve ham sandwiches?

              Do get this through your head- neither you nor any one else has any sort of “right” to Free Stuff.

              • Pam

                Then WNY Bohemond do YOU (men) get FREE VIAGRA so you can get a chubby and have sex??

                And, yes, I would like to see a Synagogue-run soup kitchen serve ham. If you do’t eat ham, then don’t eat it. I am so tired of hearing about churches and their “rights”…they don’t pay taxes, they hardly have anyone to answer to for anything, yet they rape and ruin our young boys and it has taken YEARS and YEARS to bring that to light. And I am sick and tired of religion being shoved down my throat. YOU LIVE in AMERICA, then agree to equal rights. All insurance companies have to provide equal; health insurance WHY shouldn’t churches provide that as well?

              • Pam

                And contraception is NOT FREE….I would be paying for it with my premium and co-pay just like I do my other medications and procedures….JUST LIKE YOU (men) and your premium payments and co-payments for your viagra, medications and procedures. WHY ARE YOU SO SPECIAL to get your recreational medications covered when I can’t get my much needed (for my health….I am single and haven’t dated in years.) medication covered as well????

                • AJG

                  Everyone else would be helping you pay for it. Your premium isn’t going to go up because you want birth control included, everyone’s premium is going to go up. Bottom line, if you, or anyone else wants a benefit like this, including Viagra, pay for it yourself and stop trying to get the rest of us to finance it for you. Deadbeats!

              • Pam

                Well….I’ll tell you right now…..I live in Massachusetts. Repub Candidate Romney butted his nose into our health care and created a bill that REQUIRES ALL MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE OR PAY A PENALTY AT TAX TIME. So…when I do my taxes I have to show proof from my insurance company that I had insurance for the last 12 months, or I have to pay a heavy penalty.

                Since you say: “what business is it of the Government’s to detrermine what coverage must be included by a private insurer and private employer?”…..I SURE hope you are not a Romney supporter because you’d then also be a Hypocryte.

            • Ed

              Hey Pam, you idiot, Viagra treats a pathological medical condition. What pathological condition does the diaphragm treat or other birth control methods treat? Furthermore, insurance plans cover Viagra because they want to, not because the government is forcing them, you imbecile. And please spare us the “war on women” nonsense that the Dems are all parrotting.


              • Theresa

                You are a fool. NO woman will vote Republican now. “Viagra treats a pathological medical condition” ???? LMAO!

                Birth Control, however does. as a MAN you have no say it this, you are the idiot, while you are calling names.

                The Republicans are pure evil, they hate, hate hate, and now doing even more to place the good against the evil, like you.

                • The Truth 1

                  The Republicans and Democrats are owned by the same elite, there is no difference. It’s all an illusion to keep everyone divided. Look at what Obama is doing, that is flat out evil, taking away rights, assassination list, there all evil.

              • Pam

                Ed…I’d use YOUR words and call you names but I am NOT that LOW>……. HOWEVER…… I don’t believe that the issue here includes a DIAPHRAM…it includes ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES!

                I didn’t ask for FREE Birth control. I asked for Health insurance coverage for my oral contraceptive which I HAPPEN TO USE FOR HORMONE REGULATION NOT BIRTH CONTROL. It’s would not be FREE to me, I’d be PAYING a monthly premium and probably a co-p;ay…IT it NOT FREE.

            • camille

              Well said!!!! Bravo!!!!

            • Glow

              Viagra is not covered by most Insurance policies, sorry but claiming it is, is a myth, The use of Viagra is used to treat a medical condition, Birth Control is not a medical issue and is not needed unless your not responsable for your own body.

              • Bennu

                This is EXACTLY why people who are no healthcare professionals have no business making laws regarding it. Any woman should know that birth control pills are used for many purposes unrelated to reproduction. It helps with irregular periods, with hormone regulation and to help with severe PMS symptoms and cramping. Men probably wouldn’t know this, who are not in the healthcare industry, because there is no reason for them to know it. There is also no reason for them to be regulating women’s healthcare decisions. It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

            • JDkelley

              Y’ask me, I don’t think that Viagra/Cialis/whatever (the “mycoxaflopin” family) should be covered, either.

              What SHOULD be covered:
              – Life-sustaining medications
              – Pain control medications (if you think they’re luxuries, you don’t suffer from chronic pain. I have THREE recurring scrips for post-traumatic pain, plus a TENS device and a cervical traction device.)
              – Medications that directly and significantly contribute to “quality of life” (read; they help you become active and functional.)

              What should NOT be covered:
              – Everything else.

              If we’re not going to over contraception, there’s no sane reason why we SHOULD cover ED meds – especially in light of the fact that we’re on the verge of global overpopulation as it is (which makes me almost willing to reverse the situation, but that would be hypocritical.)

              And yes, I’m a fella and I think this.

            • Bob

              This story is about food being denied to the homeless. Where in the story is birth control mentioned? Im trying to read comments about Bloomberg’s food policy and all I get is this.

          • Alex


            I’d like to correct you on a some things you brought. First, there have been laws that are intended to limit access to birth control and limit women’s reproductive rights, aside from the debate over whether or not birth control is covered by insurance.

            1. The Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell (by god, a republican!) was trying to pass a bill to force women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrsound. While this is indeed a common medical procedure, it is a discussion between a woman and her doctor, not an instruction to be ordered by the state. Beyond that, the language surrounding the bill was disgusting and hateful. The bill specifically stated that the woman must undergo this procedure “against her consent.”They were trying to pass a law REQUIRING WOMEN SEEKING ABORTION TO UNDERGO THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF RAPE BY INSTRUMENT. Talk about limiting reproductive rights. Nevermind if the woman seeking the abortion was made pregnant by rape – no exceptions for anyone. Additionally, one of the people pushing the bill actually stated that the women had already consenting to having something shoved inside her vagina when she got pregant. Yes, because a woman chooses to have sex with one person, she is open and fair game not only for all men, but also for any other physical object a person could think to shove inside her. Please don’t miss my sense of sarcasm here.

            2. In Arizona, there is a law on the table requiring women to explain why they are using birth control and would allow any employer to pull coverage of birth control if they are using it for, well, birth control. There is another proposed bill that would actually allow women TO BE FIRED FOR USING BIRTH CONTROL. Again, how is this not trying to limit reproductive rights? By the way, the bill is proposed by, you guessed it, another republican.

            You state that “if you cannot afford it, don’t have sex.” You have clearly demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of humans and your total detachment from the real world with this statement. Did yo uknow that in areas that practice abstinence only education rates of teen pregnancy AND stds are the highest? That’s because they’re not taught, or really allowed, to protect themselves, but hot-blooded hormone-driven youth, they’re still dealing with sexual urges that yes, most people do give into. To think that people will abstain from sex because they “can’t afford it” is absurd and frankly, naive.

            A question for you: have you ever questioned the coverage of viagra by health insurance? Neither have any of the people claiming that “the governament shouldn’t pay you to have sex.” At least birth control has other medical benfits. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VIAGRA IS SO MEN CAN HAVE SEX. Yet, I don’t hear you saying that health insurance shouldn’t cover viagra. The arguments raging in this country now are specifically over women’s ability to have sex safely and control their reproduction. There seems no question that men should be able to have sex whenever they wan, with whomever and at any age. THAT is why discussions around viagra haven’t come up. This country only seems preoccupied with when, where and with who women are having sex with.

            Furthermore, sex is a 2 (or more!) player game, yet traditionally the cost of birth control has fallen solely on the women because they’re the ones who take the pills. Sorry, but if I’m taking bills so that WE as a couple don’t get pregant, then you should be half financially responsible. Yet I’m sure it’s never even crossed your mind that you could or should pay for half of your partner’s birth control.

            Please do your research and be informed on all of the ways women’s reproductive rights and health are being attacked. Federal funding has been pulled from Planned Parenthood, even though an incredibly small number of their overall procedures have anything to do with abortion and the abortions given through PP have NO government money funding them. Planned Parenthood is one of the only resrouces for poor and unisured women to take care of both their reproductive rights and their health (PP provides literally hundreds of thousands of pap smear (testing for cervical cancer) and breast exams (testing for breast cancer) a year).

            This country is currently waging a war against women’s ability to have sex freely, to controlt heir reproduction and to maintain reproductive health. I hope you come to recognize this in time.

            • brian1024

              Let me set a few things straight… Most people in America only know what they hear on the news so to assume that the average person would agree with Viagra coverage is wrong. When only a few insignificant voices know about it, who will hear them? Next: I am against insurance covered birth control of any kind and am against viagra coverage. One of the main problems with birth control coverage is the idea of the government forcing a business to do something. This would be akin to forcing a bakery to stock a certain pastry because of some groups ‘right’ to a healthy option at the shop.
              Not many people bring up the issue that birth control coverage is a business decision. I have heard the argument that birth control saves everyone money because it prevents the eventual paid maternity leave, etc. If this were entirely true, especially to the extant that is often claimed, then the businesses would offer free contraceptives. Rather than forcing something upon a business, try and talk sense with those responsible and let them make the right choice for them.
              Also, many people claim the health benefits of women’s birth control. If all of these people are solely talking about the pill, than they are sadly misguided. Woment who wrongly think that the pill will protect them end up with increased rates of stds. If women (and men) feared stds more, maybe they would be more protected. condoms are an important part to protect oneself when having casual sex, but have not really been discussed.
              Finally, you would be well advised to strike your arguments better. You try to prove your side of the issue by denouncing certain practices of those on the opposing side. Just because someone is irrational does not mean that your argument will be strong if you are irrational. In order to prove your point you need to compare and contrast all of the implications of all sides of the issue. Your sole bit of evidence is that poorly educated teens have sex and contract stds because they were only told to practice abstinance or else. This says nothing about the idea of using birth control (or which types should be used). To prove something speak unbiased facts and let the reader decide, don’t spew garbage about a few cases while disregarding the rest of the problems at stake.

              • Another Woman with a Voice

                A few cases? How clueless are you? Look at the middle of America – where teen pregnancy is the highest. We’re not talking a few cases. But you clearly do sound like an ill-informed man who has not paid any attention to this matter.

                “The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20.”

                The two women before have made very clear, and very well-laid out arguments about this issue. It is YOU who need to inform yourself and read from an unbiased point of view and pay attention to facts and not opinion.

                • Ed

                  So what? None of you ridiculous “War on Women” nitwits have even remotely made your case that an insurance company should be forced to pay for your birth control. There is no right to free birth control in this country, and if you think there is I DARE YOU TO PROVE IT. Moreover, the Viagra comparison is beyond stupid for multiple reasons, the number one being that the government does not force any insurance company to cover Viagra.

                  • Another Woman with a Voice

                    Men who oppose it should really be looking at this the realistic way. You won’t be having much sex if women’s birth control isn’t covered by insurance. And don’t pressure us when it happens.

                    If it was men who had to bear the bulk of the responsibility and take birth control, damn bet it’d be covered. Isn’t it kinda curious why at this point no one has come out with a pill for men? It’s a story that’s been covered before, it’s because most men wouldn’t take the responsibility. And the product would tank, because few would buy it, let alone be sure to take it. Surely, it’s easier to kill off sperm with a natural toxin, than regulate a woman’s cycle through hormones.

                    Women’s birth control is extremely pricey as an individual buying it. About $100/mo. Whereas insurance companies can negotiate and refuse to pay retail, getting it for 50-75% less. This isn’t a $6 box of condoms.

                • brian1024

                  A few cases: yes this person mentioned about 2 laws in which that comment was in direct reference to. Learn to read for context please.
                  Whether or not girls get pregnant is not only the girl’s fault, but also the males (obviously rape is a different issue entirely). Do you advocate free condoms paid for by insurance to further reduce the amount of pregnancy cases? This is a very similar ideal. One of my main points was that relying of the pill also leaves a girl open to contract stds. We need to protect the women in our society as well as the men. The most effective way would be male (or female) condoms. You must realize that this is not just a health issue. One of the problems with covering this on insurance plans is that all women would qualify. when ALL people will receive a service, it defeats the purpose of insurance. You will actually be paying more for birth control due to the added effect of the middle man in the insurance company. If a plan covers men and women, then the men are also paying a premium for womens birth control (a man should contribute to his partners protection) but that is a decision that they must discuss. Men still must provide condoms (in most people’s opinions) which get expensive. I am not arguing whether or not birth control can be helpful to some people, I am arguing who should pay for it and why.
                  The idea that religious freedom doesn’t apply due to “separation of Church and State” as mentioned by one of the above posts (I think what you referred to as well-laid out) is a gross misunderstanding of the constitution. Many try to quote it without understanding its actual wordings or intentions. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. This clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion, and prevents the government from singling out and or aiding a specific religion. By disproportionately making some religious groups pay is breaking this clause. This also infringes on the practice of their religion via not allowing them to refrain from birth control. The issue of religious liberty is much more complex than can be laid out here reasonably…

                  • brian1024

                    Not to mention that there is no right to insurance in this country. Hospitals are not allowed to deny life-saving procedures, therefore you will be guaranteed ‘life’, where possible. Read the constitution and find the clause that allows government to take over American Healthcare.

                    • Pam

                      I’ll do you one better…..take a toddler with a temperature of well over 105′ to the hospital and be denied care (catastrophic for a toddler)for him because you have no insurance or have your teenage son arrive via CARE FLIGHT to a hospital from a car accident with injuries that quite likely might kill him and have the hospital staff tell you that he can not have any care besides what he received in the helicopter until an adult arrives in person to SIGN for responsibility for payment of the bills. (and the closest adult who can do that is over 400 miles away) .then tell me that “hospitals are not allowed to deny life-saving procedures” and that I am “guaranteed ‘life’, where possible.. BOTH of these have happened to me. In different states over a span of 20 years. So don’t tell me that everything in the Constitution is adhered to as it is written.

                      Andy maybe you ought to read in the Constitution where is talks about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.MORAL reasons are the ONLY reasons I’ve heard so far that Churches and Govt have cited to not allow coverage of oral contraception used as a medication or a birth control medication. AND, please show me where in the HIPA statement it says that my employer (If I lived in AZ currently…and who knows what states will follow.) has the right to know what medications I take, WHY I take them and then has the right to decide if I get to have them covered by my health insurance for which I PAY a monthly premium, based solely on MORAL their feelings.

                    • brian1024

                      This is a large problem in our society. Everyone seems to be hungry to sue, therefore many use this as an excuse to delay treatment, etc. I understand this is a problem.
                      As to the constitution, that is not abided by all too often. Sadly it is largely ignored and mostly a non-issue because it is ignored.
                      I was merely stating statute, not how it is carried out.

                  • Pam

                    WHY does providing for coverage of oral contraceptives “infringe on the practice of their religion via not allowing them to refrain from birth control”? IF an employee doesn’t want to use oral contraception or use birth control, then DON”T USE IT. The law does not require women to use birth control just because it is covered by their insurance. The IRONIC thing is that it’s the Catholic church that is complaining about covering oral contraceptive medications because Catholic religion does not allow birth control, yet something like 90% of Catholic women actually USE birth control.

                    And I can’t argue with you more about the cost……I have not focused on Birth control as the issue here but since you bring up the cost. The truth is that the cost for providing birth control vs not using any is astronomically lower than paying for medical care for a pregnant woman and labor & delivery costs as well as post natal costs. It costs MUCH more to be pregnant and have a baby than it does to NOT get pregnant in the first place.

                    • brian1024

                      I’ve mentioned cost in a post on this article. In short if it were a good business decision (which it appears it is) to provide oral contraception to insured women, as opposed to pay for through maternity leave, then that issue should be brought up in mass to the insurance companies themselves. Not the gov’t. For all those out there who believe this, buy stock (one share is enough) in an insurance company and argue for the financial soundness of this.
                      Look, I’m not against birth control, I’m against the government mandate.

                    • AJG

                      “MORAL reasons are the ONLY reasons I’ve heard so far that Churches and Govt have cited to not allow coverage of oral contraception used as a medication or a birth control medication”

                      Then you haven’t been listening to the argument, or you are selectively listening, or you are lying. (In that vein, I don’t for a minute believe your earlier statements about a baby with a temperature of 105, or a patient being brought to a hospital by air ambulance after an accident being denied care.)

              • Another Woman with a Voice

                BTW – You know, you didn’t make your case very clearly for someone who’s telling others how to make their cases. But it sounds like you’re saying people should be using condoms more often as birth control instead. Wow would we be in trouble if we left it up to them. This is a KNOWN fact.

                First of all, if it were up to the women, men WOULD be using condoms – regularly. Look-up the symptoms for any STD and you will often see that it’s likely that a man won’t show signs of being a carrier, damn bet that the woman immediately will. We get yeast infections just from having sex, what do you guys get!? Other than off? You see, warm, moist dark places are just the kind of place where things like to incubate. Not bright sunny spots exposed to air. (Excuse me for the directness, but it’s been clear for too long that many men just don’t seem to know how this all works.)

                It’s men who refuse, avoid, give every excuse they can come-up with, not to use them. I had one boyfriend trick and lie to me, that he had been wearing protection, when it turned out he was not. We are pressured constantly on this topic. It isn’t our job to police, and we shouldn’t be made to feel bad because we insist. Alex is right, women bear the burden of having sex AND the repercussions. What would you know about this Brian? Why don’t you help us lead this battle with men, see if maybe you can get them to take ownership over the responsibility of having sex as well as the women? Think you can convince your brethren to wear condoms? I wish you luck.

                Secondly, if you are talking about a “few cases” when it comes to reasons that doctors prescribe the pill for reasons other than sexual activity, you should really look that one up too. There are loads of them. A few more informative resources for you:


              • Pam

                Brian….I’ll address just one issue at this point.

                Oral contraceptives are also largely used to control MEDICAL issues for women. They are used to control Cervical Cysts and Cancer and hormone regulation and more. Right now at this minutes I have to pay FULL price for my oral contraceptive which I use for hormone regulation. There is no other medication to help me with this issue.

                Can you tell me how this should be handled? Why should I have to pay for a MEDICAL TREATMENT AND pay my monthly health insurance premium and co-pay? You get your medications covered (and I’m not talking about Viagra) by your insurance, don’t you? Why should I have to pay DOUBLE to get my medication, or why should I pay a premium and co-pay when I don’t get full coverage for my medications?

                IF you have decided that I should get my oral contraceptives covered by my health insurance coverage because I have a HEALTH issue that I need them for, how would you suggest that this be regulated? Who gets to decide what I can and can not have covered by my health insurance (that I pay a premium every month for) besides my doctor and myself?

                AND finally…..have any of you who think women should be questioned about why they take a certain medication and then THAT person (not their doctor) gets to decide whether the person can have that medication covered or not (or even keep their job or not.) ……have any of you even thought about what this opens the door to? Once someone (not our doctor or the insurance company.) is allowed to decide our medical futures, what will be next??? Passing these laws will open the flood gates for pretty much anyone OHTER than ourselves and our doctors to make decisions about our PERSONAL HEALTH CARE.

                • brian1024

                  Once the government gets the power to regulate insurance, what will be next??? Vegetables reduce the chance for cancer, lets provide them via insurance, vitamins improve health, excercise improves health, cheerios can lower my cholesterol, moving away from high power lines decreases chances of cancer: should insurance cover moving costs, why leave it at birth control?

                  I do believe that you misunderstand the point of insurance. Insurance is a preventative measure we take so that when something bad happens, we can survive financially, and perhaps physically. You don’t buy car insurance to pay for safe driver courses or new tires (both of which are preventative measures that would reduce the chance of a claim). Insurance does not provide preventative measures, it is the preventative measure.

                  I don’t believe insurance should cover viagra, but that is not my choice, it is the insurance companies. If people purchasing the plans don’t agree with this then petition the insurance company in question. The viagra issue is, or course, a different thing entirely because the government isn’t requiring it.

                  • Pam

                    Funny…this conversation seems to have come full circle. Once the govt has control of one issue, they will move on to the next. Health insurance is a HUGE issue to have control of….next maybe they will restrict what we can donate to other no matter if it’s healthy or not? And, look here, I don’t think Bloomberg has even check it for salt content has he? he’s just banned it!!! Well done, dictator.

                  • Pam

                    Brian….you have no answer to my question about oral contraceptive as a MEDICAL treatment. It IS a treatment. (and whether that treatment is valid and who decides if it’s valid or not.)

                    So…are you telling me that insurance should not cover my medication for hormone regulation or that those taking it to care for their ovarian cysts should not have it covered?

                    And…what about yearly physicals, dental teeth cleaning, and Maintenance medication? Some are preventative and some are ongoing maintenance. It seems that you are telling me that my insurance should not cover anything that is not catastrophic….which would mean if I got cancer or a life changing illness? I wonder if you are taking any meds that are not connected to a catastrophic illness and if so, are they covered by your health insurance?

                    And about car insurance……ummmmmm….my son was almost killed in a car accident last summer. His HEALTH INSURANCE did not pay a penny for his care because they assume that he will get money from the driver of the other car which he will have to use to pay an attorney AND his medical bills. He will end up with very little in the end to compensate for the fact that he has been through excruciatingly painful procedures, he has been out of work for almost a year now and there is no guess as to when he will be able to go back to work. (and he has to wait till he’s totally healed before he can even start to file a lawsuit.) Luckily he is only 19., so he will likely bounce back and he has me, his father, siblings and friends to help him emotionally and financially through this tough time.(NO INSURANCE is helping him survive right now.) He has had a CATASTROPHIC health issue fall upon him and his health insurance has said “NO DICE”. (so even if he doesn’t get enough from both CAR insurance companies he will be screwed…he still will have bills to pay. AND they would not treat him until an adult arrived at the hospital to sign responsibility for the bill should he not be able to pay them. That someone was me…so if, in the end, he can’t pay all the bills or if he had died as a result of accident, I will be/would have been responsible for them.) So, the car insurance issue is MOOT. (by the way…my son was a PASSENGER. He was asleep at the time of the accident with his seat belt on. He had/has NO responsibility regarding this wreck. But he still may be screwed. Tell me…what is he paying health insurance premiums for if they aren’t going to cover his health issues, especially catastrophic ones like you say it’s for above?. I’m not saying that the health insurance company should cover his injuries,. What I AM saying is that NO type of insurance coverage is simple as to say it is……… to cover catastrophic illness.

                    • brian1024

                      Simple answer: Whatever an insurance policy says it will cover, as dictated by the insurance company in the original contract should be covered. If the insurance company does not honor its promises as laid out in its policies, then they need to be forced to comply. Also, those involved should start a movement to force the company into honest shoes via newspaper articles, boycotts, etc. It is a dangerous game but with cooperation, hopefully good can be achieved. If a policy does not cover something, than it is futile to try unfortunately as it wastes time and money of both the organization and more importantly the individual. Phony claims, insurance fraud, etc increase premiums for all unfortunately with no one the better for it… I am sorry about that situation.
                      As a treatment, I would advocate its use, only that that instance is not the issue of mandated birth control coverage. If a procedure is proven to cure a malady, not prevent it, then it would be good for that to be covered. I would hope that insurance companies would make it clear what is covered so that people may choose the policy that is right for them. I would also advocate other treatments in addition to help with ovarian cysts. I had a friend whose mother who had ovarian cysts: they ended up removing her ovaries.

                    • Glow

                      99% of all Insurance Policies already cover Birth Control Pills for the medical issues you mentioned. Sorry but again your wrong. BTW A months supply of birth control pills cost an average of 9 bucks a month, Viagra, if your lucky to be one of the few that have insurance to provide it, because most don’t, cost over 20 bucks a pill.

                    • michelle

                      The point that seems to be missed over & over is not whether insurance should or should not cover something… that is not the issue… the issue is that it is NOT the governments job to require someone to go against their religious freedoms – which is in fact covered by the constitution… as a woman I don’t want the government to require me to do anything that goes against my beliefs. We expect government to cover our own responsibilities… that is a current thought process… never was before…

              • Pam

                Thank you Brian.

                • Pam

                  And, Thank you Alex…

                  • Pam

                    Sorry…I meant Alex, NOT Brian….

            • Benjamin Crabbe

              well said. the hell with the haters.

            • Theresa

              Thanks Alex. You are obviously an enlightened soul, unlike these neanderthals. You’re a good man.

          • The Truth 1

            Actually, the Federal Reserve that prints our money makes money out of thin air, that is what inflation is, and that is where most the debt comes from. It put’s the country in debt by design, to bankrupt the country to gain control, and the wolves are hiding as liberals and conservatives, paid off, this is to make the people accept the one world government easier.

          • Middleroad

            Bob you are doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing. Any statement of “you people” is judgemental and offensive no matter what the group. Live and let live, people.

        • Bohemond

          Bloomberg, not a liberal???????? Especially in light of the ur-liberal piece of idiocy under discussion?

          And ya gotta love “all the Republicans lately making “rules” about women’s reproductive rights”. An interestingtly dishonest way to spin the debate over a supposed “right” to be given contraception for nothing, and whether the Catholic Church should be forced to do so.

          • Adam

            Perhaps you missed all the state legislatures that have been proposing bills regarding abortions and the rights / access to abortions by women.

            And they will not be given birth control for “nothing”. The employee / employer receives a benefit for their employment called Health Insurance. This is paid for as part of the compensation for the work that is done by the individual.

            And the argument is to have the birth control included as part of standard health plans as although it is called “birth control”, it actually helps multiple health issues for women. Why is this common health product excluded when other items (for example viagra) are covered?

            • Bohemond

              Your last point is valid- why *should* Vigra be covered? Or rather– what business is it of the government ‘s to mandate what a private insurance company and a private employer do or do not cover?

              As to your first point: infanticide is not a “reproductive issue.”

              • Adam

                umm. I don’t think infanticide means what you think it means. A baby would actually need to be born for infanticide to happen.

                The process of conceiving, bearing a fetus for 9 months and giving birth is all part of the reproductive process. Therefore, health care relating to any of that process IS a reproductive issue.

                Forcing a woman to have a wand stuck up her vagina (see transvaginal ultrasound on google if you need help) in order to have an abortion is absolutely a reproductive issue. And this is exactly the govt mandating what a private citizen must do (something you seem quite against when it comes to requiring birth control included in health plans. Seems a little hypocritical to me).

                • Bohemond

                  “A baby would actually need to be born for infanticide to happen. ”


                • Bohemond

                  “Forcing a woman to have a wand stuck up her vagina (see transvaginal ultrasound on google if you need help) in order to have an abortion is absolutely a reproductive issue.”

                  Except she has already indicated willingness to have murder implements shoved up her uterus.

                  • Alex

                    Early stage abortion can be completed orally with pills. Thanks. Also, consent to one act (whether you percieve it as murder or not – and I don’t) is not consent to another act! That’s one of the first rules of consent.

              • Pam

                I’m saying that health care should be EQUAL no matter who you work for. WHAT medication you are taking for WHAT purpose is not the business of anyone but you and your DOCTOR….

        • Billy

          Bloomberg is nothing but a rino

        • Glow

          I’m no fan of Conservatives, but your way off, Conservatives don’t want to ban birth control, they just don’t think everyone should pay for it.

          Bloomberg is in no way a Conservative, A conservative could care less what you eat as long as he makes money on the deal, A Liberal just wants power and control of everyones enitire lives, careers, from cradle to grave, and this is Dicatator Bloomberg to the T.

      • Theresa

        You got it Ray, and welcome to the Light Side of the force! :) Obama 2012–who else??

      • Theresa

        Bloomberg is Republican, what are you talking about Ray??

        • brian1024

          Bloomberg has flip-flopped parties and opinions enough to null any affiliation. Judge his actions, not what party he is currently identifying with. One thing is certain a true conservative would never restrict food donations… There are many out there who sadly call themselves conservative (falsely) who would do this…

    • Ray Simpkins

      Screw Bloomberg! Donate the bagels and soup regardless! It would make great press and front page news when the police block the path and stop the food going to the homeless. With Bloomdumber’s picture included with a bagel in his mouth. (He likes salt) This from a one time Democrat who woke up finally, and wonders why people elect these men in again, and again and again.

      • Invictus

        The people who voted for King Bloomberg could careless about the poor, the homeless or the veterans who have PTSD…as long as these “inconvenient” people are not seen near their neighborhoods or familiar haunts.

        BTW: Just because someone calls himself something, does not mean that he is….for example a Democrat. There are too many wolves in sheep’s clothing right now.

        • William

          So true

1 2 3
blog comments powered by Disqus
Giving Tuesday
Charles Osgood Event

Listen Live