Skip to main content

If only it were Viagra, this wouldn't be controversial.
It had to happen eventually: the war on women currently being waged by the Republican Party would eventually backfire. Heretofore, nobody has felt the repercussions harder than the other Republican leader, radio host Rush Limbaugh: as a consequence of his atrociously offensive three-day-long campaign against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, he has seen over 50 advertisers drop his show.

President Obama and the Democratic Party are reaping the benefits as well: Mr. Obama's approval rating among women has risen recently, in no small part as a result of the the sustained, misogynistic campaign against women's health. But even as the retrograde focus on an issue the rest of us considered settled decades ago makes the odds even likelier that President Obama serves another four years with a more Democratic 113th Congress, current messaging on the issue of contraceptives runs the risk of allowing future politicians with a more compromising nature to sacrifice women's interests at the altar of political expediency.

Despite Rush Limbaugh's campaign against what he possibly fantasized Sandra Fluke's personal life to be, it is very important to remember that none of her testimony centered around the primarily intended use of hormonal contraception—that is to say, pregnancy prevention. Instead, Ms. Fluke's testimony mainly centered around a friend who needed hormonal contraception as a method of controlling symptoms related to ovarian cysts. Similarly, a diarist on this blog wrote recently about a second victim of Limbaugh's hatred: her teenage daughter, who found vile notes in her locker from classmates influenced by his rantings because she was on birth control to control severe menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea. While these unfortunate examples prove the immorality and insanity of conservatism's assault on the contraceptive mandate, it is a double-edged sword.

If the defense of the contraceptive mandate, and of contraception in general, focuses heavily on its use for treatment of other medical conditions, it risks creating a bifurcation between uses that are "legitimate" for the purposes of an employer mandate—such as treatment of cysts or menorrhagia—and the use that is not: namely, allowing a woman to control her own fertility. While the comparison is not exact, it is similar to current framing on abortion: there is a distinction in the minds of the American public between abortions that are entirely elective and those that occur when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Those who oppose abortion because they believe that life begins at conception should logically treat these situations equally, but a significant portion of the public believes that abortion should be legal only in those cases because the woman is not trying to escape consequences for behavior they perceive as immoral. We are at risk of a similar dichotomy regarding contraception: if this dynamic continues unabated, there could arise a narrative that use of contraception to treat conditions like those described above is tolerable because it is not the woman's fault, whereas use of contraception simply to prevent pregnancy is intended to allow a woman to get away with supposedly immoral behavior.

The only way to avoid this outcome for certain is to be unequivocal: a woman has the right to be able to control her own fertility. This is the main message. Examples of the other uses of contraception are very effective at showing the pathetic shortsightedness and tragic indifference of the right, but they cannot distract from the key prize: fighting for a woman's right to self-determination.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts, Pro Choice, Abortion, and Pink Clubhouse.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes. eom (8+ / 0-)

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:03:34 AM PDT

  •  I agree completely (31+ / 0-)

    and what is more, it is in the best interest of both our healthcare provider and our significant other(s) to allow us that control. (Not that I give two shits about what anyone thinks)

    I even know of three women who were prescribed birth control pills to regularize their periods over a 3-6 month term, then taken off, all so they could get pregnant.  So, the pill has been used not only to prevent pregnancy, but to help cause pregnancy in some women.

    "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

    by Sychotic1 on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:06:03 AM PDT

  •  Insurance pays for viagra. I don't know of (16+ / 0-)

    any medical conditions that require sex as help.  Contraception on he other hand has much medical value in helping and alleviating many medical problems including uterine and ovarian cancer.

  •  I understand the concern, and the idea of (18+ / 0-)

    bifurcating the issue should be fought.

    But, any impetus for bifurcating the issue is a male one.  I doubt very seriously that ovarian cysts are utmost in the minds of the mass of women infuriated by this travesty.

    What'd the devil give you for your soul, Tommy? He taught me to play this here guitar REAL good. Oh son, for that you traded your everlastin' soul? Well, I wuddn' usin' it.

    by ZedMont on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:08:58 AM PDT

    •  No it's not. Women do this all the time. (29+ / 0-)

      We legitimate ourselves at the expense of other women when we defend the use of birth control for medical problems, without recognizing that unwanted pregnancy is a medical  problem, too.

      •  You're telling me the primary concern of women (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2

        vis a vis birth control is medical problems?

        That's hard to believe.

        What'd the devil give you for your soul, Tommy? He taught me to play this here guitar REAL good. Oh son, for that you traded your everlastin' soul? Well, I wuddn' usin' it.

        by ZedMont on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:06:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  conniptionfit is saying that unwanted (8+ / 0-)

          pregnancy IS a medical problem

          •  Oh, I get it. I'm a little bit dense I guess. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BachFan, skyounkin, Calamity Jean

            What I'm talking about, though, is the attempt by Republicans to separate the two.  I do think that is a male thing.  Although Republican women might verbally agree with them, statistics show they don't buy it.

            What'd the devil give you for your soul, Tommy? He taught me to play this here guitar REAL good. Oh son, for that you traded your everlastin' soul? Well, I wuddn' usin' it.

            by ZedMont on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:02:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fluke herself was doing this (4+ / 0-)

              What is notable is that Fluke herself was advocating for someone who ended up needing surgery as a result of not being able to treat a medical problem with oral contraceptives because she could not afford them.  Limbaugh basically ignored the medical implications and went berserk at the scent of female sexuality.  So I disagree with your judgment and I agree 100% with the post.  Controlling fertility is a MEDICAL need that implicates women's lives more than men's, though assuredly many men are greatly benefited and recognize that fact.  Nearly all of us have sex prior to marriage and none of us needs to apologize for that fact or for wanting to control fertility at any point in our lives.  

    •  I think the bifurcation is illustrative (11+ / 0-)

      Political issues are nuanced. One of the best ways to illustrate how extreme your opponents' position is, is by pointing to their more extreme results.

      Personally I think it's helpful to the debate to point out there are uses for these drugs outside the context of fertility. If you do that, all of a sudden the Republican position of allowing absolutist religious denial of coverage for these drugs gains another huge ground of objection: they're not just denigrating women, they're putting their health at stake.

      Now, no one that points that out is bifurcating the issue in the sense of saying one use of the drugs should be allowed coverage, and another not. It's not a policy proposal. But it is an argument that works on so many levels:

      It shows the Republican position is extreme and in-nuanced
      It shows there are legitimate risks to health
      It shows the anti-contraceptive crowd doesn't know what they're talking about, ie don't understand women's health concerns
      It shifts the debate away from slut-shaming or culture wars

      We do this all the time in politics: your opponents have a controversial belief, and you start chipping away at the support for that belief with various lines of attack that convince all kinds of undecideds. Some will be more responsive to arguments about health than about women's reproductive freedom, so why not use both?

      •  Consider the rape, incest life of mother exception (3+ / 0-)

        In the abortion debate. That's another good example of using nuance to start chipping away at your opponents' position.

        In the aftermath of Roe, the position of abortion foes was clear: they had this black and white moral conviction that abortion was wrong and should be banned. When the legislative process began, the opponents started asking questions, questions about rape, incest, life of the mother.

        Over time, many of the pro-life have come to accept those exceptions. But ther are still those who do not, and many more who are squishy on health of the mother vs life and how that's defined. Suddenly, the issue is muddy.

        If they'd stuck with an absolutist position because abortion is wrong always, their popular support would have crumbled. If opponents had stuck with a pure argument that abortion should be all about reproductive freedom, the pro-choice side would risk losing a lot of persuadables in the middle.

        To my mind, half-way arguments that chip away at what seems like a black and white issue (remember the debate started as an argument over religious liberty, and has been dragged down to arguing over the minutiae of contraception) are excellent tools to win people over to your position a step at a time.

      •  Their simplification (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jgelling, Calamity Jean

        Rush wanted to frame the argument to be  that liberals want young girls practicing free love vs. Republicans that are the moral responsible ones who don't let their young girls run around.  This was to heat up the Christian right.  Then, the "we don't want to pay for their sex," spread around the Christian right and was reinforced by Fox and O'Reilly.  Nuance is an important way to open up the conversation away from being under the Republican Right's control and to bring up larger issues.
          I would like to see the question asked more, "Do you think the overpopulation of the world is a problem?" "Is there enough fresh water to sustain us all?"

        •  With rational people this would work (5+ / 0-)

          But one evangelical minister who headed their national association was forced to resign for believing in global warming and need for responsible stewardship--the others all simply bought into the "God will provide, and if the end is His will, who are we to interfere?" mentality.  That's why a refusal to believe in climate change, no matter how many experts in the field agree it is real and it is happening right now, is a hallmark of the Religious Right.  The bible trumps science every time.

          Even Ratzi the  ex-Nazi has said that overpopulation isn't a real enough problem to allow for contraception....

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:16:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Patriarchy (18+ / 0-)

    To use an old-fashioned word.  The "right" knows what keeps it strong.  The "system" is thousands of years old based on who has "rights" and who does not.

  •  It's no surprise that the main attack on... (23+ / 0-)

    previously settled women's health issues came from a bunch of old, white, right-wing men.

    Women's rights, while farther ahead in the USA, still have a long way to go.  

    Much of the rest of the world treats women like property - and,it seems, the GOP is envious of that and want to bring the USA backwards a couple centuries.

    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

    by Candide08 on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:10:07 AM PDT

  •  Pregnancy prevention is a health issue (47+ / 0-)

    and just as valid as treatment for menstrual problems. I agree, thank you for the post.

    Reproductive health care is part of overall health care for women.

    I have also seen a meme online that contraception is an everyday need and thus not something that should be covered by insurance, because insurance is supposed to be for rare events like colon cancer. All this is baloney. What percentage of older people are on blood pressure or cholesterol medicines? Those are by no means rare, yet insurance covers them.

    Of course a single payer system would be much more rational but given what we have there is no reason why it should not cover our basic health care needs.

    I suppose next they'll say childbirth is a lifestyle choice and not rare so it shouldn't be covered either. Ditto any illness caused by overweight or smoking.

    They want to chip away at the system until nobody has coverage at all.

  •  More generally, everyone's right to their own body (47+ / 0-)

    Decisions surrounding the beginning and end of life, acceptance or refusal of medical treatment, invasive procedures, and certainly being free from torture, should be the sacred right of each individual.

    Government should not be allowed inside your skin. That's your territory.

    The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

    by Positronicus on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:12:38 AM PDT

  •  Birth control needs to be as available to women (23+ / 0-)

    as it is to men.  I'd like to see guys get questioned every time they want to buy condoms - are you married, are you sleeping with your wife, how many partners have you had, does your mother know. And then disallow the purchase.

  •  Limbaugh's lost 50 advertisers? (4+ / 0-)

    Really?  Unfortnately the damage is rather spotty it would seem:

    Though national advertisers are fleeing Rush Limbaugh after he called a birth control activist a slut, Baltimore seems immune to the exodus.

    Executives at WCBM, 680 AM, the affiliate that airs the Rush Limbaugh show locally, said Tuesday that not a single advertiser has dropped out

    link
    •  Driven off the air just like Beck... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nellgwen

      If those people were not so resourceful, they probably wouldn't have gotten on the air in the first place. Seems they have enough money to pay people to handle this stuff along with all the other forms of self-protection they have in place.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:27:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Politico says Rush is losing 98 advertisers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, qofdisks

      You might want to re-think those ties. - Erin Brockovich

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:55:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe the disparity in the numbers reflects (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell

        (at least) three different categories of advertisers:
        1.  Those who have cancelled their advertising on Limbaugh permanently.
        2.  Those who have suspended their advertising temporarily in protest.
        3.  Those who have told Clear Channel they don't want their ads airing on controversial programming (like Limbaugh's and others), but are still paying for advertising on other Clear Channel programs.
        I believe the 98 figure reflects this latter group.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.  This is simply my understanding of the wording of various news reports.

        Nothing amuses me more than the easy manner with which everybody settles the abundance of those who have a great deal less than themselves. --Jane Austen

        by feeny on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:33:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, but Rush was dropped by WBAL (0+ / 0-)

      (the main AM radio station in town for those who don't know) a few years back, and picked up by the much smaller WCBM. I suspect that article refers to the local advertisers, and the article did say that some of them were holding their ads. This also relates to last Tuesday, so wonder where they stand now.

      But in all reality, this whole advertising issue is part of the theater. Advertisers will make a big show of dropping their support but will quietly come back. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

      What is really sad, though, is that the Sun, which used to be a truly excellent newspaper, covers this story from WCBM as if it's a good thing that they haven't lost any advertisers.

      Diversity may be the hardest thing for a society to live with, and perhaps the most dangerous thing for a society to be without - W S Coffin

      by stitchmd on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 03:09:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Settled Issue (12+ / 0-)

    Like the sleeping dog, you're going to mess with this one at your peril.  And the sleeping dog can bite just as hard as any other.  Don't wake the sleeping dog and you don't take quite as stunning a loss at the polls in November.

    Whether anybody's using contraception for medical issues (including a friend of mine whose cycles were so irregular that this was required to make them more normal), or for birth control, I don't care.  You have every right to do so.

    My friend now has two children.  Would she have had them if she'd inconsistently cycled every 3 to 9 months?  I can't say, I'm not a doctor, but it seems unlikely to me.

    The Republicans are thrashing for an issue to motivate voters in November--they already see a weak field of candidates.  They chose the wrong issue.  I'm unimpressed by their intelligence, but that's fairly typical.

    (-6.25, -6.77) Moderate left, moderate libertarian

    by Lonely Liberal in PA on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:20:53 AM PDT

  •  Why are we pussyfooting around this? (26+ / 0-)

    Why aren't we putting forth that women having autonomy over their own bodies is a moral good in and of itself?

    Are we that afraid of the popes and pulpits that we still think they, after all their scams and hypocrisy, have all moral authority?

  •  About their religious freedom side of the argument (13+ / 0-)

    they are saying that employers should be able to make exceptions for coverage based on their religious beliefs. I really don't thing they want to carry that to its obvious conclusions: that when your employer is a Jehovah's witness, her or she can refuse coverage for your blood transfusions, (sorry about that denial for heart bypass surgery) or a Christian Scientist- oh, you want chemotherapy, not prayer for your illness?

  •  What about the men? (21+ / 0-)

    For every act that requires contraception, there is a man involved.

    Why does the whole debate seem to ignore the obvious benefit to men of women preventing unintended pregnancy? Like men are standing on the sidelines somewhere, piously avoiding all sexual contact until they are ready to father kids? Instead of working every last strategy to get women into bed?

    Women who use birth control aren't just selfishly protecting themselves: they are protecting men, and saving the insurers money, and reducing the number of abortions.

    So let's vilify them on national radio and discourage their use of contraceptives, right?

    Makes perfect sense.

    •  Stop making sense:-) No, really, this isn't about (6+ / 0-)

      logic and reason.  It's about the persistent power of our Old Ways on a great number of us, a power that exists belo the level of conscious thought & thus is resistant to facts & this kind of consideration.  Many men (& some women) believe that men are to rule the household & women are to be sexually subservient.  These people may be otherwise kind & decent, but carry this ancient patriarchal order as an internal certain truth, with the help of like-minded people and a poor understanding of the Bible.

      This must be challenged on a deep, emotional level, where it must be confronted with its uncaring nature toward women, and it must be forced to acknowledge that women deserve a personal sexual freedom on par with men in modern life.  They must be made to realize that they don't trust women; that they are morally obligated to trust women; that this is a way of life morally superior to culturally obsolete taboos.

      Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

      by Leftcandid on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:00:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they understand the Bible just fine (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leftcandid

        or at least the P strand in the Old Testament. That was written specifically to to keep the male elite Hebrews of the time in power

        -7.75, -6.05 And these wars; they can't be won Does anyone know or care how they begun?-Matt Bellamy

        by nicolemm on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:42:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Key phrase: "of the time" (0+ / 0-)

          The extent to which we successfully draw major, public, culture-shifting distinctions in the material between That Time and Our Time is the extent to which we'll win the culture war.  

          Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

          by Leftcandid on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  One Democatic State Senator has an Answer (4+ / 0-)

      I came across  a Democratic Senator who’s approach to the Republican’s assault on women and their Health Care needs is one that should be looked at by every Democratic State Representative in every State where the Radical (Taliban thinking) Right Wing Conservative Republican Legislatures have rammed Bills of degradation on women .  

      The following was taken from her web page.
      Legislation to Protect Men’s Health

      (Bold added for emphisis)

      (Ohio) State Senator Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) announced legislation today that would protect men in Ohio from the risks of PDE-5 inhibitors, drugs commonly used to treat symptoms of impotence.  Turner’s legislation would include provisions to document that the symptoms are not psychological in nature, and would guide men to make the right decision for their bodies.

       “The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues—the least we can do is return the favor,” Senator Turner said. “It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs.”

      The legislation follows the FDA’s recommendation

      1.    Physicians would be required to obtain a second opinion from a psychological professional to verify that a patient has a true medical malady before the medication could be prescribed.

      2.    Evaluation of erectile dysfunction should include a determination of potential underlying causes and the identification of appropriate treatment following a complete medical assessment.

      Similar bills to more closely regulate reproductive health issues have been introduced in the state legislatures of Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, and most recently Pennsylvania.

      3.    When a man makes a crucial decision about his health and his body, he should be fully aware of the alternative options and the lifetime repercussions of that decision,”

      4.    Men will be more easily guided through the process of obtaining treatment for sexual impotence so they can better understand and more effectively address their condition.

      5.    PDE-5 inhibitors can carry serious side effects such as priapism, hearing loss, and vision loss, and can be detrimental to men with heart problems, including heart pain, abnormal heart rhythms, high or low blood pressure, or a history of stroke.

      6.    By implementing more intensive screenings (And an Extensive testing period over three months  to determine if the man is subject to any of these serious side effects must be followed.)  before prescribing the medication and requiring outpatient educational services, we can do more to prevent the potential side effects linked to PDE-5 inhibitors.

      7.    We must advocate for the traditional family, protect the sanctity of procreation, and ensure that all men using PDE-5 inhibitors are healthy, stable, and educated about their options—including celibacy as a viable life choice.

      "This legislation will do just that.”

      I would like to add a couple more provisions to the proposed legislation by adding the following amendments.

      8.    The physician’s office must meet all construction codes similar to those of the largest hospitals in the State.  This would include but not be limited to hallways, lavatories, labs, storage closets, delivery docks, operating rooms and emergency room facilities.

      9.    All doctors must only be Urologists (general physicians or other specialize physicians cannot participate) and obtain a State Certified Certificate and pass the State Exam (Legislation to follow) to prescribe  PDE-5.

      10.    Anyone who distributes the PDE-5 prescription may refuse on religious beliefs.

      I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

      by cobaltbay on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:08:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You make a good point. (16+ / 0-)

    There is no reason to cede ground on this issue. It still boggles my mind that there are men who don't understand that, aside from sanity, respect, and the acknowledgement of women as having the right to their own bodies, contraception has a salubrious effect on their own lives.

    Interestingly, in reading about this stuff some have mentioned that one of the major effects of the pill was the ability of women, yes, even married women, to plan their pregnancies, or lack thereof, and therefore allow them to function much more competitively in the job market. It seems that this not-so-subtle attack includes yet another element of the "good old boys club" trying to maintain the exclusivity of power by reducing the competition.

    Again, this is about power. I would be very dismayed if we see the country grant these political creatures (R-ucrazy) any more  influence.

    •  You're right- the 'old boys club' fears change, a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The grouch, Calamity Jean

      level 'playing field', equal work for equal pay, competing
      with women, equal protection under the law for women (think spousal rape or abuse being decriminalized)- so rearing it's ugly, outdated, neanderthal head (aka Rush).

    •  Of course women should (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The grouch, Calamity Jean

      have the right of self-determination, a right that men have held sacrosanct (and at the same time taken for granted) for millenia.

      Who howls louder than single men who have felt "trapped" by a girlfriend's pregnancy and who  feel that their right of self-determination has been taken from them?  

      Ha!  They have no clue.  Not even close.

  •  Thank you! (19+ / 0-)

    NEVER let them divide us into "Good " women and "Bad" women!!  It's the same divide and conquer tactic that the conservative have been using against women since forever.  And it always works out bad for us.  We are adults, perfectly capable of making our own decisions about our own healthcare, period.  Not YOUR body?  NOT YOUR DECISION!

  •  Question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    turn Virginia blue

    If San Francisco votes to ban circumcisions, should they be able to refuse to provide city-employee insurance coverage for the procedure?

  •  Romney's The Trojan Horse For Contraceptive Bans (5+ / 0-)

    He's going to take great umbridge that anyone would accuse him of wanting to ban contraceptives, but he will be pandering as hard as he can to the Tenthers who want to do it at the state level. And of course he would add a couple more "Originalist" crazies to the Supreme Court who would crush  any "right to privacy" that protect contraception.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:41:43 AM PDT

  •  Excellent point. (5+ / 0-)

    Women have the right to seek good health. For many women, perhaps even ALL women at some time in their lives, "good health" means "not pregnant."

    "The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things:"

    by one you can live with on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:43:22 AM PDT

  •  Exactly! (7+ / 0-)

    Cede no ground. Frame the debate ourselves. Protect the rights we have won.

    But let us not fight (and win!) only defensive battles. Even if we win this one on all fronts, we need to advance liberty, not just defend it.

    Joe

    Dear Ayn Rand fans: Please, would each of you just go all John Galt, immediately? Thank you.

    by CitizenJoe on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:44:35 AM PDT

  •  eventually they are going to come up against those (15+ / 0-)

    of us who do not want children at all. Which is the area i fall into. For me, it is a matter of Freedom and Liberty to live my life the way I choose to. For a band of constitution, declaration of independence loving freaks, this should be an argument they easily understand. However, they seem to love talking about our vaginas. The way I approach this with my republicans friends and family members is to talk about the sacrifices i have made in my personal life to pursue my dreams. And if someone really wants to know what i do with my vagina, well then lets hop on the table and take a look. That shuts them up right away. If they really want to have a talk about what i do with my vagina, then i think they should really get to know it, personally. Be friends with it, etc. Then we can have a discussion about what i do with it.

    Oh, and i remind them about how much i hate how they foist their kids on me, but i keep my mouth shut about it most of the time and try really hard to accommodate said kids. I deserve the same fucking respect.

    Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

    by yawnimawke on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:45:10 AM PDT

    •  TAWANDA!! (8+ / 0-)

      Good for you!  And all the other women who make this choice!

      •  LOL!! I forgot about that movie!! Lawd, I wonder (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah, wishingwell, riptide, Womantrust

        if that's where I got it from! I like to think my family had a stronger role in my independence but then our culture & women's suffrage played a heavy hand in it as well!

        I was a kid during the women's movement (a little kid) and I remember my mom, and my aunts, and cousins and all the women in my life talking about their reproductive rights and their vaginas. Especially my cousins, who, obviously, were younger than my mom and her siblings. My cousins would pull me aside and tell me about how important it was to vote because in the 20's we didn't have that right and a whole lot of women were beaten by their awful husbands and in some cases killed fighting for me. It was really powerful, as a child, to hear this. And as I grew up and came into conflict with society about what i could or could not do, these stories were always backing me up. Sure, my family may have had a whole bunch of feminist/hippies/men-haters in it but they were fighting for me to have the right to live my life the way i wanted to. I own them to continue to do what they did for me. And I have passed that on to the kids in my family, including the little boys.

        It's strange to remember those hushed talks and and fevered pleas for understanding. They wanted me to have it better than they had it. And for the most part I have. Clearly though we are backsliding. Those of us ho have chosen a different path from the "family", we have to rally around moms. Because I know way more moms who are being attacked over this than people like me. Like I said earlier, people like me don't have too much of a problem standing up for ourselves cuz we are used to being freaks. Moms on the other hand are not used to this kind of abuse.  

        Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

        by yawnimawke on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:34:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  contraception is a woman's right (14+ / 0-)

    I agree with your point. We must never lose track of the key issue being the woman's right to self-determination. We don't have to justify to anyone our use of birth control. Not to the Pope, our husbands or lovers and especially not to our employer.

  •  I agree completely (8+ / 0-)

    While I respect the argument that Ms. Fluke was making, especially in how it relates to Catholic institutions' efforts to limit access, this argument doesn't adequately address the larger issue.  And the issue is, actually, much larger than women and their right to control their fertility (for their own wellbeing), it's about quality of life for everyone and maintaining a modern standard of living.  

    Discussions about contraception and fertility need to expand now, and encompass the full impact that control of fertility has on a society.  This issue touches every facet of our society.  Educational opportunity, public health, economic mobility, federal and state tax revenues and government services, and on and on;  there is no aspect of our modern life that isn't somehow impacted by the modernizing influence of fertility control.

     It's time now to make the case that every man in this country faces more and better opportunity because his mother, sister, grandmother was/is able to control the number and timing of her pregnancies.  Truly it is the lynch-pin for a modern economy and a high standard of living for the broader population.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:47:22 AM PDT

    •  Bingo--it is an economic issue as well as (5+ / 0-)

      a women's right's issue. You hit the nail on the head, especially here:

      it's about quality of life for everyone and maintaining a modern standard of living.  

      Discussions about contraception and fertility need to expand now, and encompass the full impact that control of fertility has on a society.  This issue touches every facet of our society.  Educational opportunity, public health, economic mobility, federal and state tax revenues and government services, and on and on;  there is no aspect of our modern life that isn't somehow impacted by the modernizing influence of fertility control.

      It's not only important for economic mobility, but in these still-struggling times, it's also a matter of economic survival. If a household is missing one (or more) incomes due to job loss and extended unemployment, just how does it make sense for a couple to bring more mouths to feed when they don't have the means to do so? Does the Catholic Church (and do Republicans in government) really expect even married couples who are in dire economic circumstances to stop having sex altogether?

      From the standpoint of employers, contraception is valuable because it helps keep workers on the job and out of the hospital (or pediatrician's office, or school principal's office), or at least less of the time. It saves insurers money, which in turn saves both employers and employees money...I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, and I'm wondering why more businesses aren't backing the use and coverage of contraception...

      Seen on Facebook: "Rich people are not the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy."

      by boofdah on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:57:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually most businesses do support the use of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah, Calamity Jean

        contraception and the group insurance policies cover it.
        The RCC is a huge industry where I live, with a major hospital and medical center, many physician's offices (who provide contraceptive care), and the largest holder of income producing properties (not unusual)- in our area.  They carry more than one group insurance policy- one that excludes abortion coverage, one that doesn't (so they can attract more employees)- and there's no difference in cost to the employee in either policy.  
        Evidently Georgetown Univ. went out of their way to get their ins. carrier to tailor a policy that excluded contraceptive care- which may be kinda atypical.  But they certainly court students with high scores, esp. for their law school- w/ no requirement of being Catholic or compliance with their beliefs.  A good number of Jewish women are in fact Georgetown Univ. law school grads and didn't convert to Catholism to attend or graduate. I'm wondering just how long the Univ. has had this discriminatory policy.  And I'm wondering if they've ever had to consider the liability of denying a student appropriate medical care.  MS Fluke's friend may well have grounds for a legal 'challenge' and possibly recompense for damages she's suffered due to their practicing medicine without a medical license.  And isn't it interesting that these young women are all in the Univ. law school?  ;-)

    •  Not just the number and timing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pandoras Box, Triscula

      of her pregnancies, but the number and timing of her giving birth.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:58:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When will a politician have the guts to say (16+ / 0-)

    that if you're having sex (married or not) and don't want a baby, using birth control is the moral and responsible thing to do?

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:49:22 AM PDT

  •  let's face it: (7+ / 0-)

    men have been trying to control women's fertility since, well, forever. The awesome power of a woman's body to produce a child has been under attack by Christianity (and other religions)  for centuries, and their "solution" has always been to try to remove her power through suspicion, demonizing, and a whole range of other debasing tactics. And self-serving politicians have always been eager to join in.

    But women (and men) are fighting back, as they always have and always will.

    Thanks for this important diary!!

    •  at least 5000 or so years (0+ / 0-)

      there is some evidence that it has not been forever everywhere, Catal Huyuk, Minoan Crete...

      -7.75, -6.05 And these wars; they can't be won Does anyone know or care how they begun?-Matt Bellamy

      by nicolemm on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:45:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am in vigorous agreement but (7+ / 0-)

    might I suggest that the best frame for the debate is that "all people are sovereign over their own bodies".  The "people" part is meant to include men directly in the frame.  I am male and am totally in favor of women's control of their fertility.  But deep in the emotional/political brain the religious right has be a bunch of busy beavers creating linguistic connections regarding all things sex related.  The objects of their brainwashing are essentially insane regarding anything sex-related.  Why not by-pass their frame all together rather than argue with an insane person?

    Even right wingers (especially right wingers?) are always in a tizzy about government control and are deeply suspicious of any government solutions.  Why not "hoist then on their own petard"?  The narrative becomes:  We want to leave government out of people's most personal and private decisions; our opponents want a multitude of police running your life.  (Insert more graphic image where needed)  Such a narrative spans abortion, contraception, and several other wedge issues.  It is gender-neutral and could snap many men out of their stupor to support justice.

    I know there are many logical and ethical arguments to be found supporting your position but in the end this has nothing to do with ethics or logic.  It is about activating key emotions using the prevailing neural connections already present in the population (including men).   Progressives are getting kicked around all over the place because of poor issue framing.  It it probably possible for someone to come up with a better frame that the one I suggest above but I firmly believe that the core logic is solid.

    The Long War is not on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. It is on the American people.

    by Geonomist on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:50:40 AM PDT

    •  Dems have elevated (8+ / 0-)

      "yes but" messaging to a supreme degree-- the contraception issue is just the latest manifestation.  It was the same with food stamps, eg ("Yes, we have them, BUT it's mostly white folks and the working poor"-- instead of saying "It's great to have a country that takes care of the hungry.")  As you say, we have to stop apologizing for progressive policies and proudly (and loudly) support them!

    •  Distinctions (0+ / 0-)

      Personal sovereignty, or possession of some right, does not carry with it a rule that others must provide anything beyond the general freedom to exercise it. Your right to free speech does not mean that others owe you the paper and ink to publish.

      May a Quaker organization operating a retirement home in a concealed carry state refuse to hire employees who exercise their right to bear arms?

      Should government compel Quakers to serve in the military in time of war? Each Quaker who refuses potentially puts the life of others who take their place at risk.

      Does an Orthodox Jew in prison have any right to demand kosher food and to decline Saturday work on chain gangs?

  •  Exactly: Why should women have to explain... (17+ / 0-)

    why she's taking prescribed contraceptives?  To have to do so is, IMHO, extremely offensive and a total invasion of privacy.

    Does a man have to go in front of congressional panels and explain or justify why he is taking prescribed Viagra?  

    Neither should have to do so.  

    Human sexuality is a fact of life--one that republicans seem to be extremely uncomfortable with.  Apparently they all believe they, their children, and grandchildren are the products of immaculate conception?  Do they want people to seriously believe they only have sex to procreate, or that they never use (insurance covered) birth control.  Really?  The very Congress persons who are attempting to take away everyone else's rights happens to have tax-payer sponsored health insurance, and that insurance provides contraception coverage.  

    This is a fight the GOP never should have started, but now that it has been engaged, the sane portion of the population should not shy away from demanding that they cease and desist.  

    •  The GOP should be called out for being (8+ / 0-)

      anti-sex. They are. They are promoting proverbial hair shirts toward increased human discomfort and shame about the most fundamental of all human activities: sex.

      I think they should go down with "We hate sex because we hate humanity" pinned to their sleeves, personally.

      You might want to re-think those ties. - Erin Brockovich

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:00:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We often have to explain (0+ / 0-)

      why we want what we want. My insurance won't pay for cosmetic dentistry, but will pay for the same procedure if it's the result of an accident. It won't pay for cosmetic rhinoplasty, but will if it is to alleviate sleep apnea.

      Suppose as a pregnant womanI go to the hospital and request an ultrasound, as I wish to be sure that I am not carrying a girl (my husband and I want only sons). When the sex is determined to be female, I request an abortion. I do this every 6 months or so until I become pregnant with a male fetus. I work for N.O.W. Should their insurance policy cover this? [Should anybody's]

      •  Taking your argument to extremes... (4+ / 0-)

        People could be required to explain why they want to get pregnant, if their reasons are acceptable to the powers that be, and if other people should be required to pay for their pregnancy, birth and follow-up care.  

        They could be asked to explain why other people should have to pay for the treatment of illnesses brought on by such things as drinking alcohol, smoking, eating the wrong foods, failure to get the proper amount of exercise, failure to get enough rest, etc, etc.  

        We all might have moral, ethical, or some other sort of (logical to us) arguments for why we should or should not be expected to pay for this or that health insurance claim--but that is a slippery slope, and at some point our own arguments could well be turned against us to deny care for things we think should be covered but someone, somewhere does not think should be.

        •  Should an employer that believes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurious, Womantrust, Calamity Jean

          homosexuality is a sin be "forced" to pay for insurance that covers HIV therapy drugs? That's a great example that will come up if the Republicans get their way on the birth control issue.

          The optimist sees the glass as half-full. The pessimist sees the glass as half-empty. The realist just knows she's thirsty.

          by Cali Scribe on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:46:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The GOP's next argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      (actually a part of their current argument) is, "Yes, you can control your own body, but we can make you pay full price for that control and we reserve the right to put as many restrictions on that control as we can think of."  Of course this argument will only ever refer to women's control over their own bodies; men will always be allowed unregulated control, publicly subsidized whenever possible.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:07:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why? (11+ / 0-)

    This is 2012. Why is this even in question anymore?
     

    a woman has the right to be able to control her own fertility
    Maybe because men are asking again?  

    Really?  Every part of me belongs to me. That's all I'm going to say, other than to remind you self-righteous, faux-pious asshats on the Hill that you're only 48% of the population...

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:56:37 AM PDT

  •  So Republicans want to campaign on a 19th (4+ / 0-)

    century issue? a major distraction to what is really happening in the world today. Because no matter how much they blabber on the issue, women are going to do what is necessary for their health and their families. If such draconian legislation that they propose ever became law, there are the US courts and there is availability for birth control in dozens of other countries.

    How about discussing 21st century issues.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 08:57:35 AM PDT

    •  This has served as a powerful diversion and (0+ / 0-)

      distracted attention away from the R's failed Congress- no jobs, no economic growth, and no plans for it.  Just the party of NO continuing on as usual.  Their proudly publicly stated commitment of regaining the White House and removing President Obama from office is their one and only agenda.  And they pledge to do it no matter who gets hurt- we'd better pay attention to these words.

  •  Arguing about birth control.... (5+ / 0-)

    Reproductive rights etc., etc., is to me analogous to arguing about whether the earth is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun.  Let's be blunt, the current GOP establishment is trying find ANYTHING to run on, as they can't run on economic issues.  And they're doing a miserable, almost comical way of doing it......

  •  Practicing medicine without a license (5+ / 0-)

    is how I put it to wingers, when I am not emphasizing that women have the right to control their own fertility. And I bring up Terri Schievo, as an example of legislative GOVERNMENTAL intrusion into people's lives.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” (Steinbeck)

    by sailmaker on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:05:38 AM PDT

  •  Amen. The bigger picture is the better one. (4+ / 0-)

    Using the smaller picture can be helpful in revealing conservative hypocrisy--or better, moral inconsistency--but honestly, I think that endeavor has reached a point of diminishing returns.  Too much focus on non-reproductive freedom arguments runs the risk of a social con strategy to make BC conditionally available.

    It is valuable, though, to educate people about birth control, because many people didn't (& many still don't) know about other medical uses for the pill.   But those who would call a woman a slut for using it for its primary purpose, yet would retract their slur if they discovered the alternate medical purposes suited their cultural morality, need to be called out for judging women at all.  Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged is something that theoretically resonates...

    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

    by Leftcandid on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:08:15 AM PDT

  •  Hum..... it's already being argued. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen, hmi, wishingwell, Womantrust

    There are many companies that have insurance polices that will cover contraception ONLY for non contraceptive uses (PCOS, endometriosis, irregular cycles, etc).  Then there are policies that don't cover it at all, and yet others that cover it for anything.

    These policies have been out there for decades.  This is not new.  No one has paid enough attention to it in the past, now that the majority use is threatened, everyone is becoming more aware.

  •  Thank you. The bifurcation issue has troubled me (4+ / 0-)

    also. Birth control is a right for all people, period. That some birth control medicines address other medical needs is just an additional reason why access should be guaranteed. We must be wary lest opponents of contraception develop arguments that legitimize the uses of these medicines for some purposes while prohibiting their use for their primary purpose, birth control.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:11:24 AM PDT

  •  Moral Objections (9+ / 0-)

    We need to focus more on the basis of the attacks on women's rights. Our opponents say that the government can't do anything that would result in an abortion because of their moral objection (in this case to "killing an innocent person"). But this is not a valid basis for making public policy.

    In what other situation do we use this standard to set an absolute limit on public policy? For example, I have a moral objection to killing innocent people. Did that stop the Bush Administration from launching a war in Iraq? No, even though we knew in advance that the war was going to kill innocent people. And, in fact, the war in Iraq killed (according to reliable reports) over 70,000 innocent Iraqis.

    These were living, breathing, fully-birthed human beings, not theoretical people. But did my moral objection to killing these innocent people count in making U.S. policy on war? Does it now? No. Because that's not how we make public policy.

    Does my moral objection figure into our policy of using drone strikes to kill people the executive claims are terrorists? No, even though we know that drone strikes (and cruise missile strikes before them) have killed arguably more innocent people than terrorists. This isn't how we make public policy.

    What is good policy on abortion? Good policy is for the government to pay for abortions whenever they are deemed necessary by the person primarily affected.  That's the woman who is in danger from the pregnancy. This is basic, necessary healthcare, and we should have a system where the federal government pays for all essential healthcare out of public funds. Congress should fully-fund abortion.

    Now, I'm sure that you're thinking, "fully-fund abortion! That's never going to happen!" But, part of our problem is that we are in a defensive mode on all these issues. We need to set a goal that pushes the argument far into their territory. By setting a goal of fully-funding abortion we first, make it clear that the Hyde Amendment needs to be repealed. We take the argument away from how much we'll give in and make it about how much our opponents have to give in.

    I think we need to change the perception that their moral objections are a valid reason to stop the government from acting on any healthcare issue at all and on abortion in particular. By doing this, we build a new firewall between their objections and the debate over what the government should do. They've been working a lie for years--the lie that policy on abortion is different from other policy. It's time to call them on this lie.

  •  A woman faces death when she gives birth (10+ / 0-)

    1) In the past , women often died in childbirth.   Even with today's medicine, it can happen --my uncle's wife died during the pregancy when her immune system rejected the fetus.

    2) I really get annoyed at how the rich can hire some prostitute of a pastor to promote a political agenda under the guise of religion.   If you look at the privileges/tax benefits our system provides to religion, a faux religion makes a pretty good mechanism for a political campaign.  Especially since the FEC doesn't track who is putting what into the collection plate.

    3) If people modify their personal behavior in accord with their religion that is one thing .

    But it is something else to argue that the power of the government should be used to punish others for not following one's religious beliefs.  Especially when the religious nut has no compelling social interest that he can cite and his agenda endangers the lives of others.

  •  I like to argue for contraception coverage (11+ / 0-)

    Purely from an economic standpoint, which I've had to do a lot lately with the crazies in my own family.  

    Insurance costs are POOLED, and the fewer unwanted pregnancies in the pool the more money we all save. A 2006 study showed every $1 spent on birth control saves $3.74 of prenatal/delivery costs – and this doesn’t even include the costs for kids who might be born with birth defects, etc. The more people in your insurance POOL who take them up on preventative care, the better. Example: Person A goes in for an annual physical, her cancer is caught early, and is treatable without invasive measures. Person B waits to see a doctor until his cancer has spread, and requires expensive surgery and hospitalization, followed by months of radiation and/or chemo treatments. It’s pretty obvious our costs would be lower and we’d all be healthier if everyone was encouraged to use the preventative approach and could afford to do so.

    As for why it needs to be free:

    Contraception costs of $1,000/year may not sound like a lot to some people, but it's a major burden for students and young families struggling to get by on minimum wage jobs. Thanks to decades of FAILED 'trickle down economics one in every seven American families now live in poverty, with income of less than $22,350/year for a family of four. These families have trouble affording food, rent, gas, utilities, and clothing - let alone health care and $1,000/year for contraception. And they need contraception, to give them a chance to get on their feet economically before they have more children.  
    Contraception is among the most revolutionary of advancements in human history. It can help people overcome poverty and ensure children are born to families who want them and can afford them . . I applaud our President's leadership in making sure contraception will be affordable and available to American families.
    Then, the crazies start with, well, Obama associated with radicals and he's not even a citizen and I beat my head against the wall  . . .

    We're ALL better off when we're ALL better off!

    by susanWAstate on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:19:17 AM PDT

  •  Something I wonder (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, KathleenM1

    Why is the use of hormones for various medical purposes even called "contraception"?

    Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden 8/10/09)

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:19:37 AM PDT

    •  Because it's easier for even the dullest (3+ / 0-)

      among us to remember than "hormonal therapy."  All uses of hormone-based contraception should, in fact, be called hormonal therapy, considering both the therapeutic  and birth control attributes of the medication are hormonal in nature.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:21:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, it does 'contracept'- wheras when used (0+ / 0-)

      for 'hormone replacement' in perimenopausal and menopausal (Medicare) women, it's called hormone replacement therapy (HRT).  Same hormones.

  •  I agree but... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nellgwen, boofdah, wishingwell, Womantrust

    It all comes down to the one true fact that can not be denied. Those decisions, in the end, are between a woman and her doctor.

    I see your argument and it rings true but regardless of the rants of a psychopathic, non-ethical, voice of the Republican masses women still have rights. And I will fight to the bitter end for their rights.

  •  From Todays TacomaNewsTribune.com (7+ / 0-)

    My local paper's LTE:

    BIRTH CONTROL: It’s cheaper than pregnancy
    Letter by Robert L. McComas, Gig Harbor on March 7, 2012 at 11:16 am with 23 Comments »
    Re: “Give choice to policy holders” (letter, 3-6).

    I believe the writer is mistaken in his premise that policy holders would benefit by insurers not covering birth control. It is far cheaper to pay for birth control than to pay for pregnancy and all of the associated costs.

    If we are to make decisions on a cost basis, then women who use birth control would be given cheaper insurance than those who do not.

    If we are only interested in saving money, we should quit covering costs of erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs for men. For those who keep injecting religion into this argument, perhaps God is giving you a sign that he wants you to quit having sex when he afflicts you with ED.

    Why should insurance policy holders and taxpayers pay for ED males to have chemically induced sex? The House of Representatives should immediately reconvene its all-male panel to have hearings on the matter. This time the discussions would be appropriate as the panel and the mostly male representatives would have “some skin in the game,” so to speak.

    I also recommend they seek out former Republican Sen. Bob Dole to chair the panel as he is intimately familiar with the topic and is also blessed with an abundant sense of humor and common sense – qualities which are totally lacking in the current chairman.

    Either you're wit' us or a Guinness -- Brilliant!

    by Unforgiven on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:24:38 AM PDT

  •  It's just like the medical marijuana arguments. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Womantrust

    I believe that for adults marijuana should not be regulated. I don't think that people should need a prescription for it anymore than I think they need a doctor's note to have a beer after work either.

    How about making people get a prescription for their cigarettes? While tobacco plants may have a lot to teach us and some healing properties too, I can't think of a single medical reason for dispensing it that way, but how many churches are asking their people to keep 'the temple' smoke-free?...

    There is definitely a legitimate need for birth control for women's health, but plenty of people just want to have sex with peace of mind.

    So if people want to argue about how many lifestyle choices insurances should have to pay for the results of, let's do it that way. But can we please be honest about it? I was under the impression that with a medical diagnosis code, "hormone therapy" would be paid for, making the medical argument moot.

    Say it loud people-
    we want what we want and it's nobody's business.
    Now I'm not a rock'n'roll fan myself, but I do like Sex and Drugs and Flatt and Scruggs.  It's our country too, let the majority have it our way.

    p.s. happily married nearly 30 years- didn't realize I was such a slut until the disembodied voice-in-a-box told me so.

  •  Agree 100% (4+ / 0-)

    And, worse, this is not the end of it. What started with opposition to abortion has morphed into "life begins before conception."

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:28:58 AM PDT

  •  Rush is Paid to be a Nut and a Mental Slut (4+ / 0-)

    It never made any sense that simply telling insurance companies they had to offer coverage for certain items as part of an insurance plan that I THEN HAVE TO PAY FOR (not Rush, not tax payers, not the evil gub'mint) somehow equals being paid to be a slut. First of all, no one pays for my insurance. Second, I will have as much sex as I want, and I don't give an imaginary damn what some imaginary pundit thinks about the morality of sex according to some imaginary god.

    Rush should avail himself of some of the mental health benefits offered on the health insurance plans. I know, according to his nonsensical ramblings, the existence of such benefits means "getting paid to be crazy." But, like most things Rush imagines, the reverse is true. Since doctors would finally be helping him be sane, he could end his lifelong flirtation with mental sluttery.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:32:30 AM PDT

  •  I disagree. (10+ / 0-)

    Women and progressives are unequivocal now that women have a right to birth control/contraceptives, and public opinion polls show supported by good chunk of public too.

    The main message however, is that women have a right to abortion and a right to contraception as part of our human rights and our constitutional right of privacy giving us a right to control our bodies and our lives.

    "Examples of the other use of contraception", as you say, are not distractions. As one who had dysmenorrhea as a teenager, i assure you it was not a distraction, but impacted the quality of my life, whether i could attend classes needed to enable me to go to college and pursue the life i wanted.

    To label these other medical uses of birth control as a distraction is a failure to understand our bodies and our health and how they are interconnected with our quality of live, economic and life choices, and generally with women having a right to control our bodies and our lives as a human right to equality that is still not recognized with an equal rights amendment.

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:33:08 AM PDT

    •  You know, someone needs to ask Mother (6+ / 0-)

      Nature why there are 2 sexes in the lifeform called homo sapiens? There are other lifeforms on this planet which procreate w/out the need for 2 distinct sexes. In the eyes of Nature, both sexes are equally important. The female is actually a little stronger because she carries the young to full term and then gives birth. Try to put a guy through that one. Ho-hah!

      I took BC for two very important reasons: #1-birth control; #2-abnormally heavy hormones which caused me to go through living hell w/menses and PMS. The BC hormones were a godsend which evened out the imbalance. It was no fun bleeding so heavily that I was constantly cleaning undergarments, sheets, etc. It was also a potentially dangerous condition cos  it sapped the heck out of the iron, calcium, B-12 and other essential nutrients that my body needed.

      This whole deal is a power grab by the males. If a guy went through what I suffered (and other sisters on here), there would be no argument at all.

      Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

      by orlbucfan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:53:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  10 Other Uses of the Birth Control Pill (5+ / 0-)

      You're so right!  

      Most of the Right Wing nuts are at a dead loss to understand the complexities of a women's body and the vast amount of quality of life benefits "the pill" has been able deliver.

      Besides Dysmenorrhea here's seven major areas this perscription drug is used for along with three addition areas doctors have expanded it to.

      1.    Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS): is a hormonal imbalance which causes irregular menstrual periods, acne, and excess hair growth. Birth control pills work by lowering certain hormone levels to regulate menstrual periods.
      2.    Endometriosis: Most women with endometriosis have cramps or pelvic pain during their menstrual cycle. Birth control pills are often prescribed to treat endometriosis and work by temporarily preventing periods.
      3.    Amenorrhea from low weight, stress, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy.  Birth control pills replace estrogen, which helps to regulate the menstrual cycle. Normal estrogen levels are important for healthy bones.
      4.    Menstrual Cramps: When over-the-counter medications don't help with severe cramps, birth control pills may be the solution because they prevent ovulation and lighten periods.
      5.    Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS): Symptoms of PMS such as mood swings, breast soreness, and bloating, along with acne can occur up to 2 weeks before a young women's period. Birth control pills stop ovulation and keep hormone levels balanced.
      6.    Heavy Menstrual Periods: Birth control pills can reduce the amount and length of menstrual bleeding.
      7.    Acne: For moderate to severe acne, which over-the-counter and prescription medications haven't cured, birth control pills stop acne from forming.

      Other Medical Benefits
      8.    Taking birth control pills, women are less likely to get Anemia (low number of red blood cells, which carry oxygen from the lungs to the tissues).
      9.    Birth control pills lower your chance of getting Endometrial (Lining Of The Uterus) Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, and Ovarian Cysts.  
      10.    Birth control pills have been prescribed in combating certain types of Arterial Sclerosis. Normal estrogen levels are important for healthy bones.

      I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

      by cobaltbay on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:54:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is a concern, though, which I think that (7+ / 0-)

      Dante Atkins is pointing out, that the whole controversy is moving the Overton Window on birth control and abortion.

      While you and I, as diehard feminists, believe that reproductive rights are not to be compromised, those less adamant might be willing to see some nuance.

      They would be wrong.

      But if we allow them to move the "abortion is a right only in cases of rape and incest" or "hormone based birth control pills are okay only for medical conditions" closer to the "acceptable" in the Overton Window then it opens the door to those who want to make it impossible for women to control their bodies.

      Words have meaning and your words will reflect what is in your soul.

      by JanF on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:04:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  how do you think women would react (5+ / 0-)

        if anyone tried to bifurcate birth control uses and purposes? Most of the public supports birth control, even Catholic women. Many women have used birth control for non-contraceptive purposes or have sisters, mothers, or friends who have done so. So i agree with you, my sister feminist, that the "they" would be wrong. :)

        But i also think labeling the other uses of birth control as a "distraction" is  offensive. My own "distraction" resulted in a catholic doctor giving me a habit forming percodan rather than birth control. My "distraction" kept my out of school a week each month, missing classes, to which my catholic doctor responded "don't worry your pretty little head over college."

        Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

        by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:17:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree! (6+ / 0-)

          Distraction surely seems to suggest that we can't keep these things straight in our "pretty little heads". Most women I know would not have this problem.

          The sad truth is that women are not always the ones making policy decisions.

          Unfortunately we have a LOT of work to do to simply not go backwards.

          Words have meaning and your words will reflect what is in your soul.

          by JanF on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:42:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I so agree! I don't really (3+ / 0-)

          want to be "told" how to carry on these discussions. I had hormonal therapy so that I could conceive.

          My daughter needs to take them for chronic anemia from excessive bleeding but resists taking them because people might think that she's taking them so that she can have sex!

          It's maddening. Women need to talk about this issue within the realities of their experience as a woman. It's only political because some men made it so!

          In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

          by vcmvo2 on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:31:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "It's only political because some men made it so!" (0+ / 0-)

            You are correct. It is what is so infuriating about this latest attack on women's rights. We have settled policy and then the right-wing decides to use women's health to excite their base. What kind of base is excited by the prospect of women suffering needlessly? Don't answer that! We already know.

            The religiousist wing of the Republican party has long had it on their wish list to eliminate any form of birth control. They were excited to find the perfect candidate to advance this agenda in Rick Santorum. What is pitiful is the extent to which this appears to have become a policy issue in 2012 for both parties.

            Women's reproductive freedom is not a policy issue. It is a basic human right. Until we make it an undeniable human right we will keep having these fights over and over and over again.

            Words have meaning and your words will reflect what is in your soul.

            by JanF on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:56:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  This: (5+ / 0-)
      The main message however, is that women have a right to abortion and a right to contraception as part of our human rights and our constitutional right of privacy giving us a right to control our bodies and our lives.
      I think you're right on, PDNC. While we certainly have a right to control our fertility, that falls under the larger umbrella of our basic human rights. And I think it's a mistake to rely on any sort of "choice" language when it comes to women's health care. Women have medical conditions to be treated with medical care. The "choice" is choosing the best option as presented by one's doctor. We certainly don't apply choice to most other parts of medical care. If you break your arm, and your doctor tells you it should be in a cast, do you really "choose" to do what your doctor advises? No. You have a medical condition, the doctor tells you how to best treat it, and you do so (if you can afford it, of course).

      We need to get "choice" out of our language when we talk about women's health care and get back to the concept of rights, as in our equal right to full access to all medical treatment our doctors recommend to us for our various medical conditions, be they ovarian cysts, pregnancy, fertility, infertility, breast cancer, or any other condition our bodies experience.

  •  I think the danger is that even if Democrats win, (6+ / 0-)

    the discussion shifts to the right. We need to control the narrative, not just the government. It seems the Republicans always get to frame things (like the ACA or what "values" means).

  •  "It's Not a Child -- It's Your SENTENCE!" (8+ / 0-)
    a significant portion of the public believes that abortion should be legal only in those cases because the woman is not trying to escape consequences for behavior they perceive as immoral.
    I know that by the number that observation is true.

    But Jesus Hussein Christ that is really sick.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:57:23 AM PDT

    •  yep - doncha just love the "child as punishment" (5+ / 0-)

      meme from them

    •  Fate is how God makes His Will known (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      I think that is a pretty ancient feeling.  It probably predates monotheism.  The great mystery that we see played out in what we call "fate" is something that you don't mess with if you have any respect.

      That then is a very primordial and deepset way of seeing the world and human existence in relation to it.

      That part of the human societal development that has always been progressive has always wanted to find a better way and this begins with questioning such things as the absolute necessity for accepting fate as it is.  

      Thus, this is an older argument than one about birth control, which is a modern innovation, going back only a hundred years.  

      It will take some people way longer to be able to move on.  I would suspect that this argument will be around for several more generations at least.  

      In the meantime, these atavistic arguments cannot be allowed to prevail - anywhere, anytime.  

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:56:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have been thinking the same thing n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box

    The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion. Molly Ivins

    by MufsMom on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 09:57:58 AM PDT

  •  Dead on. (7+ / 0-)

    If we cannot control our own bodies--our own reproductive systems--all the laws mandating equality are worthless. If you are pregnant in high school ( a very likely possibility for sexually active teens who don't use contraception) it's damned hard to get an education which will lead to a good job and the ability to lead your life without depending on a man financially. Knowing you have a job and can support yourself makes it easier to avoid or leave an abusive or unhappy relationship.  

    Contraception is the key to women's autonomy---which is precisely why the Catholic church and the Religious Right and the GOP want to ban it.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:10:17 AM PDT

  •  I think BOTH arguments must be made (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tchrldy, Womantrust, Calamity Jean

    It's critical that people understand that hormonal therapy is crucial to the health of many women, over and above contraception. It's unfortunate that even Sandra Fluke, in her testimony, called hormonal therapy used to treat cysts "contraception." They are NOT the same, and the fact that employers treat them the same is inexcusable.

    That said, I agree with absolutely everything you said above. I don't think it's necessary to conflate the two uses of hormonal therapy in order to defend the legitimate use of both, and to demand that both be included in comprehensive health care coverage.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:50:41 AM PDT

  •  Time for young women to stand up! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Womantrust, Calamity Jean

    I said a  few year ago maybe young women have to lose their rights  before they understand what is at stake. Then maybe they will fight for them. Well we are pretty close to that now.

    Today young women take it for granted. Women my age fought for the reproductive rights young women enjoy today.  Many of us know what it is like to get an illegal abortion, or have no access to birth control, even as  a a married woman. When the right started an all out at attack on our abortion and privacy rights in the early 90s we marched, and got fired to fight for those rights.
    1. No woman should ever have to apologize for having sex, using contraception, or having an abortion.

  •  A woman has the right to sex for pleasure (4+ / 0-)

    Isn't that the point?

    Isn't that what they want to regulate?

    What do we want? Compromise! When do we want it? Now!

    by itswhatson on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 10:53:02 AM PDT

    •  The larger point is the issue (0+ / 0-)

      From my experience with born again culture, I think the larger point that is at issue isn't about sex.  

      There are sub rosa issues.  

      The main issue is that God should decide the sacred issue of who is born into the world and men and women should be concerned solely with doing God's will.  

      Arguments about how many billions of people could be at risk without population control overall, about women's health in any dimension, or about sex are all secondary and to the born again crowd, non issues compared to the central point.  They
      are, however, useful if they can't get their way on their main interest.  

      One thing that should be understood about political born again culture, is that opportunistic alternative arguments are eagerly used because they utterly dismiss the validity of "unrighteous" argument.  

      You can't argue with these people.  You have to be concerned with education.  Thus, it behooves everyone to be very interested in who is on the local school boards.  

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:48:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The mantra of many who oppose abortion and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      contraception:  "sex for pleasure is a sin against god"!  And that old standby- 'the wages of sin is death'!

  •  reproductive rights is a civil liberty for women.. (5+ / 0-)

    Be a part of the not so radical idea, that ALL women regardless of race, income or age should have Access to a Full range of reproductive rights.

  •  I have to disagree with you. (5+ / 0-)

    Birth control has long been considered necessary preventative health care, and the president's new policy reflects that view. Every medical and social study has shown that planned pregnancy, which requires contraception, is better for women's health and the health of their children. That, I think, is the point. We are talking about health care, not lifestyle choices. Even the choice to be sexually active without popping out babies every nine months is really about health care because that's better for women's health.

    The other, non-contraceptive purposes of birth control highlight, rather than distract from, its purpose: health care. Whether it's to treat ovarian cysts or prevent pregnancy, it is one of the easiest, cheapest and best ways to improve women's health. I think that, not the language of choice, should be our focus. The choice language has been a losing argument for decades and it reduces basic health to stupid red herring arguments of lifestyle choices. As if women would choose high-risk pregnancies or even death (we do have a maternal death epidemic in this country, after all, mostly attributable to lack of basic health care).

    I appreciate the way you're trying to think through the best argument here, but I disagree with your conclusions.

  •  Recently I argued with a born again friend (4+ / 0-)

    This person had been a journalist for some years by now and I had reconnected with him on FaceBook.  

    We went back and forth for some time.  He was promoting the idea that because people around the turn of the century believed in Eugenics, and because Margaret Sanger had been quoted in 1914 as saying something generally positive, and since she was a founder of Planned Parenthood, ergo the concept of Family Planning is imbued with eugenics.  

    I went around a few times trying to point out that no one I had ever met, and I have met some really strong advocates for family planning, had the least interest in eugenics.  He returned with yes they do and didn't need to even talk to anyone in the clinics or the social work or advocacy around them.  

    The center of the argument was arrived at when I pointed out that the history of human population growth, the first billion being reached in 1830, the second in 1950, five billion by 1975, and now 7 and counting.  

    I pointed out that we were in a crunch and that very likely if we did nothing about it, billions would die.  He felt that the earth could sustain as many people as needed and God would provide.  

    Thus, no need for birth control.  Also, God's plan was for women to be subservient to whatever happened.  He points out the wonder of holding a premature child that went on to thrive and was horrified at the idea of aborting it.  

    That feeling is the argument.  Evangelicals believe that other people are in error.  Period.  This is a logical locked door.  

    This is why education has become a battleground.  Make no mistake, abstinence only is a program based on making sure that children are brought into the evangelical camp.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:20:15 AM PDT

  •  I made the same observation recently (4+ / 0-)

    and believe that if we keep framing women's rights to autonomy in terms of emergency care or exceptional circumstances, women are writing a road map to exactly what kinds of burdens and interference with that right they are willing to tolerate.

    Fuck all that.

    I tolerate ZERO interference.  

    If I want birth control or to have an abortion it's my damn business and I can have either for any goddamn reason I want.

    A woman's right to birth control or abortion isn't any greater because she has a medical condition that birth control pills can treat or because she was a rape or incest victim.

    STOP.
    GIVING.
    GROUND.

  •  Yes! (3+ / 0-)

    Thank you for saying this--I have been dismayed with the way this debate is playing out.

    Elizabeth Drew, of all people, has a piece in the New York Review of Books (you can read it at their web site right now) that blasts Rush but also criticizes Democrats for having a young, single woman as the panel speaker! She says they should have gotten a nice respectable married lady--I'm not kidding.

    I literally can't believe that in 2012 we are having this debate in this way. Even liberals cannot seem to bring themselves to acknowledge that ALL adult women have a right to access to birth control. This is not a favor to be granted by male politicians on the basis of their moral judgment of particular women--oh, let's have a nice married woman ask the Republicans for birth control, pretty please, and maybe they will let us have it.

  •  I see your point but don't agree. (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, we could bring this argument back to a women's right to BCP for their usual and customary purpose.  But I don't see the need really.

    I think whenever someone on the right suggests that maybe bcp could be allowed/mandated but only for those other medical purposes, would then mean that the government was getting into our bedrooms and doctors offices.  

    And isn't this a felony on the right?

  •  Possible explanation for war on contraception (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Womantrust

    White republicans see the coming of white minority. Oh the humanity!

    Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. -Douglas Adams

    by rambler american on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 12:06:25 PM PDT

  •  Contraception: what digby said (0+ / 0-)

  •  CS pills for medical needs are covered at GTU (4+ / 0-)

    I've not read all the comments, but I want to point out that another reason why those of us who are in favor of all insurance policies should not rely too heavily on the "contraceptive pills are needed for medical reasons like ovarian cysts" is that this may already be covered in the insurance at Catholic institutions.

    My husband is a Georgetown faculty member, and I recently checked our coverage. Apparently the coverage for the law students is different from the insurance policies offered to the GU employees. Our policy does pay for contraceptive pills if they are medically necessary. Presumably that covers dismenorrea, ovarian cysts, and women for whom pregnancy poses extraordinary medical risks.

    I can't say whether other Catholic institutions follow the policy of GU but it is quite likely that they do. Also, the public debate has focused entirely on pills and condoms. I was looking only at the summary of GU's insurance given to employees during Open Season, bu I did not see anything that said that our insurance would not pay for an IUD, cervical cap, diaphragm, or spermicidal jelly.

    Changing the subject slightly, an argument in support of Planned Parenthood that I'd like to see used more is that even in metropolitan areas women with health insurance use PP as their Primary Care doctors. My daughter had insurance that required her to have a GP serving as the gatekeeper to specialist services. We live in Washington DC, but she couldn't find a GP taking new patients. Finally, I suggested she go to PP, and she ended up using PP as her Primary Care doctor.

    My daughter works full-time for Starbucks, so she falls into the category of "working poor with insurance" like so many employees of companies like Starbucks. I can't believe that she is the only insured patient who goes to Planned Parenthood.

  •  Idiotic Republican candidates (0+ / 0-)

    With issues like the exploding federal debt, the continuing war in Afghanistan, the controversy over Obamacare, a stubbornly high unemployment rate, the utter failure of Obama's green jobs initiative as exemplified by the high-profile failures of Solyndra and other companies that received billions in taxpayer money, the pipeline fiasco and truly frightening sovereign debt crises in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, etc. we are truly blessed that the stupid Republican presidential candidates have allowed the narrative to be changed to contraception. It's unbelievable - no one has proposed outlawing contraceptives and there is zero chance of any change to the current status quo but, in order to outflank each other on the political right the Republican presidential candidates have assembled themselves in a circular firing squad on a non-issue with no advocates. At this rate Obama won't even need to buy a single ad to win re-election. It's unbelievably lucky for our side. As long as we can scare enough gullible women into thinking the Republicans want to take away their BC pills to tilt the election none of the serious issues will even matter. It's hysterically funny.

  •  Sandra Fluck's plan exclude Viagra coverage (0+ / 0-)
    If only it were Viagra, this wouldn't be controversial
    From the Georgetown University health plan site:
    Exclusions
    No benefits will be paid for: a) loss or expense caused by, contributed to, or resulting from; or b)
    treatment, service or supplies for, at, or related to:
    ...
    6. Dental treatment, except for Injury to Sound, Natural teeth;
    ...
    14. Injury sustained while (a) participating in any intercollegiate or professional sport, contest or
    competition; (b) traveling to or from such intercollegiate or professional sport, contest or
    competition as a participant; or (c) while participating in any practice or conditioning program
    for such intercollegiate or professional sport, contest or competition;
    ...
    16. Organ transplants;
    ...
    19. Prescription Drugs, services or supplies as follows, except as specifically provided in the policy:
    a) Therapeutic devices or appliances, including: hypodermic needles, syringes, support
    garments and other non-medical substances, regardless of intended use; (except as
    specifically provided under the Benefits for Diabetes;
    b) Birth control and/or contraceptives, oral or other, whether medication or device; except as
    specifically provided in the policy;
    c) Immunization agents, biological sera, blood or blood products administered on an outpatient
    basis;
    ...
    h) Fertility agents or sexual enhancement drugs, such as Parlodel, Pergonal, Clomid, Profasi,
    Metrodin, Serophene, or Viagra
    ;
    ...
    21. Reproductive/Infertility services including but not limited to: birth control; family planning;
    fertility tests; infertility (male or female), including any services or supplies rendered for the
    purpose or with the intent of inducing conception (examples of fertilization procedures are:
    ovulation induction procedures, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer or similar procedures that
    augment or enhance reproductive ability); premarital examination; impotence, organic or
    otherwise; tubal ligation; vasectomy; sexual reassignment surgery;
    http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/...
    The Master Policy on file at Georgetown University becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. on
    August 15, 2011 and terminates at 11:59 p.m. on August 14, 2012. Coverage will be in effect on
    August 15, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. through August 14, 2012 at 11:59 p.m. for students who enroll during
    the fall enrollment period. For students who enroll in the spring, coverage will become effective on
    January 1, 2012 at 12:01 a.m. through August 14, 2012 at 11:59 p.m.

                 Annual*     Spring Semester*
    Student Only $ 1,895.00 $ 1,209.00

  •  You speak the point (0+ / 0-)

    I have been making on other sites. Who cares why the woman is choosing to use oral contraceptives? It is her right and her body. I keep asking these men, who do they plan to f**k if the little woman decides to keep her knees together as they so smugly suggest!

claude, Chi, glitterscale, Liberal Thinking, nicolemm, mimi, OLinda, bookbear, Creosote, Bugsby, Heart of the Rockies, bronte17, 88kathy, foxfire burns, annrose, AikidoPilgrim, mikidee, Geonomist, smokem2271, ivote2004, sngmama, Bill Roberts, Texknight, draghnfly, Catte Nappe, bwintx, Diana in NoVa, lyvwyr101, eve, oortdust, ExStr8, historys mysteries, qofdisks, greatferm, JanetT in MD, Flint, triciawyse, boofdah, where4art, rb608, jct, JanF, Nance, BachFan, myboo, technomage, deha, Triscula, Naniboujou, sailmaker, gpoutney, middleagedhousewife, anninla, fiddlingnero, Pandoras Box, KatHart, Cronesense, Brix, LillithMc, HCKAD, VA Breeze, JDWolverton, bkamr, kimoconnor, Calamity Jean, NYmama, Womantrust, CitizenJoe, Ann Marie Brenda, magicsister, Mike Hollis, Bule Betawi, rsmpdx, emboyo, maryabein, Norm in Chicago, followyourbliss, Denise Oliver Velez, stevenwag, mahakali overdrive, Larsstephens, BlueOak, gneissgirl, Amber6541, FogCityJohn, klompendanser, cazcee, NYWheeler, ericlewis0, cocinero, ZedMont, fiercefilms, the autonomist, I love OCD, vahana, Mr MadAsHell, La Gitane, BlueJessamine, FarWestGirl, SoCaliana, NormAl1792, mrsgoo, marleycat, IllanoyGal, thomask, BarackStarObama, EagleOfFreedom, Canuck in Ohio, slouchsock, Liberal Mole, Marihilda, bakeneko, jolux, ratcityreprobate, weinerschnauzer, MikeBoyScout, DRo, allergywoman, Dream It Real, IowaBiologist, quill, anodnhajo, ahumbleopinion, nellgwen, oldcrow, surelyujest, a2nite, jan4insight, radical simplicity, kat herder, notdarkyet, Vote4Obamain2012, Catsmeat, George3, Marjmar, surreal times, Robynhood too, Candide08, Sue B, nuclear winter solstice, Terence Dicks, desert rain, koosah, The grouch, remembrance, Archival Footage, SanFernandoValleyMom, darlalalala, hcfmully, bwtsang, LaraJones, katiekitteh, OjaiValleyCali

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site