The Democratic Party: Still Looking Out for Women's Health!
If only women didn't have those drippy, icky parts that make God-loving conservative politicians so edgy, politicians wouldn't be forced to do things like this to us. But women do have those icky parts, and thus we should understand that our job is to hush up - and be grateful for whatever crumbs we get.
Those crumbs, however, do not include routine gynecological care, nor do they include birth control. (Why am I so convinced that somewhere in this bill, Viagra is covered?)
Thanks, Democrats, for standing up for women - again! So far this week, I've turned down two fund-raising calls for the state and national Democratic party. At first, I was just angry over the Stupak amendment, but now I know I'm going to have to save that money in case I need a gynecologist.
None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.
Got that? The Pap test itself will be covered - but not the visit to the gynecologist to get it.
Granted, Congress can't--and shouldn't--get into the business of spelling out every possible cause for a trip to the doctor. No one wants the process to collapse under a mountain of requests from special interest groups à la the Clinton mess in 1993. But women, half of all adult patients, are not a special interest group. And since both the House and Senate bills include lists of specific services that must be covered by health insurance companies and be provided without asking patients for additional money, it's hard to understand why all the services provided in a basic well-woman visit to the gynecologist isn't on them along with maternity care, newborn care, pediatric dental and vision services, and substance use disorder services.
Uh, hello? Remember? Icky parts!
The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightning rods, even when abortion is not the issue.
Consider what happened when the subject of women's preventive healthcare services came up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) in July, after the minimum benefits package had already been determined. Because some essential care for women wasn't included in the list, HELP committee member Senator Barbara Mikulski proposed an amendment that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to stipulate that basic women's health services would be covered. The language said nothing about abortion, referring only to "preventive care and screenings."
Yet the voting on the amendment went exactly along pro- and anti-choice lines. The amendment passed by just one vote, with all the committee's Republicans as well as Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, voting against it. The committee's discussion of the amendment was dominated by Republicans' worry about the possibility of government money winding up in the hands of Planned Parenthood. Since there is no similar language included in the just-released House bill, the only hope for requiring full coverage for these essential services now lies with the Senate.
Good old Bob Casey! He's the same Pennsylvania senator who's now working on the Senate version of the Stupak amendment. (Hey, if you'd like to share your opinion with him, you can call him at 202-224-6324 or toll-free at 866-802-2833.)
While some within the anti-abortion movement have long opposed birth control, there is still widespread support for it among the general public, with virtually all women of childbearing age who have had sex using contraception. So why would senators treat birth control and other basic women's health services as a proxy for abortion? "People equate family planning services with Planned Parenthood, and they equate Planned Parenthood with abortion," says Adam Sonfield, an expert on funding for reproductive health services at the Guttmacher Institute. The senators who turned Mikulski's language into a referendum on abortion "either misunderstood or purposely distorted the amendment."
Such is the intellectual acumen of our elected officials. Either they're really that stupid - or pathological liars. (Or both.)
Either way, the irony of letting anti-abortion sentiment undercut the coverage of birth control is that it will likely lead to more abortions. "If women can't get this kind of primary care, there are three clear outcomes: cancer, abortions and infertility," says Anne Davis, medical director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and a practicing Ob/Gyn in New York City. Davis cites the facts that untreated sexually transmitted infections can lead to infertility, and that pelvic exams help diagnose cervical cancers. As for the importance of covering--and not requiring women to kick in additional money for--birth control, Davis says, "It's fundamental primary preventive care. So if we don't do this, we're causing a lot of abortions."
Still, some Democrats involved in the health reform sausage-making process counsel patience. Noting that both Pap smears and mammograms should be covered by a reform bill, Senator Al Franken said, "There's more we need to do for women's health, but this is a huge step forward for American women, many of whom don't get these recommended screenings right now. What we pass may not be perfect, but it will make progress in improving the lives and health of women."
Oh, Al. What would Frannie say? More to the point, what would your daughter Thomasin say?
Yet, before we resign ourselves to a very imperfect health reform bill, it's worth reminding lawmakers that women's health extends far beyond abortion. And while those who make our laws may fear the consequences of taking a stand for basic services for this half of the population, the cost of not doing it, both in terms of health and politics, is sure to be far greater.
As I said, I've already turned down two Democratic fundraising calls this week. I don't know about you, but I'm just not feeling it these days. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd swear the Democratic party just doesn't care about women.
Them's my favorites...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Are physicals even covered? They aren't with most insurance companies. I'm guessing because they are afraid we'll will find something wrong which will cost them money.
Nice cost controls.
Friendly and nice liars but it's kind of sinking in now what they are doing.
the DLC / DSCC / DCCC.
Once they threw Dean under the bus all bets were off with liberals and progressives. We are now seeing that there is no difference between a DLC/DSCC/DCCC/BlueDog/(R)emocrat and a RepuglyKKKan, except that the (R)emocrat or (R)ahmocrat will tell you that they are actually concerned for your well-being.
This bill reminds me of GATT/NAFTA and how there were supposed to be benefits.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
CafeenMan = Icky-part fan.
You could say I'm Pro-Icky-Part. :)
.
This poor conservative woman made a film of a gynecological exam she gave herself and has received nothing but grief for it. but she says its the liberal media that can't stand her sticky, drippy parts.
does that make her a Bill Clinton fan?
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Ok – I can except this. Of course it has to come with a condition. There can be no federal funding for boner pills. Given the nature of our new public option it will mostly be used by people who aren’t that financially off. Do they really need to be reproducing anyways? Wouldn’t these pills just compound the need for abortion?
http://www.intoxination.net/jamie/fine-%E2%80...
Chris Rock Viagra
who go to the doctors because they are lonely and want someone to talk to?
The insurance companys have the death panels, do they not?
I am sustained by the love of my Health Insurance Company
"Icky Parts"
What is the matter with you? Those Peckerwoods LOVE them those parts…
everyone they can get their grubby fingers on…
At least they love them until they're finished playing.
Just watch the grubby comments roll in…
Except, of course, the ones that like them their boys…
Either way they don't want their stinkin' piece of crap health bill to pay for anything to do with women's health…
But then again, this sham health bill isn't about people anyway, it is about Corporate Welfare.
OBTW - if this crap passes may the FemiNazis separate them some Peckers from their Wood…
with a MEAT CLEAVER…
Just saying!
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
...is rolling over in his grave.
http://boldprogressives.org/stopstupak/p-e1
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
... who was bemoaning gynecologists bein' unable to share ... their love ... with women?
But seriously, Susie - I'm glad I'm not the only person getting these DCCC fundraising things and ignoring 'em.
you with e-mails, etc., until they actually represent you. I told them all not to contact me until they put single payer on the table and fought for it. One group even wrote back to me and said, "Fair enough." Be loud and demanding. They want your money, but they don't want to do anything to deserve it. Don't take that from anyone.
by now that the elected reps of this country don't really give a damn about the people they are supposed to represent, then I'm not sure what it would take to convince people. There are 237 millionaires in that "elected" group!! Do you really think they care about working people?? How on earth does one become a millionaire on the public payroll??.......oh, wait.............I'm surprised that women aren't rioting in the streets!!!
but I think the point of leaving women's health care out of the bill was to, uh, abort the bill/any bill outright.
Could be. the bill is pretty messed up at this point and anyone who wants to poison it could be doing us a favor.
remember 37 or so Dems voted against it including Kucinich. There were some solid reasons not to support it. This issue is one of them.
Since women demographically make up a majority of eligible voters in the US why do you put up with this shit?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
There's still a significant percentage of women involved in a "traditional marriage" wherein their conservative husbands tell them what to think, who to vote for, etc. Get out now, ladies!
(Needless to say, the ones who should hear that probably won't be lounging around C&L.)
lounging?! If this is a lounge, where are my flippin' shade boys with my flippin' bonbons?
:P
I'm trying to understand why this news about not covering women's preventive health care isn't the only news of the day.
For this and a host of other reasons, this steaming pile of dung must be killed. It was written by insurance company lobbyists. Make our government start over with true single-payer, and we could really change this country.
the "news" is controlled by MEN...........that's why!!!
that what we have here is the fundamentalist Xian wingbats + their counterparts in the Dim party exerting their gawd-given rights to control every aspect of the lives of women.
There is NOTHING about this whole 'insurance' reform (rip-off) that has anything to do with improving Health Care!!!! It's all about money grabbing and power grabbing.
If any of this gets even close to being included in the final bill, I should think the women of America (well, except the brain-washed fundies) would declare an indeterminate holiday on sexual relations with any male. Of course, that wouldn't bother most of the Repugs in Congress, based upon what we know of their proclivities.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
It's National "Not Tonight, Dear" Day!
... than just sex.
I'd like to see these fatarsed white conservative men without their wives to cook and clean for them. If they're leeches like Mark "I Married A Millionaire" Sanford and John "Dump The Bitch, Marry An Heiress" McCain, they ought to be out on the street selling pencils for lunch money.
"I'm Sick of This" menu which consists of eggs, sausage, eggs, ham, eggs, pork chops, and eggs. And butter, of course.
Actually, my wife and I share the cooking duties. I like to cook (it's how I courted her), and putter around with baking things.
My mother taught me to cook '... so you won't starve when you're a bachelor.'
Sadly, I never really learned how to cook from either parent, but I'm not starving either.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
the spam, spam and spam.
... it makes you wonder if there's ANY separation of church and state at all.
Opposition to abortion is entirely based on religious ideology - that life begins at the moment of conception. It is not supported by scientific fact.
And it's an issue that has given rise to domestic terrorism (shootings, bombings).
so much for the religious tolerance that the country was founded on. Remember religious persecution that many immigrants ran from? We're the persecutors now.
These idiots want to replace the Constitution with the Bible and call it patriot duty.
Check It Out.
Fer a gal with her own blog, and access to one of the "A-Level" outfits, too, I'da thought you'da figgered that out ages ago. There's been plenty of evidence even before Bart Spoopit's recent excesses...
All the Dims and Obama cazre about now is getting a bill to Obama's desk. they don't give a rat's rosy red fat ass if it does anything--except protect the profits of the Health Insurance Parasites--as long as it gets to obama's desk in time for the gigantic, Super-Bowl Sunday Signing party, on the national mall, with fly-overs, guns, bands, dancers, elephants, and the release of a million white doves...
someone doesn't understand the concept of insurance: coverage for unlikely, catastrophic events.
so how are regular vitis to gynacologists unlikely or catastrophic? can't you just pay for them? there is no food insurance now is there?
because you regularily need food and there is no way that your personal food costs explode because of a condition.
there are food stamps for those who can't afford food.
so if you want government support for poor people, maybe including regular doctor visits, that's a whole other discussion.
but this is no insurance issue, and forcing insurance companies to pay for it is insane.
that's like forcing health insurance companies to cover food.
understand the concept of health insurance. Health insurance is coverage for only unlikely catastrophic events? Regular health care, especially in this time of toxic food, etc., is necessary to prevent illnesses. Forcing people to buy insurance from private companies is criminal. I don't have the patience today to debate this with someone as deluded as you apparently are. BTW, personal food costs CAN explode because of a illness. Think about it.
so why doesn't my health insurance cover food?
you didn't provide a single argument.
you said that regular health care is necessary to prevent illnesses. that's correct.
so is regular and quality food.
insurance is supposed to be for unlikely events only. that's the whole concept.
wait and see what happens to food prices as soon as everyone pays a fixed premium for it and "insurance" covers the food costs.
this has nothing to do with insurance.
going to cover food costs. You are either demented or a shill for something, although your statements lack coherence to a degree that is laughable. You said I didn't provide a single argument then you quote an argument I made. I have only one more thing to say to you: What?
I repeated what you said and explained why it wasn't an argument for this, because you could "argue" for inclusion of food in insurance with the exact same "argument".
can you understand that?
Food has nothing to do with health insurance.
I see, you can't understand that.
I ask you again, what is it all about? Answer the question. Let's get to your real point. What is your real point?
That is your OPINION, not an argument. "I know you are, but what am I?" keeps running through my mind. What are you not saying? Spill it.
We insure that people have food. This is done through food stamps.
See my larger reply here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
food stamps are not insurance.
they are welfare.
Thanks, Alice. You managed to coax the little Paulist out of its cave.
You may call it welfare, but by that welfare, we INSURE that people do not starve.
Most of us consider that a civilized thing to do.
If we were a completely civilized country, we would be interested in guaranteeing the health of our citizens.
There are a number of ways to do this, but no advanced country permits for-profit health insurance.
They all have universal systems. Some are full socialized systems, some are a mixture, a few are private.
None has for-profit health insurance, there is a fundamental conflict of interest. Next year, even Mexico will have a universal not-for profit system.
Preventative care saves lives and money, in the long run. That is what counts. For-profit health insurance doesn't care about the lives in the long run.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
> Most of us consider that a civilized thing to do.
yes, I do too. doesn't make it insurance. and MAKING it insurance would end in desaster.
just like putting non-catastrophic health care under insurance ends in desaster.
> If we were a completely civilized country, we would be interested in guaranteeing the health of our citizens.
yes. and even if you are of the opinion that a government should provide for health care, you can hand out the equivalent to food stamps for health care. welfare.
but forcing it to be covered for all people by health insurance companies is still insane.
insurance industry be reduced to offering only catastrophic coverage? Can you tell me some of the things you would consider catastrophic? Cancer? Accidental amputation? What exactly are you talking about?
savannah.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
.
that's up to the person who buys insurance. if you we wouldn't subsidize insurance through the tax code, most people would probably buy insurance only for stuff they'd have a problem with paying for out of pocket.
why would you want your health insurance to pay for a monthly doctors visit that costs e.g. 50 dollars? to pay them 60 dollars in premium so they can pay their administration and make a profit?
currently, you probably would. because if you decide against buying insurance, you pay taxes on the whole amount and end up paying more.
When was the last time you went to a doctor that only charged $50 for an office visit? What does this mean: "...if you decide against buying insurance, you pay taxes on the whole amount and end up paying more." The whole amount of what?
so after you were puzzled about a parallel, now you don't understand what an example is?
let's just end this.
the whole amount you earned. buying health insurance is tax free.
Is English your third or fourth language? Or are you just really high or something? Because your writing is sometimes very difficult to follow.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
.
You keep talking about insurance when we should be doing away with health insurance.
There should be no such thing.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
???????
... get the concept of insurance, let alone routine medical care.
A routine visit to the gynecologist is part of a regimen to assure a woman's health, both in and out of pregnancy. There's a history of ovarian cancer in my wife's family, and I *damned* well want regular visits covered, because we're looking at long term health, so any irregularities can be addressed before they become 'catastrophic.'
before the last half of the last Century - most 'health insurance' was indemnity insurance mainly to cover costs for major problems, e.g. surgery.
But, we moved to Health Maintenance Organizations way back - late 60's early 70's, when insurance execs realized what a gold mine they were. The Insurance Company of No. America (INA), the oldest fire & marine stock ins. company in the US, saw that early on and greatly expanded the idea. They were quite successful, so much so, that Connecticut General, a life and casualty company, spent millions to buy INA in 1982 and created CIGNA.
So, laws were passed to accommodate the expansion of HMOs as well as tying availability/coverage to employment, and indemnity health insurance faded.
So, this is an "insurance issue", because the insurance companies altered their practices and Congress altered the laws to make prepaid HMO's the insurance du jour. The Insurance companies have now perverted the entire practice by taking the prepaid premiums and then NOT providing the health care that's been paid for.
And, if you pay a little more attention, you may notice that the state of health care for Americans and the insurance 'industry' are both catastrophic. You are paying more for everything you buy because of it.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
you are right that it is now an "insurance issue" and that the US health care system is catastrophic.
but a new bill is about the future, and regular, even fixed costs to maintain health shouldn't be part of an insurance.
it makes no sense.
there should be some mechanism so poor people have access to regular health care.
so food/food stamps is a good example.
just imagine what would happen to food prices and the whole industry if you'd mandate coverage of quality food as part of health insurance tomorrow.
In Britain, which is a socialized system, the government owns most of the hospitals and clinics and hires most of the health care people, the doctors the nurses, most everyone concerned with health care is an employee of the government.
Conception to grave, you are the patient of the ministry of health.
They are somewhat stingy on the big ticket items, but they are very big on preventative care.
Regular checkups are the norm.
Aside from them, if you have a pain, a cough, a lump, anything out of the ordinary, you are encouraged to visit the doctor immediately, do not wait.
No one ever sees a health care bill and their health care results and outcomes are excellent. Better than ours.
Our barbaric system which is based on for-profit health insurance, does not accentuate preventative care.
On average, people change their coverage every four years, so it is not in the interest of the insurance companies to worry about such things.
And if your lump or your cough turns out to be catastrophic your previous insurance company won't care because you will be someone else's problem. If they are stuck with you, they may deny your claim. You can fight it but by the time you win you are dead.
No advanced country allows for-profit health insurance.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest.
We, are NOT an advanced country.
This sham health care reform perpetuates the barbarism.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Yeah, there are food stamps. Does this mean I can apply for vaginal stamps somewhere?
Oh ... is that why my gyn wanted me to sit on the color copier?
*
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
In honor of Veteran's Day. According to a study released by the Harvard Medical School, 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died last year as a result of not having health insurance. Researchers emphasize that "that figure is more than 14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001."
It's time for American Women to Stand-up/Speak-up for your full medical rights. Stop the rabid right-wing from restricting American womens medical choices. Call Congress and demand the "stupak-pitts amendment" be stripped from Health Care Reform. Also, demand that liebermann be stripped of his chairmanship of HSC and kicked out of the Caucus.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score's the baucus plan at $829 Billion over a 10 year period, that is paid for. The CBO also states that it will lower the deficit by $80 Billion and it would be much lower if there was a public option.
Criminally corrupt politicians are the reason the U.S. is ranked near the bottom of every catagory when ranked next to other modern, industrialized nations. Time for publically funded elections.
lieberman $12.6M, mcconnell $7.8M, baucus $7.7M, cornyn $6.7M,
kyl $5.6M, grassley $5.4M, ensign $5.2M, conrad $5.1M, cantor $4.9M,
nelson $4.9M, burr $4.8M, boehner $4.4M, hatch $4.4M, lincoln $4.1M,
vitter $3.9M, carper $3.6M were paid by the Medical Industrial Complex to kill Health Care Reform. (Source: OpenSecrets.org, Aug. 09)
Follow the Money: Link
Call Congress and demand, Single-Payer Health Care for All!
(Toll Free # House and Senate)
1-866-311-3405
Sign Single-Payer, Public Option and Health Care as a Civil Rights Petitions: Link Link Link kucinichpetition
Don’t let the Medical Industrial Complex steal your Health Care from you and your family by donating huge sums of money to Crooked Politicians in order to maintain the Status Quo. Keep up the good fight.
SEMPER FI!
Good old Joe.
That jackass is on the list of people WHO RECEIVE THEIR HEALTHCARE THROUGH A SINGLE-PAYER, GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM CALLED MEDICARE.
It's good enough for Old Joe...but it ain't good enough for us common folks.
I suggest they start doing a 501 (c)(3) investigation on those "religious" assholes.
Wouldn't that be fun?
Those clowns might have to find another place to live.
I'm sure Pat Robertson would take them in.
;-)
I don't care if it's for profit or tax exempt. I want them to keep their God out of my government.
Frankly, Senator Casey, your efforts on the current health care bill are not appreciated.
If you would just leave the negotiations to those who actually understand the medical needs of actual women, we would all be better off.
This is about half of the population whose medical decisions you are making political hay with.
Please! Just cease and desist!
We need full coverage for preventive screenings. And there are many therapeutic reasons why a woman might choose to have an abortion, including to preserve her fertility, in the case of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong.
Please just mind your own business... you and all of those other white males who think you all know better what we need than we can possibly know ourselves. Do you even have a medical degree?
* * *
(I am, after all, one of his constituents.)
When will the Democrats again be in a position to enact meaningful "change" in America?What are they actually doing here?Pushing the rights of women back into the 1950s.What the hell is wrong with this party?Are they that scared of what Rush Limbaugh might think?
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
Gee If those same Consertavatives don't like those icky drippy parts how do they reproduce?? Dam I wish their women would just say NO to those asses. Who do they think they are to deny the health coverage that all women need??
Under the covers, in the dark?
________________________
"Have you ever noticed how much they look like orchids?" --Robert A. Heinlein
...differently from men's is criminal. I consider birth control, abortion, and family planning to be vital services that should be covered in all policies for all women.
However, I don't see them as strictly women's issues, since men benefit from them as well. That is one reason why, although I understand the impulse, I think women are on very shaky ground every time they drag out "Viagra" as the evil villain of separate and unequal health care. If I am with a female partner of childbearing age, there is no question in my mind that I benefit hugely from her ability to have unrestricted access to birth control and other reproductive system services. By the same token, the last time I checked, in such a relationship (stretching far beyond childbearing years) the male is hardly (no pun intended) the only beneficiary of a drug like Viagra.
Susie, your snide comment about Viagra, risks making the impression that only men benefit from ready access to Viagra, Cialis, or Levitra. Funny, but I've never been in a relationship with a women in which my erection wasn't of significant interest to my partner, too. Although I've never taken one of these drugs, I can certainly imagine their utility in helping keep a relationship strong and whole.
I don't think that these drugs are as important as birth control and other female reproductive services, but neither should they be the butt of jokes or backhanded comments aimed at making such drugs appear to be of use only to men and their most selfish sexual needs. While there is always going to be that element, I think these drugs have potential importance for every man and woman interested in a healthy, complete intimate life.
If something like Viagra is worthy of inclusion in anyone's health coverage, then a complete women's health care package should also be available. If one were building a package from the ground up, the women's health care elements should be among the very first things included in a policy. Viagra and its cousins, if they are included, should be somewhat further down the list.
I guess my point is that I don't see any benefit is denigrating drugs for erectile dysfunction. If someone wants to make a point about unfairness, then point out that while an ED drug may be an important part of a health care package that could benefit both men and women, surely it should be considered less fundamentally important than comprehensive birth control and reproductive health services. I realize that is probably how Susie views this, but that's not how her comment sounds (at least to me).
Do we agree that the penalty for a bang should not be a baby? I think we do. Women might be more relaxed about all this if we could be sure of the outcome. I am not advocating abortion as a means of birth control, but it is a medical procedure. And if this society would consider sex as a natural act and provide good sex education and make birth control available to all children of a certain age, none of this would be an issue. All you self righteous religious types--if God gave you a brain, I'll bet he expected you to use it. If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.
Of course, pregnancy should not be the price of an "accident," even if the "accident" was, in reality, preventable carelessness -- on the part of both partners. As I recall, every time I've had intercourse in my life, I've been present and equally responsible for preventing pregnancy, even if the burden falls unequally on the woman. It may not have been romantic, but whenever I've begun to have intimate relations with a new partner, a conversation has taken place first about the facts of life. Fortunately, I've never caused an unwanted pregnancy, so I haven't personally had to deal with any unpleasantness that might have arisen. And no woman that I've been with has ever had to face the consequences of our joint irresponsibility (or bad luck).
A recent (perhaps the most recent) Harper's had a couple of factoids about unwanted pregnancy's in the Harper's Index. I won't cite the numbers because I might not get them right, but they're pretty scary. Actually, they're horrifying.
However, just because birth control methods fail or people are often irresponsible, doesn't change for me what should be a fact:
while there will always be unwanted pregnancies, there should be zero unwanted births (with the woman getting the deciding vote in every instance). And women's health care coverage should include the full range of reproductive health services, including abortion, paid for with tax dollars, if necessary.
Those religiloids who claim to care so much about abortion, should be willing to subsidize birth control for both sexes, but when the issue is one of control, not morality, it isn't surprising that they don't.
I simply won't accept that men (or Viagra) are the problem here. Think of how many right wing religious women oppose reproductive services and rights for women. The problem is people who want to control the choices and behavior of others with the emphasis in this case being on women.
(Edit - This is directed to oh really, not Susie)
rude or nasty, and I hope it doesn't come across as such, but I have to ask if you realize the long-term implications of funding ED drugs but not birth control?
Yes, ED drugs do allow men and women to enjoy pleasure in their intimate relationships, but it's also a huge example of how male privilege rules the day. You see, a middle-class or well off white older male can have his boner, meanwhile, poor or struggling white women and poor or struggling women of color, if they cannot have access to birth control, they lose a way of limiting the size of their families for the benefit of the children they may already have. How are they to be expected to feed a few hungry little mouths if one or two more hungry little mouths are on the way? And this is just one example of many.
That is why women get angry about the coverage of ED drugs. Birth Control goes way beyond whether someone enjoys a roll in the hay or not. That is what is so infuriating.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
from me just got home a little over an hour ago from the hospital. She had an ovary removed due to cysts. Birth control is commonly prescribed to prevent ovarian cysts from forming. The cysts cannot form if a woman is not ovulating regularly.
I don't know if they put her on BC or not, but what if her insurance wouldn't cover it?
But hey, some guy and and his wife/girlfriend are having a great time!
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
It's hard for me to believe you read what I wrote if you are asking that question seriously.
For my part, there is no health issue that I consider more important than birth control. It should be a cornerstone of every health care policy, and those policies should be universally available. I would like to have zero unwanted births. So, yes, Annaleigh, I understand the importance of birth control.
On the other hand, most men who are using ED drugs are probably not fathering children. Some are, but most men are married to women of similar age and by the time most men need ED drugs, their partners will be past childbearing age. So, I don't see ED drugs fueling a huge surge in births.
If you read what I wrote, then you understand that I place women's reproductive (and other) health issues far above ED drugs in importance. For me there is no contest. But the reason ED drugs are so popular with drug companies has nothing to do with denying women what is justly theirs -- high quality, comprehensive reproductive care. They're popular because they make a lot of money.
It's not like women suddenly started being ignored when ED drugs came along. These issues predate ED drugs and they will still exist post-ED drugs, unless the people of this country force their elective representatives to address them. And yes, it should be galling to women to watch a new drug class come along and be added to insurance policies, while more fundamental needs are still not being met. But what is bad is not the ED drugs are included, but that other services are not.
I understand why ED drugs are a huge symbolic irritant to women, but pharmaceutical companies aren't very interested in drugs for poor people in Africa either. When we talk about reproductive services for women in the US, we are still largely talking about a relatively privileged class of human beings when compared to the poor in other countries. However bad things are in this country, they're a lot worse for the poor in other countries, with women there suffering disproportionately more than men.
Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency of some religions (and religious people) to want control people's reproductive lives. We really need to get religion out of government and social policy.
It's late; I'm late; I've got to go.
much more than a symbolic irritant. Aside from sexual pleasure, there's only one other use for the ED meds that I can find so far, to treat pulmonary hypertension. They're still doing research on this one.
Counter that with the many, many uses birth control has right now. Not just limiting family size and helping women to make better choices, but also treating PCOS, out of control menstrual cycles, even acne.
To try and help you understand where I'm coming from at least, and maybe this is a quirk of female sexuality, but I consider my own sexual pleasure a secondary concern to my other health concerns. If there were a drug to treat frigidity in women, and I had both that and PCOS or an out of control period, etc. I'd much rather have the birth control for the PCOS!
I don't know how else to explain it. But what it comes down to is that insurance companies are more willing to assist men in having erections than to assist women in stopping painful ovarian cysts or bleeding uncontrollably. But you seem to think women shouldn't be angry about ED coverage. I'd say you're wrong in light of that one big fact.
I do acknowledge that you at least feel birth control needs to be covered, at least. But you don't seem to understand that the ED coverage pisses women off for very legitimate reasons.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Exactly. Thanks for the good explanation, Annaleigh.
:)
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
saddened that women that are in the position I've been in are more likely to get the mammograms they need than women who need gynecological care because the latter is more taboo than the former. Actually, I'm sickened by the thought too.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
anyone who can bleed five days a month and not die, right? That's the mentality at work here. That saying goes with the "old enough to bleed, etc." philosophy. Some men hate women, and some women are self-hating. See C Street, fundamentalism, the Republik party, etc. The usual suspects. Blow by them if you can.
*
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
The Nation sez: "But women, half of all adult patients..."
It's not just adult women who need this kind of care, it's also girls from the age of about 10, and the thousands of younger girls who have been and are being sexually molested.
"Within the total resident [U.S.] population in 2005, women and girls outnumbered men and boys by 4.4 million — 150.4 million compared with 146.0 million."
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-prof...
In my 66 years I've never been as ashamed of my country as I am now. I leave Crooks and Liars (my last comment) as THEY (congress) are nearly all crooks and liars.
Morality? None....
Single payer or death!
What's that?... the god botherer's are successfully descriminating against and oppressing women and have convinced their secular friends to follow their lead?
Well ladies it's time to stand up and legislate away tax exempt status for religious institutions!
Take that money and pump it into health care and education.
Full emancipation must include attacking the iron age legacy patriarch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf2nLkyd5Po
Comments are closed on this entry