GOP Kicks Women Out Of Contraception Debate - page 3

by Anxious Patient

3,782 Visits | 103 Comments

Where are the women?... Read More


  1. 2
    Quote from caroladybelle
    I would say that vasectomy would be a more appropriate topic.Given that Medicare covers Viagra, albeit in low amounts, tax money is involved. And that started in the Bush era. Wonder why no hue and outcry over that?
    In my opinion, it's because viagra isn't contraception ... it allows men to have sex who otherwise might not be able to do so. No implications for fertility. The only contraception that I know of that affect the male role are condoms and vasectomy. But, I agree, an interesting question.
    BCgradnurse and herring_RN like this.
  2. 2
    Quote from heron
    The only contraception that I know of that affect the male role are condoms and vasectomy.
    That upcoming hearing on castration definitely affects fertility.
    Medic2RN and Spidey's mom like this.
  3. 5
    Quote from Rikki's Number
    Why would anyone need a hearing on castration? And how does that apply to making religious organizations, or the insurance companies, pay 100% for birth control?

    Hey, I'm 30 years old, single, and appreciate birth control as much as anyone. I am pro-choice. But geez, can the government please stop telling everyone what to do? How about everyone taking care of their own business, including paying for their own birth control? We all need food to eat. Will the government start mandating that someone provides us with food? I need comfortable shoes for work. How about free shoes? What about a supply of tampons? Toothpaste? My employer demands I wear a bra at work. Shouldn't they pay for it? geez......
    Good questions, all ... and I agree that they need to be debated, but religious freedom has nothing to do with it.

    Why is a government mandate to provide free birth control "overreach" but a government mandate to perform an invasive procedure without medical indication or patient consent perfectly ok? (warning - if you believe in feminazis, this site will make your eyes bleed: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/articl...inia-and-texas )

    To what extent should the government act to promote the public good and when does it become "overreach"? Who decides? Why should one group get the support of public dollars and not another?

    My first instinct would be to compare the cost of free birth control with the cost of an unintended pregnancy and subsequent care for the child. Of course, the insurance industry is not necessarily going to eat those costs. If it doesn't, then taxpayers probably will.

    Then there are the statistics that seem to indicate that abortion rates go down when access to contraception goes up. I continue to be befuddled by those who rant against abortion then go all out to eliminate as much access to contraception as they can.

    It's all well and good to preach "personal responsibility" and demand that individuals pay it all themselves, but the reality is, people working for minimum wage have a hard time paying for much more than condoms - which are around 65% effective, if I remember correctly.

    If we go that route, you don't get to complain about people having too many children they can't support, or the kids who wind up poorly educated and unskilled because of bad nutrition and unfavorable social situations.

    And, yes, I've read all the stereotypes about beamer-driving, acrylic-nailed smoking cell-phone-owning welfare queens who make their living by having more babies. The image needs a little reality-testing.
    Last edit by heron on Feb 17, '12 : Reason: added link
    nursej22, BCgradnurse, OCNRN63, and 2 others like this.
  4. 2
    Quote from Rikki's Number
    That upcoming hearing on castration definitely affects fertility.
    I really wish they would do it ... it would make for some fabulous theater.

    There's a Second Wave feminist poster that reads, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".

    Or maybe it was a bumper sticker. Or maybe both, I don't remember.

    Yep, I'm one of those. Still, you gotta wonder why the contraception cops don't try to defund vasectomies.

    Does anybody know of anyone doing research into male contraception? Seems to me that men have as much right to control their own fertility as women do. Overall, they still make more money than women do in the same job, so hetero men are more likely to be able to pay for their own birth control. (An aspirin between the legs wouldn't work and condoms ... well ... So, it's clear that research is needed ... maybe a heated codpiece? )
    BCgradnurse and leslie :-D like this.
  5. 7
    Quote from heron
    In my opinion, it's because viagra isn't contraception ... it allows men to have sex who otherwise might not be able to do so. No implications for fertility. The only contraception that I know of that affect the male role are condoms and vasectomy. But, I agree, an interesting question.
    Since when is the ability to "get it up" an absolute need or requirement to live, to the extent that others should have to subsidize it, against their personal beliefs.

    There are plenty of quadraplegics/paraplegics that report having quite satisfying sex lives, without a "typical" erection being involved. Since ED is certainly a "lifestyle" issue, more so than fertility, why do ED drugs get a pass from male conservatives, while BC takes the hit.

    And why do PCP volunteer prescriptions for ED up, with all their dangers, especially for the predominant target audience of older males......without focusing on many of the techniques of sexual expression and obtaining sexual satisfaction, that are not "erection" dependent and substantially cheaper and safer? We have conservatives pushing how dangerous and how bad for society that (predominantly female) contraception is, but not one word on the dangers of ED pills, as well as marriages/relationships harmed by them (some studies have demonstrated statistically decreased satisfaction in many partner relationships after use of viagra.

    (I've always noted a certain male conservative predeliction for cigars, references to balls/cojones, and liking for the Washington Monument, tall buildings, and making the WTC replacement as tall as possible. Coincidence? I think not)
    NRSKarenRN, BCgradnurse, OCNRN63, and 4 others like this.
  6. 0
    Quote from rikki's number
    why would anyone need a hearing on castration? and how does that apply to making religious organizations, or the insurance companies, pay 100% for birth control?

    hey, i'm 30 years old, single, and appreciate birth control as much as anyone. i am pro-choice. but geez, can the government please stop telling everyone what to do? how about everyone taking care of their own business, including paying for their own birth control? we all need food to eat. will the government start mandating that someone provides us with food? i need comfortable shoes for work. how about free shoes? what about a supply of tampons? toothpaste? my employer demands i wear a bra at work. shouldn't they pay for it? geez......
    she is a morning drive comedienne who can be rude and offensive. dennis miller is a comic too. her surname is also miller.
    as caroladybelle said vasectomy would be a more appropriate discussion.
    do you think vasectomy should be made available by health insurance companies?
  7. 3
    Quote from herring_rn
    she is a morning drive comedienne who can be rude and offensive. dennis miller is a comic too. her surname is also miller.as caroladybelle said vasectomy would be a more appropriate discussion.do you think vasectomy should be made available by health insurance companies?
    offered, but certainly not for free. just makes no sense.
  8. 2
    BCgradnurse and leslie :-D like this.
  9. 2
    Quote from herring_rn
    she is a morning drive comedienne who can be rude and offensive. dennis miller is a comic too. her surname is also miller.
    as caroladybelle said vasectomy would be a more appropriate discussion.
    do you think vasectomy should be made available by health insurance companies?
    what is it with radio people named miller? lol

    as far as vasectomies go, if insurance wants to cover them, i certainly don't care. i don't have those parts anyway. but, i would be very upset if government says the insurance companies must cover them.
    VivaLasViejas and herring_RN like this.
  10. 2
    Quote from heron
    An alternative view would be a religious corporation that takes my tax money shoving it's view of religious correctness down the throats of all the rest of us.

    Where, exactly, is a corporation's throat?
    That's what I've been thinking. If the religious healthcare organizations find this violates their beliefs, then they should just decline govt. funding. That way, they would be in a better position to argue their point.
    Last edit by OCNRN63 on Feb 22, '12
    BCgradnurse and aknottedyarn like this.


Top