Comments on: Post Necromancy Strikes Again: Bush’s HHS & Redefining Birth Control as Abortion

By: Jennyjinx

Jennyjinx — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:11:39 +0000

“If pro-lifers are sincere in their belief that all human beings are persons, and if (they believe that) there’s a real chance that various types of contraception help to prevent implantation or otherwise cause the destruction of fertilized eggs, opposition to contraception is easily seen as a consistent application of pro-life principles.”

Most of the contraceptives on the chopping block work to prevent ovulation, so the argument that preventing implantation = murder is dishonest.

Why would this be considered a woman’s right issue? Because it’s women’s reproductive health that is being targeted. Where are the activists that are against condoms? Or vasectomies? Are there even any other methods of birth control targeted that would affect men’s reproductive health?

There are more uses for birth control than to just prevent pregnancies. Women take the pill to control their periods, to level their hormone levels, and even to help fight acne. Some women who cannot carry a child take the pill for some of the reasons listed above. This is a women’s health issue.

In some cases (such as mine), birth control is used to help treat a condition that would otherwise result in major surgery- a hysterectomy. In the past, before the many other benefits of bc were discovered, women had to lose their reproductive systems to save their lives. Again, that’s a women’s health issue.

As far as Viagra vs. the pill, to me, as a woman, it’s a valid comparison. Viagra (and other erectile dysfunction medication) which is primarily used to help men maintain an erection, is covered by most medication- and legislatures agree with that. Some legislatures have actually voted to require ED meds be covered by insurance while not requiring coverage of birth control.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:55:46 +0000

Unless you’re intending to get pregnant or induce pregnancy right that instant, fertility’s a significant condition. Which contraception covers…

By: Progressive Conservative

Progressive Conservative — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:29:15 +0000

The health care thing is pretty straight-forward. Insurance is generally used to treat an existing condition. For example, erectile disfunction would be defined as a condition. Therefore Viagra is covered. Contraception does not cover an existing condition. So in the future, coverage might stop.

It’s like this: my insurance doesn’t cover toothpaste, but it will pay to have a cavity fixed. Now, it also covers regular check-ups in hopes that will help you avoid a more costly procedure, which is why i don’t see them allowing birth control to go away. It’s more cost-effective for them. Plus, doctors can get around the restrictions by saying the patient needs the birth control to stay regular or something. Not a big deal.

By: Ames

Ames — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:14:04 +0000

Admittedly, the “feminist” argument only works on moderates and liberals, making it a little bit like preaching to the choir, but I think more people are starting to buy the womens rights argument… Hence the rise in Viagra being put next to The Pill. That juxtaposition only works if you think both are about sexual freedom.

By: Gotchaye

Gotchaye — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:06:26 +0000

While I agree with you that the policy here is bad for women, I think it’s unfair to assume antifeminist motivations on the part of its supporters. If pro-lifers are sincere in their belief that all human beings are persons, and if (they believe that) there’s a real chance that various types of contraception help to prevent implantation or otherwise cause the destruction of fertilized eggs, opposition to contraception is easily seen as a consistent application of pro-life principles. While one could argue that the chance of contraception making the difference and resulting in the death of a biological human is small or that, without contraception, more biological humans end up dying (this might actually be true – implantation rates are naturally low and contraception’s largest effect is obviously on the generation of biological humans), both of these can easily be explained away without reference to antifeminism, and I think that charity requires that we do so.

Also, can someone explain to me why you often see viagra set up opposite the pill in pro-choice attacks on this sort of policy? I just don’t understand what viagra has to do with anything, or why the fact that this policy would make it harder to get one and not the other demonstrates any kind of sexism.