Jamie Reidy comments on legislation attempting to limit men’s access to erectile dysfunction medication.
CNN’s report states that five states have introduced bills requiring men to get a health screening prior to getting a prescription for Viagra.
Talk about something that’ll finally give John Boehner a legit reason to cry in public. Ohio state Senator Nina Turner has turned the tables on her male counterparts who feel far too comfortable regulating women’s health issues.
We gotta show men that we care about them, too. And for far too long female legislators have abdicated their responsibility to tell men what they have to do with their bodies.
Turnabout is fair play, right, guys?
About Jamie Reidy
Will I be required to get an ultrasound of my penis first?
Yes, you will.
Don’t worry, you can close your eyes though!!
well to keep it accurate- Only religious institutions should be able to deny fulfilling the prescriptions.
And, I think us guys will be ok with a co-pay for it.
Shouldn’t folks be getting a health screening before getting ANY medication ? Isn’t that kind of the “rules”?
No, of course not. Thousands upon thousands of people by over the counter medicates everyday without the hassle and expense of an unnecessary health screening.
Over the counter medications, that is.
Prior to writing any prescription, a doctor is supposed to verify the need for it and ensure that there are no contraindications (i.e. reasons is should not be taken by the patient). Viagra should be treated no differently. If there is contemplation of a invasive procedure, some amount of screening is also medically advisable. In all cases, the doctor is required to inform the patient of any potential risks.
Oh good grief. A fine and divisive (and provocative) political tactic, but ultimately one that will miss a bigger picture of what’s going on with privacy rights and how we get to work with our doctors without employer intervention.
Anyone getting viagra or bc or drugs that affect the body should go see their doc.
I don’t think so. There are plenty of drugs available over the counter. I don’t go see my doctor before I take Advil or Tylenol or Benadryl or Sudafed. I read the contraindications on the box and follow the instructions.
Likewise, there is no need to see a doctor before starting the pill. The only reason birth control is not available over the counter is politics. It is a way for liberals to bully women into getting unrelated procedures (aka in many places as the “well woman exam”) and conservatives to try and price women out of the market for birth control by forcing the price up with extraneous medical care and time-consuming doctor appointments.
“Likewise, there is no need to see a doctor before starting the pill. The only reason birth control is not available over the counter is politics. . .”
. . . there absolutely are contraindications to taking the pill, such as a women who have had blood clots, high blood pressure, certain types of cancers, heart attack, stroke, liver disease, gallbladder disease, undiagnosed uterine bleeding, cardiac problems, epilepsy, sickle cell disease, chronic renal disease, smokers, prior to elective surgery, suspected pregnancy, obese women, certain types of migraine headaches, or uncontrolled diabetes, etc. which is precisely why it is prescription medicine.
How can a woman know for sure that she does not have one of those conditions undiagnosed unless she sees a doctor? She can’t. Moreover, there are different types of BC pills as well as dosages. Which pill and dosage is best in a given situation? The only way to know is to see a doctor. Now, once a scrip has been written and she’s not experiencing any problems with it and hasn’t had any detectible changes in her health, she can probably go for years taking the very same pills – but taking pills without ever seeing a doctor is reckless and ridiculous.
Moderator’s Note: Edited for ad homimem.
While you have a point, Eric, most doctors don’t test for any of those things. They’ll weigh you, test your blood pressure, and give you a questionnaire about your medical conditions. So you’d have to already know about whether or not you have many of the conditions you mentioned, and it’s easy enough to lie, anyways. I also only once got a pregnancy test out of the many times I went in for birth control. If you do have one of those conditions or general concerns, a doctor can point you to your best option, at best. Otherwise, the way the risks are treated are more like reading a warning label, not something for which you need a doctor. My regular gynos have never been terribly helpful (they prescribed Yaz and Ocella, which have been recalled and caused serious problems for me), but Planned Parenthood was far more patient and broke down my concerns.
While you make a good point Aya, and I agree that oral birth control should be made as widely available as possible to all ages (no parental consent bull), I disagree that it should be over the counter. While the morning-after pill should certainly be available over the counter, it is an emergency contraception taken very occasionally, rather than a medication that you will take near-daily for possibly years. Women should be seeing doctors and discussing their sexual health (as should men, who rarely every every do b/c they don’t get preggers so doctors won’t ask, but that’s another rant) especially when they first start taking the pill, which usually happens in the teen years. As you know, for most of us it takes a little working out to get on the right prescription (I went through 7 different brands before finally getting on the nuvaring, which is they only thing which worked for me) and hopefully it will just increase contact between doctors and sexually active women.
Where I can see the “over the counter” concept working, is maybe not requiring a doctor to renew the prescription, possibly that could turn into the pharmacist/nurse domain, then you can just check in with your doctor every few years unless you are experiencing difficulties. It always seems like such a waste for me going to the doctors every eight months to renew a prescription that I can only collect for four months (nuvaring expires), making for three pharmacy trips and 1 1/2 doctor visits per year for hormonal birth control.
This just proves how few “reproductive rights” men actually have. They can’t pretend to want to regulate the “man pill” because there isn’t one. So they have to go after viagra.
Imagine what these women would want to do if women’s reproductive rights were being reduced to that of men?
Don’t men in TX have no choice, need their wives signature to get the snip and are forced to pay child support even if they were raped or the child is proven not to be their under the threat of state. violence?
That said, I support state promoted voluntary eugenics / choice/ family planning or whatever you call it in your locale.
BTW, restrictions on abortion are going to be normal in all our countries, Russia was the first to introduce these restrictions – because we all aging populations and will run into serious problems if we don’t start breeding at replacement rates.
According to yahoo, and I’m searching elsewhere and asking sex educators, no you do not need someone’s permission to get a vas in Texas. There are signs for clinics all up and down the highways, let me tell you. There are age limits, and you may run into docs that won’t do it thinkin’ they know better than you (women have this happen too for tubals) but you don’t need a permission slip from the wife.
It varies from doctor to doctor
http://blogs.babble.com/babble-voices/home-work/2011/02/12/husband-want-a-vasectomy-hell-have-to-get-your-permission/
edit – varies state to state.
Doctors may ask but it is not a law in Texas that they must gain permission. I know women who have also been refused by doctors but there is no law requiring permission. It may be at doctors discretion it my gues is its fear of lawsuits.
“Doctors may ask but it is not a law in Texas that they must gain permission. I know women who have also been refused by doctors but there is no law requiring permission. It may be at doctors discretion it my gues is its fear of lawsuits.”
That’s interrogation, bio-chemical /nuclear war on men and rape.
Please explain?
That’s supposed to be satire.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean.
Any man can go to a clinic in a city that provides vasectomies and get one. He does not need his partner’s permission. Are there doctors that shy away from performing them on men under a certain age (usually mid 30′s)? Yep. Are there doctors who are religiously opposed? Yes. But there are as many or more that are not opposed. Women are discouraged constantly from getting a tubal until after they’ve had kids, as if they don’t know their own minds.
Then again, and this is in no way comparing the procedures, there are doctors who won’t do other minor surgeries if they don’t feel it fits their practice.
It is perfectly legal to get a vasectomy, no permission needed. I’m not sure how a legal procedure that a man shops around for is nuclear war.
Were it up to me, there’d be ample, effective BC for both men and women, sex ed taught comprehensively in schools, and oodles of communication between folks in sexual relationships.
The vast majority (and I mean vast) of doctors who perform vasectomies absolutely will not perform them without the wife’s consent, which is sometimes but seldom the case with tubaligation. Whether it’s a legal restriction or not, it’s very hard to find a doctor that will agree to do it
When I’m talking men needing the wife signature before getting a reproductive procedure being nuclear war and rape, I’m pointing out that its male reproductive rights that are oppressed by womens interests and that women are privileged in that regard, and I’m satirizing women’s politics in the US, the “war on women” and the state rape etc.
There is a actual war on Iran. That’s pretty big news or at least it would be were people not being distracted by fact that women might lose a fraction of the reproductive privileges that they have.
First of all, I’ve already pointed out that men DON”T need their wives permission here in Texas. They don’t.
Didn’t seem like satire, seemed like high drama to me. The same drama you accuse women’s rights folks of using, actually. Until both sides can freakin’ tone down the rhetoric we will not get anywhere. It only increases the chance that each side will accuse each other of drama and hyperbole and lies, leading to more satire, rhetoric and shock missions. Glorious.
I’m well aware there is a war on and has been going on for a very very damn long time. I’ve been raging on that since it started. So have hundreds of my friends. So have thousands of other people and look at how little good that’s done.
I really don’t think that women’s issues, or reality TV or enviromental issues or any such thing will deter a corporate government with a taste for profits and oil from doing their war business, (Big Business) wherever they want.
If you think that any other political football is keeping progressive liberals in this country from being aware there is a war, a war that countless have been protesting in person and in the media, you don’t seem to see that the reality is the US Gov’t doesn’t care that we protest about it. It’s big money.
How’s that for drama.
Perhaps they don’t, never the less whatever the state, women have reproduction rights and privileges that men do not. Whatever the state, the state will use the threat of violence to help a woman force a man into financial fatherhood against his will. In reality when it comes to reproduction and family law, its women that oppressive and its men that have fewer rights.
And I think that neither religion nor women’s politics that’s based largely around playing the victim and crying rape should be having as much influence as they do.
They DO need their wives permission there in Texas . . . unless he’s going to perform the procedure on himself or get one of his buddies to do it because most doctors will refuse to perform the procedure without the wife’s express (almost always written) consent.
Where are the pro-choice/reproductive rights advocates on this one? What would happen if even one abortion clinic in the country refused to perform a single abortion one time for one woman because her husband would not give his written permission?
How much he** would break loose? How long would it be before Sandra Fluke was back on CNN 24×7 claiming that it was a “war on women?” And, yet, all over the country, the vast majority of men are unable to get a reproductive procedure without the consent of a woman . . . greeted by 100% silence from those who claim to want reproductive freedom.
Why does “my body my choice” not apply to men? Is this not evidence of the matriarchy?
Nope. I know several women whose partners got one done no note required. Personally know them. I know many more single folks who have had them done. I’ve also known a few women personally who had to search out of city for a doc who’d do a tubal since the woman wasn’t over 30 and had had no kids. And of course depending on the clinic, if they are affiliated with a religious institution, they won’t do them at all.
But there is no law requiring it. The doctors are just scared to death of lawsuits, not of doing the procedure. And also…because in the case of tubals, its permanent and they don’t want to get sued if that 25 year old changes her mind at 35. I know there are risks reversing vasectomies too, but there are clinics that do it.
I see your point Eric I do. And I don’t know how to solve the problem because while men need more options for Repro rights (more options for oral or under the skin BC, RISUG), equity in custody issues (mediation, etc), and I am NOT a fan of asking a non-bio parent to pay for the child support of a child he had no hand in creating (that’s f’d up), I can’t see forcing women to bear a child a man wants but she doesn’t either.
We’ve painted ourselves into a very ugly corner, and in my opinion MUCH has to do with religion in this country and an absolute unwillingness to deal with sex ed, free or covered BC and better support systems for children (insurance for all kids regardless of parental coverage, truly affordable and safe child care) and so forth.
I think if a man wants a vas, he should be able to get it. If a woman wants a tubal, she should be able to get it. Of course I’d suspect if neither party is considering the other if they are in a relationship, that’s kind of a sign there isn’t much trust to begin with, but permission from the other spouse? Nope. It’s that person’s body. Cite me the states that require a spousal signature BY LAW. Blame the doctors and liability insurance if the docs are denying the procedure.
So please don’t say there is 100% silence when you have people like me, feminists, on a national blog, being loud about it. Say 99% but there are women, here now, making a little noise at least.
Nope. I know several women whose partners got one done no note required.”
OK, but what about the tons of doctors out there who refuse to do them without wife-consent?
“I know many more single folks who have had them done.”
Sure, no wife to refuse consent.
The age issue is a different matter, and is not a HIPAA violation.
This particular issue seems to be a low-hanging fruit, slam-dunk, no-brainer: he’s an adult; it’s his body; it violates HIPAA. Why don’t these things apply to men? Perhaps he has a good reason to not tell her; perhaps he doesn’t, but that’s not relevant, is it?
“I can’t see forcing women to bear a child a man wants but she doesn’t either.”
So, why force him to bear a child he doesn’t want? Why not give him a post-conception option too? It’s no more unfair to the child than an abortion since there is no child at that point.
“Cite me the states that require a spousal signature BY LAW. Blame the doctors and liability insurance if the docs are denying the procedure.”
As I said, there is no law (there can’t be – it’s a HIPPA violation); however, based on the many doctors I have personally researched that perform this procedure, a significant majority of them will refuse to perform it without a wife’s consent. Again, what would happen if a single woman was denied an abortion on this same basis? Why isn’t the reproductive rights community frothing at the mouth over this?
“So please don’t say there is 100% silence when you have people like me, feminists, on a national blog, being loud about it.”
Where Julie? Where is the “loudness” on this issue? If there has been loud discussion and outrage over this issue, please point me to where. I would be happy to stand corrected.
Look, I know you personally can’t be all things . . . but if men’s reproductive rights were a concern of the movement, there wouldn’t be just your lone voice here agreeing in response to a complaint, right?
That’s better than nothing but. . .
This isn’t new. So, perhaps you can point to a number of feminists web sites where this issue has been discussed loudly.
Maybe that is the case and I just missed it. It’s possible but I doubt it.
If doctors are choosing not to do them due to liability issues, attack the doctors. Sue the doctors. Demand rights. I don’t know exactly what else to do there, only I’ve never heard a man that I know personally have a hard time getting a vas. And I know quite a few. Anectdotal, I realize, but I have not been privvy to a wide amount of men being turned down. If they are there, they should be out about it and push to make changes in their states. The men and women denied a procedure that is legal will need someone(s) to step up and be that public face(s) and force a suit. Sadly, that seems to be the only way we make change in our country.
I don’t disagree that it’s his body and he should get to decide. I said that already. He wants a vas, he should have a vas.
Did you not see the section where I said we painted ourselves in a corner ERIC? Jesus. I’d be comfortable with a parent ceding parental rights if I knew the kids wouldn’t be the ones to suffer for it. A) USE whatever birth-control is humanly possible. B) anyone getting pregnant behind someones back is a terrible person. Go to a frickin’ sperm bank and don’t manipulate a system to get subsidies. C) You shouldn’t make the non bio person pay for child support if he’s been tricked into caring for another person’s child. AND FINALLY D)let’s get some universal health care coverage for all minors and dependents to 18 years, better access to child care and then allow those men to cede parental rights. I’m quite ok with that. Let’s keep the kids safe and penalize people who are lying to game the system.
You’re right Eric. I can’t be all things to all issues. And I’m not famous mcfamouson blogger (god knows I’m trying), nor a congressperson, nor a rich CEO. I am not a lawyer with a background on these issues. So I get the frustration and all the yelling we can yell at each other isn’t going to make any change here. I’m over yelling at the moment, it’s wearing me the hell out.
“If doctors are choosing not to do them due to liability issues, attack the doctors. Sue the doctors. Demand rights. I don’t know exactly what else to do there, “
I agree. Just pointing out the obvious lack of concern based on gender there. Nuff said.
“only I’ve never heard a man that I know personally have a hard time getting a vas. And I know quite a few.”
Do a Google search on “vasectomy spousal consent form.” You’ll find hundreds of doctors that require it.
“I’d be comfortable with a parent ceding parental rights if I knew the kids wouldn’t be the ones to suffer for it.”
What about abortion? That is ceding rights?
“C) You shouldn’t make the non bio person pay for child support if he’s been tricked into caring for another person’s child.”
Their argument is the same one you made: the best interest of the child.
“AND FINALLY D)let’s get some universal health care coverage for all minors and dependents to 18 years, better access to child care and then allow those men to cede parental rights.”
Many states actually have that today, if the parents are poor or unemployed. However, many people don’t know about it, or don’t want to use it because it’s “Medicaid.”
“Let’s keep the kids safe and penalize people who are lying to game the system.”
My company and I are working on that now.
“I’m over yelling at the moment, it’s wearing me the hell out.”
Understood. Get some rest. . .
“Playing the victim and crying rape should not be having as much influence as they do.”
I am very disturbed by this sentence. Very, very disturbed. Please, never ever accuse ANYONE of “crying rape”, when most rapes go unreported. Men and women are raped all the time, all across the world, and minimizing any experience by using an extremely (EXTREMELY) small minority, when most rapes are never reported or brought to justice, is disgusting. I am horrified that you would accuse anyone, male or female, of playing at rape. Rape is not a game. It’s not an effing excuse. Men that get raped don’t play effing victim when they get over the stigma to tell someone about it, then rarely get taken seriously. Women that get raped don’t run to court to “tattle”, they go to court to get humiliated, face their rapist, and see them walk out in most cases. Children that get raped don’t “cry” to work the system. There’s no such thing as “light rape”. The major problems in our court systems aren’t based on over-committing rapists- quite the opposite. If you think otherwise, you are seriously delusional.
My own grandma reported that she was raped by her husband to the police 30 years ago and was told that it “wasn’t possible for a husband to rape his wife”. She showed up in the emergency room three hours later, bleeding internally. She’d had her last child, my aunt, two days before the incident. When my uncle was raped when traveling abroad, he was told by the police that if he was “more of a man” he wouldn’t have been raped. The rapist was never pursued. These are very personal stories, and I don’t want to include any others about family members, because I think they are disturbing, but the even worse part is they are not uncommon at all. Everyone knows someone who has been raped- we all have stories, and there are many people among us who will never tell us their stories. What you are doing is minimizing the importance, and again, I think it’s disgusting. I could not have a lower opinion of someone than a person who accuses victims of “calling rape”.
As an Austinite I am sure you are referring to the eminent Dr. Dick Chopp…
Well, I wasn’t, but that is some kind of built in marketing isn’t it?
Back in my hometown there was a gyno named Dr. Paine.
Oh wait a minute if this is supposed to be some sort of attack on male birth control then why not go after the male birth control pill.
Oh yeah…
Lobby the pharma industry!! But don’t be surprised if you get a male pill that I’ll be attacked by religious right too
Well, yeah.
But I think the point is it’s sort of silly to call it an ‘attack on women’ when the RR would be attacking men’s reproductive rights too… if they had any.
I’ve actually been trying to think about how to do that lately….
But my point is instead of going after male birth control options she is going after a sex aid. Let’s face what’s viagra used more for, having babies or having sex (which might create babies)? This wasn’t meant to say anything about male birth control this is just someone feeling hurt and wanting to hurt someone else back.
And I’m sure such a pill would be, but according to some folks our male privilege should protect us from that right?
Its a political shock tactic. Both sides use them. In fact
The republican right is reaaaaaaly good at them and it’s good the see the left push back BUT does it do pragmatic good? Some would say no, that politics is always war. Which is why I’ll never run for office.
Sandra Fluke is an absolute master at this, far better than any politician I have ever seen. She is the only person to virtually take down Rush Limbaugh. Who gets Rush to apologize to them?
She was able to manufacter a national argument over an issue that affects almost NO women (almost zero, statistically), bamboozling the left into thinking it affects ALL women, whipping them into a frenzy.
Yes, but when you copy the rather odious tactics of your opposition, you in fact validate those same tatics.
Well yeah. But not adopting the tactics doesn’t much get you anywhere either. It’s war or lose, is how it seems. Do you have another path? We need one!
So what your saying is that ‘The end justifies the means’?
No, I’m saying I don’t really know what the new “not that way” way is. I’ve watched a lot of good candidates fail because they weren’t willing to be sneaky manipulative jerks. But I don’t want them to be jerks. But I want them to win. So I don’t what the next way is.
Whats humorous about all of this is that it’s really a ‘cut off your nose to spite your face’ kind of action. Men take Viagra why? To get an erection. Who benefits most from said erection? Their woman. I can see it now, “sorry honey, Ican’t get any Viagra, so you’ll have to take care of yourself with that vibrating plastic thing you hide in the draw. Don’t worry about me, I’ll be out here watching the ‘March Madness’ basketball tournament on TV. Oh, by the way, bring me out a beer when your done please”. LOL
Its a political shock tactic. Both sides use them. In fact
The republican right is reaaaaaaly good at them and it’s good the see the left push back BUT does it do pragmatic good? Some would say no, that politics is always war. Which is why I’ll never run for office.
I’d never run for office and there’s no questionn both sides use such tactics.
Its just a vicious cycle.
I had the opposite experience (in Canada) when I asked my doctor for a V. She made my wife leave the room and made sure it is what “I” wanted.
I still wonder to this day if it was because she was a woman.
BTW, I have had 2 friends here in Canada who ran into sorta the same thing, they didn’t have to sign a waiver BUT the doctor did require that their wives verbally agree to it , which amounts to the same thing.
If we were to make lists and compare, its women that oppress mens reproductive rights, not the other way around.
A female rapist can force her victim, who was underage at the time into financial father-hood under the threat of state. violence.
I’m willing to bet that the average woman is at the very least equally oppressive of men’s reproductive rights as the religious right is of women’s.
But you know its really a “war on women”, not to mind a real war is kicking off where male bodies are going to be dismantled, destroyed and maimed in the interests of the state.
It’s clear who any war on reproductive rights is being waged on, and men are far bigger target and casualty of any war on reproductive rights
When one considers that there is constant talk here and elsewhere in the media about how women’s (post conception) reproductive rights (abortion) are being attacked while there is no mention whatsoever of men’s lack of (zero, none, zip, zilch) reproductive rights, it’s clear who are truly in the crosshairs of the war on reproductive rights.
I’d be inclined to call this satire, but “bills have been introduced”… does this mean they’re tabled for debate or that they’ve been enacted? Either way, if it was a satirical action, its an irresponsible abuse of state legislature.
Not to mention a completely ineffective tactic and one that misses the point. The GOP aren’t men waging war on women, they’re religiously motivated people who see their place as the moral gatekeepers of society. They’ve demonstrated time and time again that they’re equally willing to attack men if they interpret laws as “anti-christian.”
It is a genuine women’s issue, and it will primarily effect women, but the motivation of the proponents has nothing to do with that. “Lets see how men like it” style arguments and stunts don’t attack the people causing the problem, they only create more victims and alienate potential allies.
If anything some of them will no doubt approve of laws cutting down on that filthy “sex” thing.
Agree 100% with this. It’s about sex, and not liking anything that isn’t between-a-man-and-a-woman, preferably uni-racial, nothing-”slutty”, no-swinging, baby-making sex. Though the conversation happens to be going on around the uterus as far as hormonal birth control and abortion go, and effecting women most intimately, it is this moral puritanism that is making the air thick, and it isn’t just men’s voices chanting. This shouldn’t be men-vs-women. This is about the retention of rights, rights which effect both men and women when it comes to birth control and post-conception choices. The church and state should always be separated. Otherwise, every step forward, like the development of male birth control (RISUG in particular), the improvements on female birth control (morning after pill, nuvaring etc,), the giving of rights to LGBTQ to make them equal citizens one day (and that day cannot be soon enough), will be met with religious backlash and endless arguments.
Ditto. This isn’t about men controlling women’s reproductive rights or vice versa. It is very much about religious folk trying to dictate not just reproductive, but *sexual* rights for everybody, whether “everybody” happen to be religious or not. That’s happened the world over, and no single religion has a monopoly on sexual repression, but in the context of American politics where this birth control/abortion fight is taking place, it’s very much a Christian thing. I’ve never heard an argument against birth control or that wasn’t religious at it’s core.
Exactly. I’d just point out that its not even Christianity doing this, its a tiny tin minority of christians.
I’ve lived in one of the most Catholic countries in the world my whole life and I’ve never met anyone who told me they were against condoms. Not once.
Hear hear
In all seriousness, there has been a feminist “moral panic” against Viagra, some of it here. In late 2011, I presented a critique of Mieka Loe’s research, which criticizes Viagra use, at the New York Sociological Association meeting. Loe argues against her own data, and uses extremely flawed focus group methods to challenge Viagra use. (It’s clear that her participants are confabulating with her to say the desired things.) It’s a nice example of procrustian research.
Really?! I’ve identified as a feminist since I started volunteering for an LGBTQ sexual harassment counseling center five years ago, which is also swarming with feminists, and I’ve never heard anyone panic about Viagra! That seems kind of ridiculous. Who would be against allowing access to the pleasure of sexual stimulation that men (of ALL ages, not just old men, young men too) have the right to enjoy???
There have been references to “Viagra men” on this site (referring to men who use it, and, it’s implied, force themselves on women after.) There were a couple of bad articles on it, trying, I thought, to put it under a cloud.
While I understand her point and the message she is hypothetically trying to send, if for some reason this horrible bill passes, she will have officially made herself part of the problem, which is unforgiveable. I oppose bills that limit women’s reproductive or sexual rights. I see what she is doing as in the same category and I view her as just a much a threat to individual sexual sovereignty. Rather than making a clever point, the fact that she asserts her seriousness means I will take her seriously and believe she deserves to be denounced just as much as those male lawmakers who put their religion before their Oath of Office.
Would she tell a man who had sustained damage due to childhood sexual abuse that required pharmaceutical assistance, that he needed a partner’s permission to get viagra? That unless a sex therapist (who quite possibly may believe that men can’t be raped because erections = consent) that he cannot get a prescription that would allow him to be intimate with his partner? I want her to comment on that then say she is truly serious. This was poorly executed and not nearly as cute as she thinks it. Not hardly.