Deanna Ogle examines Georgia Democrats’ attempt to ban vasectomies.
Over the last several months women’s reproductive health rights and have been attacked, but women are not allowing these rights to be infringed upon without a fight. Last week they walked out in protest of a congressional hearing about contraception completely comprised of men, voiced so much disapproval when Komen pulled their Planned Parenthood funding that the decision was reversed almost overnight, and the bill in Virginia requiring women to be forcefully probed before an abortion was slowed to a halt when women came out against the unnecessary and deplorable legislation.
But when it comes to the birth control conversation, Robert Walker of the Huffington Post asks, where are the men?
The conversation surrounding reproductive health have only been made worse by sound bites from people who still hold a 1950’s women-are -responsible-for-birth-control attitude and lop-sided logic. For example, when the Catholic church said that Viagra, which is currently covered for men on staff, solves a medical problem and that contraception does not, Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” responded with: “So the Catholic Church says that a boner is a need, but not getting pregnant is … more of a want.”
If men’s reproductive rights were being threatened as equally as women’s, would men be more likely to be involved?
Robert Walker thinks so. “If legislatures were requiring colorectal exams for no good medical reason, banning Viagra, outlawing condoms and vasectomies, and otherwise messing with the private parts and reproductive health of men, you better believe that men would be doing more than waiting for a Gallup pollster to ring them up,” he says.
A group of Georgia Democrats are doing just that in order to bring attention to the unfair biases and wake up the masculine base that has been absent from the fight thus far. They proposed HB 954 which would bar men from being able to get vasectomies. According to the proponents, this bill is specifically designed to show the faulty logic in the legislators’ anti-contraception approach and to encourage men to take a more active stance in the conversation.
Joseph Tash of The University of Kansas and his team of reproductive biologists are working on another way for men to take charge of the birth control issue. Tash and his team have created a birth control pill for men. The pill contains a chemical compound called H2-gamendazole that prevents sperm from developing. Tash says that men will be able to take the pill, and when they go off of it will be able to regain full fertility within a matter of weeks.
Fifty years after the advent of the contraceptive pill for woman, men will soon be able shift the responsibility of birth control that has largely been left to women back into their own hands.
“Unless [women] want to keep fighting — and losing — these battles forever, it’s time to enlist a few good men in their cause,” concludes Walker.
Have you been speaking up and we just have been missing your voice? Do you think that you as men can’t help win the fight so you have left their thoughts off the table? If approved by the FDA, would you take Tash’s gamendolze pill?
Photo credit: Flickr/Gnarls Monkey
About Deanna Ogle
Faulty logic all around. Under Obamacare:
Vasectomy is a patient responsibility: insurance may refuse to cover, or charge a copay.
Tubal ligation, along with all other female health care needs, is guaranteed and free.
Republicans are proposing that women should PAY for their health care needs — like men are already required to pay for our health care needs under Obamacare. They are not attempting to outlaw or ban any procedure. They want women to pay for a SMALL NUMBER of their own gender specific healthcare costs. The same way men are required to pay for ALL of our gender specific healthcare costs.
You can search all 907 pages of the Obamacare bill for the words “men” and “women”. Here are the results:
The word “women” appears 134 times in the document, guaranteeing a huge number of special rights and privileges, including exemption from co-payment for most female related health care (including birth control, tubal ligation, etc). There are several new offices and institutions to attend to every conceivable female desire, including a huge new “Office of Women’s Health.”
The word “men” appears once in the document, in this sentence:
“(3) provide information to women and health care providers on those areas in which differences between men and women exist;” For men, there are no institutions, offices, spending, or programs at all.
Why are women complaining? Because in one case, just one tiny case, women are being treated the same way as men?
Anthony Zarat: “Vasectomy is a patient responsibility: insurance may refuse to cover, or charge a copay.
Tubal ligation, along with all other female health care needs, is guaranteed and free.”
Do you have the specific language on this? Is this explicit in the bill?
-Jut
See following message. The exact text that requires virtually all female needs to be free of cost, while not paying for any (zero, none) male needs, is spread throughout the document. However, the critical sentence is “… at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for …” followed by ” … with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described … ” and ” … regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current …”
The act pays for a large number of female health care needs, but pays for none of the equivalent male health care needs. This includes breast health/prostate health; female contraception/male contraception; and even the absurd female smoking cessation (paid for)/male smoking cessation (not paid for).
Takes your breath away that women complain that they don’t have enough special privileges and pampering in this bill … a bill that completely ignores men, boys, and fathers.
Odd, if true. I think women want men to get vasectomies more than men want to get them. Seems to me that vasectomies may be in women’s interest even more than men’s interest, so a truly women-centered approach would cover vasectomies as well. (One of those “your balls are mine” kind of things.)
Where do I start? Here, go read this, then come back and comment in an informed manner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege
Why don’t you start without the snark. His comments seemd pretty informed to me. If you have something you disagree with state that.
Basically your post is saying your male, shut up.
“where are the men?”
“SHUT UP AND GO READ ABOUT MALE PRIVILEGE YOU HORRIBLE MALE”
Asked and answered.
Um, where are men required to be raped as a condition for their medical care? That’s what the Virginia bill was proposing. I don’t think that was a case of women being treated the same as men. Am I wrong? Also, I think that’s a pretty good reason to complain.
Even when men _are_ raped they don’t get free medical care. And they get no say over any conception that’s the result of them having been raped.
What are you comparing the situation of women too? What you imagine the situation of men is?
Do you agree with me that men are not required to submit to rape as a condition of receiving the medical care they choose?
Kirsten,
They don’t receive free medical care for their specific reproductive issues regardless of whether or not they’re raped. Nor do they receive legal protections from being forced to assume parental responsibilities from children conceived via rape _in which they were the victim._
So, yeah, men don’t have to ‘submit to rape to receive free health care for their reproductive issues’ because raped men don’t get free health care because they were raped.
If the situation was the same for women, there would be no exemption for rape victims!
Surely preventing an unwanted pregnancy is important to everyone who practices cross-fertile sex, not just women? My IUD benefits my husband every bit as much as it does me. If he had a vasectomy, that would benefit me as much as him. I don’t see what the deal is with calling contraception a benefit for women only in anything but a technical, record-keeping kind of sense (the main types currently available by prescription must be implemented by women, so of course it’s on their medical records, covered by their insurance, etc.). If men weren’t involved, contraception wouldn’t be necessary, eh?
I do of course agree that there should be more birth control options for men, and am surprised that vasectomy doesn’t seem to be included — an acquaintance of mine says vasectomy *is* included under the Affordable Care Act, but I haven’t heard back on his evidence.
Feminists like to quote and talk to each other endlessly, which is why they get into this mess. So, here is the exact text from the Obamacare legislation that describes those services that (i) must be offered by all providers and (ii) must be free of cost or co-pay requirement:
——————-
(a) IN GENERAL — A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for –
(1) evidence based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
(2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
with respect to the individual involved; and
(3) with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Resources and Services Administration.
(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph [1] as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.
(5) for the purposes of this Act, and for purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009.
——————-
Got it? Women’s special needs, desires, hopes, and aspirations are completely covered:
Breast exam? Check. Prostate health? Out of luck.
Female contraception? Check. Male contraception? Out of luck.
Female reproductive health? Check. Male reproductive health? Out of luck.
Female smoking cessation? Check. Male smoking cessation? Out of luck.
Female violence prevention? Check. Male violence prevention? Out of luck.
Any questions? Anything not completely clear?
Prostate health isn’t covered in the bill?! Are you sure?
Female smoking cessation – in the case of pregnancy or in general? But not males?
is this surprising to you?
I am sure. I searched for the word “man”, and it appears only one time (compared to 134 occurrences of the word “woman”). Also, the part of the bill that lists required no-copay coverage is short (only 5 items), and I checked all five. Virtually all female specific health care is no-copay. All male health care allows for a co-pay.
And this is under Obamacare’s proposals? Currently I do pay co-pays.
Is this a cost issue? Figuring that they can’t cover all flat out no copay so they pay for the gender that conceives? That’s the only logic I can think of, though its unfair completely.
Men’s healthcare is as important as women’s.
You men need to get together and scream bloody murder at Obama for this injustice.
Democrats are wasting my $$ and yours trying this trick with banning vasectomies.
Anthony, I’m curious, did you also try “man” and “male” as well?
Actually there are a lot of things entirely unrelated to sex that are left out of reach of men under obamacare including things like cardiovascular health. Hell the same vaccine used to prevent cervical cancer in women all over the world is denied to me in most first world countries despite the fact that it can prevent oral anal and penile cancers. The government simply has no interest in mens health.
FYI BRex, I do believe that you can get the HPV vaccine (that’s what you’re referring too?). The CDC just did not recommend it as mandatory of boys because targeting one gender is less cost for the same result: if the majority of women are vaccinated and heterosexual men can only get HPV from sexual contact with women, then men would also not be infected with HPV as it would be eradicated from the female population.
It’s a difference of mandating versus suggesting.
Actually there is this thing called homosexuality, whereby men have sex with other men, this allows the HPV virus to be spread from a man to another man, the other issue with herd immunity is that not all women get the HPV vaccine, meaning one individual womans choice can endanger any woman she chooses to have sex with. It is based on unsound science.
Many jurisdictions in the states will not give the HPV vaccine to men outright, as is the case in other countries such as Canada. Others will do so for a fee of several hundred dollars as is the case in most other countries such as Great Britain and most of the rest of Europe.
The difference is mandating versus dissuading or disallowing.
“Many jurisdictions in the states will not give the HPV vaccine to men outright, as is the case in other countries such as Canada. Others will do so for a fee of several hundred dollars as is the case in most other countries such as Great Britain and most of the rest of Europe.”
I was unaware of that, it does not make any logical sense to me, but I guess I should have expected that from government.
“Actually there is this thing called homosexuality, whereby men have sex with other men, this allows the HPV virus to be spread from a man to another man”
Wow, for serious? How do they do that? Sex between men?! That’s just a radical idea. (thought you’d like some sarcasm in response to your snarky remark)
The CDC recommending vaccines for targeted groups is not unheard of. They crunch to numbers to calculate the maximum effectiveness at the minimum cost. It would not be cost-effective to recommend it to both sexes. I don’t understand why it is not at least available to men, and I would appreciate some more information on where/why it is not available. And I do not know the prevalence of HPV among gay men, it is possible that it is quite low. If we are talking about gay men (and not bisexual men) then they are an isolated community and should be considered on their own in terms of HPV prevalence and recommendation of the vaccine.
Don’t worry!
Recent evidence shows that the anti-HPV vaccine may also be 100% preventative for many other cancers, including huge killers like lung cancer. People who have the HPV vaccine may turn out to be virtually immune to many of the deadliest and most common cancers.
This drug is looking the most important health care innovation since penicillin. It will be available to everyone, very soon. Meanwhile, get your boys vaccinated (insurance won’t cover it, but you can pay yourself). I have.
This must be done very early, before age 12 (in my opinion). Once HPV gets in the body, the vaccine is useless (for that tissue). Oral infection (relevant to pharyngeal, stomach, and most importantly, lung) happens soon after the first kiss. Girls will have to be vaccinated much earlier in life than is currently recommended, also.
All of these benefits are the opinion of a growing number of scientists, but there is far from consensus on this issue. However, the vaccine is already demonstrated to be safe and effective if administered at a very early age so — what is the down side? Certainly, both boys and girls should be vaccinated for purposes of the already known resistance to genital cancers. Why not do this 4 years earlier, and (possibly) get far, far, far greater benefit in terms of the big upper body killers?
This issue is blooming with explosive speed. What started as a small-scale cure against one very rare cancer, is becoming a turning point in human health.
Get your boys vaccinated. Pay whatever it takes. Don’t wait for insurance to catch up. Once the first kiss happens, it is too late.
There are insurance companies covering Gardasil for boys and men, more all the time. It’s also available (sometimes free, depending) through Planned Parenthood.
Isn’t there a bill going through right now in the US that is allowing companies to choose whether their insurance will cover the pill for women? Does that not mean that a vast majority of religious institutions, of which there are many in the US to my knowledge, will take advantage of this? And if the answers to these two questions is yes, then how are women’s rights being COMPLETELY covered?
And what exactly do you mean by female violence prevention?
“If men’s reproductive rights were being threatened as equally as women’s….”
If?
Men’s reproductive rights are already nearly non-existent, and men know it. Our reaction has been to drop out of relationships and marriage and fatherhood, because we know we don’t have a voice in this arena.
When men get reproductive rights and when those are threatened then perhaps we will stand up, right now we have no rights to protect.
The most basic right (IMHO) when it come to procreation is the right to say NO and to have that right respected by all areas of society and most especially the LAW
FACT: Men can’t say NO
If a man says NO and a woman is able to obtain his sperm thru ANY method, he is still responsible for the child that results.
Now think about that for a second. If a woman says NO and and a man impregnates her anyway she is given many options to overturn his actions to re-enforce her NO. Men can’t do even that most basic thing. The fact that a woman suffers more consequences really shouldn’t matter. The right to say NO and have that NO respected is so important that noone should care that one gender suffers more if the NO is ignored.
I’m puzzled by this. Is there a problem out there with women obtaining men’s sperm through a method other than getting them to have an orgasm?
To be clear: this is an actual question, not a snarky assertion that the problem doesn’t exist disguised as a question.
A second thing: Many, many of the specifically female health care needs mentioned above are cost-neutral for health plans. You’re providing coverage for a women, its economically rational to provide contraception and a lot of other preventive services because one complicated pregnancy costs the insurer more than providing all those services to several women for their entire lives. Save the insurer money, save both men and women paying into the system money.
This is not to say that I don’t think the male-specific services mentioned above should be covered, because I think they should. But the economics of why they should be covered are a little more complex.
“I’m puzzled by this. Is there a problem out there with women obtaining men’s sperm through a method other than getting them to have an orgasm?”
Are you saying that having an orgasm is consent to parenthood?
Not even that, all it takes is an ejaculation (which don’t always accompany orgasms after all)
You heard it here, orgasms are consent!
Men have had semen removed while unconscious and are responsible for the children, men have had semen removed from used condoms and are responsible for the children. As for the second thing, how is getting women to quit smoking more “cost neutral” than getting men to quit smoking, or how are condoms, which are generally cheaper and has the bonus cost of reducing the risk of STI’s more cost effective than birth control pills or shots?
Oh, i forgot to mention rape, if a woman has sex, even non-consensual sex with a man even if he is underage he is still responsible for the child brought into this world.
“You heard it here, orgasms are consent!”
Wow, no, Amaranth did not say that, they were asking if there were any OTHER methods possible. If the sperm was obtained via orgasm without consent that would imply rape. So this: “If a man says NO and a woman is able to obtain his sperm thru ANY method, he is still responsible for the child that results.” would be incorrect because he was raped and he could charge the woman with rape. I would be very surprised if that was still required for him to be responsible for a child.
No, Amaranth simply implied that there was no way a woman could obtain sperm without giving consent. Since the response was to “getting sperm after a man says no” pointing out that there is no way to get sperm without an orgasm kinda implies that a man clearly said yes by having said orgasm. This would be much the same as telling a woman she needs to be responsible for a child because she was involved in the sex that conceived it, something that would be unthinkable.
The problem in that even under the new definition that “includes” men by the FBI rape of men by women is still largely not what you think it is. “Rape” requires the act of penetration, therefore a woman can force sex on a man, and it wont be “rape”, unless she inserts a finger or an object into his anus while doing it.
Oh and plenty of rape victims are forced to pay child support:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1183449.ece
And the precedent has been set that statutory rape victims are forced to pay child support in Hermesmann_v._Seyer, you can google that one.
Oh my god, I remember reading about that story, that was messed up. Honestly, the courts are the most backwards system in the world when it comes to rape and to domestic violence, for everyone, so I guess I should not have been surprised. “This would be much the same as telling a woman she needs to be responsible for a child because she was involved in the sex that conceived it, something that would be unthinkable.” Except anti-abortionists do think that, frequently. So…. Our country is very backwards, I’m sure we can agree on that.
“No, Amaranth simply implied that there was no way a woman could obtain sperm without giving consent. Since the response was to “getting sperm after a man says no” pointing out that there is no way to get sperm without an orgasm kinda implies that a man clearly said yes by having said orgasm. ”
I think you are reading what you want to read. John said: “If a man says NO and a woman is able to obtain his sperm thru ANY method, he is still responsible for the child that results.” So he brought up the “ANY” method question, which Amaranth asked if there were any other methods that existed outside of orgasm. This does not mean that she thinks orgasm implies consent. She was just asking if there are any other methods besides the one we all know of (orgasm).
It is also possible that she was unaware that male rape victims are likely to orgasm, I don’t know, I can’t read her mind. But I think that is something women have difficulty understanding at first because it’s much harder for us to orgasm. It’s hard to understand it’s a fully physiological response.
The FBI definition is messed up, I had to go and read it. On the upside, it does acknowledge that men can be raped, unlike the previous (which was the “carnal knowledge of a female” against her will), but yes it really does not acknowledge forced vaginal sex or even forced oral sex (I find it much more likely that a woman who force a man to receive oral than to give oral, and “giving” oral is included in the definition).
It is painfully obvious that our country has a long way to go to understand sex and gender issues.
The problem is that there is at least some form of debate when it comes to abortion, there is virtually zero debate and almost no knowledge that a male, even underage, drugged and forcibly raped is forced to pay for it. and NOONE in the republican party would tell you that a mother needs to be fully responsible for a child up until 18 after rape, a small group would say abortion is wrong under those circumstances, that is it. While the current democratic party is showing extreme anti male bias.
The VAWA fought to remove a mans right to a trial if accused of sex crimes.
When that was found to be unconstitutional they simply threatened to cut funding from universities who allow these people to GET a fair hearing.
They are currently trying to push through legislation (again VAWA) that would make it ILLEGAL for a state or federally funded shelter to grant refuge to a man. If they do, they lose that funding. This is fully supported by NOW by the way.
We are a society that has stigmatized standing up for the rights of anyone seen as having “privilege,” and men have been societies scapegoats for long enough we cant be seen as anything else.
I am not interested in getting into a debate about other issues that come up on GMP all the time. What I was doing was clarifying what Amaranth said. She was suggesting that orgasm = consent.
I will assume that has been sufficiently clarified for you.
You raise a good point. You don’t get a say whether or not you have to pay for child support, whether or not you’d like to keep the child, or, in most cases, get custody. That alone deserves to get talked about.
(Your comment was one of the comments of the day yesterday!)
I am a feminist, but I agree with you 100% on this.
Women don’t have a right to get pregnant from some guy, and then FORCE him to pay for it.
As long as there’s abortion, she has no moral right to do that. IF she wants the baby, she can raise it HERSELF.
This whole discussion has made me think ALOT about the ways we treat men / women are reproduction.
A little thought popped into my head.
Oppression: Can there be anything more oppressive than not allowing a person to have total control over their biological destiny. When it comes to abortion , feminists seem to think so, it is their watershed talking point. Abortion is the end all to be all of the ‘patriarchy’ and its goal to control women thru reproduction.
But, right now in western society at least, women have ALL the options and men have NONE. Some would say a man could get a vasectomy, could keep it in his pants OR just not have sex BUT you know what in actual fact even those choices don’t allow a man to control his reproductive destiny. If a woman is able to somehow get his sperm, he is fully responsible for what SHE does with it. Can you think of anything more oppressive than that.
Well, also condoms, don’t forget condoms, they are very important.
But I don’t think anyone would argue that men need more contraception choices. I would suggest all of you divert your efforts to showing support for a male birth control pill. People have been trying to develop one, but it has been slow going because it is perceived to be not necessary, with the million types of contraception for women. So if you all get your voices out there and say, yes, we want male birth control, maybe it will help them realize there is a market for it.
That is a great point, actually. Hadn’t thought about it like that…
I’ve read where women take the used condom and impregnate themselves with it.
Gotta FLUSH that thing to protect yourselves, guys!!!
one thing that is consistently missed is that the catholic church’s health care plan doesn’t cover vasectomies either. No one is up in arms over that. Pure freaking hypocrisy on the part of people like John Stewart.
This is a particularly tasteless move by a group that is completely unconcerned with partisanship in this country.
The problem here is a clear failure on the part of the left to genuinely listen to people on the right.
I am not against abortion, however, I was also raised by Christian conservatives, and I have been exposed nonstop to their views for the 2.5 decades that I have thus far spent on this planet.
What they have been clear on, from day 1, is a genuine belief that abortion is murder.
I have yet to hear a single member of the left acknowledge that this is a genuine belief that someone may hold. Instead, there’s a constant stream of excuses as to why no one really believes this, and that anti-abortion rhetoric is all about privilege, or social constructs, or the oppression of women, or the patriarchy, or anything other than what the right has literally been telling them for years.
This is why it is such a contentious issue. Can you really ask someone to compromise on murder?
Note, I do not believe that it is murder, and certainly do not want to see the status quo changed. But it would be nice to see someone acknowledge that the other side has a right to their own opinion, that it might be a valid opinion, and that the people holding it are actually rational, thinking individuals who happen to feel passionate about a particular cause, that in their minds is laudable (i.e. the prevention of murder).
This, obviously, is mostly a response to the Komen decision being labeled an “attack” on reproductive rights, but the points stand (albeit to a lesser degree) with respect to contraception in general. The first step must be an acknowledgement that this is a moral question, and that in the face of moral questions there are no objectively correct answers: we must acknowledge that both sides have a right to their opinion.
Personally, I’d love to see free, safe, reversible sterilization made available to all Americans so that religious folks would never have to worry about “abortion holocausts” in the first place. But wouldn’t you know it, a lot of those same highly religious folks seem staunchly opposed to any form of birth control too! (Even something as simple and harmless as condoms.) It’s quite an interesting coincidence.
You made an excellent point regarding the discussion around abortion. I too have a conservative christian background. But, as a scientist, I have always found it difficult to discuss this issue in purely religious terms. Whether or not a person believes that abortion is murder usually is determined by whether or not they feel that a soul exists in utero or at conception. Scientifically, this can’t be addressed. Religiously, well, it depends on the religion, doesn’t it? This becomes an extremely tricky discussion. Science can’t give you the answer to when a soul becomes part of living tissue. But, religion has given that answer to many people. However, mandating public policy based on a minority’s religious views is against everything our country stands for. And yes, anti-choice advocates are currently in the minority, according to most research done on the topic. So, although I acknowledge that both sides have a right to their position, I will also point out that pro-choice advocates do not force abortions on women that don’t want them. Unfortunately, anti-choice advocates are trying very hard to eliminate options, based on religious ideology, on all female citizens of this country. So, in the end, it comes down to whether any one church or religion should be able to dictate public policy. And my answer will always be no.
Framing this question as one of “reproductive rights” in some ways misses the mark. This is about religious beliefs, or, more precisely, a clash of religious beliefs (even if with atheistic, secular beliefs). As Mike astutely pointed out, for those in some religious camps, there can be no compromise. This clash of the fundamentalist approach to religion with the humanistic, secular approach that politics in the modern world seems to demand, may well prove to be as divisive, protracted, and bitter as the slavery issue was in the decades leading up to the American Civil war. Those who cannot or will not compromise are frightfully difficult to deal with. All of the reason and logic and legal precedent in the world will prove useless in the end.
As I see it, it boils down to being pro sex or anti sex. That many of the same groups and institutions that oppose abortion also steadfastly oppose contraception and sex education is significant. This often blatant anti-sexuality is an issue that both males and females should be able to oppose as a united front. Rather than squabbling about who has fewer reproductive rights, for now, at least, would we not be wiser to stand united and say that we like sex, that sex isn’t only just for reproduction, and that efforts to limit or control consensual adult sexual conduct will not be tolerated? Once that battle is won, and conclusively so, we can then go back to hashing out the details of how reasonable adults should deal with reproduction and the law.
Ever cross your mind that religious people can and do have sex for purposes other than reproduction or that religious people educate their children about sex?
As a religious person I personally don’t give a rip what you do in your personal life (provided you do not infringe upon mine). I really do not think it is the Government’s business to mandate that a religious institution pay for (indirectly through insurance) things that run counter to its core teachings. Aside- I do not think the government has any place to regulate marriage either.
If you want birth control as a health insurance benefit then work for an employer that provides it. The vast majority of them do. If you’re saying that the Church is the only source of employment I don’t believe it. The Church tends to be more selective and pay less than other employers. If you work there you are doing it by choice.
“The Church tends to be more selective and pay less than other employers. If you work there you are doing it by choice.”
Uh, not if it’s the only job you can find. And what do you do if you are working there for years and then discover you have a problem with your uterus that requires hormonal birth control as a treatment and your insurance doesn’t cover it? Just up and switch jobs? I think you are assuming that job searching and switching jobs is easier than it is, especially for people who are already poor and don’t have the best jobs or education to begin with.
Different employers have different plans. My wife’s employer has cheaper insurance than mine and it covers things mine does not. Why do people think they are owed a certain kind of benefits?
I am aware that different employers have different plans. That is beneficial if you are married to a person who is not only employed full-time, but also employed somewhere besides where you work.
“Why do people think they are owed a certain kind of benefits?”
I would expect a certain standard of coverage from an insurance company. Namely, preventative care. Why do I expect such? Because it is common sense that an insurance company would cover preventative care so as not to incur further costs later in the insured life.
Clearly you do not agree with Obama’s healthcare initiative. I think it is sensible to set a standard, basic level of care for all insurance plans so people are screwed over by their insurance just because they are in the wrong job or cannot find another job.
“An aside- If you can show me one instance where the Catholic Church is the sole (or the employer of choice) in an MSA I will eat my hat.”
Do you really think all companies are just hiring everyone all the time? If you are unemployed, do you think you’re going to be picky in job searching? I’ve been unemployed many a time because of moving for colleges, studying abroad, whatever, and I just applied everywhere and took the first job I was offered because I was broke and needed money immediately.
Regardless, my point still stands: if you are working for the Catholic Church and you enjoy your job, why should you be forced to quit when you find out you have endometritis or ovarian cysts that need to be treated with $100/month birth control that you cannot afford because your insurance does not cover it? If it covers other prescriptions, why should it not cover that?
An aside- If you can show me one instance where the Catholic Church is the sole (or the employer of choice) in an MSA I will eat my hat.
Proposing legislation as a way to point out a double standard can be a little risky. I would hate for this to backfire, i.e., the Georgia legislature passes the bill even though it was meant to be ironic. This happens sometimes in legislatures, something passes that was never intended to pass but gets its own momentum and passes anyway. Or, people insert things into a bill to kill the bill but then it becomes law anyway.
Please be careful, Georgia legislators.
Oh, likely it will pass.
And then everyone will be like ‘WTF? Men were supposed to be jumping all over this and stopping it, why didn’t they?’ But the whole issue will fade away as people remember ‘well, if men didn’t protect themselves it’s their own damn fault anyway because they have the power to unlike women and maybe we should make men buying condoms illegal to prove that men are more willing to protect their rights then women.’
Of course the very nature of the male identity is to not have a male identity, is to deny maleness in favour of individual ‘manhood.’ Which means men won’t recognize their ‘maleness’ much less do anything to protect their vulnerabilities as males.
If that happens there will be a major anger around men and women’s health, feminism will probably take a reputation hit since it’s talked about by quite a few feminists and some may associate the bill with feminism. If it passed I’d want the proposer to be fired instantly for careless actions. If you need to propose risky bills that can harm men, or women, to point out a double standard then maybe you need to look at other methods of awareness or have a way to set it up as a dummy bill that has no option of passing (if that is possible). I’ve had feminists reassure me it has no chance of passing though.
If you guys are so butthurt over not having your reproductive needs covered, do something about it! Women have fought for years and years to get insurance companies to provide these services. You want them, you fight for them.
This comment: “one thing that is consistently missed is that the catholic church’s health care plan doesn’t cover vasectomies either. No one is up in arms over that. Pure freaking hypocrisy on the part of people like John Stewart.”
That makes no sense to me. Women are up in arms over it because we fight for that kind of thing. Guys are not up in arms about it…because they don’t seem care enough to try and change it. So it isn’t hypocrisy unless it is expected that men should just automatically have these services covered without asking for it.
I personally don’t think employers should be obligated by law to provide a standard set of benefits. We do not obligate them to provide a standard pension or 401K match. We don’t obligate them to pay the same or offer the exact same schedules. Why the hell should we expect them to provide the same standard set of health benefits? Heck, we are ok with letting them provide different levels of coverage for things like vaccinations and emergency room visits! Who thinks birth control pills are more important than vaccinations or emergency room visits? My insurance doesnt cover every procedure or prescription for various reasons. I sometimes have to battle with them over it. Sometimes I win. Sometimes I lose. What I don’t understand is the sense of entitlement. If you want birth control work for an employer who provides it as part of their insurance package.
It is hypocrisy because a highly vocal and entitled portion of society expects and demands that women get benefits that men do not. Fighting for women vs. men on something where they are equal (no birth control coverage for either gender) is like advocating that redheads deserve more money than brunettes for the same job.
Isn’t it in the best interests of both men and women to fight for men and women’s reproductive health? Did you, or these women in question, fight for women AND men?
I will agree to the idea of faith-based organizations exempting themselves from any and all services they don’t wish to cover the moment they agree to pay taxes at the same rate as other businesses do. As it stands, I am paying extra taxes on my small business to cover the gap in government funding caused by all the churches and faith-based hospitals that pay not one dime.
The real hypocrisy, as I see it, is religious institutions refusing to bankroll activities they ideologically oppose while forcing taxpayers to bankroll them, whether we support them or oppose them. Christians talk about being persecuted constantly, but in reality, our tax code enables them to receive special privileges that the average American, particularly the average American business owner, is not privy to.