More feminist fuming: No mandated contraception coverage in healthcare bills
Sharon Lerner at Double X wrote:
Abortion, it seems, was lost to political horse-trading. But there are also deeper forces at work….
The best example is birth control, which was also recently thrown under the health-reform train. So far, none of the 3 reform bills has required insurers to cover contraception….
Women’s health advocates reported that some Democrats cited a fear of igniting controversy when asked to insert birth control and other preventive services for women into the minimum benefits package. What’s the controversy, exactly? It seems birth control has become a suddenly loaded political issue, a toxic sister to abortion, somehow resonant of irresponsible sex and women’s bodies….
If you ask a pro-life activist what exactly is objectionable about birth control, you’re likely to launch a discussion about when life begins. That’s because much of the opposition to contraception that’s sprung up over the last decade or so has been hitched to the idea that specific methods are tantamount to abortion. In this mindset, the IUD, oral contraception, and the “morning-after” pill are essentially abortifacients, since they may prevent the implantation of an already-fertilized egg – a life, in their view.
Yet this tight logic hasn’t survived the leap from far-right circles to mainstream politics. For one, it leaves open the glaring question of why pro-lifers have little interest in other birth-control methods that can prevent abortions. You’d expect anyone who’s truly concerned about protecting life to be interested in supporting at least the forms of birth control that work before an egg is fertilized. Yet you rarely hear pro-lifers promoting condoms or diaphragms, which are among the surest bets in preventing abortions. And, indeed, there was no distinction made among birth control methods in public discussions around health reform….
A few thoughts.
1st, I don’t understand why certain pro-lifers battle the idea that hormonal contraception may cause abortions when the other side freely admits it – on package labeling and in discussions, as above.
Actually, I think I do understand. These pro-lifers may be users, or they may attend a church that has no moral problem with hormonal contraception, such as mine. I’m a former user, btw. I realize the implications are enormous.
2nd, Lerner is isn’t listening. Even if a certain segment of the pro-life population doesn’t want to make an issue of the abortifacient component of hormonal contraception and IUDs, most of us agree pushing contraception is to push illicit sexual behavior.
Which leads to my 3rd thought, that liberal feminists promoting wide availability of contraception, particularly, the Pill, demonstrate the epitome of sexism against women by promoting their exploitation as well as savaging their health.
“Hormonal contraception” is merely code for artificial female sex steroids. Men aren’t stupid. Most men would never agree to tamper with their virility and health by ingesting small amounts of male sex steroids daily for decades.
Stupid feminists. Stupid women. One of the 2 primary reasons for the sudden spike in breast cancer over the past few decades is the ingestion of poisonous, carcinogenic estrogen every day via hormonal contraception.
(The other reason being abortion, of course. As if more evidence were needed, read about this recent study in China linking a 17% increased incidence of breast cancer in mothers who have aborted.)
As birth control manufacturers continue to experiment on women, new problems are found, such as in Yaz recently, currently being accused of “fraudulent concealment of safety information” by covering up its potential to cause blood clots, “gallbladder damage, kidney stones, heart attacks, pulmonary embolisms and strokes.”
And where are the feminists? Promoting Yaz et al.
[HT: RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte; photo via Getty]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Keep in mind the pill gave birth to a culture for women who like to have sex with men they aren’t married to. And when the pill fails, those children will grow up in homes without a mom AND dad. And what’s the outlook on the lives of THOSE children?
In the end, we’re all paying for contraception.
The pill issue is so close to my heart because in February of 2006 I conceived my son while on YAZ. I continued to take the pill for 13 days till major pains in my side drove me to the doctors. They did ultrasounds thinking I had ovarian cysts but the results said no. Then they drew blood (a urine test had already come up negative for pregnancy). Well, the blood test showed Hcg in my blood. I was pregnant! Had I not found out so early could I have aborted? The years I was on the pill did I unknowingly abort some of my children? These thoughts haunt me.
Even if you’re pro-choice, you have to admit the pill is dangerous. When you ingest it you are dumping all these synthetic hormones into your body that are not natural, and work against your body’s natural functions. The pill causes cancer and other health issues. Is it worth it just to have sex? I mean, I enjoy my “marital fun” with my husband but I don’t want to die over it!
The whole problem with birth control in our culture is that it fosters an anti-child mindset. Children become something to be feared and our fertility must be “controlled”. Then when birth control fails (which it does! more than you think!) abortion is the natural progression.
We have not learned as a culture to value children and view them as the Bible does “Children are an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His REWARD” Reward, not a curse!
Sydney sez: “The whole problem with birth control in our culture is that it fosters an anti-child mindset. Children become something to be feared and our fertility must be “controlled”.” Yes, but there is more — the problem with children and families, and letting children and families do wahtever it is that they want to do, is that they leave the power of the world to everyday people; to everyday families. NOT the elite intellectuals who know better than us when we should have children, how we should have children, and how they should be raised. This issue is about grabbing power away from everyday people and giving the power to social engineers. This is similar to the false idea that we are running out of food or space on this planet for everyone – as justification for various groups to run into all these coutries on the planet and tell them who gets to live or die, how many children you may have, etc. They simply want to rule the earth. Jesus was offered this opportunity, and declined. Not everyone, though, can resist this opportunity.
It is kind of like abortion’s toxic sister. I like that title. I generally stay off the birth control topic during my abortion discussions because of the violent reaction it receives on the other side. I believe my logic follows through such that birth control should also be discouraged, if not illegal, but that’s almost certain to close the ears of any otherwise attentive pro-choice listener.
That being said, how ridiculous is it that there are some people that would consider this “health care”? Only in lala land could someone consider a completely elective, life-destructive option a measure of mandatory health care.
I was wondering when contraceptives would hit the fan. What are these “women’s health advocates” complaining about? They got what they wanted. They came out in support of this bill which takes away from a woman the right to decide for herself what is covered in her insurance policy.
Are they not bright enough to realize that reform that gives the feds authority to say yea or nay to contraceptive coverage is reform that gives the feds authority to say yea or nay to all aspects of a woman’s health care?
I still say they miss the forest for the trees, which is precisely what the administration is banking on. Much better to quibble about the pill than carefully consider the consequences of handing over autonomy to make personal decisions about coverage to the government.
That being said, how ridiculous is it that there are some people that would consider this “health care”? Only in lala land could someone consider a completely elective, life-destructive option a measure of mandatory health car
Lala land? How about all of Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Canada, and the US. The industrialized, civilized world.
Ask any professor of Public Health about the key role family planning and birth control plays in a wealthy, industrialized nation, and they will go on and on about how it is a cornerstone of health care. By promoting healthy spacing between pregnancies, families can more easily afford the costs of raising children. By preventing unwanted pregnancies, we reduce the number of unwanted, unloved children (and some would argue, crime).
To question birth control as a form of health care is like questioning dentistry. And yes, abstinence is a form of birth control in itself. But it seems you armchair scientists and psychologists seem to think it is the only form.
“Ask any professor of Public Health..”
There’s your first mistake.
“But it seems you armchair scientists and psychologists seem to think it is the only form. ”
Right, unlike the serious scholars at the Guttmacher Institute whose latest report had the “70000 women die each year in illegal abortions” statistic cited as “private correspondence.”
Lets list all the harmful side effects of MY medications.
Lamictal (at one time I experienced about half of these): Dizziness, double vision, headaches, coordination problems, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, insomnia, shakiness, weakness, back pain, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, painful menstrual crams, bronchitis, dry mouth, constipation, chest pain, weight loss (wish that happened), worsening of seizures, depression, anxiety, unusual bruising or bleeding, liver damage, severe muscle pain, frequent infections, suicidal thinking or behavior. Associated with birth defects.
Clonidine: Lightheadedness, fainting, irregular heart rate, chest pain, heart palpitations, depression, anxiety, hallucinations, congestive heart failure, dry mouth, drowsiness, dizziness, constipation, sedation, weakness, lethargy, sexual problems, changes in taste, nervousness
My friend was looking at accutane for acne: conjunctivitis, dry skin, dry lips, dry mouth, nosebleed, bowel inflammation, chest pain, night vision, decreased tolerance to contact lenses, delay in wound healing, depression, psychosis, suicide, fatigue headache, nausea, peeling palms or soles, rash, skin infections, stomach and intestinal discomfort, sunburn-sensitive skin, thinning hair, urinary discomfort, vision problems, vomiting, swelling pressure in the brain, osteopenia, hepatotoxicity, anaphylaxis, allergic vasculitis, cataracts, premature epiphyseal closure, neutropenia, agranulocytosis, rhabdomyolysis, IBD, pancreatitis, vascular thrombosis, stroke, seizures. Associated with birth defects (severe).
So what am I saying here? When talking about prescriptions, it’s a matter of what risks the person is willing to take. Informed consent is important, but ultimately, it’s up to the person what they want to do with legal drugs.
Abortion involves 2 people, so it is a different story. I have no problem with birth control, as long as people realize if something happens and a pregnancy occurs, then they have the responsibility to grant that little one its right to life.
Okay prettyinpink, but I asked my doctor point blank if the pill could cause an abortion and he jabbered “Ugh, no. Why does that urban myth persist?” Well I did my own research and yes, read all the fine print of the pill insert and it does thin the lining of the uterus which CAN cause an abortion. It doesn’t primarily function that way (it primarily inhibits ovulation) but should that fail and ovulation occur it makes the womb uninhabitable to a newly conceived child. Now why did my doctor downright lie to me?
Dhalgren…unwanted children? There is no such thing. Just because the MOM doesn’t want her child does NOT mean someone somewhere doesn’t want that child. That is utter liberal, godless, BS.
Sydney, he probably said that because medical pregnancy usually begins with implantation. Furthermore we don’t know how often the controversial mechanism actually takes place any given time. It’s hard to monitor. Plus a lot of other factors affect implantation including stress, medications and drugs like caffeine, and I think that if you get rid of one contributing factors due to potential implantation problems, you have to address the rest and you end up opening a can of worms.
So you see, it’s not so simple as A causes B because A might cause B, but so could C, D, E, and F, so how would you know which one, and A might only cause B in certain circumstances that are hard to measure.
So its up to the person who takes it to have that knowledge and decide whether she might take that risk or not.
You are right, we don’t know how OFTEN implantation is prevented from happening, Prettyinpink, but it still DOES happen and wasn’t that MY RIGHT to have that information and not be lied to by my doctor? You who support abortion always whine and cry about pro-life doctors not pushing their beliefs on their patients but this pro-choice doctor pushed his on me by not respecting that I didn’t want to prevent implantation of my babies EVER.
“Medical pregnancy” blah blah blah. Pregnancy begins at conception, but just recently they have been changing the definition because the pharmaceutical companies don’t want their pills to be known as abortifacient because they will lose tons of pro-life customers. And I know life begins at conception and I don’t care when my doctor THINKS life begins, I am going to err on the side of caution and protect the lives of my children from the very first moment. Afterall, the definition of being a free man with rights used to be when your skin turned white. Back then you were only 3/5 of a person if you were of a skin color other than white. Definitions change, times change but truth never changes.
ALSO prettyinpink, my doctor didn’t tell me “It might prevent implantation” . He didn’t give me that knowledge and allow me to make my decision. Instead he seemed exasperated that the “little ole lady” would DARE to question the “big, smart male doctor”.
So are you saying its up to the patient to have all the information on their own and the doctor should not be required to disclose information or risks whatsoever? Then why have doctors? If I have to have all the knowledge myself I’ll just medicated myself, thanks and be my own doctor. That makes no sense.
Sydney, I had the same experience. I asked my doctor about the pill when he had recommended them for my monthly cramping. I asked him if it can hurt the baby or cause an abortion. He said that it cannot possibly do that- that it tricks your body into believing it’s pregnant so you can’t get pregnant and no baby would exist to be hurt.
It wasn’t until years later that i learned that it could happen, and I was outraged that i had not been given the basic right to an INFORMED decision about the pill. If I asked the question, don’t I deserve a truthful answer?
Don’t I at least deserve to be given the option to know what can happen, even if the chances are slim?
They told me about the risks of an epidural when I went to get that done, even though the risk is extremely small…. so why not this?
I was really angry when I realized that it was actually even on the pill insert itself, but the language was so vaguely worded that until I had been involved in pro-life debate for a number of years, I would never have guessed that it meant that an abortion can occur!
I know that many other pro-life women would immediately stop using the pill if they had any inkling of what the pill is capable of.
So are you saying its up to the patient to have all the information on their own and the doctor should not be required to disclose information or risks whatsoever? Then why have doctors? If I have to have all the knowledge myself I’ll just medicated myself, thanks and be my own doctor. That makes no sense.
I couldn’t agree more with this!
So you see, it’s not so simple as A causes B because A might cause B, but so could C, D, E, and F, so how would you know which one, and A might only cause B in certain circumstances that are hard to measure.
Prettyinpink, preventing implantation is one of the MECHANISMS of the pill. It is one of the things that is INTENDED to occur should the other two mechanisms fail. Not so with coffee!
Why should patients not be informed that this is one of the mechanisms of the pill, so that they can decide whether they want to put it into their body and take that risk?
Maybe before implantation the baby doesn’t matter to you or the doctor, but if it matters to me, don’t I have the right to know this without having to research it myself? Shouldn’t the doctor disclose this information to me when I or anyone else asks?
I reread my 5:49 post and realized it looks like I’m shouting when I used all caps in the words. Just wanted to say that I wasn’t shouting- I was just too lazy to italicize for emphasis.