(no subject)
So this is the link papercrownqueen sent me about an hour ago. Rage was induced (It's FOX news, what else would happen?)
Mr. Hannity,
I don't tune into your show, but I was just shown a transcript of an argument you had a few days ago with Jehmu Greene about if birth control should be covered. You make a fair argument about religious beliefs and how many christian faiths believe that birth control is wrong, but I find your argument that Viagra is necessary and birth control is not to be very disturbing. You argued that having birth control available will encourage people to have more unprotected sex, and that Viagra is okay to be covered because it addresses a "legitimate" medical need while birth control does not. Both of these assumptions are grossly incorrect.
Point one: Birth control helps reduce a woman's chances of getting pregnant. It does not eliminate them completely. I am not sexually active, but I would never consider having unprotected sex even if I was on the pill, and neither does any woman I know. Not to mention that birth control does not protect one from STDS. Condoms are essential, and using them in addition to birth control is just common sense - covering all your bases so to speak. Your argument is kind of like saying "Oh, I'm covered against liver damage, so I'm going to go drink a whole bar dry."
Point two: "It is not about women's health, it is about birth control." Birth control is a part of women's health. In fact, a lot of women take birth control to address a medical problem, not because they want to have unprotected sex. Many women take birth control to regulate their menstrual cycle. A common example of this is that a women will not have her period for several months, and then have to endure several straight weeks of a heavy flow, accompanied by cramps and aches and headaches many times worse what is normally experienced by menstruating women. Birth control helps regulate this. It balances out the hormonal levels so that periods come at a more regular interval, and it lessens the painful side-effects. Please tell me how a man's inability to get an erection is any more worthy of medical coverage than two straight weeks of heavy bleeding, cramps, and headaches.
Here's a quick lesson in how Viagra works, in case you needed it: there are hormones in a man's body that are responsible for reducing erections. Viagra blocks those hormones, allowing a man to become erect given the proper stimulus. Likewise, there are hormones in a woman's body that control the buildup of the lining of the uterus - what "bleeds" out during a menstrual cycle. When the level of that hormone changes, the lining detaches and "bleeds" out, usually over the course of a few days.
Both medications deal with hormone levels in the human body. Both are therefore legitimate medical issues that should be covered under health insurance.
And as a last note, I'm quite disturbed on the whole mentality behind your point of view. The idea that birth control is only for loose women who want to have copious amounts of unprotected sex. It gets into the whole negative view of women that Fox News seems to hold far too dear that is really quite upsetting to me as an American women. What you are telling me, by saying I should not have the free access to birth control that you have to Viagra, is that I do not have control of my own body, that I should have to rely on my partner's condom to keep from an unplanned pregnancy. That's not a chance I am willing to take. The stakes are too high in this regard for me to trust my future to a piece of latex. I shouldn't have to entrust my future to a simple, thin layer of latex.
I have the same right to make my own decisions regarding my own body as you do. I should never have to be in the position where I have to decide between eating or risking getting pregnant because I don't have enough money to pay for both food and birth control. And saying the answer is just that I should stop having sex? That should be my choice to make, not yours. That's like turning around and saying "I'm sorry, you can't get an erection? You can't afford the cost of your Viagra? That's too bad, I guess you can't have sex anymore. Bummer. Maybe you should work harder and get a better job so that you can afford both."
It's the same argument that there is about abortion. I'm sorry it upsets you but having a baby is a huge deal, and not one some women are not prepared to or don't want to take on. Some women don't have the means to support a child, some have legitimate medical issues, some have been raped and don't want that reminder attached to their body for nine months, there are a lot of reasons why women want to get abortions. And they're their reasons. Not yours. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions regarding their own body and yes, this does include women.
tl;dr, birth control is in fact prescribed for legitimate medical reasons and should thus be covered. (In fact, I would argue that it has more of a right to be covered than Viagra.) Birth control does not lead to more sluts.
And really. More birth control = fewer abortions. Given how much you folks at Fox news hate abortions, why are you against more, free birth control? It certainly has a much better track record for lowering pregnancies than abstinence and a lack of sex ed in high schools.
Sincerely,
Zoe from Maryland
p.s. By all means, please email me back. I'm really interested to hear your argument about why Viagra is more important than birth control. And any alternate proposals you have for lessening the number of abortions other than "suck it up and have the baby" because with the growing world population and the overflow of orphanages, that's really not a viable solution at all. Those would be interesting to hear as well. Thank you and have a nice day.
Mr. Hannity,
I don't tune into your show, but I was just shown a transcript of an argument you had a few days ago with Jehmu Greene about if birth control should be covered. You make a fair argument about religious beliefs and how many christian faiths believe that birth control is wrong, but I find your argument that Viagra is necessary and birth control is not to be very disturbing. You argued that having birth control available will encourage people to have more unprotected sex, and that Viagra is okay to be covered because it addresses a "legitimate" medical need while birth control does not. Both of these assumptions are grossly incorrect.
Point one: Birth control helps reduce a woman's chances of getting pregnant. It does not eliminate them completely. I am not sexually active, but I would never consider having unprotected sex even if I was on the pill, and neither does any woman I know. Not to mention that birth control does not protect one from STDS. Condoms are essential, and using them in addition to birth control is just common sense - covering all your bases so to speak. Your argument is kind of like saying "Oh, I'm covered against liver damage, so I'm going to go drink a whole bar dry."
Point two: "It is not about women's health, it is about birth control." Birth control is a part of women's health. In fact, a lot of women take birth control to address a medical problem, not because they want to have unprotected sex. Many women take birth control to regulate their menstrual cycle. A common example of this is that a women will not have her period for several months, and then have to endure several straight weeks of a heavy flow, accompanied by cramps and aches and headaches many times worse what is normally experienced by menstruating women. Birth control helps regulate this. It balances out the hormonal levels so that periods come at a more regular interval, and it lessens the painful side-effects. Please tell me how a man's inability to get an erection is any more worthy of medical coverage than two straight weeks of heavy bleeding, cramps, and headaches.
Here's a quick lesson in how Viagra works, in case you needed it: there are hormones in a man's body that are responsible for reducing erections. Viagra blocks those hormones, allowing a man to become erect given the proper stimulus. Likewise, there are hormones in a woman's body that control the buildup of the lining of the uterus - what "bleeds" out during a menstrual cycle. When the level of that hormone changes, the lining detaches and "bleeds" out, usually over the course of a few days.
Both medications deal with hormone levels in the human body. Both are therefore legitimate medical issues that should be covered under health insurance.
And as a last note, I'm quite disturbed on the whole mentality behind your point of view. The idea that birth control is only for loose women who want to have copious amounts of unprotected sex. It gets into the whole negative view of women that Fox News seems to hold far too dear that is really quite upsetting to me as an American women. What you are telling me, by saying I should not have the free access to birth control that you have to Viagra, is that I do not have control of my own body, that I should have to rely on my partner's condom to keep from an unplanned pregnancy. That's not a chance I am willing to take. The stakes are too high in this regard for me to trust my future to a piece of latex. I shouldn't have to entrust my future to a simple, thin layer of latex.
I have the same right to make my own decisions regarding my own body as you do. I should never have to be in the position where I have to decide between eating or risking getting pregnant because I don't have enough money to pay for both food and birth control. And saying the answer is just that I should stop having sex? That should be my choice to make, not yours. That's like turning around and saying "I'm sorry, you can't get an erection? You can't afford the cost of your Viagra? That's too bad, I guess you can't have sex anymore. Bummer. Maybe you should work harder and get a better job so that you can afford both."
It's the same argument that there is about abortion. I'm sorry it upsets you but having a baby is a huge deal, and not one some women are not prepared to or don't want to take on. Some women don't have the means to support a child, some have legitimate medical issues, some have been raped and don't want that reminder attached to their body for nine months, there are a lot of reasons why women want to get abortions. And they're their reasons. Not yours. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions regarding their own body and yes, this does include women.
tl;dr, birth control is in fact prescribed for legitimate medical reasons and should thus be covered. (In fact, I would argue that it has more of a right to be covered than Viagra.) Birth control does not lead to more sluts.
And really. More birth control = fewer abortions. Given how much you folks at Fox news hate abortions, why are you against more, free birth control? It certainly has a much better track record for lowering pregnancies than abstinence and a lack of sex ed in high schools.
Sincerely,
Zoe from Maryland
p.s. By all means, please email me back. I'm really interested to hear your argument about why Viagra is more important than birth control. And any alternate proposals you have for lessening the number of abortions other than "suck it up and have the baby" because with the growing world population and the overflow of orphanages, that's really not a viable solution at all. Those would be interesting to hear as well. Thank you and have a nice day.