Birth Control Debate
My FB friend Cas posted a link on her fb wall. I've actually read it already, but it ended up sparking a debate. I feel like the person she's debating with brings up a lot of the points many people bring up against all of this, and Cas is always extremely... she really researches every damn thing she says. no more explanation, here it is (and yes it's massive. skim if you want, I've posted at the very end... for now. I might be updating this, depending.)
I'm posting this because I want your opinions. if you think I'm a crazy crackwhore for what I said, say so and tell me why. if you have any disagreements with anything said, or follow-up questions, or comments, hit the comment button at the bottom. that's what it's there for. I'm very curious to see what you think about all of this, that's why I sent it to you.
side note - this video says everything that needs to be said, if you'd like a snappy summary of this entire page. watch it; and be sure to open it in a new tab/window.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/409941/march-05-2012/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sandra-fluke
Cas:
(ಠ_ಠ) Seeing it all in list form, all at once, is somehow more disturbing.
http://emilyslist.org/blog/Top_10_Terrible_Horrible_No_Good_Very_Bad_Attacks_on_Womens_Rights/
Girl I Don't Know (GIDK): This list is ridiculous. Half of it isn't true, or so skewed that it doesn't matter. Women in the United States enjoy more freedoms than 90% of women around the world. To defend religious freedom is an attack on women? To defend the rights of the unborn is an attack on women? The women around the world who are not allowed to drive, vote, marry whom they choose, or defend themselves in court are under attack. President Obama called for political rhetoric to become more civilized and respectful. This attack on the right is anything but civil. Disagreeing on these issues is not a crime nor is it an attack on women.
Cas: We obviously have a fundamental disagreement on the morality of abortion (I see the rights of the woman as trumping the rights of the fetus she carries, it seems you think the reverse), so I won't bother arguing that angle. You won't discard your philosophy and I won't discard mine. But that list does detail attacks on American women. The fact that American women enjoy more freedoms than many women in the world does not negate the existence of misogyny. It's fallacious to say "because it is better than it could be, there is no room for improvement."
Regarding the list: (long post is long)
1. An amendment allowing any employer to enforce their religious views on their employees by denying them health care their own religious views do not support infringes the religious freedom of the employees. So downing the Blunt Amendment WAS defending religious freedom. Even churches employ people who do not belong to their congregation, and denominations are not hive minds-- individuals within the same denomination adhere to tenets to varying degrees. Dictating health choices by religious views violates that free will and freedom to practice religion to whatever extent an individual desires.
2. Women kind of have an interest in matters of birth control. But we were denied a voice in the matter. I don't see how that can be skewed.
3. & 6. There's already a federal law saying government money can't be used for abortions, so government defunding of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions only damages their ability to provide other services like cancer screenings and pregnancy prevention. Komen defunding them in a roundabout way hurt the people they want to help (women seeking breast cancer screenings) for the sake of not funding abortions, rather than perhaps negotiating that their contributions not go to abortion services. Which is why they backpedalled. Besides, funding pregnancy prevention means fewer people seeking abortions. So if someone is anti-abortion, it would seem wise to be enthusiastic about preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
4. Rush Limbaugh's rampant slut-shaming campaign is pretty blatant and recorded in his own words, so I don't see how it isn't an attack on women. He didn't just go after Fluke, he went after her fellow female students, too. Not to mention he completely misrepresented Fluke's testimony and how birth control works in general. He called Fluke a slut and a prostitute and asked for sex tapes. His attack on Fluke and women was anything but civil.
5. Mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds are rape with a foreign object. The World Health Organization defines rape as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration - even if slight - of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure compels a woman by law to endure a medically unnecessary vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. That's coerced penetration.
7. I'll give you that the specific interview cited is likely pretty outrageous. (I honestly don't expect anything less from Fox News.) However, it's basically a nasty addition to a laundry list of victim-blaming lines saying it's a woman's own fault if she gets raped. That that woman includes "join the military / work with men" in a way similar to "her clothes were too skimpy / she drank too much / etc., so she was asking for it" is pretty awful. People never ask for rape, people never deserve rape. There are no excuses.
8. "Put aspirin between your knees for birth control" means "keep your legs shut" means "don't have sex." The implication is that only the ~shameful~ promiscuous use birth control that doesn't consist of abstinence because sex (for women) is all about making babies. This is called slut-shaming and implies women aren't allowed to have sex as a recreational activity. If that kind of attitude is part of someone's religion, fine. Don't legislate it on those who don't subscribe to that belief. Not to mention how the same people say it's okay to cover Viagra for erectile dysfunction, thus allowing men sexual pleasure, because that's a medical condition. Double standard.
9. Birth control is not "available and affordable" for women. You cannot go down to the corner store and pick it up off the shelf like men can with condoms. It is available by prescription, which you need to see a doctor to get. Not only does the doctor visit cost money, it necessitates a gynecological exam, which many women are uneasy about. Men don't have to expose themselves and be probed to get condoms. The prescriptions themselves are not cheap, either. The generic of the one I took to treat dysmenorrhea when I had health insurance costs roughly $35/month without insurance. I had to stop taking it because I simply don't have the money, so I have to endure debilitating pain and nausea three to five days a month.
10. Romney's on video not knowing how birth control works. I don't see how that one is skewed. Unless you think saying that someone who doesn't know the subject should be given little credibility or power on the same subject is skewed extrapolation.
Friday at 12:37pm · Unlike · 3
GIDK: I'm glad you brought this up, because I feel the conservative perspective on this issue is rarely heard. So here is my admittedly long response:
GIDK: #1 There is no such thing as a right to health insurance, much less a right to contraceptives for recreational use in our constitution. Freedom of religion, however, is a right and forcing an individual or religious group to pay for something they are morally opposed to is and offense to that right. Just because insurance doesn't cover a certain product does not restrict your right to purchase it, so no rights have been taken away if insurance policies remain the same. And what about my right to purchase the health insurance I want? The government is not only dictating that I buy health insurance (something I think is completely unconstitutional), but that I buy a certain kind of insurance that covers specific things (like contraceptives). The more promises government makes about what insurance companies have to cover, the more premiums and insurance costs will go up, making it that much harder for people in my family's situation to afford health insurance.
GIDK: #2 Women have been denied a voice? Congress has listened to dozens of panels on this issue, and because one panel of many was designed to give religious leaders a voice (who are mostly male) this has somehow shut the mouths of women? Clearly not, no objections were made when the democrats brought forward their panel of women (non of which were conservative) including Sandra Fluke. Plus, you assume that those men could not speak for women such as myself who agree with the position of defending religious freedom.
GIDK: #3+6 Planned Parenthood performs 30% of the nations abortions. By funding the other treatments, which planned parenthood would be providing anyway to attract women into their clinic, the government and Komen's is allowing Planned Parenthood to focus the majority of their money to pay for lobbying and suing for the expansion of abortive practices. The truth is they don't need the governments money--they make hundreds of billions of dollars on abortions, they just don't want the government and Komen's to stop funding them because that would make them appear more controversial. Surprisingly, the increased use of contraceptives leads to more unwanted pregnancies. Contraceptives aren't full proof even when taken properly, but most women who use them don't use them properly and so they think they are "safe" when they are not.
GIDK: #4 I disagree with Rush Limbaugh's comments. I'm not a fan of Rush, but on the rare occasions I have listened to him, he was very respectful to callers who disagree with him, so I was very surprised he said those things. I think he truly is sorry he made those statements, especially since they harmed the cause he was fighting for.
GIDK: #5 A transvaginal ultrasound would only be necessary in the first trimester. So she actually has lots of options: a) she could not have an abortion b) she could go to another state c) she could wait a few weeks. And why she would be opposed to it when they use objects including transvaginal ultrasounds to perform the abortion is beyond my understanding. But I do understand that abortion proponents are anti anything that would require a woman to more fully understand the consequences of getting an abortion, which is why they do not want her to see what her baby looks like before they kill it.
GIDK: #7 I'm not familiar with this story and honestly don't care to be--extremists are given way too much attention in the media, which completely distorts the issues and makes it harder for political parties to reach compromises.
Yesterday at 12:51am · Like
GIDK: #8 I don't think coverage for contraceptives is at all the same thing as coverage for viagra. Admittedly, I think viagra is over prescribed, because most of these men have an emotional problem that's turned into a physical problem, and could be treated in more appropriate ways. But getting back to my point, viagra is medically fixing a part of the body that isn't functioning, while contraceptives are doing the opposite. Besides, women can have pleasurable and frequent sex without using contraceptives by using condoms or a cervix cover, or even doing more creative things than intercourse. Lol, I bet you weren't expecting a christian woman to be making THAT argument!
GIDK: #9 If men can buy condoms, why can't women? It's even safer, because they protect men and women from STDs. I don't know what form of contraception they were selling you, but the generic kind costs less than $10 a month. And even with your premium brand, it wouldn't add up to Sandra Fluke's exaggerated cost of $1,000 a year.
GIDK: #10 Why should the President of the United States have a deep understanding of the different forms of birth control? I think Government should get out of our personal lives and pay closer attention to the things that really matter such as maintaing peace for Americans on the global and domestic fronts. I think that this particular interview reveals more than a lack of knowledge on Mitt's part; it exposes the controversial nature of contraceptives. There are forms of contraception that are a type of abortion. Thus reinforcing the argument that those who are opposed to abortion in all its forms should not be forced to pay for it.
Cas: Oookaaay, I'll rebut. It's long.
Some of what I say about contraceptive availability refers to "it should be covered by insurance" and some of it is to argue against your implied disapproval of the use of any contraceptives (if I've misread that, let me know). I wrote this out of order, so I hope it's obvious which I mean by context. :X
Cas: 1. "There is no such thing as a right to health insurance, much less a right to contraceptives for recreational use in our constitution."
I see it as the government "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as given as a goal in the Preamble (yes, I know the Preamble is a non-binding Mission Statement for Constitutional interpretation) by making laws under:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and {{{provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States}}}; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's in the best interests of the United States for its citizens to have access to health care and be healthy. Economically and just in general.
"The more promises government makes about what insurance companies have to cover, the more premiums and insurance costs will go up"
First, covering contraceptives is cheaper for the government and private insurance companies than covering maternity, pre-natal, delivery, post-natal, and child medical costs. The Guttmacher Institute mentions (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140306.pdf) some studies: "...unintended pregnancy also imposes a high financial burden on the nation. The first study, by researchers from the Brookings Institution, used 2001 national estimates of the publicly funded outcomes of unintended pregnancies-births, abortions, miscarriages and infant medical care. It concluded that the estimated annual cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies-and to the infants who are born as a result-ranges from $9.6 billion to $12.6 billion, and averages $11.3 billion. Public savings from preventing these unintended pregnancies would range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion, and average $5.6 billion" and "Unintended pregnancy costs U.S. taxpayers roughly $11 billion each year. Dramatic though that price tag may be, it is itself a conservative estimate that is limited to publicly funded medical care for pregnancy and the first year of an infant’s life; the true cost would actually be many times higher if other expenses, such as social supports or ongoing medical care, were considered" (2).
People being unable to pay for medical services rendered is a major cause of driving up the costs of medical care and thus premiums. When a hospital is not paid for services, they have to raise their prices, and insurance companies have to raise their premiums. (See http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/access/cost.pdf ) Even if the government shelled out to cover all uninsured, after the initial blast of people taking advantage of finally finally FINALLY having health care, costs would go down due to easy access to preventative care causing better general health and less need for the major medical expenses incurred when someone who has ignored their health due to inability to pay for preventative care finds themselves hospitalized for catastrophic care. Covering as much preventative care as possible saves money in the long run.
As a personal example, I am unemployable until I can manage to get my hands on maintenance meds and preventative care for three medical conditions I have. Even when I was employed, once I lost my independent insurance I could not afford care, which is why I lost my job. If I had affordable maintenance and preventative care, I could be working and quite gladly paying into the system.
As a former pharmacy employee, I think the entire insurance industry is right messed up and wish for universal health care akin to Britain's NHS (which is the height of idealism in the current climate of "the poor can go die").
"Freedom of religion, however, is a right and forcing an individual or religious group to pay for something they are morally opposed to is and offense to that right."
While the employer has a contract with the third-party insurance provider, it would be the employee paying the premium and the insurer themselves rather than the employer covering contraception, if I understand correctly. (I admit I could wrong on that point. Show me something if I am.) If you do not use contraceptives, you won't be paying for contraceptives. Ensuring that certain things are available for everyone does not mean everyone is obligated to use them. I didn't get much chance to learn about the employee-side of health insurance because the one my employer used ruled me ineligible unless I paid them more than half my paycheck for horrible coverage whose co-pays would leave me without money for food, so I freely admit could be wrong there. Go ahead and link me to something to correct me.
Cas: 2. "Women have been denied a voice? Congress has listened to dozens of panels on this issue, and because one panel of many was designed to give religious leaders a voice (who are mostly male) this has somehow shut the mouths of women? Clearly not, no objections were made when the democrats brought forward their panel of women (non of which were conservative) including Sandra Fluke."
That panel was for the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Wikipedia for quicksies: "the House Democratic Caucus includes a Steering and Policy Committee. Its primary purpose is to assign fellow party members to other House committees, and it also advises party leaders on policy," in other words, that panel has no overall authority), rather than the House Oversight Committee (Wikipedia for quicksies: "The Committee's government-wide oversight jurisdiction and expanded legislative authority make it one of the most influential and powerful committees in the House. The Committee serves as Congress' chief investigative and oversight committee, and is granted broad jurisdiction.") As it was an internal hearing, of course there were no protests. But the Oversight Committee refused to allow a woman to speak about how the views of the other speakers would harm women in the forum that actually mattered most politically. So yes, women were silenced.
"Plus, you assume that those men could not speak for women such as myself who agree with the position of defending religious freedom."
No, I assume no such thing. I assert that even if they do speak for women such as yourself, Issa silenced dissenting opinion detailing an alternate perspective on religious freedom.
Cas: 3. & 6. "The truth is they don't need the governments money--they make hundreds of billions of dollars on abortions[.]"
Planned Parenthood's financial records are public. They are incorporated entities at the regional level. Here, for example, is the 2010 and 2011 fiscal audit for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppsne/files/southern-new-england/2011_fs.pdf ). On page 10 you will find that "PPSNE received 15% and 17% of its revenues and support from the federal government for the years ended March 31, 2011 and 210 respectively." For 2011, they generated $26,221,969 in revenue ($5,329,475 of which was from government grants, which CANNOT BE USED FOR ABORTIONS) and incurred $25,314,715 in expenses (5). That leaves a balance of $907,254. That is barely in the black for such a large entity, and subtracting the government grants would put them in the red. (Precisely, it would leave them $20,892,494 with which to pay $25,314,715 of expenses, leaving them $4,422,221 in the red.) The regional nature of their government funding explains why defunding the chapters in Texas caused them to close so many of their locations, as noted in the original list I posted ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/texas-womens-clinics-retreat-as-finances-are-cut.html?_r=2 ). That article mentions low-income women without transportation who are now unable to get to the nearest-- newly quite far away-- clinic despite knowing they had screenings that showed positive results for cancer risk.
"Surprisingly, the increased use of contraceptives leads to more unwanted pregnancies."
No.
"Teenage Sexual and Reproductive Behavior" ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/eurosynth_rpt.pdf ) is a very comprehensive, decade-long study about contraception use in the United States, Sweden, France, Canada, and the UK, which concluded: "Less, and less effective, contraceptive use is still key to the exceptionally high teenage pregnancy and birthrates in the United States; and society’s ambivalence and conflict about sexual issues leads to difficulties for teenagers in accessing contraceptive services" (82), "Less contraceptive use and less use of hormonal methods are the primary reasons U.S. teenagers have the highest rates of pregnancy, childbearing and abortion" (85), and "U.S. teenagers using methods are more likely than sexually active teenagers in the other countries to rely on non-hormonal methods which typically have higher use-failure rates" (86). It also states that "Although this study has focused on adolescents, their behavior and the types of policies and programs affecting their lives reflect wider social, historical and governmental contexts in the individual countries. And, teenagers’ sexual and reproductive behavior mirrors that of adults rather than being distinct from them" (82).
A study by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals ( http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/january-2008 ) found that 52% of all unwanted pregnancies in the United States come from the mere 10.7% of sexually active women who use no contraceptive methods at all, versus 48% of all unintended pregnancies coming from the 89.3% of sexually active women who use some form of contraception, which failed (¶3). That's a huge discrepancy in source (a much smaller number of women having a higher incidence of pregnancy than a much larger number of women-- like a group of a hundred women producing fifty-two pregnancies and a group of nine hundred women producing forty-eight pregnancies) and shows that contraception does drastically decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.
"Contraceptives aren't [fool] proof even when taken properly, but most women who use them don't use them properly and so they think they are "safe" when they are not."
First, the Guttmacher Institute mentions ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/4/gr010405.html ) how poor affordability affects the contraceptive failure rate: "cost concerns may affect how well women are able to use their chosen method. Some women may delay refilling a prescription for oral contraceptives, for example, or put off obtaining a Depo Provera® injection because of cash-flow problems. And even a brief gap in method use can have a major impact. Notably, half of the unintended pregnancies in the United States are to women who are "using" contraception-but not always consistently or with maximum effectiveness" (¶13).
I'll be the first to admit there is a lack of understanding of birth control in this country. That's why I advocate more comprehensive sexual education in American schools. It's a subject American schools in general fail at. See the previously mentioned study ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/eurosynth_rpt.pdf ): "although sexuality education is taught in almost all secondary public schools in the United States, teachers increasingly stress abstinence and provide limited accurate information about contraception. In 1999, 41% of sexuality education teachers reported that abstinence was their most important message...; 40% reported either that they do not cover contraceptives or condoms or they teach that these methods are ineffective; and only about one-third reported telling students where they can go to obtain contraceptives" (90). This does not negate the fact that contraceptives prevent a large number of unwanted pregnancies, as borne out by the mentioned ARHP study. Where we will permanently disagree is that I see abortion as an acceptable form of birth control should contraceptives fail. (And even if no contraceptives were used at all. Just to be clear.) I think your disapproval of abortion is coloring your approval-- rather, apparent disdain-- for contraceptives because you think people who are decided enough to try to prevent pregnancy outright are more likely to get abortions when preventative measures fail.
You say later that "[t]here are forms of contraception that are a type of abortion." Contraceptives PREVENT conception. They prevent ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. Pregnancy begins when the blastocyst implants in the uterine wall. If an ovum is not released or is not fertilized, or a fertilized egg (zygote turning into a blastocyst) does not implant into the uterine wall, it is not a pregnancy and thus nothing is being aborted. Conception has been prevented. Chemical abortifacients are not contraceptives-- they work after conception has occurred. And even emergency contraception does not cause abortion of an established pregnancy ( http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/plan-b-11-questions-11-answers ). If you have an issue with chemical abortion fine, say so. Just don't roll chemical abortion in with contraception. You're comparing grapes and raisins.
Cas: 4. I have a very different opinion of Limbaugh and think "respectful" is an antonym for his conduct over yeeears, but okay.
5. "A transvaginal ultrasound would only be necessary in the first trimester. So she actually has lots of options: a) she could not have an abortion b) she could go to another state c) she could wait a few weeks."
A. That is her own decision and should not be coerced.
B. That assumes she has sufficient income for a trip and a place to stay, transportation to get there and back, job security ironclad enough that she can take a few days off work without losing her job, someone to watch over any kids she already has (many seeking abortions already have children), and relationship security such that an abuser will not be able to figure out what she's doing and prevent her from going on a trip that needs to be well-coordinated in advance.
C. Women handle pregnancy in many, many different ways. Whether there are early complications, early side effects like extreme nausea and headaches of a pregnancy she doesn't even want, or even the psychological consequences of carrying a fetus you do not want, especially if that fetus is the product of an unhealthy relationship or rape, you are essentially advocating a woman should have a period of suffering for getting pregnant and not wanting to continue the pregnancy. For not adhering to your religious beliefs. That's discriminatory and cruel.
"And why she would be opposed to it when they use objects including transvaginal ultrasounds to perform the abortion is beyond my understanding."
Because it is an unnecessary extra trauma. Women go in for abortions already knowing they're going to have to expose themselves to strangers and have strangers shove things up inside them to perform the actual abortion. The mandated transvaginal ultrasound also includes a period of 24 hours post ultrasound until the actual procedure can be performed. People who have anxiety enough that they have a hard time gearing themselves up to be probed once will quite understandably balk at having to be probed twice when it is completely unnecessary to do so. This is especially bad for victims of molestation and rape who are likely to have PTSD and have flashbacks. Mandating the transvaginal ultrasound is like the rape frosting on the shame cake that is anti-choice policy.
"abortion proponents are anti anything that would require a woman to more fully understand the consequences of getting an abortion"
As anti-choicers seem to assume a woman is stupid, ignorant, and can't make a decision about her own life and body based on whatever information she chooses to seek for herself.
"they do not want her to see what her baby looks like before they kill it"
We obviously have a different view of terminology. In your philosophy, "fetus" is synonymous with "baby" which is synonymous with "person." In my philosophy, "baby" is an abstract, emotional ideal optionally applied to "fetus" or "infant" depending on the philosophy and level of attachment of the thinker, and "fetus" is NOT synonymous with "person," but "infant" IS. If a woman doesn't want to see the fetus, that's her decision. What you're advocating is like approaching someone and bombarding them with video of someone with sympathetic dialogue in an attempt to get them to donate their spare kidney. "If you don't make this sacrifice to your own health, this poor innocent person will die and it will be all your fault!" The government cannot obligate anyone to give of their own bodies for the sake of others. That's why blood, tissue, and organ donation is voluntary. The government cannot even take such things after your death. Even if your sibling was on his or her deathbed and you were the only match for a kidney, the State could not obligate you to risk your health to save another. Why women should be obligated to share their bodies and risk short-term and long-term consequences for the sake of "saving the life" of another is thus a mystery to me.
Cas: 7. Victim-blaming rape culture is still A Thing. Ignoring it is how it IS A Thing.
8. "viagra is medically fixing a part of the body that isn't functioning, while contraceptives are doing the opposite"
[WARNING FOR THE SQUEAMISH: PERIOD TALK]
Considering oral contraceptives made it so that I didn't spend three to five days curled up in bed on towels in case I out-bled my super tampon and super pad both (it happens, sometimes in as little as an hour, especially if I am upright) with a heating pad on my stomach trying not to cry from pain between trips to the bathroom to dry heave or outright vomit because dysmenorrhea and endometriosis make my uterus tell everything from my diaphragm to my knees to cramp horribly and make me pass large, painful clots, I find it difficult not to laugh cynically at this statement.
[END WARNING]
Otherwise, even if you look at strictly the pregnancy prevention angle, the aspect of "allows women to enjoy sex" is the same as Viagra, which allows men to enjoy sex. I don't know of a medical reason to prescribe Viagra to "fix" a penis aside from allowing a man sexual pleasure. Yet it's often covered even if it's prescribed for ED rather than cardiovascular problems. Okay. Fine. But that's unequal treatment.
Medications vary between treating by enhancing or inhibiting things. Why does it matter which method is used? So some women see their ability to reproduce as a problem, whether for personal reasons or medical risks to their health and lives. (There are women with medical conditions contraindicating pregnancy. As in, "Get pregnant and you may be permanently disabled or die because of risks like having to stop taking the medication keeping you alive if you don't want birth defects.") Some men think the same and have vasectomies. Yet men can generally have their desire to not reproduce be paid for.
And if you read the transcript of Fluke's testimony (http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2), you'll see that she was citing health concerns treatable by contraceptives, the school ostensibly said they'd cover it in those cases, and then copped out by interrogating women and refusing to believe their diagnoses and failing to reimburse them. So her friend got a tennis ball-sized cyst on her ovary, which had to be completely removed, and now she has hormonal imbalances that are akin to early menopause since ovaries produce hormones. She may not be able to have children.
"Besides, women can have pleasurable and frequent sex without using contraceptives by using condoms or a cervix cover, or even doing more creative things than intercourse."
Of course they can. What about the women who aren't fortunate enough to be in a relationship with a man who is willing to forgo intercourse?
"Lol, I bet you weren't expecting a christian woman to be making THAT argument!"
Why wouldn't I? Whatever group a woman belongs to, I think she can have as much or as little vanilla or kinky sex as she wants. I think restricting availability of contraceptives is an outside source climbing in her bedroom window and limiting her options.
Cas: 9. "If men can buy condoms, why can't women?"
Of course women can buy condoms. Women DO buy condoms. Men can refuse to use them for a multitude of reasons, especially considering the unfortunate truth that not all relationships include mutual respect for one another's bodies. Men and women both can have allergies to the materials used in condoms, especially if they have a latex allergy. There are special condoms available, but polyurethane is more likely to break and more expensive and lambskin (actually sheep intestine) is porous and thus less effective in preventing transmission of STDs and significantly more expensive. I used to dispense the sheepskin ones at the pharmacy. They were covered by insurance.
"I don't know what form of contraception they were selling you, but the generic kind costs less than $10 a month. And even with your premium brand--"
By "the generic kind," you are referring to a single generic that does not suit everybody. For example, Target's online pharmacy only lists two contraceptives under their shiny $4 generic plan-- Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec. Other places may have a couple other generics. If you're lucky enough that that works, then you're all set, aren't you? Except people can't all use the same thing because everyone's body is different and does not respond to the same drug the same way. Some people cannot even use generics because their bodies can't tolerate various drug companies' supposedly inert fillers. (When I worked pharmacy, we had a few people whose computer profiles had glaring WARNING! DO NOT SUBSTITUTE GENERIC!!! PATIENT ALLERGIC TO GENERIC FILLERS! plus like three lines of exclamation points to grab attention.)
Regarding my own contraceptive, I already stated that it WAS a generic. Not all generics are magically $4. I've been on a variety of prescriptions for chronic problems and had generics that cost *looks in file cabinet for stubs* $162.74 (60 tabs) and $427.61 (90 tabs) for a monthly dose. The cheapest generic I ever had sans insurance was $20.88 (30 tabs), which was like "Be still, my heart!"
As to why I took it and not something cheaper? Because it worked and allowed me to function during my period. And then because when I abruptly lost my unrelated insurance and then my job, I didn't have the $150 to go to the doctor to get a prescription for something cheap that might not work. I lucked out and wasn't too awful for the first two years, but this last year has been atrocious.
"--it wouldn't add up to Sandra Fluke's exaggerated cost of $1,000 a year."
Planned Parenthood says pills usually run $15-$50 a month ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm ). That's $180-$600 a year. My own generic was $35/mo, or $420/yr. However, if you look at prices online for individual brand name ones (there are people who can't take generics or there is no generic available), you can find:
Brevicon 28 = $71.99/mo = $863.88/yr
Yasmin 28 = $89.99/mo = $1079.88/yr
Yaz 28 = $92.99/mo = $1115.88/yr
Loestrin Fe 1.5/30 = $95.99/mo = $1151.88/yr
and so on. (prices from drugstore.com)
Cas: 10. "Why should the President of the United States have a deep understanding of the different forms of birth control?"
If he's going to talk about and endorse legislation controlling it, I would reeeeally hope he'd know what he's talking about.
"I think Government should get out of our personal lives"
I'd like them to do that by not telling me what I can't do to my own body.
"pay closer attention to the things that really matter such as maintaing peace for Americans on the global and domestic fronts"
There's a lovely thing called multitasking. The government does it every day.
And I addressed the rest above.
GIDK: Obamacare is not even fully in effect and so far it has raised insurance premiums, increased the national debt, raised the infaltion rate, and displaced jobs in the private sphere to the public sphere. All of this means trouble for the United States. I'm sure Obamacare is helping some people, but for most people it has had a negative affect on their health care. And the cost it will have on our nation as a whole is also negative.
GIDK: And just to clarify, I am not anti contraceptives, I'm anti forcing insurance companies to cover contraceptives. I think everyone has more liberty when the insurance companies have the freedom to create their own policies and when consumers have the freedom to choose from a plethera of options.
Cas: Regarding what you say about PPACA... no. (Calling it Obamacare makes me twitchy, since the legislative branch took what Obama recommended and mangled it into something very different, btw.) Mind, I'm not saying the PPACA is shiny and perfect. But. Forbes looks at both sides' misleading statements about cost ("It'll make cost go down! / It makes cost go up!") and compares them to fact (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/29/the-truth-about-health-care-reforms-impact-on-insurance-premiums/):
"While the naysayers point to the huge [59%] rise taking place in California as an example, it must be noted that even California Blue Shield does not blame the law for the painful rise in its premium prices. In a statement issued with the announcement of the increase, the company said, 'These rates reflect trends that were building long before health reform.' The company further indicated that higher prices demanded by health care providers, more use of health care, and healthy people dropping their coverage because of the bad economy were the real culprit" (1); "Further, in a recent analysis conducted by Hewitt Associates, a well-respected human resources firm, the company estimated that employers would likely see a rise in premium costs averaging 8.8% in 2011. This is within the norm for what we have seen in annual raises over the years preceding passage of the health care reform law. Further, the firm estimates that the new law will account for, at best, one to two percent of the increases" (2); "The truth is, were the PPACA to manage to slow down the annual rate of increase in premium costs, we should consider the law a major success. But expecting it to actually lower present premium rates is probably a stretch" (3); "While the report suggests that middle-class families can save up to $2300 annually in premiums along with small businesses experiencing a savings of up to $350 for each family covered, these numbers are the result of a comparison to what premiums are projected to have been had the ACA *not* been passed. In other words, without the law, a middle-class family might have paid up to $2300 more in premiums" (3).
As for the rest of your claims about inflation and jobs, go ahead and show me something saying so. I'd attribute those claims to the poor economy and government efforts to create jobs happening to be in the public sector since /that's where they employ people/, but show me otherwise.
"I think everyone has more liberty when the insurance companies have the freedom to create their own policies and when consumers have the freedom to choose from a plethera of options."
Are you, then, against the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978? Out of curiosity. (text of Act: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm) As the Guttmacher Institute says (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/4/gr010405.html): "As their most striking example of historic discrimination against women in insurance coverage, advocates cite maternity care-- basic prenatal and delivery services-- which, until the late 1970s, private insurance plans in the United States often did not cover. Indeed, it took enactment of a federal law-- the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), which mandates maternity coverage in most private-sector policies-- to change the situation. And change the situation it did: Coverage for maternity care jumped from 57% of policies written in 1977 to 89% of policies just five years later" (¶3).
10 hours ago · Like
GIDK: Premiums have gone up across the board, not just in California. IObviously premiums would go even further up in California, liberals have been running that state into the ground since who know when. Obama and the democrats promised premiums would go down and they didn't. It's wishful thinking to think that you could know what would have happened to premiums if they hadn't passed Obamacare, particularly if you are listening to the same people who's predictions were wrong when it did pass. I guess the only way we'll know for sure is if it were repealed.
GIDK: I probably would be against the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. For one thing, insurance companies give only token coverage for pregnancies, for instance in the state I'm in they have separate deductibles for pregnancies and those deductibles are typically no lower than $8,000. And again, mandates in insurance drive costs up. The average pregnancy in the 70s probably cost less than half of the average pregnancy today. For instance my mom had her children during the late 70s and 80s. Her first was her cheapest, a few hundred dollars, her last was her most expensive at a couple thousand dollars. The average cost of a pregnancy today: $8,000. What's ironic to me is it's the insured, not the uninsured that are really driving up costs, because they think it doesn't matter how much they spend as long as the insurance covers it, but that cost is shared by everyone who pays premiums.
Cas: California was being used as a particular example of premiums going up across the board. I never said they didn't go up elsewhere. The article mentioned did call out that Democrats saying premiums would actually go down was misleading and I did not argue against that, I quoted it as fact. I agree with the article's assessment of "Who is telling the truth? Everybody and nobody" (¶4-5).
Observing a pre-existing numerical pattern and plotting where that pattern would go next isn't "wishful thinking," it's math. Statistics, I think. While it is obviously not 100% accurate, you cannot dismiss it as complete fantasy. You haven't told me who incorrectly predicted what when, so I cannot argue against that.
See, I think that even token coverage is better than no coverage at all. I still think it's messed up and should be covered better-- I want nationalized universal health care of some form, as you recall-- but it's better than nothing.
"And again, mandates in insurance drive costs up."
I don't know where you're getting that idea or what basis it has in fact. I addressed that claim previously, too:
"People being unable to pay for medical services rendered is a major cause of driving up the costs of medical care and thus premiums. When a hospital is not paid for services, they have to raise their prices, and insurance companies have to raise their premiums. (See http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/access/cost.pdf ) Even if the government shelled out to cover all uninsured, after the initial blast of people taking advantage of finally finally FINALLY having health care, costs would go down [ETA: or at least not rise as quickly, ACROSS THE BOARD] due to easy access to preventative care causing better general health and less need for the major medical expenses incurred when someone who has ignored their health due to inability to pay for preventative care finds themselves hospitalized for catastrophic care. Covering as much preventative care as possible saves money in the long run."
Though I'm able to corroborate the rise in cost of pregnancy is true to the anecdotal evidence you gave me sans hard data to look at, you have not demonstrated the cause of the rise in cost. It seems you're implying the mandated coverage of pregnancy caused the rise, but correlation =/= causation. My argument, as previously demonstrated, is that failure to pay by the un- and underinsured causes the rise. The clearest source I can find is WebMD's "What It Costs to Have a Baby" (http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/cost-of-having-a-baby). [I'd prefer something that cites sources I can read instead of otherwise undocumented interviews with professionals, but my Google-fu is failing tonight and you seem happy to use anecdata, so *shrug*] They state that "the average charge of an uncomplicated cesarean section more than doubl[ed] from 1993-2007, and the cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery almost tripl[ed] during that same time period" (2). There's your rise in cost to patient. However, they immediately continue with "'Looking at a sample of nine states, researchers found that 17% to 41% of childbearing women lacked insurance before coming pregnant,' says Carol Sakala, director of programs at Childbirth Connection, a national nonprofit organization that works on behalf of mothers and babies to improve the quality of maternity care in the U.S. 'While 13% to 35% of the pregnant women qualified for Medicaid coverage, many ...[found] private insurance or pa[id] out of pocket,' Sakala says" (2). The underinsured (those with the token coverage you mention) are mentioned as being put at hardship as well as the uninsured (3). What I find interesting is the later assertion that "'It’s important to be aware that these numbers reflect the amount a hospital will charge for these services, rather than the actual cost,' says Anne Elixhauser, PhD, senior research scientist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 'The actual amount of what it costs the hospital to perform the service is about 30% of what’s charged'" (3). That's in line with my argument that hospitals are artificially inflating their prices to make up for not being paid by the uninsured.
Show me otherwise.
Because I know tone can be lost on the Internet, let me say that this next bit is intended to be read in a calm but matter-of-fact tone of voice:
I form my opinions based on what I understand the facts regarding the matter to be. If I am working on bad information, I want to know it so I can adjust my opinions accordingly. You keep stating things as fact in a seeming attempt to change my opinions, but you do not support your claims. I'm happy to respect that you have different opinions than I do. I'm even content to leave them unchallenged elsewhere. I do it all the time. (I generally don't do much challenging of people's political opinions by disparaging the links they post on their Walls. Otherwise, I'd have torn apart that article about Fluke you posted to your Wall.) So please don't come to my Wall and vicariously insult my opinions ("This list is ridiculous") and try to argue me out of them unless you can show your rebuttals have basis in something aside from an unsubstantiated "because I say so."
Me: #5 A transvaginal ultrasound would only be necessary in the first trimester. So she actually has lots of options: a) she could not have an abortion b) she could go to another state c) she could wait a few weeks.
C - wait you want a woman who knows she wants an abortion to wait a few weeks to avoid the 10 inch wand of rape? wouldn't it be better to abort the fetus before it's more developed and stuff, if you're coming from the side of "fetus = baby"? also, why would you want her to live for that time with that pain? I don't know why people continue to insist that women that get abortions have no feelings about doing it. OF COURSE THEY DO. people without feelings are psychopaths and shouldn't be parents anyway. getting an abortion isn't a recreational activity. and having birth control covered by insurance... wow so many benefits. I've forgotten most of the ones that I read about, but here's some that I remember:
1. women have enjoyed higher quality jobs and better pay since the invention of the pill. complete fucking fact, it is the single most contributor to gender equality then and now.
2. overpopulation is also a fact. why have children you don't want, to give up for adoption, that may or may not live a life of the quality every human deserves? wouldn't it be better to instead only have children that are WANTED, or adopt? if enough first world people quit having children of their own and instead adopted, that might help the overpopulation problem... but then again, this is sort of a hypothesis of mine and I have no idea if that would actually work or not. but my favorite quote is "Every child should be a WANTED child." there's enough children that come from mistakes with birth control, we don't need people having children because they can't afford birth control, because they don't have jobs good enough, because they don't have insurance... this is a class war, really. the people that can't afford it are the ones that need it, and the people that can afford it don't see why they should pay for everyone else's. if everyone has children when they're financially able, there'd be fewer people that need welfare and food stamps and fewer children and families and single mothers under the poverty line...
but I've gotten away from my list
3. in the 1940s, Japan legalized abortion FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. there was a serial killer that was killing babies abandoned to the hospital, by neglecting the babies. she was doing it for the good of everybody, since orphans are dishonored or something... when she was discovered, Japan realized that legalizing abortions was important for sooooo many reasons. baby neglect has been a big way for hospitals/orphanages to get rid of unwanted children for centuries.
4. not every woman needs birth control for sex. every woman SHOULD have access to birth control for sex. I've been going to Planned Parenthood since I was 18 for birth control. I didn't need to regulate my period or go for cysts or anything. I wanted to have lots of sex with my boyfriend (that I dated for three years) but I didn't want to get pregnant and have to choose between an abortion or a baby that I could never have been ready for. we weren't ever careful enough with condoms for me to firmly say that I wouldn't have gotten pregnant without the NuvaRing.
5. I could never have afforded the birth control on my own. I still can't, and I finally have a good job. I just don't have the money for 50 bucks a month every month for years and years and years.
6. most men don't carry condoms around with them, even to places were hookups are common, such as bars. women are often the ones who have to deal with the "do you have a condom?" question. I have only a once had a dude say yes that I can remember, and I was at his house. would these men say that going in for my birth control is a waste of their money? do we not support the elderly past retirement, even though we ourselves are not elderly and retired? (unless we don't anymore, and nobody told me.) it's because someday we plan to be, right? so using birth control now, everyone chipping in and helping pay for it, helps families plan pregnancies on purpose, reducing the number of abortions, single parent families, which will have so many positive effects on society; housing, money, food, the economy...
7. as far as I understand, birth control is already covered by the UK healthcare system. the government pays for it. even so, they still have a big teen pregnancy problem. so clearly, we need to accept that teens are having sex and instead of ignoring it, give them the chance to do it safely.
I've got the IUD. I won't have to worry about pregnancy until 2021, when I have to get it removed. my periods now HURT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKING BITCH but I know it's worth it. I no longer have to have the late period scare. a man has casual sex and only has to worry about STIs and HIV and stuff; a woman has to worry about that PLUS pregnancy. on the most basic level, birth control evens sexual equality, which yes that's important too. my IUD was paid for and inserted by Planned Parenthood. my bill ended up being 59 bucks.
"For patients not covered by insurance, an IUD typically costs between $175 and $600 for the device, insertion and a follow-up appointment. Sometimes an appointment for a pelvic exam, where you discuss whether the IUD is right for you, is required before the insertion appointment can be made. This can cost an additional $35 to $200 -- for a total of $210 to $800.For patients covered by insurance, out-of-pocket costs likely include a copay of $10 to $30 for the initial doctors' visit and a similar copay for the insertion, or a percentage of the total cost, usually about 20 percent."
I am extremely grateful for PP. I know that their programs are probably the only reason I didn't get pregnant. I wasn't careful enough all of the time. I'm not having sex now, and I probably won't be having regular sex for the next 10 years, but if I get lucky and that happens to be the case, PP has got my back. and maybe when it's time for my IUD to come out, all of society will be there to help me out.
Edit: Link to wiki page for the Japanese midwife/serial killer that prompted the legalization of abortion in 1949 (again, open in a new tab/window!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyuki_Ishikawa.
and here is about the gender wage gap & equality thing:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/06/438788/contraception-gender-pay-gap/?mobile=nc
I feel like the one I read discussed the study more and talked more about the implications. but this is good enough for now.
I'm posting this because I want your opinions. if you think I'm a crazy crackwhore for what I said, say so and tell me why. if you have any disagreements with anything said, or follow-up questions, or comments, hit the comment button at the bottom. that's what it's there for. I'm very curious to see what you think about all of this, that's why I sent it to you.
side note - this video says everything that needs to be said, if you'd like a snappy summary of this entire page. watch it; and be sure to open it in a new tab/window.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/409941/march-05-2012/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sandra-fluke
Cas:
(ಠ_ಠ) Seeing it all in list form, all at once, is somehow more disturbing.
http://emilyslist.org/blog/Top_10_Terrible_Horrible_No_Good_Very_Bad_Attacks_on_Womens_Rights/
Girl I Don't Know (GIDK): This list is ridiculous. Half of it isn't true, or so skewed that it doesn't matter. Women in the United States enjoy more freedoms than 90% of women around the world. To defend religious freedom is an attack on women? To defend the rights of the unborn is an attack on women? The women around the world who are not allowed to drive, vote, marry whom they choose, or defend themselves in court are under attack. President Obama called for political rhetoric to become more civilized and respectful. This attack on the right is anything but civil. Disagreeing on these issues is not a crime nor is it an attack on women.
Cas: We obviously have a fundamental disagreement on the morality of abortion (I see the rights of the woman as trumping the rights of the fetus she carries, it seems you think the reverse), so I won't bother arguing that angle. You won't discard your philosophy and I won't discard mine. But that list does detail attacks on American women. The fact that American women enjoy more freedoms than many women in the world does not negate the existence of misogyny. It's fallacious to say "because it is better than it could be, there is no room for improvement."
Regarding the list: (long post is long)
1. An amendment allowing any employer to enforce their religious views on their employees by denying them health care their own religious views do not support infringes the religious freedom of the employees. So downing the Blunt Amendment WAS defending religious freedom. Even churches employ people who do not belong to their congregation, and denominations are not hive minds-- individuals within the same denomination adhere to tenets to varying degrees. Dictating health choices by religious views violates that free will and freedom to practice religion to whatever extent an individual desires.
2. Women kind of have an interest in matters of birth control. But we were denied a voice in the matter. I don't see how that can be skewed.
3. & 6. There's already a federal law saying government money can't be used for abortions, so government defunding of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions only damages their ability to provide other services like cancer screenings and pregnancy prevention. Komen defunding them in a roundabout way hurt the people they want to help (women seeking breast cancer screenings) for the sake of not funding abortions, rather than perhaps negotiating that their contributions not go to abortion services. Which is why they backpedalled. Besides, funding pregnancy prevention means fewer people seeking abortions. So if someone is anti-abortion, it would seem wise to be enthusiastic about preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
4. Rush Limbaugh's rampant slut-shaming campaign is pretty blatant and recorded in his own words, so I don't see how it isn't an attack on women. He didn't just go after Fluke, he went after her fellow female students, too. Not to mention he completely misrepresented Fluke's testimony and how birth control works in general. He called Fluke a slut and a prostitute and asked for sex tapes. His attack on Fluke and women was anything but civil.
5. Mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds are rape with a foreign object. The World Health Organization defines rape as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration - even if slight - of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure compels a woman by law to endure a medically unnecessary vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. That's coerced penetration.
7. I'll give you that the specific interview cited is likely pretty outrageous. (I honestly don't expect anything less from Fox News.) However, it's basically a nasty addition to a laundry list of victim-blaming lines saying it's a woman's own fault if she gets raped. That that woman includes "join the military / work with men" in a way similar to "her clothes were too skimpy / she drank too much / etc., so she was asking for it" is pretty awful. People never ask for rape, people never deserve rape. There are no excuses.
8. "Put aspirin between your knees for birth control" means "keep your legs shut" means "don't have sex." The implication is that only the ~shameful~ promiscuous use birth control that doesn't consist of abstinence because sex (for women) is all about making babies. This is called slut-shaming and implies women aren't allowed to have sex as a recreational activity. If that kind of attitude is part of someone's religion, fine. Don't legislate it on those who don't subscribe to that belief. Not to mention how the same people say it's okay to cover Viagra for erectile dysfunction, thus allowing men sexual pleasure, because that's a medical condition. Double standard.
9. Birth control is not "available and affordable" for women. You cannot go down to the corner store and pick it up off the shelf like men can with condoms. It is available by prescription, which you need to see a doctor to get. Not only does the doctor visit cost money, it necessitates a gynecological exam, which many women are uneasy about. Men don't have to expose themselves and be probed to get condoms. The prescriptions themselves are not cheap, either. The generic of the one I took to treat dysmenorrhea when I had health insurance costs roughly $35/month without insurance. I had to stop taking it because I simply don't have the money, so I have to endure debilitating pain and nausea three to five days a month.
10. Romney's on video not knowing how birth control works. I don't see how that one is skewed. Unless you think saying that someone who doesn't know the subject should be given little credibility or power on the same subject is skewed extrapolation.
Friday at 12:37pm · Unlike · 3
GIDK: I'm glad you brought this up, because I feel the conservative perspective on this issue is rarely heard. So here is my admittedly long response:
GIDK: #1 There is no such thing as a right to health insurance, much less a right to contraceptives for recreational use in our constitution. Freedom of religion, however, is a right and forcing an individual or religious group to pay for something they are morally opposed to is and offense to that right. Just because insurance doesn't cover a certain product does not restrict your right to purchase it, so no rights have been taken away if insurance policies remain the same. And what about my right to purchase the health insurance I want? The government is not only dictating that I buy health insurance (something I think is completely unconstitutional), but that I buy a certain kind of insurance that covers specific things (like contraceptives). The more promises government makes about what insurance companies have to cover, the more premiums and insurance costs will go up, making it that much harder for people in my family's situation to afford health insurance.
GIDK: #2 Women have been denied a voice? Congress has listened to dozens of panels on this issue, and because one panel of many was designed to give religious leaders a voice (who are mostly male) this has somehow shut the mouths of women? Clearly not, no objections were made when the democrats brought forward their panel of women (non of which were conservative) including Sandra Fluke. Plus, you assume that those men could not speak for women such as myself who agree with the position of defending religious freedom.
GIDK: #3+6 Planned Parenthood performs 30% of the nations abortions. By funding the other treatments, which planned parenthood would be providing anyway to attract women into their clinic, the government and Komen's is allowing Planned Parenthood to focus the majority of their money to pay for lobbying and suing for the expansion of abortive practices. The truth is they don't need the governments money--they make hundreds of billions of dollars on abortions, they just don't want the government and Komen's to stop funding them because that would make them appear more controversial. Surprisingly, the increased use of contraceptives leads to more unwanted pregnancies. Contraceptives aren't full proof even when taken properly, but most women who use them don't use them properly and so they think they are "safe" when they are not.
GIDK: #4 I disagree with Rush Limbaugh's comments. I'm not a fan of Rush, but on the rare occasions I have listened to him, he was very respectful to callers who disagree with him, so I was very surprised he said those things. I think he truly is sorry he made those statements, especially since they harmed the cause he was fighting for.
GIDK: #5 A transvaginal ultrasound would only be necessary in the first trimester. So she actually has lots of options: a) she could not have an abortion b) she could go to another state c) she could wait a few weeks. And why she would be opposed to it when they use objects including transvaginal ultrasounds to perform the abortion is beyond my understanding. But I do understand that abortion proponents are anti anything that would require a woman to more fully understand the consequences of getting an abortion, which is why they do not want her to see what her baby looks like before they kill it.
GIDK: #7 I'm not familiar with this story and honestly don't care to be--extremists are given way too much attention in the media, which completely distorts the issues and makes it harder for political parties to reach compromises.
Yesterday at 12:51am · Like
GIDK: #8 I don't think coverage for contraceptives is at all the same thing as coverage for viagra. Admittedly, I think viagra is over prescribed, because most of these men have an emotional problem that's turned into a physical problem, and could be treated in more appropriate ways. But getting back to my point, viagra is medically fixing a part of the body that isn't functioning, while contraceptives are doing the opposite. Besides, women can have pleasurable and frequent sex without using contraceptives by using condoms or a cervix cover, or even doing more creative things than intercourse. Lol, I bet you weren't expecting a christian woman to be making THAT argument!
GIDK: #9 If men can buy condoms, why can't women? It's even safer, because they protect men and women from STDs. I don't know what form of contraception they were selling you, but the generic kind costs less than $10 a month. And even with your premium brand, it wouldn't add up to Sandra Fluke's exaggerated cost of $1,000 a year.
GIDK: #10 Why should the President of the United States have a deep understanding of the different forms of birth control? I think Government should get out of our personal lives and pay closer attention to the things that really matter such as maintaing peace for Americans on the global and domestic fronts. I think that this particular interview reveals more than a lack of knowledge on Mitt's part; it exposes the controversial nature of contraceptives. There are forms of contraception that are a type of abortion. Thus reinforcing the argument that those who are opposed to abortion in all its forms should not be forced to pay for it.
Cas: Oookaaay, I'll rebut. It's long.
Some of what I say about contraceptive availability refers to "it should be covered by insurance" and some of it is to argue against your implied disapproval of the use of any contraceptives (if I've misread that, let me know). I wrote this out of order, so I hope it's obvious which I mean by context. :X
Cas: 1. "There is no such thing as a right to health insurance, much less a right to contraceptives for recreational use in our constitution."
I see it as the government "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as given as a goal in the Preamble (yes, I know the Preamble is a non-binding Mission Statement for Constitutional interpretation) by making laws under:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and {{{provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States}}}; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's in the best interests of the United States for its citizens to have access to health care and be healthy. Economically and just in general.
"The more promises government makes about what insurance companies have to cover, the more premiums and insurance costs will go up"
First, covering contraceptives is cheaper for the government and private insurance companies than covering maternity, pre-natal, delivery, post-natal, and child medical costs. The Guttmacher Institute mentions (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140306.pdf) some studies: "...unintended pregnancy also imposes a high financial burden on the nation. The first study, by researchers from the Brookings Institution, used 2001 national estimates of the publicly funded outcomes of unintended pregnancies-births, abortions, miscarriages and infant medical care. It concluded that the estimated annual cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies-and to the infants who are born as a result-ranges from $9.6 billion to $12.6 billion, and averages $11.3 billion. Public savings from preventing these unintended pregnancies would range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion, and average $5.6 billion" and "Unintended pregnancy costs U.S. taxpayers roughly $11 billion each year. Dramatic though that price tag may be, it is itself a conservative estimate that is limited to publicly funded medical care for pregnancy and the first year of an infant’s life; the true cost would actually be many times higher if other expenses, such as social supports or ongoing medical care, were considered" (2).
People being unable to pay for medical services rendered is a major cause of driving up the costs of medical care and thus premiums. When a hospital is not paid for services, they have to raise their prices, and insurance companies have to raise their premiums. (See http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/access/cost.pdf ) Even if the government shelled out to cover all uninsured, after the initial blast of people taking advantage of finally finally FINALLY having health care, costs would go down due to easy access to preventative care causing better general health and less need for the major medical expenses incurred when someone who has ignored their health due to inability to pay for preventative care finds themselves hospitalized for catastrophic care. Covering as much preventative care as possible saves money in the long run.
As a personal example, I am unemployable until I can manage to get my hands on maintenance meds and preventative care for three medical conditions I have. Even when I was employed, once I lost my independent insurance I could not afford care, which is why I lost my job. If I had affordable maintenance and preventative care, I could be working and quite gladly paying into the system.
As a former pharmacy employee, I think the entire insurance industry is right messed up and wish for universal health care akin to Britain's NHS (which is the height of idealism in the current climate of "the poor can go die").
"Freedom of religion, however, is a right and forcing an individual or religious group to pay for something they are morally opposed to is and offense to that right."
While the employer has a contract with the third-party insurance provider, it would be the employee paying the premium and the insurer themselves rather than the employer covering contraception, if I understand correctly. (I admit I could wrong on that point. Show me something if I am.) If you do not use contraceptives, you won't be paying for contraceptives. Ensuring that certain things are available for everyone does not mean everyone is obligated to use them. I didn't get much chance to learn about the employee-side of health insurance because the one my employer used ruled me ineligible unless I paid them more than half my paycheck for horrible coverage whose co-pays would leave me without money for food, so I freely admit could be wrong there. Go ahead and link me to something to correct me.
Cas: 2. "Women have been denied a voice? Congress has listened to dozens of panels on this issue, and because one panel of many was designed to give religious leaders a voice (who are mostly male) this has somehow shut the mouths of women? Clearly not, no objections were made when the democrats brought forward their panel of women (non of which were conservative) including Sandra Fluke."
That panel was for the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Wikipedia for quicksies: "the House Democratic Caucus includes a Steering and Policy Committee. Its primary purpose is to assign fellow party members to other House committees, and it also advises party leaders on policy," in other words, that panel has no overall authority), rather than the House Oversight Committee (Wikipedia for quicksies: "The Committee's government-wide oversight jurisdiction and expanded legislative authority make it one of the most influential and powerful committees in the House. The Committee serves as Congress' chief investigative and oversight committee, and is granted broad jurisdiction.") As it was an internal hearing, of course there were no protests. But the Oversight Committee refused to allow a woman to speak about how the views of the other speakers would harm women in the forum that actually mattered most politically. So yes, women were silenced.
"Plus, you assume that those men could not speak for women such as myself who agree with the position of defending religious freedom."
No, I assume no such thing. I assert that even if they do speak for women such as yourself, Issa silenced dissenting opinion detailing an alternate perspective on religious freedom.
Cas: 3. & 6. "The truth is they don't need the governments money--they make hundreds of billions of dollars on abortions[.]"
Planned Parenthood's financial records are public. They are incorporated entities at the regional level. Here, for example, is the 2010 and 2011 fiscal audit for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppsne/files/southern-new-england/2011_fs.pdf ). On page 10 you will find that "PPSNE received 15% and 17% of its revenues and support from the federal government for the years ended March 31, 2011 and 210 respectively." For 2011, they generated $26,221,969 in revenue ($5,329,475 of which was from government grants, which CANNOT BE USED FOR ABORTIONS) and incurred $25,314,715 in expenses (5). That leaves a balance of $907,254. That is barely in the black for such a large entity, and subtracting the government grants would put them in the red. (Precisely, it would leave them $20,892,494 with which to pay $25,314,715 of expenses, leaving them $4,422,221 in the red.) The regional nature of their government funding explains why defunding the chapters in Texas caused them to close so many of their locations, as noted in the original list I posted ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/texas-womens-clinics-retreat-as-finances-are-cut.html?_r=2 ). That article mentions low-income women without transportation who are now unable to get to the nearest-- newly quite far away-- clinic despite knowing they had screenings that showed positive results for cancer risk.
"Surprisingly, the increased use of contraceptives leads to more unwanted pregnancies."
No.
"Teenage Sexual and Reproductive Behavior" ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/eurosynth_rpt.pdf ) is a very comprehensive, decade-long study about contraception use in the United States, Sweden, France, Canada, and the UK, which concluded: "Less, and less effective, contraceptive use is still key to the exceptionally high teenage pregnancy and birthrates in the United States; and society’s ambivalence and conflict about sexual issues leads to difficulties for teenagers in accessing contraceptive services" (82), "Less contraceptive use and less use of hormonal methods are the primary reasons U.S. teenagers have the highest rates of pregnancy, childbearing and abortion" (85), and "U.S. teenagers using methods are more likely than sexually active teenagers in the other countries to rely on non-hormonal methods which typically have higher use-failure rates" (86). It also states that "Although this study has focused on adolescents, their behavior and the types of policies and programs affecting their lives reflect wider social, historical and governmental contexts in the individual countries. And, teenagers’ sexual and reproductive behavior mirrors that of adults rather than being distinct from them" (82).
A study by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals ( http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/january-2008 ) found that 52% of all unwanted pregnancies in the United States come from the mere 10.7% of sexually active women who use no contraceptive methods at all, versus 48% of all unintended pregnancies coming from the 89.3% of sexually active women who use some form of contraception, which failed (¶3). That's a huge discrepancy in source (a much smaller number of women having a higher incidence of pregnancy than a much larger number of women-- like a group of a hundred women producing fifty-two pregnancies and a group of nine hundred women producing forty-eight pregnancies) and shows that contraception does drastically decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancy.
"Contraceptives aren't [fool] proof even when taken properly, but most women who use them don't use them properly and so they think they are "safe" when they are not."
First, the Guttmacher Institute mentions ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/4/gr010405.html ) how poor affordability affects the contraceptive failure rate: "cost concerns may affect how well women are able to use their chosen method. Some women may delay refilling a prescription for oral contraceptives, for example, or put off obtaining a Depo Provera® injection because of cash-flow problems. And even a brief gap in method use can have a major impact. Notably, half of the unintended pregnancies in the United States are to women who are "using" contraception-but not always consistently or with maximum effectiveness" (¶13).
I'll be the first to admit there is a lack of understanding of birth control in this country. That's why I advocate more comprehensive sexual education in American schools. It's a subject American schools in general fail at. See the previously mentioned study ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/eurosynth_rpt.pdf ): "although sexuality education is taught in almost all secondary public schools in the United States, teachers increasingly stress abstinence and provide limited accurate information about contraception. In 1999, 41% of sexuality education teachers reported that abstinence was their most important message...; 40% reported either that they do not cover contraceptives or condoms or they teach that these methods are ineffective; and only about one-third reported telling students where they can go to obtain contraceptives" (90). This does not negate the fact that contraceptives prevent a large number of unwanted pregnancies, as borne out by the mentioned ARHP study. Where we will permanently disagree is that I see abortion as an acceptable form of birth control should contraceptives fail. (And even if no contraceptives were used at all. Just to be clear.) I think your disapproval of abortion is coloring your approval-- rather, apparent disdain-- for contraceptives because you think people who are decided enough to try to prevent pregnancy outright are more likely to get abortions when preventative measures fail.
You say later that "[t]here are forms of contraception that are a type of abortion." Contraceptives PREVENT conception. They prevent ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. Pregnancy begins when the blastocyst implants in the uterine wall. If an ovum is not released or is not fertilized, or a fertilized egg (zygote turning into a blastocyst) does not implant into the uterine wall, it is not a pregnancy and thus nothing is being aborted. Conception has been prevented. Chemical abortifacients are not contraceptives-- they work after conception has occurred. And even emergency contraception does not cause abortion of an established pregnancy ( http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/plan-b-11-questions-11-answers ). If you have an issue with chemical abortion fine, say so. Just don't roll chemical abortion in with contraception. You're comparing grapes and raisins.
Cas: 4. I have a very different opinion of Limbaugh and think "respectful" is an antonym for his conduct over yeeears, but okay.
5. "A transvaginal ultrasound would only be necessary in the first trimester. So she actually has lots of options: a) she could not have an abortion b) she could go to another state c) she could wait a few weeks."
A. That is her own decision and should not be coerced.
B. That assumes she has sufficient income for a trip and a place to stay, transportation to get there and back, job security ironclad enough that she can take a few days off work without losing her job, someone to watch over any kids she already has (many seeking abortions already have children), and relationship security such that an abuser will not be able to figure out what she's doing and prevent her from going on a trip that needs to be well-coordinated in advance.
C. Women handle pregnancy in many, many different ways. Whether there are early complications, early side effects like extreme nausea and headaches of a pregnancy she doesn't even want, or even the psychological consequences of carrying a fetus you do not want, especially if that fetus is the product of an unhealthy relationship or rape, you are essentially advocating a woman should have a period of suffering for getting pregnant and not wanting to continue the pregnancy. For not adhering to your religious beliefs. That's discriminatory and cruel.
"And why she would be opposed to it when they use objects including transvaginal ultrasounds to perform the abortion is beyond my understanding."
Because it is an unnecessary extra trauma. Women go in for abortions already knowing they're going to have to expose themselves to strangers and have strangers shove things up inside them to perform the actual abortion. The mandated transvaginal ultrasound also includes a period of 24 hours post ultrasound until the actual procedure can be performed. People who have anxiety enough that they have a hard time gearing themselves up to be probed once will quite understandably balk at having to be probed twice when it is completely unnecessary to do so. This is especially bad for victims of molestation and rape who are likely to have PTSD and have flashbacks. Mandating the transvaginal ultrasound is like the rape frosting on the shame cake that is anti-choice policy.
"abortion proponents are anti anything that would require a woman to more fully understand the consequences of getting an abortion"
As anti-choicers seem to assume a woman is stupid, ignorant, and can't make a decision about her own life and body based on whatever information she chooses to seek for herself.
"they do not want her to see what her baby looks like before they kill it"
We obviously have a different view of terminology. In your philosophy, "fetus" is synonymous with "baby" which is synonymous with "person." In my philosophy, "baby" is an abstract, emotional ideal optionally applied to "fetus" or "infant" depending on the philosophy and level of attachment of the thinker, and "fetus" is NOT synonymous with "person," but "infant" IS. If a woman doesn't want to see the fetus, that's her decision. What you're advocating is like approaching someone and bombarding them with video of someone with sympathetic dialogue in an attempt to get them to donate their spare kidney. "If you don't make this sacrifice to your own health, this poor innocent person will die and it will be all your fault!" The government cannot obligate anyone to give of their own bodies for the sake of others. That's why blood, tissue, and organ donation is voluntary. The government cannot even take such things after your death. Even if your sibling was on his or her deathbed and you were the only match for a kidney, the State could not obligate you to risk your health to save another. Why women should be obligated to share their bodies and risk short-term and long-term consequences for the sake of "saving the life" of another is thus a mystery to me.
Cas: 7. Victim-blaming rape culture is still A Thing. Ignoring it is how it IS A Thing.
8. "viagra is medically fixing a part of the body that isn't functioning, while contraceptives are doing the opposite"
[WARNING FOR THE SQUEAMISH: PERIOD TALK]
Considering oral contraceptives made it so that I didn't spend three to five days curled up in bed on towels in case I out-bled my super tampon and super pad both (it happens, sometimes in as little as an hour, especially if I am upright) with a heating pad on my stomach trying not to cry from pain between trips to the bathroom to dry heave or outright vomit because dysmenorrhea and endometriosis make my uterus tell everything from my diaphragm to my knees to cramp horribly and make me pass large, painful clots, I find it difficult not to laugh cynically at this statement.
[END WARNING]
Otherwise, even if you look at strictly the pregnancy prevention angle, the aspect of "allows women to enjoy sex" is the same as Viagra, which allows men to enjoy sex. I don't know of a medical reason to prescribe Viagra to "fix" a penis aside from allowing a man sexual pleasure. Yet it's often covered even if it's prescribed for ED rather than cardiovascular problems. Okay. Fine. But that's unequal treatment.
Medications vary between treating by enhancing or inhibiting things. Why does it matter which method is used? So some women see their ability to reproduce as a problem, whether for personal reasons or medical risks to their health and lives. (There are women with medical conditions contraindicating pregnancy. As in, "Get pregnant and you may be permanently disabled or die because of risks like having to stop taking the medication keeping you alive if you don't want birth defects.") Some men think the same and have vasectomies. Yet men can generally have their desire to not reproduce be paid for.
And if you read the transcript of Fluke's testimony (http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2), you'll see that she was citing health concerns treatable by contraceptives, the school ostensibly said they'd cover it in those cases, and then copped out by interrogating women and refusing to believe their diagnoses and failing to reimburse them. So her friend got a tennis ball-sized cyst on her ovary, which had to be completely removed, and now she has hormonal imbalances that are akin to early menopause since ovaries produce hormones. She may not be able to have children.
"Besides, women can have pleasurable and frequent sex without using contraceptives by using condoms or a cervix cover, or even doing more creative things than intercourse."
Of course they can. What about the women who aren't fortunate enough to be in a relationship with a man who is willing to forgo intercourse?
"Lol, I bet you weren't expecting a christian woman to be making THAT argument!"
Why wouldn't I? Whatever group a woman belongs to, I think she can have as much or as little vanilla or kinky sex as she wants. I think restricting availability of contraceptives is an outside source climbing in her bedroom window and limiting her options.
Cas: 9. "If men can buy condoms, why can't women?"
Of course women can buy condoms. Women DO buy condoms. Men can refuse to use them for a multitude of reasons, especially considering the unfortunate truth that not all relationships include mutual respect for one another's bodies. Men and women both can have allergies to the materials used in condoms, especially if they have a latex allergy. There are special condoms available, but polyurethane is more likely to break and more expensive and lambskin (actually sheep intestine) is porous and thus less effective in preventing transmission of STDs and significantly more expensive. I used to dispense the sheepskin ones at the pharmacy. They were covered by insurance.
"I don't know what form of contraception they were selling you, but the generic kind costs less than $10 a month. And even with your premium brand--"
By "the generic kind," you are referring to a single generic that does not suit everybody. For example, Target's online pharmacy only lists two contraceptives under their shiny $4 generic plan-- Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec. Other places may have a couple other generics. If you're lucky enough that that works, then you're all set, aren't you? Except people can't all use the same thing because everyone's body is different and does not respond to the same drug the same way. Some people cannot even use generics because their bodies can't tolerate various drug companies' supposedly inert fillers. (When I worked pharmacy, we had a few people whose computer profiles had glaring WARNING! DO NOT SUBSTITUTE GENERIC!!! PATIENT ALLERGIC TO GENERIC FILLERS! plus like three lines of exclamation points to grab attention.)
Regarding my own contraceptive, I already stated that it WAS a generic. Not all generics are magically $4. I've been on a variety of prescriptions for chronic problems and had generics that cost *looks in file cabinet for stubs* $162.74 (60 tabs) and $427.61 (90 tabs) for a monthly dose. The cheapest generic I ever had sans insurance was $20.88 (30 tabs), which was like "Be still, my heart!"
As to why I took it and not something cheaper? Because it worked and allowed me to function during my period. And then because when I abruptly lost my unrelated insurance and then my job, I didn't have the $150 to go to the doctor to get a prescription for something cheap that might not work. I lucked out and wasn't too awful for the first two years, but this last year has been atrocious.
"--it wouldn't add up to Sandra Fluke's exaggerated cost of $1,000 a year."
Planned Parenthood says pills usually run $15-$50 a month ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm ). That's $180-$600 a year. My own generic was $35/mo, or $420/yr. However, if you look at prices online for individual brand name ones (there are people who can't take generics or there is no generic available), you can find:
Brevicon 28 = $71.99/mo = $863.88/yr
Yasmin 28 = $89.99/mo = $1079.88/yr
Yaz 28 = $92.99/mo = $1115.88/yr
Loestrin Fe 1.5/30 = $95.99/mo = $1151.88/yr
and so on. (prices from drugstore.com)
Cas: 10. "Why should the President of the United States have a deep understanding of the different forms of birth control?"
If he's going to talk about and endorse legislation controlling it, I would reeeeally hope he'd know what he's talking about.
"I think Government should get out of our personal lives"
I'd like them to do that by not telling me what I can't do to my own body.
"pay closer attention to the things that really matter such as maintaing peace for Americans on the global and domestic fronts"
There's a lovely thing called multitasking. The government does it every day.
And I addressed the rest above.
GIDK: Obamacare is not even fully in effect and so far it has raised insurance premiums, increased the national debt, raised the infaltion rate, and displaced jobs in the private sphere to the public sphere. All of this means trouble for the United States. I'm sure Obamacare is helping some people, but for most people it has had a negative affect on their health care. And the cost it will have on our nation as a whole is also negative.
GIDK: And just to clarify, I am not anti contraceptives, I'm anti forcing insurance companies to cover contraceptives. I think everyone has more liberty when the insurance companies have the freedom to create their own policies and when consumers have the freedom to choose from a plethera of options.
Cas: Regarding what you say about PPACA... no. (Calling it Obamacare makes me twitchy, since the legislative branch took what Obama recommended and mangled it into something very different, btw.) Mind, I'm not saying the PPACA is shiny and perfect. But. Forbes looks at both sides' misleading statements about cost ("It'll make cost go down! / It makes cost go up!") and compares them to fact (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/29/the-truth-about-health-care-reforms-impact-on-insurance-premiums/):
"While the naysayers point to the huge [59%] rise taking place in California as an example, it must be noted that even California Blue Shield does not blame the law for the painful rise in its premium prices. In a statement issued with the announcement of the increase, the company said, 'These rates reflect trends that were building long before health reform.' The company further indicated that higher prices demanded by health care providers, more use of health care, and healthy people dropping their coverage because of the bad economy were the real culprit" (1); "Further, in a recent analysis conducted by Hewitt Associates, a well-respected human resources firm, the company estimated that employers would likely see a rise in premium costs averaging 8.8% in 2011. This is within the norm for what we have seen in annual raises over the years preceding passage of the health care reform law. Further, the firm estimates that the new law will account for, at best, one to two percent of the increases" (2); "The truth is, were the PPACA to manage to slow down the annual rate of increase in premium costs, we should consider the law a major success. But expecting it to actually lower present premium rates is probably a stretch" (3); "While the report suggests that middle-class families can save up to $2300 annually in premiums along with small businesses experiencing a savings of up to $350 for each family covered, these numbers are the result of a comparison to what premiums are projected to have been had the ACA *not* been passed. In other words, without the law, a middle-class family might have paid up to $2300 more in premiums" (3).
As for the rest of your claims about inflation and jobs, go ahead and show me something saying so. I'd attribute those claims to the poor economy and government efforts to create jobs happening to be in the public sector since /that's where they employ people/, but show me otherwise.
"I think everyone has more liberty when the insurance companies have the freedom to create their own policies and when consumers have the freedom to choose from a plethera of options."
Are you, then, against the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978? Out of curiosity. (text of Act: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm) As the Guttmacher Institute says (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/4/gr010405.html): "As their most striking example of historic discrimination against women in insurance coverage, advocates cite maternity care-- basic prenatal and delivery services-- which, until the late 1970s, private insurance plans in the United States often did not cover. Indeed, it took enactment of a federal law-- the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), which mandates maternity coverage in most private-sector policies-- to change the situation. And change the situation it did: Coverage for maternity care jumped from 57% of policies written in 1977 to 89% of policies just five years later" (¶3).
10 hours ago · Like
GIDK: Premiums have gone up across the board, not just in California. IObviously premiums would go even further up in California, liberals have been running that state into the ground since who know when. Obama and the democrats promised premiums would go down and they didn't. It's wishful thinking to think that you could know what would have happened to premiums if they hadn't passed Obamacare, particularly if you are listening to the same people who's predictions were wrong when it did pass. I guess the only way we'll know for sure is if it were repealed.
GIDK: I probably would be against the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. For one thing, insurance companies give only token coverage for pregnancies, for instance in the state I'm in they have separate deductibles for pregnancies and those deductibles are typically no lower than $8,000. And again, mandates in insurance drive costs up. The average pregnancy in the 70s probably cost less than half of the average pregnancy today. For instance my mom had her children during the late 70s and 80s. Her first was her cheapest, a few hundred dollars, her last was her most expensive at a couple thousand dollars. The average cost of a pregnancy today: $8,000. What's ironic to me is it's the insured, not the uninsured that are really driving up costs, because they think it doesn't matter how much they spend as long as the insurance covers it, but that cost is shared by everyone who pays premiums.
Cas: California was being used as a particular example of premiums going up across the board. I never said they didn't go up elsewhere. The article mentioned did call out that Democrats saying premiums would actually go down was misleading and I did not argue against that, I quoted it as fact. I agree with the article's assessment of "Who is telling the truth? Everybody and nobody" (¶4-5).
Observing a pre-existing numerical pattern and plotting where that pattern would go next isn't "wishful thinking," it's math. Statistics, I think. While it is obviously not 100% accurate, you cannot dismiss it as complete fantasy. You haven't told me who incorrectly predicted what when, so I cannot argue against that.
See, I think that even token coverage is better than no coverage at all. I still think it's messed up and should be covered better-- I want nationalized universal health care of some form, as you recall-- but it's better than nothing.
"And again, mandates in insurance drive costs up."
I don't know where you're getting that idea or what basis it has in fact. I addressed that claim previously, too:
"People being unable to pay for medical services rendered is a major cause of driving up the costs of medical care and thus premiums. When a hospital is not paid for services, they have to raise their prices, and insurance companies have to raise their premiums. (See http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/access/cost.pdf ) Even if the government shelled out to cover all uninsured, after the initial blast of people taking advantage of finally finally FINALLY having health care, costs would go down [ETA: or at least not rise as quickly, ACROSS THE BOARD] due to easy access to preventative care causing better general health and less need for the major medical expenses incurred when someone who has ignored their health due to inability to pay for preventative care finds themselves hospitalized for catastrophic care. Covering as much preventative care as possible saves money in the long run."
Though I'm able to corroborate the rise in cost of pregnancy is true to the anecdotal evidence you gave me sans hard data to look at, you have not demonstrated the cause of the rise in cost. It seems you're implying the mandated coverage of pregnancy caused the rise, but correlation =/= causation. My argument, as previously demonstrated, is that failure to pay by the un- and underinsured causes the rise. The clearest source I can find is WebMD's "What It Costs to Have a Baby" (http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/cost-of-having-a-baby). [I'd prefer something that cites sources I can read instead of otherwise undocumented interviews with professionals, but my Google-fu is failing tonight and you seem happy to use anecdata, so *shrug*] They state that "the average charge of an uncomplicated cesarean section more than doubl[ed] from 1993-2007, and the cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery almost tripl[ed] during that same time period" (2). There's your rise in cost to patient. However, they immediately continue with "'Looking at a sample of nine states, researchers found that 17% to 41% of childbearing women lacked insurance before coming pregnant,' says Carol Sakala, director of programs at Childbirth Connection, a national nonprofit organization that works on behalf of mothers and babies to improve the quality of maternity care in the U.S. 'While 13% to 35% of the pregnant women qualified for Medicaid coverage, many ...[found] private insurance or pa[id] out of pocket,' Sakala says" (2). The underinsured (those with the token coverage you mention) are mentioned as being put at hardship as well as the uninsured (3). What I find interesting is the later assertion that "'It’s important to be aware that these numbers reflect the amount a hospital will charge for these services, rather than the actual cost,' says Anne Elixhauser, PhD, senior research scientist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 'The actual amount of what it costs the hospital to perform the service is about 30% of what’s charged'" (3). That's in line with my argument that hospitals are artificially inflating their prices to make up for not being paid by the uninsured.
Show me otherwise.
Because I know tone can be lost on the Internet, let me say that this next bit is intended to be read in a calm but matter-of-fact tone of voice:
I form my opinions based on what I understand the facts regarding the matter to be. If I am working on bad information, I want to know it so I can adjust my opinions accordingly. You keep stating things as fact in a seeming attempt to change my opinions, but you do not support your claims. I'm happy to respect that you have different opinions than I do. I'm even content to leave them unchallenged elsewhere. I do it all the time. (I generally don't do much challenging of people's political opinions by disparaging the links they post on their Walls. Otherwise, I'd have torn apart that article about Fluke you posted to your Wall.) So please don't come to my Wall and vicariously insult my opinions ("This list is ridiculous") and try to argue me out of them unless you can show your rebuttals have basis in something aside from an unsubstantiated "because I say so."
Me: #5 A transvaginal ultrasound would only be necessary in the first trimester. So she actually has lots of options: a) she could not have an abortion b) she could go to another state c) she could wait a few weeks.
C - wait you want a woman who knows she wants an abortion to wait a few weeks to avoid the 10 inch wand of rape? wouldn't it be better to abort the fetus before it's more developed and stuff, if you're coming from the side of "fetus = baby"? also, why would you want her to live for that time with that pain? I don't know why people continue to insist that women that get abortions have no feelings about doing it. OF COURSE THEY DO. people without feelings are psychopaths and shouldn't be parents anyway. getting an abortion isn't a recreational activity. and having birth control covered by insurance... wow so many benefits. I've forgotten most of the ones that I read about, but here's some that I remember:
1. women have enjoyed higher quality jobs and better pay since the invention of the pill. complete fucking fact, it is the single most contributor to gender equality then and now.
2. overpopulation is also a fact. why have children you don't want, to give up for adoption, that may or may not live a life of the quality every human deserves? wouldn't it be better to instead only have children that are WANTED, or adopt? if enough first world people quit having children of their own and instead adopted, that might help the overpopulation problem... but then again, this is sort of a hypothesis of mine and I have no idea if that would actually work or not. but my favorite quote is "Every child should be a WANTED child." there's enough children that come from mistakes with birth control, we don't need people having children because they can't afford birth control, because they don't have jobs good enough, because they don't have insurance... this is a class war, really. the people that can't afford it are the ones that need it, and the people that can afford it don't see why they should pay for everyone else's. if everyone has children when they're financially able, there'd be fewer people that need welfare and food stamps and fewer children and families and single mothers under the poverty line...
but I've gotten away from my list
3. in the 1940s, Japan legalized abortion FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. there was a serial killer that was killing babies abandoned to the hospital, by neglecting the babies. she was doing it for the good of everybody, since orphans are dishonored or something... when she was discovered, Japan realized that legalizing abortions was important for sooooo many reasons. baby neglect has been a big way for hospitals/orphanages to get rid of unwanted children for centuries.
4. not every woman needs birth control for sex. every woman SHOULD have access to birth control for sex. I've been going to Planned Parenthood since I was 18 for birth control. I didn't need to regulate my period or go for cysts or anything. I wanted to have lots of sex with my boyfriend (that I dated for three years) but I didn't want to get pregnant and have to choose between an abortion or a baby that I could never have been ready for. we weren't ever careful enough with condoms for me to firmly say that I wouldn't have gotten pregnant without the NuvaRing.
5. I could never have afforded the birth control on my own. I still can't, and I finally have a good job. I just don't have the money for 50 bucks a month every month for years and years and years.
6. most men don't carry condoms around with them, even to places were hookups are common, such as bars. women are often the ones who have to deal with the "do you have a condom?" question. I have only a once had a dude say yes that I can remember, and I was at his house. would these men say that going in for my birth control is a waste of their money? do we not support the elderly past retirement, even though we ourselves are not elderly and retired? (unless we don't anymore, and nobody told me.) it's because someday we plan to be, right? so using birth control now, everyone chipping in and helping pay for it, helps families plan pregnancies on purpose, reducing the number of abortions, single parent families, which will have so many positive effects on society; housing, money, food, the economy...
7. as far as I understand, birth control is already covered by the UK healthcare system. the government pays for it. even so, they still have a big teen pregnancy problem. so clearly, we need to accept that teens are having sex and instead of ignoring it, give them the chance to do it safely.
I've got the IUD. I won't have to worry about pregnancy until 2021, when I have to get it removed. my periods now HURT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKING BITCH but I know it's worth it. I no longer have to have the late period scare. a man has casual sex and only has to worry about STIs and HIV and stuff; a woman has to worry about that PLUS pregnancy. on the most basic level, birth control evens sexual equality, which yes that's important too. my IUD was paid for and inserted by Planned Parenthood. my bill ended up being 59 bucks.
"For patients not covered by insurance, an IUD typically costs between $175 and $600 for the device, insertion and a follow-up appointment. Sometimes an appointment for a pelvic exam, where you discuss whether the IUD is right for you, is required before the insertion appointment can be made. This can cost an additional $35 to $200 -- for a total of $210 to $800.For patients covered by insurance, out-of-pocket costs likely include a copay of $10 to $30 for the initial doctors' visit and a similar copay for the insertion, or a percentage of the total cost, usually about 20 percent."
I am extremely grateful for PP. I know that their programs are probably the only reason I didn't get pregnant. I wasn't careful enough all of the time. I'm not having sex now, and I probably won't be having regular sex for the next 10 years, but if I get lucky and that happens to be the case, PP has got my back. and maybe when it's time for my IUD to come out, all of society will be there to help me out.
Edit: Link to wiki page for the Japanese midwife/serial killer that prompted the legalization of abortion in 1949 (again, open in a new tab/window!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyuki_Ishikawa.
and here is about the gender wage gap & equality thing:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/06/438788/contraception-gender-pay-gap/?mobile=nc
I feel like the one I read discussed the study more and talked more about the implications. but this is good enough for now.