Backlash against Sandra Fluke

[Trieste]

A certain radio personality (whom we don't link to on this site because of his extremely narrow viewpoint, but I'm guessing many of you know who it is) went on a rant fairly recently about Sandra Fluke's testimony in support of contraception in health care policies.

Calling Ms. Fluke several names and suggesting that she make a sex tape for everyone to watch, said radio personality incited quite a bit of ire against himself. I haven't seen much talk of it on Facebook, but it's all over Twitter, and I've personally been pressuring those companies of which I am a patron not to advertise on his show. I don't want any of my money going to him.

I was honestly surprised not to see a topic here about it, so I thought I would start one and see what people had to say. The points that I feel are relevant and my views on them are thus:

This is not a conservative or progressive issue. It's not a right-wing or left-wing issue. By launching his strong personal attacks against Ms. Fluke, the radio personality was denigrating women in general. It sent a message to the tune of, "How dare she make demands having to do with sex?" I don't like that. I think that sex is and should remain part of a healthy young (or old!) woman's lifestyle. If her religious views preclude that, she will have to reconcile it for herself, but it is not this guy's place to blast someone for asking for basic health care coverage.

Anti-Fluke folks have been saying that Ms. Fluke chose to attend her university specifically to battle the university's religious precepts and policies. This is held up as foolishness, hubris, and arrogance. I believe that this, too, is misguided. If Ms. Fluke chose to attend Georgetown in order to try to break down the barriers there, it's no worse than women choosing to attend places like the Virginia Military Academy in order to fight against administrative discrimination. We must fight systematic discrimination in all its forms, and I applaud Ms. Fluke for doing so.

Bill Maher's name has been brought up, and it's been asked why no one boycotted him when he called Palin "the c-word". Bill Maher is a separate (but related) issue. I feel that it's essentially moving the goalposts to point to him and say "Well, he was able to do that and you didn't care." It's not that I and others didn't care. It's that Bill Maher a) has nowhere near the power in politics as the radio commenter that lashed out against Ms. Fluke, and b) it was nowhere near as vehement and bilious as the attack on Ms. Fluke. It's a difference of magnitude.

There are several other facets to the discussion, but those are the ones that come to mind most, so I started with them. :)

[Chris Brady]

I agree with Ms. Fluke.  Good sex care is important, these days.  And not just for women, all genders can benefit from smart sex education.  The rest of that her transcript, is mostly politics.

[Oniya]

The bit after the second 'break' is something that is really neither 'sex education' nor 'politics'.  PCOS and endometriosis affect women whether or not they have sex, and have nothing to do with the issues that the ultra-cons use to demonize birth control. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Gee.  I though law students went to Georgetown because it is what one of the top 10 schools in the country?  Graduate with honors there and you are pretty much set once you pass the bar right?

[Trieste]

I thought so, too.

And now you have Bill Maher essentially gaslighting the movement to pull the radio personality's funding. "No big deal, he made a bad joke and he apologized." Made a bad joke?  >:( >:( >:(

[Beguile's Mistress]

The Healthcare Question
Elected officials have no right to try to legislate healthcare availability to anyone as long as they are the beneficiaries of publicly funded healthcare insurance.  Tax dollars (from those who pay taxes) fund the health insurance benefits of Congressional Representatives and Senators and as long as I'm paying taxes I want the same sort of healthcare they are given access to.

The Responsibility Question
I take exception to the sliding scale of responsibility meted out on comments entertainers like Bill Maher and he-who-must-not-be-named and those others who use their media access to bash individuals with whom they disagree.  Whether you are left, right, middle, red, blue or a seventh dimension extra-terrestrial you lose all credibility when you descend to scatological verbiage to express your opinion.  When you choose to make yourself a public figure and set yourself up as someone who wants to influence the thinking of others you need to take responsibility for your words and the results of what you say.  When you choose to do this for money as these media personalities have you have an even greater responsibility to those who watch and listen.

Money is the reason these people are in the media and money is the only means of punishment they will understand.  I don't have faith in anyone who does it for the money and haven't since the day I attended a lecture and learned from his own lips the university professor and author who was speaking did not personally espouse the beliefs and opinions he wrote about and taught.  It was a popular concept at the time and he was in it for the money, fame and tenure.

[Robelwell202]

Point, the first.

Miss Fluke's tirade was inaccurate, to start with.  $3,000 a month for birth control?  PUH-leeze!!  So, she's either a fool (A likely prospect), or she's a flat-out liar (Another likely prospect).  Her rant to whoever she made these claims to is absurd for this fact alone.

Point, the second.

First off, the ridiculous nature of the tirade suggests that, while Miss Fluke, an ADULT, should be able to have sex with anyone she likes, and not take the simple baasic precautions we're all taught in grade school, she wants other people, in the form of taxation, to pay for her irresponsibility.  Furthermore, her attitude suggests that she feels entitled to 'coverage' for something that, by rights, is what would be considered an 'elective' medical procedure, and isn't life threatening.

I find it hilarious that, while people who side with her point of view are so quick to condemn the 'Radio Host' for his response, absolutely no one on the liberal side of things ever considers the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!  If she's so scared about getting pregnant, then there's a simple cure!  DON'T HAVE SEX!!

It's not my responsibility, as a tax payer, to ensure that you can get it on whenever you want, and not deal with the consequences.

Point, the third.

The comparison of 'Radio Host' and Bill Maher is a valid one, and completely legitimate.  There's a distinct and horrible double standard where this kind of thing goes on, and when it's a conservative person that gets attacked, no one seems to care.  However, give one bad thought to a liberal's standpoint (Such as 'Take responsibility for yourself'), then the whole world's going to collapse under the oppresive tyrany of the speaker!!

Such bullshit.

[Trieste]

Point, the first.

Miss Fluke's tirade was inaccurate, to start with.  $3,000 a month for birth control?  PUH-leeze!!  So, she's either a fool (A likely prospect), or she's a flat-out liar (Another likely prospect).  Her rant to whoever she made these claims to is absurd for this fact alone.

Let me help you with that reading thing:

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

(Emphasis mine.) Law school takes more than one month, by the way.

Point, the second.

Going to break your point the second into pieces because it covers like three points.

First off, the ridiculous nature of the tirade suggests that, while Miss Fluke, an ADULT, should be able to have sex with anyone she likes, and not take the simple baasic precautions we're all taught in grade school, she wants other people, in the form of taxation, to pay for her irresponsibility.  Furthermore, her attitude suggests that she feels entitled to 'coverage' for something that, by rights, is what would be considered an 'elective' medical procedure, and isn't life threatening.

I don't know if you realize this, but other peoples' health insurance policies aren't paid for by taxation. They're paid for by the person getting the coverage, and sometimes in part by the employer. She wasn't asking for subsidized health care; she was asking for medical coverage from her insurance company. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with the treatment of medical conditions that are best handled by controlling hormone levels inside the body.

She mentioned nothing about her own sex life, and in fact specifically said she was speaking for others and not herself.

And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing [my fellow students] – not me – to be heard.

I find it hilarious that, while people who side with her point of view are so quick to condemn the 'Radio Host' for his response, absolutely no one on the liberal side of things ever considers the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!  If she's so scared about getting pregnant, then there's a simple cure!  DON'T HAVE SEX!!

"Just say no" didn't work for DARE and it doesn't work for sex. Furthermore, she didn't talk about being scared of getting pregnant. She talked about life-threatening consequences from not having access to hormonal medication for women with conditions like PCOS.

It's not my responsibility, as a tax payer, to ensure that you can get it on whenever you want, and not deal with the consequences.

Oh-kay. Non-sequitur much?

Point, the third.

The comparison of 'Radio Host' and Bill Maher is a valid one, and completely legitimate.  There's a distinct and horrible double standard where this kind of thing goes on, and when it's a conservative person that gets attacked, no one seems to care.  However, give one bad thought to a liberal's standpoint (Such as 'Take responsibility for yourself'), then the whole world's going to collapse under the oppresive tyrany of the speaker!!

Such bullshit.

Since you were able to find your way onto this website, I assume you know how to read and write. So I'm confused as to why you didn't bother to read a) my first post, b) the subsequent posts, or c) the linked transcripts and news stories. Please feel free to come back when you've bothered to educate yourself, because your entire post was bullshit based on spin doctoring and second-hand lies about what the testimony actually contained.

Thank you.

[Lilias]

This blog post starts from the particular event, as well as its context, and - as usual - sparks a great discussion in the comments section. You may not want to read them all; there's a lot of them, and the place has its own resident gatecrashing troll clan, but there are some great links in several of them.

But... 'bad joke'? I'm insulted by the suggestion that there was anything remotely funny about the particular comment. Even if there were, to start with, it would have evaporated in light of this. When one is a public person, one has to be doubly aware of possible consequences before opening their big gob.

[Robelwell202]

I respectfully withdraw my comments.

[Trieste]

I'm sorry, Robelwell, for the tone of my post; I didn't mean to be quite so harsh.

[AndyZ]

The bit after the second 'break' is something that is really neither 'sex education' nor 'politics'.  PCOS and endometriosis affect women whether or not they have sex, and have nothing to do with the issues that the ultra-cons use to demonize birth control.

This blog post starts from the particular event, as well as its context, and - as usual - sparks a great discussion in the comments section. You may not want to read them all; there's a lot of them, and the place has its own resident gatecrashing troll clan, but there are some great links in several of them.

But... 'bad joke'? I'm insulted by the suggestion that there was anything remotely funny about the particular comment. Even if there were, to start with, it would have evaporated in light of this. When one is a public person, one has to be doubly aware of possible consequences before opening their big gob.

I agree that women with non-sexual needs for birth control should have access.  So does Georgetown.

[quote from Sandra Fluke]“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
[/quote]

Emphasis mine.  Do a search for the words "technically covered" if you don't believe me.  So yes, Georgetown, a Catholic university, does provide birth control when it's for health reasons.

People already agree that if you need birth control for reasons other than casual sex, that you should be able to get it.  The issue is purely about casual sex.

Let's remove the medical reasons and only talk about the casual sex part of this conversation.

[Oniya]

However, that particular woman was unable to get them to reimburse her for the pills the way they were 'technically' supposed to.

Two paragraphs down:

“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

The medical reasons are not something you can simply 'remove' from the conversation.

[AndyZ]

I'll certainly agree that they should be covered, and that the insurance company will do everything in their power to gouge her.  However, I disagree that the only way to handle this is to make birth control available to everyone purely for medical reasons. 

Surely there's more than enough lawyers who would gladly take this case to trial, win millions for that friend, and set the precedent that women who obviously need birth control for medical reasons should be reimbursed.

[Oniya]

Alright, then, let's talk about casual sex.  Viagra is covered under most insurance plans.  Viagra is not birth control, and is not used to treat anything other than erectile dysfunction.  In fact, unlike 'The Pill', Viagra must be taken before each sexual encounter.  As such, it facilitates 'casual sex' in a manner that is more directly proportional than the manner in which 'The Pill' facilitates casual sex (as 'The Pill' is taken once a day, whether the woman has sex once a month or multiple times a day.)

So, by your argument, Viagra shouldn't be covered by insurance companies either.

[AndyZ]

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Sure]

Honestly, I feel no compulsion to support women having more privileges or rights than I do. Men do not have insurance covered birth control (a lot of people have been comparing it to insurance covered Viagra, but anyone who thinks Viagra=birth control is... very, very wrong) nor do they have billions of dollars poured into men's health issues. Scientists announced in the sixties at the latest they could make a male 'pill' but there's never been any widespread support, for example. So when it comes to women complaining about how their funding is being cut I see it as a group with privileges beyond mine being refused access to what they are used to, and feel the appropriate level of sympathy.

If someone were to introduce something to force gender neutrality into what is currently a system very in favor of women (women paid more because they get more services), including birth control, I would support it wholeheartedly.

As for the hearings themselves, as I understand it the one Fluke was denied into was on the religious view of contraception. In which case her exclusion was justified, no one is calling Fluke a respected religious figure or an expert on religion, and the separate session was just a Democratic hissy fit. Furthermore, as a law student, I'm not sure why she was invited at all. She's certainly not an expert on anything. And as to the complaints the panel was all male, honestly that will fall upon flat ears until every time, as an example, N.O.W. says something its taken as a legitimate criticism that its run entirely by women and thus doesn't get the male view. And N.O.W. undeniably deals with issues that effect men.

As for Limbaugh (why leave his name out?), I'm not sure if it's something you can generalize, that he's attacking all women or anything of that sort. I honestly just see it as another piece of inflammatory dialogue, no different than when Rage Against the Machine said all members of the Bush Administration should be shot. It's stupid, and insulting, but does speak for a certain far from center segment of the population, which the speaker is trying to mobilize.

[AndyZ]

Sure, my only knowledge on the Viagra part of this is what Oniya said, but I'm going to agree that if the only purpose of a drug is to allow people to have sex, Viagra would be equivalent to the pill for those with no medical problems such as the unnamed friend.

For medical problems requiring birth control, it should certainly be allowed, and it is by stated policy.  If they're shirking their stated policy, bring in the lawsuits.  That's what they exist for, and we have more than enough people who will take on the case for no money down.

I don't even want to get into the not-using-names aspect until we can agree on what the medical process should be.  I would be shocked if people don't all see the double standard by now, but it'll continue for as long as women stand for it, and since they don't care when liberals do it, of course conversatives will as well.  However, that needs to wait until we can agree on what we're even arguing about, and then we can start talking about what behavior is inexcusable on all sides.

[vtboy]

The crassness and cruelty of this unnamed radio host's remarks about Ms. Fluke are emblematic of the decline in civility which has come to permeate so much of our political and cultural discourse. Considerations of simple decency aside, the controversy over the present incident serves well to illustrate just how counterproductive such resort to vituperation and ad hominem attack is.

Regardless of one's point of view on the question of whether health insurers should be required to pay for contraceptive medication (yes, I understand that the medications have therapeutic uses as well), it is difficult to deny that there is a question which not only has two sides, but is worthy of serious  debate. Yet, for the past week or so since the comments were first made and then, remarkably, compounded, the airwaves and print media have been cluttered, to the near exclusion of the subject about which Ms. Fluke actually spoke, with their repetition and with almost obsessive fixation on the boorishness of the speaker.       

Perhaps, of course, this was the speaker's intention -- to distract from the discussion of the merits of compulsory insurance coverage for women's birth control. If so, he has certainly succeeded to a great degree, and regrettably done so with the assistance of his detractors. For this reason, no matter what Bill Maher's other faults may be, I think he was correct in urging that offered apology be accepted and that speaker's critics move on.

[AndyZ]

Towards the question as to whether contraception should be paid for purely for the sake of avoiding pregnancy, I'm going to say no.  Absolutely for medical reasons, but just to avoid pregnancy, no.

The reason I'm going to give is that not all religions agree upon contraception, and if you claim that the irreligious should not have to deal with matters  that are only agreed upon by the religious, then the religious should also not have to deal with matters that are only desired by the irreligious.

This is a major reason for not having public funding of abortion.  (Yes, I know we do, but we're not supposed to.)  That's the compromise: only working towards the common good, when the religious and irreligious agree.

Either we should promote both things wanted by religious and irreligious, or we should only promote things which are promoted by both.  Anything else is a double standard.

[Shjade]

The reason I'm going to give is that not all religions agree upon contraception, and if you claim that the irreligious should not have to deal with matters  that are only agreed upon by the religious, then the religious should also not have to deal with matters that are only desired by the irreligious.

Separation of church and state negates your position. Religion should have no bearing on what the government does or does not do.

Private organizations have their own policies, of course.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think it's a bad sign when the conversation about female birth control is in such a bad light but it's considered 'crass' by critics to point out a purely sexual thing like vigara is politely ignored in the same conversation. I also find it disconcerting that a purely MALE outlook is being consulted by the committe that Ms. Fluke was complaining about. Tell me why, religious reasons aside, should the opinions of male priests be given more weight than those of female doctors?

I could make a crass remark about the recent history of the Roman Catholic Church, but I will instead point this out. Enable the insurers to exclude something like birth control for one reason..and next they'll find a reason to exclude YOUR medications for another. As someone who occasionally needs chemical assistance to keep certain neurochemical mechanisms in balance, I'd rather not have them getting the leverage.

After all, to use the arguement of 'interfering with natural courses' could mean that my own condition is the way I'm SUPPOSED to be.

[Shjade]

But it is the way you're supposed to be.

We just want you to be different. @.@

[AndyZ]

Separation of church and state negates your position. Religion should have no bearing on what the government does or does not do.

Private organizations have their own policies, of course.

Common misconception about how the separation of church and state works.  Here's the first amendment for you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment protects the church from the state, not the state from the church.  It blocks the government from affecting religion, not the other way around.

The misconception is what allows people to force others to take down religious paraphernalia, even when doing so clearly violates the free exercise of their religion.

[Jefepato]

Common misconception about how the separation of church and state works.  Here's the first amendment for you.

The first amendment protects the church from the state, not the state from the church.  It blocks the government from affecting religion, not the other way around.

The misconception is what allows people to force others to take down religious paraphernalia, even when doing so clearly violates the free exercise of their religion.

Actually, it protects both the church and state from each other -- you really can't do one in a fair or honest manner without doing the other.  The government can't tell people how to practice their religions, but it also can't, for example, pass laws based on purely religious principles or enact legislation to punish minority religions.

Even if you disagree with this principle for some reason, it's well-settled precedent and thus the law of the land.

[vtboy]

Common misconception about how the separation of church and state works.  Here's the first amendment for you.

The first amendment protects the church from the state, not the state from the church.  It blocks the government from affecting religion, not the other way around.

The misconception is what allows people to force others to take down religious paraphernalia, even when doing so clearly violates the free exercise of their religion.

Perhaps the primary purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect religions from each other. Religious persecution in England (and in many of the colonies here, too) being a fairly recent memory, the concern was that one religion might obtain state sanction and use the powers of the state to oppress others. Thus, the Clause serves not only to keep government's hands off religion, but also religion's hands off government.

Somewhat ironically, evangelists were among the strongest advocates of church/state separation. A fringe movement at the time, evangelical churches feared that more established religious institutions might, by influence or legislation, exploit the levers of state power to drive them from the scene. How different the evangelist voice is today. Of course, nothing corrupts like success....

[Trieste]

I think that health insurance companies should cover the cost of health care. That includes cancer screenings for both sexes, prescriptions for both sexes (yes, of birth control, too), surgeries for both sexes (yes, including sterilization), and doctor's visits for both sexes.

The fact that there has not been male-oriented birth control available is frustrating, and I've often expressed frustration at this. Not only does it strip men of control over their bodies and reproductive future, but it once again places the responsibility on the woman. Just because we are the ones with the carrying capacity doesn't mean we are the only ones responsible for contraception and whatnot.

Health insurance that purports to have prescription coverage should cover whatever prescriptions the doctor deems necessary to write. End of story.

Regarding the first amendment, making laws based on religious beliefs is more than certainly making a law that respects the establishment of religion, and that is a no-no. Absolutely not. If the religious have a moral objection to birth control, they don't have to make use of birth control. But it should be available to everyone. Just like the religious could go out and have premarital sex if they wanted to, it's available, but they choose not to do so because of their religion. Same with porn. Same with drugs, alcohol, and various other things that religions like to prohibit. It's the same concept. If your religion proscribes you from drinking alcohol, don't drink alcohol. But don't try to close down liquor stores. Same with birth control.

[MasterMischief]

I think Jon Stewart brought up an excellent point.  If we do not want to pay people to have sex, why do women (and men too now) get maternity leave?

[Callie Del Noire]

I think Jon Stewart brought up an excellent point.  If we do not want to pay people to have sex, why do women (and men too now) get maternity leave?

You might want to avoid stuff like that.. it's a ready made excuse for the fundies to put the women back in the house full time.

[Serephino]

Said radio personality is a jackass that spouts off ridiculous and radical crap for attention.  It doesn't surprise me.  I did sign a petition for his sponsors to cut off the funding.  Maybe that will finally shut him up...  I'm all for freedom of speech, but I really hate seeing it abused like that.

Birth control can be used for a number of things.  A female friend of mine uses it for heavy bleeding and cramps.  When I was a kid my mom lost an ovary to cysts, so I know that happens too.  She was older and done having kids, but still...  She ended up getting thrown into early Peri-menopause because of it, which I'm sure wasn't fun.

Finally, let's talk about casual sex.  Sure, people could abstain, but they don't usually want to, especially not for the several years it takes to get a law degree.  In high school I chose abstinence, but it was my personal choice.  Not wanting to get some girl pregnant wasn't even the only reason, but it was part of it.  However, not everyone wants to do that.  We are sexual creatures, and to start throwing chastity belts on women would be throwing us all back into the dark ages.

A woman should be able to take responsibility for her own reproductive organs.  I do believe in personal responsibility, and birth control is a great way to do that.  If a woman wishes to have sex despite the risk of pregnancy, birth control makes pregnancy a whole lot less likely.  Fewer unwanted pregnancies is a plus for everyone.     

[AndyZ]

Actually, it protects both the church and state from each other -- you really can't do one in a fair or honest manner without doing the other.  The government can't tell people how to practice their religions, but it also can't, for example, pass laws based on purely religious principles or enact legislation to punish minority religions.

Even if you disagree with this principle for some reason, it's well-settled precedent and thus the law of the land.

You do realize that our National Motto is "In God We Trust," right?

We can either discuss whether it's constitutionally possible or whether it fits a hypothetical and logical balance.  Purely constitutionally, if you force people to pay for something which goes against their religion, then you're impeding upon their religious rights.

I think that health insurance companies should cover the cost of health care. That includes cancer screenings for both sexes, prescriptions for both sexes (yes, of birth control, too), surgeries for both sexes (yes, including sterilization), and doctor's visits for both sexes.

The fact that there has not been male-oriented birth control available is frustrating, and I've often expressed frustration at this. Not only does it strip men of control over their bodies and reproductive future, but it once again places the responsibility on the woman. Just because we are the ones with the carrying capacity doesn't mean we are the only ones responsible for contraception and whatnot.

Health insurance that purports to have prescription coverage should cover whatever prescriptions the doctor deems necessary to write. End of story.

Regarding the first amendment, making laws based on religious beliefs is more than certainly making a law that respects the establishment of religion, and that is a no-no. Absolutely not. If the religious have a moral objection to birth control, they don't have to make use of birth control. But it should be available to everyone. Just like the religious could go out and have premarital sex if they wanted to, it's available, but they choose not to do so because of their religion. Same with porn. Same with drugs, alcohol, and various other things that religions like to prohibit. It's the same concept. If your religion proscribes you from drinking alcohol, don't drink alcohol. But don't try to close down liquor stores. Same with birth control.

The difference is in federal funding.  If we equate it to alcohol, a better comparison would be using federal funding to make alcohol free to everyone.  The current system for birth control is closer to what we currently have with alcohol, where it's not federally funded and not free, but you can buy it if you so choose.  However, as stated before, if it's truly a question of health and not of simply casual sex, the system should provide, and is in violation if it claims to do so and fails to live up to that claim.

I think Jon Stewart brought up an excellent point.  If we do not want to pay people to have sex, why do women (and men too now) get maternity leave?

Certainly a logical question.  Not everyone wants to have kids, and maternity leave requires people to pay for those who don't.  Is parental leave a requirement by the government, though?

Checking on Wikipedia, so please chime in if this is correct or not.

Only four countries have no national law mandating paid time off for new parents: Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and the United States.[2] In the U.S., the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) mandates up to 12 weeks of (potentially unpaid) job-protected leave, including parental leave, for many American workers. Subnational laws also vary; for example the U.S. state of California does mandate paid family leave, including parental leave for same-sex partners.

So far as I can tell, maternity leave isn't a law but is offered by companies.  Companies are free to do whatever they want, because we don't pay taxes to them and are free to boycott them as we choose.  We don't have the right to simply stop paying taxes and ignore the laws of the government, but we have a say (corrupt bureaucrats notwithstanding) in how our government works.

[Oniya]

We're not talking about federal funding, though.  We are talking about insurance.   If your employer offers health insurance, it's not free - it's paid for out of your paycheck.  Every month, if you have health insurance, you pay a premium.  You also pay a deductible on procedures and co-payments on doctor visits.  For some services, there's a certain percentage called a 'co-insurance' that you're required to pay.

[Lilias]

People already agree that if you need birth control for reasons other than casual sex, that you should be able to get it.  The issue is purely about casual sex.

Let's remove the medical reasons and only talk about the casual sex part of this conversation.

Actually, let's talk about the non-casual sex part as well. Because the particular policy impacts married students as well. Is married sex casual? Don't married women have to deal with issues that can require hormonal supplements? Or perhaps they have no right to such medication at all because it has the side effect of (gasp, shudder) preventing pregnancy?

[AndyZ]

If you're paying for insurance from a private company, then you follow the rules that the private company sets down.  If there's enough of a demand for contraception to be added to the market and regulations don't prohibit it from starting up, then a company will form which offers it.  If you don't want to buy insurance from a particular company, then you shouldn't have to.

Now, I'll certainly agree that they should open up insurance companies across state lines, but don't expect it in the foreseeable future.

If you want a public option as some do, then the public option would not be able to offer contraception because it would be using public funds for birth control, which would be forcing people to pay for something against their religion.

For the same reasons, if you federally require people to buy insurance, then you can't also federally require insurance companies to offer contraception, or else you're forcing people to pay for something which violates their beliefs.

Actually, let's talk about the non-casual sex part as well. Because the particular policy impacts married students as well. Is married sex casual? Don't married women have to deal with issues that can require hormonal supplements? Or perhaps they have no right to such medication at all because it has the side effect of (gasp, shudder) preventing pregnancy?

You have the right to purchase it if you can afford it.  You don't have the right to make people give you free stuff, though.  Huge difference there.

[Lilias]

You have the right to purchase it if you can afford it.  You don't have the right to make people give you free stuff, though.  Huge difference there.

If there's a doctor's prescription, it's nobody's business to contest the claim on it. Simple as that. From 'I don't believe you have PCOS, you must want the pills to have consequence-free sex', it's only a little step to 'I don't believe you're in chronic pain; you must want the painkillers to get high on them.'

[Trieste]

If you're paying for insurance from a private company, then you follow the rules that the private company sets down.  If there's enough of a demand for contraception to be added to the market and regulations don't prohibit it from starting up, then a company will form which offers it.  If you don't want to buy insurance from a particular company, then you shouldn't have to.

Now, I'll certainly agree that they should open up insurance companies across state lines, but don't expect it in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, this is pretty much a fairy tale, so I'm going to leave it as one.

If you want a public option as some do, then the public option would not be able to offer contraception because it would be using public funds for birth control, which would be forcing people to pay for something against their religion.

For the same reasons, if you federally require people to buy insurance, then you can't also federally require insurance companies to offer contraception, or else you're forcing people to pay for something which violates their beliefs.

First, it's not against someone's religion to pay taxes. That is all they are doing. In fact, the Bible specifically commands to give the government its due. So there is that.

Second, that's... not how taxes work. When is the last time you had any say in where your tax dollars specifically went? Government grants already go to Planned Parenthood - which provides contraception and abortion counseling, even if they don't use federal money to provide abortions themselves. Getting an abortion or taking birth control can be against someone's religion. I get that. But paying taxes to help out those who can't do for themselves is not against anyone's religion. In fact, I'm pretty sure the big JC told people to help out the poor and the needy, without a "unless you object to whatever the fuck they do" clause.

You have the right to purchase it if you can afford it.  You don't have the right to make people give you free stuff, though.  Huge difference there.

You mean free stuff like roads, bridges, schools, and whatnot? Oh wait, we pay for those. It would be the same for a national insurance plan.

However, we're not talking about a national insurance plan, we're talking about insurance coverage. That people pay for. That people purchase. How does that equate with 'free'? Please explain to me where you're getting this 'free birth control' idea from a speech encouraging health insurance purchased by the insured?

[Iniquitous]

If there's a doctor's prescription, it's nobody's business to contest the claim on it. Simple as that. From 'I don't believe you have PCOS, you must want the pills to have consequence-free sex', it's only a little step to 'I don't believe you're in chronic pain; you must want the painkillers to get high on them.'

That's a little step that has already been taken I might add! I suffer from fibromyalgia and yeah, I've had doctors flat tell me they don't believe I am in constantly pain, it's all in my head and I am just searching for my next high.

[Serephino]

Okay, let's talk about religion there.  If a law is passed that birth control can only be distributed for a medical need, then my religious beliefs would be violated.  'An it harm none, do what thou will.  A woman having sex and using contraception isn't harming anyone, except possibly herself because of side effects.  Still, if a woman knows the risks and is willing to take them...  Denying her access to birth control isn't letting her exercising her free will.

That is why Politics and Religion are not supposed to mix.  Christians aren't the only religious people in this country.  Shall we go through each and every law, and toss out any of them that violate any existing established religion?  Whelp... there go the drug laws then, and liquor sales on Sundays in this state.  But wait, Christians would be offended then, wouldn't they?   Isn't that a sticky situation?

You can't please everyone all the time.  That's why Congress needs to think about what's best for the people sans religion.  From what I understand of the article, Georgetown offers student health insurance that students pay for.  They don't want to cover birth control because it goes against their religion.  That Blunt law would have made it so any private health insurance company or employer could do the same.

How would this be bad for you?  Okay, let's say the owner of the company you work for is a Jehovah's Witness.  You buy health insurance through work.  You get into a bad accident or something that you need a blood transfusion.  Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions; another's body fluids in you makes you unclean (which makes you wonder what their view on sex is).  It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but hey, if they want to let themselves die...

However, you're the one that needs it.  In such as case, the hospital has to give it to you unless you tell them not to.  But the insurance you pay for won't cover it.  You'll be stuck with that bill.  I'm not sure exactly how much a unit of blood costs, but probably a lot.  The whole reason you pay for insurance is so you won't get stuck with huge stacks of medical bills.

Medicare covers blood.  That's how I found out they actually charge for it.  They pay for 3 units, then after that I'd have to pay $600 per unit.  Should they not because there's a religion out there such a thing offends?  Where should the line be drawn?  That's why religion needs to stay the hell out of it.   

[kylie]

       Speak not the name of the demon, lest it gain more power?  But, does this not give The Name That Must Not Be Uttered more weight locally, more mystery and influence than that of others spoken easily?  Ahh, sorcery and conjuration on the Internet!  For these are dark times, and children who speak of the wrong names and numbers could go missing in the night...  If the Chinese Internet is any example, people will start naming things with proxy names, and then the regime shall have to track all those otherwise mundane words for things, on and on.

       It's very curious when said unnameable simultaneously complains about the supposed activities of a "whore," as he calls it and insinuates that many of his audience might quite enjoy purchasing those services.  If so many are likely to enjoy it privately, does it really make that much difference if we simply declare the business just another good, and stop flinging the word around as if its buyers and sellers should live in shame and fear? 

       If a woman does makes a sex video, will the complainants all kindly "man up" and generate private fees (as they seem to think this is very important in society), definitely pay for her birth control, or perhaps pay a goodly sum for the video on a regular basis?  Do they really believe that then they have purchased the right to spit names and vitriol -- and at any time, in public no less -- at the same woman?  Or perhaps that they have that right, simply because others might purchase her sexual services??  The whole underlying logic is fascinating but contradictory.  Won't pay her publicly, but if only her kind would act slutty and oh, definitely put a humiliated face on that while they do it to make it acceptable for us, why then so many of us would privately pay her for being such a "good" worker.  Wow.  So what kinds of office fantasies, or actual colleague relationships, do all these "pro-business" people who follow this have?

       There are several medical applications of birth control drugs, regardless of whether one approves of intervening in the baby production process. 

       It's one thing to oppose public funding for anyone's health in principle, but I'm not sure precisely how one can distinguish "women's health" here from public health, as we know it in other cases.  Presumably certain private insurance companies have a way, as some have been clamoring to keep mammograms and such from being covered in the national plan.  It rather sounds like another wave of the same woman-excluding motion, to me. 

       If one's bottom line "point" is to protest a shortage of personal responsibility in society, then I suspect anyone can pick and choose anything...  There's always room for smaller government and more private responsibility.  If you are against government funding for personal health generally, then why exactly should we start or stop at birth control?  Why, let's aim big:  Are modern sewer systems and water purification really necessary for basic survival?

   

[Jefepato]

You do realize that our National Motto is "In God We Trust," right?

Yes.  Courts have a rather bad habit of claiming that "In God We Trust" isn't a religious statement anymore because it's lost all meaning through rote repetition.  (This is annoying since polls have revealed that the actual citizenry disagrees.)

Per Wikipedia, it seems to have been motivated in a big way by propaganda in both the American Civil War and the Red Scare.  Lots of troublesome things happen that way.  And it's hard to get folks excited about something like a tiny motto no one actually looks at when they spend money -- usually when I complain about it, most people don't say "that's not unconstitutional."  They say "well, yeah, but who cares about that?"

(Also, I'm guessing it's pretty easy for courts to rule that some random citizen doesn't have standing to challenge the national motto.  They like to do that when they'd rather not make an actual ruling.)

[Caela]

My own personal thought is that any employer that isn't specifically a church of some type should have no say in what prescriptions your doctor can give you. I don't care if a church founded a University or Hospital, those are, by their very nature, public institutions with many employees who do not necessarily share the religious views of those who first opened said institutions doors and their employers religious views should not be a part of their medical decisions.

I used to work for a VERY catholic hospital that didn't so much as allow our OB's perform basic procedures like tubals, even for medical reasons. We had an OB get censored because she told a patient we were doing a c-section on that having more children would be dangerous for her. She'd had so many sections that her uterus just couldn't handle it anymore and was no longer fully healing. It was so thin when we got down to it that you could practically see the baby waving at you! Luckily it was a scheduled section because one or two good contractions and this patient had a high chance of rupture. Since we couldn't do the tubal there, she told the patient they would make an appointment to do one at the other hospital in town. Someone wrote her up and she ended up having to go before the hospital board for giving her patient medically pertinent information!

If I am paying for insurance, and that insurance includes prescription drug coverage than no one should have the right to question which prescriptions my doctor feels it is appropriate to give me, whether those prescriptions are for the pill, viagra, painkills, anti-psychotics, or anti-depressants etc, that should be privileged information between myself and my doctor...period.

[Trieste]

Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions; another's body fluids in you makes you unclean (which makes you wonder what their view on sex is).  It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but hey, if they want to let themselves die...

Just a note, this is inaccurate. The moral objection JWs have against blood transfusions is God's command not to eat of the flesh and blood of another. They have interpreted this to mean that consumption of another's blood and body is verboten, including intravenous consumption. They say that hospitals give nutrients and water (saline) intravenously so taking blood intravenously is wrong because it's essentially cannibalism.

You can disagree with it if you want but please don't declaim others' beliefs as 'dumb', especially if you don't properly understand them.

[Oniya]

You do realize that our National Motto is "In God We Trust," right?

Only since 1956.  Came in partially due to McCarthyism to distinguish America from all those 'godless commies'.  Only two years before, the words 'under God' made their first official appearance in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Prior to that it was 'E Pluribus Unum' - From many, one.

[Callie Del Noire]

How would this be bad for you?  Okay, let's say the owner of the company you work for is a Jehovah's Witness.  You buy health insurance through work.  You get into a bad accident or something that you need a blood transfusion.  Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions; another's body fluids in you makes you unclean (which makes you wonder what their view on sex is).  It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but hey, if they want to let themselves die...

Got one that is even worse. What if your boss(es) are Christian Scientists? Makes for fuck-all in the way of things they'd approve in a medical coverage (depending how strict they observe their faith)

[Serephino]

Got one that is even worse. What if your boss(es) are Christian Scientists? Makes for fuck-all in the way of things they'd approve in a medical coverage (depending how strict they observe their faith)

Yes, that could get interesting.

[AndyZ]

First off, I was rechecking everything and I think I goofed up on which thread this is when compared to another somewhere else.  Mea culpa.

If there's a doctor's prescription, it's nobody's business to contest the claim on it. Simple as that. From 'I don't believe you have PCOS, you must want the pills to have consequence-free sex', it's only a little step to 'I don't believe you're in chronic pain; you must want the painkillers to get high on them.'

Oh yeah, get a lawyer, sue the pants off of them.  I've heard of a number of them who will accept a case purely on a contingency fee, meaning that if you win, they get a percentage of the money, but if you lose, you don't owe a cent.

First, it's not against someone's religion to pay taxes. That is all they are doing. In fact, the Bible specifically commands to give the government its due. So there is that.

Assuming you mean the Render unto Caesar quote, that's a subject for extended debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

However, the phrase "That is all they are doing," I disagree with on the same grounds as this:

Calling Ms. Fluke several names and suggesting that she make a sex tape for everyone to watch, said radio personality incited quite a bit of ire against himself. I haven't seen much talk of it on Facebook, but it's all over Twitter, and I've personally been pressuring those companies of which I am a patron not to advertise on his show. I don't want any of my money going to him.

Even though not all of the money would go to Rush, you realize that some percentage of it does, and you consider that unacceptable.  You can understand how some percentage of the money similarly goes through the government into processes which people find unacceptable according to their religion.

Second, that's... not how taxes work. When is the last time you had any say in where your tax dollars specifically went?

I would love to see the concept of having things go more towards stuff where a much higher majority agrees with everything that gets done.  We'd have so much of this special interests crap go out the window.  Maybe I'm too much of an idealist there.

However, with respect, I do not consider "That's how it is" as a good argument.  Were it so, tradition would outweigh logic and nothing would change.

Government grants already go to Planned Parenthood - which provides contraception and abortion counseling, even if they don't use federal money to provide abortions themselves. Getting an abortion or taking birth control can be against someone's religion. I get that. But paying taxes to help out those who can't do for themselves is not against anyone's religion.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the big JC told people to help out the poor and the needy, without a "unless you object to whatever the fuck they do" clause.

[/quote]

If you'll forgive taking the argument to the extreme, I think that we'd all agree that rehab clinics are good, but simply providing illegal drugs would be a tragedy.  Similarly, we can talk someone down from a homicidal rage but not help them plan a murder.

Helping people does not mean that we allow them to do as they wish even if it goes against our values.

You mean free stuff like roads, bridges, schools, and whatnot? Oh wait, we pay for those. It would be the same for a national insurance plan.

Well, with roads and bridges, I can easily argue that it's all for the common good.  Everyone uses roads and bridges, whether for personal use or transport of goods that are bought and sold.

With schools, I would agree except that it teaches abject atheism over any particular religion, where religion of any sort cannot be taught but it's alright to make attacks on religion.  However, that will get us into the argument of whether atheism is a religion, and I don't want to derail everything.

However, we're not talking about a national insurance plan, we're talking about insurance coverage. That people pay for. That people purchase. How does that equate with 'free'? Please explain to me where you're getting this 'free birth control' idea from a speech encouraging health insurance purchased by the insured?

I'm going to chalk this up to a goof on my part.  This thread is not a debate for nationalized healthcare as a result of this woman, nor the recent debate about Catholic hospitals.  It's purely about private insurance companies and I didn't realize that.  I'm sorry.  I could explain my confusion, but it would only derail things further than I already have.

[Trieste]

You cannot please everyone with taxes, but the way it's supposed to work is that taxes go where the majority thinks they would do the most good. That includes things like welfare (which not everyone will agree with), mental hospitals (same), etc. There will always be someone who objects to something that taxes go to, but that's why we pay them in and we don't get a say in where they go except through elected proxies. It's different from choosing to buy into a corporate sponsor that supports the radio host I'm talking about, because it's my specific money that I'm able to threaten to pull. Enough consumers get together and you have a movement. A bunch of taxpayers get together and don't pay taxes, they get thrown in jail.

I do understand that Washington is broken at this time, so that's not the way it necessarily works, but that is how the system is set up to work and only a severe overhaul of taxes will overcome that.

Furthermore, my personal belief is that when churches start paying taxes, they can debate all they want about where those taxes go. Until and unless that happens, the actual church/religious organizations need to keep their noses out. Whether that violates separation of church and state is another matter for another thread entirely, but that's how I feel about religious input in taxpayers' matters.

If you'll forgive taking the argument to the extreme, I think that we'd all agree that rehab clinics are good, but simply providing illegal drugs would be a tragedy.  Similarly, we can talk someone down from a homicidal rage but not help them plan a murder.

Helping people does not mean that we allow them to do as they wish even if it goes against our values.

Nope, we don't all agree that. I'm in support of the government decriminalizing recreational mind-altering substances and regulating them. I would support a medically trained staff member dispensing a dose of heroin over someone mis-dosing or overdosing due to ignorance any day. I don't advocate giving away the drugs, but I don't think the government has a right to tell people what they can and cannot do for fun. The war on drugs has overcrowded our prisons and bloated our justice system until it can no longer deal with the violent criminals it was meant to deal with and that is truly an injustice in itself.

Planning and/or carrying out a murder doesn't fit in this situation, because the other two examples - drugs, contraception - don't hurt anyone else but the ones taking them (if they even hurt them). My Nuvaring has nothing to do with you, or anyone else. And it's not free - I pay through the nose for my insurance, which is not subsidized by the state or any employer, plus I have to pay coinsurance. I would much prefer, as a personal example, if the insurance company included my coinsurance with the darn insurance policy in the first place, so I could pay for everything in a lump sum (it comes out of my student loans, so I'm technically paying interest on my healthcare at the moment) and not have to worry about coughing up $50 a month for Nuvaring, $50 a month for something else, $20 a month for the other thing, plus the copays I pay for doctor's visits, lab tests, and preventative care such as my physical and my GYN exam.

I don't think it's asking too much to require insurance companies to actually insure their customers without tacking on extra bits and bobs that amount to thousands more dollars a year.

[AndyZ]

I do understand that Washington is broken at this time, so that's not the way it necessarily works, but that is how the system is set up to work and only a severe overhaul of taxes will overcome that.

Yeah, I tend to be an idealist anymore.  I thought for sure high school had cured me of that.

Given that someone will always disagree, I'm not fully convinced that a simple 51% is good enough, but it doesn't logically feel that 90% or any such is magically better.

Nope, we don't all agree that. I'm in support of the government decriminalizing recreational mind-altering substances and regulating them. I would support a medically trained staff member dispensing a dose of heroin over someone mis-dosing or overdosing due to ignorance any day. I don't advocate giving away the drugs, but I don't think the government has a right to tell people what they can and cannot do for fun. The war on drugs has overcrowded our prisons and bloated our justice system until it can no longer deal with the violent criminals it was meant to deal with and that is truly an injustice in itself.

I should have better stated the difference between simply giving them away and legalizing them.

I've heard it said that we won't be able to legalize drugs until the following: When the average person is able to see someone out on the street who is wasted out of their mind, who is begging for money, and be able to say no to them because the passerby knows that the money will only be used for drugs.

Now, giving them food, no argument.  Shelter, certainly.  Helping them get off the habit, no problem.  Simply giving them money that they'll use for more drugs?  No.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Wizard's Second Rule and I'm not always good at explanations.

Planning and/or carrying out a murder doesn't fit in this situation, because the other two examples - drugs, contraception - don't hurt anyone else but the ones taking them (if they even hurt them). My Nuvaring has nothing to do with you, or anyone else.

It was an extreme example simply to show that it's possible to help someone without blindly following their requests.  I should probably have stuck to the example that you can help a drug addict without buying them more drugs.

And it's not free - I pay through the nose for my insurance, which is not subsidized by the state or any employer, plus I have to pay coinsurance. I would much prefer, as a personal example, if the insurance company included my coinsurance with the darn insurance policy in the first place, so I could pay for everything in a lump sum (it comes out of my student loans, so I'm technically paying interest on my healthcare at the moment) and not have to worry about coughing up $50 a month for Nuvaring, $50 a month for something else, $20 a month for the other thing, plus the copays I pay for doctor's visits, lab tests, and preventative care such as my physical and my GYN exam.

I don't think it's asking too much to require insurance companies to actually insure their customers without tacking on extra bits and bobs that amount to thousands more dollars a year.

The way I've always seen health insurance is that it's a gamble: you're effectively betting that you're going to need more health insurance than you spend money.  However, you're also paying for every regulation that the health insurance companies have to deal with, all the red tape to cut through, and if I remember correctly, there's a requirement that a certain percentage of the money that absolutely has to go to payouts.  I want to say 90%, but someone correct me on that if I'm wrong.

If 90% has to go to payouts, and it costs them a million dollars to run their business, they have to take in ten million in order to make ends meet.  It doesn't surprise me that the prices skyrocket as a result. 

I do wonder sometimes if it'd just be better to boycott health insurances and pay out of pocket until they become reasonable.  Has anyone ever done a cost-analysis on the average person to see if this would end up being actually cheaper?  I realize this won't be legal as of 2014 unless Obamacare is repealed, but I'm curious.

[gaggedLouise]

Can't say I'm surprised by the comments of Mr. Radio Host even if they are moronic and insulting. He's talking the talk. Some years ago, a young woman journalist - let's call her Mary, whom I had been acquanted with when I was around twenty and we were both fresh students - got at one of the tabloids around here for their regular posting of exploitaitive tittie pictures and denigrating, sexist written reporting about any subject where they could fit it in (crime, reality tv shows, celeb profile interviews, all kinds of merchandise tests etc - her concern wasn't about prudishness but sexploitation). In an ironic flourish, she asked the readers of the small magazine she was running for nude pictures of the editor-in-chief of that tabloid. A few days later, she got a reply from one of the tabloid's young female pitbull star columnists - with big pic byline and everything - lambasting her for "making shrewd use of her immigrant kid credentials" - actually, they were both of immigrant background. Torpedo Girl shouted that Mary detested girls who love their bodies enough to make a living of them and crowned it with "I wanna see Mary posing as a naked statue in the main square of /name of a nationally well-known 'ghetto hood'/" Can it get any better? Any more scurrilous? As far as I'm concerned she was simply licking her boss's butt, while also trying to appear cool and daring.

I actually broke with another friend of mine over those comments - he was trying hard to get into that tabloid and I was 90% sure he personally knew that columnist, since he was a long-standing fan of her ten years older writer boyfriend. I challenged him in an sms on what he thought of the column; he never replied, and I pretty much decided on the spot never to be in touch with him again. Six months later I saw him sitting in a tv sofa with Torpedo Girl in a program hosted by their paper. Mmm, yeah.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-are-making-hay-with-gop-fumbling-with-women/2012/03/09/gIQAgDA61R_story.html


Got to wonder why the GOP is going out of their way to alienate a large portion of the moderate community by their recent expedition into sexism.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Attempt to motivate the religious right to turn out like they did for Bush?  Romney is more than likely going to win the nomination and they need something to motivate them to vote for a Mormon president.

[SilentScreams]

What that particular host said was inappropriate. Yet targeting him for what he said is hypocritical. Where was the same righteous indignation when;

Ed Shultz called Palin a bimbo;
Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a right-wing slut;
Keith Olbermann said S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents;
Matt Taibbi wrote "When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.”
Chris Matthews has said Hillary Clinton is a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.”
Bill Maher called Palin a "dumb twat" and described her as a c*nt
Bill Maher made a joke about Santorum's wife using a vibrator.

Double standard much? Oh, those mean republicans...can't they just be nice? 

[Trieste]

What that particular host said was inappropriate. Yet targeting him for what he said is hypocritical. Where was the same righteous indignation when;

I don't know, where was it? Where was Mr. Radio Announcer's angry ranting against Bill Maher? Where was the supportive indignation when Palin was under fire? She has a base, she has a very vocal base, except perhaps they don't quite care about their women as much as they might like us to think.

Or maybe the Radio Announcer Fiasco isn't about right or left, it's not about dems or GOP, it's about a despicable man deliberately misinterpreting Ms. Fluke's testimony and indulging himself in a three-day jag of good ol' slut-shaming. And it pissed reasonable people, conservative or liberal, right the fuck off.

Hm. :P

*snip*

I'm not ignoring you, AndyZ. I really just don't have any answers for you. I think you're probably significantly more to the right side of moderate than I am? Not sure about that, though.

[SilentScreams]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t? 

[Caela]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t?

It's not reasonable or o.k. for either to call anyone a slut or a cunt. Both do it for ratings and I, frankly, think it shows a lack of intelligence on the part of both men. If you can't argue against someone's point of view without personally smearing them, then I think it's your own stance that is probably in need of some serious questioning.

As for the media traction both men did, or didn't get, that is, again, mostly about ratings. You get far higher ratings and more outrage going after the guy that is supposed to be the mouthpiece for conservative "family values" calling someone a slut, than you do out off of someone who makes it a point to be, repeatedly, shameless and sarcastic. One simply has more shock value (and thus brings in more ratings) than another.

The fact is (again just in my POV, YMMV) is that both men are highly inflammatory and often inappropriate, both have their fans and detractors, and BOTH should be apologizing to the women they have insulted and denigrated on their respective shows. I doubt, however, that either one's ego will let them give an actual HONEST apology to women they so obviously have no respect for and it makes me sad that these are the type of people we (general we, not anyone specific) listen to for our political commentary.

[Trieste]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t?

That's not what I said, so please don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh but calling someone a c*nt is perfectly reasonable, right? Because that comment got no traction in the media and, therefore, no traction amongst the couch bound electorate.

Perhaps there is so much indignation because someone got more coverage over his comments that someone else got?

Or maybe it's ok to call Palin a c*nt but not ok to call Fluke a sl*t?

No one said that it was. But this isn't the first time down the road for Limbaugh.

[gaggedLouise]

People in the media who sense that their friends would love it if they called some person a d**b c**t, a w**re, a "trophy know-it-all hooker" or a "blackmail lawmaker" etc, commonly know how to find excuses that don't instantly and obviously backfire on themselves. I agree Limbaugh has been down this road before (yes, he's notorious even over here, at least with those who follow U.S. politics) and the really serious bit is that he has many buddies and allies who accept this kind of talk.

[AndyZ]

I'm not ignoring you, AndyZ. I really just don't have any answers for you. I think you're probably significantly more to the right side of moderate than I am? Not sure about that, though.

That's fine ^_^  I would actually consider myself closer to libertarian, although there's a lot of things where I want to see the double standards addressed.  I tend to equate things which most people don't see a link between, like abortion and euthanasia.


As far as how it's fine for folks on MSNBC to say sexist things about women but not Rush, the way I figure it, either both are acceptable or both are not.  However, to me, it's rather telling that such things have been going on for years and that there's never been a public outcry until Rush says something.

It really reminds me of my youth.  I was the oldest child, so when my siblings would hit me, and I'd tell my parents, either they wouldn't believe me or they'd just wave it off and say to forgive them.  However, if I'd hit them, I'd be punished.  If I then pointed out that they hit me, then we'd both get an equal punishment.

My solution became rather simple: I'd hit them back.  We'd both get punished, and then they stopped hitting me.  When I tried just waiting it out for my parents to make them stop hitting me otherwise, it didn't happen.

I don't think Rush is smart enough to have said something derogatory just to point out the double standard, but it's astonishing how this is the first time we've seen an outcry like this.  Even when NOW stood up for Bachmann when Newsweek put her on the cover, there was silence.

Now, I can gladly deal with the standard of that either all derogatory comments are hateful and do not have a place in civilized discourse, or that speech is completely free and that people who say stupid and hateful things point themselves out as fools to be ignored.  However, we must decide which it is, and hold everyone to that same standard.

I do not accept the argument that some people are held to different standards, even if some have different ranges of listening audiences.  Surely national TV shows are, if not equivalent to national radio shows, more valued because TV is used far more prominently than radio.

Do we boycott everyone, Ed Schultz, Keith Obermann, Bill Maher, Newsweek, Matt Taibbi, Chris Matthews, and Lord Voldemort?  Or do we just accept it as their right, and point and laugh at them for the fools that they are when they say such things?

[Oniya]

It may be that this is the start of a change in how people view this sort of thing.  This being the first one may have been more or less 'timing'.  Back when Maher made his remarks about Sarah Palin, there wasn't a general feeling among women that their rights to their own health were under attack, and because the attack on Fluke came when it did, and in the manner that it did, the proverbial camel suffered a catastrophic spinal fracture. 

In addition, a thirty-odd-year-old woman attending school to get a better job could be anyone, or anyone's neighbor.  Politicians, TV personalities, and even authors are still, to many people, 'a thing apart'.  You don't think of an author living next door, or a TV personality, and certainly not a politician (unless you live in a podunk town like I do, and the mayor sidelines as a cashier.)  I go to the bus stop with the little Oni, and one of the mothers there is about my age and trying to get through a business law degree.

[AndyZ]

It may be that this is the start of a change in how people view this sort of thing.  This being the first one may have been more or less 'timing'.  Back when Maher made his remarks about Sarah Palin, there wasn't a general feeling among women that their rights to their own health were under attack, and because the attack on Fluke came when it did, and in the manner that it did, the proverbial camel suffered a catastrophic spinal fracture. 

Am I correct in that your argument here is that because the news media continues to discuss women's rights, the Overton window has shifted to the point where the only reason that Rush was attacked about this was because it's a women's health issue, and not just because it's misogynistic?

((This is an honest question, not rhetorical.  I feel like this is what I'm getting and it's probably not what you're saying.))

In addition, a thirty-odd-year-old woman attending school to get a better job could be anyone, or anyone's neighbor.  Politicians, TV personalities, and even authors are still, to many people, 'a thing apart'.  You don't think of an author living next door, or a TV personality, and certainly not a politician (unless you live in a podunk town like I do, and the mayor sidelines as a cashier.)  I go to the bus stop with the little Oni, and one of the mothers there is about my age and trying to get through a business law degree.

Possibly.  We pick a woman to speak to Congress who's not an expert and has nothing but testimonial witnessing to tell them and people relate to her better than the expert.

If pathos is the cry that drives us into action, however, logos must either silence that cry or allow for some degree of fairness between such attacks.



P.S.  Oniya, I owe you an apology also because I misread: you were talking about insurance plans and not Medicare.  I'm sure you already saw my earlier bit about private companies and all, but still felt it right to say.

[gaggedLouise]

If pathos is the cry that drives us into action, however, logos must either silence that cry or allow for some degree of fairness between such attacks.

The trouble is that different people, and different camps in a debate, and in society, have wildly divergent ideas about in what corners logos and pathos are to be found (I'm referring to the level of "knowing or judging on what grounds one is doing something, or taking a view" here, not just to the bare fact that people want different things, have different aims and programs).  At what points someone would be driven by reason and at what points by passion and agitated emotion, or somebody else's trumped-up emotions (that's rethoric, you know). Besides, one can't really ask that everyone taking part in a debate should be able to step out of themselves and make an 'objective', calm and fair assessment of when they are being passionate, pigheaded or driven by sound reasoned arguments; it only works under special circumstances, like, if it's a small circle and every one of them shares the same frame of ideas, some of the same outlooks.

I agree that people who are discussing in public sometimes ought to do a bit more thinking, facts checking and self-restraint of expression before they speak up - especially if they make a living out of voicing opinions - but many of the folks in this thread may not be at one with you about just what it means to validate an opinion through the use of informed reason, and not just through clever words or hectoring.

The public arenas of debate - newspapers, magazines, radio, parliament, town halls - used to hold up the promise of a reflective discussion (I'm deliberately omitting tv because it hasn't, in general, been much to compare with in reasoned debate, not on its own anyway) where the weight of people's different viewpoints and passions could be brought face to face, and could be weighed and fairly discussed. But they are hardly working that way anymore. The fact of having your shouty voice heard, and getting heard fast, counts for more in those arenas today than actually having something solid and relevant to say, at least that's often how you get to the privileged places where you can get many to hear your soundbites. Both Limbaugh, Palin, Maher, Santorum and Schulz know that.

[Oniya]

Am I correct in that your argument here is that because the news media continues to discuss women's rights, the Overton window has shifted to the point where the only reason that Rush was attacked about this was because it's a women's health issue, and not just because it's misogynistic?

((This is an honest question, not rhetorical.  I feel like this is what I'm getting and it's probably not what you're saying.))

It's kind of a sensitization issue.  My theory is that, up until now, the shock jocks got away with it because we could roll our eyes and say 'Yes, these guys are jerks, but - you know - it's his schtick.  It's not like real people think like that.'  Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that.  Then, all of a sudden, we have 'Everywoman' getting completely misrepresented on the show (like I said, a person that any one of us could run into in our daily lives), and boom. 

Another thing that's been pointed out in other places is the pay-vs.-public aspect of the various shows.  ClearChannel is something that is carried by numerous public radio stations (as opposed to those only available on Sirius or other pay services).   

Going from SilentScream's earlier list:

Bill Maher is on HBO. 
Olbermann is on basic cable (although he recently left MSNBC for a satellite TV channel after a suspension). 
Matthews is also on basic cable, but I would point out that his comments about Clinton did spark protests outside the studio - so there was outrage.
Taibbi seems to be a print journalist only - I saw Rolling Stone and a weblog listed in his current outlets.

Ed Schultz is an interesting case, and probably the only close comparison, since he is also on a syndicated radio show.  He was suspended over the Ingraham insult, and issued a public apology.  (I finally found the text to it.)  Compared to the apology issued to Fluke - there really isn't much of a comparison.  Schultz spends the entirety of his speech on saying he was wrong, and Limbaugh spends over half of his saying 'why are we even talking about this?'  Also, Laura Ingraham accepted Schultz's apology.

P.S.  Oniya, I owe you an apology also because I misread: you were talking about insurance plans and not Medicare.  I'm sure you already saw my earlier bit about private companies and all, but still felt it right to say.

I appreciate that.  The confusion over insurance companies vs. getting it 'for free' seems to be rampant, unfortunately.

[kylie]

     I haven't seen, or read the Maher example in any detail.  Off the bat, I would say there are a few things Maher has said on various topics that have occasionally ranged (for me) from very imprecisely worded, to potentially misguided.  By and large, though, I've agreed with the spirit of his remarks when I have heard them in the past.  I think that more often than some, he has a reasonable and somewhat informed basis -- even for a dry comic -- for where he's coming from. 

     Sure, it's very cathartic at times to fling names, any names.  It could even be sexy for a time to toss sexual ones (if only more people would synchronize their watches on that question).  Of course, it does happen occasionally in less noticed ways here and there.  Now when we get to general philosophies being repeated over and over without much care, about women (or service jobs, read: largely women, not to mention Blacks/Latinos) making less money, or women being more tied to the husband and home, or women and anything else feminine or "weak" requiring special humiliation for being sexual beings.  Those seem more Republican to me, and more Rush than Maher on the whole.  I suspect the remarks are just so much closer to the tone and philosophy of so many more things that Rush has been saying for such a long time. 

    I do say "suspect" because I couldn't stand listening to the guy, and have largely tuned him out from many years ago.  Find some transcripts or audio files and judge for yourself.  Although it's been said academically that conservative voters will tend to abhor sarcastic critique, so as a demographic, it's kind of uncertain how much of Maher they would actually bother to review either.

[BitterSweet]

I guess my main problem with the whole issue is … what the hell is wrong with casual sex?  That's the heart of the issue, a certain group of people don't want women, in particular, to have sex without facing some form of 'punishment' – pregnancy or STDs or something.  The fact that radio host whats-his-name immediately leapt to sex tapes and slut shaming makes pretty clear that it's the idea of women having actual sex because they want that is figuring large in the minds of people like him.

All the complaints about how casual sex is going to ruin our civilization is patently false and there's no proof beyond 'cause I/the bible said so'.  Sexual mores have changed radically over the decades/centuries/forever and clearly humanity  is managing to get along just fine - we're not in danger of extinction due to over use of birth control and countries where it's freely available (as in free) and used are just as (if not more) 'civilized' than we are.

Almost all human beings do it at some point in their lives, whether it's serial monogamy like Newt G or hooking up in college or hitting the bars on Friday nights.  Sex is part of how many human beings do things.

Most of us also want to be responsible about it and not get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) until we want children (if we do at all), not pass STDs around, nor get them (though condoms are the best protection for that and are non-prescription) and generally – as adults – have control over our own bodies.  There is no reason in the world to restrict, deny, or prevent men or women from having free and easy access to birth control methods.

As to the religious question … frankly, fuck that.  There is no reason in the world, and the US Constitution specifically forbids, using any specific religious doctrine to guide politics.  Talk about personal responsibility, if a religious doctrine stats no birth control, or whatever, then it is the responsibility of those who follow that religion to well, follow that religion and it's not for the US government to step in and do it for them.  If religious organizations want to act in the public sphere, they need to provide the same benefits and services that anyone else who operates in the public sphere do.  Prior to emancipation, the bible and Christianity was used to defend slavery, now that's considered ridiculous – clearly the bible and other religious tenants are capable of adapting to changing views.   The vast majority of women (and thus the vast majority of people in general) use or have used birth control and approve of it's use.

This should be a non-issue as it is in most of the rest of the civilized world.  It's ridiculous that we're fighting over this like school kids giggling over the word vagina.

[Shjade]

I guess my main problem with the whole issue is … what the hell is wrong with casual sex? 

The informality. No one has sex in a proper tux with tails or ballgown anymore. It's disgraceful. You should all be ashamed.

[Trieste]

Slander and lies. I have a closet full of ballgowns for my sex. Sure, I get some odd looks when I show up at the biker bar downtown to get my one-nighter on, but I certainly wouldn't call it casual. ;)

[AndyZ]

Fair warning that I'm sleep deprived, so if I goof something again, please prod me so I catch it.  This thread just moves so fast that I don't want to get left behind, and besides, I found something I want to post.

The trouble is that different people, and different camps in a debate, and in society, have wildly divergent ideas about in what corners logos and pathos are to be found (I'm referring to the level of "knowing or judging on what grounds one is doing something, or taking a view" here, not just to the bare fact that people want different things, have different aims and programs).  At what points someone would be driven by reason and at what points by passion and agitated emotion, or somebody else's trumped-up emotions (that's rethoric, you know). Besides, one can't really ask that everyone taking part in a debate should be able to step out of themselves and make an 'objective', calm and fair assessment of when they are being passionate, pigheaded or driven by sound reasoned arguments; it only works under special circumstances, like, if it's a small circle and every one of them shares the same frame of ideas, some of the same outlooks.

I agree that people who are discussing in public sometimes ought to do a bit more thinking, facts checking and self-restraint of expression before they speak up - especially if they make a living out of voicing opinions - but many of the folks in this thread may not be at one with you about just what it means to validate an opinion through the use of informed reason, and not just through clever words or hectoring.

The public arenas of debate - newspapers, magazines, radio, parliament, town halls - used to hold up the promise of a reflective discussion (I'm deliberately omitting tv because it hasn't, in general, been much to compare with in reasoned debate, not on its own anyway) where the weight of people's different viewpoints and passions could be brought face to face, and could be weighed and fairly discussed. But they are hardly working that way anymore. The fact of having your shouty voice heard, and getting heard fast, counts for more in those arenas today than actually having something solid and relevant to say, at least that's often how you get to the privileged places where you can get many to hear your soundbites. Both Limbaugh, Palin, Maher, Santorum and Schulz know that.

The way I figure it, you can't really separate logic and emotion, but the two do have to work in harmony when you work at public policy.  Ideally, emotion should drive you towards fixing things, but logic should determine how you do so.  It's far too easy for someone to put up a plea for a fix to something, but it's logically not the best course of action.

For example, we all saw the Haiti relief funds last year.  Pathos demands compassion and that we send money.  However, when you look at how the money was squandered, logic shows that giving money to those relief funds isn't a proper course of action.

If we accept that purely pathos methods are acceptable, then ad hominem attacks would be acceptable as well, and people wouldn't have any problem with Rush's statements.

I would love to see a return to a more reflective discourse, but if either a Republican or Democrat wanted to do so, they should begin by cleaning out their own party before attacking the other.  Doing otherwise usually leads either to a double standard or to the exasperation that nothing will ever get better.

It's kind of a sensitization issue.  My theory is that, up until now, the shock jocks got away with it because we could roll our eyes and say 'Yes, these guys are jerks, but - you know - it's his schtick.  It's not like real people think like that.'  Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that.  Then, all of a sudden, we have 'Everywoman' getting completely misrepresented on the show (like I said, a person that any one of us could run into in our daily lives), and boom. 

Another thing that's been pointed out in other places is the pay-vs.-public aspect of the various shows.  ClearChannel is something that is carried by numerous public radio stations (as opposed to those only available on Sirius or other pay services).   

Going from SilentScream's earlier list:

Bill Maher is on HBO. 
Olbermann is on basic cable (although he recently left MSNBC for a satellite TV channel after a suspension). 
Matthews is also on basic cable, but I would point out that his comments about Clinton did spark protests outside the studio - so there was outrage.
Taibbi seems to be a print journalist only - I saw Rolling Stone and a weblog listed in his current outlets.

Ed Schultz is an interesting case, and probably the only close comparison, since he is also on a syndicated radio show.  He was suspended over the Ingraham insult, and issued a public apology.  (I finally found the text to it.)  Compared to the apology issued to Fluke - there really isn't much of a comparison.  Schultz spends the entirety of his speech on saying he was wrong, and Limbaugh spends over half of his saying 'why are we even talking about this?'  Also, Laura Ingraham accepted Schultz's apology.

I'm not really convinced it's that the public noticed it so much as that the mainstream news media jumped on this story, which they aren't so quick and vehement to do with similar cases.  I need a clarification of one part of your post, though, if you'd be so kind:

Then, this past year, we've had lawmakers trying to put their stamp on a place that is really invite-only, and it's not only 'real' people, but it's 'people with the power to follow through' talking like that.

There's a number of possible ways to read this, and I'd prefer to just let you clarify rather than make a fool of myself again.

I appreciate that.  The confusion over insurance companies vs. getting it 'for free' seems to be rampant, unfortunately.

I think I figured out why.  It's at the bottom of this post.

Slander and lies. I have a closet full of ballgowns for my sex. Sure, I get some odd looks when I show up at the biker bar downtown to get my one-nighter on, but I certainly wouldn't call it casual. ;)

Why is it that I know you're kidding and yet the plot bunnies still make demands of me? ;_;



Saw this and thought it'd add to the debate:

WARNING! Watching This Video Will Lower Your I.Q.

As usual, ignore any comments that people add (including the title) and it's a clip from where they had Sandra Fluke on CNN.  It mentions she has an op-ed piece, listed here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/opinion/fluke-contraception/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I'll cover the video first.

One thing she mentions on there is how the staff gets access to contraception and the students are asking for the same.  Stupid question, but she is actually paying for insurance, right?  Does she only have access to the health insurance of Georgetown University, or is she getting it free with her education?

If it comes as part of the cost, I'd consider dropping that part because it seems like it's part of the anti-monopoly thing that they went after Microsoft for.  I could well be wrong; someone please explain.

I really like the points Will Cain (I think he said his name was; it went by fast) made, and was a little sad she didn't give a straight answer there.  This, however, is how we rapidly get into the question of whether it should be free.  I'll quote her statement:

“I think there are multiple ways to limit access. Certainly making something illegal would be the most extreme form, but not covering it as a health care benefit the way other types of health care benefits are covered is another way to limit access and that’s what many women across the country are currently experiencing when they — even if they have insurance, co-pays, can be as high as $50 a month, which is significant for a woman not making a lot of money.”

Oniya, I think you can easily see how people get confused here and start thinking she's talking about more than just the private insurance matters.

On to the op-ed.

Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.

So part of the new health care law is that all private insurance plans are required to include contraception, regardless of religion.  Furthermore, the mandate that everyone has to purchase private insurance means that everyone has to pay for this.

Now, I realize that you aren't required to get or use birth control, only that you're paying for a plan which would get it for you free of charge should you choose.  However, not only will the cost of the health care rise in order to pay for birth control (because nothing is truly free), but by the very nature of insurance, you're paying for everyone else.

Now, this part of the law I'll disagree with.  Alcohol isn't against my religion, but I'd be against a mandated food plan in which you pay so much per month and get all the free food, drink and alcohol you want.  Granted, I'd be against a mandated food plan on principle, but doubly so if it forced people in this way.

I see commercials on TV all the time that say "Free with purchase."  It's a blatant oxymoron.  If you see a commercial that says "Buy this TV and get a DVD player free," then of course you're buying both a TV and a DVD player.  It's just a marketing gimmick.  The same rule applies to buffets, insurance, and any other such package deals.

If health insurance wasn't going to be mandated, though, I'd probably still be against the federal government forcing health insurance companies to carry contraception.  I'd imagine that being more the type of deal where auto insurance can be dirt cheap if you don't care that it'll do absolutely nothing to cover any damage to your car.  Explanations to the contrary are welcome.

I could imagine an argument that if you had a minimal deal, employers would only offer that plan.  However, logic would suggest that an unscrupulous employer who gouges his employees on things like health insurance would also not pay more than minimum wage, given how both require a minimal payment on the part of the unscrupulous employer.  If that's the case, however, it doesn't seem to hold up.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm

It's 2007, but it's .gov so I figure it's going to have minimal party bias.

Among those paid by the hour in 2007, 267,000 were reported as earning exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Nearly 1.5 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum. Together, these 1.7 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.3 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

If only 2.3 percent of people are actually getting minimum wage, with any number of those jobs being places like McDonalds which got a waiver from the health care law anyway, it seems like most places wouldn't hold to a minimum health care coverage deal either.

[Oniya]

There's a number of possible ways to read this, and I'd prefer to just let you clarify rather than make a fool of myself again.

I'm referring to things like the 'heartbeat' bill, and bills that would require a woman to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound prior to terminating a pregnancy, regardless of her reasons for doing so.  (Virginia backed off from this one, and now only requires an abdominal ultrasound - still, I wonder who has to pay for that?) There was a Wisconsin state senator on TV a few days ago talking about how non-marital parenthood (aka 'single mothers') should be emphasized as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.  (On that same show, a researcher pointed out that if you normalize for income, single parent families and two-parent families come in just about even on that.)  Arizona has passed a bill that would allow doctors to not give a pregnant woman information about conditions that may cause her to want to terminate the pregnancy (this includes conditions that would result in the child having a short and painful life, like Tay-Sachs).

[Trieste]

Arizona also has this gem on the table allowing employers to inquire as to why their employees are on birth control. Everyone who wants their boss regulating their sex life, raise your hand.

[Oniya]

Arizona also has this gem on the table allowing employers to inquire as to why their employees are on birth control. Everyone who wants their boss regulating their sex life, raise your hand.

Regulating?  Try 'knowing about'!  I bet you get the same number of hands up.

[Callie Del Noire]

I find it interesting that Will Cain is saying that it should be the employer's choice to decide what and what isn't covered. This could, without a setting of specific standards by SOMEONE, lead to anything that can't be directly attributed to the job. (Or the employer's beliefs..).

The biggest problem I see is this lack of accepting of another's view point.. on BOTH sides.  Compromise, discussion, debate and negotiation are all bad words now. We no longer have a nation where people can differ in opinion and work towards something that can help all. It's all or nothing now, purely partisan politics.

We NEED statesmen and leaders. Problem is, as I've seen up close when my brother ran for govenor, the party leaders (the unelected ones who run the parties) want sheeple who walk the line and do what they say. If that is overly harsh, consider what we see on both sides. Bipartisan has become a 'dirty' word. For anyone offering a quiet well articulated arguement on why they should work with the opposition is called 'soft', 'moderate' or 'faux conservative/liberal' (depending on which side of the divide their bread is buttered on).

Men like Jesse Helms or Ted Kennedy weren't nice, or even.. 'good' (to some folks definitions) but they LED. They looked, and listened. They thought for themselves and openly disagreed with party platform items that were in conflict with their (or their constituents) beliefs. For example, Jesse Helms was a conservative man with tight beliefs in personal acts, responsibility and accountability BUT he also pushed for debt forgiveness for foreign nations (arguing that we could get more capital in forgiving debts that we'll never get paid for anyway, and he did this with BONO of U2.. I nearly fell out of my chair when these two very diverse men led this).

Too much control by the party and too little thought by themselves. Acts like Limbaugh, and his counterparts on the other side of the divide, do little to encourage initiative much less actual leadership by elected men.

Mark Twain said much about the Press leading the public by the news.. and I find it surprising that a century later.. we're back in the same mess. Media and Politicians in bed together for THEIR benefit not ours.

[BitterSweet]

Now, I realize that you aren't required to get or use birth control, only that you're paying for a plan which would get it for you free of charge should you choose.  However, not only will the cost of the health care rise in order to pay for birth control (because nothing is truly free), but by the very nature of insurance, you're paying for everyone else.

This is a dead horse that gets beaten every time health insurance companies are required to pay for something.  The same argument was used against paying for: mammograms, breast reconstruction after breast cancer, mental health care, any pharmaceuticals at all, preventative care, gastric bypass surgery ... on an on.  Yet, somehow insurance companies manage to make comfortable profits.  The cost of health insurance is not rising due to birth control or mammograms (or even gastric bypass) but because we are hugely over testing and over treating and preferentially choosing the most expensive, least cost effective ways of managing health possible.

Again, somehow countries like most in N. Europe who provide totally free and quite widespread health insurance have managed to stay as solvent as any other country during this time.

The US health system is badly out of whack, and it's not because insurance companies are being asked to provide coverage.

[vtboy]

This is a dead horse that gets beaten every time health insurance companies are required to pay for something.  The same argument was used against paying for: mammograms, breast reconstruction after breast cancer, mental health care, any pharmaceuticals at all, preventative care, gastric bypass surgery ... on an on.  Yet, somehow insurance companies manage to make comfortable profits.  The cost of health insurance is not rising due to birth control or mammograms (or even gastric bypass) but because we are hugely over testing and over treating and preferentially choosing the most expensive, least cost effective ways of managing health possible.

Again, somehow countries like most in N. Europe who provide totally free and quite widespread health insurance have managed to stay as solvent as any other country during this time.

The US health system is badly out of whack, and it's not because insurance companies are being asked to provide coverage.

No question but that we have a dysfunctional health care system which prefers the treatment of disease to its prevention and devotes enormous resources to little benefit at end of life.

That said, the fact that we are wasteful and foolish consumers of health care (a byproduct, at least in part, of the fact that the decision to purchase a treatment is generally not made by those who pay for it) does not strike me as the most compelling argument for requiring the addition of contraception to the benefits provided by health insurance. Moreover, unless you want to define pregnancy as a disease or injury, contraceptive medication is not really analogous to mammograms, post-surgical breast reconstruction, mental health care, most other pharmaceuticals, preventative care, and gastric bypass surgery, each of which is designed to prevent, manage or cure disease or injury, or their aftermaths.

Perhaps the greater good would be enhanced by expanding the notion of health care coverage beyond these sorts of benefits to include those which permit or facilitate certain lifestyle choices (I hate that term, but cannot think of another at the moment) like contraception. Though I agree that including birth control coverage among the benefits provided by health insurance policies is unlikely to bankrupt the insurers, there can be little doubt the insurers will pass the added costs on to their insureds. The question, then, becomes whether the entire pool of persons covered by health insurance, which includes women outside of childbearing years, women who wish to conceive, women unable to conceive, women who are not sexually active, and women who rely on birth control methods other than medication, should be saddled with the additional premiums required to defray the expenses of those who want their pills paid for.

Perhas the better approach is to allow health insurers to offer their customers the choice between policies which do not include contraception and, at a higher premium, policies which do. Of course, beyond whatever economies might be achieved through the application of the purchasing power of insurers to contraceptive medication, I doubt those insured by the latter type of policy would see much of a reduction in their overall health care costs.

[Trieste]

Moreover, unless you want to define pregnancy as a disease or injury, contraceptive medication is not really analogous to mammograms, post-surgical breast reconstruction, mental health care, most other pharmaceuticals, preventative care, and gastric bypass surgery, each of which is designed to prevent, manage or cure disease or injury, or their aftermaths.

Pregnancy has the distinction of being quite uniquely a female problem, despite the fact that it takes two to tango. It is too often used as a punitive consequence for sex, and then politicians ask openly why there are so many poor, what is wrong with parents these days, etc and so forth. I understand the dislike of casual sex, but quite frankly I'm impatient with conservatives wishing to have their cake and eat it too. Outlaw birth control and make abortion legal and accessible, or outlaw abortion and make contraception legal and accessible. Those are the compromises I see as viable options between the liberal "legalize it all and make it free" and the conservative "ban it all".

I honestly cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 20-fucking-12.

>.>

[Callie Del Noire]

I think the conservatives have been playing with fire here and are about two or three more stupid statements and/or actions away from starting a new wave of feminist groups. You can push only so hard and long before the more withdrawn and quiet folk realize that there is no one left to speak for them. 

They are playing with dynamite and are about to drop the sweaing unstable stick in the fire.

[Oniya]

And Rush is the sparkler stuck into the top of the powderkeg.

[Callie Del Noire]

And Rush is the sparkler stuck into the top of the powderkeg.

No.. not just yet.. I don't think it's going to 'exploding' yet. There is a LOT of formerly quiet people stepping up. I imagine the fecal solids will hit the rotating oscillator when one of these 'personhood laws' hit the bench and some poor woman is investigate/tried by the authorities.

[HairyHeretic]

I recall seeing a story in the last day or two about a woman being charged with 'attempted fetuscide', because she tried to commit suicide while pregnant.

Can't recall exactly where I saw it though, I think it was following a link chain somewheres.

[Sure]

I think that health insurance companies should cover the cost of health care. That includes cancer screenings for both sexes, prescriptions for both sexes (yes, of birth control, too), surgeries for both sexes (yes, including sterilization), and doctor's visits for both sexes.

The fact that there has not been male-oriented birth control available is frustrating, and I've often expressed frustration at this. Not only does it strip men of control over their bodies and reproductive future, but it once again places the responsibility on the woman. Just because we are the ones with the carrying capacity doesn't mean we are the only ones responsible for contraception and whatnot.

I would agree with this and support it if that was what I was being asked to support. I am not. I am being asked to, effectively, guarantee or in a few cases increase women's access to birth control. Not men, men get nothing from this except tangential benefits via their female compatriots, despite the fact men are almost universally doing worse in the healthcare system and in birth control and in reproductive rights.

So, while I may support the sentiment being put forward, since it ignores my gender entirely I will not be supporting the groups pushing for this until they push for equal male access and help at the same time. After all, if these organizations and political causes can count on my support regardless of whether or not they act on the issue of gender equality (not just women's rights, but gender equality) then what is their incentive to change? Indeed, if they can count on my support despite the fact they actively oppose it or take inaction where they alone could make a huge difference (e.g., Planned Parenthood could introduce urologist services and the like without outside help), then they won't change at all.

I understand it's not your fault, that you don't decide such things, and neither do I. But if I don't vocalize why I have an issue, it'll just seem like I don't care about the issue, since silence is taken for apathy. And if I don't remind people there is an issue, I often get the feeling they're liable to forget.

Oh, and as a side note, I suspect such causes would get a lot more support if they directly benefited everyone. How many more men would support the pill being an insurance item, if they could take it as well? Right now every male Republican candidate who is supporting getting rid of this item is supporting getting rid of something they cannot use nor that they have any equivalent for. It is much easier to take away a choice from other people that you've never had yourself. Imagine, say, the emotional reaction of taking away a gurgalin from a Russian (a fictional device that warms their clothes) versus taking away your toaster. You might feel that both should be allowed, but I suspect you'd feel more strongly about the toaster: the thing you personally use and benefit from.

Regarding the first amendment, making laws based on religious beliefs is more than certainly making a law that respects the establishment of religion, and that is a no-no. Absolutely not.

This is legally false, it is not the modern (or, for that matter, past) interpretation of the first amendment nor does it have any precedence. In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly said that laws based on religious principles (specifically bigamy laws: a man argued it was illegal because of separation of Church and state and his right to freedom of religion since his religion allowed multiple wives) are legal and that the religious beliefs of those who are under the law does not excuse them from it.

(Yes, I've gotten off topic, but so have all of you. :-p)

[vtboy]

Pregnancy has the distinction of being quite uniquely a female problem, despite the fact that it takes two to tango. It is too often used as a punitive consequence for sex, and then politicians ask openly why there are so many poor, what is wrong with parents these days, etc and so forth. I understand the dislike of casual sex, but quite frankly I'm impatient with conservatives wishing to have their cake and eat it too. Outlaw birth control and make abortion legal and accessible, or outlaw abortion and make contraception legal and accessible. Those are the compromises I see as viable options between the liberal "legalize it all and make it free" and the conservative "ban it all".

I honestly cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 20-fucking-12.

>.>

Lest I've been misunderstood, let me be clear that I am fully in favor of casual sex -- the more sex and the more casual, the better.

I am also in favor of keeping both contraception and abortion legal -- the more contraception, the better, and the more abortion.... well, let's just keep it legal (perhaps even include its judicious application to some toddlers).

I am also in favor of government financing of contraception and abortion, on a means-tested basis -- i.e., as with Medicaid, for those who cannot otherwise afford them.

What I do not favor is forcing the public to finance these benefits for all, whether in the form of taxes  or heightened premiums for health insurance policies which are required to cover them. There is no reason I can imagine why people who have the means to pay for birth control should not bear its cost, either directly or by paying higher premiums for a "Cadillac" policy which will cover it. Insurance is a device which allows those covered to avoid more-or-less random and unacceptably large financial risks (the burning of one's house, the cost of open-heart surgery, the theft of one's car, etc.). Contraception really does not qualify on either count.

[Oniya]

So, while I may support the sentiment being put forward, since it ignores my gender entirely I will not be supporting the groups pushing for this until they push for equal male access and help at the same time. After all, if these organizations and political causes can count on my support regardless of whether or not they act on the issue of gender equality (not just women's rights, but gender equality) then what is their incentive to change? Indeed, if they can count on my support despite the fact they actively oppose it or take inaction where they alone could make a huge difference (e.g., Planned Parenthood could introduce urologist services and the like without outside help), then they won't change at all.

Pardon if I've misinterpreted what you're saying here, but Planned Parenthood does offer men's services, including cancer screening, infertility screening, UTI testing and treatment, and ED testing and treatment.

[Jefepato]

I find it interesting that Will Cain is saying that it should be the employer's choice to decide what and what isn't covered. This could, without a setting of specific standards by SOMEONE, lead to anything that can't be directly attributed to the job. (Or the employer's beliefs..).

The thing here is...the employer shouldn't choose anything.  If the employer provides health insurance, it's compensation.  It is, at least notionally, in lieu of some vague amount of a would-be larger paycheck.  Controlling what your employees use health insurance for is like policing how they spend their paychecks.

This should not be acceptable to anyone.  Besides, even as a simple matter of practicality...what the hell is anyone supposed to do if they get insurance from their employer that covers everything but a few arbitrary problems (doesn't matter what)?  You aren't going to find insurance elsewhere to cover just those few arbitrary problems!

[Oniya]

The thing here is...the employer shouldn't choose anything.  If the employer provides health insurance, it's compensation.  It is, at least notionally, in lieu of some vague amount of a would-be larger paycheck.  Controlling what your employees use health insurance for is like policing how they spend their paychecks.

Exactly.  Imagine if you were working for an employer that decided not to cover cholesterol-reducing drugs because he/she was a fitness/health-food nut? 

[Trieste]

What I do not favor is forcing the public to finance these benefits for all, whether in the form of taxes  or heightened premiums for health insurance policies which are required to cover them. There is no reason I can imagine why people who have the means to pay for birth control should not bear its cost, either directly or by paying higher premiums for a "Cadillac" policy which will cover it. Insurance is a device which allows those covered to avoid more-or-less random and unacceptably large financial risks (the burning of one's house, the cost of open-heart surgery, the theft of one's car, etc.). Contraception really does not qualify on either count.

And I disagree with you since we all bear, culturally and financially, the cost of unwanted children, especially those born to single mothers. It's my impression that statistically, the single highest determinant of whether a child will live in poverty or not is whether they were born to a single parent*. While not all single parents are in the situation because they couldn't abort or have access to birth control, I think it does benefit everyone, every taxpayer, to make sure that birth control and abortion are widely available. And if someone happens to be worried about abortion, it's also been shown statistically that the only thing that significantly lowers instances of abortions is not criminalizing it, not taking away the practitioners, but making birth control acceptable and available widely.

So you combat poverty and you lower the country's abortion rate. Hell, you might even put that horrible 16 and pregnant show off the air. What's not to love?

[vtboy]

And I disagree with you since we all bear, culturally and financially, the cost of unwanted children, especially those born to single mothers. It's my impression that statistically, the single highest determinant of whether a child will live in poverty or not is whether they were born to a single parent*. While not all single parents are in the situation because they couldn't abort or have access to birth control, I think it does benefit everyone, every taxpayer, to make sure that birth control and abortion are widely available. And if someone happens to be worried about abortion, it's also been shown statistically that the only thing that significantly lowers instances of abortions is not criminalizing it, not taking away the practitioners, but making birth control acceptable and available widely.

So you combat poverty and you lower the country's abortion rate. Hell, you might even put that horrible 16 and pregnant show off the air. What's not to love?

Well, clearly we agree about subsidizing contraception for all but those who can afford it. As for those who can afford contraception, but choose not to use it, I rather doubt that making it free will make the difference.

[Trieste]

To be honest, I don't mind subsidizing it for those who can afford it, either, because that puts money in their pocket that they can then put into whatever - an extra Coke from the local corner store, another pair of earrings from Etsy, etc and so forth.

[vtboy]

So, ultimately, what you are asking is that everyone else pay for the Coke and the earrings?

[Trieste]

Better that we all pay for the Coke and the earrings than some congressional hedge fund that just sits there and never gets spent. 'Cause we pay for those, too. We pay for all of it.

[Oniya]

Money that moves around in the economy is the only kind that really does anyone any good.  That pair of earrings could mean that a struggling mother is able to put a little more food on the table. 

To anyone who read the asterisk

I was watching Dr. Drew when that Senator came on to talk, and they had an analyst who came on that said if you normalize for income, CPS reports come in about equally from single and double-parent homes.  Wish I could track down the name of the analyst, but my little statistician heart did a fist-pump.

[vtboy]

Money that moves around in the economy is the only kind that really does anyone any good.  That pair of earrings could mean that a struggling mother is able to put a little more food on the table. 

To anyone who read the asterisk

I was watching Dr. Drew when that Senator came on to talk, and they had an analyst who came on that said if you normalize for income, CPS reports come in about equally from single and double-parent homes.  Wish I could track down the name of the analyst, but my little statistician heart did a fist-pump.

More likely that the CEO of the big box reailer selling earrings made by slave laborers in China will be able to replace the 120 foot yacht he keeps moored in Cannes with a 140 footer this Christmas.

[Oniya]

In Trie's example, it was a pair of earrings from Etsy, and I specified 'that pair'.  Therefore, it wasn't coming from 'big box', it was hand made.  She also specified a Coke from the corner store, which would be a local business. 

[Trieste]

Indeed, and there was a reason I was that specific about what I said.

[DarklingAlice]

Pardon if I've misinterpreted what you're saying here, but Planned Parenthood does offer men's services, including cancer screening, infertility screening, UTI testing and treatment, and ED testing and treatment.

And lets not forget the STD testing for both men and women. The pervasive myth that Planned Parenthood exists only to give pregnant women abortions is one of the more baffling parts of our political rhetoric. It's a reproductive health clinic. Period. Full stop. Generally.

[vtboy]

Indeed, and there was a reason I was that specific about what I said.

So, do I then understand correctly that you and Oniya favor subsidizing contraception for those who can otherwise afford it (including millionaires and billioinaires) as some sort of an economic stimulus program? Why stop with contraception? Or with health care, for that matter? Food is a necessity, too. Why limit the distribution of food stamps to the poor? The money saved by consumers might also be spent on earrings at Etsy (whatever that is). And, since we are talking about providing subsidies to those who don't need them, am I correct in inferring that you also favor our government's continuing to bestow subsidies of $4 billion a year on our oil companies and $30 billion or so in price supports to agribusiness for their stimulative effect?

By the way, the dollars not spent by others on free contraception for those who can afford it might also find their way into purchases of Cokes at the corner store and earrings at Etsy.

[AndyZ]

This thread moves so fast.  I'm not going to be able to comment on everything, so please don't feel ignored.


Oniya, I can't quote your post because it's already past the number of threads that show, and I stupidly didn't think to click yours to quote first.

Getting into abortion vs. birth control will be sticky.  There's a line somewhere wherein it stops being the potential for a human life and becomes an actual human life, and nobody can agree on where that line is.  I've been hearing arguments lately for "post-life abortion" where they weren't able to find medical issues until after the child is actually born, and people who argue that if you'd abort the child if you knew about the problem beforehand, you'd want to "abort" the child after.  Final quotation marks mine, simply because that's a pretty clear case of infanticide to me.

I disagree with the concept of "it's 100% entirely the woman's choice" simply because if that was true, Casey Anthony would never have been arrested.  The debate is over whether it's a life at various stages.  From my perspective, it's not a question of women's health unless the woman's health is being threatened by the pregnancy.  That's a very different argument from simply saying that the woman has a right to choose regardless.

I have no idea where you stand and you're probably aware of the differences already.  These are my own thoughts and where I see discrepancies.  Also, thanks for the list.  I had no idea so much was going on in other states besides my own.

Arizona also has this gem on the table allowing employers to inquire as to why their employees are on birth control. Everyone who wants their boss regulating their sex life, raise your hand.

Only skimmed the article, but it's talking about how you need to show your prescription to your employer.  I think this is nonsense: show it to the health insurance company and that's that.  Your employer doesn't need to know your state of health.

I find it interesting that Will Cain is saying that it should be the employer's choice to decide what and what isn't covered. This could, without a setting of specific standards by SOMEONE, lead to anything that can't be directly attributed to the job. (Or the employer's beliefs..).

Did you see my bit about minimum wage?  This thread is rapid, so wouldn't surprise me if not.

The biggest problem I see is this lack of accepting of another's view point.. on BOTH sides.  Compromise, discussion, debate and negotiation are all bad words now. We no longer have a nation where people can differ in opinion and work towards something that can help all. It's all or nothing now, purely partisan politics.

No argument from me.  So many of the bills being passed now are trying to counteract the effects of the new health care (one word or two?) act which got rammed through.  Now Republicans are trying to pass horrible bills, not because they want to negate the things that were already passed, but because they want to throw up a whole new set of hoops.

It reminds me of the "pizza is a vegetable" thing.  (I've only heard this one through hearsay; someone tell me if my version is wrong.)  First you have a rule that kids have to have two vegetables when they get school cafeteria food, so the kids would be forced to get vegetables on their plate, would throw them out because they didn't want them, and the school had to keep buying all the food that was being outright wasted.  So the rule came down that pizza was a vegetable, not because it's a logical argument, but because they couldn't get rid of the first stupid rule of two vegetables.

I find it interesting that Will Cain is saying that it should be the employer's choice to decide what and what isn't covered. This could, without a setting of specific standards by SOMEONE, lead to anything that can't be directly attributed to the job. (Or the employer's beliefs..).

The biggest problem I see is this lack of accepting of another's view point.. on BOTH sides.  Compromise, discussion, debate and negotiation are all bad words now. We no longer have a nation where people can differ in opinion and work towards something that can help all. It's all or nothing now, purely partisan politics.

We NEED statesmen and leaders. Problem is, as I've seen up close when my brother ran for govenor, the party leaders (the unelected ones who run the parties) want sheeple who walk the line and do what they say. If that is overly harsh, consider what we see on both sides. Bipartisan has become a 'dirty' word. For anyone offering a quiet well articulated arguement on why they should work with the opposition is called 'soft', 'moderate' or 'faux conservative/liberal' (depending on which side of the divide their bread is buttered on).

Men like Jesse Helms or Ted Kennedy weren't nice, or even.. 'good' (to some folks definitions) but they LED. They looked, and listened. They thought for themselves and openly disagreed with party platform items that were in conflict with their (or their constituents) beliefs. For example, Jesse Helms was a conservative man with tight beliefs in personal acts, responsibility and accountability BUT he also pushed for debt forgiveness for foreign nations (arguing that we could get more capital in forgiving debts that we'll never get paid for anyway, and he did this with BONO of U2.. I nearly fell out of my chair when these two very diverse men led this).

Too much control by the party and too little thought by themselves. Acts like Limbaugh, and his counterparts on the other side of the divide, do little to encourage initiative much less actual leadership by elected men.

I'd like to see less attempts at restrictions and regulations for those outside of the government and more restrictions and regulations for those inside.  Callie, I've been meaning to tell you about what I heard lately about insider trading and Congress; you'll want to look into it.

Mark Twain said much about the Press leading the public by the news.. and I find it surprising that a century later.. we're back in the same mess. Media and Politicians in bed together for THEIR benefit not ours.

No argument.

Pregnancy has the distinction of being quite uniquely a female problem, despite the fact that it takes two to tango. It is too often used as a punitive consequence for sex, and then politicians ask openly why there are so many poor, what is wrong with parents these days, etc and so forth. I understand the dislike of casual sex, but quite frankly I'm impatient with conservatives wishing to have their cake and eat it too. Outlaw birth control and make abortion legal and accessible, or outlaw abortion and make contraception legal and accessible. Those are the compromises I see as viable options between the liberal "legalize it all and make it free" and the conservative "ban it all".

I honestly cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 20-fucking-12.

>.>

How about the compromise that it's legal but you have to pay for it, but the government doesn't impose punitive taxes, regulations or similar laws?

One idea I'm playing with: what if you have scaling methods of health insurance plans?

Xbox users can have a Silver plan or a Gold plan, with the gold costing more but giving you more benefits.  There's like a thousand things out there which do stuff like that.

So could you have a more expensive health care plan which covers all the sorts of things which not everyone will use and you don't have to have?

One obvious issue is that they'd end up getting taxed higher under the new health care plan, but that's something we need to get rid of regardless.  If Massachusetts is any measure, by 2018 we're all going to be paying at least $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family.

I think the conservatives have been playing with fire here and are about two or three more stupid statements and/or actions away from starting a new wave of feminist groups. You can push only so hard and long before the more withdrawn and quiet folk realize that there is no one left to speak for them. 

They are playing with dynamite and are about to drop the sweaing unstable stick in the fire.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

Please stop claiming it's only conservatives who need to watch what they say.  Either open freedom of speech across the board or regulate across the board.

The thing here is...the employer shouldn't choose anything.  If the employer provides health insurance, it's compensation.  It is, at least notionally, in lieu of some vague amount of a would-be larger paycheck.  Controlling what your employees use health insurance for is like policing how they spend their paychecks.

This should not be acceptable to anyone.  Besides, even as a simple matter of practicality...what the hell is anyone supposed to do if they get insurance from their employer that covers everything but a few arbitrary problems (doesn't matter what)?  You aren't going to find insurance elsewhere to cover just those few arbitrary problems!

I absolutely love the idea that employers give only money, except that I would imagine that health insurance companies would give cheaper deals for group rates.  How about that employees can choose either to receive a monetary equivalent to any other reward which might be given.  It may have a few issues (like if someone wanted something which had a monetary cost beyond what the employer could pay), but maybe someone could look into this for me and PM me?

Or, if we're all being given enough money to buy our own insurance rates, maybe people will use Groupon and such in order to get deals which fit better with what they actually want?  Remove employers from the conversation entirely.

Only problems I'm seeing here is that the government would have to quit forcing employers to buy health insurance for employees.  The government does force them, right?  At least with the new health care plan, I'd imagine they do.  Someone let me know if I'm wrong there.

As a final note, can I get a clarification on what is meant by subsidy?  Has the conversation moved towards the government paying for birth control?

[Trieste]

So, do I then understand correctly that you and Oniya favor subsidizing contraception for those who can otherwise afford it (including millionaires and billioinaires) as some sort of an economic stimulus program? Why stop with contraception? Or with health care, for that matter? Food is a necessity, too. Why limit the distribution of food stamps to the poor? The money saved by consumers might also be spent on earrings at Etsy (whatever that is). And, since we are talking about providing subsidies to those who don't need them, am I correct in inferring that you also favor our government's continuing to bestow subsidies of $4 billion a year on our oil companies and $30 billion or so in price supports to agribusiness for their stimulative effect?

By the way, the dollars not spent by others on free contraception for those who can afford it might also find their way into purchases of Cokes at the corner store and earrings at Etsy.

I believe this falls under reductio ad absurdum. :P

I absolutely love the idea that employers give only money, except that I would imagine that health insurance companies would give cheaper deals for group rates. *snip*

Or, if we're all being given enough money to buy our own insurance rates, maybe people will use Groupon and such in order to get deals which fit better with what they actually want?  Remove employers from the conversation entirely.

Only problems I'm seeing here is that the government would have to quit forcing employers to buy health insurance for employees.  The government does force them, right?  At least with the new health care plan, I'd imagine they do.  Someone let me know if I'm wrong there.

As a final note, can I get a clarification on what is meant by subsidy?  Has the conversation moved towards the government paying for birth control?

Currently health insurance companies charge more for group plans, or at least they did, because group plans include everyone in an office whether they are a 22-year-old fitness nut or a 55-year-old diabetic. So group plans are generally more expensive.

In the new health care plan, there is an individual mandate. The justification for this is that people who can afford insurance but don't purchase it when they're healthy need to pay in anyway, rather than just not paying for it when they're healthy and then purchasing it when they're sick and need health insurance. It's my understanding that the individual mandate regulation was put in there to protect insurance companies from going bankrupt from people abusing the system, after the government made it illegal for them to reject people with pre-existing conditions. It used to be that someone with a pre-existing condition could not get coverage at any price. Now they can get coverage, and there was a fear that such legislation opened the door to people waiting until they were sick to buy insurance. My personal opinion is that it makes sense if you're an insurance company, but my sympathy for the insurance companies is absolutely nil. I do think it's barbaric that we still allow private companies to profit off of illness and/or fear of being ill.

Some people in this thread are treating raised premiums as subsidies. So in other words, they're saying that you're subsidizing others' birth control if your premium goes up in reaction to this legislation. Sandra Fluke (and therefore this thread) was not discussing government-subsidized birth control, but supporting the coverage of it via health care.

And not all plans are $10k. I live in Massachusetts and my health insurance costs a little over $2k a year.

[vtboy]

I believe this falls under reductio ad absurdum. :P

No more absurd than attempting to justify compelled subsidization of birth control for those who could otherwise pay the tab by contending that it would provide some sort of economic shot in the arm to small retailers. 

[Trieste]

Yes, it is more absurd. And your statements of "If you support this, then you must support this this this this and this" where most of the "this" statements are extremely exaggerated (and therefore, ahem, absurd) extensions of the original argument are pretty much the definition of that particular logical fallacy.

Which is why that's about the only answer with which I plan to dignify it.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'd like to see less attempts at restrictions and regulations for those outside of the government and more restrictions and regulations for those inside.  Callie, I've been meaning to tell you about what I heard lately about insider trading and Congress; you'll want to look into it.

That would have to cover a WHOLE new thread. Of course regulating the men that set the rules is always hard to work. I know that had my brother gotten elected to office that he was running for in '10 he mentioned that he'd have lost control of his own financial planning. The bank, law partnership, insurance company and other business would have to been run by someone else, and he wasn't happy with that. Sometimes I doubt that all representatives are ethical about it as they should be but getting laws.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

Please stop claiming it's only conservatives who need to watch what they say.  Either open freedom of speech across the board or regulate across the board.

That particular comment was directed towards the conservative movement of late, not the mouthpieces of either side, to regulate the reproductive organ of women to the point where a normal (if sad) event such as a miscarriage is grounds for investigating potential manslaughter. The conservative political actions of late have become increasingly hostile towards women, in the interests of the unborn, without pushing one single iota of male responsibility.

I have seen a lot of 'reproductive' health law proposals of late that seem solely be designed to inflame the unspoken moderate feminist into coming out in force. Ultrasounds for abortions? 'Personhood'? Restricting any outlet of reproductive health or medicine that is 'women' only.

I'm sorry, this surge of 'reproductive health' laws are so far out what was coming before their release that I can't help but see it as a planned sequence. The implications of some of the 'personhood' acts really scare me. My mom had two miscarriages over the years, and while they were traumatic events in and of themselves, the idea that in ADDITION to losing a baby having a cop come by to investigate seems like grinding her loss in salt.

[vtboy]

Yes, it is more absurd.

Well, I guess if you say so.... which is the definition of the form of logical abandonment known as ipse dixit.

[Trieste]

Well, I guess if you say so.... which is the definition of the form of logical abandonment known as ipse dixit.

It's been nice talking to you. :)

I'm sorry, this surge of 'reproductive health' laws are so far out what was coming before their release that I can't help but see it as a planned sequence. The implications of some of the 'personhood' acts really scare me. My mom had two miscarriages over the years, and while they were traumatic events in and of themselves, the idea that in ADDITION to losing a baby having a cop come by to investigate seems like grinding her loss in salt.

I find myself wondering what on earth these guys are thinking. It stands to reason that someone would be sitting there with one of these bills and say, "Hey this is really going to piss the women off". I have to wonder if they just kind of went "Eh, whatevs" or what...

[Oniya]

I keep coming back to George Carlin's rant about these issues.  It seems like all these recent laws are directed at what happens between 'penis goes in' and 'baby comes out', but at the same time, programs that help families that have actually birthed these children are being slashed. 

[Callie Del Noire]

I find myself wondering what on earth these guys are thinking. It stands to reason that someone would be sitting there with one of these bills and say, "Hey this is really going to piss the women off". I have to wonder if they just kind of went "Eh, whatevs" or what...

It does strike me as a bit.. out there. You got to wonder. I mean.. the opponents point out these glaring flaws and the sponsors go 'oh that's ludicrous' and you KNOW that so long as the law is on the books, the potential abuse will be there. I was talking to my mother.. one of my great-grandmothers had something like eighteen pregnancies and only eight children (and two of them were twins). The causes I don't know but I'm sure of them were environmental. To think that simply by the number of them that she'd be investigated.

Add in this. My mom says sometimes women just simply miscarry. And to make what is already a misfortune into a potential crime, that some elected DA could use as a platform is truly hideous.

I've seen the pain a miscarriage can bring to people. I've told stories of people who had reasons to control their potential reproductive choices and nothing I see in the press releases or speeches shows me that these people putting forth these hideous laws have one WHIT of concern for their fellow man. To demand the level of personal invasion that is being pushed forth in some of these laws is wrong.

I find it particularly ironic that at the same time the people who are pushing these personal invasions forth are the ones who insist they are 'downsizing' government. How can you insist, despite lots of evidence to the contrary, that less regulation is good for the country while at the same time insisting that it's perfectly okay to increase the invasion of a person's privacy to the point that you see no problem at all in violating doctor/patient privacy or looking past closed doors to what happens in the privacy of a person's home?

[Sure]

Pardon if I've misinterpreted what you're saying here, but Planned Parenthood does offer men's services, including cancer screening, infertility screening, UTI testing and treatment, and ED testing and treatment.

To clarify: I know Planned Parenthood offers services to men, but not to the same degree or with as wide a variety as they do for women. They also spend the majority of their time and money on, and have a general focus on, women (and indeed, when they gave interviews on this issue they, from the ones I saw, more often spoke of how they benefit and treat women). They could fix this without outside intervention but choose to continue to focus on women.

I mean, if they just ended up with more women 'customers' (patients? pick a word) that would be fine, but they undeniably and consciously have chosen to focus on women over men.

[Oniya]

All right - what additional men's services would you like to see them offer?

[Callie Del Noire]

To clarify: I know Planned Parenthood offers services to men, but not to the same degree or with as wide a variety as they do for women. They also spend the majority of their time and money on, and have a general focus on, women (and indeed, when they gave interviews on this issue they, from the ones I saw, more often spoke of how they benefit and treat women). They could fix this without outside intervention but choose to continue to focus on women.

I mean, if they just ended up with more women 'customers' (patients? pick a word) that would be fine, but they undeniably and consciously have chosen to focus on women over men.

I would say it is equitable since women typically bear the burden of childbearing more than men. I see very little in the way of pushing the male side of the equation to assume anything like responsible behavior. I see a lot more new laws dealing with the woman than the man. It seems to me all the punitive actions are being pointed towards the mothers and damn near nothing towards the men.

Besides what else could they offer men, besides a course in owning up to their responsibilities?

[HairyHeretic]

I find it particularly ironic that at the same time the people who are pushing these personal invasions forth are the ones who insist they are 'downsizing' government.

If they don't make the Government smaller, they won't fit in your bedroom, obviously :P

The ones out in the hall won't be able to see and hear everything that way.

[vtboy]

Besides what else could they offer men, besides a course in owning up to their responsibilities?

Having fully participated in every conceivable way (other than physically hosting gestation) in raising a child to an admirable adulthood, I bridle a bit at stereotypical generalizations about male parenting irresponsibility like this one. In fact, every male friend and relative with offspring I can think of has done a pretty good job in this department, sometimes better than their mates. I like to imagine you would think twice before tossing in derogatory stereotypes about women. Why not extend the same courtesy to men?

[Oniya]

To put it in a less inflammatory way:

All right - what additional men's services would you like to see them offer?

Because, quite honestly, I'm not sure what strictly-male-oriented services are left.  STD screening is applicable to both genders.  General health care (including anemia testing, cholesterol screening, diabetes screening, physical exams, including for employment and sports, flu vaccines, help with quitting smoking, high blood pressure screening, tetanus vaccines, and thyroid screening) is applicable to both genders. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Having fully participated in every conceivable way (other than physically hosting gestation) in raising a child to an admirable adulthood, I bridle a bit at stereotypical generalizations about male parenting irresponsibility like this one. In fact, every male friend and relative with offspring I can think of has done a pretty good job in this department, sometimes better than their mates. I like to imagine you would think twice before tossing in derogatory stereotypes about women. Why not extend the same courtesy to men?

Sorry, the sarcasm was directed at the political outlook. There is little to no effort to teach responsibility for our side of the reproductive issue. Notice that few commentators say anything about the fathers in single parent issues.

There are enough adult males I have known who aren't men.  (Which is to say willing to face up to their actions and take responsibility)

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/opinion/christoph-terrel-bill-maher/index.html?iref=obnetwork

Clearly not everyone is happy with Bill Maher's mouth. Though I have to admit that RL is getting more outcry.

[DarklingAlice]

To clarify: I know Planned Parenthood offers services to men, but not to the same degree or with as wide a variety as they do for women. They also spend the majority of their time and money on, and have a general focus on, women (and indeed, when they gave interviews on this issue they, from the ones I saw, more often spoke of how they benefit and treat women). They could fix this without outside intervention but choose to continue to focus on women.

I mean, if they just ended up with more women 'customers' (patients? pick a word) that would be fine, but they undeniably and consciously have chosen to focus on women over men.

Trying to understand this but it seems like saying that it's unfair that there are a greater number of commonly performed procedures in the field of female reproductive medicine than in that of male reproductive medicine. It seems like if you open a clinic offering comprehensive reproductive services you will by nature offer more services to women than men because the female reproductive system is both more internal and medically more complex. That hardly seems discriminatory. It's like calling a sickle cell anemia clinic 'racist'.

[Chris Brady]

Why not extend the same courtesy to men?

Because the media perpetuates the male irresponsibility stereotype to the point of being sexist, and assuming that it's going to be the woman raising the kid.

This is exactly what I'm seeing here.  In fact, this very thread seems to be assuming that men are not worth focusing on.  Especially when it comes to sex.  Everything is hunky dory, guys are havin' the times of their lives, so screw 'em, they don't need help.  Which to me is wrong.  We need to be teaching both genders responsibility, not assuming that one side is too stupid to understand and thus foisting all the help/responsibility on the other.

[Callie Del Noire]

Because the media perpetuates the male irresponsibility stereotype to the point of being sexist, and assuming that it's going to be the woman raising the kid.

This is exactly what I'm seeing here.  In fact, this very thread seems to be assuming that men are not worth focusing on.  Especially when it comes to sex.  Everything is hunky dory, guys are havin' the times of their lives, so screw 'em, they don't need help.  Which to me is wrong.  We need to be teaching both genders responsibility, not assuming that one side is too stupid to understand and thus foisting all the help/responsibility on the other.

I'm not going by the media but what I saw in high school, and to a lesser degree in college and The military. There was a fair number of guys who felt that it was 'h problem, not mine.' less so over the last 10 years and I knew guys who literally moved the heavens to get their kids in their life. I have one friend that to this day I pray his ex FINALLY does something stupid enough to lose any visitation rights she has. She's a waste of skin, a fraud and does NOTHING for her children. When an 8 year tells the judge, after mom was evicted from the court for misconduct, that she rather not ever live with mommy again. THAT tells you something.

[AndyZ]

I'm either repeating myself or answering some parts with things that others could read during this post a lot.  Fair warning.

Currently health insurance companies charge more for group plans, or at least they did, because group plans include everyone in an office whether they are a 22-year-old fitness nut or a 55-year-old diabetic. So group plans are generally more expensive.

In the new health care plan, there is an individual mandate. The justification for this is that people who can afford insurance but don't purchase it when they're healthy need to pay in anyway, rather than just not paying for it when they're healthy and then purchasing it when they're sick and need health insurance. It's my understanding that the individual mandate regulation was put in there to protect insurance companies from going bankrupt from people abusing the system, after the government made it illegal for them to reject people with pre-existing conditions. It used to be that someone with a pre-existing condition could not get coverage at any price. Now they can get coverage, and there was a fear that such legislation opened the door to people waiting until they were sick to buy insurance. My personal opinion is that it makes sense if you're an insurance company, but my sympathy for the insurance companies is absolutely nil. I do think it's barbaric that we still allow private companies to profit off of illness and/or fear of being ill.

Some people in this thread are treating raised premiums as subsidies. So in other words, they're saying that you're subsidizing others' birth control if your premium goes up in reaction to this legislation. Sandra Fluke (and therefore this thread) was not discussing government-subsidized birth control, but supporting the coverage of it via health care.

And not all plans are $10k. I live in Massachusetts and my health insurance costs a little over $2k a year.

I'm actually alright with insurance companies being allowed to offer higher or lower costs due to things like age.  With auto insurance, it costs much more as a teenager because teenagers have more accidents.  With life insurance, it costs more as an older person because you're more likely to die.  If health insurance should not be this way, should we change the other insurance companies to match?

I also vehemently disagree with the concept that the federal government can tell you that you have to buy something just for the "privilege" of existing.  Don't get me wrong; I disagree with the extremists among the Republicans who want to legislate the bedroom, but what's the point of throwing out a Republican for legislating the bedroom and voting for a Democrat who legislates what you're allowed to eat, what you have to buy, and similar things?

That would have to cover a WHOLE new thread. Of course regulating the men that set the rules is always hard to work. I know that had my brother gotten elected to office that he was running for in '10 he mentioned that he'd have lost control of his own financial planning. The bank, law partnership, insurance company and other business would have to been run by someone else, and he wasn't happy with that. Sometimes I doubt that all representatives are ethical about it as they should be but getting laws.

If I wasn't having problems keeping up with my current threads, I'd start one.  Remind me sometime that we should do so?  Ideally well before November, so people can start asking the various candidates and bounce the questions to the news media.

Actually, no, crap on it, I'm starting one up.

That particular comment was directed towards the conservative movement of late, not the mouthpieces of either side, to regulate the reproductive organ of women to the point where a normal (if sad) event such as a miscarriage is grounds for investigating potential manslaughter. The conservative political actions of late have become increasingly hostile towards women, in the interests of the unborn, without pushing one single iota of male responsibility.

I have seen a lot of 'reproductive' health law proposals of late that seem solely be designed to inflame the unspoken moderate feminist into coming out in force. Ultrasounds for abortions? 'Personhood'? Restricting any outlet of reproductive health or medicine that is 'women' only.

I'm sorry, this surge of 'reproductive health' laws are so far out what was coming before their release that I can't help but see it as a planned sequence. The implications of some of the 'personhood' acts really scare me. My mom had two miscarriages over the years, and while they were traumatic events in and of themselves, the idea that in ADDITION to losing a baby having a cop come by to investigate seems like grinding her loss in salt.

You can't legislate morality, and if only Republicans and all Republicans attempted to do so, I'd be completely unwilling to vote for them.

To me, it's sadly become like health care.  Can you really vote against either Obama or Romney with only health care as a debate when they both pass a law in their respective jurisdictions which is practically the same thing?  It becomes something that you have to ignore in order to look for actual differences in their policies.

You could argue that legislating the bedroom isn't as bad as legislating every other room in the house, and I've heard some say that Republicans aren't as bad because they only want the bedroom, but to me, it's one and the same and equally abhorrent.

I find it particularly ironic that at the same time the people who are pushing these personal invasions forth are the ones who insist they are 'downsizing' government. How can you insist, despite lots of evidence to the contrary, that less regulation is good for the country while at the same time insisting that it's perfectly okay to increase the invasion of a person's privacy to the point that you see no problem at all in violating doctor/patient privacy or looking past closed doors to what happens in the privacy of a person's home?

Parties are not monolithic.  It's part of the reason I refuse to join them.

There are Democrats out there who are trying to shrink government, they're just in the minority, in the same way that not all Republicans are for this madness.

You just have to look at the voting record for an individual before voting.  It's a sad fact that far too many purely look at the R or D before making a decision, but you know it's exactly how the Giants want it.

If we had more than two parties which had a shot at getting elected, we could point at the Republicans, say, "Stop legislating X," then point at the Democrats, say, "Stop legislating Y," and go vote for Z.  However, third party voting still seems like it's just throwing your vote away until a significant chunk of people (tens of millions) all agree on a single alternative.

To clarify: I know Planned Parenthood offers services to men, but not to the same degree or with as wide a variety as they do for women. They also spend the majority of their time and money on, and have a general focus on, women (and indeed, when they gave interviews on this issue they, from the ones I saw, more often spoke of how they benefit and treat women). They could fix this without outside intervention but choose to continue to focus on women.

I mean, if they just ended up with more women 'customers' (patients? pick a word) that would be fine, but they undeniably and consciously have chosen to focus on women over men.

This is the inherent nature of government groups.  They hole up on a particular issue, and to them, that issue is king.  They never budge an inch if they can help it, because it lowers their funding and their power if they lose their strangehold on a particular issue.  If an issue is ever fully resolved, the group shuts down, so as we nominalize towards equality, those groups become more and more extreme until their original purpose is lost.

You can't get rid of them, though, because if a politician tries to cut funding for the Save The Purple Whales because the Purple Whales are no longer endangered, then that politician is seen as despising the purple whales and not caring about their destruction.  The group instead goes towards making sure the Purple Whale is never endangered ever again.

Perhaps we can consolidate a number of these groups into things which will never be in question?  If you make a group about all endangered species rather than focusing on a few, and the money goes into all of them, then the group itself works out which ones need to stay and which need to go.  Although I would consider this inferior to simply getting rid of them, I'd consider it a step in the right direction.

Because the media perpetuates the male irresponsibility stereotype to the point of being sexist, and assuming that it's going to be the woman raising the kid.

This is exactly what I'm seeing here.  In fact, this very thread seems to be assuming that men are not worth focusing on.  Especially when it comes to sex.  Everything is hunky dory, guys are havin' the times of their lives, so screw 'em, they don't need help.  Which to me is wrong.  We need to be teaching both genders responsibility, not assuming that one side is too stupid to understand and thus foisting all the help/responsibility on the other.

Already spoken on the media bias and don't really have anything to add.

The problem with the second paragraph is that you can't really legislate morality.  GWB had that whole speech during the 2000 campaign about how he'd love to see a bill where you had to be a good parent.  It's a legislative nightmare, and even when people try, you end up with things like putting the government in your food, bedroom, health care, etc.

I agree that responsibility needs to be fostered, but I don't want the government trying to do it by passing laws which force people to do stuff.

[vtboy]

A new front has opened in the war against the Enlightenment:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_20184823/arizona-legislation-access-birth-control-advances

Notwithstanding my misgivings about government requiring that health insurance include contraception, it seems that benighted Arizona is leading the charge back to theocracy. Once a state has decided that employer-provided health insurance must cover contraception, can there be any doubt that the First Amendment is violated when the state also permits actors engaged in secular pursuits to opt out of the rule on grounds of claimed religious scruple?

[AndyZ]

I'm actually alright with the concept of requiring showing the insurance company (not the employer as listed in the law, but the insurance company) the prescription that shows that you need birth control for actual health reasons.  I'm similarly alright with the concept that you have to show the insurance company a prescription for medicinal marijuana or painkillers.

However, implementing that would require removing the federal mandate of providing birth control regardless.

As far as allowing religious groups to get out of things because it violates their religion, there's certainly precedent.  I'm pretty sure some pacifist religious groups can get out of the army and the Amish don't have to pay social security.

So many of these things are happening in response to the new health care act.  When states are doing everything they can in order to stop a federal law, but unable to do directly, I wouldn't really consider that a charge into theocracy.  If a cop doesn't agree that drugs should be illegal and looks the other way when he sees them, he's technically shirking his duty but it's not because he has no respect for the law.

[vtboy]

I'm actually alright with the concept of requiring showing the insurance company (not the employer as listed in the law, but the insurance company) the prescription that shows that you need birth control for actual health reasons.  I'm similarly alright with the concept that you have to show the insurance company a prescription for medicinal marijuana or painkillers.

However, implementing that would require removing the federal mandate of providing birth control regardless.

As far as allowing religious groups to get out of things because it violates their religion, there's certainly precedent.  I'm pretty sure some pacifist religious groups can get out of the army and the Amish don't have to pay social security.

So many of these things are happening in response to the new health care act.  When states are doing everything they can in order to stop a federal law, but unable to do directly, I wouldn't really consider that a charge into theocracy.  If a cop doesn't agree that drugs should be illegal and looks the other way when he sees them, he's technically shirking his duty but it's not because he has no respect for the law.

I'm not by any means convinced that, were the U.S. to adopt conscription today, and to allow for conscientious objectors to opt out of military service, present understanding of the First Amendment would permit a religious test for determination of conscientious objector status.

It is one thing to say that a church, doing strictly church stuff (e.g., preaching, fleecing the faithful, terrifying kids with stories about hell, etc.), may opt out of providing otherwise mandated birth control coverage to its employees; it is quite another to permit actors engaged in secular pursuits (manufacturing porto-potties, producing reality tv shows, selling reverse credit swap deivatives, etc.) to avoid these or other legal obligations on grounds of claimed religious scruple. Moreover, notwithstanding Citizens United, I don't really see how corporations -- and most employers these days are corporations or similar juridical entities -- can have religious beliefs. 

[Trieste]

Just as a note, if you're a conscientious objector and registered as such, you don't get out of military service. It simply means that they'll put you behind a desk somewhere, or have you cleaning latrines instead of on a combat assignment.

[Callie Del Noire]

Just as a note, if you're a conscientious objector and registered as such, you don't get out of military service. It simply means that they'll put you behind a desk somewhere, or have you cleaning latrines instead of on a combat assignment.

I felt serving ones country was a duty that everyone should consider. Consider it fall out from reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers as a kid, there was where I picked up the right to vote is actually a duty. Even if you're counting fuzz on caterpillars in an arctic research lab to steal an example from the book.

I used to yell at my airmen and junior petty officers for not voting. It was the one thing that I most disagreed most clearly with folks like George Carlin, if you don't participate in the voting process, you shouldn't be allowed to criticize.     

That being said. I don't see the draft being reinstated ever again. Too much noise and too many folks would bolt for Mexico/Canada/elsewhere.  I do think that for SOME offenses that the option to serve instead of prison time should be offered. One girl I knew in high school joined the Air Force to get out of jail time for a misdemeanor.. and she's done well since. She's an E8, married and by her own admission it helped her learn discipline.

[vtboy]

Just as a note, if you're a conscientious objector and registered as such, you don't get out of military service. It simply means that they'll put you behind a desk somewhere, or have you cleaning latrines instead of on a combat assignment.

Thank you. What I meant was combat duty.

[Sure]

Trying to understand this but it seems like saying that it's unfair that there are a greater number of commonly performed procedures in the field of female reproductive medicine than in that of male reproductive medicine. It seems like if you open a clinic offering comprehensive reproductive services you will by nature offer more services to women than men because the female reproductive system is both more internal and medically more complex. That hardly seems discriminatory. It's like calling a sickle cell anemia clinic 'racist'.

Not at all. Gynecology is a more well developed discipline but to presume that this implies the male reproductive system is simpler or in need of less care does not logically follow. Indeed, becoming a urologist is harder than becoming a gynecologist (though I suppose it doesn't logically prove the point either). But putting that aside, you have missed two points: Firstly, Planned Parenthood chooses to market (and yes, such organizations do market) themselves as helping women, not both genders, and as providing services to women. Secondly, even if we restricted it to procedures with clear parallels (such as checking for VD or contraception) Planned Parenthood provides more comprehensive services more commonly to women.

So it's more akin to calling a syphilis clinic that provides the vast majority of its services to black people and proclaims itself a helper of black people as 'racist' because they're not helping other races equally. At least in my mind.

This is the inherent nature of government groups.  They hole up on a particular issue, and to them, that issue is king.  They never budge an inch if they can help it, because it lowers their funding and their power if they lose their strangehold on a particular issue.  If an issue is ever fully resolved, the group shuts down, so as we nominalize towards equality, those groups become more and more extreme until their original purpose is lost.

You can't get rid of them, though, because if a politician tries to cut funding for the Save The Purple Whales because the Purple Whales are no longer endangered, then that politician is seen as despising the purple whales and not caring about their destruction.  The group instead goes towards making sure the Purple Whale is never endangered ever again.

Perhaps we can consolidate a number of these groups into things which will never be in question?  If you make a group about all endangered species rather than focusing on a few, and the money goes into all of them, then the group itself works out which ones need to stay and which need to go.  Although I would consider this inferior to simply getting rid of them, I'd consider it a step in the right direction.

Perhaps, but I do have one criticism of your analyses: Treating men equally would actually increase their need for funding, and in addition, would not threaten their status as one of the main providers of healthcare for women. They meet the demand of women (and to a lesser degree, men) needing reproductive healthcare, which will happen for so long as we have reproductive organs. Personally I hope that's for a long time.

I would say it is equitable since women typically bear the burden of childbearing more than men. I see very little in the way of pushing the male side of the equation to assume anything like responsible behavior. I see a lot more new laws dealing with the woman than the man. It seems to me all the punitive actions are being pointed towards the mothers and damn near nothing towards the men.

Besides what else could they offer men, besides a course in owning up to their responsibilities?

Men ought to have no more or less responsibility to a partner they have impregnated or to the child in her womb than the woman herself. That is, he has the right to abandon it and them wholly. Anything less and any argument for female access to adoption or abandonment (and perhaps even abortion) services services becomes sexist, because it posits women have more rights than men.

All right - what additional men's services would you like to see them offer?

Access to urologists for regular check ups immediately springs to mind. Help with various diseases unique to the penis (for example, phimosis). Counseling services. A wider array of contraceptive options. Procedures and the like to try and prevent or help heal prostate cancer, or even to pick up the slack on the failure of certain organizations to treat breast cancer in men. I could go on, but I don't think an exhaustive list is possible.

[Blinkin]

This is a complex and sensitive topic and I will follow my general rules on discussing politics, religion and nascar. That is to say that I'll state my thoughts and go on with life. ;)

I think that overall, the push that states have been making in the last year are the worst kind of forced morality. It didn't work in the 1920's and in fact made some situations worse. Admittedly, baning alcohol and banning a woman's right to medical assistance are vastly different, but the results will likely be the same. The more that you try to force your views on others, the more wrong that you do. I was somewhat pleasantly surprised (yes pleasantly) that someone finally figured out that you can do more at the state level than the federal... I just wish that they had chosen to actually do something productive (no pun intended) than trying to make family planning and personhood the battleground.

On a note from another series of post, I would agree that an option for military service in lue of jail or prison time would be an excellent option and should be one. Although I know many will disagree with me, I would go so far as to suggest that a manditory term of military service would do our whole country well as a means of giving our young (and the last 3 or 4 generations) a sense of discipline, what it means to be American and just what our forefathers (and mothers) have given for us to be able to NOT appreciate them.

Blinkin

[Oniya]

Access to urologists for regular check ups immediately springs to mind. Help with various diseases unique to the penis (for example, phimosis). Counseling services. A wider array of contraceptive options. Procedures and the like to try and prevent or help heal prostate cancer, or even to pick up the slack on the failure of certain organizations to treat breast cancer in men. I could go on, but I don't think an exhaustive list is possible.

From the link that I provided earlier:

Men’s Sexual Health Services at Planned Parenthood

Services offered at Planned Parenthood health centers vary by location. Some of the services include

    checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems  I suspect conditions like phimosis might fall under this.  If not, I agree that referrals to specialists should be included.
    colon cancer screening I should note that even with women, PP only does 'screenings' with respect to cancers.  I agree they should extend breast cancer screenings to men.
    erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
    jock itch exam and treatment
    male infertility screening and referral
    premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
    routine physical exams
    testicular cancer screenings
    prostate cancer screenings
    urinary tract infections testing and treatment
    vasectomy

I didn't see any counseling services offered at all for either gender (unless you're talking about counseling with specifically reproductive choices in mind, and even that seemed limited to 'pro/con' pages.)

As far as contraception - the biggest fault to this rests on the companies that aren't coming up with alternatives to what's currently out there, which I agree is very limited from the male end of things:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/mens-sexual-health/birth-control-men-22600.htm

[Torch]

Not at all. Gynecology is a more well developed discipline but to presume that this implies the male reproductive system is simpler or in need of less care does not logically follow.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting anything of the sort. Men and women should have equal access to health care across the board.

However, in the strictest biological sense (please note: I do not mean psychologically, emotionally, financially, or any other way) a human male's participation in the reproductive process begins, and more to the point, ends with ejaculation. A human female's participation in the process is far more lengthy and complex, and therefore does deserve a greater degree of care and attention.

[MasterMischief]

On a note from another series of post, I would agree that an option for military service in lue of jail or prison time would be an excellent option and should be one. Although I know many will disagree with me, I would go so far as to suggest that a manditory term of military service would do our whole country well as a means of giving our young (and the last 3 or 4 generations) a sense of discipline, what it means to be American and just what our forefathers (and mothers) have given for us to be able to NOT appreciate them.

I served in the Army for eight years.  I am not so sure forced service would instill a sense of appreciation.  Also, forcing people to serve (leaving out the argument that many lower income individuals really have few other options and are effectively being forced as it is) I believe would likely erode morale.

[Callie Del Noire]

I was watching the Situation Room on CNN (for a class project) and Senator Murkowski (R) commented on her perception that the current trends that the GOP was working (unintentionally) on alienating women voters as well as regretting her recent backing of the party line on the contraception issues on the senate floor.

So, at least some of the GOP are thinking it seems.