Backlash against Sandra Fluke

[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 You can push only so hard and long before the more withdrawn and quiet folk realize that there is no one left to speak for them.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.

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.

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.