Published:?Monday, March 19, 2012
Updated:?Tuesday, March 20, 2012 15:03
Women scored the last point in the ongoing contraception war with the failure of the Senate "Blunt amendment." It would have allowed any insurance agency or employer to deny women contraception if they find the coverage "morally objectionable."
?You'd think this would be the end of it since most Americans polled agree that throwing your own religious dogma into your customers' faces isn't right. Now some states are proposing similar legislation that say women would have to provide proof to providers and employers that the contraception they want is solely for medical purposes and is not to prevent pregnancy.
?This leaves women to do one of two things besides paying out of pocket on top of insurance premiums. For one, they can convert to whatever brand of Christianity their provider or employer is clearly suggesting they follow. In doing so, they accept that sex is not to be enjoyed or engaged in unless an 18+ year commitment comes out of it. Alternately, they can stick to paying for over-the counter methods, cross their fingers (or legs) and possibly spend much more (possibly government) money on an unwanted pregnancy.
?Do men have to have a "moral" reason to get Viagra from the same providers? Under current logic, erectile dysfunction should be treated with Viagra for a medical reason and if the resultanting erection and sex will lead to children. We must consider ED is God's way of saying, "You won't be needing that because I don't want you getting someone pregnant," and let guys deal with it.
?The Catholic church says new mandates would force health plans to "provide coverage of sterilization and contraception ? including abortifacient drugs."
Wrong. It doesn't cover anything but contraception. They also say contraception is inexpensive, so if we want to be heathens, do it on our own dime. Wrong again. I can't imagine any heathen ? I mean woman ? who may want to have sex more times than the number of children they want in a lifetime can afford the $30 to $90 uncovered visits a month on top of their insurance premiums to companies that refuse to cover contraception. Doesn't the Catholic church trust their flock to just say no?
I highly doubt that every man who is opposed to providing contraception through employers and insurance has only had sex to make his few children. They're all hypocrites.
Except Rush Limbaugh, who is simply stuck in a 6th grade mentality thinking if he calls grown women who are having sex "sluts? and "prostitutes" that it will simply shame them in to not having biological urges, or at least just to wait until called on by men who have them.
Rush, the amount of sex a woman has does not affect the cost of birth control. Republicans, do you really want Rush Limbaugh representing you? A man who says that taxpayers are pimps or johns if their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and neices have more access to birth control and other important aspects of women's health?
The real issue is making contraception available to all women. Whoever chooses to use them does not follow the outdated and biologically improbable demands of their church, politician or Rush Limbaugh (whatever vile, sickening misogynist category he falls into). Well, that's on them. ?
2012 ncaa tournament bracket anthony davis matterhorn chris harrison braveheart armenian genocide magic johnson
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন