<p>“Georgetown ALREADY covers such use of bcps.”</p>
<p>Georgetown University Health Plan already covers use of bcp for CONTRACEPTION for all of its employees and staff (even for nuns!) and has done so for a long time.</p>
<p>"Exactly. But that is precise what they are doing. And I would add that when I took that oath, and when I administer it to others, I do not say “So help me God.”</p>
<p>The Constitution was the first national foundation document in the history of the world to leave God out. They did so explicitly. They knew exactly what they were doing.</p>
<p>“Blood transfusions may save peoples’ lives. Contraception doesn’t.”</p>
<p>This is not and should not be a relevant distinction. Tons and tons of important medical treatments don’t save people’s lives. Practically the whole field of orthopedics is about quality of life, not saving lives. Ditto the whole field of otolaryngology, ophthalmology…I could go on. People don’t die of cataracts, migraines, osteoarthritis, etc.</p>
<p>But even if you think saving lives is the only metric to use, pregnancy is very dangerous compared to non-pregnancy. Whether you look at the risk of death, or just the risk of serious interventions and problems like abdominal surgery, diabetes, hysterectomy, depression, etc., every woman is medically safer not getting pregnant.* In fact, carrying a pregnancy to term is the single most dangerous action most women will take in their lives. Of course, most women decide that the social benefits outweigh the medical risks at least once in their lives, and any rational health care policy would support them in that choice. But from a medical point of view, the use of prescription birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy is hugely protective of health and of lives. Even in this day and age, pregnancy can kill.</p>
<p>*According to the CDC, white women in the US have a mortality rate of 9.5 per 100,000 pregnancies. For African-American women, the rate is 32.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. About 1/3 of U.S. pregnant women have at least one complication. Risk of dying from a blood clot while on the pill (by far the largest cause of bc-related death) is about 1 in 200,000 users.</p>
soccerguy, the amazing information you uncovered is the very reason that Fluke was chosen to testify on this topic in the first place–she actually knows something about it. She wasn’t a random “co-ed.” She’s also 30 years old. Clearly, Rush had no real idea who she was or what she said, which is probably why he blew it so completely–he thought she was a representative of “Girls Gone Wild” or something.</p>
<p>I see this as a test of evidence-based medicine. The evidence clearly shows that contraception has a large public health benefit. Where science has a clear answer, religious objections should be discounted.</p>
<p>I don’t care whether it is “free” or “co-pay”, but contraception should not be treated differently from other medicine that has comparable benefits. I think that is the bottom line.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with this at all. By this logic, children “lost the freedom” to work in dangerous conditions for virtually no pay and adults lost the freedom to work seven days a week in similar circumstances.</p>
<p>I think Jon Stewart said it really well last night: “I’m just saying to the people who are upset about their hard earned tax money going to things they don’t like: Welcome to the f****** club. Everyone pays for s*** they don’t want all the time. You know what reimburse me for the Iraq War and oil subsidies, and diaphragms are on me.”</p>
<p>I think Rush knew exactly what she said. He was counting on the fact that the dittoheads don’t do their own research; they swallow whatever lies he feeds them. And he mistook Fluke’s soft-spoken demeanor for weakness. </p>
<p>This must be all very bewildering for him; he’s been making vile personal attacks on women for years without anyone seeming to mind.</p>
<p>Yes, and a thousand other misogynistic mean spirited men out there. But it just so happens we are discussing a specific topic, the house hearings on contraception.</p>
<p>Unlike Bill Maher in terms of audience, influence, and status within a major party. As Rush would be the first to tell you, he is a very big deal in American politics. I don’t think there’s any pundit or entertainer on either side of the aisle with anything like his reach and power. Positive and negative reactions to what he does are necessarily proportional to his fame and influence. Bill Maher simply does not matter as much – just as the host of a local talk show in Omaha doesn’t matter as much as Bill Maher.</p>
<p>When Democratic politicians tremble in fear of displeasing Bill Maher, then he’ll be like Rush. Till then, well, only in his dreams.</p>
<p>Bill Maher just donated one million dollars to a re-elect Obama PAC. That’s political power if you ask me. And I haven’t heard that they will reject that foul mouthed scum’s cash. And I haven’t forgotten Letterman’s crude remarks about the teen-aged Palin girls. No boycotts there either. </p>
<p>I have no problem roundly condemning Limbaugh, but the news media and the political class have been hypocritical on this one.</p>
<p>But that is exactly what the federal mandate does. It treats contraception differently than it treats other medicines, including those that saves lives.</p>
<p>Can you get the antibiotic for your strep throat covered by your insurance policy at no co-pay and no deductible? Is your insurance company mandated by the federal government to cover your antibiotic? Strep kills.</p>
<p>pugmadkate,</p>
<p>Your mature 14-year old son who wants to earn some spending money by renting bikes at the shore on Saturdays cannot work because of that federal mandate. He lost some freedom, too.</p>
<p>“But that is exactly what the federal mandate does. It treats contraception differently than it treats other medicines, including those that saves lives”</p>
<p>It treats contraception EXACTLY THE SAME as it does all other preventive health services. No differences at all.</p>
<p>That is not true. For all other “preventive” conditions, it mandates that the <em>screening</em> be covered at no-copay. It does not mandate that the treatment be covered and at no co-pay. Isn’t that correct?</p>